Player Watch Tom Doedee - Departed for Brisbane, End of 1st Round FA Compensation

[marty36]

The problem with this argument is that it is completely circular.

Your argument boils down to "we haven't been successful in the past, ergo our recruiting is crap, ergo whatever decision we make now is also probably crap."

That's fine, there's a logical flow to the argument, but it does mean that you will continue to assume everything we do is crap until we are finally successful, which will only come after years of making good decisions - which will mean years that you were wrong by assuming we were making crap decisions.

To make decisions like this that appear to have no logic, there needs to be consequences, if this is a complete failure it will need to be revisited as all the failures we have had need be, or we will stay a middle of the table team with no chance of taking a flag.

But suggesting this isnt an enormous punt is just plain stupid. I am just interested to know their logic, instead of trust us, they have nowhere near earnt the trust of the AFC supporter base, we want a flag, its been too bloody long between drinks.

 

[Vader]

We are so much more succesful than those losers, what would they know!

If you think their success was built on successful drafting, then you know absolutely nothing at all - and everyone here is treating your opinion accordingly.

Nobody is doubting their success, but it hasn't been built on great drafting, and they shouldn't be viewed as paragons of virtue in this particular aspect of the game.

 

[cmndstab]

Youre right our recruiters in their eyes saw Doedee as a better option than Burton, Collins, Balic, Bonner. If the consideration was a close call I could understand their logic but this kid was predicted to go around pick 50, with SEN saying a couple of clubs were hoping to grab him towards the end of the draft only yesterday.

To say this wasnt the most enormous punt of the draft is ridiculous. Collingwoods punt at 32 wasnt as great as this one, considering it was suggested this was a shallow draft and pick 13 was an important pick as talent was available, and was thin after pick 20.

As for trusting our recruiters, get the runs on the board first, be a consistent finals contender to earn that trust, its not given because they are the AFC.

Any pick is a punt. How is Burton going to go post-injury? That's a punt. What will Curnow's attitude be like? That's a punt.

The point is, it's a separate punt from the one most people are upset about in this thread - the punt to keep pick 13 even though we likely didn't need it to get the player we got.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. How will Doedee turn out? We'll see. But to claim our recruiters don't have runs on the board because we haven't consistently made finals ignores the many other factors that go into making a finals side. I'm not claiming our recruiters get it right all the time, or even as often as they should. But our first round selections have been great since 07. Dangerfield (10), Davis (10), Talia (13), Smith (14), Lever (14). We haven't got one of them wrong. The fact that those five players haven't been able to drag us to a premiership by themselves is not evidence against our success in the first round, in particular the mid-late parts of the first round.

 

[marty36]

The point is that EVERY club makes errors, even the best ones.

You live with errors if your club brings home a tripple premiership! If you were a Carlton or Melbourne supporter you would feel the same but saying that we are no better in terms of ultimate success we are more competitive, but what does that mean?

 

[cmndstab]

You live with errors if your club brings home a tripple premiership! If you were a Carlton or Melbourne supporter you would feel the same but saying that we are no better in terms of ultimate success we are more competitive, but what does that mean?

Well, for starters it means we need to make fewer successful gambles to reach that top level. Just picking numbers out of the air here, but we might only be a couple of inspired draft selections away from a premiership, whereas Carlton probably need to replace 2/3 of their list with inspired draft selections. And yet you want to claim we're in the same boat as them because we haven't been #1 any more often than they have?

The attitude of "premierships are the only metric of performance" is pretty idiotic, to be frank.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

Im not critisizing the kid, Im critisizing the AFC for using such a high draft pick on a player that is an enormous punt against players that were far more considered than him. I wish him all the best and hope he becomes a 200 game player, but with that pick, I am looking at what we could have had. Im not going to eat up and agree with everything the AFC say, Milera was a good pick up, Menzel was a good trade, this makes zero sense.

Bloody hell. Wait and see. If this guy is any good you will look like a real goose. Atkins, knights and Cameron were long shots and are going alright this far. Your assertion that we have made bad decisions is out of date

 

[hey shorty]

You live with errors if your club brings home a tripple premiership! If you were a Carlton or Melbourne supporter you would feel the same but saying that we are no better in terms of ultimate success we are more competitive, but what does that mean?

Its a fair point but it goes with what I'm saying, a club can make some horrendous errors like that and still win flags. Their success has much more to do with coaching and development than just drafting, although a glut of first rounders did help.

 

[SydCrow]

Carlton may well win the spoon again next year. But it's not tanking for picks, it's rebuilding.

 

[Niximus]

As for trusting our recruiters, get the runs on the board first, be a consistent finals contender to earn that trust, its not given because they are the AFC.

