List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[myblueroan]

I will be interested to see who we have training with us this year from next years pool, I hope Elijah Holland’s is one of them should be right up there next year.

We should prophet from having Elijah join us.

 

[thylacine60]

not bad, from a horse who never lands a gag..............

 

[windows1]

OK, I have a HUGE q for the draft watchers.

What are the key differences between what a kid does at u18 level vs what you think they will do at AFL level? How do you project talent?

I tend to be an output-focused guy. If a player's main job is to get the ball, then I look for the guys that can get the ball. I don't care if a guy can run like the wind and do the extra-ordinary. Coz unless he's actually doing it on a regular basis, then who cares? Someone like Gary Rohan looks amazing on paper, but (injuries aside) has not been very effective at AFL level in my eyes. Because of my biases, I tend to overvalue guys that end up vanilla (not Sam Walsh style) at AFL level.

Deven Robertson is a great example. Ok, his kicking is a bit messy and he lacks x-factor. But if it was that bad, how was he voted the best kid at the champs? Sam Philp is the opposite, he didn't even make the champs, but he's blistering quick. And he got picked earlier. This is not about drafting Philp vs Robertson, but these two are almost the perfect example of differing output vs characteristics prospects. I am only using these guys for illustrative purposes.

I get a few things like

• A ball butcher will probably always be a ball butcher
• Sometimes a short guy is good at underage level, but just won't make it against taller, stronger opposition
• Lack of fitness/endurance can be fixed - but having said that the junior elite runners end up as the AFL's elite runners
• A skinny guy can get stronger
• Some kids are still growing
• A late convert to footy will likely have more development
• You may draft a kid to play a different position (therefore you look at attributes more than output)
• Leadership, off-field and interviews also impact on where a kid gets drafted and how he fares at AFL level

I guess some kids get the ball 20 times a match at u18 but end up getting 30 at AFL level. Or vice versa. I mean Pat Kerr was u18 AA FF, was drafted late and is now delisted. Harry kicked a couple of goals here and there at junior level but was tall, athletic and could mark. He was drafted early and is looking like a serious AFL player in the making.

I mostly look at stats and highlights, so I can't really get a true feel for a what a player will/can become. Please tell me, how do you assess draft prospects and work out which ones will make it at AFL level and which ones won't?

Not sure if I count as a ‘Draft Watcher’ but I’m answering anyway.

I tend to ‘rule out’ first rather than fall in love with. So I rule out based on the following:
- I hate fumblers with a passion.
- And bad Decision makers
- I don’t like outside players unless they have height AND pace
- horrible kicking is so hard to fix that I usually rule out

The hates are because these things are vital and are also really hard to fix. Not impossible. But really hard.

If over those hurdles I tend to love and need to see at least one of:
- off the mark pace / great agility
- brilliant awareness
- super clean hands
- penetration in kicking

Obviously the more of those the higher the player goes.

Two variables I don’t worry a lot about are endurance and build.....unless either are horrid. If a kid can run under 6’45” mins for 2km that’s fine by me. Build wise? This is gonna sound weird: I don’t like skinny necks and wrists. Usually hard to fill out.

An example from the recent draft:

Young:
- is outside but tall and has pace
- doesn’t fumble
- kicking and decision making pass the hurdle

To the plus:
- has super off the mark pace and agiloty
- great kicking penetration

Build: bit weak and currently a ‘body flopper’ but I see him fixing that. Endurance is good.

Overall love his projection.

 

[iAsbestos]

Knightmare Rates Carlton a C+ based on recruiting Philp instead of Robertson, Rivers etc. Yet he ranked Philp 24 in his Phantom Draft

He ranked Robertson much higher

 

[iAsbestos]

who is seriously having a go at finbar though? I think the original pokes were about how unlikely a footballer he looked - this year it's been astonishment at his change of body shape - he's cult - like you J...........

He's better than Sydney stack and Marlon Pickett!! after all he was drafted before them

 

[Sector 7G]

Knightmare Rates Carlton a C+ based on recruiting Philp instead of Robertson, Rivers etc. Yet he ranked Philp 24 in his Phantom Draft

His phantom reflects where he thinks players will go. His power rankings reflect how he rates players (think he had Philp in the 50s) and therefore he views using pick 20 on him as a poor selection.

 

[Cripptonite]

Listening to draft podcasts, Gold Coast rated Robertson very highly and coming into the draft, they originally wanted to trade into the top 10 for him. Obviously Flanders slid so they got him instead. Sounds like the extent of their draft research was looking at phantom drafts lol.

In hindsight, they should not have done the trade with us, then landed Robertson and Sharp with picks 17 and 22 and retained next years mid-first. Very bizarre trading by them.

