Live Event 2014 NAB AFL Draft Discussion - Coming to a Board Near You...

[Werewolf]

Does it begin with a P? I can't say that word, last time it got several posters agitated

No. It's the name of a temple

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Does it begin with a P? I can't say that word, last time it got several posters agitated

If we're still talking about other recruiters laughing behind our back, it begins with a B and ends with an ontempelli.

Alternatively, it can begin with an H and end with a rovat/oneychurch.

Or it can begin and end with a "**** you, we've got Tom Boyd and you don't."

 

[timtamWB]

Mate I understand you perfectly. Yes I understand we didn't rate the talls left.

Do you understand that some people are questioning if the ratings applied to the remaining talls are correct?

Some are, some aren't.

But even so, how can we question the ratings? I'm not saying we shouldn't; I'm just saying that those with recruiting jobs in the AFL will know far more than any of us and I'd back their ratings over people on BF.

 

[Dav1d]

If we're still talking about other recruiters laughing behind our back, it begins with a B and ends with an ontempelli.

Alternatively, it can begin with an H and end with a rovat/oneychurch.

Or it can begin and end with a "**** you, we've got Tom Boyd and you don't."

Oh yes, some definitely thought we reached with Bontempelli

to be honest, I think that the new coach has enough KPPs options to desperately need one in the national draft

still hope they take some in the rookie draft, because I'll be a little confused if they don't

think we've started to get other areas of the ground pretty well covered
its not as if THIS is our team for the next 5 years or something..

 

[BRWB]

Some are, some aren't.

But even so, how can we question the ratings? I'm not saying we shouldn't; I'm just saying that those with recruiting jobs in the AFL will know far more than any of us and I'd back their ratings over people on BF.

Its the time old argument. We should trust those in charge to do their jobs, etc. You have stated it perfectly, who are we to question the professionals??

I will say this, it happens every week at the footy when people question coaching moves.

Its....excuse the pun....a big part of footy.

As an aside, I don't trust their judgement and that lack of trust is based on past performance.

Surely post Macca, surely looking at Melbourne's recruiting and development, surely looking at Clayton's efforts to recruit a tall, surely it isn't unreasonable to question the recruitment decisions and strategies of these people?

 

[yebiga]

Some are, some aren't.

But even so, how can we question the ratings? I'm not saying we shouldn't; I'm just saying that those with recruiting jobs in the AFL will know far more than any of us and I'd back their ratings over people on BF.

But other clubs did rate them - so there is another straw man argument

 

[timtamWB]

Its the time old argument. We should trust those in charge to do their jobs, etc. You have stated it perfectly, who are we to question the professionals??

I will say this, it happens every week at the footy when people question coaching moves.

Its....excuse the pun....a big part of footy.

As an aside, I don't trust their judgement and that lack of trust is based on past performance.

Surely post Macca, surely looking at Melbourne's recruiting and development, surely looking at Clayton's efforts to recruit a tall, surely it isn't unreasonable to question the recruitment decisions and strategies of these people?

Fair enough. Look, I trust Dal to have made the right decisions, and maybe that's my Bulldogs bias showing through. Either way, every year clubs get ratings right and wrong. I'm hoping that this year is another we got right, in keeping with the past couple of years.

We also forget about, and this is going back to the "good people" Macca days, how each of these draftees are as people. Maybe some of the talls, let's say Lamb for instance, just came off as ****wits in their interviews, and we decided we didn't want them at the club.

But other clubs did rate them - so there is another straw man argument

Well no club rated Fyfe as a first round pick, and look how that turned out. Everybody's ratings are different, some are wrong, some are right. And even then, we have to take development into account. And as mentioned before, the culture of the draftees.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Oh yes, some definitely thought we reached with Bontempelli

to be honest, I think that the new coach has enough KPPs options to desperately need one in the national draft

still hope they take some in the rookie draft, because I'll be a little confused if they don't

think we've started to get other areas of the ground pretty well covered
its not as if THIS is our team for the next 5 years or something..

I'd like to think we look at Keitel or Hammelman, but the various accounts of them that I've read feature the words 'soft' and 'shit' with alarming frequency, so perhaps we'd be better off looking elsewhere.

I liked Oscar McDonald, but there'd have to be a reason for him making it to 53. I had him penciled in at 27 and feared even then that North might snatch him from under our noses. We'll find out in time, I suppose. I'll be keeping an eye on Reece McKenzie, too - I know he's got attitude problems, but he played reasonably well in 2014 (despite the tendency to throw the toys out of the cot) and tested well, so I'm stunned he made it to 77.

I know very little about the class of 2015 (who does, at this point in time?), but the word seems to be that it's bereft of quality talls - in the event that Roberts and Talia don't progress as expected, do we go hunting for another out-of-contract KPP with the promise of a bumper contract?

 

[BRWB]

Fair enough. Look, I trust Dal to have made the right decisions, and maybe that's my Bulldogs bias showing through. Either way, every year clubs get ratings right and wrong. I'm hoping that this year is another we got right, in keeping with the past couple of years.

