Opinion Hinesight v Knightsight v Hindsight 2018

[Saintly Viewed]

2016/2017 now up to date with hindsights: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightsight-hinesight-and-hindsight.1182775/#post-53535941

2016 was a funny old draft.

Not sure much there after the obligatory early picks

 

[Knightmare]

2016 was a funny old draft.

Not sure much there after the obligatory early picks

In going through all these years I'm finding it's a lot of in hindsight unless a lot of these younger guys coming through that mature agers picked up in later years outperform a lot of these kids.

A lot of weak drafts in recent times and much weaker than many of us myself included predicted.

It speaks to the value of mature agers as there are a lot outside the AFL who are AFL quality and just need an opportunity. You'll find the same with my 2015 edition which I've also just updated: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightsight-v-hinesight-v-hindsight.1118177/

 

[Knightmare]

#Mods

any chance this thread could be unlocked so that I can perform edits/updates? Ideally it should be open for all to comment/respond to still as per all the other years: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightsight-v-hinesight-v-hindsight-nov-2014.1082834/

 

[Knightmare]

*All hindsight have been updated.

Still even in hindsight a lot in the air.

The years I've performed better: 2012, 2016
Inconclusive: 2013, 2017, 2018
The years CFC/Dekka have performed better: 2014

Players still on AFL lists:
Knightmare: James Aish, Blake Acres, *Jayden Laverde, Connor Blakely, Nic Newman, Michael Hartley, Sam Menegola, Willem Drew, Dylan Clarke, Ben Ronke, Liam Ryan, Darcy Fogarty, Charlie Ballard, Gryan Miers, Jordon Butts, Curtis Taylor, Noah Gown, Sydney Stack (assuming Richmond sign him as predicted)
Dekka: Matthew Scharenberg, Jordan De Goey, Brayden Maynard, Brayden Sier, Ben Crocker, Lachlan Keeffe, Josh Smith, Josh Thomas, Callum Brown, Josh Daicos, Max Lynch, Jaidyn Stephenson, Nathan Murphy, Tyler Brown, Flynn Appleby, Brody Mihocek, Isaac Quaynor, Will Kelly
Same: Brodie Grundy, Tom Langdon (I took 2013 Dekka took 2014), Darcy Moore, Mason Cox, Tom Phillips, Atu Bosenavulagi

On best 22 count and number of players on AFL lists Dekka wins so you'd take the group he has taken - though the unknown with those I have taken is many of them never received opportunities on AFL lists while others star in the state leagues - the other variable is players on other lists or to come into the AFL later may not have had the same development opportunities - though in hindsight you can only really break down the actual successes and the extents to which they succeed which is the spirit of this exercise.

*Picks I'm rotten on and with my current methodology would have done better - Peter Wright I should have taken instead of Jayden Laverde as my top rated talent (the pick eventually used on Jordan De Goey). Ben Brown not only in 2010/2011 was I red hot on claiming Brown if not for the AFL was a first round talent and in 2012 it was a blunder to drop him from my draft board knowing he would not be picked. Brown would have still been inside my top 25 power rankings in 2012 had I not been so heavily at that time been influenced by this fact instead of Ben Duscher and is one I would also have taken in 2010 and 2011. A lesson in needing to back your own talent identification in - with Brown eventually drafted in 2013.
Had I gone with my instincts in those respective drafts and if it was:
In: Ben Brown, Peter Wright
Out: Jayden Laverde
From my list. I'd be tempted to take my group with four good extra key forwards in Brown, Wright, Fogarty and Ballard who I think will come good which in practice allows the likes of Moore/Reid/Dunn and from my list Hartley/Gown/Butts to be used as key defenders. Having all those guys as talls with Acres/Blakely/Menegola/Ryan instead of De Goey/Maynard/Sier/Thomas/Stephenson/Mihocek/Scharenberg who are the good ones from Dekka's list and I'm taking my group and the better group of talls and how that improves the list balance.

Bolded are those I'd project as Collingwood best 22 2019 if on the list

While I haven't included trading record in here I feel my opposition talent ID has been historically stronger than Collingwood's with a lot of bad deals I would have avoided and a lot of talent I consider undervalued working out in a big way. But that might be for another piece.

A self-indulgent exercise. But at the end of the day, you want to test yourself against the best in the business. I could show myself wrecking Carlton's recruiting team each year using my power rankings but I can't imagine that would go over all that well with Carlton fans. So I'll stick with the team as a draft follower you wish you were picking for.

*To see past attempts. See page 1, post 1.

 

[sr36]

I definitely prefer Dekka's group. Particularly as Victorian clubs considered Liam Ryan to be undraftable as they felt he wouldn't have made it if moved to Victoria. Despite an obviously enormous talent, I still feel that they were probably right.

Having said that, you clearly know your stuff. Good luck to you. If it's what you want, I hope an AFL club signs you up.

 

[LemmingMaster]

While I haven't included trading record in here I feel my opposition talent ID has been historically stronger than Collingwood's with a lot of bad deals I would have avoided and a lot of talent I consider undervalued working out in a big way. But that might be for another piece.

A self-indulgent exercise. But at the end of the day, you want to test yourself against the best in the business. I could show myself wrecking Carlton's recruiting team each year using my power rankings but I can't imagine that would go over all that well with Carlton fans. So I'll stick with the team as a draft follower you wish you were picking for.

*To see past attempts. See page 1, post 1.

It would be better if you made your statements live as the picks are happening. Not sure if you have done it this way? But using knowledge of where certain players end up being drafted is huge knowledge.
It would be interesting to go check out your power rankings and see who you may have drafted for Carlton for example.

 

[76woodenspooners]

*All hindsight have been updated.

Still even in hindsight a lot in the air.

