2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

Twomey's phantom draft has just dropped.

Cal Twomey's 2020 Phantom Draft: Top 30, late picks, your club's whispers
Has us taking DGB at 4 (and LMcD slipping to Hawthorn at 5), Sydney matching a bid on Campbell at 9, and Gulden at 22.

He also suggests we might pick up a ruckman with our fourth pick if we've got the picks and the right player is still available

[MattW]

The DGB v LMcD debate is an interesting one. The only reason people (me included) would lean toward Logan is because he's seen as a forward and Denver as a back. However DGB may be the better player. He's certainly quicker and won their head to head duel in the WAFL. I wonder how much our recruiters look at either player as "back" or "forward", but rather look in terms of attributes each position requires: speed, size, aggression, marking ability, bodywork etc and on that basis may see DGB as the better prospect? He's certainly the skinnier of the two, so may also have more upside.

Anyway, all will have been revealed by this time tomorrow!

I think you have put the quandary well. McDonald best fills the positional need, but DGB may be the better player.

[Thunder Shaker]

I can't believe we would let Logan slide past us! He would be our dream pick, wouldn't he? Have I been believing too much of what I have been reading? I will be disappointed if this happens. DGB may be fantastic but we need a KPF much more than we need a KPD. I hope we have successfully bluffed everyone about DGB.

I wonder if there's any chance Tasmanian Jackson Callow could be available by the time our later pick comes around? I suspect we prefer to draft only 3 (as per 707's clear analysis) but he's a KPF that we might want to give a go in the unlikely event he were still available. Chris Doerre rates him just outside the first round (well ahead of Nik Cox and Zach Reid).

IMO Jackson Callow would be a chance to be drafted in the 20 to 30 range. He's not a skinny tall kid who would need two years in the gym to get the strength he needs, he's there already and could play in round 1 for whoever drafts him. Height: 194cm, Weight: 101kg. I think the Giants will draft him with one of their later picks.

The DGB v LMcD debate is an interesting one. The only reason people (me included) would lean toward Logan is because he's seen as a forward and Denver as a back. However DGB may be the better player. He's certainly quicker and won their head to head duel in the WAFL. I wonder how much our recruiters look at either player as "back" or "forward", but rather look in terms of attributes each position requires: speed, size, aggression, marking ability, bodywork etc and on that basis may see DGB as the better prospect? He's certainly the skinnier of the two, so may also have more upside.

DGB didn't just win the head to head duel with LMcD, he smashed it. In the game in question, LMcD kicked no goals on DGB in the second half when DGB was shifted onto him, and the match stats suggest that he may have had no more than a single possession in the half that DGB played on him.

Now imagine DGB doing that to opposition key forwards regularly.

[707]

Well that's a shock Phantom from Cal, now we wait 48 hours to see if he's on the money yet again.

I like McInnes to the Crows at pick 11 thwarting the draft planning of the tottering Pies empire!

Matching at pick 9 and 22 costs us 1175 + 648 = 1823. That's covered by our first four picks leaving us a pick at 47 if we wanted to use it.

[Auntie.Gerald]

that would be cool 707
if we dont need we can trade for a next years pick

[gloveski]

I have watched Jackson Callow live for Tasmania last year . My only concern would be his leg speed , but he is definitely a leader as he was running the forwards qtr time huddles even though he was an under anger at the time . Reminded me of Tom Hawkins the way he was patrolling the forward line


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[longmile]

IMO Jackson Callow would be a chance to be drafted in the 20 to 30 range. He's not a skinny tall kid who would need two years in the gym to get the strength he needs, he's there already and could play in round 1 for whoever drafts him. Height: 194cm, Weight: 101kg. I think the Giants will draft him with one of their later picks.


DGB didn't just win the head to head duel with LMcD, he smashed it. In the game in question, LMcD kicked no goals on DGB in the second half when DGB was shifted onto him, and the match stats suggest that he may have had no more than a single possession in the half that DGB played on him.

Now imagine DGB doing that to opposition key forwards regularly.

Would still rather McDonald. We need a forward. We have a plethora of good backs

[Captain]

Would still rather McDonald. We need a forward. We have a plethora of good backs

+1

[Bloody Hell]

Would still rather McDonald. We need a forward. We have a plethora of good backs

Agree - forward is the priority.

But it's not even that, it's the philosophy of the Swans defense.

I would guess Paul Roos was the last super star defender we had (not speaking about All Australians or great defenders) - eg. Barry (failed forward), Bolton (reject from Brisbane), Richards (failed forward - reject from Essendon), Grundy (failed forward), Smith (Rookie), Rampe (Rookie), Lloyd (Rookie) ... there is a pattern.

Our defense is built on team defense and the people who have done that are mostly rookies, rejects and converted forwards.

Putting a superstar in the back 6 goes against this philosophy.

That said, knowing how Kinnear feeds out information prior to the draft, my guess would be that DGB is the least likely to be picked with No.3 given he's shown on the most anticipated Phantom Draft of the year.

[Bloody Hell]

I would take McDonald, Thilthorpe or Hollands in that order. Don't need to think anymore than that.

If the first 2 were gone and we took DGB in that position I would be fine with that. If we leave one of the 2 forwards on the table I would be disappointed.

[Auntie.Gerald]

DGB go home factor to WA WC or Freeo could be high......just ask Sumich
Will be very interesting tomorrow evening but also a little boring in that we know our next picks in Campbell and Gulden which is awesome but predicted

[Ruck'n'Roll]

DGB didn't just win the head to head duel with LMcD, he smashed it. In the game in question, LMcD kicked no goals on DGB in the second half when DGB was shifted onto him, and the match stats suggest that he may have had no more than a single possession in the half that DGB played on him.

No opinion of DGB or LMcD but half a game is a pretty small sample size.

DGB go home factor to WA WC or Freeo could be high......just ask Sumich

For the purposes of amusement and elucidation I have decided to have-a-go at the "RWO High-draft-pick Flight-risk-likelyhood index" - from most likely to least

1. Melbourne
2. Perth
3. Victorian Regional
4. Adelaide
6. New South Wales (south of Barassi Line)
5. Queensland
7. Sydney

[aardvark]

"Who would you pick at 3" poll on Swans BF has Phillips ahead by a bit.

[i'm-uninformed2]

What I found interesting re Twomey's draft - and his is driven more by insights from the clubs than his own view - is the reference that in an open draft pool, DGB is rated by some clubs as the best player.

Whether we are taking him or not, or whether we agree or not, that was fascinating in so far as there is no clear no1 after JUH. Clubs seem torn over the choices around the top five or six, so we may see some wildcards on the night.

[iigrover]

Well that's a shock Phantom from Cal...Matching at pick 9 and 22 costs us 1175 + 648 = 1823. That's covered by our first four picks leaving us a pick at 47 if we wanted to use it.

Can someone help with my understanding of Cal's ordering here that I dont understand.

Given Essendon have 3 consecutive picks (7,8, and 9), and assuming they truly value Braeden at #9, i.e ahead of Oliver Henry, why on earth would they bid on him at his true value of #9 and not overs at #7.

As if they did the latter, they would either:
- secure Braeden, Brauhn and Ried; or
- secure Brauhn, Ried and Henry, and force the Swans to give up extra point/picks, further elevating the Dons latter picks.

Either of those outcomes seem to me to be better for Essendon??

Am I right?

EDIT: gramma and spellling ;-)