BomberBlitzCast - Episode 104

Good cast guys.

2 things.

The 190cm guy was Sheeds method entirely. It all went wrong when we forgot that.

That dissection of the argument for #teamtrade is a massive oversimplification, and the NFL stats aren’t really that meaningful because of list size limits etc. By trading we don’t get more shots at it, we just turn 37 into 15 and 55 into 17. 37+ 55 have a certain statistical probability of turning up A grade players, so do 15+17, so does 1, so does 7.

In some years the recruiters would want 15 vs 37 every day of the week. In others they might not care, as beyond the first half dozen everyone else is a open to “interpretation”

Good cast guys.

2 things.

The 190cm guy was Sheeds method entirely. It all went wrong when we forgot that.

That dissection of the argument for #teamtrade is a massive oversimplification, and the NFL stats aren’t really that meaningful because of list size limits etc. By trading we don’t get more shots at it, we just turn 37 into 15 and 55 into 17. 37+ 55 have a certain statistical probability of turning up A grade players, so do 15+17, so does 1, so does 7.

In some years the recruiters would want 15 vs 37 every day of the week. In others they might not care, as beyond the first half dozen everyone else is a open to “interpretation”

I reckon disco would froth at the mouth at the chance for 4 picks in the top 20.

Of course he would. And he’d love first pick of the draft as well. Which he loves more, and which is better for us will depend on a lot of things that are yet to play out.

And one other thing “plays like” pretty much never means “is”.

Of course he would. And he'd love first pick of the draft as well. Which he loves more, and which is better for us will depend on a lot of things that are yet to play out.

From the horses mouth “pick one is only great if there is pick one talent in the draft”

Good cast guys.

2 things.

The 190cm guy was Sheeds method entirely. It all went wrong when we forgot that.

That dissection of the argument for #teamtrade is a massive oversimplification, and the NFL stats aren’t really that meaningful because of list size limits etc. By trading we don’t get more shots at it, we just turn 37 into 15 and 55 into 17. 37+ 55 have a certain statistical probability of turning up A grade players, so do 15+17, so does 1, so does 7.

In some years the recruiters would want 15 vs 37 every day of the week. In others they might not care, as beyond the first half dozen everyone else is a open to “interpretation”

I’m not sure that squad size of 53 (plus 10 practice) vs 40 (plus 4 rookies) given the comparative number of active players per game is different enough that you can write off the concept completely. The talent pool is deeper in the NFL (ie it’s harder to get into the NFL than the AFL) and there are a lot more teams, so the inflection point of high pick vs multiple reasonably high picks is almost certainly different, but I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t still true. The biggest problem with historical data in the AFL is that high picks are disproportionately represented by a few clubs over the last 20 years (Carlton, Melbourne, GWS, GC) so it’s hard to gauge the value of high picks separate from the quality of the recruitment teams of those clubs.

Also you might well get more shots at it by having more high picks because what picks you have affects list management. Our draft sanctions in 2013/2014 meant we took a total of 4 players, and kept on players we otherwise wouldn’t have if we’d had access to decent draft spots (at least that’s what Dodoro said during last year’s trade period). This year the future of some guys like Ashby will probably be decided by what draft pick we have available to replace them.

Of course he would. And he'd love first pick of the draft as well. Which he loves more, and which is better for us will depend on a lot of things that are yet to play out.

From the horses mouth “pick one is only great if there is pick one talent in the draft”

Of course he would. And he'd love first pick of the draft as well. Which he loves more, and which is better for us will depend on a lot of things that are yet to play out.

From the horses mouth “pick one is only great if there is pick one talent in the draft”

Which horse?

But if there’s only “pick 5 talent” in the draft, pick 1 still gives you at the best of that group.

The other thing is that if the horse doesn’t reckon there’s pick 1 talent then you’d reckon every other recruiter would think the same and the “value” you get from the trade down would be affected.

Obviously the academies and the points system which apportions a fixed value to picks helps us to get value in the downgrade though, so it could still be the best play. Although that might depend on how many list changes the academy teams will be making.

For me it’s still a wait and see.

I’d shop it around, and assess each deal on merit against my list of players I rate. With some consideration to intel, but not too much. For instance if i thought SPS was a clear standout, but I thought no one would take him top 4 due to the Kimberley factor I’d still be very wary of trading 1 for 5, because someone else might also see him as the standout, or because someone we didn’t expect to get a top 4 pick might manage to get a trade done.

