Totally agree. There's talk of a bolter if we miss the intended players we were after when traded down. Hope Cockatoo's the bolter.Just cant see us taking Langford, surely Cockatoo Airlines or Weller fill more a need over him.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Totally agree. There's talk of a bolter if we miss the intended players we were after when traded down. Hope Cockatoo's the bolter.Just cant see us taking Langford, surely Cockatoo Airlines or Weller fill more a need over him.
He may have just googled it last night and seen Twomey's mock.Bickly on 5aa says he thinks we'll take laverde, he doesn't seem like a mock draft reader, you would think he might have a few mates at the club who would give him good info.
He may have just googled it last night and seen Twomey's mock.
If they've been scouting guys all year he might have some idea over the type of/which guys they were looking at through this season.He may have just googled it last night and seen Twomey's mock.
Right hereWhoaa - McKenzie into 16!!
Ok so from CC we know that we rank our bolter higher than Langford.
If the Wright/Lever slide is not on, and EQ should know, then the bolter is in the frame.
D McKenzie - CC where are you?
That would really upset meWow EQ with us taking Langford despite Laverde and Goddard still being on the table. We must really rate him.
Boo Emm has us taking Langford. He's the only one I'm not excited about.
emma isnt the most informed anymore trust me on this on.The only phantom that counts is out:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...s-firstround-predictions-20141126-11uey0.html
You'd get the combo meal and upsize.I'll always back our recruiters to get the job done, but one thing that concerned me was a comment by Ogilvie yesterday (or the day before) on 5AA. He said they've got a very complex 'algorithm' (not the word he used but you get the idea) to determine a draft list based on an overall points score. I assume there are many statistical inputs which lead to this final figure.
Now I know all other clubs would be doing the same thing, but I'd be a bit worried if they picked someone purely on stats, no matter how complex the stats and weightings are. Surely watching a player and just seeing what he can do over a course of 10-20 games is more reliable than stats?
I think you've made that abundantly clear!I would be be very disappointed if we picked Langford over Lever or Laverde........
What would you think if that occurred?I think you've made that abundantly clear!
Someone mentioned they have some sort of software they use.I'll always back our recruiters to get the job done, but one thing that concerned me was a comment by Ogilvie yesterday (or the day before) on 5AA. He said they've got a very complex 'algorithm' (not the word he used but you get the idea) to determine a draft list based on an overall points score. I assume there are many statistical inputs which lead to this final figure.
Now I know all other clubs would be doing the same thing, but I'd be a bit worried if they picked someone purely on stats, no matter how complex the stats and weightings are. Surely watching a player and just seeing what he can do over a course of 10-20 games is more reliable than stats?
As usual I'd back in our recruiters. There are 4 of them who work full time but not the "full time" we are accustomed to. These guys are OCD and work ridiculous hours to get up and down the country to see as many kids as possible. They find a batch of kids they really like and put heaps of time into them. By the time draft day rolls around they've probably seen the kids on their short list play at least 20 times over the last 2-3 years. They interview the kids exhaustively, and grill their coaches and parents to find out what makes them tick. They assess the kids to find out whether they'll be flight risks, or whether they'll face injury problems down the line, or whether they have the capacity to improve enough to justify a high draft pick.What would you think if that occurred?
hope soOut of curiosity is it possible that the Crows could take someone at 14 that has been almost completely overlooked?
Ah ... Now, we just need ' your' selection lolRight here
I have no other option than to back our recruiters and I will. You were speaking of stats before. Now Philthy is a bit of a stats guru and has asked for some that we're not even thought of at the time. Can you imagine if he asked to have a look at the statistical info that our recruiters were compiling and threw in a few more that they weren't? Then see if some new names cropped up that otherwise weren't being considered. Be interesting if that was the case.As usual I'd back in our recruiters. There are 4 of them who work full time but not the "full time" we are accustomed to. These guys are OCD and work ridiculous hours to get up and down the country to see as many kids as possible. They find a batch of kids they really like and put heaps of time into them. By the time draft day rolls around they've probably seen the kids on their short list play at least 20 times over the last 2-3 years. They interview the kids exhaustively, and grill their coaches and parents to find out what makes them tick. They assess the kids to find out whether they'll be flight risks, or whether they'll face injury problems down the line, or whether they have the capacity to improve enough to justify a high draft pick.
Now it's all well and good for us to take a liking to certain players, but all we have to go by is a 3 minute video clip, a few combine results and a few mock drafts, some by "experts" and some by amateurs. Now for all we know, we might have had Langford ahead of Lever and Laverde on our pecking order all year? Quayle's phantom draft would suggest that maybe clubs don't rate Laverde as the out-and-out gun we all though he was.
Anyway, just back our recruiters, they've delivered us some gems over the last few years.