If they rated Sharp so highly they should not have done the trade with us.

 

[ferrisb]

If they rated Sharp so highly they should not have done the trade with us.

If GC had any brains, they wouldn't have done any of the things that they did...

 

[iAsbestos]

If GC had any brains, they wouldn't have done any of the things that they did...

What do you mean Lachie Weller isn't worth #2?

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

What do you mean Lachie Weller isn't worth #2?

yeah, and what does he mean when they reject a future 2nd and 3rd round pick on an uncontracted player, but lose him anyway

 

[Pafloyul]

His phantom reflects where he thinks players will go. His power rankings reflect how he rates players (think he had Philp in the 50s) and therefore he views using pick 20 on him as a poor selection.

In other words, he's being a bit pretentious. We can only hope his view on how the clubs would see it is closer to the mark.

 

[Blue__Balls]

His phantom reflects where he thinks players will go. His power rankings reflect how he rates players (think he had Philp in the 50s) and therefore he views using pick 20 on him as a poor selection.

Is there a bit of each way betting going on there? Would be curious to see if there's any trend.

"Rate" players further down, but slot them higher in the phantom, that way if they don't pan out its "I didn't rate them anyway", while if they do it's "They developed late but projected well enough that I had a club picking them up early". Vice versa.

At least for the more speculative picks outside the first round.

 

[ferrisb]

I am happy to take Knightmare on face value.

He does a ton of work. And he is super diligent in maintaining his thread and answering questions. He gets put on the spot a lot and is happy to make calls on players. Sometimes he sticks to his guns a little too much, but I say better that than be vague and flip-flop around all the time.

Is he a perfect talent spotter? No. Are the professional recruiters perfect talent spotters? No.

He does a great great job at what he does. Watching, reporting on and classifying junior talent.

I generally prefer rankings rather than phantoms, but the reality is phantoms are going to be more reflective of actual draft order once you account for team needs, preferences and rumours. Both serve their purpose.

 

[Pafloyul]

Is there a bit of each way betting going on there? Would be curious to see if there's any trend.

"Rate" players further down, but slot them higher in the phantom, that way if they don't pan out its "I didn't rate them anyway", while if they do it's "They developed late but projected well enough that I had a club picking them up early". Vice versa.

At least for the more speculative picks outside the first round.

At the very least he's suggesting that the clubs know less than he does.

 

[ferrisb]

At the very least he's suggesting that the clubs know less than he does.

He's allowed to have opinions.

Arr0w rates Rowell at like 10 on his talent list, despite being 99% sure Rowell would go at #1.

Doesn't make him arrogant, just contrarian.

 

[Pafloyul]

I am happy to take Knightmare on face value.

He does a ton of work. And he is super diligent in maintaining his thread and answering questions. He gets put on the spot a lot and is happy to make calls on players. Sometimes he sticks to his guns a little too much, but I say better that than be vague and flip-flop around all the time.

Is he a perfect talent spotter? No. Are the professional recruiters perfect talent spotters? No.

He does a great great job at what he does. Watching, reporting on and classifying junior talent.

I generally prefer rankings rather than phantoms, but the reality is phantoms are going to be more reflective of actual draft order once you account for team needs, preferences and rumours. Both serve their purpose.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that clubs would take such a risk on players whilst simultaneously suggesting that he knows better. I'm not saying he is consciously professing his superior knowledge, I just think he is being a bit tricky.

 

[Sector 7G]

Is there a bit of each way betting going on there? Would be curious to see if there's any trend.

"Rate" players further down, but slot them higher in the phantom, that way if they don't pan out its "I didn't rate them anyway", while if they do it's "They developed late but projected well enough that I had a club picking them up early". Vice versa.

At least for the more speculative picks outside the first round.

No Knightmare very much stands by his opinions. He is happy to have players in his top 10 that don't go in the first round. More recently he claims to be less influenced by group think and prepared to back himself in.

While I don't agree with a lot his views, I respect him for sticking to his guns even if anti Carlton bias does seem to shine through.

 

[Blue__Balls]

He's allowed to have opinions.

Arr0w rates Rowell at like 10 on his talent list, despite being 99% sure Rowell would go at #1.

Doesn't make him arrogant, just contrarian.

Wonder what the yardstick is.

ie. Is he basing his rating on the players' performance to date, projected performance in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years etc.

 

[Pafloyul]

He's allowed to have opinions.

Arr0w rates Rowell at like 10 on his talent list, despite being 99% sure Rowell would go at #1.

Doesn't make him arrogant, just contrarian.