The years I've performed better: 2012, 2016
Inconclusive: 2013, 2017, 2018
The years CFC/Dekka have performed better: 2014

Players still on AFL lists:
Knightmare: James Aish, Blake Acres, *Jayden Laverde, Connor Blakely, Nic Newman, Michael Hartley, Sam Menegola, Willem Drew, Dylan Clarke, Ben Ronke, Liam Ryan, Darcy Fogarty, Charlie Ballard, Gryan Miers, Jordon Butts, Curtis Taylor, Noah Gown, Sydney Stack (assuming Richmond sign him as predicted)
Dekka: Matthew Scharenberg, Jordan De Goey, Brayden Maynard, Brayden Sier, Ben Crocker, Lachlan Keeffe, Josh Smith, Josh Thomas, Callum Brown, Josh Daicos, Max Lynch, Jaidyn Stephenson, Nathan Murphy, Tyler Brown, Flynn Appleby, Brody Mihocek, Isaac Quaynor, Will Kelly
Same: Brodie Grundy, Tom Langdon (I took 2013 Dekka took 2014), Darcy Moore, Mason Cox, Tom Phillips, Atu Bosenavulagi

On best 22 count and number of players on AFL lists Dekka wins so you'd take the group he has taken - though the unknown with those I have taken is many of them never received opportunities on AFL lists while others star in the state leagues - the other variable is players on other lists or to come into the AFL later may not have had the same development opportunities - though in hindsight you can only really break down the actual successes and the extents to which they succeed which is the spirit of this exercise.

*Picks I'm rotten on and with my current methodology would have done better - Peter Wright I should have taken instead of Jayden Laverde as my top rated talent (the pick eventually used on Jordan De Goey). Ben Brown not only in 2010/2011 was I red hot on claiming Brown if not for the AFL was a first round talent and in 2012 it was a blunder to drop him from my draft board knowing he would not be picked. Brown would have still been inside my top 25 power rankings in 2012 had I not been so heavily at that time been influenced by this fact instead of Ben Duscher and is one I would also have taken in 2010 and 2011. A lesson in needing to back your own talent identification in - with Brown eventually drafted in 2013.
Had I gone with my instincts in those respective drafts and if it was:
In: Ben Brown, Peter Wright
Out: Jayden Laverde
From my list. I'd be tempted to take my group with four good extra key forwards in Brown, Wright, Fogarty and Ballard who I think will come good which in practice allows the likes of Moore/Reid/Dunn and from my list Hartley/Gown/Butts to be used as key defenders. Having all those guys as talls with Acres/Blakely/Menegola/Ryan instead of De Goey/Maynard/Sier/Thomas/Stephenson/Mihocek/Scharenberg who are the good ones from Dekka's list and I'm taking my group and the better group of talls and how that improves the list balance.

Bolded are those I'd project as Collingwood best 22 2019 if on the list

While I haven't included trading record in here I feel my opposition talent ID has been historically stronger than Collingwood's with a lot of bad deals I would have avoided and a lot of talent I consider undervalued working out in a big way. But that might be for another piece.

A self-indulgent exercise. But at the end of the day, you want to test yourself against the best in the business. I could show myself wrecking Carlton's recruiting team each year using my power rankings but I can't imagine that would go over all that well with Carlton fans. So I'll stick with the team as a draft follower you wish you were picking for.

*To see past attempts. See page 1, post 1.

I’m curious, what data do you have access to, and how does it differed between you, the club’s and the other draft watchers?

For example, I’m guessing that club recruiters are able to interview players and take that into account in their decisions, whereas you don’t? I’m guessing club recruiters have access to interstate scouts that you don’t have? What data do the club’s have access to that you don’t have? Is there any data that folks like Cal Twomey and Kevin Sheehan have access to that you don’t?

Also, are there factors that clubs take into account in their decisions that you don’t? For example, it seems like some clubs like Collingwood and West Coast put a value on recruiting lads who have a history of playing together before - so they’re thinking of the collective from a holistic POV, rather than just about the individual. For example, CFC recruit a bunch of lads from Oakleigh (not just this year) and two Irish lads, and WCE picked up a couple of lads from Williamstown.

 

[Knightmare]

It would be better if you made your statements live as the picks are happening. Not sure if you have done it this way? But using knowledge of where certain players end up being drafted is huge knowledge.
It would be interesting to go check out your power rankings and see who you may have drafted for Carlton for example.

I have my order locked in pre draft every year so I gain no advantage.

Had I know this year as another example that Sydney Stack would slip through the draft entirely I would have had an opportunity to get Boyd Woodcock late to use this year as an example and get Stack as a rookie - noting that I felt Collingwood should not re-draft Broomhead/Murray as rookies.

Sometimes with some players I know they'll be available at a certain pick so I can let them last late - eg. Noah Gown this year I knew wasn't going early so I wouldn't need to use the first pick to get him. Just a pick high enough where I can feel sure he'll be there.

I have old notes for from certain picks in each draft since 2012 who I would have picked from each selection - keeping in mind my feel for where guys would land or if I felt players would go undrafted. So if you want me to do Knightsight v Carlton from each year from 2012 let me know and I'm happy to do that also.

I’m curious, what data do you have access to, and how does it differed between you, the club’s and the other draft watchers?

For example, I’m guessing that club recruiters are able to interview players and take that into account in their decisions, whereas you don’t? I’m guessing club recruiters have access to interstate scouts that you don’t have? What data do the club’s have access to that you don’t have? Is there any data that folks like Cal Twomey and Kevin Sheehan have access to that you don’t?

Also, are there factors that clubs take into account in their decisions that you don’t? For example, it seems like some clubs like Collingwood and West Coast put a value on recruiting lads who have a history of playing together before - so they’re thinking of the collective from a holistic POV, rather than just about the individual. For example, CFC recruit a bunch of lads from Oakleigh (not just this year) and two Irish lads, and WCE picked up a couple of lads from Williamstown.

In clubland you've obviously got a lot of staff and a lot of full time staff. Vision of all junior games a lot more stat access in a lot more detail. Clubs get all the in game GPS data which I feel is of high value. I'm not out interviewing players or their coaches. I may talk at games to some who work inside some of the TAC Cup clubs, come across families of the players in the crowd. I can see from the boundary how players are on the field. But the focus of my analysis because I have limited contact in those regards is in the straightup assessment of talent.

And in terms of talent ID. I pretty much just get what the public get. Access stats online though the various websites anyone else would. Access games on youtube that are publicly available - AFLVictoria/NEAFL/SANFL youtubes. Otherwise it's getting out to games. The only things I get that others from the public may not is U18 Champs stats and Champion Data weekly TAC Cup stats.

So in theory, I shouldn't really be coming as close as I am let alone taking any optimal picks with any choices as that's as hindsight proves incredibly hard to do as when you pass the half way mark in a draft, more than half of those better players who are available don't even get drafted that year. But with some guys you just know or feel it's very high likelihood they're a hit just from watching their games. Doesn't mean it works out that way, but it can.

