Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2017 Draft Almanac

[Mighty_sainter]

Adam cerra what can you tell me about him km?

 

[Knightmare]

Adam cerra what can you tell me about him km?

From my May power rankings profile:

14. Adam Cerra (VIC)
Best position: Inside midfielder
Height, weight: 186cm, 85kg
Recruited from: Eastern Ranges
Similar to: Jobe Watson
April Ranking: Not ranked
Rationale: In his first three games for Eastern, has featured in the bests. One of this year's most advanced midfielders.
Strengths:
- Contested ball winning
- Stoppage work
- Clearances
- Stands up through tackles
- Strong build
- Production
- Strong mark overhead
- Clean ball user
- Decision making
- Vision
- Production
Weaknesses:
- No clear second position; athleticism

--
He's a likely first rounder and is one of this years more advanced mids with a good all-around game. Not far off where Angus Brayshaw was at a few years back to give you a feel for where his game is at.

 

[Mighty_sainter]

C

From my May power rankings profile:

14. Adam Cerra (VIC)
Best position: Inside midfielder
Height, weight: 186cm, 85kg
Recruited from: Eastern Ranges
Similar to: Jobe Watson
April Ranking: Not ranked
Rationale: In his first three games for Eastern, has featured in the bests. One of this year's most advanced midfielders.
Strengths:
- Contested ball winning
- Stoppage work
- Clearances
- Stands up through tackles
- Strong build
- Production
- Strong mark overhead
- Clean ball user
- Decision making
- Vision
- Production
Weaknesses:
- No clear second position; athleticism

--
He's a likely first rounder and is one of this years more advanced mids with a good all-around game. Not far off where Angus Brayshaw was at a few years back to give you a feel for where his game is at.

Cheers mate

 

[briztoon]

What do you disagree with specifically?

The Spurs only pick before 20 since 1997 was Kawhi Leonard (who they scored in a trade of a bench player to get pick 15 = Kawhi Leonard). They've kept the same group together and built their roster consistently with proven veterans or players taken from other rosters who either were cut or of limited value to their former team.

The 76ers by contrast have built the way no one should by trading all players away, going from a playoff 35-31 team in 2011/2012 where they had Iguodala, Holiday, Brand, T.Young, Turner, L.Williams, Hawes and Vucevic. By the 2014-2015 season that entire core group was traded away, with that group from 2013-2014 onwards the worst team in the NBA, with only a marginal improvement this year for the first time since, when Joel Embiid was health, until he wasn't.

The other obvious example of rebuilding in the NBA, and this is over a longer term basis. The Minnesota Timberwolves who haven't had a team that won more than 40 games since the 2004-2005 team that featured Kevin Garnett. After Garnett has been traded, the Timberwolves have failed to make the playoffs, going around in a rebuilding circle, continuing to go to the draft and not having a core with enough veteran leadership to develop a relevant team.

Given these examples, if I'm a middling team. I wouldn't be rebuilding at all. I'd be going the Spurs route of bringing in veterans, and trading smartly to gain the best player in the deal, also seeking out undervalued players on other rosters who can all make my roster better.

If we're to translate these concepts to the AFL. It is relatively much harder to convert high draft picks into wins with AFL a 18 on the field at a time game v a 5 on 5 game in the NBA, where one superior talent makes much more of a different than in the AFL - eg. Ablett on Gold Coast or Nathan Buckley on Collingwood. They can be among the greatest to play the game, but without the supporting cast, they can't get anywhere, where by contrast in the NBA, if you have that transcendent talent through the draft, it is a game-changer with a LeBron James the difference between 61 win and a 19 win team and a 33 win and 53 win team (looking at the years he was there/left and the years he was gone compared to when he came back).

So in the AFL, you can tank it up to get as many high draft picks as possible by trading away players to get them. But as we're seeing with Brisbane, as with those other examples previously, Brisbane are only going to continue struggling because there is that lack of a veteran leadership foundation for Brisbane to make any meaningful inroads. Brisbane need the Bob Murphy, Matthew Boyd, Easton Wood, Dale Morris and Liam Picken equivalents to develop the clubs young core and become a relevant side. With trades for established players on opposition lists something that will accelerate and further the clubs list growth and outlook.

The Spurs long term success post Admiral was built on absolutely nailing the draft with their Euro picks. The Spurs were ahead of the rest of league in identifying and scouting and drafting multiple Euro players and building a championship roster around Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. Because of their success and only having access to lower draft picks, they then developed the best development program, developing lower draft picks over a couple of seasons to become valuable role players to fit around their big three. The key was their patience with player development.

Funnily enough, their head of player development was Brett Brown, now the 76'ers head coach. Woj did a good pod cast interview with Brett Brown, talking in-depth about his time at the spurs and his role as head of development and how the Spurs when about building their teams.

It was only once Parker and Ginobili started to decline that the Spurs started signing vets to mid level exceptions and minimum contracts. Many of these vets were very good, sometimes border line All Stars, who had past their peak, and were looking for a chance to win a ring before they retired. These weren't journeymen vets.


I've been a life long Sixers fan (my first year was the year we drafted Spoon). It's the one team I am intimately familiar with.

Post the Iverson/Lakers final, we have been a yoyo team, either just scraping in to, or just missing out of the finals. The NBA version of purgatory. We were never good enough to get out the first round, and only kept getting mid draft picks. Never higher enough to draft a bona fide All Star, but able to draft players to keep us just in or out of the playoffs.

Many Philly fans (Specifically those on the Liberty Ballers website) had been calling for the Sixers to blow up the team since 2010. To bottom out and hit the pointy end of the draft, and hopefully draft a genuine All Star. And then build a team to challenge for a chip.

It wasn't until Sam Hinkie was hired as GM, that we had a GM willing to go down this route. The post 2014 NBA draft interview was excellent as it was the first time Hinkie really explained The Process and explained his full vision. In the NBA there are two ways to acquire elite level talent, be a destination team, i.e the Lakers, Chicago, New York, and later the Heat, and now the Warriors. Or nail the draft, and best way to nail the draft is to draft at the very top, and the only way to draft at the very top is be really bad and hopefully win the Lottery. Part of the The Process is to draft the best talent, regardless of position and then build around this talent, even if the best talent all plays the same position, you can build through trades.

Hinkie was the boss when it came to trades. Accruing a mass of future picks, especially swindling Sacramento.

