Jump to content

Lampers

Members
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

254 Excellent

About Lampers

  • Rank
    Demon

Recent Profile Visitors

2,279 profile views
  1. In February I doubt Taylor would have foreseen a likely scenario where Melbourne had pick three. Given that, Taylor probably thought Jackson was more likely to be available in the 10-20 range at that time which is where Melbourne’s “natural” pick was likely to fall. So I wouldn’t read it to mean Taylor thought Jackson was at the very pointy end of the draft for a long time, but the interest was clearly there. As has been stated a few times Jackson’s development through 2019 was rapid. The pessimist in me says Taylor got obsessed with Jackson early and wanted him even though pick three was too soon for a 10-20 talent. The optimist says Taylor has an advantage over other recruiters as he has watched Jackson longer and more closely than others, and was still happy to use pick three. Was the deal for pick eight and 28 originally to get Jackson and Pickett with three going on one of the consensus early picks, but then everything changed once it was apparent Jackson was not going to last to eight and Pickett unlikely at 28? Hopefully Taylor does a memoir one day.
  2. The recruiters seem to have a good handle on what their competition is after. If they were confident Pickett would be there at 28 then they would have waited. If they were confident they could trade down and get him, they would have done that assuming there was a willing partner. I suspect they “knew” Pickett was going to go by mid teens or so and therefore they needed to get him where they did. I like that Taylor goes against the herd. Following what everyone else thinks is safe, but it doesn’t create the point of difference that could be the game changer. Pickett does fill a big gap on the list. Pickett can clearly be a game changer, the trick will be if he does those highlights once every four games, or four times every game at AFL level. And while he clearly has the attitude to chase and be physical, I have no idea if he does the “boring” defensive running too so as not to be a liability when he doesn’t have ball in hand.
  3. I doubt Port would entertain that trade as they would want to stay ahead of a bid for their father-son Mead and pick 28 is around that likely bid. 17 is before a Mead bid is expected.
  4. I asked the guy who did the phantom drafts why he didn’t get into recruiting, and he said it’s because he actually isn’t that good at spotting talent, he was good at talking with recruiters. Recruiters will ask the prospects who what other teams have talked to them, how often etc. The recruiters see the other recruiters at an APS game, or the club nominates a player for a state combine. That all gets married with the likely draft pick order at the time to work out who is interested in who and when. You are spot on that my friend did this pre-live pick trading days, and I suspect as a result the clubs need to scout more players harder now so they feel confident to assess any opportunities presented. That adds more complication and would significantly muddy the waters on who likes who where. It will be interesting to see if phantom drafts become less accurate now as a result.
  5. This is interesting, but I think a more revealing analysis would be the percentage of games played (discounting games missed due to injury) as unless this graph is for completed careers (in which case it’s quite old data from when drafting was less sophisticated) it can only be a work in progress graph. Say what you want about McCartin’s ability, but his concussion issues aren’t something that mean anything for future #1 picks. Polak being reached for early as a WA player by Freo, then getting hit by a tram. Those factors shouldn’t influence future #4 pick success likelihood. Our own Luke Molan basically never getting on the park doesn’t mean #9 is cursed, ditto Morabito. Add to this that I’m positive very early draft picks get more chances than later ones for senior games to both appease fans and sell some hope, and in an attempt to justify their high selection. There was lots I liked about Watts, but I’m sure if he was pick 13 or 35 he would’ve played 20-30 fewer games than he did for Melbourne. One other factor is obviously the earliest picks also go to the weakest teams in general, meaning there is less competition for senior games. GCS and GWS would have skewed some of this data as pretty much the only players they could play in their first few years or existence were extremely high draft selections. Brownlow votes per game available for selection would be a (flawed) independent measure of chance of getting a really top line player. Or for more recent players the coaches votes per game available for selection would be another way to do it. 80 odd Neale Daniher games vs. 150 odd James Walker or Byron Schammer games...
  6. Every recruiting manager always says “We were really surprised X slid to our pick, we are thrilled” which is part PR, but also illustrative that different clubs genuinely rate players differently. Moving down two spots is likely of limited consequence. If Melbourne KNEW for sure that 8 would bring a bonafide superstar, they would not risk moving down two spots. Pick 1 is not a guaranteed superstar, so of course pick 8 is not a guaranteed superstar. Melbourne will have players they rank between 6 and 12 in the draft (12 to include Green and Henry) and all this trade does is move down from getting someone Melbourne ranks 6-9 in the draft down to someone Melbourne ranks 7-12. Jason Taylor talks about players in the mix at a pick. It means for sure that they will have lost access to two players, but they either think the players are so closely rated it doesn’t matter as they are happy with anyone in the mix range, or they are very confident the player they would likely take at 8 will still be there at 10. In a long winded way, I’m saying Melbourne have probably turned what is to them something of zero negative value (move back two spots) and traded that to someone who did value the move up, plus got some other draft value while doing it. It appears quite shrewd and a win-win for Melbourne and I know someone who used to do phantom drafts. He did it by talking with recruiters about what they thought other recruiters would do. He had a very good strike rate. So even the consensus draft orders you see are generally based on piecing together second hand intelligence of varying team’s rating of players, not a genuine unified consensus of talent from best to worst. The variations in each team’s rating of players clearly gets bigger the deeper the draft goes.
  7. Agree. He just seems to make good decisions and have good skills.
  8. I hope I’m wrong but I’m concerned Hore is OK at many things, but not AFL standard in enough things except his marking. Not big enough to defend a true big forward or fast enough on the lead. Not athletic/agile enough to defend a small or medium forward. Disposal/decision making not good enough to be a distributor. As per @poita’s post, Lever is better at what Hore is best at and I struggle to see them both in the same team. I think Hore is solid depth, especially if Lever gets injured again, but I can’t see him holding down a first 22 position in the backline. There’s a reason he was a prominent VFL player for a while yet wasn’t drafted. Hibberd and Jetta look to be the incumbents closest to being over the hill, so maybe Hore can be trained hard to improve his deficiencies to take over from one of them. Needs to work on agility to be like a Jetta, or straight line pace to be like Hibberd. He shouldn’t ever lose his ability to read a ball in the air and mark it as that’s probably a reasonably natural talent for him.
  9. Lampers