Things clubs may take into account that I don't - top of mind - draft combine (I feel it offers zero value - only useful for explaining what you see on the field), the off-field stuff while I consider what I hear I can only take with a grain of salt so clubs are much better qualified to talk about how players work/what they're like off-field and how they'll blend into the playing group etc than I am, where players are from that state or not I feel offers little benefit - having no real fear of go-home factor with my belief being if you're a good team players will want to stay or in the rare scenario they don't they can be moved for an asset more appealing than you would have gotten anyway and similar story with if they're from the same club - if they're not the best player available my view is they shouldn't be taken and no further priority should be given whether by state or if from the same club. From a list needs perspective, clubs place a much higher priority on that. My view is list needs should be addressed during the trade/free agent periods - and if necessary late/rookie draft if you don't feel there are any more players you project as best 22 quality - I'd only under those conditions proceed to go the mature age route and grab someone ready to go to fill that role.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Knightmare
As a curiosity.
You mentioned in the post above you’d not have been inclined to re-take Broomhead and Murray.
Fair enough.

You also noted you’d have taken Woodcock and Stack.

Are you suggesting these latter players project better than Broomhead and Murray?
If so, fair enough those two would appeal more.

However, if not projecting as better or there is not much in it, aren’t we just talking about medium level depth?

And if so why not stick to known medium quality over maybe they get to that level?

See that’s my dilemma, if really just everyday types isn’t better to stick with the known?

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare
As a curiosity.
You mentioned in the post above you’d not have been inclined to re-take Broomhead and Murray.
Fair enough.

You also noted you’d have taken Woodcock and Stack.

Are you suggesting these latter players project better than Broomhead and Murray?
If so, fair enough those two would appeal more.

However, if not projecting as better or there is not much in it, aren’t we just talking about medium level depth?

And if so why not stick to known medium quality over maybe they get to that level?

See that’s my dilemma, if really just everyday types isn’t better to stick with the known?

Neither Broomhead nor Murray are duds and can both play but the question for me comes back to best 22 as with anything when assessing players viability or otherwise.

Broomhead's issues have been a combination of durability and inconsistent AFL performance. Even if he gets healthy, I feel like he is outside the best 22 which at 24, 25 in March isn't something I'd hold onto.

Murray on the other hand may be suspended and unable to play for four years it has been speculated. So being unavailable for such an extended period is a waste of a list position. Following the assumed suspension I'm open to reconsidering him, though I'd want a year of state league football out of him first. If the issue didn't hang over his head, he's one I'd keep for another year and see if he can find a role off half-back as he has the speed and can really hurt the opposition when up and going, but I'm not predicting the result will go his way which is why I wouldn't have re-drafted.

For me, the key is getting players who look like best 22 players. With Broomhead returning. I don't have him best 22. Murray if things go his way. I'm not projecting him to be best 22 either - and having those injury and probable suspension questionmarks over their heads in addition to that makes me feel moving them on is the best decision.

My interest overall is in continuing to upgrade that best team so that my best group can beat any other best group. So from opposition lists, that would have been getting guys like Jarryd Lyons, Aaron Hall and others who weren't wanted but for mine are clear best 22. And then using the draft the same way to draft guys of such quality where I'm feeling like they'll be best 22 players, or if there aren't any I'm that confident in, I'd go mature age and bring in some need fillers - as my view of the state leaguers is I could fill two AFL teams (even post draft) worthwhile draft eligible talent from outside the AFL. I'd be inclined to think there is enough quality still in the state leagues that a team could be formed that would beat Gold Coast in their present form.

Woodcock specifically is a plug and play small forward who can play a role from the get go. In a Collingwood context, he is something like a Blair but with some more scoreboard impact. Big time ball winner through the midfield and as a forward in the SANFL League finals and kicked 8 goals from his last three finals and 6 from the last two depending on what you look at as more impressive. So he's not one you have to wait around for to develop. But he is one where his upside as with Blair may be limited so he's more a possibly component to a team who can play a role without starring.

Stack is one who could go either way, but he's the next closest thing to Rankine on talent. A few cm shorter, not as damaging forward of centre. But through the midfield he influences games like few others. First possession winning, has the burst of acceleration at stoppages and gets around opponents with ease, has the skills. If he works, he can be better than Josh Thomas. Perhaps as a sub 180cm mid you'd like for him to develop the capacity to play more forward, but he's one where if he develops, he can be a monster. A poor man's Sam Petrevski-Seton is what I'd be hoping.

If I didn't like the probability of a Woodcock and Stack, and really that top 39 from my power rankings I'd draft if I could. It's only from there I'd look to go mature age (and there are plenty I like) to fill a need or for someone like Alex Johnson (ex Swan) who I feel can come back and be an asset whether playing or not. But in the case of this draft, I didn't need to. If Johnson gets healthy and can string together a few games late next season though, he is one I would certainly consider strongly and have on my draft board next year as a plug and play very capable key defender when out there as he showed v Collingwood.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Neither Broomhead nor Murray are duds and can both play but the question for me comes back to best 22 as with anything when assessing players viability or otherwise.

Broomhead's issues have been a combination of durability and inconsistent AFL performance. Even if he gets healthy, I feel like he is outside the best 22 which at 24, 25 in March isn't something I'd hold onto.

Murray on the other hand may be suspended and unable to play for four years it has been speculated. So being unavailable for such an extended period is a waste of a list position. Following the assumed suspension I'm open to reconsidering him, though I'd want a year of state league football out of him first. If the issue didn't hang over his head, he's one I'd keep for another year and see if he can find a role off half-back as he has the speed and can really hurt the opposition when up and going, but I'm not predicting the result will go his way which is why I wouldn't have re-drafted.

For me, the key is getting players who look like best 22 players. With Broomhead returning. I don't have him best 22. Murray if things go his way. I'm not projecting him to be best 22 either - and having those injury and probable suspension questionmarks over their heads in addition to that makes me feel moving them on is the best decision.

