Orange crush
Norm Smith Medallist
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2017
- Posts
- 7,394
- Reaction score
- 13,517
- AFL Club
- GWS
In that sense you represent Gws more than you knowI talk a big game at least
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
8 Winner: myblueroan
Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac
- Thread starter Knightmare
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Posts
- 14,006
- Reaction score
- 17,097
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Shiels isn't very good anymore xxIf I'm to give you a number, as to a rough every year what you should expect. I'd go with roughly 2 in every 15, even accounting for the addition of the MSD and PSP. And in the top-30, I'd be expecting an additional 2-3. To play the averages game.
And you've obviously got those MSD and PSP periods to further add to those mature age stocks.
This is a classic keep digging moment KM. Like eDPS mentioned, the MSD and PSP have DILUTED the national draft pool. The fact these exist means a lot of the cream mature aged prospects are not even in this draft. How is that an argument that more mature agers should be in people's power rankings when the pool of mature age talent has been diluted? That's insane.
If you are going on those rough expected numbers. 2/15 top players are Mature age and then you'd expect another 2-3 in the top 30? This would be 5/30 draftees being mature agers. A hit rate of 16.6%. A very very Generous hit rate. But let's for arguments sake assume you are correct.
Where are the other 25/30 prospects coming from? You know, the rest who make up the top 30 of that draft? The moon?
No, they are coming from the junior ranks, with a hit rate of 83.3%, based on your assumptions.
So why the hell would a team at Pick 50 call out a mature ager over a high-upside skinny kid with some tools, when the hit rate is only 16% (which is terribly generous)?
If you're then to take into account the drafting strategies and biases of clubs towards junior talent, after the first round, the most efficient thing with good talent ID may well be thereafter taking mature age talent. Certainly this year, that would be my approach if I'm to assess where I personally see the value being.
If I have a second round pick? Alleer is my priority, and I'd try to get in before Geelong. If I have a third round pick? I'd be picking up Rogers in a hurry and hoping no one has the same idea. I feel like at most spots in the draft, my best available would be a mature age talent, and it showed up in the Bigfooty Official Phantom Draft with my mature age bias.
Had there been trading, I would have traded down for Leek Alleer and then still continued with that mature age theme.
My view is, in terms of scouting focus, I would have an even 1/3rds split between opposition talent ID, mature age talent ID and junior talent ID. For clubs looking for outsized returns, strong opposition talent ID and mature age ID for mine trumps superiority of junior talent ID, and should have relatively speaking compared to other clubs given they're not focused there, a much higher weighting.
This is probably the stupidest idea you have come up with because it is just so illogical. If you did a rudimentary analysis of each clubs best 22 and you tiered the players into four categories Very Good, Good, Average, Filler, where do the MAJORITY of your Very Good, Good and Average tier come from? No, we don't need to hear about Tom Stewart because remember we are talking majority (he is an exception and definitely not the rule). For every Tom Steward in the Very Good bracket, there are five players taken as elite juniors in the ND. The portion of Very Good, Good and even Average players is crazily weighted towards the National Draft it's not funny. The majority of mature agers end up in the list filler category.
Opposition ID is a different subject.
But even if you weighted it 76.6666% Junior and 33.3333% Mature, that would be dumb as hell, given where the majority of productive AFL players are taken (it's way more than 70% through the juniors)
To say that you would split your time by percentages is also inane because you should really just be focussing your energy on TALENT. AFL clubs would rightly never say something as silly as, let's spend 33.33% of our time watching random VFL games because we might find a Lachie Bramble. They will say, jeez, that Lachie Bramble has talent, let's just spend some time tracking him and forget all the other random VFL games that give us no benefit. They watch talented players, not random leagues for the sake of it. The other thing you are clearly missing is the information these AFL clubs have in their databases because all of the mature agers have at one time gone through the elite junior system. 33.3% of their time spent on saying "Geez, that Bailey Rogers is a similar player to his underage year, but a bit fitter" - now let's watch more and more footage of him without learning anything new because they already watched him as a junior.
Your mature age bias is just silly. Your picks in the BF phantom were silly considering most of the players you picked could have been had in the RD or the PSP.
