Axis of Bob

The last one that probably qualifies is Brody Grundy, who had a lot of hype as a top 10 but went at 18. That was 12 years ago. The last one that was 'possible pick 1' but slipped down and made people look silly was possibly Daniel Rich in 2008 but more likely it was Joel Selwood in 2006. It probably shows you that there aren't really 'sliders', rather it's just people outside overrating players compared with how the clubs themselves rate them.

As I've sat with it more I've become more and more comfortable to draft him (even at 5). Brisbane won the flag with three tall forward (Daniher, Hipwood and Morris) against Sydney who played McDonald, McLean and Amartey. Geelong had Cameron, Neale and Henry (with Hawkins injured), and Port had Dixon, Geogiades and Marshall. The game seems to be swinging back a bit towards the key forwards now that there is more speed on the ball in attack, rather than the slower game allowing teams to defend talls with extra numbers. We started looking a lot more potent once we got Roo, Petty and Turner all playing in the forward line together. I think it's the speed of the game in transition that gives more one on one and opportunities in space, which is the strength of a key forward. We took Kentfield in the MSD, so we clearly don't think our key forward puzzle is completely solved. Armstrong is a very good worker in space, as well as a player that can crash packs. He moves really, really well and plays the key forward role in a really modern way. A forward line of him, Roo and Jeffo gives us a very mobile group of talls that can work both coming at the ball and going with the ball, like the modern game requires. Since they aren't just big lugs, they're all players that can work in a range of setups and styles. Petty and Turner are natural defenders and would be the pillars of a really formidable defensive group. Little Goffy made an excellent point on another thread about Darcy Fogarty getting a long term contract at Adelaide, showing how scarce KPFs are. And that's only Fogarty! If we think Armstrong is a really good one then why not grab him when we have a chance. On a more personal note, I really want to draft him at 5 ..... just to see all the Demonlanders try to burn this place to the ground! 😁

Just need two of him.

I think that's one of the less important reasons to not pick him at 9.

I think there's a lot in this because it's often the case that players originally get rated on what they can do but then the get marked down on what they can't do. The longer a player has been rated highly the more time everyone has to see what they can't do. Sometime that leads to a correction and sometimes it's an over-correction. I think Smilie sits within this and nobody really knows. When you see what they can do well originally I think you make assumptions on the rest of their game based on what they 'should' be able do. With time those assumptions get tested and you can react negatively if they come up consistently short on that. Smilie has some great traits that complement the player you initially assume he should be (ie, a coalface inside midfield distributor like Cripps or Green), like his great kicking. Your mind immediately sees him and thinks "Wow, he's Patrick Cripps but he can kick! He'll be a superstar!" but as he plays and more you start wondering on the base assumption .... "Is he actually Patrick Cripps or is he a non-ruck Brodie Grundy or is he a non-forward Jake Stringer?" and then his rating drops accordingly. He's likely none of them, he's just Josh Smilie. I'm having a really hard time working out how I feel about Smilie. He does some things that are really, really offputting for me (laziness, play style, his inability to get his hands free in traffic) which infuriate me, but I also understand that if he can sort these out in a professional environment then he could be a star. There's a really wide range of possibilities for him and I can see how teams in the top 10 will rate him very differently.

And they likely know a lot more than me. I think he plays like a half back flanker who woke up one day in the body of Tom Green and he’s still trying to figure out what he’s doing. If he was a great stoppage midfielder then, at his size and with his skills, why would he not be pick 1?

As a casual observer (who isn’t an expert), I’m wary of Smilie. The game he’ll need to play at AFL level is different to the one he plays now, so there’s a lot of risk. He’s currently an outside midfielder trapped in a tall’s body being asked to play as an inside midfielder. He’s not a great stoppage player and he struggles to release the ball in traffic, instead trying to bust out of tackles with his arms down. He wants to receive the ball out in space to use his good kicking but he doesn’t run well enough to do that at an AFL level. He also doesn’t mark the ball well for his size. He has a bunch of really great traits that read incredibly well for a recruit. But his work rate and ‘football’ ability mean that a lot of these skills are mismatched and there’s a lot of risk that he’ll be a constant ‘almost’ player. If the inside work clicks and he discovers AFL work rate then he’ll be a gun. Personally, I’d take that risk at 9 but I’d be very nervous at 5.

The headline says ‘failed trade’ but Oliver only ever talks about ‘having a chat’ or ‘meeting with’ Geelong. At no point did he say or even hint at any desire (or otherwise) to leave. A little bit of a peek behind the curtain there, seeing how the media creates a narrative rather than reporting things straight.

What a load of absolute steaming [censored].

I find it hilarious how riled up people get about the least important players on our list. The same way that people are getting annoyed about giving up an extra 3rd round pick or two when trading for pick 9. No concept of value at all.

