Draft Profile Liam Stocker

[Monkey King]

There's an old adage in football, 'don't give away high draft picks when you're building a list ' .

That’s probably why during the list rebuild phase Carlton didn’t trade away any high picks; indeed they traded in quite a few. Come the first post-build draft, the first pick was traded before it was even received. 101 you reckon huh?

Well
Well he's had 15 clangers in 4 games according to AFL statistics.

Do you understand what that means? Bloke has had 5 FA & averages 72% disposal efficiency.

Ditto on the Dusty stats. It’s always a laugh when someone mic drops a stat without the understanding.

 

[footyfan1978]

Plus he only played 3 games so far. Dodos that think he played 4 show how ignorant they are.
To the nufty that thinks he would be as advanced as Walsh, he had injuries last year and probably still well off having the fitness base he would like right now.I am just happy he fit enough to start playing and look forward to watch him progress. Looks very likely type on what I seen so far.

 

[TiAn_]

I dunno where you got this gem from, but the dude was a full time uni student last year. Stop making **** up.

Not often I hear people pointing to a 5-6 months age difference and claiming one as “the younger”player.

Stocker was one of the oldest players in his cohort. Perhaps you’d rather ignore age, that’s up to you. Recruiters don’t. When it comes to U-18 players age isn’t trivial. Particularly when the gap between Stocker and say Bailey Smith is basically a full year of development. For example, Stocker is only 5 weeks younger than Aaron Naughton, who was drafted the year prior.

Stephenson was in the same boat as Stocker the year prior, age wise, but given his frame and that he didn’t rely on his size advantage to impact games at TAC level it probably has less adverse bearing on an assessment of his potential, compared to a player like Stocker. In hindsight, you’d rather Stephenson over Dow though, so age is just one of many factors to consider.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

The gap between Stocker and mids taken at the top end like Walsh, Rozee and Smith is glaring. And that’s despite being nearly a full year older than Smith, for example, and Stocker having basically been a full-time footballer last year.

With his age and his physical traits, Stocker doesn’t project the high end potential you’d expect from a pick in the top 3 (which is likely what was given up for him and a later pick).

Is there much difference between Stocker and say the younger Jack Ross, who Richmond picked up in the 40s and has probably been more impressive to date?

It will be a similar story with Rowell and Anderson (and maybe Kemp) next year, who are strong possibilities of having quite a bit more potential and immediate impact than Stocker, with Anderson in particular looking exceptional.

Stocker does seem as though he’ll do the basic stuff well enough to have a role in a team like Carlton. He’s a high floor/low ceiling type of player, which may be what Carlton need after some seeming whiffs on other players drafted and traded in.

But price paid for him looks to be a steep one, and clearly far steeper than Carlton anticipated.

Time will tell though.

Imagine spending pick 26 on Rhylee West when you could’ve had Sydney Stack for free.

That’s how silly you sound. Imagine judging a first year player after seeing 9 games of footy.

If you’re going to make baseless assumptions on next year’s draft atleast speculate on Carlton’s first rounder too. Should sit around 9-13, and with SOS’ history at Carlton we can only assume that’s a McKay or Curnow type talent? Sounds great.

 

[Mofra]

There's an old adage in football, 'don't give away high draft picks when you're building a list '

Carlton had 14 former first round draft picks playing for them against GWS.
GWS had 11, plus two pre-selection picks (effectively first rounders).

I don't think an extra first round pick or two would have made up the difference in scoreline.

 

[footyfan1978]

That’s how silly you sound. Imagine judging a first year player after seeing 9 games of footy.

I think he is as silly as he sounds.

 

[Monkey King]

Stocker was one of the oldest players in his cohort.

Doesn’t mean you get to just make shit up about the kid. Cut that out!

This season and next isn’t going to tell much of story about what the future holds for most of the kids from this draft class. Acting as though a 6 month age difference actually matters at this point is nonsense imo.

 

[Virgin Dog]

I dunno where you got this gem from, but the dude was a full time uni student last year. Stop making **** up.

Not often I hear people pointing to a 5-6 months age difference and claiming one as “the younger”player.

Not sure if you've been to uni or not, but first year of uni is like barely part-time in terms of how much effort needs to be dedicated to it. Maybe "full time footballer" is a stretch, but not as big a stretch as saying a first year uni student is "full time"

 

[Faz 2000]

Judging Stocker the player, I'd say he looks promising.

The trade that secured the pick that got him is looking like a gamble that's backfired for Carlton. Not his fault, but it'll always be how he's judged a bit, which is unfortunate for him.

 

[Monkey King]

Not sure if you've been to uni or not, but first year of uni is like barely part-time in terms of how much effort needs to be dedicated to it. Maybe "full time footballer" is a stretch, but not as big a stretch as saying a first year uni student is "full time"

Being a full time student is determined by course load. No “stretch” is possible. You either have a course load determined as being full time, or you do not. Subjective notions of the effort required would vary from course to course, student to student, so I’d rather stick with the objective fact.

I just don’t get why people are making up crap about a teenaged footballer. It’s not necessary.

 

[WilloTree]

Judging Stocker the player, I'd say he looks promising.

