Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2017 Draft Almanac

[year of the cat]

There were several clubs with first round picks who had him only a small few places down their power rankings behind those they took, then those clubs with second round picks didn't rate Murphy as highly.

In that regard Collingwood got lucky with Western Bulldogs, Greater Western Sydney, Sydney and maybe one other club having some interest in the first round.

At the end of the day, if a player isn't number one on your draft board/preferences list at the pick, they will keep sliding until they're top of someones list.

Sorry, I should re-word my original question. Why do you think Murphy wasn’t rated too highly by most clubs? Based on the limited highlights of him available, he looked to me to be a very attractive utility with good attack on the footy, excellent hands and a decent kick.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I guess a lot of the issue many here have is that Knightmare, by doing these club "gradings", is judging the clubs on the choices they've made, which is based on the information/intel they have at hand, when he is not privy to the vast majority of that info/intel they have based those choices on, nor the club's specific requirements, or say the culture/environment they need to fit into, etc, and as such, it's probably a pretty silly thing to be doing, I would have thought. Or at the very least it's something that needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

It would be one thing if he was judging them on the choices they'd made if he had the exact same amount of info/intel they had, and had seen the same amount of them all as they had, etc, but with those things not even remotely being the case, it doesn't seem like the wisest thing to be doing.

Hence the many strongly negative reactions to it, in particular by those who have been on the receiving end of a critical grading or judgement.

I think most realise this needs to be taken with a big grain of salt and to not put much stock in it, but the problems probably arise when he then makes statements like "club A should have done this", which can come across as very arrogant, like he knows better, instead of perhaps wording it like: "based on my observations and philosophies, I would have done this, if say the club asked me my opinion, but of course my opinion could be vastly different if I had interviewed all the choices I was tossing up between, done background checks, medical checks, psych tests and so-on, like the club in question has. Hell I might have even made the exact same choice they did, had I been in their shoes, with all that extra info/intel".

Then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it and he wouldn't cop all this grief.

Giving your opinion based on what you've observed and on your experience and philosophy? Great!

Judging others on the choices they've made, based on the info/intel they have at hand, when you aren't privy to the vast majority of that info/intel they based their choices on, nor that club's specific requirements? Probably not so great, or the wisest thing I've ever heard of anyone doing. Hence copping heat for it.

 

[aussierulesrules]

This is a false argument.

There are many examples where having too much information can hinder the accuracy of the overall assessment.

All and sundry thought that Hawthorn signing Vickery was a mistake and unlikely to pan out. Hawks obviously have much more in the way of resources, statistics and access than we do. Does that mean our opinions dont matter or that we are automatically wrong? Of course not.

I'm of the opinion that clubs probably place too much emphasis on interviews. They try to get too clever with their questioning and reading into the answers imo. It's very easy to talk yourself out of a prospect. Or talk yourself into one.

There are many examples of this.

KM has his opinion, if the draft goes differently, then why should he change the opinion that he formed from his own assessments? I respect the fact that he's backing his judgement in. Whether he's right or not remains to be seen, but there's no reason to change his opinion at this point.

As Malcolm Gladwell puts it:

Gladwell: Here's the real question. If I was GM of the Knicks, would I be doing a better job of managing the team than Thomas? I believe, somewhat immodestly, that the answer is yes. And I say this even though it is abundantly clear that Thomas knows several thousand times more about basketball than I do. I've never picked up a basketball. I couldn't diagram a play to save my life. I would put my level of basketball knowledge, among hard core fans, in the 25th percentile.

So why do I think I would be better? There's a famous experiment done by a wonderful psychologist at Columbia University named Dan Goldstein. He goes to a class of American college students and asks them which city they think is bigger -- San Antonio or San Diego. The students are divided. Then he goes to an equivalent class of German college students and asks the same question. This time the class votes overwhelmingly for San Diego. The right answer? San Diego. So the Germans are smarter, at least on this question, than the American kids. But that's not because they know more about American geography. It's because they know less. They've never heard of San Antonio. But they've heard of San Diego and using only that rule of thumb, they figure San Diego must be bigger. The American students know way more. They know all about San Antonio. They know it's in Texas and that Texas is booming. They know it has a pro basketball team, so it must be a pretty big market. Some of them may have been in San Antonio and taken forever to drive from one side of town to another -- and that, and a thousand other stray facts about Texas and San Antonio, have the effect of muddling their judgment and preventing them from getting the right answer.