Mate you have again summed it up very well. People either have faith or they don't. It's why footy is a religion to many, and why we get so much passion and crazy talk about footy. I admit I get frustrated with blind faith. But then I was probably guilty of a degree of blind faith with Macca (and this frustrated others), so we all do it, its part of being a supporter.

I'm just on the little to no faith side this time

 

[Dav1d]

I know very little about the class of 2015 (who does, at this point in time?), but the word seems to be that it's bereft of quality talls - in the event that Roberts and Talia don't progress as expected, do we go hunting for another out-of-contract KPP with the promise of a bumper contract?

I wouldn't be too worried, players will pop up
or we'll probably stay around where we are on the ladder and get Weitering or Burton(key forward), both 190cm

we targeted Lonergan, bidded on Darcy Moore, poached Tom Boyd from GWS and still we didn't do enough to secure a quality KPP this season!

 

[Doggies7]

Hey guys if we are desperate for a KPD, we could always rookie a guy named Mark Austin

What do you think?

 

[paulveed]

But other clubs did rate them - so there is another straw man argument

Yebi, 1 other club rated him, aside from Dal, it seems 16 other recruitment and list managers didn't.

Then could it also be a possibility that the one that did take him, used the "well we need one, so let's take whoever is available" attitude that is getting espoused so widely on here ?

Look, I would as I have said previously, like an extra KPF and KPD on our list, but gee if you don't like what is on offer, why would you put time and money into them, when you could have a player you DO rate ?

Anyway, Dal is far from the first Bulldog recruiter to come up short [ if you'll excuse the pun], on drafting quality talls, while Essendon has never seemed to have that affliction. Look back at our history on key defenders and forwards over time. How often have we been as a team, 'short' forward and back. Think of how often we have had to 'make do' with 'undersize' players in key posts historically, going back decades before Dal was out of 'short' pants [ sorry punning again].
There was the era when we had Croft [ a wingman] and Kritter as our 2 key defenders. Think how Moz has had to fight out of his division his entire career. Jono and various others, some even shorter than him playing at FF. We can't blame Dal for any of these situations.
It has never been ideal. It's not ideal now. But for whatever reason, as a problem for us, it significantly predates Dal in terms of being a Bulldogs affliction.

 

[fronkalicious]

At least 17 other clubs had recruiters put in arguably as much time as Dalrymple

Absolutely. And they all agreed with dalrymple that McDonald isn't such a hot talent. The only guys that rated him in the top 30 were some BF posters and journos.

There are actually other methods of adding talent to your list aside from the draft, and bugger me if we didn't pick up a key forward and a key defender via trade and free agency.

The list changes need to be looked at overall, not just the draft in isolation.

 

[yebiga]

Fair enough. Look, I trust Dal to have made the right decisions, and maybe that's my Bulldogs bias showing through. Either way, every year clubs get ratings right and wrong. I'm hoping that this year is another we got right, in keeping with the past couple of years.

We also forget about, and this is going back to the "good people" Macca days, how each of these draftees are as people. Maybe some of the talls, let's say Lamb for instance, just came off as *******s in their interviews, and we decided we didn't want them at the club.


Well no club rated Fyfe as a first round pick, and look how that turned out. Everybody's ratings are different, some are wrong, some are right. And even then, we have to take development into account. And as mentioned before, the culture of the draftees.

And another strawman

 

[yebiga]

Yebi, 1 other club rated him, aside from Dal, it seems 16 other recruitment and list managers didn't.
.

You know this is just mind blowing
Once a draftee is picked it is just as likely as not that all 17 clubs were also about to pounce.

Otherwise you could say only one club had any interest in petracca

 

[paulveed]

You know this is just mind blowing
Once a draftee is picked it is just as likely as not that all 17 clubs were also about to pounce.

Otherwise you could say only one club had any interest in petracca

"Just as likely" OR just as unlikely!!! It is illogical to compare a player taken at 2 or 3's situation, with one taken in the twilight of team selections. While theoretically a player taken at 70 or so in any given draft might turn out to be a ripper, the odds when compared to a 1-2 draft pick Are ridiculous at best. If all teams have passed on a player till very late in a draft, it is pretty clear on the whole, they do not rate him. I think you are clutching at straws here.

 

[yebiga]

A

"Just as likely" OR just as unlikely!!! It is illogical to compare a player taken at 2 or 3's situation, with one taken in the twilight of team selections. While theoretically a player taken at 70 or so in any given draft might turn out to be a ripper, the odds when compared to a 1-2 draft pick Are ridiculous at best. If all teams have passed on a player till very late in a draft, it is pretty clear on the whole, they do not rate him. I think you are clutching at straws here.

but again why pick 70?
Talls were picked in the 30s 40s
A tall picked at 30 May have been picked at 31, 32,33
So to say only one recruiter was interested is illogical
Which you recognize for Petrarcca at pick 2 and then ignore 67 other picks to counter with pick 70

But even at pick 70 who is to say the same player would be passed at pick 71

 

[JJHunter]

There are actually other methods of adding talent to your list aside from the draft, and bugger me if we didn't pick up a key forward and a key defender via trade and free agency.

