Western Bulldogs Limbo Club

[BEaston]

True, but balance applies across the list not just the best 22.

In any case our list is finalized for the year - it now is what it is.
Hopefully Bevo can work his magic and we can see some shape and structure throughout the pre-season.

Exactly. The 22 is just a contraction of the 44. The same properties will be displayed in both sets.

 

[go you pups]

I really think the only way the club will rectify the KPP stocks is if a heap of KPPs go down next year etc Boyd, Minson, Roughy, Talia. Even if Stringer or Crameri went down they'd be thinking oh ****

 

[BRWB]

I really think the only way the club will rectify the KPP stocks is if a heap of KPPs go down next year etc Boyd, Minson, Roughy, Talia. Even if Stringer or Crameri went down they'd be thinking oh ****

The only conclusions I can draw are that club believes its has the KPP personnel in place to take it through the next 7 years. Otherwise surely in the last three drafts at least one player over 192cm would have been taken.

Hope they are right, otherwise we are going to have to pay through the nose (via trade or salary or both) like we did with Boyd to address the deficiencies.

 

[cammo78]

Hope they are right, otherwise we are going to have to pay through the nose (via trade or salary or both) like we did with Boyd to address the deficiencies.

Perhaps that, in itself IS the strategy.

Just like with ruckmen - let other clubs take the risk and try and get the good ones later on.

 

[BRWB]

Perhaps that, in itself IS the strategy.

Just like with ruckmen - let other clubs take the risk and try and get the good ones later on.

Could well be. And with the FA rule and long development lead times for KPPs well you can probably get some average to good KPPs (undervalued KPD's in particular) on an inflated salary when they are in their prime. Like Frawley for instance. Still don't like putting all of our eggs in one basket, and well no eggs in the other basket is concerning (no-one drafted tall over 192cm in three years.....seems high risk...oh forgot Hamling.....but he I guess he was DFA.)

Just seems the regular list management strategy of having a spread of ages, sizes and types has gone out the window. Could be either really progressive, smart and radical OR a major screw up.

 

[go you pups]

List Balance right now

Inside midfielders 6 - Libba, Wallis, C Smith, M Boyd, B Goodes, L Jong
Outside midfielders 3 - Macrae, Hamilton, R Smith
Utility type forward mid rotation 4 - Bontempelli, Hrovat, Stevens, Daniel
Utility type defender mid rotation 4 - Webb, Biggs, Prudden, Picken
Small forwards 5 - Dahlhaus, Hunter, Honeychurch, McLean, Dale
Medium forwards 4 - Stringer, Crameri, Grant, Dickson
Tall forwards 2 - T Boyd, Redpath
Small defenders 5 - Johannisen, Murphy, Darley, Fuller, Pearce
Medium defenders 4 - Morris, Z Cordy, Kelly, Wood
Tall defenders 4 - Roughead, Talia, Roberts, Hamling
Rucks 3 - Minson, Campbell, A Cordy

Our medium forwards are obviously our most potent scorers with all 4 players averaging over a goal a game but all 4 can't play in the same team at once, however, as they are our most reliable source of scoring so what will happen if 2 of these guys go down? This is why it was important to try and find some KPF stocks to help out. Will Bontempelli play as a key forward instead?

Perhaps some of these players I've branded as utilities will shift to other positions. Picken could've been a small defender but he tags through midfield also so I thought he was a utility. Dahlhaus wants to be a small forward and I'd say he'll be one with the types coming in.

 

[doggies ftw]

What was that comment someone made about Bonts at the social club, that he said he had a 'new focus' at training or something like that? Bonts at CHF? Yes please.

 

[Mutt]

The only conclusions I can draw are that club believes its has the KPP personnel in place to take it through the next 7 years. Otherwise surely in the last three drafts at least one player over 192cm would have been taken.

Hope they are right, otherwise we are going to have to pay through the nose (via trade or salary or both) like we did with Boyd to address the deficiencies.

There are other possible explanations. Your conclusion is the least likely of them all in my opinion.

 

[BRWB]

There are other possible explanations. Your conclusion is the least likely of them all in my opinion.

Well to be fair I am going on what Simon said in an interview where he said he was well stocked for KPDs, but unless you mean Simon didn't think there were any good KPPs at his picks in the last three drafts when compared to what was on offer in other positions, I am interested in any other ideas.