In the end it all depends on how we rate the players. (And that’s different to how knightmare rates the players). Maybe we think there’s 0 pick 1 talent and 8 pick 5 talents. Or maybe there’s only 4 top 5 worth and 20 top 15 worth, or maybe it’s completely rubbish and we don’t really want anyone.

For my own viewing (And I’ve done very little viewing or reading this year) I’m not sold on the value of 1. Mcluggage looks decent, a bit of a Scully type. But i don’t have any idea whether he has all of the other stuff that made scully a #1 pick. Maybe he does. I still prefer an extra dose of class at 1.

Brodie looks kind of awkward, and although he looks a great sized competitive mid, he doesn’t seem to have the polish and vision that I’d like. Ainsworth I don’t see it for a number 1. And although I think SPS has the qualities, he hasn’t done what people expected this year, and obviously the Kimberley thing worries some. Etc etc.

I guess in a round about way I’m agreeing with you, but if i can’t get sps , who I think is about the one with enough pick 1 qualities (pace, class, etc), at our downgraded pick I’d be questioning my commitment to the deal.

*usual disclaimers. Might change my mind 100 times on each of them between now and draft day.

Of course he would. And he'd love first pick of the draft as well. Which he loves more, and which is better for us will depend on a lot of things that are yet to play out.

From the horses mouth “pick one is only great if there is pick one talent in the draft”

Of course he would. And he'd love first pick of the draft as well. Which he loves more, and which is better for us will depend on a lot of things that are yet to play out.

From the horses mouth “pick one is only great if there is pick one talent in the draft”

Which horse?

But if there’s only “pick 5 talent” in the draft, pick 1 still gives you at the best of that group.

The other thing is that if the horse doesn’t reckon there’s pick 1 talent then you’d reckon every other recruiter would think the same and the “value” you get from the trade down would be affected.

Obviously the academies and the points system which apportions a fixed value to picks helps us to get value in the downgrade though, so it could still be the best play. Although that might depend on how many list changes the academy teams will be making.

For me it’s still a wait and see.

I’d shop it around, and assess each deal on merit against my list of players I rate. With some consideration to intel, but not too much. For instance if i thought SPS was a clear standout, but I thought no one would take him top 4 due to the Kimberley factor I’d still be very wary of trading 1 for 5, because someone else might also see him as the standout, or because someone we didn’t expect to get a top 4 pick might manage to get a trade done.

In the end it all depends on how we rate the players. (And that’s different to how knightmare rates the players). Maybe we think there’s 0 pick 1 talent and 8 pick 5 talents. Or maybe there’s only 4 top 5 worth and 20 top 15 worth, or maybe it’s completely rubbish and we don’t really want anyone.

For my own viewing (And I’ve done very little viewing or reading this year) I’m not sold on the value of 1. Mcluggage looks decent, a bit of a Scully type. But i don’t have any idea whether he has all of the other stuff that made scully a #1 pick. Maybe he does. I still prefer an extra dose of class at 1.

Brodie looks kind of awkward, and although he looks a great sized competitive mid, he doesn’t seem to have the polish and vision that I’d like. Ainsworth I don’t see it for a number 1. And although I think SPS has the qualities, he hasn’t done what people expected this year, and obviously the Kimberley thing worries some. Etc etc.

I guess in a round about way I’m agreeing with you, but if i can’t get sps , who I think is about the one with enough pick 1 qualities (pace, class, etc), at our downgraded pick I’d be questioning my commitment to the deal.

Look, I totally get what you are saying, and even if there were 3 guys that are clearly ahead of the pack I would be saying hang onto it, no doubt. By pick 5 talent in not saying that’s the value of the best pick, it’s just that there is probably 20 guys who could be top 10 and 12 who could be top 5.

However this years crop can have a blanket thrown over it for about the first 12 picks. I would much rather back in our recruiters to get us another Parish and Francis than bet the house on Weitering. I do really like McLuggage, but I don’t think he is considerably better than Ainsworth, Bowles, and even the two academy boys, there is no clear key position talent in the front end of this draft either. There will be some great players come out of it, but I think unfortunately that this year is probably one of the worst years to own that pick 1 in probably the last 8 years, I really think you have just as much chance of getting a 200 gamer at 10-15 as you do in the top 3 this year, in fact this yeses top 3 is probably going 8-12 in last years draft. Sorry. flick it to a club who is super keen on MCL for overs and focus on complementary pieces to our already clear guns.

If there’s such a club, and they can get us the “overs” that we need.

As for 1 being 8-12 last year, I keep thinking back to last year, when guys like SPS (in particular) and ainsworth and scharenberg were rated as good as Parish.

