Delisted Jack Lonie

Remove this Banner Ad

MilneMagic said:
Do you know McCartin/Goddard/Mckenzie Averages @ Tac/Champs?
Click to expand...
Nah I just saw the stat sorry, and they were champs sc scores not tac cup, the info always comes out around sc season next year
 
Looked up Lonie's stats for the last two years at TAC Cup level the other day and he actually played more games (16) last year, than he did this year (15) and also kicked more goals (29 to 21), although he may have been playing closer to goal last year. Kicked 8 goals in his teams two finals this season though (including a bag of 5) and kicked 3 in a final last year and had another bag of 5 in a game earlier that season. :thumbsu:

Like say Caleb Daniel this year and Lewis Taylor last year, he is a lot better performed and a lot more talented than his draft number would suggest, only "sliding" so far due to his height deficiency.

I'm told we actually rated him 12th on our board, but presumably we didn't draft him ahead of say McKenzie (14th) because he is so short and weren't prepared to spend such a high pick on someone that short. We also probably thought/knew he was a good chance to still be available at pick 41, for the same reason, while we knew someone like McKenzie was no chance.

It was a similar thing last year, where around the middle of the season I was told that there were 6 who we rated as "elite prospects", with one of them being Lewis Taylor (who many/most rated top 10 on 'talent' at the time), but that in spite of rating him that highly he wasn't in the mix for our first pick in that draft (around that time we were looking like having a pick around 4/5), because he was so short and of course he didn't end up getting taken until pick 28.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

aussierulesrules said:
Looked up Lonie's stats for the last two years at TAC Cup level the other day and he actually played more games (16) last year, than he did this year (15) and also kicked more goals (29 to 21), although he may have been playing closer to goal last year. Kicked 8 goals in his teams two finals this season though (including a bag of 5) and kicked 3 in a final last year and had another bag of 5 in a game earlier that season. :thumbsu:

Like say Caleb Daniel this year and Lewis Taylor last year, he is a lot better performed and a lot more talented than his draft number would suggest, only "sliding" so far due to his height deficiency.

I'm told we actually rated him 12th on our board, but presumably we didn't draft him ahead of say McKenzie (14th) because he is so short and weren't prepared to spend such a high pick on someone that short. We also probably thought/knew he was a good chance to still be available at pick 41, for the same reason, while we knew someone like McKenzie was no chance.

It was a similar thing last year, where around the middle of the season I was told that there were 6 who we rated as "elite prospects", with one of them being Lewis Taylor (who many/most rated top 10 on 'talent' at the time), but that in spite of rating him that highly he wasn't in the mix for our first pick in that draft (around that time we were looking like having a pick around 4/5), because he was so short and of course he didn't end up getting taken until pick 28.
Click to expand...
obviously dunstan and acres were two out of the 6 we rated elite were they? Just wondering because we bypassed lewis twice.
 
cuzo said:
obviously dunstan and acres were two out of the 6 we rated elite were they? Just wondering because we bypassed lewis twice.
Click to expand...
I kept on hearing around that time (mid season, champs time) that we were very, very big on Dunstan, but that we, like other clubs, had concerns on his body shape (too chunky ideally for the modern running game) and running ability- hence him "sliding" from a supposed top 5 prospect earlier in the year to pick 18- but that that was the only thing keeping him from being someone that we rated "elite", because he well and truly had the performances on the board to warrant it, plus the character, leadership and so-on. (For this reason I expect the club would be absolutely thrilled with his recent change of body shape and would be hoping it makes the difference to his running).

