Draft Profile Liam Stocker

[Brutalitops]

Too much faith in SOS ,if he wasn't a club champion he would have been sacked this year.His recruiting policy seems be to get in family members and GWS rejects who he knows.

Well, you seem to have made up your mind and have made your position abundantly clear. Guess theres no further point in replying to you as you arent open for discussion about the topic at hand. Good day

 

[THE_GUN]

Im ok with the trade and can see where Carlton are coming from in doing this deal, They need ti improve and improve fast
Carlton cant continue to wait for the bucket to get full with just a drop every year and need to open the tap to fill it fast

Walsh + Stocker this year as well as McGovern,Setterfield and their existing youth gives them enough young talent and will need probably 2-3 more mature players with Next Years 1st rounder as well as 1-2 quality free agents and they will be around the mark and competitive

The only thing i 'DONT' agree with and find it really strange is the rating of Stocker at #6 , Crlton appear to be the only team that rated Stocker in the top 20 and the difference is just huge.

Just watched the St Kilda draft video on afl.com and they were trying to get Ports #10 for Caldwell and once gone were again desperately trying to trade their 2019 1st rounder to Adelaide for Riley Collier-Dawkins who was seen to be sliding and the saints guy mentions whilst Raw he's more like a top 8-10 pick.

I do know that Richmond were looking to take Hill ahead of stocker had RCD been taken but once he was available it was a no brainer, GWS were always taking O'Hallaron & Brisbane taking Ely Smith so Stocker could well have slid to around #25

So how does Carlton's rating be so different to every other teams ?

 

[Jeremias]

The only thing i 'DONT' agree with and find it really strange is the rating of Stocker at #6 , Crlton appear to be the only team that rated Stocker in the top 20 and the difference is just huge.

I don't know how any rational person can come to this conclusion.

People can speculate but the reality is we have no idea where every other club rated Stocker.

 

[Socrates2]

Im ok with the trade and can see where Carlton are coming from in doing this deal, They need ti improve and improve fast
Carlton cant continue to wait for the bucket to get full with just a drop every year and need to open the tap to fill it fast

Walsh + Stocker this year as well as McGovern,Setterfield and their existing youth gives them enough young talent and will need probably 2-3 more mature players with Next Years 1st rounder as well as 1-2 quality free agents and they will be around the mark and competitive

The only thing i 'DONT' agree with and find it really strange is the rating of Stocker at #6 , Crlton appear to be the only team that rated Stocker in the top 20 and the difference is just huge.

Just watched the St Kilda draft video on afl.com and they were trying to get Ports #10 for Caldwell and once gone were again desperately trying to trade their 2019 1st rounder to Adelaide for Riley Collier-Dawkins who was seen to be sliding and the saints guy mentions whilst Raw he's more like a top 8-10 pick.

I do know that Richmond were looking to take Hill ahead of stocker had RCD been taken but once he was available it was a no brainer, GWS were always taking O'Hallaron & Brisbane taking Ely Smith so Stocker could well have slid to around #25

So how does Carlton's rating be so different to every other teams ?

I think because they want mids who can play early, he's only 183cm so pick 6 seems a bit too high for mine.

 

[THE_GUN]

I don't know how any rational person can come to this conclusion.

People can speculate but the reality is we have no idea where every other club rated Stocker.

Actually is very simple and we can

If the teams rated him so highly they would have selected him with their picks , In saying this
Im not sure how any Rational person could ask the question you just asked

Perhaps you may like to give me the answer to the question which clearly i have missed

 

[Socrates2]

If he is still on the board come Friday I can see a couple clubs inquiring about our pick 20 which is the first pick of that day.

Either that or we take him ourselves lol. I doubt he'll slide past Richmond's first pick.

Very astute ! Nice work.

 

[Jeremias]

Actually is very simple and we can

No, you really can't.

We have absolutely no idea where 17/18 clubs rated Stocker.

That a club picked a different prospect with a selection inside the top 20 does not necessarily equate to not rating Stocker inside their top 20. All it means is they rated that particular prospect higher.

For all you or I know, the Suns rated Stocker as the best prospect outside of Lukosius, Rankine and Ben King.

If the teams rated him so highly they would have selected him with their picks

Not if they rated another player higher, which they clearly did. It's a really simple concept.

 

[THE_GUN]

No, you really can't.

We have absolutely no idea where 17/18 clubs rated Stocker.

That a club picked a different prospect with a selection inside the top 20 does not necessarily equate to not rating Stocker inside their top 20. All it means is they rated that particular prospect higher.

For all you or I know, the Suns rated Stocker as the best prospect outside of Lukosius, Rankine and Ben King.



Not if they rated another player higher, which they clearly did. It's a really simple concept.