It's all well and good to say that you might be able to spot who is better by just watching games and not need to get all this other info, but don't you think that if getting all this extra info wasn't important, clubs wouldn't be putting vast amounts of resources into it, to help them with their choices?

Recruiting is an evolving thing and I'm sure that back in the day plenty were just recruited off what was seen simply out on the ground, but I'm sure clubs learned a lot of lessons the hard way, that if you bring in someone who is for instance damaged goods, they can completely destabilise the group, so that would I imagine be a big part of the reason they now put so much into background checks, psyche tests, interviews and so-on. So that they don't make those same mistakes again.

Imagine if a club had burnt a top 5 pick on Dayle Garlett for instance!? Or Reece McKenzie, or Waylon Manson?

Clubs are also under a massive microscope with media and social media these days and off-field scandals for instance can be incredibly costly to clubs as far as things like sponsorships and so-on are concerned, so they need to be sure about who they're bringing in. As one bad call can cost a lot of money.

Another consideration that needs to be taken into account is that footy is not like it was 20+ years ago any more, where they had day-jobs and just came into the club after work to train a few nights a week and where game-plans and tactics were pretty simple.

Clubs now spend hours a week in meetings on complex game-plans, tactics and so-on, so if someone who to the casual eye is better than the next guy just happens to be as dumb as a post, there's every chance a club will overlook him, and pick someone who isn't as good at footy in the juniors, simply because they believe that being more able to cope with the game-plans etc will make him more valuable to the team at AFL level.

Then there's the fact that footy is so professional these days.

It doesn't matter if someone can play if they're not professional enough to get anywhere near enough out of themselves to make them worth picking ahead of someone who isn't quite as good in the juniors, but who will get the best out of themselves at AFL level.

And so it goes on.

Recruiting is evolving all the time and I believe it is widely considered that clubs nail the draft far better than they used to. And that's probably far more likely to be due to how much they put into it all these days, rather than in spite of it, I would have thought.

Hence it is to me and I'm sure plenty of others a pretty silly thing to be doing to judge clubs on the choices they've made once they get all this information, when you're not privy to that information yourself and have an incredible amount less understanding of the environment and culture they need to fit into at each individual club.

Someone who goes well at one club may not have gone anywhere near as well at another club and vice-versa, simply due to chemistry.

 

[Sleezy]

Hey Knightmare

You were asking for feedback on what readers would like to see the other day, thought I'd chip in with my two cents.

1) Love the concise info you provide: position strengths, weaknesses, comparison and power ranking. Two things that might make valuable additions are:
- Areas you would be looking to see improvement throughout the year, in order for the prospect to push up your rankings
- As the season progresses, areas where the prospect has improved, stagnated or regressed - and how that has impacted their ranking throughout the year.

A great example of this could be Stephenson. His ability to transition to the midfield may have been a legitimate concern at the start of the 2017, that he addressed over the course of the year.

2) I think the tier system you use in your power rankings is quite interesting (projected marquee player, top 5, top 10 etc). For me though, it lacks a little context:
- Floor and Ceiling: Your projection may be their most likely career trajectory, however a little context on whether they have the potential to be better if they improve X, or have may not make it unless they improve Y.
- Type Preferences: Its unlikely that a winger or HBF will end up as a marquee player. It would be really interesting to hear your thoughts on why, especially for player types that are suited to becoming marquee players (fast contested mids, KPFs etc) who don't project as marquee players.

An example of this might be James Seller. Was thought by many to be a real top-end talent that never made the grade. Darcy Fogarty perhaps has some similar traits (although that may just be my PAFC bias showing through). A little context on their floor and ceiling would go a long way I think.

Anyway, just my two cents. Look forward to reading your thread next year! Fingers crossed one of Rankin and Lukosius slips to 18.

 

[remfan101]

My two cents. Noone should be writing "reviews" with "ratings" straight after the draft, it is utterly pointless and an exercise in futility. Literally the only meaningful rating of a draft is how those players turn out, which you don't know till years down the track. Every club picks who they think are best available, and there is really no way for anyone in the media (professional or amateur) to meaningfully judge who is a 'winner' and a 'loser'. So yeah, Knightmare's draft review was pretty stupid, but no more or less than all the other ones floating around.

 

[Newatthis]

Like everybody on here Knightmare writes things from his perspective. He is entitled to an opinion as is everybody. If people don't like it too bad, he has put himself out there so good on him.
Next topic please.