Unfortunately the League couldn't handle The Process and pushed Hinkie out. Right at the time when the Sixers were about to move in to step two of Hinkies plan. In came the Colangelo's and Brian's first press conference was right out of the Hinkie playbook. Except many fans do not trust the Colangelo's, especially Brian's trading ability and free agency record.

The big thing that has hampered the Sixers rebuild has been injuries to their top drafted players in consecutive years. Hopefully next year we'll have Embiid, Simmons and the rest of our recent draft picks all on the floor at the same time.

The USA media narrative about the Sixers has changed in the last 12 months, with ESPN, Sports Illustrated CBS Sports and more writing articles, Which Team Has The Brightest Future; NBA Draft Lottery: Sixers land third; Are they building a superteam?.

And a lot has to do with the teams future outlook. Most of our kids are still on rookie contracts, we go in to this offseason with $65+ in cap space, own the Lakers 2018 first round draft pick, Sacramento's 2019 first round draft pick, Oklahoma's 2020 first round draft pick, and multiple second round draft picks through to 2021.

If you ever have the time, you should check out the Rights to Ricky Sanchez podcasts, and search them on Youtube.



How many fans of teams do you think would do this when their GM get's fired? This billboard faced the Sixers new offices and training facility. The staff and management drove to work every day seeing this billboard.

 

[Michael Jezz]

I definitely feel he is a forward at AFL level more so than a mid. He can play mid and find the ball, but put him where he does his damage - forward.



It's a backwards thinking process to rebuild.

It's a low percentage move that very rarely yields a positive outcome.

When club go into rebuild, the playing group and particularly the veterans often give up, knowing they're not competing for anything. With experience shed by rebuilding, there is reduced leadership within the playing group resulting in worse on field results and substantially weakened player development. When you look at this series of events over a sequence of years you see a circle of losing happen where clubs bottom out, stay down for a long time, build to about a mid-table performer then drop down again.

As a Carlton supporter, going through that extended period having all the number one overall selections, then only with Judd added could Carlton even push up into the top 8. And even with all those top picks the club still couldn't get anywhere. Then Carlton made another sharp decline.

Same with Melbourne having all those top picks with Watts then Scully and Trengove. They cut experience, got worse, and that youth didn't develop. It took Paul Roos to come in as coach for the club to make meaningful strides which they now are making.

Richmond could get Deledio, Cotchin and Martin in as many years as 1st, 2nd and 3rd picks, and those guys as a group never made the top 8, and now they've broken that group up with Deledio now gone.

In the case of Western Bulldogs who you mention. They have built a substantial portion of their list and even many of their better players up through the draft. And they've picked exceptionally well and about as well as any in recent years. What they have had though is an absolutely top tier coach along with the veteran leadership with Bob Murphy, Matthew Boyd, Easton Wood, Dale Morris, Liam Picken.

--
If a team wants to get better. The way to do it that yields the best results the most often is trading a pick for an established player of high quality or a young player or combination of players for an established player of high quality who is the best player involved in the deal. By doing this you upgrade your list and make your team better.

If you going through draft by draft historically you'll find that 75/25 the trading for established player of high quality route for either picks, young players or a combination of lesser players wins you the deal.

The draft is a lottery. Sometimes you hit. Sometimes you miss. You need drafts where you hit home runs to make any meaningful impact in your list build through the draft.

You can be Sydney who have consistently failed through the draft and most specifically through the first round, and still be one of the most successful teams from the best 20 years. They've done it through gaining talent from opposition lists.

Same story with the recent Hawthorn dynasty. They continued adding undervalued, veteran talent of quality, making their list better, which has helped them to their premierships, and get a meaningful leg-up on the competition for that period.

GWS have become relevant not based on their superior youth, but on the back of having a strong core group of veterans who have provided the veteran leadership to help the young core develop - Mumford, Shaw, Ward, Davis, Griffen, Johnson and other end of career types previously.


--
The case studies also add up over other sports. Looking at the NBA and Philadelphia 76ers are the most extreme version of rebuilding, developing talents then trading them for picks. They've failed to build a relevant roster, years after breaking things up and still look a very long way off, even with solid value draft selections with extremely high choices.

Then by contrast, you have San Antonio who are the Sydney of the NBA. They've never needed to tank and they keep winning, keep scoring veteran talent and underutilised talent from other team lists and don't even have to overpay to build winning teams, without any particular reliance on the draft, with their picks coming in later almost every year.

--
Given all this I would strongly oppose certainly Collingwood rebuilding in any capacity. And frankly they've been rebuilding since 2012, getting younger each year and getting worse as a result by shedding premiership experience.

I'd also recommend the same to other clubs. Retain quality and trade for it, rather than trade quality away for youth or to get into the draft.



Jack Petruccelle, Ethan Penrith, Patrick Naish, Lochie O'Brien, Noah Balta and Matthew Ling are a few who come immediately to mind.

For outside run particularly, Matthew Ling is particularly striking.



I'm actually looking at doing a list needs piece for ESPN over the coming weeks and I see the needs as pretty similar to what you have. General defenders and a pressure forward also I view as needs.

Noah Balta would be a choice I'd be looking at, with pick 24 if there. I'd try to develop him as a key forward, but failing that, he can make it as a key defender. Toby Wooller could be an alternative as a key forward and also can play midfield just as well.

As a key defender. Aaron Naughton if there at Geelong's first pick should also be considered.

As a balanced mid who can kick, Isaac Hewson around Geelong's second choice would be another great choice. Genuine inside mid with all the contest elements, but terrific kick who can also play outside or flank if needed.

Daniel Capiron could be a consideration. He has been on the radar the last few years and is one who just needs a chance. If he feels like a natural fit into a clubs best 22 he could be a possible choice. Mature ager selections by nature are very situational and needs driven, so it depends on whether he fills a list need for a club better than the next player.
I do see a need on that Geelong list for another small or medium (of quality) with the current/next generation back group largely a mish mash of low level role players who are able enough but below average options by position.



Liam Ryan is continuing to perform. 29 goals from his first 8 games. Has improved his disposal, mark and goal per game numbers from last year, so he's worth another look again this year for mine.

Rebuilding doesnt mean relying on the draft, it means turning the list over quickly and pulling all the levera to do it: trade, zone selections, international selections and drafting. Mid table teams like collingwood will not get anywhere, making 6 list changes a year.