My interest overall is in continuing to upgrade that best team so that my best group can beat any other best group. So from opposition lists, that would have been getting guys like Jarryd Lyons, Aaron Hall and others who weren't wanted but for mine are clear best 22. And then using the draft the same way to draft guys of such quality where I'm feeling like they'll be best 22 players, or if there aren't any I'm that confident in, I'd go mature age and bring in some need fillers - as my view of the state leaguers is I could fill two AFL teams (even post draft) worthwhile draft eligible talent from outside the AFL. I'd be inclined to think there is enough quality still in the state leagues that a team could be formed that would beat Gold Coast in their present form.

Woodcock specifically is a plug and play small forward who can play a role from the get go. In a Collingwood context, he is something like a Blair but with some more scoreboard impact. Big time ball winner through the midfield and as a forward in the SANFL League finals and kicked 8 goals from his last three finals and 6 from the last two depending on what you look at as more impressive. So he's not one you have to wait around for to develop. But he is one where his upside as with Blair may be limited so he's more a possibly component to a team who can play a role without starring.

Stack is one who could go either way, but he's the next closest thing to Rankine on talent. A few cm shorter, not as damaging forward of centre. But through the midfield he influences games like few others. First possession winning, has the burst of acceleration at stoppages and gets around opponents with ease, has the skills. If he works, he can be better than Josh Thomas. Perhaps as a sub 180cm mid you'd like for him to develop the capacity to play more forward, but he's one where if he develops, he can be a monster. A poor man's Sam Petrevski-Seton is what I'd be hoping.

If I didn't like the probability of a Woodcock and Stack, and really that top 39 from my power rankings I'd draft if I could. It's only from there I'd look to go mature age (and there are plenty I like) to fill a need or for someone like Alex Johnson (ex Swan) who I feel can come back and be an asset whether playing or not. But in the case of this draft, I didn't need to. If Johnson gets healthy and can string together a few games late next season though, he is one I would certainly consider strongly and have on my draft board next year as a plug and play very capable key defender when out there as he showed v Collingwood.

All fair points.

Interesting discussion.

I’m huge in bringing in what should eg best 22.
With my long held caveat that filling a special list “emergency” type need it’s ok to bring in depth.
As hawthorn did with Jack Fitzpatrick.
Or we’ve done with Roughead.

Whilst I know you’re not in the Roughead camp I’m ok with it as he can do roles at a pinch. He’s of great character and I imagine was cheap.
Plus he has that finals and flag experience.

 

[Knightmare]

All fair points.

Interesting discussion.

I’m huge in bringing in what should eg best 22.
With my long held caveat that filling a special list “emergency” type need it’s ok to bring in depth.
As hawthorn did with Jack Fitzpatrick.
Or we’ve done with Roughead.

Whilst I know you’re not in the Roughead camp I’m ok with it as he can do roles at a pinch. He’s of great character and I imagine was cheap.
Plus he has that finals and flag experience.

Your view is more the norm here but I'm the - just get best 22 players guy and with the direction the game is going I feel this strategy is by the year becoming a more viable way to set up a list.

I don't even want depth. I would not draft a single player with the intent just to be depth, nor would I retain a player with this idea in mind. The game has developed in a direction where there is so much versatility that it's just a position-less ball winning and running game.

Ruck depth I don't consider necessary behind Grundy - Grundy is durable, but there is also Darcy Moore who I suspect may be best suited as a ruckman + Mason Cox who can also play through there and would be a dominant tap ruckman.

KPP depth I don't care about. Collingwood were within a kick of winning the grand final without a key defender and then up forward you have the likes of De Goey and Elliott who can play the position. Stephenson is another.

So you just shuffle the chess pieces if injuries strike and next man up.

And by having an attitude towards constantly improving on the best 22, there will be guys outside that best 22 who can play, and others if you're drafting talent with the intent for them to develop into best 22 players who can push past those already inside there. So depth can just bloom organically without necessarily needing to recruit either trade/free agency/draft for depth.

There are also new opportunities in place that make this strategy even more practical with the preseason list changes where you can bring someone in to replace a long term injury or otherwise there is the mid season draft where if worse comes to worse and you really want to fill a position with someone immediate, you can do it then and there.

With Roughead and my preference not to get him was on the grounds of - the depth in place already is plentiful and I can find better options externally. As a ruckman, even from his own team, the delisted Tom Campbell is better. Though as per the above I don't see a need for another ruckman. As a key defender, Jon Marsh I would have preferred, and I would have preferred Alex Johnson had I wanted someone right away - and they're guys who could be best 22 players for Collingwood under certain conditions, and knowing both would be available as rookies, I would have had no qualms taking either of them as rookies.
Johnson was another premiership player, and is even more highly regarded for his character, work ethic and leadership if compared to Roughead, though a much better footballer for mine. Marsh on the other hand as a great friendship with Moore and would be a logical long term partner in defence and adds tremendous speed in defence. Marsh given he is healthy while Johnson is hurt means I'd go Marsh today of the two given Dunn is also hurt and Moore and Reid both have their own durability issues but for that key defence stop, I have my eyes locked 12 months from now on Alex Johnson and would be looking to rookie him them with the view that he may not only be best 22, but could be Collingwood's best key defender if added and healthy while having a great impact on the list as a whole with the way he wants it perhaps as much as anyone in the competition in recent years and with how resilient he is.

 

[LemmingMaster]

I have old notes for from certain picks in each draft since 2012 who I would have picked from each selection - keeping in mind my feel for where guys would land or if I felt players would go undrafted. So if you want me to do Knightsight v Carlton from each year from 2012 let me know and I'm happy to do that also.

I've done it personally for Carlton for a number of years, but then sometimes I wonder if I would have picked a certain player a lot early and only using hindsight use a pick a lot later to secure such a player.

It would be interesting to see roughly who you would have picked for Carlton.

I certainly know I wanted Dunstan instead of Cripps, so those small moments are huge.

 

[Prochard123]

Your view is more the norm here but I'm the - just get best 22 players guy and with the direction the game is going I feel this strategy is by the year becoming a more viable way to set up a list.

I don't even want depth. I would not draft a single player with the intent just to be depth, nor would I retain a player with this idea in mind. The game has developed in a direction where there is so much versatility that it's just a position-less ball winning and running game.

Ruck depth I don't consider necessary behind Grundy - Grundy is durable, but there is also Darcy Moore who I suspect may be best suited as a ruckman + Mason Cox who can also play through there and would be a dominant tap ruckman.