As I said before, you cannot solely judge the recruiting team on how the club performs. There are several layers between the two that they have no control over.

Our recruiting has been pretty good over the last few years, especially our drafting.

The recruiting team don't continue to play Wright, Van Berlo, Mackay. They don't play Massie on Franklin, they don't give people parvo.

 

[marty36]

Any pick is a punt. How is Burton going to go post-injury? That's a punt. What will Curnow's attitude be like? That's a punt.

The point is, it's a separate punt from the one most people are upset about in this thread - the punt to keep pick 13 even though we likely didn't need it to get the player we got.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. How will Doedee turn out? We'll see. But to claim our recruiters don't have runs on the board because we haven't consistently made finals ignores the many other factors that go into making a finals side. I'm not claiming our recruiters get it right all the time, or even as often as they should. But our first round selections have been great since 07. Dangerfield (10), Davis (10), Talia (13), Smith (14), Lever (14). We haven't got one of them wrong. The fact that those five players haven't been able to drag us to a premiership by themselves is not evidence against our success in the first round, in particular the mid-late parts of the first round.

I agree the proof will be down the track, but peoples blind following of decisions made is ridiculous, yes I am listening to so called AFL experts on the subject but in 90% of the time its accurate, I hope this is that 10% time they are wrong. But leading into this draft we all knew from these experts it was a thin draft we have collected one of those thin players not with a 2nd or 3rd rounder but a prized 1st, it seems one enormous risk you simply cant brush under the carpet and needs to monitored and unfortunatly the pressure will be on Doedee, but I cant see Rucci letting this slide can you?

 

[TheBeardAmigos]

Do as in doe? Or hairdo?

it is do as in hairdo
DO-DAY
confusing huh?

 

[marty36]

Well, for starters it means we need to make fewer successful gambles to reach that top level. Just picking numbers out of the air here, but we might only be a couple of inspired draft selections away from a premiership, whereas Carlton probably need to replace 2/3 of their list with inspired draft selections. And yet you want to claim we're in the same boat as them because we haven't been #1 any more often than they have?

The attitude of "premierships are the only metric of performance" is pretty idiotic, to be frank.

Yeah keen for another 18 years of no premierships! NOT

As a supporter are you more worried aboyut developing fine young men!

 

[Pdub]

We are so much more succesful than those losers, what would they know!

And it's all about recruitment? It has nothing to do with them having Clarkson as a coach for the last 10 years, while we had Craig, Sando, Walsh, Campo. It has nothing to do with their priority picks, with their extended stay on the bottom of the ladder 10 years ago giving them a big bunch of talented players at the same time, it has nothing to do with them not losing players to expansion clubs, it has nothing to do with them not losing draft picks for draft tampering. The only difference between us and hawthorn is our incompetent recruiters and their star recruiters

 

[marty36]

And it's all about recruitment? It has nothing to do with them having Clarkson as a coach for the last 10 years, while we had Craig, Sando, Walsh, Campo. It has nothing to do with their priority picks, with their extended stay on the bottom of the ladder 10 years ago giving them a big bunch of talented players at the same time, it has nothing to do with them not losing players to expansion clubs, it has nothing to do with them not losing draft picks for draft tampering. The only difference between us and hawthorn is our incompetent recruiters and their star recruiters

Dont know what the difference is maybe its our culture to theirs, maybe its having a succesfull boot studder, maybe they have a great fitness guy, who knows, Im thinking the most important part of winning a premiership is the playing group you would think, call me stupid for thinking that?

 

[Samcro24]

Im not critisizing the kid, Im critisizing the AFC for using such a high draft pick on a player that is an enormous punt against players that were far more considered than him. I wish him all the best and hope he becomes a 200 game player, but with that pick, I am looking at what we could have had. Im not going to eat up and agree with everything the AFC say, Milera was a good pick up, Menzel was a good trade, this makes zero sense.

This shits me- its not eating what the afc says up with a spoon. He may very well not make it, but its just ridiculous to declare a pick wasted before the kid has even played a game.

 

[Bob Neil]

No, see, you're mixing up the issues again.

The "punt" was already taken by the time GWS matched our pick for Himmelberg. The "punt" was actually keeping pick 13 in the hopes it would be enough for him.

Once we got to the draft and found that it wasn't enough, the gamble had already been taken - and lost. At that stage we simply relied on the list our recruiting staff had prepared, which indicated that Doedee was the next best available talent. That's not a gamble, unless you consider trusting our recruiting staff to be a gamble in which case every pick in every draft is a gamble as well.

I don't think 'gambling' on Himmelberg was wrong per se. However in assessing if AND HOW you take a gamble on Himmelberg you need to factor in what happens in the downside scenario where you miss out on him.

