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

[GrommoT]

What can you guys tell me about this guy?

We were hoping you could tell us.

Spoiler: ...

 

[fuddrooster]

I think that 5 kick 3 handball stat is his average in his under 18 national games? I think rowey mentioned it on radio.

 

[Hodgy]

Actually, I don't think that's right.

Your player evaluation can only be determined with time- sure. The actual in draft value of a player however is determined at this point in time.

If you had access to every team's draft board you could quantify each player's draft value, and determine who overpaid and who didn't.

The trick- the real hit it out of the park- is to get the highest possible return for the assets that you have. I.e. to get the best players at the best price. If the second best player in the draft is really available at pick 70, then your dream is to take them there.

No your analogy falls apart for 2 reasons. Firstly you can't assign a value to this lad in terms of picks because of Phantom drafts, you have no idea that he wouldn't have gone to someone else for pick 20. And secondly we only had 2 picks to use so if we rated Milera as the best player for us in this draft then it is totally irrelevant how much we paid for this kid. It would be like your car sale but you had to spend all of your $5,000 anyway.

 

[cmndstab]

The other possibility is that other clubs would have taken Doedee with a strong pick as well but just all kept mum about it and none of the phantom drafters knew about it. Although that seems unlikely.

Ogilve was on 5AA before the draft today and did make a pointed "phantom drafters might think they know about the draft but if they're not part of a recruiting team at and AFL club then they don't really know that much" comment, perhaps this is what he was talking about?

 

[cmndstab]

No your analogy falls apart for 2 reasons. Firstly you can't assign a value to this lad in terms of picks because of Phantom drafts, you have no idea that he wouldn't have gone to someone else for pick 20. And secondly we only had 2 picks to use so if we rated Milera as the best player for us in this draft then it is totally irrelevant how much we paid for this kid. It would be like your car sale but you had to spend all of your $5,000 anyway.

Your first point is fair enough. We don't know how other clubs rated Doedee, and we likely never will.

Your second point, though, is not correct. We could have used pick 13 in a trade to get a better player than one of the ones we got, or to trade for a future draft pick, and taken an appropriate downgrade to (maybe) still get Doedee. Perhaps we could have used it to bundle in with a player on our list to get a better player. Sure, it couldn't have been used to get an extra pick, or upgrade a later pick, since we were only making two selections, but there are other avenues to add quality to your list.

 

[Southerntakeover]

No your analogy falls apart for 2 reasons. Firstly you can't assign a value to this lad in terms of picks because of Phantom drafts, you have no idea that he wouldn't have gone to someone else for pick 20. And secondly we only had 2 picks to use so if we rated Milera as the best player for us in this draft then it is totally irrelevant how much we paid for this kid. It would be like your car sale but you had to spend all of your $5,000 anyway.

No, that's just wrong.

What I think his value was is opinion, sure. I can't know it's correct. And yet that's not to say that he didn't have a objective value in draft currency.

Saying that 'we were only going to pick twice' ignores a multitude of possibilities in which we could have exchanged that pick for a pick of lower value and acquired an asset (such as a future pick). If the pick we used was of a higher value that perhaps a pick we could have used, we've effectively burned an asset equivalent the difference in value.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Dangerfield was absolutely NOT rated top 15 pick. Now you are just taking bullshit. The lowest any mock draft had him was at pick 25.. He wasn't even considered as a first rounder.

And the reason? .......he was playing HBF and not the fashionable midfield role ...plus the iffy disposal

There are many many examples of players playing flank roles that end up being elite midfielders

 

[cmndstab]

Maybe we didn't expect GWS to match pick 13 on Himmelberg?

 

[Southerntakeover]

And the reason? .......he was playing HBF and not the fashionable midfield role ...plus the iffy disposal

There are many many examples of players playing flank roles that end up being elite midfielders

Name them.

 

[Vantz]

Danger was a bit of a bolter in phantom drafts in the last few days leading up to the draft - presumably word of interest from clubs started to leak. But he wasn't seen as a first rounder (back in the days when the first round ended at pick 16) at the time.

