List lodgement pre-draft complete - Tanner Smith Delisted

[clogged]

Over any timeframe. Really have to looks at stats, but quite a few player are gone without having a huge impact. Also depends a bit on what you consider a strike...

Being on the list for more than the standard two years is a minimum I would have thought. Smith, Simpson and Forster don't pass that. Pitt, Michie and Mellington all made it to three years. They're all fails.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Grey was from '13 draft the yr after Tanner/ Simpson but I have my concerns as well as he already has stress fractures in his back. But do you mean ability?

Also Smith is recognised as injury prone around here but Alex Pearce missed more games due to injury than Smith did in his 1st year so I'm not yet convinced about Pearces durability.

Yes wrong draft my mistake. Yes I did nean ability he looked lost some times with footy smarts and didn't get much of the ball. Grey had little impact on games.

Grey may turn into a good player though as he has played many sports at a high level and may take time getting used to the footy smarts of AFL.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Only played 7 games for Peel this year. Still only 20 and is 196cm.

Which makes him an ideal Rookie.

 

[Paracleet]

Over what time frame? More than half of the players Freo have drafted through the ND have not been retained beyond 2-3 years of their drafting. I can't think of too many clubs with a poorer strike rate, aside from Melbourne.

How much do you want to bet only Melbourne has a better retention rate?

 

[Docker82]

Talk about an over-reaction. Our recruiters haven't had much to work with and for all we know Tanner could still make it. I'm confident he'll be here next year. Delisting didn't exactly stop Ryan Crowley. Smith's delisting doesn't turn our recruiters from guns to absolute duds. He's had a bad time with injuries and we think we can move him to the rookie list. We'll get a better player on the list as a result and will retain Smith.

 

[clogged]

How much do you want to bet only Melbourne has a better retention rate?

$10,000.

How many players have Hawthorn let go that they've drafted between 2010-2012?

 

[Clems Knee]

The 2012 draft also looks to be fairly woeful, so I'd keep that in mind when judging our performance there. Outside the top 10, might be some battlers that carve a 100-150 game career at a weak club, but that's about it.

Footywire has a neat feature where you can filter drafts by club, then click through each year. Let's look at the best 22 for Port/Freo/Hawks/Syd. Used the last game for all, except for Freo used something of a "general consensus" side.


.......... P / F / H / S
2013 - 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
2012 - 1 / 1 / 0 / 2
2011 - 1 / 4 / 1 / 1
2010 - 2 / 0 / 3 / 1
2009 - 2 / 2 / 2 / 3
2008 - 3 / 4 / 2 / 2
2007 - 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
2006 - 3 / 0 / 1 / 1
2005 - 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
2004 - 0 / 0 / 2 / 1
2003 - 0 / 3 / 0 / 0
2002 - 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
2001 - 0 / 1 / 2 / 0
2000 (and before) - 1 / 1 / 0 / 1
Trades (incl. PSD like Tippett, Dawson; also Mzungu, Neade) - 7 / 3 / 7 / 6


Similar patterns for most sides. You can realistically hope to draft 1-2 good players per year, maybe 3-4 in the odd draft. There will be a few more depth players sprinkled around, say 1-2 every few years. Plus trades. Add that up over say 10-15 years, snaring a few bargains like Fyfe/Barlow/Walters, then you can arrive at a quality side. Our recruiting strike rate seems in line with most good sides.

I reckon recruiters are overrated as a collective. To me it isn't much different to the average mug trying to hit a triple 20 on a dartboard ... you have reasonable hand/eye co-ordination and have some idea of how to throw and get in the general vicinity. Hit a few 20s, hit some 1s, hit some 5s. Every now and then make a 60. Throw a few left handed at the end of the game, and it could go anywhere.

This post is very good. You should make a thread based on the info, plus the other clubs.

I think the table shows we are different to the other three. We rely less on trades or PSD with only two in our best 22 including Mzungu who was a special case.
We also have half of our best 22 from only three drafts; 2003, 2008 and 2011. The other clubs each take their best five years to achieve that.
To me, that suggests our history of recruiting has been very different to those of the other three clubs. I'm very grateful for 2008 and 2011 in particular.

 

[Patty_Moz]

Yes wrong draft my mistake. Yes I did nean ability he looked lost some times with footy smarts and didn't get much of the ball. Grey had little impact on games.

Grey may turn into a good player though as he has played many sports at a high level and may take time getting used to the footy smarts of AFL.

Yeah I was pretty underwhelmed by his stats but not having seen him play I couldn't really comment. I was surprised when some on here were talking him up but I guess that happens with 1st yr players and hopefully he comes along this year.

 

[salim malik]

Not sure many clubs have a better hit rate. Around 50:50 sounds not to bad to me...

Yep 010 and 012 were busts.Just a poor group to select from after Gold coast in OIO and GWS IN 012 took the best.
The scraps were fought over by the rest of the clubs
We did how ever elevate Barlow,Silvagni and De Boer in 010 and Spurr in 012 so those years were not total misses

 

[PintofPale]

If guys are getting delisted 2-3 seasons after being drafted, someone's not doing their job.

Agreed, my only point is that games played is a poor measure of a draft pick, especially a recent draft pick, because it's a relative measure. Our so-called late round genius drafting is largely because our early round drafting has hovered between terrible and tragically unlucky.

All that said, damn I love Sutcliffe.

 

[Moo]

I a Sutty fan too - he's an important cog back there.

 

[malpaso]

Sutcliffe is a gun and then factoring in where we drafted him and the responsibility he is given in our back line at his age and there's a 200+ gamer there.

 

[johnnomac]

... Simpson clearly wanted to just play footy for Freo ...

