List Mgmt. Draft thread - 2025 (remaining picks: 29, 34)

[Keys]

Live draft hand
R1: 1 (Duursma), 4 (CDT), 19 (Lindsay)
R2: 29, 34
RD: 1

Draft picks pre-draft
R1: 1, 2, 13
R2: 34, 41
RD: 1

List spots available
Main list: 2 (includes Duursma, CDT, Lindsay)
Cat A Rookie list: 1 (expecting Robertson, Macrae and Schoenberg to join as SSP signings)
Cat B Rookie list: 1

Draft order

Spoiler

Draft prospect video highlights (thanks to noobermensch)

Rookie Me Central 2025 Draft Guide

2025 AFL Draft Guide

online.fliphtml5.com

Matthew Clarke on Gettable 17/11

Spoiler

Cal Twomey’s Phantom Draft

Spoiler

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

We won't take Sharp because he backed up his U16 form.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

A pretty quiet day in AFL land today. Code Sports did their mock draft today and surprise surprise have us taking Duursma, Duff-Tytler and Farrow with our three picks...The draft's still like three weeks away...just hurry up and get here already, I don't think I can take another mock draft with us taking the same three blokes.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

This poll won’t work. Remove the split it option.

For example I want sharp. It sounds like he can be had by splitting so either answer makes sense.

Just have who you want as an option.

Yeah but splitting runs the risk of him going elsewhere. Even if the intel is good, a rogue trade up we weren’t expecting or someone going off script puts him out of our reach again.

So would you split and chance it, or do you feel so strongly about him that we should avoid all risk and just take him at 2. That’s all the poll is measuring, not what would you split for and then who would you take etc.

 

[Peptide Pig]

You do realise that twoomey has sharp at 5 in the open pool of players just two spots behind robey ? I mean his oct rankings to final intel piece always have a fair bit of movement .

I’m not even saying sharp will be picked at 2, or overly invested that he is. Just laughing at how you’ve decided to die on a hill where sharp is a reach and robey isn’t.

Sounds to me like you’re the one positioning yourself as the expert with such a stubborn take.

How is it stubborn to suggest that a player ranked higher by the ‘draft guru’ will go before a player ranked lower, but not the reverse? Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in that. There is plenty more dying on the hill for Sharp. At least the outcome that I’m suggesting is currently supported by the guy who knows better than all of us. Laugh all you like but it’s those of you who claim to know better than the professionals that look silly.

Right now I will back in Cal that we take CDT at 2, but Robey is the next in line so the gap to him might be close. Then there’s a further gap to Sharp. So Robey going before Sharp is logical right now based on the available information.

I’ve seen borderline mental breakdowns on here at the idea of us taking CDT, so I would’ve thought Robey instead wouldn’t be that controversial. But it again shows the narrow-mindedness of some that selecting ANYONE other than Will Phillips Ben Hobbs Dyson Sharp would be a disaster.

 

[bs9594]

I think all I really want is a good midfielder from the draft, so if we have picks 1,2 and 13 or better and can’t get one of the best midfielders in the draft I’d be disappointed. Whether that is taking someone like sharp / cumming at 2 or finding a way to move 2 down for the same players or 13 up.

 

[Shueygod]

This boards hypocrisy is highlighted by the Sharp argument:

1. “Don’t split top picks, we need top end talent” - yet they want to reach for a bloke at least 3-4 picks early
2. “Underage year is irrelevant” yet some are saying we should take Sharp as he’s done it for longer.

 

[twce13]

This boards hypocrisy is highlighted by the Sharp argument:

1. “Don’t split top picks, we need top end talent” - yet they want to reach for a bloke at least 3-4 picks early
2. “Underage year is irrelevant” yet some are saying we should take Sharp as he’s done it for longer.

Again I’m not overly fussed who we take, if it’s CDT then I’m cool with that.

But on your points, I think you’re being a little obtuse.

1. The people who are advocating for sharp at 2 are doing so as they rate him as the 2nd best talent. It’s only a reach if you consider some of the mock stuff out there to be without refute.


2. Underage year has largely been argued in the past when the player has a poor top age year or is impacted by injury. This is not the case with sharp, who has had a very strong 25 season. The fact sharp has done it since u16 is a testament to him, but wholly Irrelevant to the link you are trying to make.

 

[twce13]

How is it stubborn to suggest that a player ranked higher by the ‘draft guru’ will go before a player ranked lower, but not the reverse? Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in that. There is plenty more dying on the hill for Sharp. At least the outcome that I’m suggesting is currently supported by the guy who knows better than all of us. Laugh all you like but it’s those of you who claim to know better than the professionals that look silly.

Right now I will back in Cal that we take CDT at 2, but Robey is the next in line so the gap to him might be close. Then there’s a further gap to Sharp. So Robey going before Sharp is logical right now based on the available information.