Acres no, but I do believe we rated him around 10 at draft time and were seriously pumped that he made it through to our picks, and saw him, as Pelchen said after we drafted him, as "the prototypical modern footballer"- hence taking him ahead of the much shorter Taylor, even if we rated Taylor higher. I expect that most clubs probably rated Taylor in their top 10's, but wouldn't have been prepared to pick him anywhere near where they rated him, simply because of how short he was. The same this year with Caleb Daniel, who, on performances, physical attributes (except for his height), skills, work ethic and so-on, would probably have been rated as high as no.1 by some clubs, but who they simply wouldn't have picked anywhere near as high as that because he is sub-170cm. If he was 18cm taller and everything else was equal it's hard to see how he wouldn't have gone top 3, or top 5, at the very least.

If we did rate Blake around 10 I dare say we would have rated him higher than the likes of Lang (who I was told we didn't rate in our top 50!), Apeness, Cripps (both of whom were reasonable surprises in the top 17) and Jones and from what I heard leading up to the draft, probably Freeman and maybe Sheed. Lennon may have been another (he apparently tested terribly athletically at the combine- very slow and poor tank) and perhaps McCarthy (who was a real mystery that some clubs probably would have really rated, while other clubs probably didn't, due to so little exposed form). Some clubs apparently didn't rate Bontempelli anywhere near as high as WB did (it was reported that one club didn't rate him in the first round), either, so we may well have been one of those and may have rated Blake higher than him.
 
Last edited:
chee
aussierulesrules said:
I kept on hearing around that time (mid season, champs time) that we were very, very big on Dunstan, but that we, like other clubs, had concerns on his body shape (too chunky ideally for the modern running game) and running ability- hence him "sliding" from a supposed top 5 prospect earlier in the year to pick 18- but that that was the only thing keeping him from being someone that we rated "elite", because he well and truly had the performances on the board to warrant it, plus the character, leadership and so-on. (For this reason I expect the club would be absolutely thrilled with his recent change of body shape and would be hoping it makes the difference to his running).

Acres no, but I do believe we rated him around 10 at draft time and were seriously pumped that he made it through to our picks, and saw him, as Pelchen said after we drafted him, as "the prototypical modern footballer"- hence taking him ahead of the much shorter Taylor, even if we rated Taylor higher. I expect that most clubs probably rated Taylor in their top 10's, but wouldn't have been prepared to pick him anywhere near where they rated him, simply because of how short he was. The same this year with Caleb Daniel, who, on performances, physical attributes (except for his height), skills, work ethic and so-on, would probably have been rated as high as no.1 by some clubs, but who they simply wouldn't have picked anywhere near as high as that because he is sub-170cm. If he was 18cm taller and everything else was equal it's hard to see how he wouldn't have gone top 3, or top 5, at the very least.

If we did rate Blake around 10 I dare say we would have rated him higher than the likes of Lang (who I was told we didn't rate in our top 50!), Apeness, Cripps (both of whom were reasonable surprises in the top 17) and Jones and from what I heard leading up to the draft, probably Freeman and maybe Sheed. Lennon may have been another (he apparently tested terribly athletically at the combine- very slow and poor tank) and perhaps McCarthy (who was a real mystery that some clubs probably would have really rated, while other clubs probably didn't, due to so little exposed form). Some clubs apparently didn't rate Bontempelli anywhere near as high as WB did (it was reported that one club didn't rate him in the first round), either, so we may well have been one of those and may have rated Blake higher than him.
Click to expand...
cheers for the insight, good to hear the ratings. do you have any idea on where we rated our draftees
this year specifically? (including rookies)
 
aussierulesrules said:
I kept on hearing around that time (mid season, champs time) that we were very, very big on Dunstan, but that we, like other clubs, had concerns on his body shape (too chunky ideally for the modern running game) and running ability- hence him "sliding" from a supposed top 5 prospect earlier in the year to pick 18- but that that was the only thing keeping him from being someone that we rated "elite", because he well and truly had the performances on the board to warrant it, plus the character, leadership and so-on. (For this reason I expect the club would be absolutely thrilled with his recent change of body shape and would be hoping it makes the difference to his running).

