You have to be blinds not to pick Hollands

[WaynesWorld19]

A regulation hamstring ACL ends up being up to 8x the strength of a normal ACL ligament but a lot depends on how he did the knee, was it a misfortunate accidental that could happen to anyone or is it a mechanical issue which puts a lot of strain on his ligaments? If it is due to the strain put on the knee due to a mechanical issue then even an 8x strength ligament might not hold, some have popped a 64x strength artificial ligament due to mechanical flaws. Patton obviously has mechanical issues with the way he moves, it has shredded ACLs, hamstrings, you name it.

I think he is a big risk for a top 4 pick, if his body holds I think it will be great for the club that takes the risk but the higher you take him, the greater the risk because you will be passing up on players that don't have the risk factors.

He doesn't have impressive inside mid numbers and don't think he has played as a midfielder at a high standard of football, he was meant to this year so it is an unknown if he will be elite in a midfield role. There is also the unknown about if his injury is going to be something the persists or restricts him or not.

There is a point where the potential outweighs the risk, Collingwood was in a good spot to get Stephenson a few years ago at 6. On talent alone he should have gone higher but there was legitimate concern about his health.

It doesn't matter if Stephenson ends up a better player than those who went 1-5, I think Carlton rated Dow too highly but I think Rayner, Brayshaw, Davies-Uniacke and Cerra were good high probability prospects and obvious talent.

With a high draft pick you want a high probability recruit, if you want to speculate it is better to trade that pick, similar to trading pick 4 last year for 6 and GWS' first round pick this year. We will have to see how the kids go between now and the trade/draft period.

I wouldn't be upset if we took him with our first round pick, I would just have a lot more anxiety about him panning out, the consequence of burning a really top end pick is quite high for clubs who haven't seen a massive number of them.

Fair comments .....but here's one for you

If Hollands is a risk at #1 because of re-injury ......isn't he at the same risk level for the club taking Hollands at #5 , or #10 ..... or #15 ??

If Collingwood took Stephenson at #6 how was the risk diminished by taking him there, rather than #3, or #2

It makes absolutely no sense to me ......the only time a club could be considered to have been risk adverse, and pick Hollands, Stephenson, or Selwood, would be by taking them in the 2nd round

I know every club values their first round pick, we got excited at having #6 in the 2019 Draft .......If a Max King was there at #6, I'd be ropeable if we didn't King ......would I have picked a Max King with #1 this year, you betcha

 

[Betts are off]

Fair comments .....but here's one for you

If Hollands is a risk at #1 because of re-injury ......isn't he at the same risk level for the club taking Hollands at #5 , or #10 ..... or #15 ??

If Collingwood took Stephenson at #6 how was the risk diminished by taking him there, rather than #3, or #2

It makes absolutely no sense to me ......the only time a club could be considered to have been risk adverse, and pick Hollands, Stephenson, or Selwood, would be by taking them in the 2nd round

I know every club values their first round pick, we got excited at having #6 in the 2019 Draft .......If a Max King was there at #6, I'd be ropeable if we didn't King ......would I have picked a Max King with #1 this year, you betcha

The risk doesn't change by taking a player later, only the price. Every club needs to work out the point where the price no longer outweighs the risk for a player under-performing the pick (inclusive of their talent, form, physical attributes and injury history).

IMO for a guy like Hollands and in a year where over half the draft eligible players have played no competitive footy, that point might not be all that different then if he hadn't done his ACL.

 

[Tas]

Fair comments .....but here's one for you

If Hollands is a risk at #1 because of re-injury ......isn't he at the same risk level for the club taking Hollands at #5 , or #10 ..... or #15 ??

If Collingwood took Stephenson at #6 how was the risk diminished by taking him there, rather than #3, or #2

It makes absolutely no sense to me ......the only time a club could be considered to have been risk adverse, and pick Hollands, Stephenson, or Selwood, would be by taking them in the 2nd round

I know every club values their first round pick, we got excited at having #6 in the 2019 Draft .......If a Max King was there at #6, I'd be ropeable if we didn't King ......would I have picked a Max King with #1 this year, you betcha

Risk never changes, it is the opportunity cost of taking the risk. If someone has an injury risk factor it is going to exist regardless if he goes number 1 or number 6, but in terms of draft value index, pick 1 is worth 3000 points, pick 6 is worth 1751, pick 1 is equivalent value to pick 8 and 9 combined simply on a draft value index alone, in reality clubs would ask a lot more for pick 1.

A lot of people would have taken King at number one, but if he broke down again, or continuously like Patton has then the person who made that call would be judged more harshly than taking someone who didn't have the risk factors and was an obvious talent, it would be a career killing move. it is a lot easier to make that call on a forum, we never remember our bad or shocking calls.

Clubs generally don't take these kind of risks with very early picks. It is impossible to determine who will be the best talent in the entire draft pool, it is exceptionally rare that the player taken with the first or second pick are the best players, but these picks are valuable because you have an opportunity to get a high probability exceptional player, to use that for a high risk factor is a bit like putting your house on the roulette wheel, it would be awesome if it works out but the consequences are high if it doesn't, the opportunity cost risking a number one pick is much higher than a pick 6.