KPP depth I don't care about. Collingwood were within a kick of winning the grand final without a key defender and then up forward you have the likes of De Goey and Elliott who can play the position. Stephenson is another.

So you just shuffle the chess pieces if injuries strike and next man up.

And by having an attitude towards constantly improving on the best 22, there will be guys outside that best 22 who can play, and others if you're drafting talent with the intent for them to develop into best 22 players who can push past those already inside there. So depth can just bloom organically without necessarily needing to recruit either trade/free agency/draft for depth.

There are also new opportunities in place that make this strategy even more practical with the preseason list changes where you can bring someone in to replace a long term injury or otherwise there is the mid season draft where if worse comes to worse and you really want to fill a position with someone immediate, you can do it then and there.

With Roughead and my preference not to get him was on the grounds of - the depth in place already is plentiful and I can find better options externally. As a ruckman, even from his own team, the delisted Tom Campbell is better. Though as per the above I don't see a need for another ruckman. As a key defender, Jon Marsh I would have preferred, and I would have preferred Alex Johnson had I wanted someone right away - and they're guys who could be best 22 players for Collingwood under certain conditions, and knowing both would be available as rookies, I would have had no qualms taking either of them as rookies.
Johnson was another premiership player, and is even more highly regarded for his character, work ethic and leadership if compared to Roughead, though a much better footballer for mine. Marsh on the other hand as a great friendship with Moore and would be a logical long term partner in defence and adds tremendous speed in defence. Marsh given he is healthy while Johnson is hurt means I'd go Marsh today of the two given Dunn is also hurt and Moore and Reid both have their own durability issues but for that key defence stop, I have my eyes locked 12 months from now on Alex Johnson and would be looking to rookie him them with the view that he may not only be best 22, but could be Collingwood's best key defender if added and healthy while having a great impact on the list as a whole with the way he wants it perhaps as much as anyone in the competition in recent years and with how resilient he is.

That may be the case but you'd need to use 2 list spots when Roughead can satisfy both needs at the same time with 1 spot.

If anything I think with Moore/Howe/Langdon potentially being able to take the 2nd KPD position, and Grundy/Cox handling the rucks, out of Roughead/Marsh/Campbell, Roughead is the only player that would be best 22 for us due to his maturity and versatility.

We get 2x position coverage and a best 22 player while Dunn is injured, getting Roughead for a late pick I think is a no-brainer.

 

[Kilmo]

In going through all these years I'm finding it's a lot of in hindsight unless a lot of these younger guys coming through that mature agers picked up in later years outperform a lot of these kids.

A lot of weak drafts in recent times and much weaker than many of us myself included predicted.

It speaks to the value of mature agers as there are a lot outside the AFL who are AFL quality and just need an opportunity. You'll find the same with my 2015 edition which I've also just updated: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightsight-v-hinesight-v-hindsight.1118177/

Which is really interesting because I can't remember a draft in recent years that wasn't hyped on bigfooty as a "superdraft".

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Which is really interesting because I can't remember a draft in recent years that wasn't hyped on bigfooty as a "superdraft".

I’ll get in early and say
Next year is a super draft.

Sounds good may not even be true.

 

[Mukesh]

I’ll get in early and say
Next year is a super draft.

Sounds good may not even be true.

Don’t fret... in a few months all the ‘experts’ will be talking super draft.. it’s an annual event..

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Don’t fret... in a few months all the ‘experts’ will be talking super draft.. it’s an annual event..

And the number 1 pick will be amazing just like

Murphy
Gibbs
Kruezer


Ah Carlton the gift that keeps giving

 

[Albert Parker]

Your view is more the norm here but I'm the - just get best 22 players guy and with the direction the game is going I feel this strategy is by the year becoming a more viable way to set up a list.

I don't even want depth. I would not draft a single player with the intent just to be depth, nor would I retain a player with this idea in mind. The game has developed in a direction where there is so much versatility that it's just a position-less ball winning and running game.

Ruck depth I don't consider necessary behind Grundy - Grundy is durable, but there is also Darcy Moore who I suspect may be best suited as a ruckman + Mason Cox who can also play through there and would be a dominant tap ruckman.

KPP depth I don't care about. Collingwood were within a kick of winning the grand final without a key defender and then up forward you have the likes of De Goey and Elliott who can play the position. Stephenson is another.

So you just shuffle the chess pieces if injuries strike and next man up.

And by having an attitude towards constantly improving on the best 22, there will be guys outside that best 22 who can play, and others if you're drafting talent with the intent for them to develop into best 22 players who can push past those already inside there. So depth can just bloom organically without necessarily needing to recruit either trade/free agency/draft for depth.

There are also new opportunities in place that make this strategy even more practical with the preseason list changes where you can bring someone in to replace a long term injury or otherwise there is the mid season draft where if worse comes to worse and you really want to fill a position with someone immediate, you can do it then and there.

With Roughead and my preference not to get him was on the grounds of - the depth in place already is plentiful and I can find better options externally. As a ruckman, even from his own team, the delisted Tom Campbell is better. Though as per the above I don't see a need for another ruckman. As a key defender, Jon Marsh I would have preferred, and I would have preferred Alex Johnson had I wanted someone right away - and they're guys who could be best 22 players for Collingwood under certain conditions, and knowing both would be available as rookies, I would have had no qualms taking either of them as rookies.
Johnson was another premiership player, and is even more highly regarded for his character, work ethic and leadership if compared to Roughead, though a much better footballer for mine. Marsh on the other hand as a great friendship with Moore and would be a logical long term partner in defence and adds tremendous speed in defence. Marsh given he is healthy while Johnson is hurt means I'd go Marsh today of the two given Dunn is also hurt and Moore and Reid both have their own durability issues but for that key defence stop, I have my eyes locked 12 months from now on Alex Johnson and would be looking to rookie him them with the view that he may not only be best 22, but could be Collingwood's best key defender if added and healthy while having a great impact on the list as a whole with the way he wants it perhaps as much as anyone in the competition in recent years and with how resilient he is.

I can't understand this perspective at all.

The Pies got outmarked 106-74 in the GF and a tall marking option down back could have made a difference as an avenue out of defence in the last quarter, in particular, as the WCE talls took over and outmarked us time and again. Darling took 6 marks in 3Q alone, Kennedy had 5 scoring shots for the day and 11 marks, plus Vardy takes a strong contested mark in 4Q and goals. Barrass takes 11 marks and a hobbling McGovern 9 for the day. We went in with Goldsack and an injured Howe matched up against their forwards. An extra KPP would have been very handy against the Eagles in both our finals against them. We shuffled the chess pieces and came up light on down back - I still would have rolled the dice on Moore.