 

[theGav56]

Surely the salient point is that the draft itself is effectively a grading for all of the Phantom Drafts. The less accurate the Phantom Draft the lower the posters grading (Clems Knee did an excellent thread last year that did a bit of this I think). A Phantom Drafter gets the opportunity to take a look at what clubs and professional recruiters actually do. Doesn't mean they have to agree.

My assumption is that every club is far more likely to have got it right than any Phantom Drafter has. In a perverse way, Knightmare rating Fremantle's draft as D+ is more an indication of Knightmare's Phantom, especially citing players which no team drafted as somehow being mistakes. But against his power rankings and opinions that is how he rates it. Against the actual draft itself, it is how his power rankings are then ranked.

Different opinions fuelled by passion are the lifeblood of sites like this. I feel like there is some implication that grading the draft is wrong. I think it is fine, and like any opinion on here you can expect to be challenged about it.

 

[Joao]

so lets give every club an A+

Well if you are going to rate a draft immediately after then every team that follows their draft order should get an A+. How else can you rate it at the time?

I suppose if you knew every team's order and took an "average" of all 18 then you could do it, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Surely the salient point is that the draft itself is effectively a grading for all of the Phantom Drafts. The less accurate the Phantom Draft the lower the posters grading (Clems Knee did an excellent thread last year that did a bit of this I think). A Phantom Drafter gets the opportunity to take a look at what clubs and professional recruiters actually do. Doesn't mean they have to agree.

My assumption is that every club is far more likely to have got it right than any Phantom Drafter has. In a perverse way, Knightmare rating Fremantle's draft as D+ is more an indication of Knightmare's Phantom, especially citing players which no team drafted as somehow being mistakes. But against his power rankings and opinions that is how he rates it. Against the actual draft itself, it is how his power rankings are then ranked.

Different opinions fuelled by passion are the lifeblood of sites like this. I feel like there is some implication that grading the draft is wrong. I think it is fine, and like any opinion on here you can expect to be challenged about it.

Well if you are going to rate a draft immediately after then every team that follows their draft order should get an A+. How else can you rate it at the time?

I suppose if you knew every team's order and took an "average" of all 18 then you could do it, but that isn't going to happen.

It's ironic that the posters crying the most in this thread about KM not being a professional recruiter are Fremantle supporters. Given their club's dismal history at the draft and trade tables I would assume that these people would be the first to admit that professionally resourced organisations get it completely wrong.

 

[The German Hunter]

It’s laughable how frustrated some posters get with a bad grade from KM. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. It’s a personal opinion based write up, and guess what, not even the club recruiters get it right. If they did, we may actually see Carlton play in a final with all there high picks

 

[Joao]

It's ironic that the posters crying the most in this thread about KM not being a professional recruiter are Fremantle supporters. Given their club's dismal history at the draft and trade tables I would assume that these people would be the first to admit that professionally resourced organisations get it completely wrong.

Not sure why you quoted me? My response was generic and applies to all clubs.

 

[yaco55]

Will add that media experts usually give a grading for both the trading period and the Drafting period - Maybe anger at the media which asks for this information.

 

[theGav56]

It's ironic that the posters crying the most in this thread about KM not being a professional recruiter are Fremantle supporters. Given their club's dismal history at the draft and trade tables I would assume that these people would be the first to admit that professionally resourced organisations get it completely wrong.

Didn't read my post did you. I'm not crying about his rating at all.

But I did notice a Collingwood come a trotting along.

 

[mike91]

It's ironic that the posters crying the most in this thread about KM not being a professional recruiter are Fremantle supporters. Given their club's dismal history at the draft and trade tables I would assume that these people would be the first to admit that professionally resourced organisations get it completely wrong.

Didn't Colliwobbles blow two top 10 picks on Freeman and Scharenberg? Lets not forget Chris Mayne or the ridiculous Wells contract. Ironic indeed buddy.

On SM-G955F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Knightmare]

Sorry, I should re-word my original question. Why do you think Murphy wasn’t rated too highly by most clubs? Based on the limited highlights of him available, he looked to me to be a very attractive utility with good attack on the footy, excellent hands and a decent kick.

Based on my own ranking, Murphy went around where he should have.

His upside is how little footy he has played and how well he has adjusted to each level. He also has the versatility and good skills + marking.

What I didn't like is his relatively low impact per game in the TAC Cup. Maybe this is what clubs also found, with a lot of unnecessary speculation into what he will hopefully become with more footy behind him. For Sandringham, in each of his games played, while he featured in the bests in three of his eight games, I wouldn't have had him in my best 10 in any of his 4-5 games I saw late in the year.

