Western Bulldogs Limbo Club

[Ridley This]

Western Bulldogs : Club in limbo.

 

[DognBones]

So if we had NOT been able to get TBoyd and had instead landed picks 4 and 19 for Griffen we would have had picks 4, 6 and 19.

How would that have played out?
Maybe:

Wright
Duggan
Goddard​

?

I'm certainly happy with Boyd as he looks like being a once in a generation player and who knows what the three above will end up doing. However that would have been a reasonable haul from those three picks.

I know it's just a hypothetical but does anybody see it differently?

I think we've all pondered the same hypothetical. Leaving aside the first 3 selections taken in the draft we could have had 'open slather' with 5 picks in the first 27. A wiser man than me said you can't have everything in life but perhaps what we do get we hope is the very best it can be.

 

[Dogs Rule]

It's an ego thing with recruiters and smokey picks. If they come through, they're a genius, then again, if they don't...

 

[TempleKelvington]

Rubbish, its spin, I'm sure he had plenty of other players listed between Webb and Hamilton (such as Ed Vickers-Willis or Connor Menadue) which other clubs took. Otherwise all the other clubs are wrong and he is right...hmmmm Plenty of clubs could have taken Hamilton but didn't.

I'm just saying that what he said makes sense....I'm not sure if it's spin or not, only he would know that.

 

[Mutt]

That covers 2 or 3 midfielders in just about every team.
I don't see how a large midfielder makes our backline taller or provides cover for when Morris is battling outside his height and weight division again.

I don't want more "tallish" types who will play off a HBF against 'tallish' forwards - I just want one genuine KPD on our list to develop that will actually have a chance against the developing top liner KPFs.

Boyd, Cordy and Hamling are not large midfielders though. We swapped those three for Jones, so we are two tall non-midfielders better than we were a month ago...and one of them promises to be something pretty special. We have increased out talls, not reduced them.

 

[Dogs till i die]

Did anybody else see the irony in seeing Rocket Eade standing on stage last night with Peter Wright towering at 203cms?

 

[Mofra]

Boyd, Cordy and Hamling are not large midfielders though.

Of course not - but using tall midfielders as an argument for "they're over 190cm so our defence is ok" is one I disagree with, as per the statement I was responding to.
Now out of that bunch Boyd fills a need forward - and I'm not arguing we should have drafted a KPF - but only Hamling is remotely a KPD (Cordy isn't) and given he has been on a list for 3 years and happily been cut I'm not going to hang my hat on him making the grade (especially not in the short term).

We swapped those three for Jones, so we are two tall non-midfielders better than we were a month ago...and one of them promises to be something pretty special. We have increased out talls, not reduced them.

We didn't swap Jones for anything other than one of the small mid/forwards we selected, to compliment the growing list of HFFers at the kennel. Nothing wrong with any of those players individually but as a collective we have an unbalanced list.
My issues is we haven't properly addressed our most glaring need - a KPD - at either the draft or trade table.
With Morris one year closer to the end I think our defence is in desperate need for talent now, and in a few years time and that future talent needs to be developing now.

 

[Ozimandas]

Hard to argue with anything you say, I guess time will tell. I certainly would have taken a tall with one pick.
But Dalrymple's balls are fairly on the line with this draft.

The entire club has its balls on the line.

 

[TempleKelvington]

My issues is we haven't properly addressed our most glaring need - a KPD - at either the draft or trade table.
With Morris one year closer to the end I think our defence is in desperate need for talent now, and in a few years time and that future talent needs to be developing now.

You can't draft in what's not there. None of the KP defenders available at out picks were rated very highly, McDonald at a pinch. We made a play for Lonergan and he didn't want to come. We ended up with Hamling and we got Cordy, who I have recently seen close up and he will be a pretty big unit and so I'm not sure he can't play KP, certainly capable of performing the Morris role and play 3rd tall and on the bigs.

So we have tried to address it. But do you want them to draft in someone just for the sake of it?

Let's see what they do with he rookie list.

 

[TempleKelvington]

Did anybody else see the irony in seeing Rocket Eade standing on stage last night with Peter Wright towering at 203cms?

yeah he's already been heard to say that Wright is now the biggest dumb guy he's seen!

 

[fronkalicious]

Coach says we need to improve our defence.
Club drafts 5 small forwards.

They're not small forwards.

 

[Mutt]

Of course not - but using tall midfielders as an argument for "they're over 190cm so our defence is ok" is one I disagree with, as per the statement I was responding to.
Now out of that bunch Boyd fills a need forward - and I'm not arguing we should have drafted a KPF - but only Hamling is remotely a KPD (Cordy isn't) and given he has been on a list for 3 years and happily been cut I'm not going to hang my hat on him making the grade (especially not in the short term).


