Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2013 phantom draft

[Thurlow2Mackie]

Chris25 vs KM needs a Bay 13 version.

 

[Chris25]

Haha, my posts come across as passive aggressive enough already.

 

[Knightmare]

Chris25 vs KM needs a Bay 13 version.

Always happy to settle any disagreements over a game of chess.

But also happy to come back next year and objectively review the happenings and the way players are trending after year one in the system to see if any views have changed.

Shame my 2012 mock draft thread is not open for further discussion. I'd love to get a review going of those correct calls and those misses and go over my yearly draft learnings and what I'll take into the next drafts from those misses of the past.

 

[Thurlow2Mackie]

Always happy to settle any disagreements over a game of chess.

But also happy to come back next year and objectively review the happenings and the way players are trending after year one in the system to see if any views have changed.

Shame my 2012 mock draft thread is not open for further discussion. I'd love to get a review going of those correct calls and those misses and go over my yearly draft learnings and what I'll take into the next drafts from those misses of the past.

Even the pros get loads wrong, so you can't expect to have a perfect track record no matter how much you analyse it all. Some players improve inexplicably quickly once they get to AFL level, others go downhill or barely improve. Too many variables. I personally rate players with a healthy balance of skills and general athleticism more than anything else. Body shape at draft age, being a particular height as a midfielder, or being elite in one category like speed or agility really doesn't bother me too much. It is why I rate guys like Thurlow, Templeton, and to a lesser extent Jake Kolodjashnij higher than some might (Kade is already rated pretty highly on here, no need to harp on about him ) , but I could be wrong and don't think I am an expert by any means. Just someone with an opinion.

 

[Richo83]

We're all human and all open to mistakes, what's more, we all have our different opinions. Knightmare has a player who is essentially the next Daniel Cross as his fourth most talented player and one of his five potential A-graders. Sorry, but I don't see it.

 

[Rodriguez Mendoza]

Hi knightmare, I'm of the strong opinion that need to draft at least one hopefully two 195cm+ KPD in this draft. I like Giles and Fort, just wondering if the depth of KPD is larger in next years draft?

 

[Ducky Tie]

If the Saints do in fact have picks 18 and 19 after compo is given (and if the Buddy compo to Saints for Saints second rounder rumour is true), what do you see us doing with 18 and 19 Knightmare. Personally, I think there's a very good chance we'll take one of Dumont/Dunstan with one of them. I'm not too sure what we'd do with the other one. Gardiner if available seeing as we'll already have two mids? Or whoever is available from Acres, Hartung, Taylor etc? What do you think we would do with both picks? Also, what would you do with both picks?

 

[Knightmare]

Even the pros get loads wrong, so you can't expect to have a perfect track record no matter how much you analyse it all. Some players improve inexplicably quickly once they get to AFL level, others go downhill or barely improve. Too many variables. I personally rate players with a healthy balance of skills and general athleticism more than anything else. Body shape at draft age, being a particular height as a midfielder, or being elite in one category like speed or agility really doesn't bother me too much. It is why I rate guys like Thurlow, Templeton, and to a lesser extent Jake Kolodjashnij higher than some might (Kade is already rated pretty highly on here, no need to harp on about him ) , but I could be wrong and don't think I am an expert by any means. Just someone with an opinion.

Everyone makes some good and some bad calls.

In the recruiting business you just want to get more right than wrong each year, to minimise his mistakes and to get better with every year and learn from your mistakes. If you don't do that then you're probably not going to do much better from year to year and I feel I've gone some way even though there is always so much further you can go.

We're all human and all open to mistakes, what's more, we all have our different opinions. Knightmare has a player who is essentially the next Daniel Cross as his fourth most talented player and one of his five potential A-graders. Sorry, but I don't see it.

Daniel Cross is a 200+ gamer. That's better than most pick 4s. He's not someone I could say too many negative things about with the example he has set throughout his career and the way he got so much out of himself.

In fact Matthew Leuenberger, Josh Kennedy, Matthew Pavlich and Scott Lucas are the only pick 4s in the past 20 years I'd pick instead of Cross.

If Crouch like Cross can be a 200+ game player and achieve what Cross has in his career that would be a big success story. It's also my hope/expectation for him understanding his talent.

Hi knightmare, I'm of the strong opinion that need to draft at least one hopefully two 195cm+ KPD in this draft. I like Giles and Fort, just wondering if the depth of KPD is larger in next years draft?