I'm sorry who is the key defender you are talking about ?
Hamling is no more a "key defender" than mark austin.
So I may have missed something

 

[TBOW]

Who cares where journos rate these players. Guess what dalrymple is doing all year while journos run around chasing footy stories??? Scouting talent. No one would have put more time into it than him, let alone a clutch of journos who's focus is in other areas for 11 months of the year.

We place way too much importance in what some bigfooty posters and journos say and think.

Yep. This is the point a lot of posters need to realise.

The gap between the amount of work a journo and a club do on a crop of players is immense. Also clubs have no reason to help journos with there ordering of players, if anything it's the opposite.

Getting upset because we didn't rate players the same as a few journos is ridiculous.

I was as underwhelmed as anyone by the fact that the names we called out were not ones I had even considered at our picks, but I'm not naive enough to think that they were wrong because of that.

 

[yebiga]

Tall defenders

Morris - 2 seasons to go and 190cm often being asked to do impossible
Roughead- only solid on resting ruck
Talia - 1st contender
Roberts - 2nd contender
Z Cordy - 3rd contender


We are missing 2/3 in this area
Absolutely must rookie 2 tall defenders

 

[JJHunter]

Yep. This is the point a lot of posters need to realise.

The gap between the amount of work a journo and a club do on a crop of players is immense. Also clubs have no reason to help journos with there ordering of players, if anything it's the opposite.

Getting upset because we didn't rate players the same as a few journos is ridiculous.

I was as underwhelmed as anyone by the fact that the names we called out were not ones I had even considered at our picks, but I'm not naive enough to think that they were wrong because of that.

Totally agree - but does it not concern u that the picks fell the way the club wanted - that's more the concern for me .

That none of the players we wanted were taken before each of our picks.
That we would have taken Hamilton at 26 if Webb and McLean were gone by then.

You see imo the majority of other clubs didn't appear to rate our guys in a similar manner to what we did - Hamilton at least definitely as we were prepared to take him at 26 but other clubs left him there to 39.

That's what concerns me not th phantom draft stuff. You see all the other clubs do the work we do and they obviously didn't rate Hamilton like we did.

 

[Mofra]

Well no club rated Fyfe as a first round pick, and look how that turned out. Everybody's ratings are different, some are wrong, some are right. And even then, we have to take development into account. And as mentioned before, the culture of the draftees.

Some posters on this board did, which to me absolutely justifies posters here having an opinion on list management.

 

[fronkalicious]

Totally agree - but does it not concern u that the picks fell the way the club wanted - that's more the concern for me .

That none of the players we wanted were taken before each of our picks.
That we would have taken Hamilton at 26 if Webb and McLean were gone by then.

You see imo the majority of other clubs didn't appear to rate our guys in a similar manner to what we did - Hamilton at least definitely as we were prepared to take him at 26 but other clubs left him there to 39.

That's what concerns me not th phantom draft stuff. You see all the other clubs do the work we do and they obviously didn't rate Hamilton like we did.

Dalrymple saying that all our first choice selections were there, is just PR that all clubs have spruiked for many years. Its a throw away line.

And yes, Hamling is a key defender. In what universe isn't he a key defender?? he's key defender size and plays all his footy there?? Have I missed something???

 

[TBOW]

Totally agree - but does it not concern u that the picks fell the way the club wanted - that's more the concern for me .

That none of the players we wanted were taken before each of our picks.
That we would have taken Hamilton at 26 if Webb and McLean were gone by then.

You see imo the majority of other clubs didn't appear to rate our guys in a similar manner to what we did - Hamilton at least definitely as we were prepared to take him at 26 but other clubs left him there to 39.

We'v

That's what concerns me not th phantom draft stuff. You see all the other clubs do the work we do and they obviously didn't rate Hamilton like we did.

You've got to take those post draft reflections with a massive grain of salt.

As far as where clubs draft these kids, I think it is often more a reflection of a clubs list management strategy than an actual ranking of talent.

We've probably decided that we're better off building a great list of mids then getting in mature talls that suit our needs perfectly. It makes sense when you think about the small number of talls on a list. Might as well only stock the kind you want.

Just be greatful we aren't taking the Mick Malthouse 'I can win another flag before my career extinguishes' approach...

 

[JJHunter]

Dalrymple saying that all our first choice selections were there, is just PR that all clubs have spruiked for many years. Its a throw away line.

And yes, Hamling is a key defender. In what universe isn't he a key defender?? he's key defender size and plays all his footy there?? Have I missed something???

ok then - you must have rated austin as a key defender then also ?
You must rate Jarrad Grant as a key position forward under the same logic.
Just cause he is named CHF doesnt make him a CHF or a key position forwrd

While hambling height may suggest he is, while he may play in those spots on the ground - his body shape, size and weight dont