Your're trying to prove the unprovable because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than everyone (incl. every AFL club). You are not and your ideas about mature age prospects are completely flawed.
Here is Hawthorn's example. I am sure the make-up of most lists would be quite similar in the distribution of talent from mature or junior pathways. There might be 1 or 2 outliers.
HFC Best Players Elite Very Good Average O’Meara ND Mitchell ND Wingard ND Sicily ND Breust RD Gunston ND Hardwick ND Day ND Scrimshaw ND Jiath CAT-B Worpel ND Impey ND McEvoy ND Bramble MATURE (potential) Shiels ND Moore ND Howe ND Phillips ND Lewis ND Kosi ND Hartigan RD Frost ND RESULT 0% Mature 10% Mature 0% Mature
Mature agers on the list – Callow, Newcombe, Bramble,
I am sure I haven't convinced you and I am looking forward to you doubling down. But I will say it again.
You are wrong...
Chop
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2016
- Posts
- 17,120
- Reaction score
- 15,729
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Hey knightmare, keep doing what you're doing. You're really good at what you're doing and I love reading your write ups. As a demons fan, I have absolutely no clue who we'd go far as I believe there's a case for a key defender (life after Steven May), key forward (life after Ben Brown, Tom Mcdonald) as well as possibly a ruckman (life after Gawn. We have Jackson but it seems 2 rucks could be trending) and a midfielder (to continue adding depth).
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2012
- Posts
- 3,220
- Reaction score
- 4,910
- AFL Club
- Essendon
… you don’t?How do you judge a players running ability from a highlights package?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
chopflop
Premiership Player
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Posts
- 3,364
- Reaction score
- 9,317
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
How are you measuring hit rate KM between mature agers and junior talent? What's your threshold games played? At what round should mature age be more of a focus? Round 2 or 3 or later... Like where do the outsized returns come? Which rounds
Callipygian
Team Player
- Joined
- May 18, 2021
- Posts
- 3,839
- Reaction score
- 8,598
- AFL Club
- Sydney
What do you base your opinion on, briztoon? KM was producing commentary/editorial content not reporting.
However, it's interesting that Pie4Life objected not to KM's opinions but rather to what was implied to be the misrepresentation of Rookie Me's opinions. Possibly that is something KM will consider before he next produces a similar video.
FWIW, I have just watched KM's "expose" and I thought it was a worthwhile contribution to conversation about the draft at this slow time of year. KM, I would encourage you to keep up your work especially since you present a different point of view and that stimulates not just conversation but hopefully thinking too. TBH, I didn't think that KM made too many assumptions about Rookie Me's thinking although there were some points where he did e.g. with Chesser. Not that I'm active in this type of thing but I would think Rookie Me can only benefit from KM's coverage of their phantom draft rankings.
As a fellow Dees fan, I don't think we desperately need key defenders (Petty and Lever are young, Tomlinson will be fit again mid-year, and Joel Smith is good back-up) but I do think we need to bring in some KPF talent (as you say, Brown and McDonald are pushing 30 and the jury is out on Weideman). I think more outside midfield/half-forward talent is needed as the next couple mids in line are Dunstan, Jordan etc, who are hardly fast or silky skilled.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2016
- Posts
- 5,905
- Reaction score
- 13,749
- AFL Club
- Geelong
If I'm to give you a number, as to a rough every year what you should expect. I'd go with roughly 2 in every 15, even accounting for the addition of the MSD and PSP. And in the top-30, I'd be expecting an additional 2-3. To play the averages game.
And you've obviously got those MSD and PSP periods to further add to those mature age stocks.
This is a classic keep digging moment KM. Like eDPS mentioned, the MSD and PSP have DILUTED the national draft pool. The fact these exist means a lot of the cream mature aged prospects are not even in this draft. How is that an argument that more mature agers should be in people's power rankings when the pool of mature age talent has been diluted? That's insane.
If you are going on those rough expected numbers. 2/15 top players are Mature age and then you'd expect another 2-3 in the top 30? This would be 5/30 draftees being mature agers. A hit rate of 16.6%. A very very Generous hit rate. But let's for arguments sake assume you are correct.
