Discussion on Pick #14 - Jake Lever

[Big Gazoongas]

Because they were all picks done under a different head of recruiting.

Ogilvie has only had 2 top 30 picks in his tenure as head recruiter. Crouch at #23 - Lever at #14. He hasn't done anything good or bad to be able to be judged yet.

Well then stop posting comments making it sound like he has f#%ked up.

On face value he and the club have done very well in picking up these two players with the picks we had. If I remember correctly most were jizzing their pants at the prospect of landing them, but somehow you manage to place a whole negative slant on the recruiting practices of the club when there is no evidence of an epic failure in our dealings over the last few years.

If in 5 years it hasn't worked by all means ask questions, but to place negative scenarios and what if's at this stage, well....geez really!!

 

[cmndstab]

They rated Lever 3rd best didn't they? Giving up pick 10 could have seen us miss out, I for one would prefer they didn't risk our future like that. We are lucky it worked out.

You need to be ahead of the game to start with if you're not willing to take risks. If you're as far behind as we have been, you have to take risks to get back in front.

 

[Bicks]

?

re Garlett there was always far more risk than reward attached to his recruitment, a total no brainer on that score....yet according to some it was a master stroke by Hawthorn even when it went pear shape!!

The trouble with some posters on here is everything our club admin does is dumb and wrong and everything "other" clubs do is spot on and highly educated....and the same people never, ever give any credit to the club when it gets something spectacularly right!!

 

[Paladin]

You need to be ahead of the game to start with if you're not willing to take risks. If you're as far behind as we have been, you have to take risks to get back in front.

This was Nobles whole strategy to get some quality depth in areas we lacked (Cheney&Lowden) but to keep our draft position. Seems like job done unless picks 31-35 turn out to be far superior to Wigg.

 

[Redleg Crow]

he had better otherwise that trade of 10 for 14 will always look really stupid.

No, all that will look stupid is our pick at 35 - especially if someone from pick 36 turns out to be rather better.

 

[Redleg Crow]

This was Nobles whole strategy to get some quality depth in areas we lacked (Cheney&Lowden) but to keep our draft position. Seems like job done unless picks 31-35 turn out to be far superior to Wigg.

And so much better that getting Cheney and Lowden to lose pick 31 wasn't worth it.

 

[Paladin]

And so much better that getting Cheney and Lowden to lose pick 31 wasn't worth it.

Yes if Cheney or Lowden play 100 games that definitely has to be factored in. Our depth was s**t especially ruck and defence possibly due to sanctions.

 

[GROTTO]

Yes if Cheney or Lowden play 100 games that definitely has to be factored in. Our depth was s**t especially ruck and defence possibly due to sanctions.

Which was compounded by having players like Graham and Smack on our list as the depth players for these roles.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

This was Nobles whole strategy to get some quality depth in areas we lacked (Cheney&Lowden) but to keep our draft position. Seems like job done unless picks 31-35 turn out to be far superior to Wigg.

Even if they are I guess its more wigg vs pick 47..... Put it this way , wigg would have been a quiet steal at pick 47 , I see him as a long term player 150games + but in a quiet achiever rather than dominant way . His kicking will be a weapon , SA were most likely to score in U18s when opposition had just scored a point- his kick ins were that good

 

[Golumless]

That opens up another can of worms...

We then have a player that went at pick 14 that we had as the 3rd best player. We then have another player (Laverde) who went pick 20 that we would have taken at 14 because he was so high on our list.

Combine this with Siggins being sprouted as #8 on our list... Has Ogilvie gone mad?

The Siggins comment would of been due to the list starting at the players that we're around the 30 mark, no point listing the top 30 if you aren't getting a draft pick up there, it's a waste of effort, and a true throwaway line.

Laverde by memory was the first player most of the draft experts got wrong as it looked like he was going to be taken at number 5 by Collingwood pre-draft (De Goey was widely tipped to go in the mid teens), Essendon got a gem in him, that's for sure. (Was my favorite outside prospect).

