Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2018 AFL Draft Almanac

[Rise_up_Stiffy]

I'll give Carlton the credit of not looking like they'll finish last. They'll be healthier and they've added talent in the offseason.

Gold Coast have lost almost everyone worthwhile and first year players aren't helping them.

St Kilda may be another Carlton pass, though they're probably at this stage fighting it out for 16th/17th as I'm not seeing a fourth team projecting to be noncompetitive unless injuries take their toll on a side.

If it's pick 2 or 3 Adelaide get from Carlton, as I'm predicting at this stage. That can be a seriously good player. Or maybe they can trade it for a Lukosius or Rankine if they want out?

I think it's a superb trade for Adelaide. Gives them an incredible amount of options and flexibility.

I think so too. Will be fun death riding the blues again. I wonder if they can improve to say 12th with a healthy list and improvements from their young stars.

 

[Windhover]

Don't forget I completed a trade period (including free agency) review where I gave Carlton a positive review - adding Setterfield, Newman, McGovern and if healthy Fasolo who can all be best 22.

Absolutely I would not suggest Carlton trade out Cripps and Curnow. My ratings with the draft are about relative value and capitalisation of value of each pick. I include into that equation now that it's a thing pick trading.

Carlton look to have two long term players in Walsh and Stocker. But in my analysis, with Walsh when there are three better players available and in the case of Stocker when it's possibly pick 2/3 being given up, I don't look favourably at those choices. Carlton's other picks I don't rate as AFL standard, so that further contributes to Carlton's low rating with possibly Goddard the better of the rest though of no best 22 relevance with Carlton having better key defenders already.

Walsh as per my power rankings I rate at 4. Stocker I rate at 17. In the case of Stocker, it's not a case of pick 19 = Stocker being a bad choice as much as moving the 2019 first round pick (which is likely top 4 by my estimations) for Stocker and Adelaide's first round pick (they could finish top 4, top 8 or somewhere close to the top 8 but still a fair way higher than Carlton) I just can't justify the move.

Re. F/S and Academy choices. I am harsh on clubs taking them earlier than I like. Did it to Collingwood among others and will again next year if much more is spent on them than my ratings feel is justified.

Great effort Knightmare. I fully understand your POV which is based on your own pre-determined rating of players. If B. Smith does turn out to be a better player than Walsh you would clearly be right to be critical and on this score we must await with interest.

What you POV does not really take into account is the drafting strategies that support/don't support a draft pick. So you would have rated Carlton higher had we taken Lukosius, who you rated very highly. But for the next 15 years 17 Clubs won't have Lukosius and it is a fair chance most years one of the 17 will win the Flag. You rightly note (re Goddard) Carlton don't immediately need future KPDs and surely with McKay, Curnow and McGovern, Kerr, TDK we don't immediately need future KPFs. So how does Lukosius win us a flag? Answer - only by remodelling our rebuild.

The Carlton drafting strategy (long-term team rebuild) is well explained in the article following yours by ESPN's Matt Walsh.

From 1979 to 82 Carlton dominated the VFL with what was called "the mosquito fleet". It was a powerful midfield force headed by Ashman (second in a Brownlow one year when he won all the media awards), Armstrong, Sheldon, Buckley, Harmes, Marcou, Kourkoumelis, Cattoggio and others. They are likely to have influenced a young SOS. One of the big advantages of the mosquito fleet was that each had his own strengths/weaknesses and the sum of the parts was greater than the individual value because they complemented each others strengths/weaknesses and could be used interchangeably, a bit like but not at the same individual level as the Lions from 2001 - 04.

In the rebuild Carlton have recruited through high picks in the draft: 2015 - Cuningham (23); 2016 SPS (6) & Fisher (27); 2017 Dow (3), L O'Brien (10); 2018 Walsh (1) & Stocker (19). In addition we have added Kennedy in 2017 and Setterfield in 2018. We already have an ageing Murphy, a bull in Cripps and a gut-runner in Curnow. The sooner Carlton can get their mosquito fleet together the longer the period they can be enjoyed. Once Stocker was rated a top 10 pick and still available he became an alternative option to having traded the 2019 pick for Shiel (the first choice).

