Preview National Draft discussion (Picks 14, 35, 43, 58)

[chook94]

Can anyone who has listened to this please summarise it?

I don't have 45 minutes to listen to Paige. I unfollowed her on twitter because she tweets random rubbish way too often.

I'm sure she's credible though WW. I just don't have 45 mins

Took the liberty of doing it
2 bolters 2 sliders
Bolters
Cockatoo as a bolter, as OOTC said took everyone by surprise already 84kg and some pretty impressive footy abilities...compared him to Daniel Wells
She sees him potentially going to WCE (11), Rich (12), Us (14) and cant see him going past Norf (16) given family ties and their one paced midfield.

J Garlett
First round contention, recent comparisons to cyril...has draft range at 15-25
good combination of endurance and speed...Mentions Norf again as a potential destination, Dons, Blues.

Sliders
Peter Wright 203cm 100+kg, likely taken in the teens, end of result. Compares him to Kurt, good when the balls delivered well but useless in a contest. Rates him elite at ground level (skills), mobility and goal kicking, seen as a future ruckman more than a fwd. Also likes his ability to double back etc. mentions a comparison to saint nick in this aspect. Also rates his tapwork but not his ability to find the pill around the ground. No testing in the combine. Best suitors...Cwood (5), geelong (10), Us (even mentions hes best suited for us) yet then claims Essendon will be his likely destination would fill the Ryder void nicely. Won't pass #17.

Tom Lamb - freakish nature like J Brennan, rates his best as 'untouchable' and his worse as we would describe being a 'David Mackay'...Shows bad body language at times and consistency. Good endurance, athleticism, goal kicking. Best position through the midfield at 192cm. Mentions Dons, Blues, St Kilda in the second round.

Twitter questions - some mentions
Duggan - all class as an outside player
Ahern - best is brilliant, questions on his consistency.

Mckenzie - fantastic character, passionate about the game, bball prospect that turned to footy...predicts him going to St Kilda in the first pick of the second round.

 

[mickfaxis]

Not good enough? OK I'll add a few more - Leigh Montagna, Todd Goldstein, Cameron Ling, Mitch Hahn. And that's not including those who went after pick 37 who also could have been picked up with 35.
All I'm saying is there's a reasonable chance of nabbing quality if we've done our homework.

Patrick Wiggins, Ryan Lonie, Allan Murray, Jeremy Humm, Guy Richards, Michael Handby, Simon O Keefe, Jarrad Wright, Brad Murphy, Scott Bassett, Tim Callan, Luke Peel, Brent Hall, Chris Johnson, Tom Roach, James Ezard, Fabian DeLuca, Stephen Owens, Jake Edwards, Jack Anthony, Chris Schmidt, Steven Browne, Myke Cook, Ashley Smith, Jack Houghton, Jamie MacMillan, Daniel Markworth, Rory Taggart, Tom Temay, Tanner Smith.

These were all take within a few picks of 35 in the Draft since 1999. My point is, we're just as likely to select a dud at Pick 35 than a potential serviceable player. The same thing happens at and around pick 47. Therefore, the trade to drop from 10 - 14 and miss out on a top 10 draft pick (no matter how "even" the experts say it is) is just very bewildering. The difference between pick 35 and 47 isn't great in terms of potential talent. Not great enough to warrant a 4 pick slide in Rnd 1.

 

[Mattrox]

You could use the same argument that hypothetically pick 20 and pick 21 is better than pick 1 and pick 41, which definitely is never the case.

Jack Watts & Todd Banfield

vs Jack Swift & Hayden Ballantine

Pick 22 was Jackson Trengrove
Pick 23 Zaharakis
Pick 29 was Beams
Pick 30 was Hannebery

Don't say pick 1 and a pick in the 40's is NEVER as good as 2 picks in the 20s.

