How do you rate our draft haul?

Remove this Banner Ad

maddog37 said:
Confused The Point GIF by Travis
Click to expand...
The point is you treat people differently depending on how their opinions align with yours.

Clearly my views bother you, but the guy pretty much calling me an idiot? Nah that's fine play on :$
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Doggy said:
Lol half the Essendope Lual thread is about how they all came onto our board to get our reactions and how funny it was.

That's why you select a draftee View attachment 1859415
Click to expand...

Who is Irving mosquito? Worth a fist pump though . They traded out their first round for Sheil , second for saad, the mossie was next pick and then some bloke called gown.

If you are fist pumping that garbage - you tend to not win a final for the odd decade or 2


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Claudonious said:
Who is Irving mosquito? Worth a fist pump though . They traded out their first round for Sheil , second for saad, the mossie was next pick and then some bloke called gown.

If you are fist pumping that garbage - you tend to not win a final for the odd decade or 2


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Let them enjoy the only time of the year they get to cosplay as a successful club. They’re only months away from BAU resuming and Ryley Sanders joining the esteemed list of Bulldogs midfielders that get to take the absolute piss out of Dodoro‘s steaming pile of duds and flankers every year. May as well lock in Rd 5 for Ryley’s Rising Star nom now.
 
bobs head soup said:
One little plus of this draft group which I don't think has been mentioned (apologies if it has) is that all selections are, by all reports, fit healthy and ready for a full preseason.

Makes a nice change.
Click to expand...

Should get our first footage of them all on the training track today
 
bobs head soup said:
One little plus of this draft group which I don't think has been mentioned (apologies if it has) is that all selections are, by all reports, fit healthy and ready for a full preseason.

Makes a nice change.
Click to expand...
O'Driscoll had stress fractures in his back at the combine so will have to let that repair but shouldn't take too long by reports.
I'm sure the club will be very conservative though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TiAn_ said:
Probably a B. Just because it’s a little up in the air how these players fit and I don’t think we addressed our biggest need, which is more defensive options.

- Adding two developing mids with size was good for our list, although Sanders doesn’t have an obvious position next year. He looks like he’ll be ready for AFL early, so In expecting to see him on a forward flank or a wing. Will be interesting to see who he pushes out.

- Croft will help fill a need if he turns out to be a solid defender. But I’m not expecting anything from him over the next two years, until he adds at least 10kg.

- Smith was a need and although young should be ready to be the lead ruck at Footscray as an 18 year old, which is exciting. Some of his highlights showed some surprising agility, dexterity and skill.

- If O’Driscoll is a small forward then he’ll fill a need also. If not, then there’s a bit of overlap beteeen him and Gallagher from last year’s draft. However, we did desperately need an injection of pace that wasn’t Oskar Baker. Hopefully his back heals quickly and he can have a full pre-season.

- We added Coffield during trade period, which filled a desperate need for a medium defender that is strong overhead. However, our list needs more small and medium defenders that are actually strong defensively, which we still haven’t addressed. Crozier and Roarke are gone from backup options. Duryea is heading into his final season, Coffield has been injury prone and there are big question marks on Cleary. Perhaps Williams returns to half back.

I’ll be hoping in the Rookie Draft we add a small or medium defender that is strong defensively and/or as an interceptor and can win their own ball, even if not at a high volume (as opposed to a player with more outside oriented game). Feels like if he’s there we might try and fill this need with Josh Chatfield.
Click to expand...

Drafting isnt really about needs tho, is it? Its super easy to say the list needs x,y,z and draft exactly those types of players. Does that make it a good draft?

I definitely think you need to address needs at the draft when appropriate, but if you do it, you do it with your best pick(s), not your s**t ones. And in that respect we smashed it, IMO.
 
stefoid said:
Drafting isnt really about needs tho, is it? Its super easy to say the list needs x,y,z and draft exactly those types of players. Does that make it a good draft?

I definitely think you need to address needs at the draft when appropriate, but if you do it, you do it with your best pick(s), not your s**t ones. And in that respect we smashed it, IMO.
Click to expand...

I think conventional wisdom is the opposite, take best available irrespective of needs at the top of the draft and needs once the talent evens out.

Teams definitely have their positional depth and age demographic in mind when taking picks.
 
TiAn_ said:
I think conventional wisdom is the opposite, take best available irrespective of needs at the top of the draft and needs once the talent evens out.

Teams definitely have their positional depth and age demographic in mind when taking picks.
Click to expand...

I dont see the point in taking a pick that has an overall 10% chance of being a decent player and reducing it further by looking only at specific types of player. Needs are only 'addressed' when a decent player is filling a current hole in the list. Having spuds on the list that are highly unlikely to play more of a handfull of games isnt addressing anything.