Where are the other 25/30 prospects coming from? You know, the rest who make up the top 30 of that draft? The moon?
No, they are coming from the junior ranks, with a hit rate of 83.3%, based on your assumptions.
So why the hell would a team at Pick 50 call out a mature ager over a high-upside skinny kid with some tools, when the hit rate is only 16% (which is terribly generous)?
If you're then to take into account the drafting strategies and biases of clubs towards junior talent, after the first round, the most efficient thing with good talent ID may well be thereafter taking mature age talent. Certainly this year, that would be my approach if I'm to assess where I personally see the value being.
If I have a second round pick? Alleer is my priority, and I'd try to get in before Geelong. If I have a third round pick? I'd be picking up Rogers in a hurry and hoping no one has the same idea. I feel like at most spots in the draft, my best available would be a mature age talent, and it showed up in the Bigfooty Official Phantom Draft with my mature age bias.
Had there been trading, I would have traded down for Leek Alleer and then still continued with that mature age theme.
My view is, in terms of scouting focus, I would have an even 1/3rds split between opposition talent ID, mature age talent ID and junior talent ID. For clubs looking for outsized returns, strong opposition talent ID and mature age ID for mine trumps superiority of junior talent ID, and should have relatively speaking compared to other clubs given they're not focused there, a much higher weighting.
This is probably the stupidest idea you have come up with because it is just so illogical. If you did a rudimentary analysis of each clubs best 22 and you tiered the players into four categories Very Good, Good, Average, Filler, where do the MAJORITY of your Very Good, Good and Average tier come from? No, we don't need to hear about Tom Stewart because remember we are talking majority (he is an exception and definitely not the rule). For every Tom Steward in the Very Good bracket, there are five players taken as elite juniors in the ND. The portion of Very Good, Good and even Average players is crazily weighted towards the National Draft it's not funny. The majority of mature agers end up in the list filler category.
Opposition ID is a different subject.
But even if you weighted it 76.6666% Junior and 33.3333% Mature, that would be dumb as hell, given where the majority of productive AFL players are taken (it's way more than 70% through the juniors)
To say that you would split your time by percentages is also inane because you should really just be focussing your energy on TALENT. AFL clubs would rightly never say something as silly as, let's spend 33.33% of our time watching random VFL games because we might find a Lachie Bramble. They will say, jeez, that Lachie Bramble has talent, let's just spend some time tracking him and forget all the other random VFL games that give us no benefit. They watch talented players, not random leagues for the sake of it. The other thing you are clearly missing is the information these AFL clubs have in their databases because all of the mature agers have at one time gone through the elite junior system. 33.3% of their time spent on saying "Geez, that Bailey Rogers is a similar player to his underage year, but a bit fitter" - now let's watch more and more footage of him without learning anything new because they already watched him as a junior.
Your mature age bias is just silly. Your picks in the BF phantom were silly considering most of the players you picked could have been had in the RD or the PSP.
Your're trying to prove the unprovable because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than everyone (incl. every AFL club). You are not and your ideas about mature age prospects are completely flawed.
Here is Hawthorn's example. I am sure the make-up of most lists would be quite similar in the distribution of talent from mature or junior pathways. There might be 1 or 2 outliers.
HFC Best Players Elite Very Good Average O’Meara ND Mitchell ND Wingard ND Sicily ND Breust RD Gunston ND Hardwick ND Day ND Scrimshaw ND Jiath CAT-B Worpel ND Impey ND McEvoy ND Bramble MATURE (potential) Shiels ND Moore ND Howe ND Phillips ND Lewis ND Kosi ND Hartigan RD Frost ND RESULT 0% Mature 10% Mature 0% Mature
Mature agers on the list – Callow, Newcombe, Bramble,
I am sure I haven't convinced you and I am looking forward to you doubling down. But I will say it again.
You are wrong...
