The Harry Armstrong Thread

[mo64 5,851]

1 hour ago, Adam The God said:

If we split our pick 9 for 15 and 16, it gets us two late first rounders...

That's why we'd do it. Say, Hotton and Hynes.

No club is going to do that deal. 

[mo64 5,851]

1 hour ago, Mouseymoo said:

We'd split it if the player(s) we like would be available at the pick we're trading for and acquire the freebie on top. 

It's not rocket science. We're not doing a trade for the sake of it. 

You haven't answered my question. What high end picks do you seriously think a club will give up for pick 9? We acquired pick 9 assuming there'd be elite talent in the top 10.

If we liked players that are projected to go late in the 1st round, we had pick 28 which we could have upgraded with the bunch of 3rd rounders that we gave away.

[Axis of Bob 11,637]

Twoney’s phantom form guides are usually decent enough but with some pretty big misses as he’s a journalist, not a professional recruiter, so he’ll only hear bits and pieces around the traps. The phantom draft he does nearer the draft usually has lots of good intel about which players the clubs are expected to take, and is a much better source of information.

My personal feeling in pick 9 is that we’ll keep it if there’s a player we want but will split it if there isn’t, as we have some other players later in the first round that we’d be equally happy to grab.

Edited Wednesday at 05:11 by Axis of Bob

[Adam The God 30,065]

11 minutes ago, mo64 said:

No club is going to do that deal. 

It completely depends if they have a player they're after in the top 10...

[Mouseymoo 151]

23 minutes ago, mo64 said:

You haven't answered my question. What high end picks do you seriously think a club will give up for pick 9? We acquired pick 9 assuming there'd be elite talent in the top 10.

If we liked players that are projected to go late in the 1st round, we had pick 28 which we could have upgraded with the bunch of 3rd rounders that we gave away.

I don't have to answer anything from you, if you don't understand how it works I couldn't give a [censored] lol 

[DeeSpencer 25,384]

29 minutes ago, mo64 said:

You haven't answered my question. What high end picks do you seriously think a club will give up for pick 9? We acquired pick 9 assuming there'd be elite talent in the top 10.

If we liked players that are projected to go late in the 1st round, we had pick 28 which we could have upgraded with the bunch of 3rd rounders that we gave away.

Port - 13, 29
Freo - 14, 30

Less likely 
West Coast - 12 and 26 for something back in a 3 team deal, especially if they can trade in another future first 
GWS - 15, 16 (unlikely but possible)

28 would’ve been very very hard to move up inside 20 yet alone inside 15 with late picks in the 40+ range.

You’re talking about multiple trade up moves when teams generally only move back for draft points. Richmond had a lock on those deals with Brisbane and Gold Coast. 

And just because a player is rated late first doesn’t mean they’ll be available if you have 18, 19, 20. We moved up to get a guy we rate as a high quality player. If we can do that at 13 rather than 9 so be it. 

We made this exact move for Kossie in 2019. It’s not that different to expect we’d do it again.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,440]

15 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Port - 13, 29
Freo - 14, 30

Less likely 
West Coast - 12 and 26 for something back in a 3 team deal, especially if they can trade in another future first 
GWS - 15, 16 (unlikely but possible)

28 would’ve been very very hard to move up inside 20 yet alone inside 15 with late picks in the 40+ range.

You’re talking about multiple trade up moves when teams generally only move back for draft points. Richmond had a lock on those deals with Brisbane and Gold Coast. 

And just because a player is rated late first doesn’t mean they’ll be available if you have 18, 19, 20. We moved up to get a guy we rate as a high quality player. If we can do that at 13 rather than 9 so be it. 

We made this exact move for Kossie in 2019. It’s not that different to expect we’d do it again.

We also moved up knowing there maybe be multiple options available to us. We obviously would be very happy to use that pick straight up, but also know some clubs may be desperate for a player and overpay. 
 

[Axis of Bob 11,637]

8 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Port - 13, 29
Freo - 14, 30

Less likely 
West Coast - 12 and 26 for something back in a 3 team deal, especially if they can trade in another future first 
GWS - 15, 16 (unlikely but possible)

28 would’ve been very very hard to move up inside 20 yet alone inside 15 with late picks in the 40+ range.

You’re talking about multiple trade up moves when teams generally only move back for draft points. Richmond had a lock on those deals with Brisbane and Gold Coast. 

And just because a player is rated late first doesn’t mean they’ll be available if you have 18, 19, 20. We moved up to get a guy we rate as a high quality player. If we can do that at 13 rather than 9 so be it. 

We made this exact move for Kossie in 2019. It’s not that different to expect we’d do it again.

12 and 26 from West Coast would be the most likely, imo. Richmond seem to covet big bodied mids and Bo Allan is the most likely at this spot. I read that the WA state talent manager suggested that Allan may not get to WC at their pick. 26 seems a reasonable pick to compensate for a small slide at this point. If not then Freo may do the same trade, or Port. I’m sure we’ll have already had those discussions with those teams and having 3 teams with comparable assets does give us a small advantage.