Acres no, but I do believe we rated him around 10 at draft time and were seriously pumped that he made it through to our picks, and saw him, as Pelchen said after we drafted him, as "the prototypical modern footballer"- hence taking him ahead of the much shorter Taylor, even if we rated Taylor higher. I expect that most clubs probably rated Taylor in their top 10's, but wouldn't have been prepared to pick him anywhere near where they rated him, simply because of how short he was. The same this year with Caleb Daniel, who, on performances, physical attributes (except for his height), skills, work ethic and so-on, would probably have been rated as high as no.1 by some clubs, but who they simply wouldn't have picked anywhere near as high as that because he is sub-170cm. If he was 18cm taller and everything else was equal it's hard to see how he wouldn't have gone top 3, or top 5, at the very least.

If we did rate Blake around 10 I dare say we would have rated him higher than the likes of Lang (who I was told we didn't rate in our top 50!), Apeness, Cripps (both of whom were reasonable surprises in the top 17) and Jones and from what I heard leading up to the draft, probably Freeman and maybe Sheed. Lennon may have been another (he apparently tested terribly athletically at the combine- very slow and poor tank) and perhaps McCarthy (who was a real mystery that some clubs probably would have really rated, while other clubs probably didn't, due to so little exposed form). Some clubs apparently didn't rate Bontempelli anywhere near as high as WB did (it was reported that one club didn't rate him in the first round), either, so we may well have been one of those and may have rated Blake higher than him.
Click to expand...

But why have a 'list/ranking' and then bypass it on draft night due to that reason. Build a list based on known facts before the draft! Seems very odd.
 
cuzo said:
chee

cheers for the insight, good to hear the ratings. do you have any idea on where we rated our draftees
this year specifically? (including rookies)
Click to expand...
There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
 
Tommy Wigs said:
There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear more about our list.... aussie rules can you assist please?
 
Tommy Wigs said:
There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
Click to expand...

I think I read Lonie at 12. So it sounds like we rated Lonie 2 spots above McKenizie, however went McKenzie first either based on needs or thought someone else would take him and/or Lonie would still be around later.
 
Sorry - don't understand it - if you can't get the ball it doesn't matter what size you are.

So back to my first two rules of recruiting

Can they get the ball?

Can they get rid of it?

41 for Lonie - good deal

46 for Caleb Daniel - steal of the draft. Looks a much better kick than Lonie, 50m plus, plus looks like he's got super footy smarts as well.
 
pebblesofsand said:
Sorry - don't understand it - if you can't get the ball it doesn't matter what size you are.

So back to my first two rules of recruiting

Can they get the ball?

Can they get rid of it?

41 for Lonie - good deal

46 for Caleb Daniel - steal of the draft. Looks a much better kick than Lonie, 50m plus, plus looks like he's got super footy smarts as well.
Click to expand...


Lonie will be a good player but I really liked Caleb. Richmond getting Rhys Mc Kenzie in the 80s or what ever it was was a pretty solid get too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tommy Wigs said:
But why have a 'list/ranking' and then bypass it on draft night due to that reason. Build a list based on known facts before the draft! Seems very odd.
Click to expand...
I think it's probably because they give them ratings like out of 10 for each category (potential/upside, output, athleticism, character/work ethic, hardness, leadership, versatility, etc) which add up to an overall number, which puts them in the order they end up in on the board, but it may be only then that some get "marked down" for being too short, for instance, or where you might pick one that you rated lower than another, because you have more of a need for that type, or because you're confident that the one you rated higher will be available at your next pick (both of which could have been the case when it came down to McKenzie v Lonie, for instance).

When you think about it and take Lonie's height out of the equation, him being ranked at 12 wouldn't be a shock, as he won Vic Country's MVP at the carnival, was apparently ranked no.1 for average Supercoach points per game in division 1 at the champs, which was fantastic, has put together two strong years at TAC Cup level (including some very good looking games in finals, with 11 goals in 3 of his finals), has terrific skills, smarts, agility, a good tank and kicks regular goals, looks like he could play dual roles (forward and midfield, like Schneider) and something that would have helped him to be ranked high on our board would have been his really high rating for character and so-on, which we put so much stock in.