 

[Tex200]

Patrick Wiggins, Ryan Lonie, Allan Murray, Jeremy Humm, Guy Richards, Michael Handby, Simon O Keefe, Jarrad Wright, Brad Murphy, Scott Bassett, Tim Callan, Luke Peel, Brent Hall, Chris Johnson, Tom Roach, James Ezard, Fabian DeLuca, Stephen Owens, Jake Edwards, Jack Anthony, Chris Schmidt, Steven Browne, Myke Cook, Ashley Smith, Jack Houghton, Jamie MacMillan, Daniel Markworth, Rory Taggart, Tom Temay, Tanner Smith.

These were all take within a few picks of 35 in the Draft since 1999. My point is, we're just as likely to select a dud at Pick 35 than a potential serviceable player. The same thing happens at and around pick 47. Therefore, the trade to drop from 10 - 14 and miss out on a top 10 draft pick (no matter how "even" the experts say it is) is just very bewildering. The difference between pick 35 and 47 isn't great in terms of potential talent. Not great enough to warrant a 4 pick slide in Rnd 1.

I reckon I've posted this about 10 times but I will try again.

In order to properly assess the actions of Noble during the draft period you have to look at the totality of his actions, what his brief was and what he was trying to achieve.

What we do know is that Walsh was very specific in stating that we were to remain in the first 2 rounds.

So in trading away 31 for Cheney and Lowden, Noble had to replace that 2nd round pick. So he did the 10-14 and in doing so got 35. Total cost of Cheney and Lowden was 4 places in the 1st round and 4 places in the 2nd.

So - we start with 10 and 31 and Noble turns that into 14, 35, Cheney and Lowden. I'm not including the late round swaps which I think were also in our favour but have little meaning at this stage.

So if you're going to hold them to account as we all should, do a proper assessment of what we got v what we lost.

Pick 10 and 31 could both be stars and 14/35 duds. But if Cheney plays 150 games and Lowden becomes a star - well you have to take that into account in the overall balance of the deal.

Anyway it's going to be a good few years before we will know.

 

[Mattrox]

Patrick Wiggins, Ryan Lonie, Allan Murray, Jeremy Humm, Guy Richards, Michael Handby, Simon O Keefe, Jarrad Wright, Brad Murphy, Scott Bassett, Tim Callan, Luke Peel, Brent Hall, Chris Johnson, Tom Roach, James Ezard, Fabian DeLuca, Stephen Owens, Jake Edwards, Jack Anthony, Chris Schmidt, Steven Browne, Myke Cook, Ashley Smith, Jack Houghton, Jamie MacMillan, Daniel Markworth, Rory Taggart, Tom Temay, Tanner Smith.

These were all take within a few picks of 35 in the Draft since 1999. My point is, we're just as likely to select a dud at Pick 35 than a potential serviceable player. The same thing happens at and around pick 47. Therefore, the trade to drop from 10 - 14 and miss out on a top 10 draft pick (no matter how "even" the experts say it is) is just very bewildering. The difference between pick 35 and 47 isn't great in terms of potential talent. Not great enough to warrant a 4 pick slide in Rnd 1.

That is because you look at the "in general" case.

There are 2 other factors.

1)each draft is different.

2)the selectors choosing at those spots is not the same.

 

[lunacy]

I really can't see why so many on this board try to justify it as a good move. As soon as this draft is done, everyone will muse about the players at pick 10, 11, 12 and 13 we 'missed'. And that will be the tone for the rest of those players' careers. Personally, 47 to 35 is no big deal. If, however, we moved into the top 25 then it's a win. History says theres not a lot of gold found at pick 35.

See this is what's annoying. It has to be in the context of this draft in particular. The picks between 5-25 are so even the drop from 10-14 really is minor. Where as pick 35 could be a big improvement on 47 and there is a clearer top 35-40.
Re pick 14, I still have no idea who I'd prefer. Throw a blanket over Weller, Ahern, Duggan, Cockatoo, Garlett, Wright, Goddard, Durdin, Marchbank and some would say Langford, Lamb and McKenzie at a stretch.