Roughead is a premiership player, 200cm and 100kg and has played 138 games. A good match up for Josh Kennedy under the circumstances when Dunn, Moore and Reid were effectively unavailable.

Jonathon Marsh is 192cm and 87kg and can't kick. He's simply not a KPP size and (as an outsider) one must question his ability to perform in big games given his mental health problems. He'd be another '3rd tall' half back like Langdon, Scharenberg, Howe, Murphy, Goldsack etc.

Alex Johnson's body is absolutely shot. 6 Knee Operations! 47 games in 7 seasons and 2 in the past 2 seasons. You wouldn't go near him under the circumstances given Collingwood's injury track record. It's akin to the Black Knight in Monty Python! He's also 194cm and 92kg, so probably a bit undersized.

 

[Knightmare]

That may be the case but you'd need to use 2 list spots when Roughead can satisfy both needs at the same time with 1 spot.

If anything I think with Moore/Howe/Langdon potentially being able to take the 2nd KPD position, and Grundy/Cox handling the rucks, out of Roughead/Marsh/Campbell, Roughead is the only player that would be best 22 for us due to his maturity and versatility.

We get 2x position coverage and a best 22 player while Dunn is injured, getting Roughead for a late pick I think is a no-brainer.

You are right that Roughead is one player and he can play key defence and ruck. My point is that use of list position isn't required.

Grundy is the lead ruckman and he's durable. Anything happens to him, Moore can switch from being a KPP to a ruckman. Moore's not available Cox steps right on up.

Down back if Moore or Dunn is missing, Reid is in and more than capable, if Reid misses, Scharenberg plays. If both miss, Goldsack comes in. If three of those guys aren't there, Langdon comes in. If three of Moore/Dunn/Reid are missing, Mihocek can swing back no problem.

If Cox is missing or dragged into the ruck or Mihocek gets hurt. De Goey, Elliott and Stephenson can all act as key forwards. In game Mihocek can at any time swing back if we need another big back and these guys can then become the key targets up forward.

Other than Grundy, this team is largely positionless.

Marsh I look at from the outside from the perspective that I look at him as genuine best 22. Dunn may only have this year, so Marsh would have the capacity to partner with Moore for the next 8 years as that second key defender.

For all those reasons, I see zero need for Roughead. There isn't a scenario unless Grundy, Moore and Cox were all unavailable for selection that I'd bring Roughead in. He's nearly 30 and he's still not someone I'd want playing every week at AFL level in any position.

Which is really interesting because I can't remember a draft in recent years that wasn't hyped on bigfooty as a "superdraft".

I don't know what others on bigfooty have been saying, but we haven't had anything close to a superdraft since 2008. 99/00/01/06/08 are the five greatest ever drafts.

The top end this year is the best I've seen through the top 10 - assuming good player development which probably can't be assumed with Gold Coast taking x3 players in that range and up the higher end with 2/3/6.

But all the years have been remarkably shallow. I was talking to a colleague at work today about how other than Grundy there isn't a second great ruckman under 25 (Sean Darcy the most likely) and there are no key forwards in the stratosphere of Franklin/N.Riewoldt/Pavlich/Franklin. And then looking outside that first 30 choices, if you look at a lot of the better players, they're for the most part mature agers or guys who go undrafted and get picked up in future seasons.

I don't know if there is less involvement in junior footy these days with the better prospects taking their talents to other sports or whether kids are too absorbed in video games or other interests and not dedicating as much time to their footy and other sports as once they may have growing up.

I can't understand this perspective at all.

The Pies got outmarked 106-74 in the GF and a tall marking option down back could have made a difference as an avenue out of defence in the last quarter, in particular, as the WCE talls took over and outmarked us time and again. Darling took 6 marks in 3Q alone, Kennedy had 5 scoring shots for the day and 11 marks, plus Vardy takes a strong contested mark in 4Q and goals. Barrass takes 11 marks and a hobbling McGovern 9 for the day. We went in with Goldsack and an injured Howe matched up against their forwards. An extra KPP would have been very handy against the Eagles in both our finals against them. We shuffled the chess pieces and came up light on down back - I still would have rolled the dice on Moore.

Roughead is a premiership player, 200cm and 100kg and has played 138 games. A good match up for Josh Kennedy under the circumstances when Dunn, Moore and Reid were effectively unavailable.

Jonathon Marsh is 192cm and 87kg and can't kick. He's simply not a KPP size and (as an outsider) one must question his ability to perform in big games given his mental health problems. He'd be another '3rd tall' half back like Langdon, Scharenberg, Howe, Murphy, Goldsack etc.

Alex Johnson's body is absolutely shot. 6 Knee Operations! 47 games in 7 seasons and 2 in the past 2 seasons. You wouldn't go near him under the circumstances given Collingwood's injury track record. It's akin to the Black Knight in Monty Python! He's also 194cm and 92kg, so probably a bit undersized.

Collingwood made the Grand Final without a key defender and almost won it against a team with among the most dangerous key position players in the competition. Going that far without key defenders, Collingwood with so many options are more than covered.

I was hoping Moore and Reid would play in the Grand Final as I thought similarly that Kennedy/Darling would cause Collingwood problems, or if one was determined entirely unfit to play that Mihocek would swing back. And Mihocek is a natural key defender playing back up until this season anyway.

In defence I don't see Roughead a suitable matchup for anyone. He's not much of a rebounder, intercepter or stopper. He's tall and long, but very much spoil first and from a Collingwood context a taller but less effective Goldsack.

There aren't many tall or big key forwards today. There aren't even any dominant key forwards anymore. It's a mobile forwards game and even the likes of Jesse Hogan get the majority of marks through the middle of the ground. In a Collingwood context today, either Dunn or Moore can take the big/tall key forwards and do a better job than Roughead both as stoppers and rebounders. Then all other possible options would intercept more and provide more rebound.

I don't see there as being such a thing as undersized. Jamie Elliott at 176cm is a viable key forward. Heath Shaw at 185cm can play key defence if he needs to.