Further, you rated R C-D higher than Stocker as a midfielder so you were "bound" by your process to mark down Carlton selecting R C-D. Again this misses the Club POV. Carlton already have Cripps, Kennedy and Settlefield as tall mids. The need, particularly with Murphy and Curnow ageing, was to improve in the smaller mids department. Of them only Fisher has been good, with SPS and Dow having done nothing wrong but not yet set a field alight at any stage, L O"B not really being used there; Cuningham injured/unimpressive. Getting Walsh and Stocker together should help make them interchangeable next year perhaps on reduced game-time.

So the reality is that as understandable as your assessment of Carlton's drafting in 2019 may be, it is significantly irrelevant for the above reasons.

 

[Richo83]

I don't buy this "Carlton messed up" argument

1. Carlton already have their midfield tent-pegs to build around. Dow, Cripps and Walsh. Very talented trio. They also need to back in guys like Curnow and Mackay instead of cycling through picks to find the KPP when finding that isn't necessary in the first place. List development isn't about gathering the most talent it's about building a football team.
What they need isn't necessarily more blue chip giys but depth which can often be found in around the 20s especially if you're chasing after midfielders who often fall as everyone takes the flashy KPPs. You also need a balance of guns and role-players, a lesson the giants are learning as their side resembles a bunch of chiefs without many Indians. Carlton have often built their list around early draft picks and saviour types but now realise it takes 22 players to win a game not one superstar.

2. Adelaide are overrated. They've finished in the top four once in the last five years and I can't see Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood or Sydney, who will be more injury free in 2018, finishing below them. Their midfield is one-dimensional and lacks the star quality to win games against better midfields, especially away. Not many times do teams finish first winning 15 games.

3. I think Carlton will surprise next year. They've recruited well, which Knightmare agrees with, pointing to a move up the ladder. They're young, the suns are a rabble and I don't think a banged up Hannebery is going to fix St Kilda midfield. Brisbane gained Neale but lost Beams and are, like Carlton reloant on growth from their youth. They missed Docherty badly.

My guess is Carlton give up pick four for picks 12 and 19. That's a wash roughly.

 

[Richo83]

Great effort Knightmare. I fully understand your POV which is based on your own pre-determined rating of players. If B. Smith does turn out to be a better player than Walsh you would clearly be right to be critical and on this score we must await with interest.

What you POV does not really take into account is the drafting strategies that support/don't support a draft pick. So you would have rated Carlton higher had we taken Lukosius, who you rated very highly. But for the next 15 years 17 Clubs won't have Lukosius and it is a fair chance most years one of the 17 will win the Flag. You rightly note (re Goddard) Carlton don't immediately need future KPDs and surely with McKay, Curnow and McGovern, Kerr, TDK we don't immediately need future KPFs. So how does Lukosius win us a flag? Answer - only by remodelling our rebuild.

The Carlton drafting strategy (long-term team rebuild) is well explained in the article following yours by ESPN's Matt Walsh.

From 1979 to 82 Carlton dominated the VFL with what was called "the mosquito fleet". It was a powerful midfield force headed by Ashman (second in a Brownlow one year when he won all the media awards), Armstrong, Sheldon, Buckley, Harmes, Marcou, Kourkoumelis, Cattoggio and others. They are likely to have influenced a young SOS. One of the big advantages of the mosquito fleet was that each had his own strengths/weaknesses and the sum of the parts was greater than the individual value because they complemented each others strengths/weaknesses and could be used interchangeably, a bit like but not at the same individual level as the Lions from 2001 - 04.

In the rebuild Carlton have recruited through high picks in the draft: 2015 - Cuningham (23); 2016 SPS (6) & Fisher (27); 2017 Dow (3), L O'Brien (10); 2018 Walsh (1) & Stocker (19). In addition we have added Kennedy in 2017 and Setterfield in 2018. We already have an ageing Murphy, a bull in Cripps and a gut-runner in Curnow. The sooner Carlton can get their mosquito fleet together the longer the period they can be enjoyed. Once Stocker was rated a top 10 pick and still available he became an alternative option to having traded the 2019 pick for Shiel (the first choice).

Further, you rated R C-D higher than Stocker as a midfielder so you were "bound" by your process to mark down Carlton selecting R C-D. Again this misses the Club POV. Carlton already have Cripps, Kennedy and Settlefield as tall mids. The need, particularly with Murphy and Curnow ageing, was to improve in the smaller mids department. Of them only Fisher has been good, with SPS and Dow having done nothing wrong but not yet set a field alight at any stage, L O"B not really being used there; Cuningham injured/unimpressive. Getting Walsh and Stocker together should help make them interchangeable next year perhaps on reduced game-time.