 

[Knightmare]

The Spurs long term success post Admiral was built on absolutely nailing the draft with their Euro picks. The Spurs were ahead of the rest of league in identifying and scouting and drafting multiple Euro players and building a championship roster around Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. Because of their success and only having access to lower draft picks, they then developed the best development program, developing lower draft picks over a couple of seasons to become valuable role players to fit around their big three. The key was their patience with player development.

Funnily enough, their head of player development was Brett Brown, now the 76'ers head coach. Woj did a good pod cast interview with Brett Brown, talking in-depth about his time at the spurs and his role as head of development and how the Spurs when about building their teams.

It was only once Parker and Ginobili started to decline that the Spurs started signing vets to mid level exceptions and minimum contracts. Many of these vets were very good, sometimes border line All Stars, who had past their peak, and were looking for a chance to win a ring before they retired. These weren't journeymen vets.

I've been a life long Sixers fan (my first year was the year we drafted Spoon). It's the one team I am intimately familiar with.

Post the Iverson/Lakers final, we have been a yoyo team, either just scraping in to, or just missing out of the finals. The NBA version of purgatory. We were never good enough to get out the first round, and only kept getting mid draft picks. Never higher enough to draft a bona fide All Star, but able to draft players to keep us just in or out of the playoffs.

Many Philly fans (Specifically those on the Liberty Ballers website) had been calling for the Sixers to blow up the team since 2010. To bottom out and hit the pointy end of the draft, and hopefully draft a genuine All Star. And then build a team to challenge for a chip.

It wasn't until Sam Hinkie was hired as GM, that we had a GM willing to go down this route. The post 2014 NBA draft interview was excellent as it was the first time Hinkie really explained The Process and explained his full vision. In the NBA there are two ways to acquire elite level talent, be a destination team, i.e the Lakers, Chicago, New York, and later the Heat, and now the Warriors. Or nail the draft, and best way to nail the draft is to draft at the very top, and the only way to draft at the very top is be really bad and hopefully win the Lottery. Part of the The Process is to draft the best talent, regardless of position and then build around this talent, even if the best talent all plays the same position, you can build through trades.

Hinkie was the boss when it came to trades. Accruing a mass of future picks, especially swindling Sacramento.

Unfortunately the League couldn't handle The Process and pushed Hinkie out. Right at the time when the Sixers were about to move in to step two of Hinkies plan. In came the Colangelo's and Brian's first press conference was right out of the Hinkie playbook. Except many fans do not trust the Colangelo's, especially Brian's trading ability and free agency record.

The big thing that has hampered the Sixers rebuild has been injuries to their top drafted players in consecutive years. Hopefully next year we'll have Embiid, Simmons and the rest of our recent draft picks all on the floor at the same time.

The USA media narrative about the Sixers has changed in the last 12 months, with ESPN, Sports Illustrated CBS Sports and more writing articles, Which Team Has The Brightest Future; NBA Draft Lottery: Sixers land third; Are they building a superteam?.

And a lot has to do with the teams future outlook. Most of our kids are still on rookie contracts, we go in to this offseason with $65+ in cap space, own the Lakers 2018 first round draft pick, Sacramento's 2019 first round draft pick, Oklahoma's 2020 first round draft pick, and multiple second round draft picks through to 2021.

If you ever have the time, you should check out the Rights to Ricky Sanchez podcasts, and search them on Youtube.



How many fans of teams do you think would do this when their GM get's fired? This billboard faced the Sixers new offices and training facility. The staff and management drove to work every day seeing this billboard.

View attachment 372329

Your comments regarding the Spurs are correct. They just continued their process - not needing to do anything fancy to secure Parker or Ginobilli to complement Duncan.

You're also (mostly) right about the ways you build NBA teams. The conventional wisdom is you either build by destination - your LA's etc or you build through a star in the draft. The latter method I don't endorse.

Golden State are another team you mention. They never bottomed out, securing Curry, Thompson and Green as their big three via the draft with fairly orginary picks - , who didn't need to bottom out to build their now star core. Steph Curry at 7 in 2009. Klay Thompson at 11 in 2011. Draymond Green at 35. They didn't tank. They didn't do anything other than just pick good talent.

Why I dispute the conventional wisdom with both Golden State and San Antonio as those non-destination teams is because they didn't need to tank. They built because they have a good coach and larger coaching group, and accompanying that with groups featuring enough veterans and players who were playing to win allowed that talent to develop.
If you contrast that to your 76ers or Minnesota Timberwolves or similar. Building a good team is a long process that as the Timberwolves have shown through their extended absence from the playoffs, that you need those elements to build a relevant team.

Bringing it back to the AFL, which is topic we're talking about. Translating the concepts of breaking things up and building through the draft work substantially worse in the 18 man a side AFL game v a 5 man a side NBA game, with young talents in the AFL making no meaningful different to winning but also the impact of one individual - see Gary Ablett at Gold Coast, not enough to make the difference a LeBron James moving in the NBA does.
Given this, a completely different list building approach in the AFL is required. You can't build through the draft completely. That doesn't mean trade all your picks every year for players, but overall when practical, trade picks for high level established players who fit your list and you can make your list better and be on the winning end of trades more often than not.

Rebuilding doesnt mean relying on the draft, it means turning the list over quickly and pulling all the levera to do it: trade, zone selections, international selections and drafting. Mid table teams like collingwood will not get anywhere, making 6 list changes a year.

Again I have to disagree.

Successful lists build chemistry from within their playing list by not turning over their players and having the group become predictable to one another. See the recent great Geelong, Hawthorn and that 2001-2003 Brisbane team. You see losing teams turn over large portions of their lists, rarely do you see this of good teams.
Whereas you have your Melbourne's when they were failing turning over around 15 players each year, with other losing teams acting similarly irresponsibly. Unless you can add a player who is better and has better best 22 chances than the player you're cutting, you don't do it.

Collingwood's issue from a list management standpoint in the Nathan Buckley era has been irresponsible list turnover. Cutting players who should have been retained. Just last year: Travis Cloke (now there's not target up forward), Marley Williams (now there isn't enough run out of defense or meaningful drive out of the back half + was outstanding 1v1), Jarrod Witts (good ruckman who should not have been given away so cheaply and would be a better option than Mason Cox, maybe even up forward).

