- Aug 7, 2015
- 10,677
- 17,425
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
What can you guys tell me about this guy?
We were hoping you could tell us.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What can you guys tell me about this guy?
No your analogy falls apart for 2 reasons. Firstly you can't assign a value to this lad in terms of picks because of Phantom drafts, you have no idea that he wouldn't have gone to someone else for pick 20. And secondly we only had 2 picks to use so if we rated Milera as the best player for us in this draft then it is totally irrelevant how much we paid for this kid. It would be like your car sale but you had to spend all of your $5,000 anyway.Actually, I don't think that's right.
Your player evaluation can only be determined with time- sure. The actual in draft value of a player however is determined at this point in time.
If you had access to every team's draft board you could quantify each player's draft value, and determine who overpaid and who didn't.
The trick- the real hit it out of the park- is to get the highest possible return for the assets that you have. I.e. to get the best players at the best price. If the second best player in the draft is really available at pick 70, then your dream is to take them there.
No your analogy falls apart for 2 reasons. Firstly you can't assign a value to this lad in terms of picks because of Phantom drafts, you have no idea that he wouldn't have gone to someone else for pick 20. And secondly we only had 2 picks to use so if we rated Milera as the best player for us in this draft then it is totally irrelevant how much we paid for this kid. It would be like your car sale but you had to spend all of your $5,000 anyway.
No your analogy falls apart for 2 reasons. Firstly you can't assign a value to this lad in terms of picks because of Phantom drafts, you have no idea that he wouldn't have gone to someone else for pick 20. And secondly we only had 2 picks to use so if we rated Milera as the best player for us in this draft then it is totally irrelevant how much we paid for this kid. It would be like your car sale but you had to spend all of your $5,000 anyway.
And the reason? .......he was playing HBF and not the fashionable midfield role ...plus the iffy disposalDangerfield was absolutely NOT rated top 15 pick. Now you are just taking bullshit. The lowest any mock draft had him was at pick 25.. He wasn't even considered as a first rounder.
And the reason? .......he was playing HBF and not the fashionable midfield role ...plus the iffy disposal
There are many many examples of players playing flank roles that end up being elite midfielders
Danger was a bit of a bolter in phantom drafts in the last few days leading up to the draft - presumably word of interest from clubs started to leak. But he wasn't seen as a first rounder (back in the days when the first round ended at pick 16) at the time.
At it is, it didn't really matter who it was. The outrage at the time wasn't because people thought Dangerfield was crap, it was because after years of burning first round selections we finally had a very safe, local product in Ebert available to us and we passed over it. This was also right after we got dudded in the Hudson trade only to have Rendell publicly laugh about it so people were a bit gun-shy at the time.
I've still got a copy of the AFL phantom draft from that year and he was pick 14. I've kept it because I had him and Rioli as the my 2 favourite players that year and had them both rated at 90 out of 100 and I love teasing my brother who liked Ebert. Many others had him higher than that and in fact it was only SA media that talked up Ebert, he looked very one paced as a youngster.Dangerfield was absolutely NOT rated top 15 pick. Now you are just taking bullshit. The lowest any mock draft had him was at pick 25.. He wasn't even considered as a first rounder.
The meltdown at this time of the year on this board is priceless. Everyone is an armchair expert. This sort of thing was always going to happen in an even draft it just happened to be us this time around. Collingwood's pick didn't even have a profile on afl website and they have some of the best recruiters going around.
Given our track records with first round picks since Hamish has been part of our recruiting team, I am confident that we have picked a very good player. In a few years time this thread will get a bump for some genuine lols.
I agree in part. Clayton Oliver a week ago was seen as a potential 15-25 pick and went 4. With these phantom drafts it's also based on the presumptive rankings. However like Clayton, Dangerfield was recognised, pre national draft as a player who would go in the first round.