 

[Macca Pakka]

After a little reading on Wright I am a bit concerned that one of his weaknesses is that he goes missing in big games. The ability to perform "on the big stage" is the difference between good players and champions.

While you can excuse 1 or 2 poor "big games" regardless of the level of competition, if he hasn't produced in any of them then that is concerning.

At this stage I'm hoping we pick up Goddard at 14. I think we should always go best available for the first pick but Goddard legitimately could be best available AND fits our needs perfectly as a rebounding KPD.

 

[Jars458]

Fair enough question I would have thought

Yes, except he left out the upgraded thrid rounder. Sloppy.

 

[Jars458]

I really can't see why so many on this board try to justify it as a good move. As soon as this draft is done, everyone will muse about the players at pick 10, 11, 12 and 13 we 'missed'. And that will be the tone for the rest of those players' careers. Personally, 47 to 35 is no big deal. If, however, we moved into the top 25 then it's a win. History says theres not a lot of gold found at pick 35.

Many are just saying how the **** would we know and Noble should be trusted. They didn't have to do it, and they didn't do it on a whim.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Apparently we could have worked a pick swap to get TWO first rounders on the cheap but Walsh was adamant he wanted to be in the 2nd round so we didn't pursue it

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

After a little reading on Wright I am a bit concerned that one of his weaknesses is that he goes missing in big games. The ability to perform "on the big stage" is the difference between good players and champions.

While you can excuse 1 or 2 poor "big games" regardless of the level of competition, if he hasn't produced in any of them then that is concerning.

At this stage I'm hoping we pick up Goddard at 14. I think we should always go best available for the first pick but Goddard legitimately could be best available AND fits our needs perfectly as a rebounding KPD.

Probably a little bit premature to be speculating on whether a player is a 'big game' player or not, given the criteria that we are deciding that by.

Dale Thomas was a 'big game' player in his draft year but one might say he goes missing at important times... I'd say there would be plenty of inverse examples too.

I'd be skeptical about drafting a player on a big game alone.

 

[Danoz]

Michelangelo planting the seeds of complaints about our downgrade from Pick 10 to 14.

He questions the point of upgrading '8 picks' from 47 to 35...

I hate Roachy the dog as much as anyone here, but you're simplifying his comments.

This meant Adelaide’s second call ... would have been No. 43. Geelong allowed Adelaide to strike earlier — at No. 35, in return for the No. 47 draft pick and a swap of first-round picks 10 and 14. In essence, to advance eight spots...

It looks pretty explanatory there to me, he’s comparing 35 to 43, not to 47, hence 8 spots makes sense.

Take note that I only read this bullshit article as I wanted to understand what was being talked about.

Apparently we could have worked a pick swap to get TWO first rounders on the cheap but Walsh was adamant he wanted to be in the 2nd round so we didn't pursue it

Where has all this cynicism come from Carl? Where has all your humour gone? You used to be so much more fun...

 

[Doombs]

I hate Roachy the dog as much as anyone here, but you're simplifying his comments.

It looks pretty explanatory there to me, he’s comparing 35 to 43, not to 47, hence 8 spots makes sense.

Take note that I only read this bullshit article as I wanted to understand what was being talked about.

Don't make me click on it again to read it, one click is more than he deserves.

The way I see it, we didn't advance eight spots, because we still have 43. But I can understand that argument as well.

 

[dogs105]

That is because you look at the "in general" case.

There are 2 other factors.

1)each draft is different.

2)the selectors choosing at those spots is not the same.

Good call Mattrox. They said they did it this year, because there is little difference for them between 10 and 14, and could improve a later pick. Nothing to do with whether this trade should be done every year.

 

[mickfaxis]

I reckon I've posted this about 10 times but I will try again.

In order to properly assess the actions of Noble during the draft period you have to look at the totality of his actions, what his brief was and what he was trying to achieve.

What we do know is that Walsh was very specific in stating that we were to remain in the first 2 rounds.