Didn't Colliwobbles blow two top 10 picks on Freeman and Scharenberg? Lets not forget Chris Mayne or the ridiculous Wells contract. Ironic indeed buddy.

On SM-G955F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I also didn't approve of the Wells contract (not on quality of play but lack of durability) and with Mayne paying too much for a role player (though I would have expected him to play semi-regularly).

While I wasn't hoping for Scharenberg and Freeman in 2013, I wouldn't class either as bad selections. Scharenberg while he has had his injuries, his play has been strong. He is one of Collingwood's best defenders already and his numbers actually stack up with those of Jake Lever in a similar role.

Nathan Freeman had no injury issues coming into Collingwood then did his hamstring before round one and has had his injury issues since. So any judgement of his quality of play cannot easily be made.

Rather than Collingwood's recruitment of young talent, it has been certainly prior to 2017 Collingwood's inability to keep their players healthy and prevent injuries that has been their greatest problem. With players having shortened careers or declining badly before or as soon as they hit 30 - Josh Fraser, Alan Didak, Brent Macaffer, Nick Maxwell, Heritier Lumumba, Dale Thomas, Travis Cloke, Dane Swan for some examples top of mind.

 

[My name geoff]

Hey KM, A lot of talk around this years draft was how it was relatively weak compared with last years and even next years. The fact that at the top end there was no clear stand out player as there has been in past years seemed to feed into this narrative.

4 of the top 5 picks were relatively young in this years draft, could that have been a contributing factor? Is it odd to have 4 of the top 5 players in a draft either being October or November DOB?

It seems that everyone is raving about next years draft and how Rankine and co are light years ahead of this years crop. Rankine is 6 months younger than Rayner, yet Stephenson and Rayner who were both top 10 picks this year are aged 10 months apart.

Conor Rozee another top prospect is only 2 months younger than Brayshaw and 3 months younger than Cerra, Dow and Rayner. Would Rozee have been picked before these guys if he was born a few weeks earlier?

 

[Knightmare]

Hey KM, A lot of talk around this years draft was how it was relatively weak compared with last years and even next years. The fact that at the top end there was no clear stand out player as there has been in past years seemed to feed into this narrative.

4 of the top 5 picks were relatively young in this years draft, could that have been a contributing factor? Is it odd to have 4 of the top 5 players in a draft either being October or November DOB?

It seems that everyone is raving about next years draft and how Rankine and co are light years ahead of this years crop. Rankine is 6 months younger than Rayner, yet Stephenson and Rayner who were both top 10 picks this year are aged 10 months apart.

Conor Rozee another top prospect is only 2 months younger than Brayshaw and 3 months younger than Cerra, Dow and Rayner.

An interesting comment.

From the top 5 this year we have: Rayner (October), Brayshaw (November), Dow (October), LDU (June) and Cerra (October). As you mention, that is highly unusual, with usually those earlier year birthday types often going earlier due to having more advanced games and there being less guess-work as a result.

Next year is more normal with Rankine (April), Lukosius (October), Hill (February), the King boys (July), Walsh (July), Rozee (January) etc.

The top 5 this year were pretty solid. Probably not your transcendent stars, but still that is a very solid group of midfielders. If they were each 6 months older, no doubt they would be spoken about more highly, as they would have more advanced games.

As for next years group. Several of those boys are arguably even better now. If Rankine was in this years draft, he most likely would have gone number one. Lukosius is the other one who would have a case if in the 2017 draft. So it's a very advanced group next year, or at least so it's looking at this stage.

 

[HedgeFund]

Based on my own ranking, Murphy went around where he should have.

His upside is how little footy he has played and how well he has adjusted to each level. He also has the versatility and good skills + marking.

What I didn't like is his relatively low impact per game in the TAC Cup. Maybe this is what clubs also found, with a lot of unnecessary speculation into what he will hopefully become with more footy behind him. For Sandringham, in each of his games played, while he featured in the bests in three of his eight games, I wouldn't have had him in my best 10 in any of his 4-5 games I saw late in the year.

Here’s an idea, perhaps Nathan was given certain instructions about what to do for the benefit of his team over and above running around selfishly and having “high impact per possession”.

You know, the 98% of the game that occurs when that certain player doesn’t have the footy.