I think you are getting all defensive for no reason but your argument really doesnt not make sense

If a team rates a player in the 1st round they take the best available talent - Which in their ratings they did

And your example regarding the Suns is just silly , They had more assets than Carlton to get a deal done to take Stocker but didnt and even if they did they Wanted Jez McLennan and traded their 2 picks just to move up a couple of spots.

But the part of your post i highlighted really confusing

 

[Jeremias]

I think you are getting all defensive for no reason but your argument really doesnt not make sense

Not getting defensive at all - ultimately I couldn't care less where other clubs rated him. It's not relevant.

It just amazes me that so many people seem to throw logic out the window when discussing these things.

If a team rates a player in the 1st round they take the best available talent - Which in their ratings they did

Yes. Every club who picked before Carlton at 19, rated the player they selected, higher than Stocker.

That doesn't mean they didn't rate Stocker inside the top 20.

And your example regarding the Suns is just silly , They had more assets than Carlton to get a deal done to take Stocker but didnt and even if they did they Wanted Jez McLennan and traded their 2 picks just to move up a couple of spots.

Why is it silly?

Obviously I was using hyperbole as I don't actually expect the Suns to have rated Stocker as the 4th best player in the draft.

It was used as an example to show how silly your argument is. How do you know the Suns didn't rate Stocker inside their top 20? McLennan holds no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

How do you know where Geelong rated Stocker?

How do you know where Brisbane rated Stocker?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The answer is you don't. And you can try spin this around any which way you want, but that basic fact - which is my original comment on the matter - doesn't change.

You have no idea where any club other than Carlton rated Stocker, other than behind the prospect they selected at their pick inside 20.

But the part of your post i highlighted really confusing

Then I can't help you much because I'm not sure I can make it any more simple for you.

Geelong picked Jordan Clark at 15. Who are you to say they didn't rate him as the 9th best prospect in the draft, and Stocker the 10th?

 

[Ian Dunross]

They'd want to get this pick right

 

[Jeremias]

They'd want to get this pick right

Sure. I'm not sure any club wants to get any pick wrong.

 

[Socrates2]

I just saw Docherty has done his knee again which makes the Stoker deal not so good as Carlton's 1st round pick they traded will kore than likely be 2 or 3 for sure now.I like Docherty ,it's pretty crap news for the young man.

 

[THE_GUN]

Not getting defensive at all - ultimately I couldn't care less where other clubs rated him. It's not relevant.

It just amazes me that so many people seem to throw logic out the window when discussing these things.




Yes. Every club who picked before Carlton at 19, rated the player they selected, higher than Stocker.

That doesn't mean they didn't rate Stocker inside the top 20.



Why is it silly?

Obviously I was using hyperbole as I don't actually expect the Suns to have rated Stocker as the 4th best player in the draft.

It was used as an example to show how silly your argument is. How do you know the Suns didn't rate Stocker inside their top 20? McLennan holds no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

How do you know where Geelong rated Stocker?

How do you know where Brisbane rated Stocker?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The answer is you don't. And you can try spin this around any which way you want, but that basic fact - which is my original comment on the matter - doesn't change.

You have no idea where any club other than Carlton rated Stocker, other than behind the prospect they selected at their pick inside 20.



Then I can't help you much because I'm not sure I can make it any more simple for you.

Geelong picked Jordan Clark at 15. Who are you to say they didn't rate him as the 9th best prospect in the draft, and Stocker the 10th?

Looks like you are refusing to accept whats obvious to all , Clubs had the choice to select Stocker at their pick but decided their are players they rate higher.

Just have a look at the saints & GWS video's there is no mention of stocker at any of GWS picks and are wanting to trade up for O'Halloran even taking 2 picks prior to #19 with #11 & #14
GC did trade their 2 picks for McLennan again had more assets to get it done
Port had 3 selections and even at their #15 there is no interest in stocker
Crows happy to trade out #19 and not take stocker whilst they also used 2 selections prior with #16 & #9
Richmond & Brisbane i already mentioned

Every example i have given is fact on what occurred but your example of geelong is just an optimistic guess which most likely is incorrect

Anyway im not saying he isnt or wont be a good player but the arting of the player seems to be a way off what other teams have done

Happy to agree to disagree

 

[Jeremias]

Looks like you are refusing to accept whats obvious to all , Clubs had the choice to select Stocker at their pick but decided their are players they rate higher.

Now you are just having a laugh.

Refusing to accept?

I have said many times that clubs rated the player they selected inside the top 20 higher than Stocker. That much is very obvious.

Look at my previous post FFS. I literally said...

Yes. Every club who picked before Carlton at 19, rated the player they selected, higher than Stocker.