Much better depth in key defenders next year. This year is about as weak as you can get for key defenders.

Add Matthew Sully as a late or rookie selection. Perhaps Darcy Gardiner if he's there at that first round choice but otherwise I'd wait for next year.

 

[Knightmare]

If the Saints do in fact have picks 18 and 19 after compo is given (and if the Buddy compo to Saints for Saints second rounder rumour is true), what do you see us doing with 18 and 19 Knightmare. Personally, I think there's a very good chance we'll take one of Dumont/Dunstan with one of them. I'm not too sure what we'd do with the other one. Gardiner if available seeing as we'll already have two mids? Or whoever is available from Acres, Hartung, Taylor etc? What do you think we would do with both picks? Also, what would you do with both picks?

Any picks inside the best 20 could prove to be strong ones.

It has to be a best available selection in my view. St Kilda need to build a list and things need to start with the best possible players.

Dunstan/Dumont assuming no notable sliders would be a strong combination to go with, particularly on the assumption St Kilda taking one of Aish/Kelly early as outside types.

Taylor won't be there are 18/19.

If Acres is there he'd be one of those I'd make a priority to add as a tall midfielder with the versatility and ability both inside and outside the contest.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

Knightmare what is your opinion on the McEvoy & pick 21 for Savage & picks 18 & 19 trade?

 

[Richo83]

Daniel Cross is a 200+ gamer. That's better than most pick 4s. He's not someone I could say too many negative things about with the example he has set throughout his career and the way he got so much out of himself.

In fact Matthew Leuenberger, Josh Kennedy, Matthew Pavlich and Scott Lucas are the only pick 4s in the past 20 years I'd pick instead of Cross.

If Crouch like Cross can be a 200+ game player and achieve what Cross has in his career that would be a big success story. It's also my hope/expectation for him understanding his talent.

You're comparing drafting of up to ten years ago. Drafting is vastly improved nowerdays. The problem with guys like Cross, or Boyd, who is another player who Crouch reminds me of, is that clubs are moving away from having an inside midfielder who gets a vast amount of ball. Instead, midfield is about a group of midfielders rotating up forward. They would rather have a player who can get 25 touches and kick 2 goals than a player who can get 35 touches. So clubs don't need Crouch to rack up 35 touches when he's not going to be expected to.

The other thing is that the players who get an inordinate amount of ball tend to be players either on bad sides, or players with average disposal, think Boyd, Priddis or Swan. So basically teams will let these players rack up the stats knowing that they'd rather have the ball in their hands than someone elses. This makes these players' stats inflated, and in part, meaningless. Crouch will probably rack up a lot of ball, but it will be either handballs, short kicks or bad kicks, and his value to a side will be fairly low in terms of how much possessions he will have. If you look at the top four sides of the competition this year, all of them had inside midfielders who were good kicks. Mitchell, Hodge, Mundy, Selwood, Jack etc. Inside midfielders are required to be able to kick and be versatile more than ever. They're required to push forward and kick goals as well as deliver to the forwards.

By the way, you didn't just say that Crouch would go at four, you also said that Crouch is the fourth most talented player in this draft. I find that hard to believe, secondly, nearly every draft for a good 5-10 years has had at least four players better than Crouch. What you're really saying is that Crouch is the fourth most likely to reach his potential, or that his output is most likely to be about the fourth best. I doubt that, and with the game moving towards versatility, kicking skills, as well as athleticism, I doubt that Crouch will be the fourth best midfielder of this draft. I mean Crouch is going to need to improve his tank if he's going to get to enough contests to impact them. It's just a fact that he's an average, and at times poor kick. And that will hurt him in the modern game. He also doesn't kick many goals and is a tad short. Most elite inside midfield prospects either have two of these three things: goal kicking ability, athleticism or height. For instance Wines had height, he was 188cm and could run all day. Crouch has none of those. He got a lot of the ball for Ballarat but that's mainly because their midfield is average and he plays a high volume style of play.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare what is your opinion on the McEvoy & pick 21 for Savage & picks 18 & 19 trade?

Good for Hawthorn.