So the reality is that as understandable as your assessment of Carlton's drafting in 2019 may be, it is significantly irrelevant for the above reasons.

The only thing I'd disagree with is going after a smaller midfielder. IMO small midfielder, big midfielder, it doesn't matter, what does matter is of they can win the battle between the arcs. Chasing after midfielders because they're small seems pointless, especially given the modern game often rewards bigger midfielders who can push forward. Sure, smaller midfielder can be handy but don't pick them for the sake of it.

 

[Richo83]

The only way I buy Carlton's grade is if this is a Fiora/Pavlich situation.

 

[Knightmare]

On the flip side it's allowed Carlton to add two more top young mids (adding to the aquisition of Setterfield, for a total of 3) this year. You cant underestimate the value of getting in a good mid a year early. From Carltons position, you need to contextualize it in that regard as well.

Our midfield now looks like this: Cripps, Dow, Walsh, Fisher, Setterfield, Kennedy, Stocker, SPS. Average age of those 8 is under 21 (and Cripps is bringing that up a bit at 24). Murphy and Ed Curnow to provide support for a year or two.

At the end of the day, we've been hitting the draft hard for 3 years now. From here on in it's about development of the players drafted as a group, and those kids gelling together and carrying us forward.

Next years 1st (Adelaides now) will be put up for a trade in any event, I'm all but sure of it. We simply cant keep having shit years, and expecting the draft to fix our problems. We've invested heavily in the draft for years now; next year marks a heavy investment in trading and free agency.

Dont get me wrong; I still think we'll be down the bottom somewhere next year, but after that we should start to rise up the ladder as those kids (plus the rest) get games into them and approach that 100 game 4 year mark.

Another early draft pick next year wont change a thing, but getting the midfield locked, and fast tracking development by a year, while also retaining trade currency next year with a 1st round pick coming back suits us just fine.

Carlton would benefit from improving more immediately, but there are ways of doing that. I felt strongly (and I gave Carlton a positive trade review) but I felt it was a missed opportunity not grabbing the x3 mature agers. Same story through the draft.

Picks are about maximising value acquired and maximising the extent to which you can improve your best 22 now and in the future.

The 2019 first rounder could have been kept and those mature agers such as Mitch Grigg are going to offer more right away than a first year player.

If you are factoring a live pick trade using a future pick for two clubs, then you should be factoring in pre-draft trading during 2018 and 2017 trades of future picks as well.

Trading of future picks made during the trade period were covered there and then.

 

[Richo83]

I also feel like this is a Barkley/Darnold type situation where people's estimations of talent ignores the fact that different positions have different skillset and some positions, like quarter backs or midfielders requires a wider range of skills than other positions. I'm wary of buying the best KPP given many have flopped recently, the game requires more flexibility and endurance, and KPPs often look better than midfielders because people allow their imaginations run away with then and their skill demands aren't as long. Midfielders win football games in the 21st century. Richmond didn't lose to Collingwood due to talks but because of being beaten in the midfield battle.

 

[Knightmare]

I think so too. Will be fun death riding the blues again. I wonder if they can improve to say 12th with a healthy list and improvements from their young stars.

I don't see who they pass.

Who could they pass to get to 12th?

Great effort Knightmare. I fully understand your POV which is based on your own pre-determined rating of players. If B. Smith does turn out to be a better player than Walsh you would clearly be right to be critical and on this score we must await with interest.

What you POV does not really take into account is the drafting strategies that support/don't support a draft pick. So you would have rated Carlton higher had we taken Lukosius, who you rated very highly. But for the next 15 years 17 Clubs won't have Lukosius and it is a fair chance most years one of the 17 will win the Flag. You rightly note (re Goddard) Carlton don't immediately need future KPDs and surely with McKay, Curnow and McGovern, Kerr, TDK we don't immediately need future KPFs. So how does Lukosius win us a flag? Answer - only by remodelling our rebuild.

The Carlton drafting strategy (long-term team rebuild) is well explained in the article following yours by ESPN's Matt Walsh.