At it is, it didn't really matter who it was. The outrage at the time wasn't because people thought Dangerfield was crap, it was because after years of burning first round selections we finally had a very safe, local product in Ebert available to us and we passed over it. This was also right after we got dudded in the Hudson trade only to have Rendell publicly laugh about it so people were a bit gun-shy at the time.

I agree in part. Clayton Oliver a week ago was seen as a potential 15-25 pick and went 4. With these phantom drafts it's also based on the presumptive rankings. However like Clayton, Dangerfield was recognised, pre national draft as a player who would go in the first round.

2007 the first round was 17 due to a priority pick, and it was widely speculated Patty would not fall past Geelong at 17. Doedee I have not seen higher than 45, and in many peoples assumptions was 45 - rookie. Including Brett Anderson who writes for Inside Footy and our own Skippos rated him at 82.

The Dangerfield argument, as you are aware was more about Ebert and giving up on a prestigious SA talent with a family heritage almost unrivalled in this state.

...and yes while i've been a member with this account since 2008, and Danger was drafted in 2007, my brother and I used a shared account that predates this time and I was engaged in the 'why the 'beep' did we pass on Ebert' debate.

 

[Glenny83]

If he doesn't end up being a best 22 player for excess of 100 games, someone get sacked out of Australia!

 

[Hodgy]

Dangerfield was absolutely NOT rated top 15 pick. Now you are just taking bullshit. The lowest any mock draft had him was at pick 25.. He wasn't even considered as a first rounder.

The meltdown at this time of the year on this board is priceless. Everyone is an armchair expert. This sort of thing was always going to happen in an even draft it just happened to be us this time around. Collingwood's pick didn't even have a profile on afl website and they have some of the best recruiters going around.

Given our track records with first round picks since Hamish has been part of our recruiting team, I am confident that we have picked a very good player. In a few years time this thread will get a bump for some genuine lols.

I've still got a copy of the AFL phantom draft from that year and he was pick 14. I've kept it because I had him and Rioli as the my 2 favourite players that year and had them both rated at 90 out of 100 and I love teasing my brother who liked Ebert. Many others had him higher than that and in fact it was only SA media that talked up Ebert, he looked very one paced as a youngster.

 

[Vantz]

I agree in part. Clayton Oliver a week ago was seen as a potential 15-25 pick and went 4. With these phantom drafts it's also based on the presumptive rankings. However like Clayton, Dangerfield was recognised, pre national draft as a player who would go in the first round.

2007 the first round was 17 due to a priority pick, and it was widely speculated Patty would not fall past Geelong at 17. Doedee I have not seen higher than 45, and in many peoples assumptions was 45 - rookie. Including Brett Anderson who writes for Inside Footy and our own Skippos rated him at 82.

The Dangerfield argument, as you are aware was more about Ebert and giving up on a prestigious SA talent with a family heritage almost unrivalled in this state.

...and yes while i've been a member with this account since 2008, and Danger was drafted in 2007, my brother and I used a shared account that predates this time and I was engaged in the 'why the 'beep' did we pass on Ebert' debate.

Actually the only reason I came back to BigFooty and made an account was after meeting you cmndstab and Drummond. At Crows training sessions.

 

[huludicidal]

If i can't make comment ...on the same criteria as you've outlined, neither can you criticize

Being a bit hypocritical

As previously stated, I have seen Doedee play before tonight (full games). On at least 2 occasions (I think it was 3, but he did that little in the 3rd game that it's hard to remember for sure if he actually played in it).

Would've considered him around pick 50-60, if he addressed a glaring need (he doesn't IMO - see below).

Would absolutely never have selected him before the likes of Burton (pending medical advice), Tucker, R Clarke, Partington or even Collins (didn't really want a KPD but still). Even someone like Mathieson (clearance machine but messy skills) would have left a better taste in my mouth. Even Balic who I stated many times that I pretty much hated for Pick 13 (17) would have me less flabbergasted. B McKay was another I wasn't keen on that would have still made more sense than this. Gresham. Cunningham. Dunkley. Hibberd. Even a guy like Tom Cole who I saw as a potential bolter. Even Bonner who I stated many time would not be a first round pick due to not having enough strings to his bow. All stood out far more than Doedee.

A shutdown 188cm defender (with questionable footskills)... Let's look through history to see when the last time one of those got drafted in the top 20 was. Might take a while.

