Recruiting Draft Watch 2021

[eDPS]

eDPS's 2021 Draft Rankings

Lore's 2021 Provisional Draft Order
Any issues with it please tag Lore in this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2021-provisional-draft-order.1251001/

 

[owen87]

A Sonsie man I take it?

If they aren't likely to be an overhead marking target, and won't be heavy enough to consistently win contested ball, they're my man. Bonus points for being only OK by foot.

 

[Maxabillions]

Cal Twomey's Phantom Form Guide: Top draft prospects' October ranking

In this bumper edition, Cal Twomey ranks a whopping 35 players in the 2021 draft pool

www.afl.com.au

There’s that many tall midfielders around our first pick according to this.

Surely, surely this is the year we finally choose our tall messiah to lead us to the promised land.

 

[owen87]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/685788

There’s that many tall midfielders around our first pick according to this.

Surely, surely this is the year we finally choose our tall messiah to lead us to the promised land.

You just know we'll either choose a midfielder around the 6'0" mark, or a tall flanker.

 

[brutus76]

11 isn't a bad spot when you look at it.

I can see clubs looking for 11 after the top 10 is done which we might be able to get multiple picks for and slide back a little.

 

[owen87]

11 isn't a bad spot when you look at it.

I can see clubs looking for 11 after the top 10 is done which we might be able to get multiple picks for and slide back a little.

The 'top-10' isn't a thing when it comes to a draft you realise?

Some drafts have a top-3, or 5, or 14. It varies each year.

We might be able to do a trade to slide back, sure, but not because we have the first pick after 10.

 

[Keystone agony]

And the fact it will be 13 not 11

 

[doug85]

The 'top-10' isn't a thing when it comes to a draft you realise?

Some drafts have a top-3, or 5, or 14. It varies each year.

We might be able to do a trade to slide back, sure, but not because we have the first pick after 10.

I.e port had a top 15 in 2018 and were prepared to trade out pick 18 if one of their top 15 wasn’t available at pick 18 (which it was - Duursma).

 

[Keystone agony]

Would the dogs consider F2 and either 51 or 56 which comes in a fair way if Daicos bid at 2 for their pick (24)

Gives them greater flexibility to trade back into the draft

Feel that could be a nice spot for the Willmot, Butler, Knevitt, Chesser, T.Brown group which most fill a need for us

 

[Milanista28]

11 for 15 and 28 if the Tigers love a player at our pick?

 

[Dave]

And the fact it will be 13 not 11

Still the 11th best player anyone not Collingwood or the Bulldogs will have access to.

 

[Keystone agony]

11 for 15 and 28 if the Tigers love a player at our pick?

They did give up alot for 28. 38, 40 and F3 but doesnt necessarily rule them out

 

[Ants]

Who said I did? Think you are reading into that a bit much. And your actual original line was

So thanks for clarifying that you consider stoppages and clearances to be synonymous, which answers my original question.

I appear to have dropped the word centre there, but I’d already said it earlier in the thread. BTW, that’s not how the word synonymous works….

McGrath played 15/23 games, so roughly 66% of games and a big enough sample size.

One of which he went down in Q1, and several coming back from injury. Half a season isn’t technically correct but is should be fine in a general sense.

And the reality is that being beaten up around the football has been a problem for years, as evidenced by our last 3 elimination finals. McGrath and Shiel have been part of that midfield in the past 3-5 years, and so expecting them and a very raw Caldwell to turn it around next year without further changes is unreasonable.

Our midfield was winning in our last EF before playing unready players, bad goal kicking and bad umpiring sunk us.

For the other EF’s we’ve added Caldwell, Shiel (from one), Stringer (from one, plus improved his engine) and 2 and 4 years of physical development into McGrath, Merrett, Parish and Langford. Our window won’t open for at least two years, so the other youngsters who played in the EF (Durham, Perkins, Waterman) will have two years more development (+Cox).

So to base what we need to draft now for a tilt in 2023+ based on our 2017 and 2019 midfields is pretty ridiculous.

Until we get bigger through the midfield, we will continue to get destroyed around the football in finals like games where the game inevitably compresses and become more contested.

Richmond is one of the most elite intercept and pressure teams in living memory. Their mode of play is so different it really is an (albeit incredibly effective) outlier in terms past premiers.
The reality is you need both a contested game and intercept game normally to be elite, and we don't really grade as elite in either outside of centre clearance.

Hawks came 8th, 5th and 9th in CP differential for 2012-2015. Eagles 7th in 2018. Are people going to say they don’t count like they’re doing with Richmond?

So the last 8 premiership teams have only twice finished the season higher than 5th in CP differential.