Better last offseason (consistent with what I posted in the time in my yearly Collingwood Almanac) would be have retaining all three and instead of investing so much for Wells and Mayne, having gone after Brent Harvey and Ricky Henderson to get the ball use into the forward 50m and speed of movement out of defense. I would also (surely unsuccessfully so) have made plays for Corey Enright and Nick Dal Santo among other now retired veterans in an attempt to gain still highly productive and effective veterans who still could play and would have helped from a leadership perspective and helped with young player development.

*Overall Collingwood have let go of
2011 -12
2012 -14
2013 -11
2014 -10
2015 -11
2016 -13

Responsible list management in my view would be ideally less than 10 list changes most years, for adequate team chemistry to build and to give your players adequate time to develop.

A very different process and a process with correct talent ID, player development and coaching has the potential to yield the strongest results with the highest probability of success, with this process keeping the existing playing group engaged, interested and working towards the ultimate goal of playing for a premiership, rather than the demoralising process of rebuilding, and seeing few fans turn up every week to see you lose. In team sports, you win men, not first and second year players.

 

[briztoon]

Your comments regarding the Spurs are correct. They just continued their process - not needing to do anything fancy to secure Parker or Ginobilli to complement Duncan.

You're also (mostly) right about the ways you build NBA teams. The conventional wisdom is you either build by destination - your LA's etc or you build through a star in the draft. The latter method I don't endorse.

Golden State are another team you mention. They never bottomed out, securing Curry, Thompson and Green as their big three via the draft with fairly orginary picks - , who didn't need to bottom out to build their now star core. Steph Curry at 7 in 2009. Klay Thompson at 11 in 2011. Draymond Green at 35. They didn't tank. They didn't do anything other than just pick good talent.

Why I dispute the conventional wisdom with both Golden State and San Antonio as those non-destination teams is because they didn't need to tank. They built because they have a good coach and larger coaching group, and accompanying that with groups featuring enough veterans and players who were playing to win allowed that talent to develop.
If you contrast that to your 76ers or Minnesota Timberwolves or similar. Building a good team is a long process that as the Timberwolves have shown through their extended absence from the playoffs, that you need those elements to build a relevant team.

Bringing it back to the AFL, which is topic we're talking about. Translating the concepts of breaking things up and building through the draft work substantially worse in the 18 man a side AFL game v a 5 man a side NBA game, with young talents in the AFL making no meaningful different to winning but also the impact of one individual - see Gary Ablett at Gold Coast, not enough to make the difference a LeBron James moving in the NBA does.
Given this, a completely different list building approach in the AFL is required. You can't build through the draft completely. That doesn't mean trade all your picks every year for players, but overall when practical, trade picks for high level established players who fit your list and you can make your list better and be on the winning end of trades more often than not.

Sorry for going off topic Knightmare.

San Antonio picked Duncan with the number 1 pick. They didn't tank, but Robinson out for a year with injury saw them bottom completely out, and they got lucky in the lottery jumping Philly who had the worst record that year. And as I mentioned, San Antonio was ahead of the rest of league in scouting European leagues for talent, instead of picking Europeans off the back of strong Olympic or Worlds performances. I.E. how Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, etc ended up in the NBA.

Golden State are an anomaly. They were on their way down, but struck gold picking up unconventional or underrated star players in the draft. Basically they nailed every pick over a 4/5 year period, and struck gold. Then, winners always appeal as a destination team. Hello Durant.


Back to the AFl. I agree it's much harder to build/rebuild through the draft, but when you're on the periphery of the league and unable to attract even mediocre talent in free agency, you only have one hope to rebuild (short of the academy producing multiple first round talents in successive years).

From a Brisbane perspective, we're basically trying to rebuild from a similar base as a new expansion team, with out the draft concessions.

 

[Knightmare]

Sorry for going off topic Knightmare.

San Antonio picked Duncan with the number 1 pick. They didn't tank, but Robinson out for a year with injury saw them bottom completely out, and they got lucky in the lottery jumping Philly who had the worst record that year. And as I mentioned, San Antonio was ahead of the rest of league in scouting European leagues for talent, instead of picking Europeans off the back of strong Olympic or Worlds performances. I.E. how Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, etc ended up in the NBA.

Golden State are an anomaly. They were on their way down, but struck gold picking up unconventional or underrated star players in the draft. Basically they nailed every pick over a 4/5 year period, and struck gold. Then, winners always appeal as a destination team. Hello Durant.


Back to the AFl. I agree it's much harder to build/rebuild through the draft, but when you're on the periphery of the league and unable to attract even mediocre talent in free agency, you only have one hope to rebuild (short of the academy producing multiple first round talents in successive years).

From a Brisbane perspective, we're basically trying to rebuild from a similar base as a new expansion team, with out the draft concessions.

You're right about the Spurs picking in Europe.

What the Warriors did - that not enough NBA teams do. They took two juniors in Curry and Thompson (three years in college system) and one senior in Green (four years in the system). That's the high percentage recruiting in the NBA. Euros and international players in the NBA are relatively high % still, as well as those juniors and seniors - having those years in the college system they continually are thought of as lower upside, but as Curry, Thompson and Green have shown, that's a misnomer, with Juniors and Seniors from college consistently underrated while those first and second year college players continue to get overrated based on perceived upside. Getting guys who are developed players and can actually play and put up numbers are better choices than those who you speculate may be able to, but can't presently.
Outside of the top 10 in the NBA draft, that's what teams do wrong and need a greater understanding of, with the likes of the Spurs, Warriors, Bulls seeming to understand this and often outperforming other teams through specifically the NBA draft.

In terms of what Brisbane should/can do. Attracting talent is difficult. Failing the ability to attract good opposition talent, all you can do is go to the draft. It's just about doing everything you can to hold your good talents, attract more good talent if possible from other teams, and after that, just draft as well as you can.
What Brisbane could have done better is hold onto veteran talent longer to help the youth grow - as you would have seen under Leppitsch the young talent hasn't been able to make meaningful steps forward for the most part. So just having that base of veterans is what Brisbane most need.

 

[briztoon]

Yeah that's a good point to an extent in regards to not picking freshman. Even the higher drafted Euro's are younger now, 18/19.

And I was thinking about this in regards to a discussion on the Lion's board, and whether the AFL draft age should be raised. Basically seeing kids play a year or two in VFL/SANFL/NEAFL before being drafted.

Or extend first round contracts to 4 years. I would love AFL first round contracts to mirror NBA first round contracts.