If we were talking about Pick 47 instead of 17 - there's no way there'd be an outcry, although I'd actually still be questioning the need for this type of player. We just recruited Seedsman (attacking defender) and Hampton (silky mover with rebounding capabilities), and we already have Brown (excellent medium / small shutdown type), Laird (AA quality who can defend and win his own ball), Smith (AA quality attacking defender), Cheney (medium shutdown type), Jaensch (quarterback), Kelly (medium tall shutdown), Wigg (quarterback), Otten (third tall), and Lever (shutdown with rebound) as half back types (it remains to be seen if Lever develops into a true KPD or not), and we bring in another HBF type WITH A FIRST ROUND PICK who may or may not have midfield capabilities 3-4 years down the track?

If we were taking 'best available' with pick 9 (11) and then 'addressing needs' with Pick 13 (17) as was stated by Noble publicly, who here wants to put up their hand and say that a 188cm shutdown half back was high up there on their list of needs? After taking Milera, I would have thought most of the 'needs' would have revolved around talls (mainly forwards) and inside mids (or combo mids).


Look, maybe Doedee turns out to be an amazing player and in 5 years time we look back on this and laugh and bow to the genius that is Ogilvie, but I think we have every right to be utterly confused by the logic behind this selection right now. Maybe Pyke is going to move both of Smith and Laird into the midfield, and maybe Seedsman and Hampton will play up the ground, and maybe Jaensch and Cheney have had their cards stamped for various reasons that are probably obvious. Maybe Doedee will in fact be developed as a mid and our glut of half backs is therefore irrelevant. Why we wouldn't take someone like Ryan Clarke or Luke Partington who are currently better at everything that a midfielder can possibly be required to do is beyond me, if we did want an actual midfielder though.

Oh well, I've had my say. Time to prove me wrong Tom. Develop into a Ben Stratton clone or something. That'd shut me right up.

While I don't agree with the club's decision to draft this kid, I absolutely want him to prove me wrong and become the best first round bolter we've seen in years.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Name them.

haven't the interest to spend enormous time .....but start with
Fyfe (HFF) .....skinny, skinny
Mundy (Full Back)
Rockcliff (forward pocket) ...no exposure in midfield to recruiters

Brisbane Website :
He was largely considered to feature in the first two rounds of the 2008 National Draft – but was surprisingly overlooked by all 16 AFL clubs at the selection meeting.

Goodwin: HBF

Just a few well known players from just a couple of clubs i quickly looked at

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Name them.

haven't the interest to spend enormous time .....but start with
Fyfe (HFF) .....skinny, skinny
Mundy (Full Back)
Rockcliff (forward pocket) ...no exposure in midfield to recruiters

Brisbane Website :
He was largely considered to feature in the first two rounds of the 2008 National Draft – but was surprisingly overlooked by all 16 AFL clubs at the selection meeting.

Goodwin: HBF

Just a few well known players from just a couple of clubs i quickly looked at

 

[relapse]

Ogilve was on 5AA before the draft today and did make a pointed "phantom drafters might think they know about the draft but if they're not part of a recruiting team at and AFL club then they don't really know that much" comment, perhaps this is what he was talking about?

That seems a stupid comment for Ogilve to make as the Phantom drafts were all pretty well spot on for the picks. I can't see how people can try and claim that the phantom drafts are written by mugs when most correctly picked around 17-18 out of tonight's top 20. Those numbers actually suggest that they have a pretty good handle on where players are rated leading into the draft.

 

[hey shorty]

Name them.

Mundy, Vince, Roo, McLeod, Goodwin.......

As for the pick, ill admit to being fairly baffled about this pick. Either we have way overreached with the kid and made an error, not a monumental one like some are saying but an error. OR we have seen his development curve over 12 months and like what we see. His highlights package is good and I do like the fact that despite being relatively new to the game he was still part of the Champs.

He also has something our other BBall converts don't, and that is a great 1on1 ability. Hoping he is more Porzingis than Bowie though.

Some of the reaction on here is pretty weak IMO.

 

[adelaidecrows]

No, that's very poor reasoning, and in no way suggests market value doesn't exist at the time of the draft.