OTOH in the right situation, you can address a need with a draft pick if the player is highly likely to be a decent player - thats exactly what we have done with Sanders and Croft. Thats not to say this is always possible. Sure, you dont go past potential superstars to pick a good average needs player. But blindly picking the best available with all your top picks, then 'addressing' current needs with specific types of project players or trading for rejects is a recipe for list management disaster. Thank god for the F/S and NGA programs which have addressed our quality tall issues that we have had seemingly forever. (Naughton and English excepted)

If you are seriously going to address a need successfully, you have to use good draft picks on it, draft or trade. Otherwise your kidding yourself
 
I think people over do it with the “first pick must be best available no matter what!!!” Im with Stefoid here if we’re taking a high pick im more inclined to go needs. You don’t get endless high picks and you need to spread them across your list. In our situation if best available was a tall, I’m just not taking a tall.

Yeah of course this is only to a degree if the options are wayyyyy better but not a need you work around that, but as a list manager at the top end of the draft where there’s plenty of good talent available at your pick usually - I’m having a heavily needs focused draft board.

As you get later in the draft then you slide more and more towards best available
 
stefoid said:
I dont see the point in taking a pick that has an overall 10% chance of being a decent player and reducing it further by looking only at specific types of player. Needs are only 'addressed' when a decent player is filling a current hole in the list. Having spuds on the list that are highly unlikely to play more of a handfull of games isnt addressing anything.

OTOH in the right situation, you can address a need with a draft pick if the player is highly likely to be a decent player - thats exactly what we have done with Sanders and Croft. Thats not to say this is always possible. Sure, you dont go past potential superstars to pick a good average needs player. But blindly picking the best available with all your top picks, then 'addressing' current needs with specific types of project players or trading for rejects is a recipe for list management disaster. Thank god for the F/S and NGA programs which have addressed our quality tall issues that we have had seemingly forever. (Naughton and English excepted)

If you are seriously going to address a need successfully, you have to use good draft picks on it, draft or trade. Otherwise your kidding yourself
Click to expand...

That’s the point though, once the talent evens out you’re not lessening your chances by taking one position or another. Moreover, the later in the draft the harder it gets to identify a clear ‘best available’, hence why needs come into play at that point. It also seems like you’re equating ‘need’ with ‘will fill a role in the best 23 the next season’, which applies to maybe half a dozen players taken in the first round each year at best.

No, teams don’t exclusively draft the best available at the top of the draft, there will be a mix of factors, that frequently being the dominant one. But often they’ll endeavour to avoid the pitfall of reaching for a player at the top of the draft just because the player suits a need. There are a number of examples of teams being burned by failing to heed that across the sports I follow. That’s a reason teams will divide prospects in tiers on their draft board then rank them within those tiers.

I don’t think our recent draft supports what you’re saying. Sanders was the club taking the best of the top 5 that was left (depending on your view of Curtin) and he isn’t a need for us in any short term sense. Probably in a few years once Bont and Macrae are old and Smith leaves. And unless Croft becomes a CHB, he isn’t a need, short or even long term.
 
TiAn_ said:
That’s the point though, once the talent evens out you’re not lessening your chances by taking one position or another. Moreover, the later in the draft the harder it gets to identify a clear ‘best available’, hence why needs come into play at that point. It also seems like you’re equating ‘need’ with ‘will fill a role in the best 23 the next season’, which applies to maybe half a dozen players taken in the first round each year at best.

No, teams don’t exclusively draft the best available at the top of the draft, there will be a mix of factors, that frequently being the dominant one. But often they’ll endeavour to avoid the pitfall of reaching for a player at the top of the draft just because the player suits a need. There are a number of examples of teams being burned by failing to heed that across the sports I follow. That’s a reason teams will divide prospects in tiers on their draft board then rank them within those tiers.

I don’t think our recent draft supports what you’re saying. Sanders was the club taking the best of the top 5 that was left (depending on your view of Curtin) and he isn’t a need for us in any short term sense. Probably in a few years once Bont and Macrae are old and Smith leaves. And unless Croft becomes a CHB, he isn’t a need, short or even long term.
Click to expand...

the chances of being a decent player is an exponential curve, so yeah after the first couple of rounds it starts to flatten out, but even then if you skip over a bunch of players to 'reach' for a specific type, your still going from 10% to 7% or 5% or whatever. That kind of thing will have a significant effect over time. Chances are those players are not going to make it anyway... but by reaching youre just compounding that. And since they probably arent going to make it, you definately do not get a pat on the back for addressing needs by doing it. Ruckamn may be outliers here, because they develop late.

addressing needs is time-based. Sanders not needed? libba is 32 next year. treloar 31. dunkley left. smith is some chance to follow. its an issue we cant afford to ignore.