I think the relevant point is that our contingency to simply take the 'next best available' player (Doedee) with pick 13 (17) even if he could probably have been bought with a lesser pick (say 30-50) doesn't show very good planning...and I'm not disputing that we rated him next best.

In any auction you need to understand both (i) how you value the asset and (ii) how others value the asset with the optimal price being one dollar (i.e. pick) higher than what the next person was prepared to pay...any more than that and you've overpaid.

 

[marty36]

This shits me- its not eating what the afc says up with a spoon. He may very well not make it, but its just ridiculous to declare a pick wasted before the kid has even played a game.

The kid was predicted to make a list just not as a first rounder, where there were numerous other talent predicted to go that high that we didnt take. They were predicted to go that high for a reason not because there name sounded good.

 

[Vader]

Youre right our recruiters in their eyes saw Doedee as a better option than Burton, Collins, Balic, Bonner. If the consideration was a close call I could understand their logic but this kid was predicted to go around pick 50, with SEN saying a couple of clubs were hoping to grab him towards the end of the draft only yesterday.

To say this wasnt the most enormous punt of the draft is ridiculous. Collingwoods punt at 32 wasnt as great as this one, considering it was suggested this was a shallow draft and pick 13 was an important pick as talent was available, and was thin after pick 20.

As for trusting our recruiters, get the runs on the board first, be a consistent finals contender to earn that trust, its not given because they are the AFC.

That's the thing.. Adelaide's drafting, particularly in the first round, has been exceptional since James Fantasia was shown the door. Rendell & Ogilvy have both earned reputations as outstanding identifiers of talent - and I suspect Rendell owes his reputation to work done by Ogilvy anyway.

Since 2007, when Rendell replaced Fantasia, our 1st round draft selections have been:
2007 - #10 - Patrick Dangerfield
2008 - #10 - Phil Davis
2009 - #13 - Daniel Talia
2010 - #14 - Brodie Smith
2011 - no 1st round selection (traded to GWS, with the Davis compensation pick, for Brad Crouch & Luke Brown)
2012 - no 1st round selection - Tiprat Scum penalty
2013 - no 1st round selection - Tiprat Scum penalty
2014 - #14 - Jake Lever

There is not a single miss amongst them. Every single one of those players has, or will, play 150+ AFL games. Unfortunately, most of Davis' games will be played with GWS, but that's not a talent identification failure.

The other thing to note is that Rendell & Ogilvy have not had a single-digit draft selection to work with. Every single 1st round draftee in that period has been taken at #10 or later.

Compare this with Hawthorn's 1st round drafting over the same period:
2007 - #12 - Cyril Rioli
2008 - #16 - Ryan Schoenmakers
2009 - no 1st round selection - traded to Port Adelaide for Shaun Burgoyne
2010 - #19 - Isaac Smith
2011 - no 1st round selection - traded to Adelaide for Jack Gunston
2012 - no 1st round selection - traded to Footscray for Brian Lake
2013 - no 1st round selection - traded to St Kilda for Ben McEvoy (** selected Dayle Garlett with their 2nd round selection)
2014 - no 1st round selection - traded to GWS for Jonathon O'Rourke

Rioli & Smith are good, very good. Schoenmakers is a dud, albeit a premiership winning dud - Hawthorn's answer to Aaron Keating. All of their other 1st round picks have been traded.

Hawthorn's success is built on a number of factors:

• Alastair Clarkson's coaching.
• Bottoming out over a prolonged period from 2004-2006 and making full use of the priority selection system which was in place at the time. This allowed them to select the following players:
  • 2004 - #2 - Jarryd Roughead
  • 2004 - #5 - Lance Franklin
  • 2004 - #7 - Jordan Lewis
  • 2005 - #3 - Xavier Ellis
  • Combined with 2001 - #1 - Luke Hodge (selection gained by trading with Fremantle)
• Trading on their success, bringing in established players at below market price, allowing them to sustain the success started by those high draft picks.

 

[Vader]

Well, for starters it means we need to make fewer successful gambles to reach that top level. Just picking numbers out of the air here, but we might only be a couple of inspired draft selections away from a premiership, whereas Carlton probably need to replace 2/3 of their list with inspired draft selections. And yet you want to claim we're in the same boat as them because we haven't been #1 any more often than they have?

The attitude of "premierships are the only metric of performance" is pretty idiotic, to be frank.

As is the attitude of "premiership winning teams do everything right"...

Sando tried turning us into Geelong MkII. How did that work out again?

 

[cmndstab]

Yeah keen for another 18 years of no premierships! NOT

As a supporter are you more worried aboyut developing fine young men!

Come on, mate, are you trying to be dense? I'm not trying to say I don't care about winning premierships.