This year's first round or two was full of those types who, like Lonie, were not necessarily "pure mids", but who played a lot on the flanks and so-on and were perhaps flashy, but who didn't necessarily rack up a lot of the footy on a consistent basis (eg. Ahern, Weller, Laverde, Langford, Cockatoo, McKenzie, Garlett, Boekhorst, Webb, Viojo-Rainbow, Menadue, Maynard, Lamb), so over the two year period leading up to their draft, Lonie probably outperformed most, if not all of them and had other attributes that were at least the equal of them, hence it not being a surprise if we rated him ahead of a bunch of them, before taking his height into consideration.

They could easily enough go past him at AFL level though, given the height/size advantage they will have, but Jack does look like he's got a lot more runs on the board than the others we've taken in the low 40's in recent years, like Murdoch, Saunders and Webster, so I think he's a very strong chance to succeed at AFL level, even if it's in roles that aren't perhaps considered as important as others.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Wigs said:
There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
Click to expand...
Yep, spot on with those numbers, from what I've been told, with us apparently rating Payne just inside 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very well in the champs (haven't heard where we rated him by the end, presumably lower, maybe by a fair bit) and Sinclair just inside 40.

I think most clubs would have walked out of this draft in particular extremely happy with what they ended up with, as given it was such an even draft, clubs would have likely had wildly different ratings of everyone and as such it's likely that they would have been able to nab a few who they rated a lot higher than they ended up getting them at, simply because other clubs didn't rate them as highly. Pelchen said in that recent article on the AFL website that it isn't BS when the clubs say things like "we couldn't believe he was still available at our pick", as the clubs can rate talent so differently from each other (more likely to be so in an "even draft").
 
aussierulesrules said:
Yep, spot on with those numbers, from what I've been told, with us apparently rating Payne just inside 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very well in the champs (haven't heard where we rated him by the end, presumably lower, maybe by a fair bit) and Sinclair just inside 40.

I think most clubs would have walked out of this draft in particular extremely happy with what they ended up with, as given it was such an even draft, clubs would have likely had wildly different ratings of everyone and as such it's likely that they would have been able to nab a few who they rated a lot higher than they ended up getting them at, simply because other clubs didn't rate them as highly. Pelchen said in that recent article on the AFL website that it isn't BS when the clubs say things like "we couldn't believe he was still available at our pick", as the clubs can rate talent so differently from each other (more likely to be so in an "even draft").
Click to expand...

Yeah incredibly even this year. I still think Cockatoo might end up being the one everyone looks back on like Bontempelli and wonders why he didn't go in the top couple of picks. Over all I'm pretty happy with our haul on paper, proof is in the pudding though.
 
aussierulesrules said:
Looked up Lonie's stats for the last two years at TAC Cup level the other day and he actually played more games (16) last year, than he did this year (15) and also kicked more goals (29 to 21), although he may have been playing closer to goal last year. Kicked 8 goals in his teams two finals this season though (including a bag of 5) and kicked 3 in a final last year and had another bag of 5 in a game earlier that season. :thumbsu:

Like say Caleb Daniel this year and Lewis Taylor last year, he is a lot better performed and a lot more talented than his draft number would suggest, only "sliding" so far due to his height deficiency.

I'm told we actually rated him 12th on our board, but presumably we didn't draft him ahead of say McKenzie (14th) because he is so short and weren't prepared to spend such a high pick on someone that short. We also probably thought/knew he was a good chance to still be available at pick 41, for the same reason, while we knew someone like McKenzie was no chance.

It was a similar thing last year, where around the middle of the season I was told that there were 6 who we rated as "elite prospects", with one of them being Lewis Taylor (who many/most rated top 10 on 'talent' at the time), but that in spite of rating him that highly he wasn't in the mix for our first pick in that draft (around that time we were looking like having a pick around 4/5), because he was so short and of course he didn't end up getting taken until pick 28.
Click to expand...