Chop
Tom Stewart, Tim Kelly, Sam Menegola, Tom Atkins, Brad Close, Nick Hind, Liam Ryan, Willie Rioli, Alex Keath, Brodie Mihocek, Luke Ryan. There are tons of examples of great mature age gets. Each of these players should have been taken earlier than they were. An argument could be made for Tim Kelly to have gone pick #1 in the 2017 draft.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,284
There is a lot of love for Hobbs on a higher level than Brodie from his draft and a number of levels higher than Constable when he was drafted.
As has been covered already, defensively he is better but I'd add, perhaps can get forward a little more, is a stronger mark and the more productive.
Jacob Van Rooyen and Jack Williams with 17 and 37 respectively are the two talls to keep an eye out for. If after ruck depth, Toby Conway makes sense, though you probably need to use 17 to get him or better move down a few spots.
The other two if Melbourne are open to going the mature age route are Leek Alleer and Charlie Dean as key defenders. I really like both and would encourage Melbourne to discuss them if not one, if lacking confidence in Melbourne's long term key defence stocks. I don't really see it as a priority to add to the key defenders (Petty showed improvement late season I feel like), but more-so one where if the right option is there and represents superior value, that's more the time it would make sense for Melbourne to go that way.
There are lots of good midfielders this year, so there should be further opportunities to keep adding. Bailey Rogers, and again going with the mature age names, but I like how he would fit into Melbourne's midfield. He's a good midfielder with a good skillset, but he can go forward too and be a threat, which should fit well as you've obviously got your higher usage mids already who want their minutes.
The method of measurement was assessing top-15 in draft calibre players in hindsight v the number of mature ages taken inside the top-15. So it wasn't a quantitative analysis, though had I completed a quantitative analysis based on games played for draft position taken, the result would again have been heavily favourable. For further detail, I'm happy on my YouTube to complete hindsight reviews of a number of drafts at some point when I get the time to illustrate this further and show more concretely and in more detail the outcomes. And if you'd like quantitative analysis there, I very well could do.
My view is even as high as late in the first round, outside of the first 15, clubs should be giving strong consideration to mature age prospects - inclusive of overagers. Occasionally there will be one worth consideration inside that first 15, but in general terms, it's outside that top-15 where generally the rates of success with junior selections for a quick feel for the average year tends to drop off and the results of mature agers past suggest there is viability to giving consideration to them around this point. Where a heavy focus is needed for mature agers? At what point in the average draft should mature agers become more of a focus than junior talents? I'd say the third round in most drafts, and some drafts it might be late second round, roughly after that first 30. And with clubs being so averse to selecting mature agers and picking them so scarcely, that's what makes it viable. If everyone else pivots to more mature age talent, that's when a shift back to the juniors has to happen, as the draft is always about securing the best available talent and maximising the return on investment. A look back at drafts past would confirm, with the 3rd round starting at lets call it around that pick 40 mark, the hit rate with draft age talent it's high. There are a lot of guys who don't play and get delisted quickly and don't come close, whereas the average mature ager will for the most part play and contribute in some way short term, and often times end up being pieces over the medium to long term.
If there is the demand for a dramatically more in depth look, I'm happy to get a lot more specific.
Given the reactions to my reaction video, I probably won't be completing another unless someone specifically reaches out to me to give my opinion on their own work, and I feel there would be the interest from enough people. Just reading the room. I'm not here to alienate, cause conflict or cause hurt feelings. The video has performed well, but with a wider misunderstanding of the concept than expected, I probably won't do the same with Twomey when he releases his November rankings.
The tricky part here is, there isn't a particular key forward who I'd necessarily endorse this year or feel will represent suitable value for the draft position they're taken. If Melbourne really want that key forward, and let's say Amiss is still there at 12/13/14, perhaps a trade offer to move up could be made, if a team in that range believes their guy will still be there at Melbourne's currently pick 17.
My personal view though is it's one to leave on the backburner for next year and address then when there are some better options available and you're more likely to find that long term option if you can get into the right part of the draft.