At the risk of moving too far from the topic of this thread (Tanner Smith), this is simply not the case. He may have wanted to play footy for Freo, but the important point here is, "for Freo". This means doing it the "Freo" way. You need to be doing it on Freo's terms, not on your terms.
If you're playing on your terms, rather than the Club's, you are logically not wanting to play footy "for Freo" but for yourself.

 

[Bender571]

Neale'll turn out a great little rover and Sutcliffe's okay, but even the latter has been overrated a lot on here. If he was 28 people would be calling him to be dropped. I don't care what anyone says, Bond should've been cleared out when Lyon was appointed. He hasn't been held accountable for some of the choices made. Could you imagine how grim Freo'd look without Fyfe? Not one for hypotheticals but jesus, it'd be a depressing outlook for the team.

Just curious, what choices did Bond make before Lyon that should've seen him gone?

 

[Taylor]

3x18, 3x19, 3x20, 3x21, 3x22, 3x23, 3x24, 3x25, 3x26, 3x27, 3x28, 3x29, 3x30, 1x31

If that's the most balanced list model and all players eventually end up best twenty two after development then nobody gets a go until they are 24 and I think it's totally worthless posting this.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Just curious, what choices did Bond make before Lyon that should've seen him gone?

The club had a refit in that period. Keeping on old staff in pivotal positions when the entire ethos of the coaching changes seems a little contradictory to me

 

[malpaso]

The club had a refit in that period. Keeping on old staff in pivotal positions when the entire ethos of the coaching changes seems a little contradictory to me

The recruiting strategy didn't change though and as Lyon has stated on many occasions he is not involved in that part unless there are circumstances where they cannot separate players and coach preference/gameplan can break the deadlock.
Coaching and Recruiting are two different beasts.

 

[apuchar]

We had to rebuild a whole list at the worst time possible with the introduction of all these new clubs and the useless scrap picks we were given during this period. We are lucky we have done as well as we have. Simpson wasn't a miss because of talent, he simply couldn't accept the restrictions of AFL life. Smith was the last of the talls left in that draft when all the talls we wanted were taken early. I still think with some development he could be a good player for the club when needed in the future, but we have plenty of recruiting to do before that and so he may not be required. We got Duffy in the same draft so it wasn't that bad. We have been 2nd and 4th in the past two seasons, so we can't have been that bad. And if we were bad, then most of the other clubs must have been a lot worse. Port continued to get good draft picks during the intro of the new teams. That is why they have bridged the gap and the others haven't.

 

[Nickos66]

If guys are getting delisted 2-3 seasons after being drafted, someone's not doing their job.

At the risk of sounding unpopular, I don't think it's as clear cut as that - maybe if you were recruited to the Dees there would be some serious concerns about your recruitment and development model. But when a side is at the top end of the ladder and depth runs deep those list spots come at a premium and they're much more valuable. Whereas at Melbourne all you have to do is not be in the worst half a dozen players on the list - much easier to do there than here..

*This isn't a defense of the clubs recruiting methods by the way, it's an acknowledgement that young kids coming to the club are fighting a much harder battle to stay here than they would in a team of spuds.

 

[Eski3]

He was pick 36

Other players picked directly around that pick include certified AFL guns like Jason Ashby, Tom Temay and Jackson Ramsey

We are moving him to the rookie list because of his injuries. I appreciate the fact that we have stuffed up our first round picks recently but to claim that this is the straw that has broken the back and the recruiters should be sacked is such a massive overreaction

 

[clogged]

At the risk of sounding unpopular, I don't think it's as clear cut as that - maybe if you were recruited to the Dees there would be some serious concerns about your recruitment and development model. But when a side is at the top end of the ladder and depth runs deep those list spots come at a premium and they're much more valuable. Whereas at Melbourne all you have to do is not be in the worst half a dozen players on the list - much easier to do there than here..

*This isn't a defense of the clubs recruiting methods by the way, it's an acknowledgement that young kids coming to the club are fighting a much harder battle to stay here than they would in a team of spuds.

Two years is the bare minimum contract length for draftees. If you're not lasting longer than that the recruiters have messed up.

 

[Nickos66]

Two years is the bare minimum contract length for draftees. If you're not lasting longer than that the recruiters have messed up.

... Or they're the worst of the best and are a victim of circumstance. Not putting Tanner on a pedestal, but if he was elsewhere where the list spots aren't so tight, he'd likely have had more leeway.

 

[Centurions]

$10,000.

How many players have Hawthorn let go that they've drafted between 2010-2012?

If you look at the numbers Freo have actually been better than the Hawks in that time frame

2010; Freo 4/12 Hawks 5/10
2011: Freo 7/12 Hawks 3/8
2012: Freo 7/10 Hawks 3/5

So we actually still have 53% of our draftees compared to 39% of the Hawks in the same time. I'm sure Paracleet will enjoy the $10,000

 

[apuchar]

... Or they're the worst of the best and are a victim of circumstance. Not putting Tanner on a pedestal, but if he was elsewhere where the list spots aren't so tight, he'd likely have had more leeway.

I agree with that. I think it is a good sign for the club, not a bad one.

 

[estibador]

Two years is the bare minimum contract length for draftees. If you're not lasting longer than that the recruiters have messed up.

The reality is a lot of them won't last longer than that.

You get a new bunch in every year, evaluate them quickly, keep the few who look AFL quality and toss the rest. The higher up the ladder you go the more ruthless you have to be with every new batch since the rest of the list spots are already taken up by quality players.

It's taken 10 years to accumulate the top 4 quality players on our list, expecting recruiters to pluck six 18 year olds every year good enough to displace them is unrealistic. If you can get two genuine top 22 players from each draft you're doing pretty well.