Do you know who we rated top 15 on our board?
 
aussierulesrules said:
Yep, spot on with those numbers, from what I've been told, with us apparently rating Payne just inside 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very well in the champs (haven't heard where we rated him by the end, presumably lower, maybe by a fair bit) and Sinclair just inside 40.

I think most clubs would have walked out of this draft in particular extremely happy with what they ended up with, as given it was such an even draft, clubs would have likely had wildly different ratings of everyone and as such it's likely that they would have been able to nab a few who they rated a lot higher than they ended up getting them at, simply because other clubs didn't rate them as highly. Pelchen said in that recent article on the AFL website that it isn't BS when the clubs say things like "we couldn't believe he was still available at our pick", as the clubs can rate talent so differently from each other (more likely to be so in an "even draft").
Click to expand...
Im not Saying your talking BS but either
A) those top 30 don't include the likes of Pickett, brayshaw etc people who we were never gonna take.
B) have the most bizzare drafting rankings ever.

I thought baines came out after the rookie draft and sai d they were pleased about the rookie draft but their wasn't a standout like Eli and he was only rumoured to be just inside 30 last year
 
As I said, I've only heard that we had Payne just inside the top 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very good things at the champs, so for all I know we could have had him much lower by the time the draft came around, whereas I don't believe we had Sinclair as high as we did Eli last year, so I don't think we'd consider him to be as much of a "standout", necessarily.

As I said on here on the day of the RD, after the ND was completed (and a couple of days before the RD was held) I enquired as to whether there was anyone that we rated as worth taking in the ND who didn't get drafted in the ND, and Sinclair and Payne were 2 of the 5 names that I was told we rated who got through undrafted, so given how good that mail looks to have been (especially considering they weren't exactly "household names" and weren't being spoken about at all on here (that I remember)- I'd never even heard of Sinclair!) I have no reason to not believe where we rated them (and the others), when told that news a few days after the RD was completed. That's all I know.

As for how we do our ratings, apparently clubs can vary a hell of a lot in their methods of talent identification, but ours looks to be working very well for us, so however we do it I have no complaints!
 
Last edited:
aussierulesrules said:
As I said, I've only heard that we had Payne just inside the top 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very good things at the champs, so for all I know we could have had him much lower by the time the draft came around, whereas I don't believe we had Sinclair as high as we did Eli last year, so I don't think we'd consider him to be as much of a "standout", necessarily.

As I said on here on the day of the RD, after the ND was completed (and a couple of days before the RD was held) I enquired as to whether there was anyone that we rated as worth taking in the ND who didn't get drafted in the ND, and Sinclair and Payne were 2 of the 5 names that I was told we rated who got through undrafted, so given how good that mail looks to have been (especially considering they weren't exactly "household names" and weren't being spoken about at all on here (that I remember)- I'd never even heard of Sinclair!) I have no reason to not believe where we rated them (and the others), when told that news a few days after the RD was completed. That's all I know.

As for how we do our ratings, apparently clubs can vary a hell of a lot in their methods of talent identification, but ours looks to be working very well for us, so however we do it I have no complaints!
Click to expand...

Does seem amazing all the players we got were 'inside the top 30' but they werent in other teams top 70

I certainly take the point that the draft can be a raffle in that all 18 clubs have different rankings and when their turn comes up they may get someone rated much higher on their board than their pick. So this is why they all genuinely do come out happy.

I cant believe we had Sinclair top 40 unless we only bothered ranking Victorian players? Sinclair and Payne top 40 in Victoria makes sense but top 40 in the whole country?
 
Unfortunately Jack Lonie has injured his ankle and is in a moon boot. He isn't sure if he will need an operation or not until they diagnose fully. Terrible luck for the kid! I still think he is going to be a gun but this will set him back a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top