My guess is that we’ll see if Armstrong (or one of the top tier of mids) is available at 9 and, if not, we’ll do this trade to get two players in that bracket. 

[mo64 5,851]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Port - 13, 29
Freo - 14, 30

Less likely 
West Coast - 12 and 26 for something back in a 3 team deal, especially if they can trade in another future first 
GWS - 15, 16 (unlikely but possible)

28 would’ve been very very hard to move up inside 20 yet alone inside 15 with late picks in the 40+ range.

You’re talking about multiple trade up moves when teams generally only move back for draft points. Richmond had a lock on those deals with Brisbane and Gold Coast. 

And just because a player is rated late first doesn’t mean they’ll be available if you have 18, 19, 20. We moved up to get a guy we rate as a high quality player. If we can do that at 13 rather than 9 so be it. 

We made this exact move for Kossie in 2019. It’s not that different to expect we’d do it again.

Your scenario is the exact reason why I'm questioning the idea of splitting pick 9. I'll concede that moving up from pick 28 would have been difficult.

But essentially we are trading our future 1st and a raft of 3rd round picks for pick 13 or 14. That's a terrible trade. 

I've seen these sort of deals done on NBA Draft Night, and more often than not, they end up badly for the team that gets too cute.

[rpfc 28,239]

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Port - 13, 29
Freo - 14, 30

Less likely 
West Coast - 12 and 26 for something back in a 3 team deal, especially if they can trade in another future first 
GWS - 15, 16 (unlikely but possible)

28 would’ve been very very hard to move up inside 20 yet alone inside 15 with late picks in the 40+ range.

You’re talking about multiple trade up moves when teams generally only move back for draft points. Richmond had a lock on those deals with Brisbane and Gold Coast. 

And just because a player is rated late first doesn’t mean they’ll be available if you have 18, 19, 20. We moved up to get a guy we rate as a high quality player. If we can do that at 13 rather than 9 so be it. 

We made this exact move for Kossie in 2019. It’s not that different to expect we’d do it again.

Getting out of the top 10 for a pick 29 or 30?

We gave up ND28 and a whole lot more to get this effing pick. 

Just trust your judgement and get a quality kid in with 9 and be done with it.

Edited Wednesday at 07:57 by rpfc

[DeeSpencer 25,384]

41 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Your scenario is the exact reason why I'm questioning the idea of splitting pick 9. I'll concede that moving up from pick 28 would have been difficult.

But essentially we are trading our future 1st and a raft of 3rd round picks for pick 13 or 14. That's a terrible trade. 

I've seen these sort of deals done on NBA Draft Night, and more often than not, they end up badly for the team that gets too cute.

The 3rd rounders we gave up were 40, 54 and 65. 65 is just about useless.

54 and especially 40 have some value in this draft but we’ve rarely prioritised late picks and there must be confidence in filling out the list with our current rookies and cat B players.

I don’t think that’s a hefty price to get in to the first round. We added 28 to make sure we pick 9 but I’d like to recoup that.

The NBA draft always drops away quickly, it’s not a draft to get cute with. This years draft by all reports has a top 20 which corresponds to the talent generally available in the top 7-10 or so of a normal draft. 

I wouldn’t risk a trade back if it’s more than a 1% risk but they had the guts to do it for Kossie. We’ll see if it occurs again. 

[Axis of Bob 11,637]

Yeah, the NBA and AFL drafts are not the same. The NBA only has 5 players on the court at any one time, so there's a massive premium on getting a star in the lottery, with the rest of the picks being largely useless. Second round picks don't even get guaranteed contracts, they're effectively glorified 'try out' spots.

In the AFL there are 23 players on the team and the importance of the players at 6-23 is much higher. As a result you need to get quantity of talent, as well as quality. It means that you have to use your resources differently. That creates an incentive to slide down a pick to get an extra pick if you deem the quality you are giving up to be sufficiently small. If we are targeting a player who we know will be available at pick 15 (or have a player we rate near equally at that selection) then why not pick up the free pick to improve the overall quality of your list?

Plus, sometimes you trade away pick 1 to get Jayson Tatum, who you knew would still be there at pick 3, whilst picking up a future first round pick for free.

[adonski 11,660]

1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

Yeah, the NBA and AFL drafts are not the same. The NBA only has 5 players on the court at any one time, so there's a massive premium on getting a star in the lottery, with the rest of the picks being largely useless. Second round picks don't even get guaranteed contracts, they're effectively glorified 'try out' spots.

In the AFL there are 23 players on the team and the importance of the players at 6-23 is much higher. As a result you need to get quantity of talent, as well as quality. It means that you have to use your resources differently. That creates an incentive to slide down a pick to get an extra pick if you deem the quality you are giving up to be sufficiently small. If we are targeting a player who we know will be available at pick 15 (or have a player we rate near equally at that selection) then why not pick up the free pick to improve the overall quality of your list?