 

[Knightmare]

Yeah that's a good point to an extent in regards to not picking freshman. Even the higher drafted Euro's are younger now, 18/19.

And I was thinking about this in regards to a discussion on the Lion's board, and whether the AFL draft age should be raised. Basically seeing kids play a year or two in VFL/SANFL/NEAFL before being drafted.

Or extend first round contracts to 4 years. I would love AFL first round contracts to mirror NBA first round contracts.

With the Euros they often go back to Europe to play and develop there. So with them getting picked at 18/19 it doesn't matter as much.

By contrast drafting 18/19 year olds - Freshmen and Sophmores who go straight to the NBA, the Euros if they stay in Europe get minutes in Europe and learn systems of play, but in the NBA, there isn't really any player development. If you don't get minutes. You're not likely to improve to get anywhere, and with minor minutes, similar story.

The NBA isn't a development league with coaches there to prepare those getting minutes for the next game, rather than look at the whole roster and think about how to improve them all. It's such a different dynamic.

That's why we see so many Freshmen and Sophmores going to the NBA and failing at a high percentage outside of those uber top end talents who are the exception and absolutely worth drafting when you know you've got a LeBron who can from year one step in and be great or a superstar.

-
Regarding raising the age of the AFL draft age. It's an interesting conversation on both sides.

Another year to development if we had a strong development system outside the AFL may work. From an injury prevention it may also be helpful to some extent in preserving the bodies of these players for later in their careers. It also seems a nice ideal letting kids finish their year 12 studies and then focus after that on making it to the AFL when they have the full time to commit to it.

At this stage though, players development is better in the AFL with AFL coaching and the setups there than in the u18s or state leagues. The players at AFL level train more, harder and play against better competition, and have veterans around them to observe and learn from which maximises and fast-track their development. Then you've also got with players not being able to go pro straight out of school/ at 18, you'll lose talent to other sports which is exactly what you don't want.

Given this feel for the situation, I advocate the draft age remaining what it is. I don't want to lose talents to other codes, with a view to maximising the quality of play in the AFL. Also with AFL clubs best equipt at this time to help young player development, you want them in the AFL system as early as possible, to have access to all the resources. I think if we're to fix any problems relating to the draft age, I feel it is problem solving within the boundaries of the current draft age restrictions.

 

[briztoon]

With the Euros they often go back to Europe to play and develop there. So with them getting picked at 18/19 it doesn't matter as much.

By contrast drafting 18/19 year olds - Freshmen and Sophmores who go straight to the NBA, the Euros if they stay in Europe get minutes in Europe and learn systems of play, but in the NBA, there isn't really any player development. If you don't get minutes. You're not likely to improve to get anywhere, and with minor minutes, similar story.

The NBA isn't a development league with coaches there to prepare those getting minutes for the next game, rather than look at the whole roster and think about how to improve them all. It's such a different dynamic.

That's why we see so many Freshmen and Sophmores going to the NBA and failing at a high percentage outside of those uber top end talents who are the exception and absolutely worth drafting when you know you've got a LeBron who can from year one step in and be great or a superstar.

-
Regarding raising the age of the AFL draft age. It's an interesting conversation on both sides.

Another year to development if we had a strong development system outside the AFL may work. From an injury prevention it may also be helpful to some extent in preserving the bodies of these players for later in their careers. It also seems a nice ideal letting kids finish their year 12 studies and then focus after that on making it to the AFL when they have the full time to commit to it.

At this stage though, players development is better in the AFL with AFL coaching and the setups there than in the u18s or state leagues. The players at AFL level train more, harder and play against better competition, and have veterans around them to observe and learn from which maximises and fast-track their development. Then you've also got with players not being able to go pro straight out of school/ at 18, you'll lose talent to other sports which is exactly what you don't want.

Given this feel for the situation, I advocate the draft age remaining what it is. I don't want to lose talents to other codes, with a view to maximising the quality of play in the AFL. Also with AFL clubs best equipt at this time to help young player development, you want them in the AFL system as early as possible, to have access to all the resources. I think if we're to fix any problems relating to the draft age, I feel it is problem solving within the boundaries of the current draft age restrictions.

Agree completely. And this is one thing Hinkie/Philly did that he coped a heap of early criticism for. Drafted Saric at 11 (actually played Orlando in a draft and player+pick swap, but that's another discussion) knowing he wouldn't head to the NBA for 2 years due to his contract in Turkey. The media was, why draft a kid so high, knowing he won't head over for two years. Saric arrived this year and has an awesome second half to the season. And we have another Euro kid set to come over next year as well, after being drafted in the first round last year.

This all contributes to why I do not believe you trying to use Philly as an example of a failed team. Hinkie deliberately set out for a long rebuild to accrue as much talent as possible. Even trading away a rookie of the year, (how's Michael Carter-Williams working out for the bulls?) for a future first round draft pick (Lakers 2018 pick).

 

[Knightmare]

Agree completely. And this is one thing Hinkie/Philly did that he coped a heap of early criticism for. Drafted Saric at 11 (actually played Orlando in a draft and player+pick swap, but that's another discussion) knowing he wouldn't head to the NBA for 2 years due to his contract in Turkey. The media was, why draft a kid so high, knowing he won't head over for two years. Saric arrived this year and has an awesome second half to the season. And we have another Euro kid set to come over next year as well, after being drafted in the first round last year.

This all contributes to why I do not believe you trying to use Philly as an example of a failed team. Hinkie deliberately set out for a long rebuild to accrue as much talent as possible. Even trading away a rookie of the year, (how's Michael Carter-Williams working out for the bulls?) for a future first round draft pick (Lakers 2018 pick).

With Philli my issue is less about drafting process (Philli have drafted well and I give your ball club a tick there) as much as it is trading away established players for picks. That's a process I outright object to. There are times to do it - if you feel you can get well overs for a player and feel you'll get a much better player through the draft. Putting all eggs in that basket is not a suitable way to build a team.

By trading away established players and just having a team filled with 30 and under players as the Sixers mostly had under Hinkie. It's hard to develop a winning team, particularly if you spend several years down, and trading players away for even younger players or picks. You don't build a winning culture that way with no veterans able to guide the young, the other issue is chemistry is not developed among a playing group. Those factors result in minimal player development and will make winning difficult. I'd also add to that, without good veterans, there is no protection for young players and you'll find more injuries happen as a result.

