Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

So, our 2019 draft board. Or at least a partial picture from October.

This list is compiled courtesy of a snap-shot taken from our latest ‘To Hell and Back’ episode. Hats off to @KK16 for the sharp eyes. He’ll be a useful viewing companion for the upcoming season of Westworld.

Provisos: This is not a quarrel: I’m happy with who we got. It’s just a useful fact-check reference for posterity, to combat the likely future speculation/revisionism al a Josh Kelly. There are also some intriguing mysteries still to resolve. Still, I expect at least some posters will say ‘move on’.

It may be that this was an accidental leak of club IP – in which case there’s an argument it should be taken down. I don’t want to hurt the club. But I don’t however think it matters, or should matter if we’re serious. Regardless, it’s already forever now in the public domain, and may not even be a mistake. At the very least, we got everyone we wanted above where they were rated.  

Lastly: we were drafting in part for needs – so this isn’t a definitive ranking of who we considered the best players, just who we would take in order a month prior to the draft. Judging by this preliminary board and who was available at which stage on the night demonstrates that there was at least a little bit of movement before the draft.

Ultimately, it’s hard to place Pickett and those around him, as there were other practicalities involved and his worth in the end was effectively bundled with a high second-round pick. There may be some errors in my deductions and placements. Final selection numbers are in brackets.

670925275_2019draftboard.jpeg.be167449c851641cb8ee65966938edfe.jpeg

1 Rowell (1)
2 Jackson (3)
3 Green (10: academy)
4 Young (7)
5 Anderson (2)
…………….........

Not visible:

6           
7
8 (*traded out)
9
10
11
.....................

Players off the board at the eventual time of Pickett’s selection included Ash / Stephens / Serong / Henry (academy) / and Flanders. We moved down two spots prior to the draft, so (without factoring in pragmatism etc.) we rated Pickett-plus higher than at least some of these players or the possibility of any.

12 (Pickett-plus taken)

Players still available at that selection not visible on the board elsewhere: Day / Weightman / Kemp / Georgiades / Dow / Robertson. We also took Rivers ahead of B. Smith, who was ranked at 18 on our early board – indicating that Rivers was in this group. Robertson, judging by draft night footage, was ranked ahead of Rivers.

13
14
15
16
17

…………….

18 B. Smith (33)
19 De Koning (19)
20 MCasey (6)
21 Schoenberg (24)
22 Gould (26)
23 Bergman (14)
24 Worrell (28)
25 Maginness (29: father/son)
26? (there a few unreadable names on the board in red, including here, which somewhat disrupts some of the deductions made from the list).
27 Mead (25: father/son)
28 C. Stephens? (16)

.....................

Another part of the board not visible and a strange gap at 32. Some players in this rough range not visibly featured elsewhere on our board (and where they were ultimately taken) – note: there may be some errors here – include Jones, 30, Perez, 35, Taylor, 36, Coleman, 37 (academy), Evans, 41, O’Conner, 42, Martyn (academy), 44, and Bianco, 46.

29
30
31
32 (strange gap)
33
34

…………........

35 Cumberland (43 academy)
36 Sparkes (not selected)

A wingman, Sparkes was also overlooked at our pick 2 in the rookie draft. Rowels (52 – taken at 4 in the rookie draft) was another player selected early in the rookie draft who was on our board to pick 61 (there’s another strange gap from 62 to 68).

....................

37 Byrnes (52)
38 Rantall (40)
39 Philp (20)
40 J. Sharp (27)
41 Comben (31)
42 Jamieson (49)

…………….......

Some remaining mysteries: The strange gaps. Also, the colour-key. Dark blue seems to indicate father-son; orange/light blue (striped with club colours?) maybe ‘academy’. I think it’s actually a mix. There’s also a white border around some of these and not others. Red, I have no idea. Another mystery is the overall green/yellow and then white pattern. It seems to be groupings, but Taheny, at 61 on our board (the last spot before the gap), is rendered in yellow, as is Rowell at 1. Then next to some of the players are ‘traffic lights’ in orange, white and green – hard to make sense of these at all.

Would love if other posters could contribute to sort out the errors and fill in some of the mysteries with fresh eyes. 

Edited by Skuit

 
  • Author

If I can find the time, I'm going to rank the draft 'winners and losers' from the MFC's perspective according to this table. Clearly a nerd at heart. But I'm also super-cool because I will be traveling extensively over the next month (alert to any of our sexpats in Thailand and Southeast Asia, let me know where the best spot is to watch our games), so would appreciate any other OCD help in this regard. 