 

[immortalmike]

Have to disagree here - Lake debuted in his first year, played 13 games in his second and 17 in his third - and 22 in his 4th.
Talia is in his third season and didn't play seniors.
Roberts in two years hasn't managed to complete a season at AFL/VFL level unscathed.
Roughy looked slow this year and was regularly beaten (nobody knows how much of that is due to injury). Even the coaches haven't said for certain he is a key back longer term.

The crux is people are trying to compare us to other teams and finding we are behind in both depth and quality for KPDs, in a draft where we've just picked up 5 very similar type players - from a list management point of view and knowing our historical struggle to find decent talls I'm not sure the fundamentalist addiction to "best available at all costs" is the best way forward. Best available for 80-90% of the time fine, but there needs to be some consideration of list needs at the draft.

I'm sticking to my guns here Lake looked ordinary in his first three years on our list. But I guess that's more about personal opinion.

I'm not even close to arguing that we have a balanced list. I'm neither blind or stupid (contrary to popular belief). My argument is simply we went for the type of players we lacked that we thought would make it. That didn't include a tall player but it did include players with skill and pace I.e., the type that we lack and should make up the bulk of our list. Unfortunately being a bottom five side we don't quite have the depth in every position of the premiers. Somehow I'm not shocked.
You can't balance a list in one off season after you've just lost 8-12 players. We have needs everywhere so I have no problems with best available this year.

 

[Mofra]

I'm not even close to arguing that we have a balanced list. I'm neither blind or stupid (contrary to popular belief). My argument is simply we went for the type of players we lacked that we thought would make it. That didn't include a tall player but it did include players with skill and pace I.e., the type that we lack and should make up the bulk of our list. Unfortunately being a bottom five side we don't quite have the depth in every position of the premiers. Somehow I'm not shocked.
You can't balance a list in one off season after you've just lost 8-12 players. We have needs everywhere so I have no problems with best available this year.

That's fair enough.
I guess the fundamental argument is about draft strategy - "best available always" vs "best available most of the time" vs "best available sometimes" vs "predominantly needs focus".
We'll all differ on that front - I lean towards option 2, although interestingly the draft gurus on the D&T board (whom BF seem to get most of their info from) are probably closer to option 3 reading the phantom drafts, while Dal appears to be in option 1.

 

[immortalmike]

That's fair enough.
I guess the fundamental argument is about draft strategy - "best available always" vs "best available most of the time" vs "best available sometimes" vs "predominantly needs focus".
We'll all differ on that front - I lean towards option 2, although interestingly the draft gurus on the D&T board (whom BF seem to get most of their info from) are probably closer to option 3 reading the phantom drafts, while Dal appears to be in option 1.

I'm not entirely sure about that. Arguably the last time we went strictly needs we got Howard and Tutt. I think Dal might've just been burned.

Also I think you have to plan ahead in drafts, I.e, look to recruit your needs when those players are best available. So you're always doing both.

 

[go you pups]

So with Cordy, Hamling and Kelly coming in to join Roughead, Roberts and Talia it seems that there will be a lot of competition down back, perhaps this could get the best out of Roberts and Talia to push on.

Worried about our forward half but at least it seems to be settled with Boyd, Stringer, Crameri and Bontempelli, plenty of competition for spots in the small forwards area.

 

[Mofra]

I'm not entirely sure about that. Arguably the last time we went strictly needs we got Howard and Tutt. I think Dal might've just been burned.
Also I think you have to plan ahead in drafts, I.e, look to recruit your needs when those players are best available. So you're always doing both.

Ja, I guess the issue is next year is meant to be a midfielders draft and the recruiters do work 2-3 years out so they can track development as well as performance of recruiters.

Re: Howard selection - this was actually purely a best available pick. Dal rated him the 14th best talent available!
The only time I think we've really gone for 'type' over best available early in the draft was Clay Smith, with B-Mac demanding the best contested ball winner in the draft (not Clay specifically)

 

[Mutt]

Well to be fair I am going on what Simon said in an interview where he said he was well stocked for KPDs, but unless you mean Simon didn't think there were any good KPPs at his picks in the last three drafts when compared to what was on offer in other positions, I am interested in any other ideas.

The other ideas have been discussed ad nauseam on this and other threads. Briefly, no team can ever neglect to bring in players of a particular type for 7 years - we will need to introduce KPD's during the next 7 years, but this year's draft will not be the only opportunity to do so. We have needs at many different positions and player types - not just for KPD's. We have chosen to address some of those other needs via this year's draft and rookie draft. It's not hard to understand. You may not like the approach, but it isn't hard to get your head around.