I think this draft is underrated, there isn't the extent of top end talent that there was a couple of years ago but I don't think it is that short of talent that you should take a risk with a top 4 pick. I would still expect Hollands to go pretty high but I would be surprised if he goes top 4. A club is probably going to get very lucky with Hollands who happens to be in the right spot for where he should go, as long as he doesn't have a mechanical problem with how he moves he should recover well from the ACL and will be a bargain at where he goes.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Risk never changes, it is the opportunity cost of taking the risk. If someone has an injury risk factor it is going to exist regardless if he goes number 1 or number 6, but in terms of draft value index, pick 1 is worth 3000 points, pick 6 is worth 1751, pick 1 is equivalent value to pick 8 and 9 combined simply on a draft value index alone, in reality clubs would ask a lot more for pick 1.

A lot of people would have taken King at number one, but if he broke down again, or continuously like Patton has then the person who made that call would be judged more harshly than taking someone who didn't have the risk factors and was an obvious talent, it would be a career killing move. it is a lot easier to make that call on a forum, we never remember our bad or shocking calls.

Clubs generally don't take these kind of risks with very early picks. It is impossible to determine who will be the best talent in the entire draft pool, it is exceptionally rare that the player taken with the first or second pick are the best players, but these picks are valuable because you have an opportunity to get a high probability exceptional player, to use that for a high risk factor is a bit like putting your house on the roulette wheel, it would be awesome if it works out but the consequences are high if it doesn't, the opportunity cost risking a number one pick is much higher than a pick 6.

I think this draft is underrated, there isn't the extent of top end talent that there was a couple of years ago but I don't think it is that short of talent that you should take a risk with a top 4 pick. I would still expect Hollands to go pretty high but I would be surprised if he goes top 4. A club is probably going to get very lucky with Hollands who happens to be in the right spot for where he should go, as long as he doesn't have a mechanical problem with how he moves he should recover well from the ACL and will be a bargain at where he goes.

And if Hollands does turn out to be a SuperStar, the recruiting manager that overlooked him, will also cop heat .....in recruiting I simply hate the phrase "Safe Pick"

 

[Betts are off]

And if Hollands does turn out to be a SuperStar, the recruiting manager that overlooked him, will also cop heat .....in recruiting I simply hate the phrase "Safe Pick"

I have a feeling you will get your wish this offseason.

Something tells me we are in for a wild trade period/draft

 

[mistylake]

Isn't he supposed to be 188cm and quick?

That’s 6’2”
Not undersized but not huge either.

 

[spexau]

That’s 6’2”
Not undersized but not huge either.

Depends on wingspan too.

 

[Tas]

And if Hollands does turn out to be a SuperStar, the recruiting manager that overlooked him, will also cop heat .....in recruiting I simply hate the phrase "Safe Pick"

Who lost their job for passing on Stephenson? Anyone? I don't think anyone got sacked for passing on Selwood either. Have there been others?

Hollands has a lot of talent but at present McDonald is tracking better than most other key position forwards have in recent times, historically speaking. If he sustained his current form in the WAFL he would have to go number one, it would be like passing on Ben King without the injury concerns, that would be the career killer if he turned out to be a gun and you passed on him to go for a guy who blew his ACL in the hopes he could be a midfielder which he hasn't proven he can be at an elite grade.

Because there is no way you could explain that to a board and hope to keep your job. if McDonald bombs and Hollands becomes a star, the evidence still supports the decision you made and almost every club would make the same call with pick one.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Who lost their job for passing on Stephenson? Anyone? I don't think anyone got sacked for passing on Selwood either. Have there been others?

Hollands has a lot of talent but at present McDonald is tracking better than most other key position forwards have in recent times, historically speaking. If he sustained his current form in the WAFL he would have to go number one, it would be like passing on Ben King without the injury concerns, that would be the career killer if he turned out to be a gun and you passed on him to go for a guy who blew his ACL in the hopes he could be a midfielder which he hasn't proven he can be at an elite grade.

Because there is no way you could explain that to a board and hope to keep your job. if McDonald bombs and Hollands becomes a star, the evidence still supports the decision you made and almost every club would make the same call with pick one.

Sorry, no disrespect ....but rubbish !

I hate these draft watchers who put out their rankings, and then do a 180 degree backflip off the back of 3 games

It's a akin to a player having a purple patch of form .....I could name you dozens who have had spectacular AFL debuts, only to disappear 2 years later

If a player is so great, I'm hearing the best forward in the last 15 seasons ....why wasn't he ranked in the top 20 players just 4 months ago

Luckily club recruiters are not swaying in the breeze on the back of every game ......those that have previously have been burn't

Sorry, I get very cynical on these HUGE swings of analysis of player rankings ......yes, I can see McDonald going somewhere in the top 10 .....best forward in 15 years, nah mate

Tom Hawkins was the best U18 Fwd I've seen, that carried it thru to AFL .....but even then it took him 4 seasons

 

[arsene wenger1]

Call me crazy but I’ll find it easier to accept if we pick him and he reinjured the knee rather than if we passed on him and he becomes a superstar at another club

 

[Betts are off]

Call me crazy but I’ll find it easier to accept if we pick him and he reinjured the knee rather than if we passed on him and he becomes a superstar at another club

I'm leaning this way

 

[texas_ranger]

Just in case you can’t open the image, it refers to a 20-40% reinjury rate for those who injure an ACL at 18-19. And not the first and only literature to say such a thing.

If you want a more accurate representation have a look at this https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/2/128, looks into the elite population as opposed to the weekend warrior who doesn't rehab. Does include females which would likely elevate it slightly due to genetic predisposition.

Has elite athletes who've had a knee reco with roughly a 5% chance of graft re-rupture