Some of that was probably projecting what they’d do in their top aged year, but some was that they were that good against the Parish cohort (given they were all Aus in that group, in significantly worse teams).

Move forward a year and SPS has had injuries, ainsworth suspension etc. So they haven’t got a good run of injury free football. Scharenberg had been good, but now he’s " a bit slow" etc.

These guys had the runs on the board against Parish etc. Are we over thinking it and ignoring the quality that’s in front of our face?

‘Perceived tippa’

A grade casting right there

If there's such a club, and they can get us the "overs" that we need.

As for 1 being 8-12 last year, I keep thinking back to last year, when guys like SPS (in particular) and ainsworth and scharenberg were rated as good as Parish.

Some of that was probably projecting what they’d do in their top aged year, but some was that they were that good against the Parish cohort (given they were all Aus in that group, in significantly worse teams).

Move forward a year and SPS has had injuries, ainsworth suspension etc. So they haven’t got a good run of injury free football. Scharenberg had been good, but now he’s " a bit slow" etc.

These guys had the runs on the board against Parish etc. Are we over thinking it and ignoring the quality that’s in front of our face?

From Cal this morning, taking about Brodie

"The Victorian is among a number of players who are in the mix for the No.1 choice in an unusually open field, alongside Hugh McCluggage, Sam Petrevski-Seton, Andrew McGrath, Ben Ainsworth and Jack Bowes.

Taller prospects Todd Marshall, who kicked three goals on the weekend, Tim English and Jack Scrimshaw could also be contenders with a big finish to the season."

So that’s 9 kids who could be number one, so with that being said if we thought we could get the guy we want at say 4-5 and turn and trade 1 and 19 for picks 4 and 9 and insure we get two of that crop then why wouldn’t we?

GC have already said they won’t trade their 2 picks in the top 10 in a news story.

GC have already said they won't trade their 2 picks in the top 10 in a news story.

St Kilda said they wouldn’t trade pick 5 last year

GC have already said they won't trade their 2 picks in the top 10 in a news story.

St Kilda said they wouldn’t trade pick 5 last year


But we don’t have anything they really want? They don’t want pick 1 over pick 4/8 so we can’t force them to?
GC have already said they won't trade their 2 picks in the top 10 in a news story.

St Kilda said they wouldn’t trade pick 5 last year


But we don’t have anything they really want? They don’t want pick 1 over pick 4/8 so we can’t force them to?
Jackets needs to make it clear he'll take Jack Bowes with pick 1.
GC have already said they won't trade their 2 picks in the top 10 in a news story.

St Kilda said they wouldn’t trade pick 5 last year


But we don’t have anything they really want? They don’t want pick 1 over pick 4/8 so we can’t force them to?
Jackets needs to make it clear he'll take Jack Bowes with pick 1.

Or that Brisbane will

GC have already said they won't trade their 2 picks in the top 10 in a news story.

St Kilda said they wouldn’t trade pick 5 last year


But we don’t have anything they really want? They don’t want pick 1 over pick 4/8 so we can’t force them to?

yeah we can

essendon bid pick 1 on bowes.

make up those points suckers. (please don’t bid disco )

If there's such a club, and they can get us the "overs" that we need.

As for 1 being 8-12 last year, I keep thinking back to last year, when guys like SPS (in particular) and ainsworth and scharenberg were rated as good as Parish.

Some of that was probably projecting what they’d do in their top aged year, but some was that they were that good against the Parish cohort (given they were all Aus in that group, in significantly worse teams).

Move forward a year and SPS has had injuries, ainsworth suspension etc. So they haven’t got a good run of injury free football. Scharenberg had been good, but now he’s " a bit slow" etc.

These guys had the runs on the board against Parish etc. Are we over thinking it and ignoring the quality that’s in front of our face?

From Cal this morning, taking about Brodie

"The Victorian is among a number of players who are in the mix for the No.1 choice in an unusually open field, alongside Hugh McCluggage, Sam Petrevski-Seton, Andrew McGrath, Ben Ainsworth and Jack Bowes.

Taller prospects Todd Marshall, who kicked three goals on the weekend, Tim English and Jack Scrimshaw could also be contenders with a big finish to the season."

So that’s 9 kids who could be number one, so with that being said if we thought we could get the guy we want at say 4-5 and turn and trade 1 and 19 for picks 4 and 9 and insure we get two of that crop then why wouldn’t we?

If you could you would. I guess my point has been that just because there are 9 potentials, didn’t mean there’s 9 we want. But if we’re happy that one of the (say) 3 we want will be there, sure. If there’s only 1 or 2 we actually want, not so much.