Everyone realises that premierships are the only thing that matter. The point is that simply saying "you have won x premierships in the last y years, hence you are at z level" is ridiculous. There are 17 clubs that haven't win a premiership over the last three years. Are you saying that they're all identical to each other in terms of ability to win it in 2016?

As a club we are clearly ahead of the likes of Carlton. We have less ground - far less ground - to make up in order to catch Hawthorn. Which obviously means that relying on premiership success as the sole metric of our club's position is massively flawed.

 

[Pdub]

Mate sportsbet play the percentages, Adelaide V Hawks in the final. Why where the odds banked in the hawks favor, probability says they would win. Betting on a youngster to make 200 games the odds will reflect the probability, so Collins V Burton V Doedee what would the odds be given.

Is it that hard to understand FFS

The percentages based on what? Nightmare's draft? when the hawks play the crows my dog could see the hawks are favourites. Recruitment is completely different.

If Sportsbet were to place bets on players they wouldn't look to Paige Cordona, or Skippos, they would most likely look at a club's track record when picking players because they would know that they don't know s**t about these kids and the recruiters do. They would say Adelaide's current recruiter's track record when picking first round picks is great, they also have a great track record of picking defenders from the draft. They've taken a defender in the first round? better give him good odds.

 

[marty36]

That's the thing.. Adelaide's drafting, particularly in the first round, has been exceptional since James Fantasia was shown the door. Rendell & Ogilvy have both earned reputations as outstanding identifiers of talent - and I suspect Rendell owes his reputation to work done by Ogilvy anyway.

Since 2007, when Rendell replaced Fantasia, our 1st round draft selections have been:
2007 - #10 - Patrick Dangerfield
2008 - #10 - Phil Davis
2009 - #13 - Daniel Talia
2010 - #14 - Brodie Smith
2011 - no 1st round selection (traded to GWS, with the Davis compensation pick, for Brad Crouch & Luke Brown)
2012 - no 1st round selection - Tiprat Scum penalty
2013 - no 1st round selection - Tiprat Scum penalty
2014 - #14 - Jake Lever

There is not a single miss amongst them. Every single one of those players has, or will, play 150+ AFL games. Unfortunately, most of Davis' games will be played with GWS, but that's not a talent identification failure.

The other thing to note is that Rendell & Ogilvy have not had a single-digit draft selection to work with. Every single 1st round draftee in that period has been taken at #10 or later.

Compare this with Hawthorn's 1st round drafting over the same period:
2007 - #12 - Cyril Rioli
2008 - #16 - Ryan Schoenmakers
2009 - no 1st round selection - traded to Port Adelaide for Shaun Burgoyne
2010 - #19 - Isaac Smith
2011 - no 1st round selection - traded to Adelaide for Jack Gunston
2012 - no 1st round selection - traded to Footscray for Brian Lake
2013 - no 1st round selection - traded to St Kilda for Ben McEvoy (** selected Dayle Garlett with their 2nd round selection)
2014 - no 1st round selection - traded to GWS for Jonathon O'Rourke

Rioli & Smith are good, very good. Schoenmakers is a dud, albeit a premiership winning dud - Hawthorn's answer to Aaron Keating. All of their other 1st round picks have been traded.

Hawthorn's success is built on a number of factors:

• Alastair Clarkson's coaching.
• Bottoming out over a prolonged period from 2004-2006 and making full use of the priority selection system which was in place at the time. This allowed them to select the following players:
  • 2004 - #2 - Jarryd Roughead
  • 2004 - #5 - Lance Franklin
  • 2004 - #7 - Jordan Lewis
  • 2005 - #3 - Xavier Ellis
  • Combined with 2001 - #1 - Luke Hodge (selection gained by trading with Fremantle)
• Trading on their success, bringing in established players at below market price, allowing them to sustain the success started by those high draft picks.

So Ogilvey grabbed Lever last year and hes are be all end all, Rendell left in 2012 and most would know he was good? I am not trusting Ogilvey with anything after one pick, lever is good, fair pick for a first rounder but I wouldnt expect anything less would you?

 

[dogs105]

Yeah keen for another 18 years of no premierships! NOT

As a supporter are you more worried aboyut developing fine young men!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Will Doedee become our most mispronounced player of all time, overtaking Ricciuto?

 

[azza77]

The kid was predicted to make a list just not as a first rounder, where there were numerous other talent predicted to go that high that we didnt take. They were predicted to go that high for a reason not because there name sounded good.

Mate if you think that one single pick 17 is going to all of a sudden turn this club upside and hand us premiership after premiership like you've been bloody harping on about for the last 17 pages then I don't know what to say.

Actually you're right, it has been too long between drinks. Think you need to go home and drink your 8 glasses of water and re-hydrate yourself, because you are not thinking straight at all!