Just have a look at the saints & GWS video's there is no mention of stocker at any of GWS picks and are wanting to trade up for O'Halloran even taking 2 picks prior to #19 with #11 & #14

This doesn't mean they didn't rate Stocker inside their top 20...

GC did trade their 2 picks for McLennan again had more assets to get it done

Nor does this...

Port had 3 selections and even at their #15 there is no interest in stocker

Or this...

Crows happy to trade out #19 and not take stocker whilst they also used 2 selections prior with #16 & #9

Or even this.

Richmond & Brisbane i already mentioned

Mentioning it more doesn't make it true.

Where did Brisbane rate Stocker?

Every example i have given is fact on what occurred but your example of geelong is just an optimistic guess which most likely is incorrect

Every example you have given doesn't prove the statement you made initially.

It has exactly zero more validity than my comment about Geelong, which I have acknowledged could be, and most likely is, incorrect.

 

[THE_GUN]

Now you are just having a laugh.

Refusing to accept?

I have said many times that clubs rated the player they selected inside the top 20 higher than Stocker. That much is very obvious.

Look at my previous post FFS. I literally said...





This doesn't mean they didn't rate Stocker inside their top 20...



Nor does this...



Or this...



Or even this.



Mentioning it more doesn't make it true.

Where did Brisbane rate Stocker?



Every example you have given doesn't prove the statement you made initially.

It has exactly zero more validity than my comment about Geelong, which I have acknowledged could be, and most likely is, incorrect.

Sorry mate but i really do thing you are the one having a laugh

A team has picks #5 , #10 & #15 and doesnt take him pretty much convince me they dont have him rated
But good luck with your #6 if you truly believe that

 

[Mojorisin]

Just a hypothetical.
If they rated stocker at 6 who would be above and below him?
Walsh
Rankine
Luko
Rozzee
Smith
STOCKER
Leaves the king twins
Blakely
Caldwell
Jones
Thomas

 

[branedotorg]

Harris Andrews first 3 seasons were marginally better than Weitering's first 3 seasons IMO.

more than marginally better i reckon. happy with weit though.

 

[Socrates2]

Just a hypothetical.
If they rated stocker at 6 who would be above and below him?
Walsh
Rankine
Luko
Rozzee
Smith
STOCKER
Leaves the king twins
Blakely
Caldwell
Jones
Thomas

The Carlton recruiting team surely can't rate two 200cm key position players above a 183cm mid, or can they?

 

[LemmingMaster]

Just a hypothetical.
If they rated stocker at 6 who would be above and below him?
Walsh
Rankine
Luko
Rozzee
Smith
STOCKER
Leaves the king twins
Blakely
Caldwell
Jones
Thomas

Walsh
Rankine
Lukosius
Max King
Caldwell
They were above

 

[Mojorisin]

Walsh
Rankine
Lukosius
Max King
Caldwell
They were above

That's crazy if true. I'd rate Smith well above him as well as rozee. B. King is obviously a tall and not a need for them but you'd still assume would rank higher.
I see potential in stocker but if given the option as I stated would take smith/rozee.
I would also take jones/rcd/e.smith above him as guys I predict could be either better walk up starts or more developable

 

[LemmingMaster]

That's crazy if true. I'd rate Smith well above him as well as rozee. B. King is obviously a tall and not a need for them but you'd still assume would rank higher.
I see potential in stocker but if given the option as I stated would take smith/rozee.
I would also take jones/rcd/e.smith above him as guys I predict could be either better walk up starts or more developable

We will see long term how good your ratings are.

 

[Jeremias]

Sorry mate but i really do thing you are the one having a laugh

I’m laughing, because you’ve claimed to know where clubs rated Stocker, but really have no idea.

A team has picks #5 , #10 & #15 and doesnt take him pretty much convince me they dont have him rated

Then you are very easily convinced, given the only thing you could possibly know, is that Stocker wasn’t the highest on their board at each selection.

But good luck with your #6 if you truly believe that

Why wouldn’t I believe it?

 

[Arr0w]

That's crazy if true. I'd rate Smith well above him as well as rozee. B. King is obviously a tall and not a need for them but you'd still assume would rank higher.
I see potential in stocker but if given the option as I stated would take smith/rozee.
I would also take jones/rcd/e.smith above him as guys I predict could be either better walk up starts or more developable

That is not what drafting is about, you use trading/FA, if you want to achieve "walk up starts"

 

[Ian Dunross]

Sure. I'm not sure any club wants to get any pick wrong.

The pressure is heightened when you give up a top 4 pick for a kid.

 

[Arr0w]

The Carlton recruiting team surely can't rate two 200cm key position players above a 183cm mid, or can they?

If you are purely rating talent/best available, it has nothing to do with size, shape or playing position