2007 the first round was 17 due to a priority pick, and it was widely speculated Patty would not fall past Geelong at 17. Doedee I have not seen higher than 45, and in many peoples assumptions was 45 - rookie. Including Brett Anderson who writes for Inside Footy and our own Skippos rated him at 82.
The Dangerfield argument, as you are aware was more about Ebert and giving up on a prestigious SA talent with a family heritage almost unrivalled in this state.
...and yes while i've been a member with this account since 2008, and Danger was drafted in 2007, my brother and I used a shared account that predates this time and I was engaged in the 'why the 'beep' did we pass on Ebert' debate.
If i can't make comment ...on the same criteria as you've outlined, neither can you criticize
Being a bit hypocritical
haven't the interest to spend enormous time .....but start withName them.
Goodwin: HBFBrisbane Website :
He was largely considered to feature in the first two rounds of the 2008 National Draft – but was surprisingly overlooked by all 16 AFL clubs at the selection meeting.
haven't the interest to spend enormous time .....but start withName them.
Goodwin: HBFBrisbane Website :
He was largely considered to feature in the first two rounds of the 2008 National Draft – but was surprisingly overlooked by all 16 AFL clubs at the selection meeting.
Ogilve was on 5AA before the draft today and did make a pointed "phantom drafters might think they know about the draft but if they're not part of a recruiting team at and AFL club then they don't really know that much" comment, perhaps this is what he was talking about?
Mundy, Vince, Roo, McLeod, Goodwin.......Name them.
No, that's very poor reasoning, and in no way suggests market value doesn't exist at the time of the draft.
You may suggest that Carlton failed in player analysis, although I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the players involved.
If you were correct in your assessment though then really what Carlton should have done in perfect world hindsight is traded down to capitalise on the market value for those players, and selected the best players in the draft at the appropriate position (being immediately before the first other team to select them would have). They then use the assets that they got from trading down to get more of these better players.
The other possibility is that other clubs would have taken Doedee with a strong pick as well but just all kept mum about it and none of the phantom drafters knew about it. Although that seems unlikely.
Ogilve was on 5AA before the draft today and did make a pointed "phantom drafters might think they know about the draft but if they're not part of a recruiting team at and AFL club then they don't really know that much" comment, perhaps this is what he was talking about?
Not in this thread.Just so we can all look back in five years time and justify how good/terrible we are at spotting talent when someone inevitably bumps this thread, let's all put our thoughts on who we would've taken on the record.
For me? Ben McKay.
No they weren't right .....they replicated the main media Phantom Drafts and responded accordinglyYet the Phantom drafts were all pretty well spot on for the picks, people try and claim that the phantom draft are written by mugs but most correctly picked around 17-18 out of tonight's top 20.
Those number themselves suggest that they actually have a pretty good handle on where players are rated leading into the draft.
I'm still stunned. Not because I know enough to contradict our recruiters and not because of what The Dude might become. Having taken a bit of time to gather myself after being initially stunned, I can't believe that firstly we went with yet another third tall defender with pick 13 (17). We would have known that the player we had planned for this pick would most likely have been available well into the second round. So why didn't we upgrade our first pick or keep 3 live picks and take him with the next pick?
To me it's not just who we draft but also whether we "overpaid" to get them. I also feel that a tall forward is a real need for our club.
You're right that we could have got a pick next year and traded down our 17 to do so but who says we didn't try that. We proved last year when we traded down with Geelong that we were prepared to do that so lets say we felt we needed at least pick 25 to get him and we tried to trade down and gain say a 3rd rounder next year but got no takers. Then you have to take him with your 17.No, that's just wrong.
What I think his value was is opinion, sure. I can't know it's correct. And yet that's not to say that he didn't have a objective value in draft currency.
Saying that 'we were only going to pick twice' ignores a multitude of possibilities in which we could have exchanged that pick for a pick of lower value and acquired an asset (such as a future pick). If the pick we used was of a higher value that perhaps a pick we could have used, we've effectively burned an asset equivalent the difference in value.