That team is aging quickly with Mitchell/Hodge/Sewell/Lake all near the end. Next year may be their last shot and with the ruck that weak position with Hale more of a no.2 option, McEvoy is an excellent get with the most obvious team weakness correctly identified and eliminated. He's a poor tap ruckman but he covers the ground, can take a grab and pushes behind the ball to take some marks which few others at his position do and feels like a natural fit for Hawthorn in that system as someone relatively skilled by position. He's a better fit than Longer who may be able to play now, but he's not going to do as much next year as McEvoy which is why he's a fit for Hawthorn.

Would I have done the trade in St Kilda's position?
No.
McEvoy is clearly the best player involved in the deal and a pick is only a chance to find someone who may be good in a relatively weak draft. I would have requested more or stuck with McEvoy who is while not perfect is still better than a developing Hickey and someone who for a developing list can help from a leadership perspective post Riewoldt/Hayes when there is little to nothing left and no one who can help aid that youth develop leaving a Melbourne type situation where the team will be too young and without direction to step out of that constant rebuilding cycle.

 

[JPod_31]

Hey KM. Will you be editing the draft order after the trade period?

 

[TheSunGod]

KM - What have you done???

Your Jack Martin profile on page 1 is no longer there!!!

I need to read it before I go to sleep every night to sleep well and dream nice dreams. Otherwise I don't know how I can last 5 -6 months until I can see him play for real again

 

[Knightmare]

You're comparing drafting of up to ten years ago. Drafting is vastly improved nowerdays. The problem with guys like Cross, or Boyd, who is another player who Crouch reminds me of, is that clubs are moving away from having an inside midfielder who gets a vast amount of ball. Instead, midfield is about a group of midfielders rotating up forward. They would rather have a player who can get 25 touches and kick 2 goals than a player who can get 35 touches. So clubs don't need Crouch to rack up 35 touches when he's not going to be expected to.

The other thing is that the players who get an inordinate amount of ball tend to be players either on bad sides, or players with average disposal, think Boyd, Priddis or Swan. So basically teams will let these players rack up the stats knowing that they'd rather have the ball in their hands than someone elses. This makes these players' stats inflated, and in part, meaningless. Crouch will probably rack up a lot of ball, but it will be either handballs, short kicks or bad kicks, and his value to a side will be fairly low in terms of how much possessions he will have. If you look at the top four sides of the competition this year, all of them had inside midfielders who were good kicks. Mitchell, Hodge, Mundy, Selwood, Jack etc. Inside midfielders are required to be able to kick and be versatile more than ever. They're required to push forward and kick goals as well as deliver to the forwards.

By the way, you didn't just say that Crouch would go at four, you also said that Crouch is the fourth most talented player in this draft. I find that hard to believe, secondly, nearly every draft for a good 5-10 years has had at least four players better than Crouch. What you're really saying is that Crouch is the fourth most likely to reach his potential, or that his output is most likely to be about the fourth best. I doubt that, and with the game moving towards versatility, kicking skills, as well as athleticism, I doubt that Crouch will be the fourth best midfielder of this draft. I mean Crouch is going to need to improve his tank if he's going to get to enough contests to impact them. It's just a fact that he's an average, and at times poor kick. And that will hurt him in the modern game. He also doesn't kick many goals and is a tad short. Most elite inside midfield prospects either have two of these three things: goal kicking ability, athleticism or height. For instance Wines had height, he was 188cm and could run all day. Crouch has none of those. He got a lot of the ball for Ballarat but that's mainly because their midfield is average and he plays a high volume style of play.

Drafting now is better than it was 20 years ago. Better than it was 10 years ago? Not by as much as people assume. When has a no.1 overall selection been the best in a draft? I'm not seeing anyone since Adam Cooney selected at no.1 who has actually developed into the best player in the draft.

You are right to say that clubs are moving away from those pure midfielders and favouring those who can swing forward. It helps and gives you more options but I wouldn't say it's something required and I wouldn't exclude them from the top end of my ratings for it. Crouch on the North Ballarat Rebels team has been forced to play on the ball at all times and hasn't been given the opportunity to push forward. Who's to say it can't be a part of his game? Luke Ball as a similar type developed it. Brock McLean last season showed some signs up forward as someone who has always been considered a slow, unskilled onballer. So it can be done.

In this draft Crouch is the only guy I see as a genuine threat to be a 30+ disposal a season player. I can't say confidently about any other prospect that they'll even be 20+ disposal per game players.