You may suggest that Carlton failed in player analysis, although I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the players involved.

If you were correct in your assessment though then really what Carlton should have done in perfect world hindsight is traded down to capitalise on the market value for those players, and selected the best players in the draft at the appropriate position (being immediately before the first other team to select them would have). They then use the assets that they got from trading down to get more of these better players.

In a lottery system market value means nothing because so many variables exist. You don't get to pick the player you ideally want because unless you have the #1 pick your selection is dependant on those in front which means clubs can literally go from plan a) to plan f) to plan q) with in a couple of selections. If it was market value that determined the picks then why doesn't the AFL just rank the recruits 1 to however many the clubs can possibly draft and the players just get distributed to the clubs designated to their market value! Funny how it doesn't work like that.

 

[Bicks]

The other possibility is that other clubs would have taken Doedee with a strong pick as well but just all kept mum about it and none of the phantom drafters knew about it. Although that seems unlikely.

Ogilve was on 5AA before the draft today and did make a pointed "phantom drafters might think they know about the draft but if they're not part of a recruiting team at and AFL club then they don't really know that much" comment, perhaps this is what he was talking about?

One of the recognised draft gurus in the media mentioned Collingwood was looking seriously at Doedee with their 1st pick, mind you that wasn't a 1st round pick because they spent most of their collateral on Trealoar and Aish.

 

[BunjiMac]

My main issue with this is not necessarily the selection of Doedee, but the pick we used to select him.

Doadee was clearly not going to go till the second round.

We essentially traded Danger out to get an extra 1st round pick, but end up using one of these picks on someone that we could have picked up in the second round.

Just seems extremely wasteful and an opportunity missed by our trading/draft team.

 

[deeztreez]

Just so we can all look back in five years time and justify how good/terrible we are at spotting talent when someone inevitably bumps this thread, let's all put our thoughts on who we would've taken on the record.

For me? Ben McKay.

Not in this thread.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yet the Phantom drafts were all pretty well spot on for the picks, people try and claim that the phantom draft are written by mugs but most correctly picked around 17-18 out of tonight's top 20.

Those number themselves suggest that they actually have a pretty good handle on where players are rated leading into the draft.

No they weren't right .....they replicated the main media Phantom Drafts and responded accordingly

Every Phantom Draft today compared to 4 weeks ago was completely different .......hell, i can wait for Emma Quayle's draft or Brett Anderson's draft to come out and replicate

Amazing that all the Phantom Drafts in the last few days suddenly had Oliver at #4 ........4 weeks earlier he was in most drafts late teens/early 20's

No-one 4 weeks ago had Rioli anywhere near the first round .....or Ah Chee at #6
But they did in the last few days

 

[conVINCEd]

I'm still stunned. Not because I know enough to contradict our recruiters and not because of what The Dude might become. Having taken a bit of time to gather myself after being initially stunned, I can't believe that firstly we went with yet another third tall defender with pick 13 (17). We would have known that the player we had planned for this pick would most likely have been available well into the second round. So why didn't we upgrade our first pick or keep 3 live picks and take him with the next pick?
To me it's not just who we draft but also whether we "overpaid" to get them. I also feel that a tall forward is a real need for our club.

Would you have said the same if we'd drafted Francis?

 

[Hodgy]

No, that's just wrong.

What I think his value was is opinion, sure. I can't know it's correct. And yet that's not to say that he didn't have a objective value in draft currency.

Saying that 'we were only going to pick twice' ignores a multitude of possibilities in which we could have exchanged that pick for a pick of lower value and acquired an asset (such as a future pick). If the pick we used was of a higher value that perhaps a pick we could have used, we've effectively burned an asset equivalent the difference in value.

You're right that we could have got a pick next year and traded down our 17 to do so but who says we didn't try that. We proved last year when we traded down with Geelong that we were prepared to do that so lets say we felt we needed at least pick 25 to get him and we tried to trade down and gain say a 3rd rounder next year but got no takers. Then you have to take him with your 17.
My point was that if we rated Milera as our best player from this draft then even if we had managed to trade 9 and 13 for 5 and 22 we still would have taken the same 2 players. We just ended up getting Milera for unders and Doedee for overs.