From 1979 to 82 Carlton dominated the VFL with what was called "the mosquito fleet". It was a powerful midfield force headed by Ashman (second in a Brownlow one year when he won all the media awards), Armstrong, Sheldon, Buckley, Harmes, Marcou, Kourkoumelis, Cattoggio and others. They are likely to have influenced a young SOS. One of the big advantages of the mosquito fleet was that each had his own strengths/weaknesses and the sum of the parts was greater than the individual value because they complemented each others strengths/weaknesses and could be used interchangeably, a bit like but not at the same individual level as the Lions from 2001 - 04.

In the rebuild Carlton have recruited through high picks in the draft: 2015 - Cuningham (23); 2016 SPS (6) & Fisher (27); 2017 Dow (3), L O'Brien (10); 2018 Walsh (1) & Stocker (19). In addition we have added Kennedy in 2017 and Setterfield in 2018. We already have an ageing Murphy, a bull in Cripps and a gut-runner in Curnow. The sooner Carlton can get their mosquito fleet together the longer the period they can be enjoyed. Once Stocker was rated a top 10 pick and still available he became an alternative option to having traded the 2019 pick for Shiel (the first choice).

Further, you rated R C-D higher than Stocker as a midfielder so you were "bound" by your process to mark down Carlton selecting R C-D. Again this misses the Club POV. Carlton already have Cripps, Kennedy and Settlefield as tall mids. The need, particularly with Murphy and Curnow ageing, was to improve in the smaller mids department. Of them only Fisher has been good, with SPS and Dow having done nothing wrong but not yet set a field alight at any stage, L O"B not really being used there; Cuningham injured/unimpressive. Getting Walsh and Stocker together should help make them interchangeable next year perhaps on reduced game-time.

So the reality is that as understandable as your assessment of Carlton's drafting in 2019 may be, it is significantly irrelevant for the above reasons.

Lukosius fits on a wing on Carlton. He creates more space and better delivery into Carlton's other forwards rather than making the team feel too tall/unbalanced.

I wouldn't have traded Carlton's 2019 first round pick to need to take RCD. Just at pick 19 if I had it, RCD would have been my choice.

I don't buy this "Carlton messed up" argument

1. Carlton already have their midfield tent-pegs to build around. Dow, Cripps and Walsh. Very talented trio. They also need to back in guys like Curnow and Mackay instead of cycling through picks to find the KPP when finding that isn't necessary in the first place. List development isn't about gathering the most talent it's about building a football team.
What they need isn't necessarily more blue chip giys but depth which can often be found in around the 20s especially if you're chasing after midfielders who often fall as everyone takes the flashy KPPs. You also need a balance of guns and role-players, a lesson the giants are learning as their side resembles a bunch of chiefs without many Indians. Carlton have often built their list around early draft picks and saviour types but now realise it takes 22 players to win a game not one superstar.

2. Adelaide are overrated. They've finished in the top four once in the last five years and I can't see Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood or Sydney, who will be more injury free in 2018, finishing below them. Their midfield is one-dimensional and lacks the star quality to win games against better midfields, especially away. Not many times do teams finish first winning 15 games.

3. I think Carlton will surprise next year. They've recruited well, which Knightmare agrees with, pointing to a move up the ladder. They're young, the suns are a rabble and I don't think a banged up Hannebery is going to fix St Kilda midfield. Brisbane gained Neale but lost Beams and are, like Carlton reloant on growth from their youth. They missed Docherty badly.

My guess is Carlton give up pick four for picks 12 and 19. That's a wash roughly.

1. More blue chip guys is always good. The more the better. I also do feel the equation heavily involves bringing in the most talent, but talent that fits and compliments the talent already there - particularly during the trade/free agent period this is the way to go about things to maximise results. Depth is a complete waste of time. The best depth is in the form of projected future best 22 players coming through and pushing the established guys and making a selection dilemma. To find those latter half of best 22 types, the state leagues are substantially underutilised and are ideal compliments for your blue chip types and a route Carlton would be wise to explore with much greater frequency.

2. I haven't followed where people project Adelaide for 2019 but they're a 1-14 team (with that whole group wide open and no standouts such is the dynamic of the competition at the moment). This year they dropped off with the losses of Lever/Cameron hurting structurally and injuries hurting more than should have been the case. I happen to disagree on their midfield - I feel that's a real strong point. It's for mine one of the better 2-3 in the competition with only Collingwood and probably Geelong having better.