People who put height caps on key defenders couldn't be more wrong. Anyone remember Darren Glass (192cm) or Ben Rutten (190cm)? Those guys would routinely dominate the taller/stronger key forwards - even the likes of Kurt Tippett at over 200cm. Why? They had the strength 1v1 to either win or negate every time. I wouldn't call Alex Johnson or Jon Marsh too short to play key defence.

Marsh is now listed at 194cm, 89kg - though I'd wager he is more than 89kg and 194cm also is fine for Johnson. That's just the regular key defence height. And they're both stronger than Goldsack with Marsh a lot more athletic.

Marsh doesn't even need to play key defence. He can play third tall defence, he can play smaller, or he can take on genuine key forwards and beat them. Those who don't watch the WAFL may not be aware, but Marsh is also a legitimate midfielder and was one of the better 3-4 midfielders in the WAFL in 2017. He's a serious ball winner and would of those over 190cm be the fastest in the competition - both in closing speed and with ball in hand. Like so many on Collingwood's list, Marsh is another who can play multiple positions/roles to an AFL standard.

As for Marsh's mental health. He's good to go and ready for his next AFL opportunity and he's willing to travel and play in Victoria.

 

[Albert Parker]

You are right that Roughead is one player and he can play key defence and ruck. My point is that use of list position isn't required.

Grundy is the lead ruckman and he's durable. Anything happens to him, Moore can switch from being a KPP to a ruckman. Moore's not available Cox steps right on up.

Down back if Moore or Dunn is missing, Reid is in and more than capable, if Reid misses, Scharenberg plays. If both miss, Goldsack comes in. If three of those guys aren't there, Langdon comes in. If three of Moore/Dunn/Reid are missing, Mihocek can swing back no problem.

If Cox is missing or dragged into the ruck or Mihocek gets hurt. De Goey, Elliott and Stephenson can all act as key forwards. In game Mihocek can at any time swing back if we need another big back and these guys can then become the key targets up forward.

Other than Grundy, this team is largely positionless.

Marsh I look at from the outside from the perspective that I look at him as genuine best 22. Dunn may only have this year, so Marsh would have the capacity to partner with Moore for the next 8 years as that second key defender.

For all those reasons, I see zero need for Roughead. There isn't a scenario unless Grundy, Moore and Cox were all unavailable for selection that I'd bring Roughead in. He's nearly 30 and he's still not someone I'd want playing every week at AFL level in any position.



I don't know what others on bigfooty have been saying, but we haven't had anything close to a superdraft since 2008. 99/00/01/06/08 are the five greatest ever drafts.

The top end this year is the best I've seen through the top 10 - assuming good player development which probably can't be assumed with Gold Coast taking x3 players in that range and up the higher end with 2/3/6.

But all the years have been remarkably shallow. I was talking to a colleague at work today about how other than Grundy there isn't a second great ruckman under 25 (Sean Darcy the most likely) and there are no key forwards in the stratosphere of Franklin/N.Riewoldt/Pavlich/Franklin. And then looking outside that first 30 choices, if you look at a lot of the better players, they're for the most part mature agers or guys who go undrafted and get picked up in future seasons.

I don't know if there is less involvement in junior footy these days with the better prospects taking their talents to other sports or whether kids are too absorbed in video games or other interests and not dedicating as much time to their footy and other sports as once they may have growing up.



Collingwood made the Grand Final without a key defender and almost won it against a team with among the most dangerous key position players in the competition. Going that far without key defenders, Collingwood with so many options are more than covered.

I was hoping Moore and Reid would play in the Grand Final as I thought similarly that Kennedy/Darling would cause Collingwood problems, or if one was determined entirely unfit to play that Mihocek would swing back. And Mihocek is a natural key defender playing back up until this season anyway.

In defence I don't see Roughead a suitable matchup for anyone. He's not much of a rebounder, intercepter or stopper. He's tall and long, but very much spoil first and from a Collingwood context a taller but less effective Goldsack.

There aren't many tall or big key forwards today. There aren't even any dominant key forwards anymore. It's a mobile forwards game and even the likes of Jesse Hogan get the majority of marks through the middle of the ground. In a Collingwood context today, either Dunn or Moore can take the big/tall key forwards and do a better job than Roughead both as stoppers and rebounders. Then all other possible options would intercept more and provide more rebound.

I don't see there as being such a thing as undersized. Jamie Elliott at 176cm is a viable key forward. Heath Shaw at 185cm can play key defence if he needs to.

People who put height caps on key defenders couldn't be more wrong. Anyone remember Darren Glass (192cm) or Ben Rutten (190cm)? Those guys would routinely dominate the taller/stronger key forwards - even the likes of Kurt Tippett at over 200cm. Why? They had the strength 1v1 to either win or negate every time. I wouldn't call Alex Johnson or Jon Marsh too short to play key defence.

Marsh is now listed at 194cm, 89kg - though I'd wager he is more than 89kg and 194cm also is fine for Johnson. That's just the regular key defence height. And they're both stronger than Goldsack with Marsh a lot more athletic.

Marsh doesn't even need to play key defence. He can play third tall defence, he can play smaller, or he can take on genuine key forwards and beat them. Those who don't watch the WAFL may not be aware, but Marsh is also a legitimate midfielder and was one of the better 3-4 midfielders in the WAFL in 2017. He's a serious ball winner and would of those over 190cm be the fastest in the competition - both in closing speed and with ball in hand. Like so many on Collingwood's list, Marsh is another who can play multiple positions/roles to an AFL standard.

As for Marsh's mental health. He's good to go and ready for his next AFL opportunity and he's willing to travel and play in Victoria.

- Yes, we nearly won, but we came up short twice in the finals against the Eagles.

- Tigers have added Lynch to Riewoldt (who alone smashed us) in the Prelim.

adding more '3rd backs', as you're suggesting, makes little sense when we have an abundance and they don't really get the job done in the air against the bigger and stronger forwards. Nor do they take that many marks when used as a target to kick out to. Players like Langdon, Howe and Scharenberg can intercept effectively at times. Marsh isn't offering that either, while also being undersized in a contest.

Like Dunn, while a little shorter, Ben Rutten was a truck-sized back at 101kg. Very strong in the contest. Glass was also 94kg and strong.
Marsh and Johnson aren't in their weight division and aren't suitable to plug the gap left behind by Dunn (102kg), Moore (102kg) & Reid (98kg) as genuine KPP's.
Roughead, at 101kg, is an option to tackling these size players in the event that Dunn and Moore are unavailable.