Plus, sometimes you trade away pick 1 to get Jayson Tatum, who you knew would still be there at pick 3, whilst picking up a future first round pick for free.

[whatwhat say what 22,587]

18 hours ago, adonski said:

poor markelle

[old55 23,323]

Downtrade 9 for 15 and 16 with GWS if the players we really rate at 9 are gone and there's a talent cliff that runs beyond 16 to the next one.

Downtrade 9 for 12 and 26 with WC if we believe the player we rate at 9 will still be there at 12.

They're both perfectly reasonable strategies. Very keen to hear an argument against them.

Edited yesterday at 03:50 by old55

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,440]

10 minutes ago, old55 said:

Downtrade 9 for 15 and 16 with GWS if the players we really rate at 9 are gone and there's a talent cliff that runs beyond 16 to the next one.

Downtrade 9 for 12 and 26 with WC if we believe the player we rate at 9 will still be there at 12.

They're both perfectly reasonable strategies. Very keen to hear an argument against them.

I think if either of those get offered to us we will seriously consider it.

[adonski 11,660]

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

poor markelle

His college highlight reel is so elite. A real tragedy. 

[rpfc 28,239]

2 hours ago, old55 said:

Downtrade 9 for 15 and 16 with GWS if the players we really rate at 9 are gone and there's a talent cliff that runs beyond 16 to the next one.

Downtrade 9 for 12 and 26 with WC if we believe the player we rate at 9 will still be there at 12.

They're both perfectly reasonable strategies. Very keen to hear an argument against them.

If we believe the player we want is there. I just don’t think the risk to not getting who you want is worth ND26 or whatever it ends up being. Getting 15 and 16 is a different story but it is also a different strategy - we would usually be the team to get into the top 10 with a trade like that, not out of it.

[spirit of norm smith 16,209]

I’m not sold on Armstrong.  Prefer others at 9. 
 

Edited yesterday at 06:18 by spirit of norm smith
O

[The Taciturn Demon 425]

23 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

If we are targeting a player who we know will be available at pick 15 (or have a player we rate near equally at that selection) then why not pick up the free pick to improve the overall quality of your list?

This makes sense to me. One thing that I've wondered about for a long time, though, is how can you "know" (or be even vaguely confident) that the player you have in mind will be there in six (or even three) picks?

Another way of putting the question is why are recruiters so (apparently) open about who they like in drafts? Wouldn't secrecy be a far better option in such a competitive game?

Edited yesterday at 08:36 by The Taciturn Demon

[Mouseymoo 151]

I've watched all his highlights in YouTube to try to get myself hyped in case we do go him.. Obviously in JT I trust... But, this kid has bad hands. He can get himself at the drop of the ball but barely one-grabs it, in fact drops more than he marks (keeping in mind these are highlights). It really doesn't fill me with confidence. 

Just for a point of reference I rewatched Jeffos highlights. He looks a far superior mark, and based on highlights a far superior package whom is in need of the preseasons he's currently getting to bulk up. 

I'd rather us find another defender as we have McDonald, May, Salem in their golden years and Rivers moving into the midfield, conversely we've got Jeffo in waiting and making something out of Turner. 

[adonski 11,660]

2 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

I've watched all his highlights in YouTube to try to get myself hyped in case we do go him.. Obviously in JT I trust... But, this kid has bad hands. He can get himself at the drop of the ball but barely one-grabs it, in fact drops more than he marks (keeping in mind these are highlights). It really doesn't fill me with confidence. 

Just for a point of reference I rewatched Jeffos highlights. He looks a far superior mark, and based on highlights a far superior package whom is in need of the preseasons he's currently getting to bulk up. 

I'd rather us find another defender as we have McDonald, May, Salem in their golden years and Rivers moving into the midfield, conversely we've got Jeffo in waiting and making something out of Turner. 

Agree Mousey, if Armstrong was a one-grabber it'd be a conversation, but he looks like a 50/50 punt I think. Great speed though.

I was open minded to Armstrong but I think I'm leaning more towards the 2 x midfielders (or 1 x mid, 1 x flanker) with our first two picks

[The Jackson FIX 3,040]

23 hours ago, adonski said:

The 6ers butchered some drafts. Like Essendon.

[Axis of Bob 11,637]

25 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

I've watched all his highlights in YouTube to try to get myself hyped in case we do go him.. Obviously in JT I trust... But, this kid has bad hands. He can get himself at the drop of the ball but barely one-grabs it, in fact drops more than he marks (keeping in mind these are highlights).

They’re not highlights, they’re all involvements from a game. Good, bad, ugly, indifferent.

Unless you’re watching different videos to everyone else.

Edited yesterday at 08:59 by Axis of Bob

[Mouseymoo 151]

8 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

They’re not highlights, they’re all involvements from a game. Good, bad, ugly, indifferent.

Unless you’re watching different videos to everyone else.

I've watched all the videos available on YouTube and he's dropping sitters left right and centre. 

Check out the Jefferson vs Western Australia video below for a point of reference. Kid looks like a gun compared to Armstrong.