We didn't swap Jones for anything other than one of the small mid/forwards we selected, to compliment the growing list of HFFers at the kennel. Nothing wrong with any of those players individually but as a collective we have an unbalanced list.
My issues is we haven't properly addressed our most glaring need - a KPD - at either the draft or trade table.
With Morris one year closer to the end I think our defence is in desperate need for talent now, and in a few years time and that future talent needs to be developing now.

I didn't mention defenders at all - my post was making the point that we have more key position players (or at least tall players over 190cm who are not mids) than we had at seasons' end. Therefore we have not recruited only short people, as the OP implied.

Your point about not swapping Jones for three talls is pedantic - I'm sure you knew full well that I was saying that we lost Jones and brought in Boyd, Hamling and Cordy and have the rookie draft still to come.

We clearly didn't rate any of the key defenders taken after our first pick - and it seems not many others did either. What is the point of risking blowing a valuable draft pick on a player we don't rate, simply because he is a tall defender? That's taking drafting for needs to ridiculous levels and will always end up in tears.

 

[Mofra]

So we have tried to address it. But do you want them to draft in someone just for the sake of it?

List balance is not "for the sake of it" - I actually think having AFL capable tall defenders is a requirement and our cupboard looks bare. We were one of the worst teams for points conceded and conceding goals from inside 50 entries in the competition and Bevo has also mentioned our defence needs urgent work so it's a hard sell to tell supporters that needs have been met by a skinny Geelogn delistee and a kid who played undersized KPD at times that other teams didn't rate until after our last live pick in the draft, who many suggest is not a genuine KPD (and is a few inches shorter than some of the monster KPFs now developing).

I'm not talking sacrificing a first round pick for a speculative late tall - I am talking about the strategy of taking 5 small mid/forwards (although Caleb Danial & McLean have decent tanks so fingers crossed they develop into mids) to the exclusion of other positions when our list pre-draft showed an abundance of smallish mid/forwards.
I would have liked one, 1, uno of those picks to meet a positional need.

 

[Ridley This]

They're not small forwards.

What happened? The Dogs went surprisingly small at the draft, with an average height of 179cm for their five live selections. That's not to say they went wrong – but just to point out that the club clearly thought it needed more ground-level players. Small forwards Toby McLean, Declan Hamilton, Bailey Dale and Caleb Daniel should add some presence near goal, while Lukas Webb's lovely left-foot kicking will see him develop into a role off half-back. Although we thought they might grab another tall defender, they had already selected Zaine Cordy as a father-son pick and signed delisted Cat Joel Hamling, so had that area covered.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-11-27/how-did-your-club-fare-at-the-2014-draft


But I'm guessing you watch this stuff more then me and probably some of these media flogs. Hope you guys are prooved right, however I really think we screwed the pooch on this one.

 

[Mofra]

I didn't mention defenders at all - my post was making the point that we have more key position players (or at least tall players over 190cm who are not mids) than we had at seasons' end.

You responded to my query over our KPD stocks by noting tall midfielders. You're saying I'm missing the point?
190cm is not key position in the modern era - heck, lists have changed from only a few years ago.
I'm talking about defenders so Tom Boyd doesn't come into consideration.

Your point about not swapping Jones for three talls is pedantic - I'm sure you knew full well that I was saying that we lost Jones and brought in Boyd, Hamling and Cordy and have the rookie draft still to come.

You were trying to counter-argue that tall midfielders make a difference to our key defensive stocks - I believe clarification at this point is prudent.

We clearly didn't rate any of the key defenders taken after our first pick - and it seems not many others did either. What is the point of risking blowing a valuable draft pick on a player we don't rate, simply because he is a tall defender? That's taking drafting for needs to ridiculous levels and will always end up in tears.

Are you honestly happy that we have a list imbalance?
I know there is a certain loyalty to defending club decisions, but I think we have a list imbalance. Our history with fringe talls from other clubs (and let's go there - Geelong cast-offs) is terrible so I'm not going to assume Hamling instantly makes our list that much better. Zaine is one of those most hated of meaningless terms, "3rd tall" in an era where many teams play 3 or 4 tall forwards anyway.

We've suffered through decades of having inadequate KPP stocks and to suggest that there were none available that would lead us to re-think the strategy of being over-stocked with one type of player is not something I can agree with.
Taking more players who play a position we already have an abundance of is something I disagree with.