Additionally, should Grundy go down, Roughead can play ruck directly as a 200cm player or alternately can play genuine key back should they run with Cox in the ruck and shift Moore forward under those circumstances. Again, Marsh can't play ruck, is fast but a sub-standard kick and nor is he required as an additional midfield option now that we've added Beams to an already abundance of quality mids.

I concur with the thinking of Hine, Guy etc on their selection of Roughead over Marsh.

 

[Knightmare]

- Yes, we nearly won, but we came up short twice in the finals against the Eagles.

- Tigers have added Lynch to Riewoldt (who alone smashed us) in the Prelim.

adding more '3rd backs', as you're suggesting, makes little sense when we have an abundance and they don't really get the job done in the air against the bigger and stronger forwards. Nor do they take that many marks when used as a target to kick out to. Players like Langdon, Howe and Scharenberg can intercept effectively at times. Marsh isn't offering that either, while also being undersized in a contest.

Like Dunn, while a little shorter, Ben Rutten was a truck-sized back at 101kg. Very strong in the contest. Glass was also 94kg and strong.
Marsh and Johnson aren't in their weight division and aren't suitable to plug the gap left behind by Dunn (102kg), Moore (102kg) & Reid (98kg) as genuine KPP's.
Roughead, at 101kg, is an option to tackling these size players in the event that Dunn and Moore are unavailable.

Additionally, should Grundy go down, Roughead can play ruck directly as a 200cm player or alternately can play genuine key back should they run with Cox in the ruck and shift Moore forward under those circumstances. Again, Marsh can't play ruck, is fast but a sub-standard kick and nor is he required as an additional midfield option now that we've added Beams to an already abundance of quality mids.

I concur with the thinking of Hine, Guy etc on their selection of Roughead over Marsh.

Against Richmond Moore can take Lynch and Marsh would be well suited to Riewoldt who isn't a big guy.

Marsh I'm suggesting is a genuine key defender who just happens to be able to play on a variety of different sizes/heights/athletes given his athleticism.

Marsh doesn't need to play ruck. Moore I believe if he had the opportunity would be best suited as a ruckman but won't get that opportunity with Grundy in the side.

It's a wasted opportunity taking a depth player like Roughead when there are guys who are good enough to earn best 22 positions in the AFL system who have gone undrafted in the likes of Sydney Stack, Mitch Podhajski, Mitch Grigg, Haiden Schloithe, Jye Bolton, Mitch Maguire and Jon Marsh just to name a small few.

 

[left at home]

Against Richmond Moore can take Lynch and Marsh would be well suited to Riewoldt who isn't a big guy.

Marsh I'm suggesting is a genuine key defender who just happens to be able to play on a variety of different sizes/heights/athletes given his athleticism.

Marsh doesn't need to play ruck. Moore I believe if he had the opportunity would be best suited as a ruckman but won't get that opportunity with Grundy in the side.

It's a wasted opportunity taking a depth player like Roughead when there are guys who are good enough to earn best 22 positions in the AFL system who have gone undrafted in the likes of Sydney Stack, Mitch Podhajski, Mitch Grigg, Haiden Schloithe, Jye Bolton, Mitch Maguire and Jon Marsh just to name a small few.

What do think is the reason if they are as good as you say, they did not get a look in. km

 

[Knightmare]

What do think is the reason if they are as good as you say, they did not get a look in. km

Stack - character?
Podhajski - being an overager and overlooked once already an undervalued and often overlooked type rather than for a specific flaw.
Maguire it feels like playing in the NEAFL in combination with being sub 180cm is the main reason.
Marsh clubs haven't looked at closely enough this year and I'm not sure how much time they've put into him, as I wasn't aware until late in the season he wanted back into the AFL system and anywhere.
The others in Grigg/Bolton/Schloithe have all been AFL listed previously and being 25 or in the case of Bolton 26 they're older than AFL clubs would consider ideal. But for mine each of them are plug and play, round one ready and those most able to impact most immediately and all were overlooked incredibly. So too heavy of a weighting on age is evident.
Grigg going for 31d and 6 goals in a grand final and being that most damaging of the high volume ball winners and kicking 35 goals from 20 games as a midfielder. Bolton with two Sandovers and averaging more than 30d per game and being able to play inside or outside with Schloithe winning the 2017 Sandover and going even better than Tim Kelly on that same team with higher disposal, tackle, mark and goal per game numbers while being the more versatile as not only a dominant mid but a very good forward.

These guys aren't scrubs. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these guys join AFL lists either as rookies joining lists during the preseason or during the mid-season rookie draft.

 

[Albert Parker]

Against Richmond Moore can take Lynch and Marsh would be well suited to Riewoldt who isn't a big guy.

Marsh I'm suggesting is a genuine key defender who just happens to be able to play on a variety of different sizes/heights/athletes given his athleticism.

Marsh doesn't need to play ruck. Moore I believe if he had the opportunity would be best suited as a ruckman but won't get that opportunity with Grundy in the side.

It's a wasted opportunity taking a depth player like Roughead when there are guys who are good enough to earn best 22 positions in the AFL system who have gone undrafted in the likes of Sydney Stack, Mitch Podhajski, Mitch Grigg, Haiden Schloithe, Jye Bolton, Mitch Maguire and Jon Marsh just to name a small few.

Anyhow, you've declared your hand that you don't really rate KPP's in the modern game and that you consider a near-enough alternative in Marsh to fill that spot. We disagree on that view.

I agree with you on the view that too much mature age talent is overlooked though. Mihocek is a great example. He's come in immediately and made an impact. Who cares if he doesn't have a 10 year career ahead of him. Most players don't.

I don't think that Collingwood needs Grigg, Bolton etc (our midfield is absolutely stacked with brilliant ball getters and we have higher possessions than any team. In fact we have too many mids and end up filling them in spots where they are not suited like Greenwood) but I can't believe that a team like the Saints, Suns etc can't find a need for someone like these guys in their line up. Their midfield is bereft of genuine ball winners and some guys, particularly athletes, need more time as human beings to mature and get the best out of themselves. You could still get 5 good years out of any of these guys - which is substantial.