    Jack Martin

    A competently managed player list will always result in the flexibility to accomodate a player like Martin. A team should aim to be x$ under the cap as a standing goal, and then pre-pay players once your list is settled to eat up the gap and be closer to the cap which then frees up future space. You would only ever want to be at your cap without pre-payments if you were going hard for a premiership in that year. Collingwood could very well be in that spot for 2020. If you bring in an Elliott or a Martin when you weren’t expecting to then you can’t do the pre payments to the same extent. On top of this the AFL introduced further flex a couple of years back so a team can be under the minimum floor or over the maximum ceiling of the cap so long as it corrects itself on a rolling basis - meaning you can’t be forever under the minimum or over the maximum. Interestingly GWS basically knew they would lose some of their top talent, so went with a unique approach that only they and Gold Coast could’ve done given their startup concession gluts of high draft picks all from the same year or tightly bunched for age profile. GWS project to exceed the cap but manage this through inevitably losing some of those high paid players but getting good picks in return to keep their list balanced for age profile, or having salary dump fire sales or letting free agents walk such as Scully, Tomlinson and Patton if they surprisingly retained more players than they anticipated (e.g. I expect they thought they would lose one or both of Kelly and Coniglio).
  10. Lampers

    Jack Martin

    Absolutely agree this is a great opportunity that Melbourne should pursue. Luke Ball was a long time ago and things may be different now, and as much as we didn’t like it Ball nominated for the National draft, Ball correctly gambled that while Melbourne would definitely use the #1 preseason draft pick on him given the only real value of pre-season draft picks was a very early one to leverage such scenarios, Melbourne would not waste a more valuable National Draft pick on him which would mean forgoing a chance at a relatively highly rated 18 year old. Ball had the choice to nominate for either the National or Pre-season draft which was a relatively new choice at the time if I recall correctly. Ultimately with Ball wiser heads prevailed and Melbourne didn’t draft a player against their will which is unlikely to have worked out well for either party. I think people have correctly identified that if Melbourne want Martin, the key is getting Martin to want to be at Melbourne and the potential advantage is May and Kolodjashnij assuming that they had reasonable relationships with Martin rather than financial terms. GC will likely also be trying really hard to get Martin to reconsider and re-sign and that would depend on how bad the relationship is between them and Martin. While Melbourne were a poor team during the Ball situation and also had a really poor 2019, another difference is Martin will probably perceive Melbourne are a team with high potential who had a poor year, rather than a rubbish team which would be similar to playing for Gold Coast from a success perspective. GC threat of “re-sign or else you go to Melbourne” isn’t likely to be much of a threat.
  11. Lampers