3. I feel Hannebery helps St Kilda and they've had their injuries this year. I don't feel they're rise, but they have a shot at being more competitive. Brisbane I feel will take another step forward - their young core is coming together and with the leadership of Hodge that group is fast-tracking in a hurry with their second half of the season suggesting they aren't far away from a top 8 berth. Only Gold Coast and maybe St Kilda I have lower than Carlton. Those other bottom sides I don't consider all that bad, with the competition 1-15 likely to be pretty even in 2019. Carlton will make up ground and likely improve by around 10%-15% on the ladder which is still a nice stride, but not enough to get Carlton all that far back into the game with regard to say top 8 contention.

If I'm guessing. Adelaide get pick 3 (sorry Saints fans - could go either way), Carlton get pick 10 from Adelaide - though it could be a lot worse. To put some hypothetical names to the picks. I might be able to get Thomas Green from GWS at 3 (who is a Cripps level stoppage beast) - and GWS aren't certain to match. Or if they do, Sam Flanders or Noah Anderson depending on availability with Matthew Rowell if things hold as they are probably going 1. I'd take those guys over say Stocker and a say Caleb Serong who could be a best available around that pick gained from Adelaide to put a name to a pick.
I really like that top 4 - not ordered and probably won't be the order in my power rankings next year as I don't want to give that away just yet - but any of Rowell/Green/Flanders/Anderson I'd place a very high value premium on in my own mind. Others may like Taheny/Stephens from SA or H.Young. But that top 4 of mine, I'd be incredible keen to get my hands on. Much more so than Stocker or anyone likely available around 10.

The only way I buy Carlton's grade is if this is a Fiora/Pavlich situation.

Walsh isn't a dud. He can play. No one will compare him to Fiora.

No exact comparison, but it's more like a Haselby/Pavlich situation to reference the '99 draft. I feel Walsh will have more lasting power than Haselby. But that's not far off the talent disparity I see.

Walsh may not be the best mid in the draft let alone the best pick while Lukosius can be that all time special kpp.

 

[Knightmare]

I also feel like this is a Barkley/Darnold type situation where people's estimations of talent ignores the fact that different positions have different skillset and some positions, like quarter backs or midfielders requires a wider range of skills than other positions. I'm wary of buying the best KPP given many have flopped recently, the game requires more flexibility and endurance, and KPPs often look better than midfielders because people allow their imaginations run away with then and their skill demands aren't as long. Midfielders win football games in the 21st century. Richmond didn't lose to Collingwood due to talks but because of being beaten in the midfield battle.

In my draft trends piece (see page 1) I talk about clubs lowering the weighting on KPPs.

Even with that done. Lukosius is still the clear best available at 1 for mine. He offers flexibility and endurance. He can play wing/hf if you want him to, key forward or key defence. He can do all that and better than anyone else.

Lukosius can be considered an (outside) midfielder and the best midfielder in the pool if that's where you need him to play.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Carlton would benefit from improving more immediately, but there are ways of doing that. I felt strongly (and I gave Carlton a positive trade review) but I felt it was a missed opportunity not grabbing the x3 mature agers. Same story through the draft.

Picks are about maximising value acquired and maximising the extent to which you can improve your best 22 now and in the future.

The 2019 first rounder could have been kept and those mature agers such as Mitch Grigg are going to offer more right away than a first year player.

...

Trading of future picks made during the trade period were covered there and then.

Let’s agree to disagree.

It’s all about balance.

Carlton’s pressing need was midfield class and we certainly addressed that with Walsh and Stocker (and Setterfield in trades). You had Stocker at 13 in your October rankings and then at 17 in your rankings pre-draft.

As for ready to go, Walsh and Stocker are that.

Having an abundance of talls which you keep pointing out, this only increases the importance of prioritising class midfielders for Carlton’s List.

Grigg was overlooked by all 18 clubs.

So Carlton took a risk and turned it’s future first into two lower first round picks. That is Pick 19 this year and based on where Adelaide finished then Pick 8 next year where it is considered less strong at the top end.

Carlton brought in Fasolo and Newman in trades and Bugg as a rookie as mid 20s mature age players.

 

[Bicks]

Let’s agree to disagree.

It’s all about balance.