If you can’t appreciate the importance that club recruiters and coaches place is on that part of the game of Australian Rules football (what a player does when he doesn’t have the football), and you remain bogged down in kicks, marks and handballs.......well frankly, that pretty much explains everything.

 

[GoGrows]

Here’s an idea, perhaps Nathan was given certain instructions about what to do for the benefit of his team over and above running around selfishly and having “high impact per possession”.

You know, the 98% of the game that occurs when that certain player doesn’t have the footy.

If you can’t appreciate the importance that club recruiters and coaches place is on that part of the game of Australian Rules football (what a player does when he doesn’t have the football), and you remain bogged down in kicks, marks and handballs.......well frankly, that pretty much explains everything.

i doubt recruiters place much emphasis on that stuff at the junior ranks. you can teach positioning without the ball. you draft the players for what they can do with the ball (apart from KPD), and if they cant get the ball, well that's kind of a problem.

 

[HedgeFund]

i doubt recruiters place much emphasis on that stuff at the junior ranks.

Every recruiter I have spoken to over the journey certainly does look for it at TAC level, as it shows both character and footy smarts.

That’s why they all watch the games live rather than tapes - so you can see what players are doing off the ball, which the game footage rarely shows.

Picking kids who naturally work hard, communicate and direct players, and do the all the right (unrewarded) things instinctively often saves your AFL coaches a couple of seasons having to educate them once they’re in your system.

It’s harder to do that than to fix up, say, a dodgy kicking technique.

If you draft a player who is purely drilled to get the footy and do it all themselves, good luck getting them to “play your role” when they’re probably rated as between player 10-30 on your list.

 

[GoGrows]

Every recruiter I have spoken to over the journey certainly does look for it at TAC level, as it shows both character and footy smarts.

.

Certainly im sure they look at it and its something they take notes on. Is it something that is placed a huge emphasis on, i dont think so. It's a secondary thing. The primary thing is ability to get the footy and do things with the footy.

Guys who can get the footy and/or do things with the footy get drafted even if their off the ball stuff is not that great. Guys that cant get the footy or cant do anything with it, dont get drafted, regardless of how well they can set up in a zone.

So you are off the mark criticising KM's view of Murphy by arguing that it might be due to his off the ball play imo

 

[Knightmare]

Every recruiter I have spoken to over the journey certainly does look for it at TAC level, as it shows both character and footy smarts.

That’s why they all watch the games live rather than tapes - so you can see what players are doing off the ball, which the game footage rarely shows.

Picking kids who naturally work hard, communicate and direct players, and do the all the right (unrewarded) things instinctively often saves your AFL coaches a couple of seasons having to educate them once they’re in your system.

It’s harder to do that than to fix up, say, a dodgy kicking technique.

If you draft a player who is purely drilled to get the footy and do it all themselves, good luck getting them to “play your role” when they’re probably rated as between player 10-30 on your list.

There is this guy by the name of Charlie Thompson who for work rate, running without the footy in support and both ways, on field leadership and instruction is a number one in the draft in each category for mine and featured inside my top 50. Went undrafted.

Think again.

 

[HedgeFund]

There is this guy by the name of Charlie Thompson who for work rate, running without the footy in support and both ways, on field leadership and instruction is a number one in the draft in each category for mine and featured inside my top 50. Went undrafted.

Correct. Sadly too small/short and too slow is what the recruiters kept saying.

Disappointing outcome for sure.

 

[Knightmare]

Correct. Sadly too small/short and too slow is what the recruiters kept saying.

Disappointing outcome for sure.

I flat out loved the way he covered the ground and while he doesn't have acceleration, I don't see speed as mattering in Thompson's case.

At 183cm, 80kg, Thompson isn't too short/small either. He has a man's body and did last year as an underager.

While lack of speed is a factor that recruiters have long criticised him for, I view his greatest weakness to be his kicking which is far too inconsistent. If he was a better kick, he would have been in the top 25 in my power rankings.

 

[Newatthis]

Here’s an idea, perhaps Nathan was given certain instructions about what to do for the benefit of his team over and above running around selfishly and having “high impact per possession”.

You know, the 98% of the game that occurs when that certain player doesn’t have the footy.

If you can’t appreciate the importance that club recruiters and coaches place is on that part of the game of Australian Rules football (what a player does when he doesn’t have the football), and you remain bogged down in kicks, marks and handballs.......well frankly, that pretty much explains everything.

Interesting reply. Earlier in the season a Cannons player was criticised for exactly what you have said. Don't worry about not touching the ball just stop the opposition from kicking goals.