There is always room for those hard onballers who win all the inside footy and can distribute by hand. Luke Ball is excellent for Collingwood. Brad Sewell has been excellent for Hawthorn for some years. Brock McLean is more than handy in that Carlton midfield. Brent Moloney. Andrew Swallow. Joel Selwood before this year wasn't a major goalkicking threat. The game is still filled with these midfield only types and even those most limited guys are showing signs that they can expand their games to playing forward with those with the slower/less skilled natural contested ball games generally finding that transition to rotating forward possible.

Crouch at pick 4 is in some ways a demonstration of my lack of faith in this draft on my part. He's the only guy in this draft who is a genuine accumulator and someone who will win the ball inside the contest consistently. As you mentioned he hasn't even built up his endurance. Once he does that he'll find another level to his play as an accumulator as someone who already so natural is the first to the ball and just wins it so consistently both inside and outside the contest getting to those right spots. I'm ok with him being 180cm, not being an elite kick, a linebreaker or being a particularly versatile player at this point. What he does he does better than anyone else in this draft by a long way and if he puts the work into his game he can be a 200+ gamer and 25+ disposal per game, 5+ tackle per game midfielder which is a great outcome for any draft prospect not selected no.1 overall.

I'd take advantage of other clubs looking for more versatile players in a similar way to Collingwood exploiting the wrong evaluation of Brodie Grundy with clubs going too extreme the other way with their evaluations towards guys who are more mature at that position. When clubs so extremely go to the new trends as I believe they are overlooking those quality contested ball winners then I'd go about my business by capitalising on that and taking the inside players this year. But that's only my perspective.

 

[Knightmare]

Hey KM. Will you be editing the draft order after the trade period?

Yes.

I'd just like to see the whole free agency/trade period end first before I finalise my order.

My power rankings will also continue to float and change as we draft closer to the draft. I'll still be reviewing plenty of games, footage and reading further articles so my knowledge of this draft class will only continue to expand as we draw nearer to the draft as it does throughout the year with football never ending for me.

KM - What have you done???

Your Jack Martin profile on page 1 is no longer there!!!

I need to read it before I go to sleep every night to sleep well and dream nice dreams. Otherwise I don't know how I can last 5 -6 months until I can see him play for real again

It's not something I really thought about and it's only there to give those who weren't reading my posts last year a feel for his game.

While I won't re-write my Jack Martin profile tonight the basics with his game the way I see it is that he's a supercharged Dale Thomas. He does those same freakish things but to a whole new level. He has that same leaping ability and ability to take a hanger. He can breakaway like anything and break the lines at near Lewis Jetta speed. He not unlike Bennell with ball in hand can do damage with his disposals.He hits the scoreboard.
His inside game is good for a light bodied guy but he is still light and I don't see him banging with the big boys right away to the level Jaeger did this year.
He's my tip for the rising star next year and can be close to Jaeger special but in my view while I know I'll get responses to this post emphatically saying I'm wrong with almost all I've spoken to evaluating Martin as the better talent of the two but I'll stick by it and continue to say Jaeger is/will be better as a rare professional who has that most complete game with Martin still complete but not a strong of body and doesn't have that same attention to detail of Jaeger which sets him apart and can make him a top 1-3 player in the competition rather than a top 3-7 player in the competition which is more where I see Jack Martin all things said and done.

He'll excite you to watch with the flash in his game and have an impact from year one. That you can bank on. Like Jaeger he's another absolutely sensational talent who will further elevate Gold Coast's play which even as an opposition spectator will be fun to watch.

 

[Richo83]

Drafting now is better than it was 20 years ago. Better than it was 10 years ago? Not by as much as people assume. When has a no.1 overall selection been the best in a draft? I'm not seeing anyone since Adam Cooney selected at no.1 who has actually developed into the best player in the draft.

Whether or not the first player picked is the best player in the draft is a bad way to measure drafting. A better measure is to see whether clubs are picking the best players early, and if the total volume of AFL standard players is increasing. I'd say it is, and I'd argue that better recruiting methods and better draftee training is making drafting more scientific than ever before.

You are right to say that clubs are moving away from those pure midfielders and favouring those who can swing forward. It helps and gives you more options but I wouldn't say it's something required and I wouldn't exclude them from the top end of my ratings for it. Crouch on the North Ballarat Rebels team has been forced to play on the ball at all times and hasn't been given the opportunity to push forward. Who's to say it can't be a part of his game? Luke Ball as a similar type developed it. Brock McLean last season showed some signs up forward as someone who has always been considered a slow, unskilled onballer. So it can be done.