Carlton’s pressing need was midfield class and we certainly addressed that with Walsh and Stocker (and Setterfield in trades). You had Stocker at 13 in your October rankings and then at 17 in your rankings pre-draft.

As for ready to go, Walsh and Stocker are that.

Having an abundance of talls which you keep pointing out, this only increases the importance of prioritising class midfielders for Carlton’s List.

Grigg was overlooked by all 18 clubs.

So Carlton took a risk and turned it’s future first into two lower first round picks. That is Pick 19 this year and based on where Adelaide finished then Pick 8 next year where it is considered less strong at the top end.

Carlton brought in Fasolo and Newman in trades and Bugg as a rookie as mid 20s mature age players.

Stocker is going to need a very big pre-season regarding his tank if you reckon he's ready to go from the get go in 2019 because that's his big weakness at this point in time.....Walsh no questioning his tank...he's elite in that regard.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Stocker is going to need a very big pre-season regarding his tank if you reckon he's ready to go from the get go in 2019 because that's his big weakness at this point in time.....Walsh no questioning his tank...he's elite in that regard.

Just quietly it is a bit overstated?
He had a broken jaw and shoulder injuries, missed the national championships, but came back and did well enough to win the Morrish medal?
Endurance was the knock on Rayner last year IIRC.

 

[Bicks]

Just quietly it is a bit overstated?
He had a broken jaw and shoulder injuries, missed the national championships, but came back and did well enough to win the Morrish medal?
Endurance was the knock on Rayner last year IIRC.

A 6.56 2km time trial the week before the draft says he's got work to do to be a full time AFL midfielder from the get go. Rayner played zero midfield this season.

 

[Knightmare]

Let’s agree to disagree.

It’s all about balance.

Carlton’s pressing need was midfield class and we certainly addressed that with Walsh and Stocker (and Setterfield in trades). You had Stocker at 13 in your October rankings and then at 17 in your rankings pre-draft.

As for ready to go, Walsh and Stocker are that.

Having an abundance of talls which you keep pointing out, this only increases the importance of prioritising class midfielders for Carlton’s List.

Grigg was overlooked by all 18 clubs.

So Carlton took a risk and turned it’s future first into two lower first round picks. That is Pick 19 this year and based on where Adelaide finished then Pick 8 next year where it is considered less strong at the top end.

Carlton brought in Fasolo and Newman in trades and Bugg as a rookie as mid 20s mature age players.

Re midfield class, Lukosius would add more than Walsh once developed. He's a worlds better kick with Walsh having mild inconsistency issues v Lukosius who is a best in draft kick. Walsh is an elite endurance runner, but so is Lukosius - and Lukosius is much faster.

Lukosius hasn't shown he can play on the ball because he hasn't been asked to, but place him on a wing and he's impacting games more heavily than Walsh.

Lukosius isn't even a project player. He should play season one and can get you 100 marks in 2019 on a wing while hurting opponents with his kicking. On Gold Coast, perhaps he doesn't get that because they're an ultra low possession team. But on most teams, that's what I'd be expecting in season one from him and still get a goal per game in the process.

People aren't getting how special Lukosius is. I could rate the players drafted from the past 10 years and on pre draft projections Lukosius is on his own in his own category. Then you can put the next 50-60 in any order. He's the one transcendent talent. He only problem is he's landed on the Gold Coast where they have no clue how to develop talent with David Swallow/Jaeger O'Meara/Jack Martin who were regarded the best talents in their drafts and among those best few picked on pre-draft projections haven't come on.

Newman and Fasolo I like as recruiting choice (and I gave Carlton the credit for those choices in my trade review piece). Setterfield I feel at the price spent is one of the best value trade period acquisitions. Bugg I don't rate. There isn't a role he plays to an AFL standard. Any of Mitch Grigg/Jye Bolton/Haiden Schloithe/Mitch Maguire would have been worlds better as mature age recruits who went undrafted. They're all better than half of the players in the competition in terms of what they can do in 2019. Clubs, and they turn a blind eye to those in their mid 20s, just like to recruit guys in their early 20s (though of those Maguire fits that category).

 

[gillo94]

In my draft trends piece (see page 1) I talk about clubs lowering the weighting on KPPs.

Even with that done. Lukosius is still the clear best available at 1 for mine. He offers flexibility and endurance. He can play wing/hf if you want him to, key forward or key defence. He can do all that and better than anyone else.