The trade that secured the pick that got him is looking like a gamble that's backfired for Carlton. Not his fault, but it'll always be how he's judged a bit, which is unfortunate for him.

I agree. The really unfair thing is that over time it will become 'the bloke they gave up pick 1 for'. Was the same for us with Croad. The rest of the deal seems to get washed away with time.

 

[TiAn_]

Imagine spending pick 26 on Rhylee West when you could’ve had Sydney Stack for free.

That’s how silly you sound. Imagine judging a first year player after seeing 9 games of footy.

If you’re going to make baseless assumptions on next year’s draft atleast speculate on Carlton’s first rounder too. Should sit around 9-13, and with SOS’ history at Carlton we can only assume that’s a McKay or Curnow type talent? Sounds great.

I’m confident I don’t sound silly at all.

I think you’re more likely to end up with a Lochie O’Brien type talent based on who’s available.

Doesn’t mean you get to just make **** up about the kid. Cut that out!

This season and next isn’t going to tell much of story about what the future holds for most of the kids from this draft class. Acting as though a 6 month age difference actually matters at this point is nonsense imo.

Tell that to recruiters. They don’t think age differences are nonsense. You should check out Malcolm Gladwell’s yarn on the impact of birthdays on junior ice hockey players in Canada. You might change your tune a bit.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Tell that to recruiters. They don’t think age differences are nonsense. You should check out Malcolm Gladwell’s yarn on the impact of birthdays on junior ice hockey players in Canada. You might change your tune a bit.

Stocker didn’t pick up a footy til he was 11, tells me he has plenty of upside.

 

[Malifice]

Carlton had 14 former first round draft picks playing for them against GWS.
GWS had 11, plus two pre-selection picks (effectively first rounders).

I don't think an extra first round pick or two would have made up the difference in scoreline.

This.

We've brought in 9 x 1st rounders via the draft over the past 4 drafts, plus have recruited 6 more in Marchbank, Plowman, Kennedy, Setterfield, Pickett and Lang with trades of later picks over that same period (all former 1sts themselves).

We played 12 players with 50 or less games in our best 22 last week, and 14 against North 2 weeks ago. We've gotten progressively younger over the past 4 years, and if Simpson (35 years old and over 300 games) retires this year, will get even younger again next year. Adding another pimply faced 18 year old talented junior isnt going to do diddly squat to our improvement in the short to mid term while those dozen or so talented kids on our list mature.

We need established A grade talent in the 24-28 age range. A lot of it. Those senior players will provide a core around our kids as they take the next step.

In addition to getting Stocker in a year early (which is super important as we've trying to get this list to develop together) we still have a 1st this year to trade (linked to Adelaide), and a future 1st to trade as well, and one the following year to trade (we used 2 x 1sts last year, so can trade this years 1st, and the next 2 x years 1sts after this away).

Brisbanes improvement has come from senior blokes like Neale, Zorko, Lyons, Robinson etc standing up. That 24-28 year old age backet is something we seriously lack, and need to address.

I said last year that I would do the trade for Stocker, and if I had a crystal ball for this year, I would still do the same trade, even now. It's doubtful that anything will happen this year to change my mind.

We just need currency for a trade this year, which we have. The much more difficult problem we have is convincing players to nominate us for a trade.

 

[Monkey King]

Tell that to recruiters. They don’t think age differences are nonsense. You should check out Malcolm Gladwell’s yarn on the impact of birthdays on junior ice hockey players in Canada. You might change your tune a bit.

These guys are AFL players now, not juniors. Acting as though it means anything AT THIS POINT is nonsense. It’s not all unusual for better performed draftees to get overtaken by other players several years later. 6 months age difference has dick all to do with it. As I recall it, the weakest birthdays in the AFL draft over the long term are the December “under-aged” group.

 

[00Stinger]

This.

We've brought in 9 x 1st rounders via the draft over the past 4 drafts, plus have recruited 6 more in Marchbank, Plowman, Kennedy, Setterfield, Pickett and Lang with trades of later picks over that same period (all former 1sts themselves).

We played 12 players with 50 or less games in our best 22 last week, and 14 against North 2 weeks ago. We've gotten progressively younger over the past 4 years, and if Simpson (35 years old and over 300 games) retires this year, will get even younger again next year. Adding another pimply faced 18 year old talented junior isnt going to do diddly squat to our improvement in the short to mid term while those dozen or so talented kids on our list mature.

We need established A grade talent in the 24-28 age range. A lot of it. Those senior players will provide a core around our kids as they take the next step.

In addition to getting Stocker in a year early (which is super important as we've trying to get this list to develop together) we still have a 1st this year to trade (linked to Adelaide), and a future 1st to trade as well, and one the following year to trade (we used 2 x 1sts last year, so can trade this years 1st, and the next 2 x years 1sts after this away).

Brisbanes improvement has come from senior blokes like Neale, Zorko, Lyons, Robinson etc standing up. That 24-28 year old age backet is something we seriously lack, and need to address.

I said last year that I would do the trade for Stocker, and if I had a crystal ball for this year, I would still do the same trade, even now. It's doubtful that anything will happen this year to change my mind.