 

[VitalDread]

Did anybody else see the irony in seeing Rocket Eade standing on stage last night with Peter Wright towering at 203cms?

i said to my parents while watching it, NOW HE DRAFTS A TALL!

 

[TempleKelvington]

List balance is not "for the sake of it" - I actually think having AFL capable tall defenders is a requirement and our cupboard looks bare. We were one of the worst teams for points conceded and conceding goals from inside 50 entries in the competition and Bevo has also mentioned our defence needs urgent work so it's a hard sell to tell supporters that needs have been met by a skinny Geelogn delistee and a kid who played undersized KPD at times that other teams didn't rate until after our last live pick in the draft, who many suggest is not a genuine KPD (and is a few inches shorter than some of the monster KPFs now developing).

I'm not talking sacrificing a first round pick for a speculative late tall - I am talking about the strategy of taking 5 small mid/forwards (although Caleb Danial & McLean have decent tanks so fingers crossed they develop into mids) to the exclusion of other positions when our list pre-draft showed an abundance of smallish mid/forwards.
I would have liked one, 1, uno of those picks to meet a positional need.

The point is that the KP defenders available were not seen as good as the players we selected by the recruiters and even pre draft the only one talked about was McDonald and Keitel (seen more as forward), so it's not like there was a plethora of choice.

I'm sure had we had access to Goddard, Durdin, Lever and even Marchbank we'd have taken them in a heart beat. KP players taken in drafts even in the first round have something like a 35% success rate. I'm not sure what it is for the 2nd and 3rd rounds. They can be a massive risk unless they are out and out guns and the first round bunch look the good this year, but we didn't have a chance to get them.

You are spot on in that we have a need in defense, it's not in debate. We have on our list plenty of developing types. Talia, Roberts, Roughhead, Hamling and ZCordy. The issue is are they going to make it as defenders. It's a lack of certainty not so much a lack of numbers.

We can use the rookie draft to bring in KP types who maybe don't get drafted because they need lots of time. Hammelmann, Payne, Keitel and the kid from Essendon who David likes could all be rookied perhaps.

Graham Wright the Hawthorn recruiting guy says he believes in drafting in best available and using trade and other means to bring in needs.

I would have taken Keitel myself, but I can understand that perhaps it was simply a case he was not best available.

 

[Mofra]

The point is that the KP defenders available were not seen as good as the players we selected by the recruiters and even pre draft the only one talked about was McDonald and Keitel (seen more as forward), so it's not like there was a plethora of choice.

I'm sure had we had access to Goddard, Durdin, Lever and even Marchbank we'd have taken them in a heart beat. KP players taken in drafts even in the first round have something like a 35% success rate. I'm not sure what it is for the 2nd and 3rd rounds. They can be a massive risk unless they are out and out guns and the first round bunch look the good this year, but we didn't have a chance to get them.

You are spot on in that we have a need in defense, it's not in debate. We have on our list plenty of developing types. Talia, Roberts, Roughhead, Hamling and ZCordy. The issue is are they going to make it as defenders. It's a lack of certainty not so much a lack of numbers.

We can use the rookie draft to bring in KP types who maybe don't get drafted because they need lots of time. Hammelmann, Payne, Keitel and the kid from Essendon who David likes could all be rookied perhaps.

Graham Wright the Hawthorn recruiting guy says he believes in drafting in best available and using trade and other means to bring in needs.

I would have taken Keitel myself, but I can understand that perhaps it was simply a case he was not best available.

While I agree with much of that, although I can't believe Wright actually does that (or he weights players differently to most recruiters) given the way the Hawks tend to take more talls at the draft table than clubs such as us.

I'm not arguing that "needs only" is the only way to draft - heck, I would have been happy for 4 of our 5 picks (80%) to be best available; I would have liked with the 5th pick that we weight needs a little more heavily as our performance even in the past few years, good and bad, has been beset by list imbalances so our whole strategy of a dogmatic "best available at every pick, ever, to the exclusion of list needs" hasn't worked.

 

[igloo dweller]

'best available' is a throwaway crock of a line.

if the best available at each of our picks was a ruckman, this philosophy would dictate that we'd select 5 ruckman...it's nonsense

 

[LondonBulldog]

Boyd, Cordy and Hamling are not large midfielders though. We swapped those three for Jones, so we are two tall non-midfielders better than we were a month ago...and one of them promises to be something pretty special. We have increased out talls, not reduced them.

Hmmmm, forgetting Austin, Williams and Young, that makes 4 big men out and only 3 in.