 

[womble54]

What was that comment someone made about Bonts at the social club, that he said he had a 'new focus' at training or something like that? Bonts at CHF? Yes please.

I was at the club today and the words Bont and CHF were interestingly floated in the same sentence.....

 

[BRWB]

The other ideas have been discussed ad nauseam on this and other threads. Briefly, no team can ever neglect to bring in players of a particular type for 7 years - we will need to introduce KPD's during the next 7 years, but this year's draft will not be the only opportunity to do so. We have needs at many different positions and player types - not just for KPD's. We have chosen to address some of those other needs via this year's draft and rookie draft. It's not hard to understand. You may not like the approach, but it isn't hard to get your head around.

Yep understand fully, just we haven't drafted anyone over 192cm in the last three draft periods. At what point do you start getting concerned that we aren't drafting these players. If we don't draft any next year would it be okay to be concerned then. The year after? Please let me know when it would be fair and reasonable to be concerned.

 

[BRWB]

I was at the club today and the words Bont and CHF were interestingly floated in the same sentence.....

Makes sense with size he's put on, I'm on that train. I'm thinking Bonts will be our Pav.

 

[go you pups]

Makes sense with size he's put on, I'm on that train. I'm thinking Bonts will be our Pav.

I like that move too, it would give us posters some relief on why no tall forwards were picked up, however, our midfield would lose some size if he did become a 80-20 forward-mid.

Just watched that Kelly kid's highlights, is he really a defender? Looked like a big bodied mid who likes a goal, looks a bit slow though.

 

[doggies ftw]

I was at the club today and the words Bont and CHF were interestingly floated in the same sentence.....

Who was saying that, if you dont mind me asking?

I really hope we go that way to be honest, he's 194cm at the absolute minimum and I dare say he will end up over 195, he's going to fill out into a huge unit and his contested marking is already a big feature of his game and will only get better. I love the idea of him using his huge tank to play a Nick Riewoldt style CHF role. The three prong attack of Bonts, Boyd and Stringer could genuinely be the best in the game within a few years, throw in Crameri and Dahl and a couple of other smalls and that has the makings of an absolutely brilliant forward line.

 

[immortalmike]

Ja, I guess the issue is next year is meant to be a midfielders draft and the recruiters do work 2-3 years out so they can track development as well as performance of recruiters.

Re: Howard selection - this was actually purely a best available pick. Dal rated him the 14th best talent available!
The only time I think we've really gone for 'type' over best available early in the draft was Clay Smith, with B-Mac demanding the best contested ball winner in the draft (not Clay specifically)

Yep but just because next year is a midfielders draft doesn't mean there won't be a couple of good talls in there. Or we won't trade for one.

I know the Howard story quite well, but I also remember Dalrymple saying they were specifically targeting good kicks to replace Gilbee and Hargrave. Thus Howard and Tutt.

 

[stefoid]

The big mids. Everybody wants some. We have some and they are quality, so we are ahead of the curve in that respect.

I was at the club today and the words Bont and CHF were interestingly floated in the same sentence.....

Hopefully the sentence was "Why would we play a fantastic mid like Bonts at CHF?"

As for our drafting, we can at least not bother trading for fringe half backs and utilitites like we seem to do every year - and return to our normal program of trading for washed up talls!

 

[immortalmike]

Yep understand fully, just we haven't drafted anyone over 192cm in the last three draft periods. At what point do you start getting concerned that we aren't drafting these players. If we don't draft any next year would it be okay to be concerned then. The year after? Please let me know when it would be fair and reasonable to be concerned.

Bontempelli is 194cm.

 

[Mutt]

Yep understand fully, just we haven't drafted anyone over 192cm in the last three draft periods. At what point do you start getting concerned that we aren't drafting these players. If we don't draft any next year would it be okay to be concerned then. The year after? Please let me know when it would be fair and reasonable to be concerned.

You are already at the point where you are concerned. I have stated for ages on here that our KPD's worry me. I am not having throw-offs yet though. Let's see how Talia, Roberts, Hamling, Roughead, Z.Cordy and perhaps Redpath go this next season and then pull all stops out to find a solution if we still think we have a problem.

 

[go you pups]

The big mids. Everybody wants some. We have some and they are quality, so we are ahead of the curve in that respect.


Hopefully the sentence was "Why would we play a fantastic mid like Bonts at CHF?"

As for our drafting, we can at least not bother trading for fringe half backs and utilitites like we seem to do every year - and return to our normal program of trading for washed up talls!

Washed up tall forwards you mean?