I’ve seen borderline mental breakdowns on here at the idea of us taking CDT, so I would’ve thought Robey instead wouldn’t be that controversial. But it again shows the narrow-mindedness of some that selecting ANYONE other than Will Phillips Ben Hobbs Dyson Sharp would be a disaster.

I labeled you stubborn, because you have been insistent that sharp will not be taken pick 2. You sighted the experts as a reason why, yet the same experts still have sharp in their top 5 in the open pool. October last year, many of these experts had lalor around 5 or later in their rankings, and yet he ended up the first pick in the draft.

Cal has amazing intel and whatever he puts out the night before the draft will most likely be bang on. But what will change is his guide from october to then. A lot can change, he may get intel that sharp goes higher then currently expected. But you have refused this as a possibility, in fact you said wes walley was as much chance to be #2 as sharp.

ergo stubborn.

 

[paran]

As a draft follower for 30 years I for one am ecstatic that we have locked in Cale Morton

Cale Morton

Age

36

Ht

192cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.9

5star

K

10.8

4star

HB

8.1

5star

M

5.8

5star

T

1.6

4star

CL

1.3

3star

No current season stats available

D

17.0

5star

K

10.2

4star

HB

6.8

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.0

3star

with a heart attack pick one and spent 85 pages arguing over choosing either one of Baskteballin Matt Kreuzer or less athletic Bryce Gibbs, or even the not so Ginger Clayton Oliver

10

Clayton Oliver

Age

28

Ht

189cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.8

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

18.4

5star

M

3.2

3star

T

6.3

5star

CL

6.3

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

19.2

5star

K

4.6

2star

HB

14.6

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

3.8

5star

! They all sound pretty good too!

 

[txbyhull]

The concern is not leaving our best draft hand arguably ever, with a midfielder. Given our number 1 need is midfield help. Of course it’s our luck to have an insane haul of 1, 2 and 13 in the worst draft in a while, with no genuine A grade midfielder.

 

[PremiershipNo4]

If Banfield isn’t bid on I’ll be hugely surprised.

 

[rebel23]

We're so shit literally everything is a need.

Except for tall forwards?

 

[txbyhull]

I'd argue we actually don't need just anyone anywhere. If our midfield wasn't so bad our defence and forward line would both look infinitely better than they do currently.

imo, needs in order:

1. Balanced Mids w/ ground ball and contested chops, if not out and out inside mids.
2. Pressure small forwards, if not a pressure small and a crumbing small.
3. Transition mids on the wing or off hhf.

 

[squashface]

I'd argue we actually don't need just anyone anywhere. If our midfield wasn't so bad our defence and forward line would both look infinitely better than they do currently.

imo, needs in order:

1. Balanced Mids w/ ground ball and contested chops, if not out and out inside mids.
2. Pressure small forwards, if not a pressure small and a crumbing small.
3. Transition mids on the wing or off hhf.

Sounds like our haul should be Duursma, Sharp and Dovaston which sounds good to me.

 

[RookiePick]

We are at the 'dying on hills' stage?

Good times

 

[Eastern Rangers]

1. “Don’t split top picks, we need top end talent” - yet they want to reach for a bloke at least 3-4 picks early
2. “Underage year is irrelevant” yet some are saying we should take Sharp as he’s done it for longer.

The draft is flat. You can't reach.

 

[Godfather32]

This boards hypocrisy is highlighted by the Sharp argument:

1. “Don’t split top picks, we need top end talent” - yet they want to reach for a bloke at least 3-4 picks early
2. “Underage year is irrelevant” yet some are saying we should take Sharp as he’s done it for longer.

I mean reaching for someone 3 or 4 picks early isn't too bad, 10 picks early though....

Cal Twomey's 2021 Phantom Draft: Top 30, late picks, club whispers

Who will your club take in this year's NAB AFL Draft? Our guru makes the call

www.afl.com.au

 

[eaglevision]

I mean reaching for someone 3 or 4 picks early isn't too bad, 10 picks early though....

Cal Twomey's 2021 Phantom Draft: Top 30, late picks, club whispers

Who will your club take in this year's NAB AFL Draft? Our guru makes the call

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 2466504

A HBF with midfield potential… Who’d have thought. I really like Farrow, great kid and a very good HBF but I hope we stay the **** away from him.

 

[Shueygod]

I mean reaching for someone 3 or 4 picks early isn't too bad, 10 picks early though....

Cal Twomey's 2021 Phantom Draft: Top 30, late picks, club whispers

Who will your club take in this year's NAB AFL Draft? Our guru makes the call

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 2466504

The difference between 2 and 6 is greater than 14 and 24 most years.

 

[Godfather32]

The difference between 2 and 6 is greater than 14 and 24 most years.

 

[boondy]

Split the pick shouldnt be in the poll. Its not a definite option

 

[Shueygod]

Don’t see how you could possibly disagree, to move from 6 to 2 would generally take a pick around mid teens, what do you think it’d take to go from 24 to 14?

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

A HBF with midfield potential… Who’d have thought. I really like Farrow, great kid and a very good HBF but I hope we stay the **** away from him.