True, but a 5 to 10 spot difference in draft rankings is not the same as a 30 plus one and 'a hunch' on a player, good or bad, is not the same as a thorough evaluation. Draft followers outside of the AFL system have the benefit of judging without the pressure of having to make the selections on the day. On that note, is Arrow going to criticise Gold Coast for taking Rowell with pick 1? I don't think so.

 

[TerryWallet]

I am happy to take Knightmare on face value.

He does a ton of work. And he is super diligent in maintaining his thread and answering questions. He gets put on the spot a lot and is happy to make calls on players. Sometimes he sticks to his guns a little too much, but I say better that than be vague and flip-flop around all the time.

Is he a perfect talent spotter? No. Are the professional recruiters perfect talent spotters? No.

He does a great great job at what he does. Watching, reporting on and classifying junior talent.

I generally prefer rankings rather than phantoms, but the reality is phantoms are going to be more reflective of actual draft order once you account for team needs, preferences and rumours. Both serve their purpose.

I agree with this. I prefer others(including my own lol surprise surprise) opinions to Knightmare's. He seems to bend heavily to production at a junior level over all other factors combined.

But he is very clear in his rankings and runs a very helpful thread for those interested in a lot of things about the draft. Not to be disparaging at all, but his thread is great for "some info on draftees for beginners". He is very patient and articulate and answers all enquiries.

His thread is not really my cup of tea, i prefer others, but it is a credit to himself that he gives clear opinions, puts himself out there, takes praise humbly, takes many sly digs calmly, and backs his opinions with his reasons.

He enjoys what he does, he's had a go, and done pretty well for himself without becoming a dick.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Listening to draft podcasts, Gold Coast rated Robertson very highly and coming into the draft, they originally wanted to trade into the top 10 for him. Obviously Flanders slid so they got him instead. Sounds like the extent of their draft research was looking at phantom drafts lol.

In hindsight, they should not have done the trade with us, then landed Robertson and Sharp with picks 17 and 22 and retained next years mid-first. Very bizarre trading by them.

If they rated Sharp so highly they should not have done the trade with us.

They could’ve easily rated Flanders at three.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I guarantee if SOS or Wells posted their “power rankings” on here they would cop shit left right and centre too.

True, but a 5 to 10 spot difference in draft rankings is not the same as a 30 plus one and 'a hunch' on a player, good or bad, is not the same as a thorough evaluation. Draft followers outside of the AFL system have the benefit of judging without the pressure of having to make the selections on the day. On that note, is Arrow going to criticise Gold Coast for taking Rowell with pick 1? I don't think so.

That’s the entire point of what he is doing. He is rating them on what he believes, there is no other way of giving an opinion or ranking. if he done what you seem to be eluding to every single club would be given an A+ because the professional recruiters think they have gotten the best possible player at that pick every single time because that’s why they took them.

 

[JuddgementDay]

Knightmare Rates Carlton a C+ based on recruiting Philp instead of Robertson, Rivers etc. Yet he ranked Philp 24 in his Phantom Draft

His rating doesn't really matter
What matters is how we are going to develop Philp to help us with #17

 

[Jeremias]

Interesting article on the AFL website re: the draft. It's a good read, but in particular is of interest for us Carlton fans -

For the Blues, the trade was so they could move up the order and snap up Young, who they rated at No.2 in this year's pool.

This is when they picked up the phone. They called Port Adelaide and Geelong, seeing what deals could be done. They offered the Cats pick No.9 and 43 for 14 and 17, but were shut down.

They wanted to see if Port was interested in No.9 in a deal that included 16 and 18, but that also went nowhere. Their last call was to Gold Coast, who had been offering picks 15 and 20 for pick No.9 since October's trade period.

Carlton was kept busy, moving up the board from pick No.22 to 20 after Port Adelaide initiated a pick swap to gather more draft points for father-son prospect Jackson Mead. The Blues used it on midfielder Sam Philp, who Sydney and North had interest in in the 20s.

Full article here - https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-12...t-round-twists-turns-bluffs-and-the-big-calls

 

[murphster]

Listening to draft podcasts, Gold Coast rated Robertson very highly and coming into the draft, they originally wanted to trade into the top 10 for him. Obviously Flanders slid so they got him instead. Sounds like the extent of their draft research was looking at phantom drafts lol.

In hindsight, they should not have done the trade with us, then landed Robertson and Sharp with picks 17 and 22 and retained next years mid-first. Very bizarre trading by them.

If they rated Sharp so highly they should not have done the trade with us.

I agree totally I think Robertson would have been a much better option for GC than Flanders, for a team that needs to fix its culture and bring in leaders there decision to take a Flanders over a Robertson is bewildering.