 

[AFC979810]

The swap of picks enabled them to have lever Goddard marchbank cockatoo on their board and then Maynard menadue Howe wigg when the original position they had none of their 2 pick options being likely ... You can see why they did it

The original scenario gave us a better chance of getting our #1 target.

And as I have said before. I understand why they did what they did. I understand the reasoning behind it and understand it came off. If offered the same scenario in 2015 I would disagree with doing it for reasons discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[AFC979810]

It was not a good rational decision.

It was a huge gamble with a very low chance of coming off. A gamble they could afford to lose- but a one in a million chance none the less.

I am confused.

So if it was a gamble they could afford to lose - why wasn't it a good rational decision? It was a no lose situation for them. Sure it had little chance of working - but if it did the reward would be massive.

They had a superstar list assembled and one that went on to win the 2014 flag despite the distraction of Garlett in the preseason.

How the can this be a bad move or an irrational decision?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Well then stop posting comments making it sound like he has f#%ked up.

On face value he and the club have done very well in picking up these two players with the picks we had. If I remember correctly most were jizzing their pants at the prospect of landing them, but somehow you manage to place a whole negative slant on the recruiting practices of the club when there is no evidence of an epic failure in our dealings over the last few years.

If in 5 years it hasn't worked by all means ask questions, but to place negative scenarios and what if's at this stage, well....geez really!!

IMHO we've done very very well at this draft ......if players don't make it it'll because of their application & motivation ...not talent

 

[AFC979810]

This whole discussion on worthiness of the trade is just ridiculous. How can we comment on the worth of the trades when we have no idea what the players are actually like? 3-5 years from now is when we'll start getting a true idea of how good this trade was.

Why? Bigfooty would be a real fun place. Lets ban all talk on draftees for 3 years.

Lets not be allowed to discuss any trades either until 12 months after the fact.

 

[AFC979810]

sorry with hindsight knowledge they would do what they normally do and raid other clubs.

So you don't think it would be smart for Hawthorn/Sydney/Freo to take a chance on a high risk - high reward player with a pick in the late 30's?

You can defend a spectacular failure by one club in their calculated risk yet bag the Crows for taking one, that has an outcome that is yet to be determined.

Its pretty easy to understand and defend the recruiting strategy of a team that has won 2 grand finals and played in the last 3.

I don't think I have been bagging the Crows mate. I didn't like the risk we took. It worked and we got the man we wanted which is a good result for the club overall.

Its a similar situation to our game last year against the Bulldogs. I was critical of the way we played that game of football, but was happy we got the win. I was happy with the end result, but not so happy about how we went about it. Its called not having an agenda. You and some other posters are so passionate (which is good) that you do not accept any rational criticism of the AFC. Every time someone doesn't agree with what the club has done - you come sprinting in all up in arms.

So really do you just want a steady as she goes club?

I want a club that gives itself the best chance of getting elite talent and winning a flag.

 

[AFC979810]

You can put up hypothetical outcomes till the cows come home, reality is that these scenarios have a collective value of zero, why, because by all accounts we got the player we wanted.

That's were this discussion should start and end.

Why discuss the process when you get the result you wanted! Brilliant thinking.

 

[AFC979810]

And that is exactly the point. They could afford the 1 in a million gamble.

So why wasn't it a good rational decision? Nothing to lose and everything to gain seems like a pretty damn good scenario for me.

 

[AFC979810]

Well then stop posting comments making it sound like he has f#%ked up.

I haven't said he F&** up. We got the end result we wanted - bravo.

I said that the risk we took wasn't worth it in my mind. I still don't think it was the correct decision regardless of the outcome.

To put it logically. If someone takes their life savings of 3,000 to the casino puts it all on number 7 on the roulette wheel. I would say thats not a good risk. Even if they win $70,000 off of it - I would still not agree with their decision even though it ended up great.