That is okay if that is how you play. Their premiership sides where based of running power and pressure. Pressure to create turnover and running to continue that pressure all day. They where low on contested possession mainly because they almost conceded the center clearance. They did have variety in the midfield.
What they did not have is a bunch of skinny blokes in various positions or being used in the midfield. Solid bodies that can run all day.

it’s not just Richmond, as I’ve noted (now) above.

Just a question. When truck comes out and says our contested possession needs to be better after the season has finished are we not to believe him?

Yes we should. We should also believe him when he says in the same interview that improvement can come from the existing squad.

How good are we at contested marking around the ground ?

We need to improve. But last year we added Cox (200cm), Perkins (188cm), Durham (185cms) and Waterman. So again, lots of capacity for natural improvement from within the squad to fix it.

I would have no issue with Sinn at our first pick as he also fills a need but at some stage we need to draft a tall midfielder to add some variety to the midfield depth. I am not talking converted wingers or half forwards that maybe able to play midfield . Actual midfielders.

I’ve no issues taking a contested possession player. My preference is Sonsie who actually does fill that role. I do think the idea we need to target a tall big bodied midfielder specifically is a furphy, and I’d be furious if the club took such a player ahead of a non-tall they rated higher.

 

[Ants]

Still the 11th best player anyone not Collingwood or the Bulldogs will have access to.

But only rated the 13th best player in the draft pool.

 

[owen87]

Still the 11th best player anyone not Collingwood or the Bulldogs will have access to.

But only rated the 13th best player in the draft pool.

The argument that'll never end

 

[Lore]

The argument that'll never end

They're not mutually exclusive concepts either.

It's red. No it's not, it smells good. But it's red, see!

 

[Tazdog]

Would love to split our first rounder. This draft class just oozes quality. We could fill so many needs with great talents later on in the draft. Nice amount of quality keys, smalls and tall mids.

Also 51 and 56 will become picks in the early/mid 40s.

Would love to go and split 11 for 15 and 28 with Richmond. End up with around 17, 29 after Darcy and Daicos bids, and after Fahey, Owens and Windhager 51 and 56 could very well be 39 and 40.

 

[Keystone agony]

Would love to split our first rounder. This draft class just oozes quality. We could fill so many needs with great talents later on in the draft. Nice amount of quality keys, smalls and tall mids.

Also 51 and 56 will become picks in the early/mid 40s.

Would love to go and split 11 for 15 and 28 with Richmond. End up with around 17, 29 after Darcy and Daicos bids, and after Fahey, Owens and Windhager 51 and 56 could very well be 39 and 40.

Its hard to see Richmond doing that, they would have to love a player but a Mac, Hobbs or Amiss could get them excited

I do really like this draft aswell. As long as we can be guaranteed a Erazmus, MJ, Goater at 15 (17) which im not sure necessarily will be the case but appears to be at 11 (13)

 

[Ants]

Its hard to see Richmond doing that, they would have to love a player but a Mac, Hobbs or Amiss could get them excited

I do really like this draft aswell. As long as we can be guaranteed a Erazmus, MJ, Goater at 15 (17) which im not sure necessarily will be the case but appears to be at 11 (13)

That’s the rub. At 13 there would have to be 5 players we rate still on the board, while Richmond could only have 1-2. It could happen if someone Richmond likes falls, or they want one of the handful of highly rated talls, but feels unlikely.

It also could arise if Richmond are interested in strengthening their 2022 draft hand. But then our offer needs to be better than others.

 

[Ants]

To be honest, if we want to get into the twenties I think we’ll have to use our F1. If we’re only offering our F2 I don’t think we’ll get a trade before the late thirties.

 

[naraku]

Where would Motlop be projected ? Around 40s ?
I like what I've read of him.

 

[Keystone agony]

To be honest, if we want to get into the twenties I think we’ll have to use our F1. If we’re only offering our F2 I don’t think we’ll get a trade before the late thirties.

Our F2 and 2x 3rds which after pick 3 should be 42 and 47 should be able to get us something quite considerable if they go to the right team (ie Team needing points)

Saints are a side that it seems need points

Or the bulldogs if theyre moving on from 23 (25) which its extremely likely they will come Darcy bid. They may well be happy to let it go for less ie F2 and C3 as it likely allows them greater scope to re enter the draft

 

[ant555]

I appear to have dropped the word centre there, but I’d already said it earlier in the thread. BTW, that’s not how the word synonymous works….

One of which he went down in Q1, and several coming back from injury. Half a season isn’t technically correct but is should be fine in a general sense.

Our midfield was winning in our last EF before playing unready players, bad goal kicking and bad umpiring sunk us.

For the other EF’s we’ve added Caldwell, Shiel (from one), Stringer (from one, plus improved his engine) and 2 and 4 years of physical development into McGrath, Merrett, Parish and Langford. Our window won’t open for at least two years, so the other youngsters who played in the EF (Durham, Perkins, Waterman) will have two years more development (+Cox).