Well McLean was drafted using pick 11, not 4, and Ball was a drafting error. Ball has kicked less than 10 goals in a season in the past 7 out of 8 seasons. I just struggle to see him as a threat.

In this draft Crouch is the only guy I see as a genuine threat to be a 30+ disposal a season player. I can't say confidently about any other prospect that they'll even be 20+ disposal per game players.

But why is total volume of numbers that important? Clubs don't rely on players getting 30 touches or more, even in the current hyper possession game, only two players averaged 30 touches or more a game this season. Ablett was one, and he is the major midfielder in a weak side, Swan is another, a player who is let to roam free because he's an average kick. The second thing is that Crouch looks like a guy who you'd be quite happy to let him have as many touches as he wants, meaning that his stat numbers are a little meaningless.

There is always room for those hard onballers who win all the inside footy and can distribute by hand. Luke Ball is excellent for Collingwood. Brad Sewell has been excellent for Hawthorn for some years. Brock McLean is more than handy in that Carlton midfield. Brent Moloney. Andrew Swallow. Joel Selwood before this year wasn't a major goalkicking threat. The game is still filled with these midfield only types and even those most limited guys are showing signs that they can expand their games to playing forward with those with the slower/less skilled natural contested ball games generally finding that transition to rotating forward possible.

Selwood is very much a best case scenario, he was a gun junior and only slid due to dodgy knees. Guys like Sewell, Moloney and Swallow didn't go top four.

Crouch at pick 4 is in some ways a demonstration of my lack of faith in this draft on my part. He's the only guy in this draft who is a genuine accumulator and someone who will win the ball inside the contest consistently. As you mentioned he hasn't even built up his endurance. Once he does that he'll find another level to his play as an accumulator as someone who already so natural is the first to the ball and just wins it so consistently both inside and outside the contest getting to those right spots. I'm ok with him being 180cm, not being an elite kick, a linebreaker or being a particularly versatile player at this point. What he does he does better than anyone else in this draft by a long way and if he puts the work into his game he can be a 200+ gamer and 25+ disposal per game, 5+ tackle per game midfielder which is a great outcome for any draft prospect not selected no.1 overall.

Sure, he does something better than anyone else, but others have qualities which he doesn't have, and Crouch's style is going out of favour.

I'd take advantage of other clubs looking for more versatile players in a similar way to Collingwood exploiting the wrong evaluation of Brodie Grundy with clubs going too extreme the other way with their evaluations towards guys who are more mature at that position. When clubs so extremely go to the new trends as I believe they are overlooking those quality contested ball winners then I'd go about my business by capitalising on that and taking the inside players this year. But that's only my perspective.

I see Grundy and Crouch as not analogous at all. Grundy slipped because clubs are unwilling to put time into rucks because they're the most risky type of draftee. Crouch is the opposite, he's a fairly "safe" type of player, even though his playing style is going out of favour. I mean Crouch would benefit from going to a club like Collingwood which would get him to work on his kicking skills and endurance, and at a good program, he'll probably work out. But that doesn't mean that he has significant flaws. You're assuming he'll follow the path of Wines, forgetting the fact that Wines was a much better prospect. I just think you overrate Crouch, much like Chris may be overrating some players. You also have Gardiner ahead of guys like Taylor and Kelly, I'm not completely sold on that.

 

[Patron]

I see you have Mcarthy going to brisbane. Any particular reason for that? Have you heard something?

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

Always happy to settle any disagreements over a game of chess.

But also happy to come back next year and objectively review the happenings and the way players are trending after year one in the system to see if any views have changed.

Shame my 2012 mock draft thread is not open for further discussion. I'd love to get a review going of those correct calls and those misses and go over my yearly draft learnings and what I'll take into the next drafts from those misses of the past.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightmares-2012-mock-draft.956129/

An annotated/summarised version would be good if you had the time! Reflection is always a useful tool. Looking at that list and how well each performed, you nailed a lot more than were flops I reckon.

Also, is there any of those '12 boys who will be up to be drafted again this year and you think will get picked up?

 

[fitzbane Lions]

I'd just like to see the whole free agency/trade period end first before I finalise my order.
I was just wondering if you had any news on the Brisbane Lions Academy players that may get drafted and the chances of them ending up at the lions.