On face value he and the club have done very well in picking up these two players with the picks we had. If I remember correctly most were jizzing their pants at the prospect of landing them, but somehow you manage to place a whole negative slant on the recruiting practices of the club when there is no evidence of an epic failure in our dealings over the last few years.If in 5 years it hasn't worked by all means ask questions, but to place negative scenarios and what if's at this stage, well....geez really!!

So your opinion is that we have done well here and all is good. Good for you. I disagree - but thats what this forum is all about.

What I don't get is that its all great to agree with the club and talk about what great moves we made - but if you disagree with something you need to wait 5 years to ask questions. Maybe you, Cap , Bicks and Kane McGoodwin can all get together each week and just talk to each other about how every move we have ever done is just brilliant!

 

[AFC979810]

The trouble with some posters on here is everything our club admin does is dumb and wrong and everything "other" clubs do is spot on and highly educated....and the same people never, ever give any credit to the club when it gets something spectacularly right!!

Just because thats the way you view it, does not make it true.

You just come on here to shoot down any perceived negativity. There are many posters on here who have talked positive about moves the club has made.

It is so goddamn black and white with you.

 

[AFC979810]

The Siggins comment would of been due to the list starting at the players that we're around the 30 mark, no point listing the top 30 if you aren't getting a draft pick up there, it's a waste of effort, and a true throwaway line.

Fair enough. So we effectively had him at 38 on the overall draft board then? Not bad getting the 38th best player at 62.

Laverde by memory was the first player most of the draft experts got wrong as it looked like he was going to be taken at number 5 by Collingwood pre-draft (De Goey was widely tipped to go in the mid teens), Essendon got a gem in him, that's for sure. (Was my favorite outside prospect).

Yeah CC said we would have him had our Lever pick fallen through.

 

[GROTTO]

I am confused.

So if it was a gamble they could afford to lose - why wasn't it a good rational decision? It was a no lose situation for them. Sure it had little chance of working - but if it did the reward would be massive.

They had a superstar list assembled and one that went on to win the 2014 flag despite the distraction of Garlett in the preseason.

How the can this be a bad move or an irrational decision?

You are a very confused disorientated poster.

If you cannot appreciate that certain off-field distractions of a single player has the weight to affect the harmony and stability of a Club than I am not sure you have been following football properly. There has been countless examples over the years where a single players indiscretion (let alone indiscretions plural) off-field has upset the balance of a Club.

Why do you think Garlett despite his noted ability (reputed to be a Top 5 pick) fell all the way to 38? There was an opportunity for the kid to be selected 37 times and yet Clubs continued to ignore him.

 

[GROTTO]

It is so goddamn black and white with you.

7 consecutive posts in a row. Wow. just wow.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What ultimately matters - the result or how we got to the result? Both are important, but good decision makers will generally get better results than otherwise.

Noble has got more things right than wrong. Fagan appears to be the same in early days. The same can't be said of Trigg, Chapman, smart & Harper. For this reason I'm happy to back in noble's judgement. I'm not saying he had got it right all the time, but afc has been better off for his overall contribution.

 

[AFC979810]

What ultimately matters - the result or how we got to the result? Both are important, but good decision makers will generally get better results than otherwise.

Absolutely. And thats where the debate has come in. Whether the process was sound. Considering the only one with insider knowledge (CC) says that we were shitting ourselves that Freo would take Lever and effectively ruin our decision to trade with Geelong shows that the process that lead to our decision isn't as foolproof as people are claiming.

Noble has got more things right than wrong. Fagan appears to be the same in early days. The same can't be said of Trigg, Chapman, smart & Harper. For this reason I'm happy to back in noble's judgement. I'm not saying he had got it right all the time, but afc has been better off for his overall contribution.

Correct. But just because he is good at his job and has helped the AFC doesn't mean the moves he make should not be questioned.

 

[Bay62]

Why? Bigfooty would be a real fun place. Lets ban all talk on draftees for 3 years.

Lets not be allowed to discuss any trades either until 12 months after the fact.

It'd still be fun, because right now we'd be arguing about our trades from 3 years ago!