If I'm after an outside mid, St Kilda NGA Mitch Owens would be my pick with Melbourne's first pick. Some will say Chesser, but Owens with the way he has both improved but then performed over that latter part of the year looks the better footballer.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Posts
- 14,757
- Reaction score
- 17,367
- Location
- NASA
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Coburg
I suspect Bigfooty might be a bit more receptive to a Cal Twomey exposé.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,286
Geelong's mature age drafting masterclass - why other clubs should use their blueprint:
Point of discussion: Should more clubs follow the lead of Geelong and take more mature age prospects? Why/why not?
Point of discussion: Should more clubs follow the lead of Geelong and take more mature age prospects? Why/why not?
https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...-geelong-cats-defied-father-years-no-accident
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,287
If I get 50 likes or more on this post and no objections or comments in response to this post that completing an exposing Cal Twomey's phantom form guide would be in poor taste, I'm happy if Twomey completes a final rankings to do the same with what he puts together and take that same first look at who he rates/doesn't rate.
The key understanding to the concept is that of a reaction video. It's taking a look for the first time at what someone else has put together and give my own take on what I'm looking at and what I see similarly/differently accordingly and picking up on as per in my previous video on - this is a rating that deviates from where they're likely to get picked, or this is very different to my own rating and outline why and so on.
The Kings Ransom
Premiership Player
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2021
- Posts
- 4,515
- Reaction score
- 5,170
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
Not that I've delved too deep into this debate, but has it been mentioned anywhere all the mature aged players that have been drafted and didn't make it?
Shouldn't we be comparing
Mature agers to become solid AFL players / All mature agers drafted?
vs.
u18 players to become solid AFL players / all junior players drafted?
That would give the best indication of how comparatively successful scouting and drafting the different subtypes are? Whilst there are obviously mature agers that succeed, there are a heap that never make it either.
Just scrolling through the GC Suns past/ current players (might not be the best example.. but I know the players)
Mature agers who didn't make it: Roland Ah Chee, Nathan Ablett, Sam Fletcher, Michael Coad, Mckenzie Willis, Keegan Brooskby, Kyal Horsely, Max Spencer, Andrew Boston, Andrew Mcqualter, Karmichael Hunt, Josh Glenn, Josh Hall, Jarrod Grant, Jacob Townsend, George Norlin-Smith, Joel Tippett, Liam Patrick, Leigh Osbourne, Mitch Hallahan, Tyrone Downie, Mitch Riordan
There are plenty more.. I stopped counting.
Shouldn't we be comparing
Mature agers to become solid AFL players / All mature agers drafted?
vs.
u18 players to become solid AFL players / all junior players drafted?
That would give the best indication of how comparatively successful scouting and drafting the different subtypes are? Whilst there are obviously mature agers that succeed, there are a heap that never make it either.
Just scrolling through the GC Suns past/ current players (might not be the best example.. but I know the players)
Mature agers who didn't make it: Roland Ah Chee, Nathan Ablett, Sam Fletcher, Michael Coad, Mckenzie Willis, Keegan Brooskby, Kyal Horsely, Max Spencer, Andrew Boston, Andrew Mcqualter, Karmichael Hunt, Josh Glenn, Josh Hall, Jarrod Grant, Jacob Townsend, George Norlin-Smith, Joel Tippett, Liam Patrick, Leigh Osbourne, Mitch Hallahan, Tyrone Downie, Mitch Riordan
There are plenty more.. I stopped counting.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,289
A lot of the players you're bringing up were delisted and immediately re-drafted. I class them as recycled players. When I'm talking mature agers, in the context I am, I include overagers, and those who haven't been AFL listed.
Tyson Stengle would be about as inbetween those two categories as there could be, but given most of his season was in the SANFL, as his delisting occurred before round 1 if I remember correctly, he's another I'd include in that mature age bracket, given his season wasn't played as part of an AFL list.
So to take Biggy Nyuon as an example, he's someone while I'm a fan, if he was re-drafted or taken as a DFA, he would be in recycled player camp and fit into the broader category of opposition talent ID if taken by another team.
And in that recycled component, there is with good talent ID occasionally a good one, and there were more good ones delisted last year because of the list size squeeze. But normally I would on average view it as a lower % recruiting route that probably not as much recently, but certainly 10-15 years ago was overused, with the balance around the mark now for mine.