PLayers that went to the draft combine were:

Hayden Bertoli-Simmonds, Isaac Conway, Jonathon Freeman (Zone Draft Pick 59), Sam Gribble, Nick Jackson, Lewis Radford, Aden Rutledge, Archie Smith, Cain Tickner

i would assume that the lions will draft the best available with the picks under 30 but the rest includuing rookie and pre-season would be QLD based players to stop the exodus that is happening with our young players.

Also will you be releasing a updated 'Knightmares Draft' before draft day?

 

[the distributer]

Hey KM.

Would you consider trading our 2 first rounders (hopefully 10 and 11) for a higher pick, say pick 3 or 4? Or are the top 10 after Boyd fairly even?

We could even end up with 9-10 and 11 if Adams chooses Geelong and Shaw chooses GWS.

 

[Lefthanded]

How many midfielders can you name that are pendles size ?

Based on footywire data for height & position there are 10 midfielders 191 or taller:
Pendlebury, Scott 191
Mundy, David 192
Blicavs, Mark 198
Corey, Joel 191
Watson, Jobe 191
Morton, Cale 192
Rosa, Matthew 191
Gysberts, Jordan 191
Paparone, Marco 194
Wearden, Patrick 192

 

[Iason]

While I won't re-write my Jack Martin profile tonight the basics with his game the way I see it is that he's a supercharged Dale Thomas. He does those same freakish things but to a whole new level. He has that same leaping ability and ability to take a hanger. He can breakaway like anything and break the lines at near Lewis Jetta speed. He not unlike Bennell with ball in hand can do damage with his disposals.He hits the scoreboard.
His inside game is good for a light bodied guy but he is still light and I don't see him banging with the big boys right away to the level Jaeger did this year.
He's my tip for the rising star next year and can be close to Jaeger special but in my view while I know I'll get responses to this post emphatically saying I'm wrong with almost all I've spoken to evaluating Martin as the better talent of the two but I'll stick by it and continue to say Jaeger is/will be better as a rare professional who has that most complete game with Martin still complete but not a strong of body and doesn't have that same attention to detail of Jaeger which sets him apart and can make him a top 1-3 player in the competition rather than a top 3-7 player in the competition which is more where I see Jack Martin all things said and done.

He'll excite you to watch with the flash in his game and have an impact from year one. That you can bank on. Like Jaeger he's another absolutely sensational talent who will further elevate Gold Coast's play which even as an opposition spectator will be fun to watch.

So he is going to be the best player of all time. Got it

 

[Knightmare]

Whether or not the first player picked is the best player in the draft is a bad way to measure drafting. A better measure is to see whether clubs are picking the best players early, and if the total volume of AFL standard players is increasing. I'd say it is, and I'd argue that better recruiting methods and better draftee training is making drafting more scientific than ever before.

Well McLean was drafted using pick 11, not 4, and Ball was a drafting error. Ball has kicked less than 10 goals in a season in the past 7 out of 8 seasons. I just struggle to see him as a threat.

But why is total volume of numbers that important? Clubs don't rely on players getting 30 touches or more, even in the current hyper possession game, only two players averaged 30 touches or more a game this season. Ablett was one, and he is the major midfielder in a weak side, Swan is another, a player who is let to roam free because he's an average kick. The second thing is that Crouch looks like a guy who you'd be quite happy to let him have as many touches as he wants, meaning that his stat numbers are a little meaningless.

Selwood is very much a best case scenario, he was a gun junior and only slid due to dodgy knees. Guys like Sewell, Moloney and Swallow didn't go top four.

Sure, he does something better than anyone else, but others have qualities which he doesn't have, and Crouch's style is going out of favour.

I see Grundy and Crouch as not analogous at all. Grundy slipped because clubs are unwilling to put time into rucks because they're the most risky type of draftee. Crouch is the opposite, he's a fairly "safe" type of player, even though his playing style is going out of favour. I mean Crouch would benefit from going to a club like Collingwood which would get him to work on his kicking skills and endurance, and at a good program, he'll probably work out. But that doesn't mean that he has significant flaws. You're assuming he'll follow the path of Wines, forgetting the fact that Wines was a much better prospect. I just think you overrate Crouch, much like Chris may be overrating some players. You also have Gardiner ahead of guys like Taylor and Kelly, I'm not completely sold on that.