Lukosius can be considered an (outside) midfielder and the best midfielder in the pool if that's where you need him to play.

Knightmare you may have already answered. If you have I apologise but would like feedback on the following 3 players

1 Ben Silvagni 2 Max King 3 Ben King

Q1 Who do you compare Ben Silvagni too? What are his big strength and beat position that he can bring to Blues? Why did he go late in this draft?

Q2 What seperate Max and Ben King apart? Why did Saints Pick Max ahead of Ben?

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Re midfield class, Lukosius would add more than Walsh once developed. He's a worlds better kick with Walsh having mild inconsistency issues v Lukosius who is a best in draft kick. Walsh is an elite endurance runner, but so is Lukosius - and Lukosius is much faster.

Lukosius hasn't shown he can play on the ball because he hasn't been asked to, but place him on a wing and he's impacting games more heavily than Walsh.

Lukosius isn't even a project player. He should play season one and can get you 100 marks in 2019 on a wing while hurting opponents with his kicking. On Gold Coast, perhaps he doesn't get that because they're an ultra low possession team. But on most teams, that's what I'd be expecting in season one from him and still get a goal per game in the process.

People aren't getting how special Lukosius is. I could rate the players drafted from the past 10 years and on pre draft projections Lukosius is on his own in his own category. Then you can put the next 50-60 in any order. He's the one transcendent talent. He only problem is he's landed on the Gold Coast where they have no clue how to develop talent with David Swallow/Jaeger O'Meara/Jack Martin who were regarded the best talents in their drafts and among those best few picked on pre-draft projections haven't come on.

Newman and Fasolo I like as recruiting choice (and I gave Carlton the credit for those choices in my trade review piece). Setterfield I feel at the price spent is one of the best value trade period acquisitions. Bugg I don't rate. There isn't a role he plays to an AFL standard. Any of Mitch Grigg/Jye Bolton/Haiden Schloithe/Mitch Maguire would have been worlds better as mature age recruits who went undrafted. They're all better than half of the players in the competition in terms of what they can do in 2019. Clubs, and they turn a blind eye to those in their mid 20s, just like to recruit guys in their early 20s (though of those Maguire fits that category).

So in summary, you say Carlton should have taken Lukosius to play on the wing as he can play midfield, although he hasn’t been asked to play midfield to date? You say Lukosius will be a better midfielder than Walsh ‘once developed’.

I get that you really rate Lukosius.

But your arguments as to why Carlton should have taken Lukosius ahead of Walsh, I suggest, are not great. Rather, the argument is Carlton should take one of your two highest rated midfielders who will continue to play midfield if it wants midfield class. Your arguments also ignore Carlton’s list balance with 3-4 tall forwards in the best 22 and 3-4 tall backs in the best 22, and Cripps is tall too.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare you may have already answered. If you have I apologise but would like feedback on the following 3 players

1 Ben Silvagni 2 Max King 3 Ben King

Q1 Who do you compare Ben Silvagni too? What are his big strength and beat position that he can bring to Blues? Why did he go late in this draft?

Q2 What seperate Max and Ben King apart? Why did Saints Pick Max ahead of Ben?

1. Could be something like Josh Walker. His strength is his marking. Strong overhead, one take - mostly on the lead is where he is strong. Late because he doesn't stand out - doesn't have another point of difference and only one goal per game as a KPF. His best chance to make it may be in defence and trying to make him good enough 1v1 and as an intercept marking KPD.

2. Compared to Ben Silvagni - Much taller, much greater reach, take the ball much higher, more athletic and better at ground level.
Why Max ahead of Ben? Max is more dominant as a marking target i50. He really takes advantage of guys - much better mark and even better at ground level.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

A 6.56 2km time trial the week before the draft says he's got work to do to be a full time AFL midfielder from the get go. Rayner played zero midfield this season.

Rayner had 37 Clearances this year.

 

[Bicks]

Rayner had 37 Clearances this year.

The majority stoppage clearances no doubt.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

The majority stoppage clearances no doubt.

Let’s see where our first round picks are next year and how Stocker goes.

 

[Knightmare]

So in summary, you say Carlton should have taken Lukosius to play on the wing as he can play midfield, although he hasn’t been asked to play midfield to date? You say Lukosius will be a better midfielder than Walsh ‘once developed’.