So to look at mature agers as a category. There are lots of different ways to chop things up. Along the lines of your thinking, and you could look at them in % terms of % of mature agers v % of u18 prospects that are hits/misses. And it could be a quantitative look or a more subjective look. And then you can look at by ranges in the draft and get granular on that level and break down that success rate of again mature agers v u18s.
If I get the time over the offseason, I may if there is the interest take the time to really go deep into that analysis.
I can tell you having looked through the drafts the numbers are not just slightly, but very heavily favourable to the mature agers, whatever your measure. But as with a lot of things, giving the statistical evidence and adding additional quantitative analysis should further put things in context and speak to the exact extent and determine that mature agers picked in x range are providing comperable value to prospects out of the u18s taken in x range from the years 2001-2020, or 1999-2018, or whatever number of years, over a good sample period.
*And the disclaimer, and this was made earlier and rightly by eDPS that there is now the MSD and PSP, and I can even add the DFA period for those delisted who have formerly been part of the AFL system which limits the number of mature agers available in the national draft. Though perhaps on the other side of the argument, it may speak further to the importance of mature age recruitment given the opportunities to improve your list with mature agers during each of those periods, even aside from the National/Pre-Season/Rookie drafts.
Chris25
Premium Platinum
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Posts
- 12,318
- Reaction score
- 15,725
- Location
- Adelaide
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- West End Redbacks, Cleveland Browns
Or those who have succeeded in good teams versus bad ones. Much easier to walk into a side like Geelong with so many stars around you, rather than having to try to be the star in a bottom side.
The Kings Ransom
Premiership Player
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2021
- Posts
- 4,515
- Reaction score
- 5,170
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
Yeah, I'd be interested to see the actual numbers / analysis.
Excluding those 're-cycled players' you can exclude 4 of the 22 names I mentioned.
Grant, Townsend, Mcqualter, Horlin-Smith
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,292
There could be a layer of good teams v bad teams, I feel like that's worth exploring, and further comparing those success v fail rates. And good teams on average tend to pick more than bad teams, so you'll also find the quantity added will differ.
As a concept though. Do mature agers ever get picked with the thinking they'll be 'stars?' Given they're almost never taken inside the top-15, I can't imagine clubs would be selecting them with that thought process. Even though we have, as per my examples drawn upon in my article today seen genuine stars emerge, and across all positions.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,293
That's certainly the way I'd be approaching it in terms of categories.
And we've seen with Gold Coast going heavy on bottom of opposition list opposition talent, I don't think too many will be arguing in favour of those kinds of talents, as ultimately, they're nowhere near best-22, so it's excluding the obvious concept of adding talent with a view towards improving your best-22.
In terms of delisted talent, and that's another subject/category entirely, I see the opportunity mostly as being those older established players who are delisted. Often times, they're delisted prematurely (or sometimes available for trade as players who would be planned for delisted) and still offer role player value for teams, and can bring on top of that veteran leadership which helps youth development. Brent Harvey? Luke Hodge? Sam Mitchell? Steve Johnson? Paul Chapman? They're the kinds of opportunities where it's looking a gift horse in the mouth and opportunities that really shouldn't happen.
It's incredible as an NBA fan looking at how contrasting roster construction is and how those good teams load up on veterans. They get how they help towards winning and don't waste time on speculative youth for the most part, and you'll get radically older rosters as a result than from other teams. They put that value premium on those good veterans, and the bonus is they're generally going to be your smaller contract players where you're getting all the performance and leadership value without the price tag - be it in what is given up or contractually.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Posts
- 19,533
- Reaction score
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3,295
With 50 likes or more. On the condition there are none expressing the view that doing so would be in bad taste.
Happy for you or others to pump the quote if it's something you'd like to see.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Posts
- 7,425
- Reaction score
- 7,365
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2021
- Posts
- 547
- Reaction score
- 1,059
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Knightmare do you think Freo would consider taking Gibcus or Hobbs at pick 6?
I must be too old, never watch youtube videos that aren't just replays of Dom Sheeds GF goal.
- Status