Anyway, the other plank to 'always best available' is trade for needs right? but guess what you trade with.. draft picks. And big salary offers. You cant hide from the risk, you can only move it around
 
stefoid said:
the chances of being a decent player is an exponential curve, so yeah after the first couple of rounds it starts to flatten out, but even then if you skip over a bunch of players to 'reach' for a specific type, your still going from 10% to 7% or 5% or whatever. That kind of thing will have a significant effect over time. Chances are those players are not going to make it anyway... but by reaching youre just compounding that. And since they probably arent going to make it, you definately do not get a pat on the back for addressing needs by doing it. Ruckamn may be outliers here, because they develop late.

addressing needs is time-based. Sanders not needed? libba is 32 next year. treloar 31. dunkley left. smith is some chance to follow. its an issue we cant afford to ignore.

Anyway, the other plank to 'always best available' is trade for needs right? but guess what you trade with.. draft picks. And big salary offers. You cant hide from the risk, you can only move it around
Click to expand...

The idea of “reaching” for players doesn’t really apply beyond the first round, because the value of the picks accordingly the risk/cost decreases. This year’s draft for example started to even out from about pick 12-15 and you could throw a blanket over players 25-50+ basically. So I just think the reality is basically the opposite of what you’re saying.

I’m not totally following the last two paragraphs but teams draft for both best available and needs. That’s my point. Best available moreso at the pointy end and needs where there’s less to no gap in talent. E.g. Freijah, Smith and O’Driscoll, little difference in ‘talent’ to the players taken around them but fill gaps on our list.

Trading is a whole other story and yes, when you’re bringing in an established player it is invariably to immediately fill a role in your 23.
 
TiAn_ said:
The idea of “reaching” for players doesn’t really apply beyond the first round, because the value of the picks accordingly the risk/cost decreases. This year’s draft for example started to even out from about pick 12-15 and you could throw a blanket over players 25-50+ basically. So I just think the reality is basically the opposite of what you’re saying.

I’m not totally following the last two paragraphs but teams draft for both best available and needs. That’s my point. Best available moreso at the pointy end and needs where there’s less to no gap in talent. E.g. Freijah, Smith and O’Driscoll, little difference in ‘talent’ to the players taken around them but fill gaps on our list.

Trading is a whole other story and yes, when you’re bringing in an established player it is invariably to immediately fill a role in your 23.
Click to expand...

it doesnt go flat, its a curve. if it was flat why not trade your 2nd rounder for two 3rds? Throw a blanket simply means 'we have no idea if any of these players will make it'. And stats say most wont. Specifically drafting a half back with pick 40 and ticking off 'future half back needs addressed' is silly.
 
stefoid said:
it doesnt go flat, its a curve. if it was flat why not trade your 2nd rounder for two 3rds? Throw a blanket simply means 'we have no idea if any of these players will make it'. And stats say most wont.
Click to expand...

Which is why at that point teams generally pick a player that will help fill out their depth chart in the seasons to come. But if a player they had ranked a tier above on ability slides through, a team may well take them even if not a need.

stefoid said:
Specifically drafting a half back with pick 40 and ticking off 'future half back needs addressed' is silly.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying that, though? There’s a draft every year, so it’s a rolling process. No team would draft a player and assume the job is done. It’s one step on a task that essentially never ends.
 
TiAn_ said:
Which is why at that point teams generally pick a player that will help fill out their depth chart in the seasons to come. But if a player they had ranked a tier above on ability slides through, a team may well take them even if not a need.



I’m not saying that, though? There’s a draft every year, so it’s a rolling process. No team would draft a player and assume the job is done. It’s one step on a task that essentially never ends.
Click to expand...

sure, Im not attributing it to you, im poking fun at the idea that using poor picks to address needs is effective. Im saying its counterproductive. Youre actively lowering your odds of finding decent players, and the longer you pursue that policy, the more significantly it will hurt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Next Waiting
  • Poll
Opinion Do you have faith in our list?
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
doggy_dog
doggy_dog
BulldogMuscle
Daniel Pratt. Our mastermind.
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Foxman98
Foxman98
Mofra
Brad Johnson, our master....foot
Replies
2
Views
237
Dazb86
Dazb86
Eastdog
Our Game Plan Going Into 2024
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
perro_loco
perro_loco
Mutt
Opinion Let's Respect Our Club Legends
Replies
16
Views
851
hoianbulldog
hoianbulldog
stefoid
whats our back 6 looking like next year
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Mojorisin
Mojorisin
charcoalchicken
Our backline talls
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Munnez
M

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top