So in trading away 31 for Cheney and Lowden, Noble had to replace that 2nd round pick. So he did the 10-14 and in doing so got 35. Total cost of Cheney and Lowden was 4 places in the 1st round and 4 places in the 2nd.

So - we start with 10 and 31 and Noble turns that into 14, 35, Cheney and Lowden. I'm not including the late round swaps which I think were also in our favour but have little meaning at this stage.

So if you're going to hold them to account as we all should, do a proper assessment of what we got v what we lost.

Pick 10 and 31 could both be stars and 14/35 duds. But if Cheney plays 150 games and Lowden becomes a star - well you have to take that into account in the overall balance of the deal.

Anyway it's going to be a good few years before we will know.

I understand the overall picture and have seen you post it before. Personally, I hope like hell the club gets it right and the player we pick at 35 is a potential superstar that we've kept our eye on for a number of years.

I just don't like being out of the top 10. It's a dicey situation missing out on players that you could have had in a Draft that has a few players in the top 15 that desperately fill our needs. It puts a lot of unwarranted pressure, externally, on the guy that was picked at 14. And Rucci all be the first to remind us all if things go a bit awry.

No question you're right with your last statement. We can surmise and predict all we like, it won't be until 2017 when we'll really know that we did was clever, a risk, or downright stupid. We'll revisit it then.

 

[mickfaxis]

See this is what's annoying. It has to be in the context of this draft in particular. The picks between 5-25 are so even the drop from 10-14 really is minor.

Nobody knows for sure whether the difference between 5-25 is really that even. Recruiters and so called 'experts' can say that, but the proof will be in the games they've all played, the development they have, and who does what in 3 years time. The drop between 10-14 won't be minor if the player we had in mind at 14 moves up the draft order and gets taken at 11 or 12.

 

[dogs105]

No question you're right with your last statement. We can surmise and predict all we like, it won't be until 2017 when we'll really know that we did was clever, a risk, or downright stupid. We'll revisit it then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I reckon I've posted this about 10 times but I will try again.

In order to properly assess the actions of Noble during the draft period you have to look at the totality of his actions, what his brief was and what he was trying to achieve.

What we do know is that Walsh was very specific in stating that we were to remain in the first 2 rounds.

So in trading away 31 for Cheney and Lowden, Noble had to replace that 2nd round pick. So he did the 10-14 and in doing so got 35. Total cost of Cheney and Lowden was 4 places in the 1st round and 4 places in the 2nd.

So - we start with 10 and 31 and Noble turns that into 14, 35, Cheney and Lowden. I'm not including the late round swaps which I think were also in our favour but have little meaning at this stage.

So if you're going to hold them to account as we all should, do a proper assessment of what we got v what we lost.

Pick 10 and 31 could both be stars and 14/35 duds. But if Cheney plays 150 games and Lowden becomes a star - well you have to take that into account in the overall balance of the deal.

Anyway it's going to be a good few years before we will know.

Spot on Pete.
The simpletons will simply compare pick 10 to 14...
There is so much more to it.. There is pick 35, Cheney and Lowden...
Imagine being in Nobles shoes..

Walsh ." I want to stay in the first two rounds of the draft, but I need a back up ruckman ready to play and an experienced defender. And hey if you can improve our later picks that would be a bonus"....

And as we have seen we are in a super even draft, where the top 20 picks are up in the air... So we have moved back 4 spots with our first and four spots with our second but improved our other picks and picked up the types of players requested by Walsh..

And yet some are still not happy?
Noble has done an amazing job

 

[Tex200]

I understand the overall picture and have seen you post it before. Personally, I hope like hell the club gets it right and the player we pick at 35 is a potential superstar that we've kept our eye on for a number of years.

I just don't like being out of the top 10. It's a dicey situation missing out on players that you could have had in a Draft that has a few players in the top 15 that desperately fill our needs. It puts a lot of unwarranted pressure, externally, on the guy that was picked at 14. And Rucci all be the first to remind us all if things go a bit awry.