I get that you really rate Lukosius.

But your arguments as to why Carlton should have taken Lukosius ahead of Walsh, I suggest, are not great. Rather, the argument is Carlton should take one of your two highest rated midfielders who will continue to play midfield if it wants midfield class. Your arguments also ignore Carlton’s list balance with 3-4 tall forwards in the best 22 and 3-4 tall backs in the best 22, and Cripps is tall too.

Lukosius absolutely should have been the pick. For Carlton or any team at 1.

You can never have too many tall midfielders (if they're good, the more the better). It's a problem if they're all poor at ground level or don't cover the ground fine. But Lukosius in combination with Cripps doesn't make that an issue. He's capable at ground level and covers the ground quicker, smarter and more of it than most midfielders.

In the draft. The best available player should always be taken inside the first round. Other needs can always be met later. You don't take Polak when Judd is available or Tambling when you can have Franklin.

From a list balance perspective. My view is Carlton should not have drafted Silvagni or Goddard and should have delisted all their KPPs except Curnow/McKay/McGovern (though he shouldn't have been traded for with the price overs) /Weitering/Marchbank/Plowman. Then take Lukosius at 1. If a guy gets hurt, you can always plug Lukosius into one of the KPP or just play smaller. Fasolo can be a key forward if you need him to be. The game is becoming a positionless game where you can just about play without KPPs if you want to and force the other team to adjust to you if you're doing more damage than they are with the mismatch.

My strong advice is build a substantially cut down on the number of KPPs, just keep those clear best 22 ones and use those other list positions to add to the clubs best 22.

Lukosius can be whatever you want him to be. He has the scope to be the best on any team in any position.

 

[Bicks]

Let’s see where our first round picks are next year and how Stocker goes.

I think Stocker will likely be a very good selection for you and play a lot of AFL midfield but you're expecting a bit much IMO if you think it's going to be from day 1 with his current questionable endurance is all I'm saying.

 

[gillo94]

1. Could be something like Josh Walker. His strength is his marking. Strong overhead, one take - mostly on the lead is where he is strong. Late because he doesn't stand out - doesn't have another point of difference and only one goal per game as a KPF. His best chance to make it may be in defence and trying to make him good enough 1v1 and as an intercept marking KPD.

2. Compared to Ben Silvagni - Much taller, much greater reach, take the ball much higher, more athletic and better at ground level.
Why Max ahead of Ben? Max is more dominant as a marking target i50. He really takes advantage of guys - much better mark and even better at ground level.

Last questions

I have been reading many reviews on Sam Walsh and Liam Stocker. I was reading could be a Josh Kelly & Stephen Cogniglio type pair. Sam Walsh being the Josh Kelly type. I haven’t seen much of either play. If you could compare the 2 which players, which AFL players do you see that resemble their playing style. Sorry if you have already answered this before.

 

[Knightmare]

Last questions

I have been reading many reviews on Sam Walsh and Liam Stocker. I was reading could be a Josh Kelly & Stephen Cogniglio type pair. Sam Walsh being the Josh Kelly type. I haven’t seen much of either play. If you could compare the 2 which players, which AFL players do you see that resemble their playing style. Sorry if you have already answered this before.

Walsh is a slower and less consistent kicking version of Kelly. But they're similar build/production/endurance and inside/outside capabilities at same age. Kelly is the easiest comparison for Walsh (just that poor man's version).

Stocker isn't Coniglio good. Stocker I compared to David Armitage. He's not slow and skills are good, but Armitage is the kind of build and production to expect as a probable outcome, and that's a good outcome if it works out that way with fewer than half around that pick 19 range even making it at AFL level.

 

[gillo94]

Walsh is a slower and less consistent kicking version of Kelly. But they're similar build/production/endurance and inside/outside capabilities at same age. Kelly is the easiest comparison for Walsh (just that poor man's version).

Stocker isn't Coniglio good. Stocker I compared to David Armitage. He's not slow and skills are good, but Armitage is the kind of build and production to expect as a probable outcome, and that's a good outcome if it works out that way with fewer than half around that pick 19 range even making it at AFL level.

Thanks Knightmare. Been reading your opinions and I think you believe SOS has really taken big gambles with our 2018 & 2019 draft selections. I hope your wrong for Blues sakes but love your honesty too