It depends on the gamestyle played but finals footy has historically been whoever wins the contested footy wins the game. The ball for so much of any game is in dispute and when the ball is in dispute you want your guys winning it rather than the opposition. And if you don't win it then you want the necessary tackling pressure around the ball to force any opposition disposals into turnovers. Crouch contributes on both of these fronts. In dispute he's going to win the ball and if he doesn't win the ball then he's going to lay a tackle. Similar to Tom Liberatore. You need those pure inside guys to win games of footy even if they don't push forward to kick goals. It's handy when you have your Ablett's who do but Ablett is the exception rather than the rule and ideally you have a combination of pure onballers and some midfielders with some other tricks and some versatility to their games.
Versatility and ability to hit the scoreboard is just a bonus for mine with the contested ball the only non-negotiable and willingness to tackle and pressure the next highest priority in a midfielder to best help the back half and limit the effectiveness of those opposition entries.

If a style of game is going out of flavour that's exactly when I'd capitalise. I'm fine with clubs wrongly overlooking guys because they're looking for a particular type. It just means all the better value for me if picking and at the end of the day I go home with the 200 gamer which from a first round pick is always the aim.

Crouch I agree is not as good as Wines. Wines has a more complete game. I'll take the taller midfielder who is already doing the same things as the shorter midfield at the same age. He'll relatively with this being a weak draft be the equivalent of Greene/Wines in this draft with his numbers and contested ball winning ability in that same category of dominance from a junior.

I understand why you would have Kelly and Taylor higher than Gardiner. Most would. I just like my KPPs when I find someone of quality. If Gardiner can become a 200 gamer who can play a role to a high standard for a team again he proves well and truely worthy of being rated a first round talent.

Kelly and Taylor I'm less sure on.

Kelly I rate a safe selection who will almost certainly make the grade, I'm just not seeing the upside or that ability to develop an inside game as a smaller framed guy and someone who mostly around the ball just flutters around hoping for it to come out. Those outside components of the game he'll get being so highly skilled and being able to run all day but it's without the hurt factor as an only average penetrator with his pace good but not great and footskills while as precise as they come again not penetrating.

Taylor has some extreme explosiveness, finds plenty of it and can do his damage both inside and outside the contest. He's just too much offensive flash at this stage and defensively hasn't impressed me with his tackles not sticking and his two way game relatively poor as more an offensive runner. At his limited height and size I see it as relatively unlikely that he establishes that side to his game that well with most of those taller types typically struggling against bigger opposition with Brent Harvey the only recent exception. I would agree with anyone who says that of the recent short people that Taylor is the best. He's by far the best midget since Brent Harvey, but he's just not nearly on that same level with Harvey the exception to the rule.

I see you have Mcarthy going to brisbane. Any particular reason for that? Have you heard something?

Needing a key forward. Jon Brown is surely in his final year. Brisbane are also typically reluctant to look to Vic Metro talent which probably drops Ben Lennon past that Brisbane selection leaving McCarthy, Kolodjashnij, L.Taylor, Gardiner and Crouch as those more likely to be considered.

No clarity at this stage on that Brisbane selection as that selection I'm less confident picking at this stage.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightmares-2012-mock-draft.956129/

An annotated/summarised version would be good if you had the time! Reflection is always a useful tool. Looking at that list and how well each performed, you nailed a lot more than were flops I reckon.

Also, is there any of those '12 boys who will be up to be drafted again this year and you think will get picked up?

I'd be happy to.

The short story is.
The relative hits where my ratings were better than where they were eventually taken/rated by recruiters:
O'Meara, Crouch, Wines, Grundy, Viney, J.Anderson, L.Hunter. Not having O'Rourke and Plowman in the top 10 I'm relatively pleased with. Clurey I also hold strong hope for and think has a real opportunity to prove me right.

The reletive misses and those I'd change my evaluation on:
Toumpas (too high - but still has time to make up ground), Mayes (too low - Chris25 will be onto me for this and rightly so), Broomhead (hasn't played but looking excellent in the VFL. Still early but I'm expecting him to show me up), Jackson Thurlow (hasn't played a lot but I expect he'll show me up with the promise he has shown in the VFL. Hard to back against anyone in that Geelong system), Sumner I'm well wrong on, White has shown his potential and I expect my rating will prove too low.

Key learnings:
Pick the contested ball winners early (confirmed).