No question you're right with your last statement. We can surmise and predict all we like, it won't be until 2017 when we'll really know that we did was clever, a risk, or downright stupid. We'll revisit it then.

Sure - and hey, make no mistake, I lost my shit like most around here when the trades were done. Whilst I can see the logic, I'm still not convinced that the 10-14 was the right call - I'm simply deferring to those who should know best and I'm also assuming that Noble is vaguely competent and is not trying destroy the club from within

 

[mickfaxis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

"Individuals whose judgments are influenced by outcome bias are seemingly holding decision makers responsible for events beyond their control."

Recruiters are judged years after a draft takes place, not at the time. Outcome bias doesn't make sense in the world of AFL football. If it did then, they'd never be held accountable for poor draft selections. They can claim 'outcome bias'!!

 

[Freddy Bassett]

After a little reading on Wright I am a bit concerned that one of his weaknesses is that he goes missing in big games. The ability to perform "on the big stage" is the difference between good players and champions.

While you can excuse 1 or 2 poor "big games" regardless of the level of competition, if he hasn't produced in any of them then that is concerning.

At this stage I'm hoping we pick up Goddard at 14. I think we should always go best available for the first pick but Goddard legitimately could be best available AND fits our needs perfectly as a rebounding KPD.

Yeah maybe you are right...

But apart from the top few EVERY player has serious question marks... Knee Recon, poor first half of the year, injured all year, not good contested mark, poor skills, inbetweener and hasn't found his position yet, hardly played for two years, goes missing in big games, poor u18 carnival...

Almost every player has question marks but one thing you can bank on is height... 203cm ... And he can ruck.. Is a wonderful kick.. Plenty to work with

 

[mickfaxis]

Sure - and hey, make no mistake, I lost my shit like most around here when the trades were done. Whilst I can see the logic, I'm still not convinced that the 10-14 was the right call - I'm simply deferring to those who should know best and I'm also assuming that Noble is vaguely competent and is not trying destroy the club from within

Yep...good, intelligent call. As fans we can only trust the club has made the right call. If not, then we'll take them to task on BF for it.

 

[Tex200]

Yeah maybe you are right...

But apart from the top few EVERY player has serious question marks... Knee Recon, poor first half of the year, injured all year, not good contested mark, poor skills, inbetweener and hasn't found his position yet, hardly played for two years, goes missing in big games, poor u18 carnival...

Almost every player has question marks but one thing you can bank on is height... 203cm ... And he can ruck.. Is a wonderful kick.. Plenty to work with

Agree - have to take Wright if available you would think.

The only reason we wouldn't I'd if a previous rumour is true that we are considering R McKenzie and prefer his style

 

[dogs105]

"Individuals whose judgments are influenced by outcome bias are seemingly holding decision makers responsible for events beyond their control."

Recruiters are judged years after a draft takes place, not at the time. Outcome bias doesn't make sense in the world of AFL football. If it did then, they'd never be held accountable for poor draft selections. They can claim 'outcome bias'!!

You can only make decisions based on factors known at the time. If the best available information says it would be a good idea for Adelaide to swap picks, then how things turn out after the decision has no impact on whether the decision was good or not. The decision needs to be judged on its own merits.

Obviously recruiters can be accountable for their judgement over time, as trying to predict how players will turn out is their job. But that is different to being judged on the unknowable.

Suppose you had a choice: 95% chance of giving up everything you own, and 5% chance of keeping everything, and winning an extra $10,000. If someone took this gamble, and won - would you say they made a good decision in choosing to play the game?

If it was calculated (somehow) that the pick swap had a 70% chance of being very beneficial, 20% chance of making no difference, and 10% chance of being detrimental, would you do it? If it turned out to detrimental, would it have been a bad decision at the time?
Of course this is different to incorrectly calculating the risk/reward at the time.

 

[dogs105]

Yep...good, intelligent call. As fans we can only trust the club has made the right call. If not, then we'll take them to task on BF for it.

True, but you'd need to take them to task because they had made the wrong decision at the time, which is not determined solely by how each player turns out.