We do not need Farrow. Full stop.

Duursma will be pushing from R1 but will best start in his first couple of years on a hbf

Allan should be ready after a big pre-season and he should not be thrown midfield but start on a hbf. Not sure he is a midfielder but has skills as a running defender

McCarthy has already shown that we have a great ball user off the hbf

Ginbey is showing he is a really good 3rd tall defender and can provide run off the hbf

Hough can play lock down defender but with Starcevich in, Hough has shown he can play running defender off hbf

Dewar has shown he can be the speedy ball mover off hbf

Duggan loves the hbf but his constant turnover means he needs to be safe passing to other. He gets selected through being the last captain standing

Baker is good off the hbf (so long as he does not have to make anything like a difficult pass) but should be utilised as a defensive forward and we need leadership there and we need Owies freed up to play WAFL

Johnston played hbf in Beagles

Banfield has played that role and could fill in



Let me place a stake in the ground and say we do not need Farrow

 

[numbat06]

Some random pick in the 30/40's will probably end up as the best player in the draft. Being ranked 2nd or 5th means literally nothing, look through the top 10 of most years, a lot of them are spuds.

 

[Kegs15]

How is it stubborn to suggest that a player ranked higher by the ‘draft guru’ will go before a player ranked lower, but not the reverse? Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in that. There is plenty more dying on the hill for Sharp. At least the outcome that I’m suggesting is currently supported by the guy who knows better than all of us. Laugh all you like but it’s those of you who claim to know better than the professionals that look silly.

Right now I will back in Cal that we take CDT at 2, but Robey is the next in line so the gap to him might be close. Then there’s a further gap to Sharp. So Robey going before Sharp is logical right now based on the available information.

I’ve seen borderline mental breakdowns on here at the idea of us taking CDT, so I would’ve thought Robey instead wouldn’t be that controversial. But it again shows the narrow-mindedness of some that selecting ANYONE other than Will Phillips Ben Hobbs Dyson Sharp would be a disaster.

Have posted on here in clear favouritism of Sharp so do acknowledge am coming in with that bias, and will agree that as an armchair punter I don't know anywhere near as much about these prospects as the actual pros so in line with what you're saying should preface this with it being just my opinion and that I don't claim to know better than even many on here let alone the employed experts.

I guess just from a bigfooty argument perspective, I think a team's needs often get underrated in favour of purely 'best available' - particularly in the top 10 when you'd kind of assume everyone has the talent to make it to some degree given the right circumstances. Was having this discussion with a mate who works in the stats department for a Vic club who was admitting that, whilst if you get a slider in the third round best available is often the obvious choice, when it comes to top 10 he reckoned even the professionals at clubs are still divided/unsure on needs vs overall talent and its a debate that will probably rage forever.

From that perspective I'd argue needs would need to come into consideration for whether we can best develop that player to get maximum value out of them.

North were shocking IMO at consistently picking mids who were essentially the same player and wouldn't get a go in their preferred role - picked Powell and Phillips who are like the same player and both were underneath Simpkin and then Parker who they traded in so Powell ended up being a waste of pick 3. They lacked exploders and focused on toilers and couldn't fit them all in.

Sometimes it's easy to go "ah well they picked wrong" but Twomey had Phillips at 6, with Elijah Hollands at 3 and DGB at 4 so you kinda go "ah alright". Were those three secretly always going to be duds all along or were there development reasons based on where they ended up? I'd argue it's always at least some mix of both either way. Draftees obviously have a big year in their final underage year but at top 10 level they're almost always dominating either way, think a lot gets underrated about how much they're still developing the players they'll become in their first or second year in the AFL system.

Should we go Robey, would he be in line to be doing the same thing as Reid and Hewett, and as a result either play in an unbalanced midfield with an over-reliance on Jack Graham, or have to play other roles or develop in our WAFL black hole, or reinvent his game with less of his strengths emphasised like Phillips did?

Based on our side I'd at least be confident there's an immediate spot for Sharp, and a clear vibe of how he'd fit in with our most important pieces going forwards. That might mean he becomes a 8/10 player and Robey gets picked later by someone else and becomes a 9/10 player, which I'd still take over us having a 7/10 Robey and another team having a 7/10 Sharp. Not fussed at all about how the pick after ours does if I knew we'd extracted our maximum value ourselves.

Should we take Duursma (seems likely) we'll have an elite transition athlete, as well as two elite burst players in Reid/Hewett, and IMO would be best balanced with an elite contested beast like Sharp.

That being said if we can trade down and still get Sharp, sure, or if our more-knowledgeable-than-me draft team rates someone like Robey significantly higher, then sure absolutely. But Twomey's rankings at this stage would be mostly based around chatter of who clubs like generally - if we see Sharp as within 5% of Robey talent wise but far more suitable then I'd hope we'd take him and couldn't care less about the players considered 1-2% higher or lower than him on the overall AFL consensus draft boards.