    Jack Martin

    While the AFL love to change rules every year, I doubt they’ve changed this one. Martin can nominate a prohibitive salary ask and length so that only Carlton are likely to draft him, and is free to renegotiate to a minimum salary deal after getting to Carlton if he wants. BUT the original ask is what hits the salary cap, not the actual money paid in the renegotiated deal to make sure clubs don’t use this to manipulate the draft. Also, again from memory, I’m pretty sure a player can only nominate X dollars over Y years which prevents them setting an ask of say $1.5m in year one and then 100k per year for the next three if their desired club can accomodate something like that. The player can only say $1.8m over four years. Finally, I think if the player nominated terms (they aren’t required nominate terms, although Martin would) it can’t be just for one year so they can’t do the “$1.5m for one year” and then sign the 100k for the next three in the subsequent contract to simulate the earlier example.
  12. My memory is Junior’s calves were playing up (old man injury) and he was struggling to get up week after week. He had just turned 34. He then took an entire year off, and played one season at GWS in an extraordinary circumstance where they were desperate for experience (i.e. no other AFL club would have entertained the prospect) and only managed 13 games with injuries catching up again. I still reckon he was cooked but our memories seem to differ. But out of respect I would have preferred he was offered a deal on the club’s terms.
  13. Agree. My understanding is Jones is a “me first” kind of guy at the heart of it. So he isn’t the sort of leader you need. Great service over many years, very solid player at his peak and the team’s best for a period in some of its darkest times. He could win the ball, get it moving forward, tackle, and developed his kicking from poor to passable in a similar way to Todd Viney many years before. But once he was displaced as a first choice on-baller he simply never had the tricks (read skills) to see out his time on a flank or wing. This has been painfully obvious from mid last year (when he got moved out of the first choice midfield) and all of this year. Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but it felt like for every smart “veteran” thing he did in a game, there were two or three “wow, I’d be disappointed if a first year player did that” moments. At least Lewis, who I wasn’t a massive fan of, had that ratio the other way around. The right thing to do is offer him a deal on the club’s terms as a show of loyalty. Nothing more. If Jones is unwilling to accept the 270k as rumoured and back himself in for performance bonuses - given the “overs” he took for many years compared to what he would have received had he jumped to another club where he would have been in the 5 to 15 best on the list range instead of top dog at Melbourne - then that would just reinforce his “me first” mentality. The Junior McDonald error was pushing him into “retirement” for the sake of one list position and minimal salary. Junior was cooked, Jones is cooked and will only get worse. It sounds like Melbourne are making a respectful but also sensible offer this time around that balances Jones’ past contributions but also reflects his likely future trajectory.
  14. I thought from the little I’ve seen of Casey that Chandler stood out for pace and creativity. But he clearly wasn’t getting enough of the ball as it was in brief flashes and then unsighted for long stretches. What is harder to see watching a game in TV is the ANB style “pressure acts”. If his are high and that’s why he’s playing, I’d be happy with a guy who pressures to keep the ball locked in, and on the rare occasion they get the ball do something reasonably constructive.
  15. I’ve got a shoulder injury at the moment from bowling. Slight tear to a tendon, inflamed bursar and maybe some carteledge damage and potentially some ligament damage too but I haven’t had an MRI to confirm the last two. Carteledge and ligaments require surgery to repair. In the direction where I need to use the torn tendon I probably have about 30% of my regular strength before quite striking pain kicks in. Maybe I could push through and have more strength if I had it strapped and jabbed up. I can absolutely believe given Oliver needed surgery on both shoulders that this could have significantly impacted his ability to get his arms free when getting tackled, handball with full power and tackle with full strength.
×
×
  • Create New...