Whitfield/Toumpas and those outside guys with all the fanfare as every year proves continue to go too early and end up not living up to that selection (new learning - and something I'm increasingly picking up on seeing Gaff/Polec, Hoskin-Elliott and Scully taken too early in the years before). Some genuine quality speedsters can be taken later with those outside types late draft not much worse if they are indeed worse late draft: would you take Toumpas at pick 4 or Sumner at pick 55? Hoskin-Elliott at 4 or Aaron Hall in the PSD? Gaff or Polec at 4/5 or Seedsman at 77? (new learning). Then guys like Walters (Freo) and Motlop (Gee) were selected mid draft so you don't need a first round selection to get a quality outside player, just identify the right talent who can be had later.

Mature agers late/rookie remain the highest % selections in that range (Terlich/Goodes/Dwyer). I'd like to see how many failed project guys late draft make it. Not only do these state leaguers make your state league teams and depth better but they can play a role on your team if you find the right guys who can fit your structures/style and play a position/role of need. (Confirmed)

*Some other ideas in drafting that I'm now more than ever strong on: your small forwards can come in the rookie draft or late draft. No need to pick them early. Just looking historically so many went late/rookie. Betts (PSD), Garlett (rookie), Milne (rookie), L.Thomas (mid draft), Porplyzia (PSD). The only notables not selected late of this type are Rioli who genuinely lived up to his high draft billing and Yarran who still intrigued but you probably wouldn't spend that high pick on him again as someone who has only shown flashes and not developed as hoped.

It's all loose ideas. But these are some of the bits and pieces that go into how I evaluate talent and why I have some particular types higher than many others will with others lower.

I'd just like to see the whole free agency/trade period end first before I finalise my order.
I was just wondering if you had any news on the Brisbane Lions Academy players that may get drafted and the chances of them ending up at the lions.

PLayers that went to the draft combine were:

Hayden Bertoli-Simmonds, Isaac Conway, Jonathon Freeman (Zone Draft Pick 59), Sam Gribble, Nick Jackson, Lewis Radford, Aden Rutledge, Archie Smith, Cain Tickner

i would assume that the lions will draft the best available with the picks under 30 but the rest includuing rookie and pre-season would be QLD based players to stop the exodus that is happening with our young players.

Also will you be releasing a updated 'Knightmares Draft' before draft day?

Conway, Freeman, Gribble, Rutledge, Smith and Tickner I can comment on.

Conway is a strong bodied inside player. Not quick and not super skilled and hasn't developed as I would have liked but a chance as a rookie having the performances on the board.

Freeman is raw but has some size and talent as an athletic type with a nice leap and ability to take a mark. He's mostly shown glimpses and doesn't really have the production on the board at this point but in the AFL system if he puts in the work and things go really right he may develop if he can round out his game and become better at ground level. I would have classed him as more a rookie selection but good on Brisbane for giving the local talent a shot.

Gribble can find the footy but not a great user.

Rutledge has shown some signs. Uses it pretty well but isn't great defensively down back.

Archie Smith is raw and is very much a project but an excellent athlete of a ruckman who may be rookied if Longer is moved on.

Ticker I liked coming into the year but similar to Conway he just hasn't developed his game as I'd hoped and doesn't have that something that sets him apart from the next draft prospect. Like Conway a fair rookie chance as one of the better performed prospects and one of the less bad key position players this year.

Bertoli-Simmonds and Nick Jackson I haven't taken note of and Radford I haven't seen enough of but I understand his rugby background.

I'll continue to update my draft. Edit some profiles as I feel necessary, continue to change my power rankings, continue to change who gets drafted where. Hopefully not too much changes but I'm sure plenty will change between now and draft day as more information is known publically.

Hey KM.

Would you consider trading our 2 first rounders (hopefully 10 and 11) for a higher pick, say pick 3 or 4? Or are the top 10 after Boyd fairly even?

We could even end up with 9-10 and 11 if Adams chooses Geelong and Shaw chooses GWS.

No.

I like the prospects likely to be taken at picks 10/11 better than I do those expected to go at picks 3/4.

That first round is very even and I'd back myself to find someone as good if not better at pick 10 than whoever is selected at pick 3/4.

This isn't such an incredible draft that you'd want three first round selections but picks 9/10/11 I'm sure could be used constructively on a number of different players. Perhaps an inside type, a taller flanker with midfielder and a key forward as one example of what could be looked at.
I'm fine with the two first round selections though. It's more than enough this year.

 

[clipboardbinocs]

Just dribbling pal