Just because it isn't listed in the provisional draft order at the moment doesn't mean that our draft picks stop and we can't select any more players. We have draft picks to fill all open list spots, they'll just be added on at the end (in reverse ladder order). If we traded away all of our draft picks and still had 5 list spots open going into the draft, then we'd get 5 draft picks (eg, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81) at the end to fill out our list.

Oh no, what would we do without pick 40? 😐 Our recent drafting history with picks in the National Draft at 40 and above: 2023: None. 2022: None. 2021: Taj Woewodin (FS match). 2020: None. 2019: None. One would almost think that we have a drafting philosophy of doing whatever we can to get further up the list where the good players are, rather than picking later where the ordinary players are. I'm not going to cry over giving up additional late picks to get a top 10 picks.

"Oliver has cleaned out his locker ...." From this statement alone you already know this isn't true.

It didn't sound jarring at all. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and that's just my own explanation for it rather than the gold standard answer. I think there are some players that are being highly underrated because they haven't been playing in the midfield or have been absent. Players like Travaglia and Hotton, the former because he played a lot as a half back and the latter because he was injured. Even a player like Finn O'Sullivan, who has struggled with injury all year, has been seen by some on the internet to slip down to the latter half of the top 10 and ranked behind some fairly middling talents due to lower possession numbers, despite probably being the best player in the pool. But recruiting is difficult and I'm certainly no expert to listen to. I've just seen the same trends every year on the internet whilst following it for the past 20 or so years.

Because internet experts are not real experts. Every year there are players that jump up the order and everyone is surprised. Usually these are players that have low stats but show traits that will translate well into AFL. Windsor was one of those. Tholstrup was one of those. Tauru is another that has popped up late this year. There are a few players that I think will do the same this year that people are barely speaking about. It happens every single year that internet experts overrate players that get a lot of the ball over players that exhibit AFL level traits at lower volume. But internet experts are not real experts.

Really gives you some sympathy for those players going on post-B&F benders.

No, your summation of Jason Taylor’s words isn’t good. Taylor saying that “testing isn’t the be all and end all for determining that player’s draft selection or his footballing ability” is not the same as saying that it “barely makes that much of a difference”. I’ll take Taylor’s opinion over your incorrect interpretation of it. As for the rest of it, I’m happy with old55’s assessment. We all have different ideas of players in the lead up to the draft, which is what makes it interesting. I will say though that there have been very few slow midfielders taken in the top ten since that 2013 draft, and even fewer successful ones. That doesn’t mean that he can’t make it but it does probably mean that he’ll need to be special.

That’s not a good summary of the value of testing. The testing just shows what they’ve probably already seen in the field. They know Langford is slow in the same way that they knew Windsor was quick, but that certainly doesn’t mean that being slow vs quick “barely makes a difference”. Athleticism is important. It’s also more important for some than others, which is why all the other slowest players at the combine are talls/rucks. It’s rare to have midfielders be the least athletic players on a team. They need something special to compensate, which recruiters will have assess with Langford.

I didn’t say he wasn’t a good player, nor that he won’t be a good AFL player. But being able to run is important, particularly in a game that is quicker than ever and an emphasis on transition running. Bont is able to overcome his lack of speed with his brilliance of touch and skill to be able to win and distribute the ball under the huge amounts of physical pressure his lack of speed brings him. Similarly, Langford will need something to help him succeed under the highest amount of pressure because of his lack of natural athleticism. Will he have that ability at the next level? Time will tell. FWIW, I don’t see a Bont comparison. I think a fairer one is a 6’3 Matt Crouch. Still a very good player but more of a straightforward footballer like Crouch than a mercurial one like Bont.

You know who else did all that? Greg Williams. 😁

This is going to be like when every plodder junior got some support on fan forums because “Greg Williams was slow”. Turns out that none of those players was Greg Williams. We’ll see if Langford can buck the trend and be Marcus Bontempelli. He’ll need other traits that allow him to dominate in spite of being a plodder.

That's definitely true, however when you have a top 5 pick your expecting that the midfielder you are drafting will be worthy of being frontline midfielder. It's not like we're drafting James Jordon with pick 5 and forcing him to play outside the centre square, we're clearly expecting to draft a better player than that. The only current player I'd say is a full time midfielder for us is Oliver, with Petracca and Viney both being potential forwards for us. Versatility is good but it's much more important for lesser players rather than the good ones because you want your good players near the ball as often as possible.

What's your plan for a Gawn injury? Tom Fullarton?

🤔

It'll depend on how we rate the draft. If we think there's a top 4 or 5 in the draft, with a gap behind it, then we'll probably take one of them no matter the type. Taylor talks about talent 'cliffs', which was why we spend heavily to get our second pick into the top 12 last year. So much will depend on where he sees those cliffs. As for Smith, he's a good player. I think his contest work is underrated by most on here because he's light, but he has great ability to win the ball at the source. His games at the end of the year were his best, IMO, after he had a run in the VFL. He was able to play as more of ball carrier rather than solely an accumulator, which is a good sign for his AFL future.