The MCW trade was not ideal with the Sixers not having a point guard to replace him of adequate quality. It was selling on a high and trading a high turnover guy who can't shoot, so that element I like. As a process though, I don't like it. It demoralises a group, it makes the group acutely aware no one is there to stay and as a result, no one will really play for the team or bother to help teammates develop or bond as a group and build any meaningful chemistry.

On the other side of the ledger for the Sixers. Trading Noel (post Hinkie) was not a good trade at all. If you sell someone who can play, get someone who is better for him or don't do it, regardless of positional overstocking (as it seemed before the Embiid injury). Noel can be a very good pro and you don't give away quality for another pick. Noel will be a 15 point, 12 rebound, 2 block per 36min player. He'll be a starting big for a team and a difference maker on the defensive end.

Overall, the process of building a successful roster/playing list is what I want to make a point of with the Sixers. You lose the players and their interest, their develop, you lose fans, as an organisation you don't earn revenue doing that with fans disconnecting for an extended period. That is crippling for an organisation.

In the AFL, a strategy of the extreme that the Sixers underwent under Hinkie I would caution all teams against, and I'd recommend clubs go the other route, get undervalued veterans for cheap, don't move on guys who can play and minimise list turnover to allow chemistry to develop. That approach in combination can translate to the greatest of success as we've seen with Hawthorn most recently who overwhelming would in each of those boxes receive ticks.
It's so x4 more vital in the AFL that teams don't go this route with the nature of it being an 18 man a side game. It will result time and time again in teams who do this building to around 8th with time and then dropping down - as per the recent Carlton side that didn't build successfully with Murphy/Gibbs/Kreuzer.
I'd also recommend a similar approach from lower ranked teams, though the variation in strategy would be a greater focus on bringing in established players 20-24 more so than 25-29 which is more practical for more competitive team.

 

[briztoon]

I'm not sure if you grasp the concept that we didn't want a winning team. The Sixers wanted to really bottom out and begin a full rebuild through the draft.

We had some good players, but they weren't good enough to actually take us anywhere. Igoudala was our marque player, and at his best he was a third/fourth wheel, defensive specialist and + dribbler/passer. So all the experienced players were drafted out for draft picks. You might not agree with this style of rebuild, but there were many Sixers fans who do, and as I mentioned, a lot had been discussing it. asking for it for three years before it happened.

The Noel trade was deadset terrible and highlighted all the concerns Sixers fans had when Brian Colangelo was brought in by his father. It was a garbage trade, and to top it off, Brian he stroked his ego by trying to sell it as a trade for a first round pick. FFS he traded for a top 20 protected pick to a team that had no chance in hell of making out of the lottery. It was purely for the optics and that one trade lost Colangelo all the goodwill and any respect from most fans.

Yup, the revenue issue is what did Hinkie in, as all teams equally share all revenue, low gate receipts to the Sixers impacts all teams revenue.


Unfortunately for Brisbane, they are almost doing a Philly, but not by design. If we could attract a Jacob Hopper to Brisbane, I'm sure everyone would jump on such a trade. But the only players willing to come to Brisbane are players on their last chance to stay in the league. We traded for Frost last year to provide protection for our young key backs, but Frost is so terrible, he's being shown up in the NEAFL by the winner of the Rookie, Matt Eagles, who is a ruck, but is playing as a KPD.

Brisbane is in a world of trouble simply because we only have about 10 AFL quality senior players, plus a heap of first and second year players being exposed to to much as we don't have enough senior players to protect them.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm not sure if you grasp the concept that we didn't want a winning team. The Sixers wanted to really bottom out and begin a full rebuild through the draft.

We had some good players, but they weren't good enough to actually take us anywhere. Igoudala was our marque player, and at his best he was a third/fourth wheel, defensive specialist and + dribbler/passer. So all the experienced players were drafted out for draft picks. You might not agree with this style of rebuild, but there were many Sixers fans who do, and as I mentioned, a lot had been discussing it. asking for it for three years before it happened.

The Noel trade was deadset terrible and highlighted all the concerns Sixers fans had when Brian Colangelo was brought in by his father. It was a garbage trade, and to top it off, Brian he stroked his ego by trying to sell it as a trade for a first round pick. FFS he traded for a top 20 protected pick to a team that had no chance in hell of making out of the lottery. It was purely for the optics and that one trade lost Colangelo all the goodwill and any respect from most fans.

Yup, the revenue issue is what did Hinkie in, as all teams equally share all revenue, low gate receipts to the Sixers impacts all teams revenue.


Unfortunately for Brisbane, they are almost doing a Philly, but not by design. If we could attract a Jacob Hopper to Brisbane, I'm sure everyone would jump on such a trade. But the only players willing to come to Brisbane are players on their last chance to stay in the league. We traded for Frost last year to provide protection for our young key backs, but Frost is so terrible, he's being shown up in the NEAFL by the winner of the Rookie, Matt Eagles, who is a ruck, but is playing as a KPD.

Brisbane is in a world of trouble simply because we only have about 10 AFL quality senior players, plus a heap of first and second year players being exposed to to much as we don't have enough senior players to protect them.

I know that was the Sixers strategy - not wanting a winning team and completely bottoming out - moving all talent out at all costs to collect picks, future picks, draft the best talent available, regardless of injury status etc.

It's the concept of bottoming out like that I don't agree with. You don't build the culture or build a winner by doing that.

The Sixers future comes down to the health statuses of Embiid and Simmons. They're outstanding talents, but even for that, I wouldn't have so purposefully worked to become that bad to be in the mix for those talents. In the NBA draft lottery system, you don't always get that top choice.
In the AFL with having those top talents, it still doesn't matter. Carlton can have Cripps and Weitering who may be the best players from their respective drafts, and they're still a bottom four side because they don't have the pieces around them and don't have the veteran leadership around them to succeed. You need to build a great list through retaining your good talent and trading for more talent - for picks and/or lesser players in the AFL landscape.

 

[briztoon]

I know that was the Sixers strategy - not wanting a winning team and completely bottoming out - moving all talent out at all costs to collect picks, future picks, draft the best talent available, regardless of injury status etc.

It's the concept of bottoming out like that I don't agree with. You don't build the culture or build a winner by doing that.