We have reduced our talls from one year to the next.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Hmmmm, forgetting Austin, Williams and Young, that makes 4 big men out and only 3 in.

We have reduced our talls from one year to the next.

Maybe we're planning a midget backline. Run the tall forwards off their feet - it might work

 

[dockendorf]

Won't be in any danger of losing to St Kilda next year. With so many dwarfs in our side, we're sure to be on fire!

 

[MrChristo]

Coach says we need to improve our defence.

I don't know enough about the talent in the draft to comment specifically, but I thought a direct (ish!) comparison would be interesting...

The Hawks GF team included;
Gibson 198/95
Lake 195/99
Spanger 193/90
Stratton 189/82

...with Birchill (surprisingly big actually, but hardly a 1-1 stopper) and Suckling.

Cheney 187/90, and Schoenmakers 193/86 were both there-abouts all year.

That's it.

Us now;

Roughy 200/101
Talia 194/94
Morris 190/91 are all 'established'. (With Murph/Wood/JJ...Biggs as flankers)

Cordy 204/99
Fletcher 196/90
Hamling 194/88 all still developing.

6 "Bigs" for the Hawks. 6 "Bigs" for the Dogs...and clearly anyone still on the board when we went live last night would be well and truly in the 'needs development' camp.

Beveridge was the backline coach for Hawthorn, and they've made it pretty clear now for a few years that it's more about organisation and pressure up field than necessarily having the best back 6 in the league, so I definitely don't think it's time to hit the panic button just yet!!


Just one last point, is one that coaches and clubs themselves have been bemoaning, that being big men are easier to 'poach' than they are to develop.
You draft someone, they take 3-4-5 years to bulk up, learn their own strength(s) (and weaknesses)...they start to come good and bam, out of contract and others come sniffing with cheque books a-waving!

Maybe one more shot at a tall in the rookie draft, where the stakes clearly aren't so high, but again, it's always going to be a long-term project that you almost can't win from! (ie. If they are rubbish, they're out. If they are a super-star, contracts/cap space etc. all get stretched due to overwhelming interest from other clubs. You almost need them to be a solid, unspectacular, good ordinary player...)


I agree (with who-ever said it) that it all points to having a crack at an established player in 12 months time...or indeed, drafting some bigs next year out of necessity if 1-2 of our current 'developers' don't.

 

[cammo78]

Did anybody else see the irony in seeing Rocket Eade standing on stage last night with Peter Wright towering at 203cms?

Scott Clayton, Rocket Eade and a tall forward in one place...

Any wonder SE QLD had the mother of all storms last night...

 

[cammo78]

I don't know enough about the talent in the draft to comment specifically, but I thought a direct (ish!) comparison would be interesting...

The Hawks GF team included;
Gibson 198/95
Lake 195/99
Spanger 193/90
Stratton 189/82

...with Birchill (surprisingly big actually, but hardly a 1-1 stopper) and Suckling.

Cheney 187/90, and Schoenmakers 193/86 were both there-abouts all year.

That's it.

Us now;

Roughy 200/101
Talia 194/94
Morris 190/91 are all 'established'. (With Murph/Wood/JJ...Biggs as flankers)

Cordy 204/99
Fletcher 196/90
Hamling 194/88 all still developing.

6 "Bigs" for the Hawks. 6 "Bigs" for the Dogs...and clearly anyone still on the board when we went live last night would be well and truly in the 'needs development' camp.

Beveridge was the backline coach for Hawthorn, and they've made it pretty clear now for a few years that it's more about organisation and pressure up field than necessarily having the best back 6 in the league, so I definitely don't think it's time to hit the panic button just yet!!


Just one last point, is one that coaches and clubs themselves have been bemoaning, that being big men are easier to 'poach' than they are to develop.
You draft someone, they take 3-4-5 years to bulk up, learn their own strength(s) (and weaknesses)...they start to come good and bam, out of contract and others come sniffing with cheque books a-waving!

Maybe one more shot at a tall in the rookie draft, where the stakes clearly aren't so high, but again, it's always going to be a long-term project that you almost can't win from! (ie. If they are rubbish, they're out. If they are a super-star, contracts/cap space etc. all get stretched due to overwhelming interest from other clubs. You almost need them to be a solid, unspectacular, good ordinary player...)


I agree (with who-ever said it) that it all points to having a crack at an established player in 12 months time...or indeed, drafting some bigs next year out of necessity if 1-2 of our current 'developers' don't.

If Josh Gibson's 198cm, I'll bare my arse in Bourke St.