I may rank it somehow according to draft value points. E.g. Fremantle scored Young at 7 (1644), who was 4th on our list (2044): so a 390-point bump, or equivalent of pick 42 (according to this calculator: https://www.draftguru.com.au/pick-value-calculator). Green was ranked at 3 and taken at 10: an 839 point bonus equivalent to pick 23. Minus Anderson, who by our reckoning they lost 639 points on. 

Due to the black-spots on the list, it will be far from definitive. 

Edited by Skuit

 
  • Author
18 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

How do you know it's Robertson at 5? Am I missing something or could it be Anderson?

Quite right (and this is exactly the help I was after). I just took KK16's lead in his original post. Anderson makes much more sense (as I overlooked/didn't include him elsewhere). Although it has some value, the previous major Demonland update made it so original posts couldn't be adjusted/edited after a certain time-frame. Consider Anderson at 5, and Robertson down in that group from 13 to 16 - based on him being available at the time of Pickett's selection but still evidently above Rivers. 

Edit: I was able to adjust the table. Cheers for your catch. 

Edited by Skuit

16 hours ago, Skuit said:

Quite right (and this is exactly the help I was after). I just took KK16's lead in his original post. Anderson makes much more sense (as I overlooked/didn't include him elsewhere). Although it has some value, the previous major Demonland update made it so original posts couldn't be adjusted/edited after a certain time-frame. Consider Anderson at 5, and Robertson down in that group from 13 to 16 - based on him being available at the time of Pickett's selection but still evidently above Rivers. 

Edit: I was able to adjust the table. Cheers for your catch. 

Back to Robertson (some posters in the other thread have pointed out that heights are listed and it's 185 and you can briefly see tson)

Will watch Noah Anderson with a lot of interest, very interesting we didn't rate him top 5.


16 hours ago, Skuit said:

Quite right (and this is exactly the help I was after). I just took KK16's lead in his original post. Anderson makes much more sense (as I overlooked/didn't include him elsewhere). Although it has some value, the previous major Demonland update made it so original posts couldn't be adjusted/edited after a certain time-frame. Consider Anderson at 5, and Robertson down in that group from 13 to 16 - based on him being available at the time of Pickett's selection but still evidently above Rivers. 

Edit: I was able to adjust the table. Cheers for your catch. 

Sorry to be a pain but it looks more like a 'tson' than an 'Rson'. So it seems like it would be Robertson. Also, as pointed out in another thread, that's likely their heights next to them. Robertson is roughly 185, Anderson is 191.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

    With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

    • 30 replies
  • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

    The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

      • Like
    • 159 replies
  • VOTES: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

    Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kysaiah Pickett. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Thanks
    • 31 replies
  • GAMEDAY: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

    It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road again and this may be the last roll of the dice to get their 2025 season back on track as they take on the Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 546 replies
  • PREVIEW: Gold Coast

    The Gold Coast Suns find themselves outside of the top eight for the first time since Round 1 with pressure is mounting on the entire organisation. Their coach Damien Hardwick expressed his frustration at his team’s condition last week by making a middle-finger gesture on television that earned him a fine for his troubles. He showed his desperation by claiming that Fox should pick up the tab.  There’s little doubt the Suns have shown improvement in 2025, and their position on the ladder is influenced to some extent by having played fewer games than their rivals for a playoff role at the end of the season, courtesy of the disruption caused by Cyclone Alfred in March.  However, they are following the same trajectory that hindered the club in past years whenever they appeared to be nearing their potential. As a consequence, that Hardwick gesture should be considered as more than a mere behavioral lapse. It’s a distress signal that does not bode well for the Queenslanders. While the Suns are eager to remain in contention with the top eight, Melbourne faces its own crisis, which is similarly deep-seated but in a much different way. After recovering from a disappointing start to the season and nearing a return to respectability among its peer clubs, the Demons have experienced a decline in status, driven by the fact that while their form has been reasonable (see their performance against the ladder leader in the Kings Birthday match), their conversion in front of goal is poor enough to rank last in the competition. Furthermore, their opponents find them exceptionally easy to score against. As a result, they have effectively eliminated themselves from the finals race and are again positioned to finish in the bottom half of the ladder.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 15

    As the Demons head into their Bye Round, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches being played. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons if we can manage to turn our season around? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

      • Like
    • 287 replies