We just need currency for a trade this year, which we have. The much more difficult problem we have is convincing players to nominate us for a trade.

what currency do you have to trade?

 

[Young Gun #6]

This.

I said last year that I would do the trade for Stocker, and if I had a crystal ball for this year, I would still do the same trade, even now. It's doubtful that anything will happen this year to change my mind.

That is actually absrud that you'd STILL do that trade knowing your pick will be pick 1 and Adelaide's anywhere from 10-16.
Do you really think Stocker is THAT good that you'd give away all of the currency you had to land one of prized 24-28 year old guns?

If you didn't do that Stocker trade and also didn't care about getting what looks like an absolute gun midfielder in Rowell then you could've at least traded pick 1 for a gun 24-28 year old player which is exactly what you want.

You can't just hope they'll fall into your laps and a trade of pick 1 would get any player who you were interested in pretty much.

Stocker + Pick 13-15 isn't going to get you much at all yet if you reverse that trade you have just pick 1 which is a huge currency, especially when there is a bloke touted as a generational midfielder linked to that top pick.


At the moment it's just a loop of not showing enough to attract the top free agents and then the currency you have is given away for more young players (like Stocker for example).
What you should have done was hold that no.1 pick next year and trade it for a superstar if you didn't want another kid.

It'll get to the point where you'll have to trade Curnow, Weitering or McKay to actually get any of those 24-28 guns back. If you want this process to start soon after already trading away pick no.1 next year, it's going to be hard to attract those (unless you can lure them in free agency) without a top 10 pick for at least another year.. hence meaning another year of not having the players in that prime age bracket.

Honestly though you're not going to trade away any of those good young kids and you don't have a top 5 (or likely top 10) pick next year so the club is going to have to swing to the fences on Coniglio and other free agents after missing out on Shiel last year.

 

[Crow till I die]

That is actually absrud that you'd STILL do that trade knowing your pick will be pick 1 and Adelaide's anywhere from 10-16.
Do you really think Stocker is THAT good that you'd give away all of the currency you had to land one of prized 24-28 year old guns?

If you didn't do that Stocker trade and also didn't care about getting what looks like an absolute gun midfielder in Rowell then you could've at least traded pick 1 for a gun 24-28 year old player which is exactly what you want.

You can't just hope they'll fall into your laps and a trade of pick 1 would get any player who you were interested in pretty much.

Stocker + Pick 13-15 isn't going to get you much at all yet if you reverse that trade you have just pick 1 which is a huge currency, especially when there is a bloke touted as a generational midfielder linked to that top pick.


At the moment it's just a loop of not showing enough to attract the top free agents and then the currency you have is given away for more young players (like Stocker for example).
What you should have done was hold that no.1 pick next year and trade it for a superstar if you didn't want another kid.

It'll get to the point where you'll have to trade Curnow, Weitering or McKay to actually get any of those 24-28 guns back. If you want this process to start soon after already trading away pick no.1 next year, it's going to be hard to attract those (unless you can lure them in free agency) without a top 10 pick for at least another year.. hence meaning another year of not having the players in that prime age bracket.

Honestly though you're not going to trade away any of those good young kids and you don't have a top 5 (or likely top 10) pick next year so the club is going to have to swing to the fences on Coniglio and other free agents after missing out on Shiel last year.

I agree. If they had held their powder dry and not traded for Stocker - then it is very likely they would have been able to add Rowell or Anderson to Walsh and Cripps as their frontline mids - in all likelihood, 3 elite mids and that gives real depth.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

I agree. If they had held their powder dry and not traded for Stocker - then it is very likely they would have been able to add Rowell or Anderson to Walsh and Cripps as their frontline mids - in all likelihood, 3 elite mids and that gives real depth.

So adding Stocker and either a draft pick in the range of 8-12 or trading for a player with that pick doesn't add depth?

 

[Crow till I die]

So adding Stocker and either a draft pick in the range of 8-12 or trading for a player with that pick doesn't add depth?

far less likely to add ELITE depth to your midfield - you might get lucky but Rowell and Anderson look exceptional

 

[HereComesJuddy]

far less likely to add ELITE depth to your midfield - you might get lucky but Rowell and Anderson look exceptional

Happy with what we've done.

 

[tombomb]

far less likely to add ELITE depth to your midfield - you might get lucky but Rowell and Anderson look exceptional

has anyone actually seen either of them play?

 

[Crow till I die]

has anyone actually seen either of them play?

A few on our board have seen tgem live numerous times as have the usual crew on the draft board

 

[HereComesJuddy]

A few on our board have seen tgem live numerous times as have the usual crew on the draft board

Both should be good. If you're happy with the result than that makes 2 of us

 

[Lore]

Those arguments (posts are deleted) are well-established but they’ve got very little to do with Stocker.

Please keep the thread on-topic. Stocker was taken with pick 19. The rest of that trade cannot be evaluated until the rest of the picks are used. In any case this is not the place to rehash the live trade between Carlton and Adelaide last year.

If you can’t keep to the topic when posting here then your access to this thread will be revoked.