The Sixers future comes down to the health statuses of Embiid and Simmons. They're outstanding talents, but even for that, I wouldn't have so purposefully worked to become that bad to be in the mix for those talents. In the NBA draft lottery system, you don't always get that top choice.
In the AFL with having those top talents, it still doesn't matter. Carlton can have Cripps and Weitering who may be the best players from their respective drafts, and they're still a bottom four side because they don't have the pieces around them and don't have the veteran leadership around them to succeed. You need to build a great list through retaining your good talent and trading for more talent - for picks and/or lesser players in the AFL landscape.

And how hard is that to do if you're starting with a shallow squad, quality wise? Trading picks for mature talent is basically selling the future to shore up the now. The key to your post is the retaining your good talent. If you can't retain your good talent, you're as good as rooted to the bottom of the ladder.

 

[Knightmare]

And how hard is that to do if you're starting with a shallow squad, quality wise? Trading picks for mature talent is basically selling the future to shore up the now. The key to your post is the retaining your good talent. If you can't retain your good talent, you're as good as rooted to the bottom of the ladder.

Not so much trading picks for mature talent. That's not what I advocate.

With mature talent, I'd be getting them on the cheap - free agency, late picks, in the situations of those lower position sides.

Anyone could have had Brent Harvey last year. He can add leadership and he can add strong production and on field performance. Anyone could have had Jarrad Waite a few years ago when he was delisted and North Melbourne smartly secured his services, recognising he was still productive and able to contribute.
They're the kinds of guys I'm talking about to get your foundation of leadership and improving your list. Whether you're a top tier team looking to win a flag those guys help, or if you're a Gold Coast or Brisbane needing veteran leadership to help the young core group develop, those guys also help. They're good players for all situations both for winning and also young player development.

After that, with those picks, you either draft the best player there, or if you have the opportunity to trade it for a high level established player that fills a list need, within a suitable age group for the list dynamic. Then you go that route.

So if you're Brisbane to use your teams situation, you wouldn't trade a first round picks to get Robbie Gray. He's not in the right age group for that team list, if you're to pay that kind of price. If you're GWS, you would as it takes them a step closer to being a premiership club.

If on the other hand, a Stephen Coniglio could be had. He'd be someone where you'd move a first round pick, if the currency is right, to acquire. Being in that 20-24 age range, he can reasonably be around long enough to be of long term use to the list, while also being able to help the team win now and also provide that veteran experience and leadership to help a young group.

 

[OB11]

Overall, the process of building a successful roster/playing list is what I want to make a point of with the Sixers. You lose the players and their interest, their develop, you lose fans, as an organisation you don't earn revenue doing that with fans disconnecting for an extended period. That is crippling for an organisation.

In the AFL, a strategy of the extreme that the Sixers underwent under Hinkie I would caution all teams against, and I'd recommend clubs go the other route, get undervalued veterans for cheap, don't move on guys who can play and minimise list turnover to allow chemistry to develop. That approach in combination can translate to the greatest of success as we've seen with Hawthorn most recently who overwhelming would in each of those boxes receive ticks.
It's so x4 more vital in the AFL that teams don't go this route with the nature of it being an 18 man a side game. It will result time and time again in teams who do this building to around 8th with time and then dropping down - as per the recent Carlton side that didn't build successfully with Murphy/Gibbs/Kreuzer.
I'd also recommend a similar approach from lower ranked teams, though the variation in strategy would be a greater focus on bringing in established players 20-24 more so than 25-29 which is more practical for more competitive team.

The part about not being able to do it in AFL is spot on.

In the NBA with 5 players on a court you need to build around 1-3 transcendent elite talent players, a team of undervalued veterans and good young players won't cut it. The only realistic way to get these players for a struggling franchise is via the draft, and the ability to lock great young players on 4 year deals that are very cost effective is also a motivating factor given what even average players are paid in the league.

It is hard to judge the Philly process as we have only seen the painful build but not the results the build is leading to. The current playing list are engaged and can see how this is playing out, heck Embiid calls himself 'The Process' and Saric loves it there. The only players not engaged were Noel and Okafor because they play behind Embiid. The players have been developed they just haven't got on the floor together. The fan base is growing behind what they are seeing, just look back to what was going on in January. I don't even think they were losing money as the NBA revenue model is largely based on an even split of TV revenue and they were paying $20-$30m less in salary cap that contending teams.

 

[Knightmare]

The part about not being able to do it in AFL is spot on.

In the NBA with 5 players on a court you need to build around 1-3 transcendent elite talent players, a team of undervalued veterans and good young players won't cut it. The only realistic way to get these players for a struggling franchise is via the draft, and the ability to lock great young players on 4 year deals that are very cost effective is also a motivating factor given what even average players are paid in the league.

It is hard to judge the Philly process as we have only seen the painful build but not the results the build is leading to. The current playing list are engaged and can see how this is playing out, heck Embiid calls himself 'The Process' and Saric loves it there. The only players not engaged were Noel and Okafor because they play behind Embiid. The players have been developed they just haven't got on the floor together. The fan base is growing behind what they are seeing, just look back to what was going on in January. I don't even think they were losing money as the NBA revenue model is largely based on an even split of TV revenue and they were paying $20-$30m less in salary cap that contending teams.

Does it also count for merchandise?

If so then under the NBA system, Philli would be sitting pretty financially, or more so than in other codes would be the case.

In saying that, losing and shedding talent like this doesn't help their brand, devaluing it relative to what it should be.

 

[OB11]

Does it also count for merchandise?

If so then under the NBA system, Philli would be sitting pretty financially, or more so than in other codes would be the case.

In saying that, losing and shedding talent like this doesn't help their brand, devaluing it relative to what it should be.

In the NBA if you can get yourself to be a perennial contender then you can change you brand from being a joke to printing money in a matter of years, just ask the Cavs whose franchise is said to have increased in value by $500m when Lebron came back and won a championship...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...nba-high-40-million-last-season/#72de3d247699

The guy who owns Philli is a hedge fund manager so wouldn't be surprised if all this was done to eventually pump up the value of the franchise to maximise his investment once they get good.

 

[briztoon]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between rebuilding in the NBA and AFL. My initial post was disagreeing with KM using the Spurs and Sixers to illustrate a point, then an NBA conversation ensured.

Not so much trading picks for mature talent. That's not what I advocate.

With mature talent, I'd be getting them on the cheap - free agency, late picks, in the situations of those lower position sides.