So to base what we need to draft now for a tilt in 2023+ based on our 2017 and 2019 midfields is pretty ridiculous.

Hawks came 8th, 5th and 9th in CP differential for 2012-2015. Eagles 7th in 2018. Are people going to say they don’t count like they’re doing with Richmond?

So the last 8 premiership teams have only twice finished the season higher than 5th in CP differential.


it’s not just Richmond, as I’ve noted (now) above.

Yes we should. We should also believe him when he says in the same interview that improvement can come from the existing squad.

We need to improve. But last year we added Cox (200cm), Perkins (188cm), Durham (185cms) and Waterman. So again, lots of capacity for natural improvement from within the squad to fix it.

I’ve no issues taking a contested possession player. My preference is Sonsie who actually does fill that role. I do think the idea we need to target a tall big bodied midfielder specifically is a furphy, and I’d be furious if the club took such a player ahead of a non-tall they rated higher.

We really do not to take anyone based on this . Our list is primed to win a flag. All the players are just going to improve. Simple.
I have never said we can not improve. In fact I have said Cox and Perkins will be stars and I have also said that if Waterman gets a decent pre season he can be a midfield prospect because that was what he was as a junior. My only real point has been the best sides have balanced midfields. Midfields made up of players who have played midfield. Not players who are being converted or can maybe grow into midfielders. Have also been pretty clear that the contested footy has to improve over the whole team. I am not just talking midfield.

How do you know the bigger bloke is not the best payer ? On top of that I have been pretty clear on taking the best player. At least I have seen them play or seen full vision of games even if it is a limited number of games.

Anyway I am finished with it. Once my opinion becomes a furphy then there is really no more to say.

 

[Ants]

Our F2 and 2x 3rds which after pick 3 should be 42 and 47 should be able to get us something quite considerable if they go to the right team (ie Team needing points)

Saints are a side that it seems need points

Or the bulldogs if they're moving on from 23 (25) which its extremely likely they will come Darcy bid. They may well be happy to let it go for less ie F2 and C3 as it likely allows them greater scope to re enter the draft

Saints only have pick #9 and then #62, so we won't be getting any 20-40's picks from them.

Bulldogs are a chance to trade out, but I think we'll be outbid. I don't think our F2, which could be around #32 if we improve (which Bulldogs will be worried about), is going to get pick #25 in this year's draft. I think you'll have to be a team who is expected to finish near the bottom of the ladder with an F2 or an F1. And I expect a team will have to pay a likely early F2 and an R3 to get that pick. It appears to be a sellers market.

Some examples: North has 42, 47, and an earlier (likely) F2. They could easily outbid us.
Melbourne has 37, 49 and 57. They can't trade their F2, but for anyone wanting points out position us.
Geelong have 30, 32, 34 and 50. If they want to move up the order, we've got problems. They could also package an F2 into the deal.

Where would Motlop be projected ? Around 40s ?
I like what I've read of him.

I think if he goes outside the top 40 Fremantle can take him via their NGA. That said, some draft experts were putting him in the 20's a little while ago. Although he does seem to have slipped a bit.

 

[Sporno 4 Pyros]

Mathew Johnson looks great on his video highlights. Stands up well in a tackle, good foot skills.
Would be happy if we landed him. https://www.afl.com.au/news/685788/...orm-guide-top-draft-prospects-october-ranking

 

[Ants]

We really do not to take anyone based on this . Our list is primed to win a flag. All the players are just going to improve. Simple.

I have never said we can not improve. In fact I have said Cox and Perkins will be stars and I have also said that if Waterman gets a decent pre season he can be a midfield prospect because that was what he was as a junior. My only real point has been the best sides have balanced midfields. Midfields made up of players who have played midfield. Not players who are being converted or can maybe grow into midfielders. Have also been pretty clear that the contested footy has to improve over the whole team. I am not just talking midfield.

How do you know the bigger bloke is not the best payer ? On top of that I have been pretty clear on taking the best player. At least I have seen them play or seen full vision of games even if it is a limited number of games.

Anyway I am finished with it. Once my opinion becomes a furphy then there is really no more to say.

If the big bodied mid is best available, I'm more than happy to take him. I've said best available non-tall should be the go. The only proviso being, I would rate kicking skills as a key attribute if I were rating best available. My tongue-in-cheek preference (since I don't really know the players) is Sonsie since he brings top kicking and is good at the contest and stoppages. So best of both worlds, with the downer he has lacked some consistency.

The discussion started from a post where Keystone agony said his number one priority would be an inside mid. When I questioned this, he/she asked if I was joking and said we need a "big inside midfielder". Which I have challenged. My preference if we were talking types would be a larger focus on disposal than clearance ability. If the inside mid is clearly the better option, go for it. But for me, if that inside player doesn't have other strings to his bow, it would be harder for me rank them best available.