Anyone could have had Brent Harvey last year. He can add leadership and he can add strong production and on field performance. Anyone could have had Jarrad Waite a few years ago when he was delisted and North Melbourne smartly secured his services, recognising he was still productive and able to contribute.
They're the kinds of guys I'm talking about to get your foundation of leadership and improving your list. Whether you're a top tier team looking to win a flag those guys help, or if you're a Gold Coast or Brisbane needing veteran leadership to help the young core group develop, those guys also help. They're good players for all situations both for winning and also young player development.

After that, with those picks, you either draft the best player there, or if you have the opportunity to trade it for a high level established player that fills a list need, within a suitable age group for the list dynamic. Then you go that route.

So if you're Brisbane to use your teams situation, you wouldn't trade a first round picks to get Robbie Gray. He's not in the right age group for that team list, if you're to pay that kind of price. If you're GWS, you would as it takes them a step closer to being a premiership club.

If on the other hand, a Stephen Coniglio could be had. He'd be someone where you'd move a first round pick, if the currency is right, to acquire. Being in that 20-24 age range, he can reasonably be around long enough to be of long term use to the list, while also being able to help the team win now and also provide that veteran experience and leadership to help a young group.

If you have the time, I wouldn't mind seeing a list of possible delisted players at the end of the season, of players who you think could add some senior leadership at the Lions. Players who would genuinely head north for another year or two. It's unlikely, but if Noble cleans out the list and pays out contracts, we might have quite a lot of available list spots.

 

[adsla69k]

Hi KM,

Just wondering what you think of Petruccelle? Saw him first hand last weekend off half back and showed some glimpses and this week I see he was named in the bests and had 5 goals. I think he has good speed and agility and can defend well one on one. DPS knocked his ability to accumulate the ball but maybe he is just out of position and should see more time forward or on ball. His accelaeration is first class. Overheard the port recruiters saying here he is as he broke away from a pack of players and had a shot on goal from outside 50.

 

[Knightmare]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between rebuilding in the NBA and AFL. My initial post was disagreeing with KM using the Spurs and Sixers to illustrate a point, then an NBA conversation ensured.



If you have the time, I wouldn't mind seeing a list of possible delisted players at the end of the season, of players who you think could add some senior leadership at the Lions. Players who would genuinely head north for another year or two. It's unlikely, but if Noble cleans out the list and pays out contracts, we might have quite a lot of available list spots.

I may do that at years end. Remind me later in the season and I'll probably whip something together then.

Some of the players I was looking at last year, to give you some examples included: Brent Harvey, Corey Enright, Matthew Boyd, Scott Thompson, Tom Lonergan, Jimmy Bartel, Nick Dal Santo, Sean Dempster, Sam Fisher, Ricky Henderson, Dennis Armfield, Jack Grimes, Eric Mackenzie and Michael Barlow were all players back in September 2016 when I last updated my Collingwood Almanac on the Pies board. I was looking at either as players considering retirement or on their last legs at their present club.

Going after these types is such an undervalued practice and yet there are some names who still remain productive or could have been productive this season.

The nature with the over 30s is somewhat of a unique one and seemingly not fully understood fully by list managers. With the over 30s, they have their up and down years, often mostly relating to the health of their bodies. But they can still produce and often do, even after a down season, if they can get their body right over the offseason. The leadership value is immeasurable and of substantial benefit to the youth at a club.

Getting these types on board, as West Coast smartly did with Sam Mitchell over the offseason and Melbourne did with Jordan Lewis. Who saw those ones coming? And without having to give up much to get them? Those are mindbogglingly winning trades. And the sorts of trades any team wins as a result of trading for. Giving up pick 48 and 66 for Lewis and picks 57 and 68. And West Coast with Mitchell, 54 and 72 for 52, 70 and 88. It's laughable champions of the game can be had so cheaply just because they're nearing the end of their careers.
The value of those guys gained by their teams will be the equivalent of a first round choice when we look back at it five years from now. Not only offering that instant performance but then having those guys help the youth develop. That's how clubs should trade.
Or otherwise getting the likes of a Brent Harvey through free agency.
If a team hypothetically added those three, in such an even season with unusually little separating the top teams from the bottom teams, getting those guys could be the difference between coming 16th and 6th.

Brisbane is a hard market that has difficulty attracting talent, but there still will be those late career guys who have had strong careers who will want to continue on their careers. Jack Grimes last year would have been a great target for Brisbane, just to provide some leadership and experience down back. He could help the youth with their growth and provide on field stability down back. His game is far from perfect, not a good kick etc. But if you're in that position, he helps add that leadership and helps with development and direction.

 

[Knightmare]

In the NBA if you can get yourself to be a perennial contender then you can change you brand from being a joke to printing money in a matter of years, just ask the Cavs whose franchise is said to have increased in value by $500m when Lebron came back and won a championship...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...nba-high-40-million-last-season/#72de3d247699

The guy who owns Philli is a hedge fund manager so wouldn't be surprised if all this was done to eventually pump up the value of the franchise to maximise his investment once they get good.

You're right. It does work that way when the face of the league joins a team.

It's a players league and if you have that guy, it makes all the difference.

Hi KM,

Just wondering what you think of Petruccelle? Saw him first hand last weekend off half back and showed some glimpses and this week I see he was named in the bests and had 5 goals. I think he has good speed and agility and can defend well one on one. DPS knocked his ability to accumulate the ball but maybe he is just out of position and should see more time forward or on ball. His accelaeration is first class. Overheard the port recruiters saying here he is as he broke away from a pack of players and had a shot on goal from outside 50.

Like him and feel I'm talking about him every week on the back of his performances. Has the acceleration - and uses it in game. Wins the ball in the contest. He has upside and a game that can translate.

I think he can go first round.

 

[Joel Pattinson]

Rayner back starting to find some form in the ags had 34 disposals , 12 marks and kicked 3 goals against the undefeated Mentone, also two other standouts curtis Taylor (#9) and Harry Fry (#3) do you know anything about them KM

 

[Prochard123]

Hey Knightmare who do you see Pies being most interested in?

Moore is becoming more and more capable in the rucks, some would say his taps have been more effective than Grundy's, combine that with his agility/speed/reach he's quite the complete package for a young CHF.

Is there a genuine stay at home key forward in the mould of Hawkins/2011 Cloke/Patton/JJK/Hogan around our 1st round pick let's say 5-9?