Opinion Pick 1... is Cam Rayner

[spotthedog1]

I don't think any club is walking into a draft with a list ordered purely in terms of talent, so it's not a surprise to me that Brisbane is any different. Every club would order their list to represent the best selections for them. In our case this year that might mean targeted attributes like defensive pressure, speed and/or skills. Hawthorn has always paid a premium for skilled players so would rank them higher than most, Sydney values defensive pressure above all generally, West Coast promotes local talent, Collingwood downgrades anyone over 192cm.

In each case the clubs wouldn't produce a list that represents what BF or the media or anyone else considers "most talented to least talented", without even touching on how ambiguous the concept of comparing talent based off a handful of games against kids, most of whom aren't getting drafted.

I think the club drafted the players 1st, 9th, 10th and 19th of what they considered as the best fits for our team. IMO it would've been irresponsible to do otherwise. It's why I find it funny when clubs insist they don't take needs into account, or homesickness, etc - if you need talls and you have a tall and small is rated within a fair margin after all other considerations, why wouldn't you draft the needed tall even if they rank marginally below the small on "talent"?

In our case it probably means not drafting guys that have told us they'll walk out at the first opportunity, and I'm sure there were some given Clayton reported that that was what he was getting told re: the Suns. It might mean not taking Stephenson if there's a chance that he's going to bust because we're not really in the position to take that risk given our lack of mature top-end talent.

If we took perfect draft picks according to "talent" rankings but none were here in two years, is that a win? Or if we ended up with a team that can't win games because everyone is one-paced or can't win the ball or have terrible skills (all having been issues over the last 15 years at different points)?

They seem funny points to argue - both that the club is trying to rank players by talent (they aren't, and I'd be surprised if any club is, before even touching on how "talent" is so very subjective), and that they should be.

Can't say I disagree with much here. I still maintain though, I doubt a team like St Kilda wouldn't even list guys like O'brien and Richards on their lists, even if they didn't particularly want them - they'd just be lower, to be picked up if they slid far enough.

Noble's said he prefers the old adage that you draft for talent, trade for needs, though I listen to Noble with a grain of salt (shrewd operator, and he puts out the narrative that he wants people to hear. Whether that's us fans, the media, or the opposition). Of course, as you've said, drafting best available is quite the generalisation, and if we had a need quite close to the talent level of someone we didn't need, you'd most likely spring for the needs pick.

I don't think you can do what TBD did though, and say "well, we didn't include all of the highly rated guys, but based on our needs-based list vs where we recruited them, we saved enough points for a bonus pick 4". Hell, if the club wanted to, they could've just cut off all the names they knew would be gone, and we could've got multiple number-1 points worth of quality!

From my point of view, this was clearly a much more speculative draft than the last one. Very shallow, and clubs much more willing to go with a smoky who may make the cut at a higher pick - presumably because they didn't rate the standard of the draft this year. Last year, I could see how our overall strategy was being achieved through the draft and trade period. This year, it appears from the outside a lot more crude, and I can't pick the strategy overall. Traded names in for overs, out for unders, in a weak draft. Trading up, but then taking players who, from what guys like Twomey have said, would've been there anyway (I know - Twomey could easily be wrong). I don't specifically think the club did a bad job, it just means that I can't see what they were going for. Makes it difficult to judge how we went when you can't pick the macro-strategy of the period. Of course, we won't know how it all works out until about 5 years down the track. That said, I'm pretty happy with last year's draft/trade period, even if it's early.

On Stephenson, I'd say we were in a perfect place to take a risk. I'm guessing that you think we'll have sufficient talent on the list to challenge in 3 to 4 years as long as we don't screw anything up, in which case, fair enough. At the moment, I don't. I think we lost too much to homesickness, and have replaced them with solid b-grade citizens who'll help out nicely, but I still think we haven't got the a-graders to challenge, especially since Zorko/Beams will be B-graders, not A-graders, by the time we're ready. So really, I'd have been all for taking a risk on someone like Stephenson who might be more grateful if he slid to 15/18 and stick around. Of course, I don't have the medical reports, so it could be far too big a risk to take. I would, of course, prefer to be wrong on my assessment of our list talent, and time will tell if I am. We'll see yet.

 

[Daniel Flynn]

yes is a lions fan doesn't mean will stay tho imo will be Luke Davies-Uniacke has the body to go now very much a Joey kennedy type at swans his finals form was outstanding for Dandy feel that's got him over Dow ust its very tight call ! dow doesnt have the frame yet so will likely start as HF like McCluggage did this year ! LDU i feel will be it in end

If it was his childhood dream to play for the club he will most probably stay would've been good to go for him I think..

 

[dlanod]

On Stephenson, I'd say we were in a perfect place to take a risk. I'm guessing that you think we'll have sufficient talent on the list to challenge in 3 to 4 years as long as we don't screw anything up, in which case, fair enough. At the moment, I don't. I think we lost too much to homesickness, and have replaced them with solid b-grade citizens who'll help out nicely, but I still think we haven't got the a-graders to challenge, especially since Zorko/Beams will be B-graders, not A-graders, by the time we're ready. So really, I'd have been all for taking a risk on someone like Stephenson who might be more grateful if he slid to 15/18 and stick around. Of course, I don't have the medical reports, so it could be far too big a risk to take. I would, of course, prefer to be wrong on my assessment of our list talent, and time will tell if I am. We'll see yet.

I don't think we have enough talent. As a result of that I think we still need to play it safe to accumulate enough talent - what use is a wasted pick at this stage? Especially when we've wasted enough picks, exactly as you noted. I think we just disagree on the value of "B graders", as I see most lists comprised almost entirely of B graders, and a B grader getting out there every week is better than a 50/50 (say, or worse) chance of an A grader versus nothing.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

Just for nerdy fun, I worked out the points value of what we paid for players vs where we rated them on our draft board.

Turns out that we paid 6106 points for what we valued as 8274 points worth of talent. Basically works out as pick 4 + 61 worth of talent for "free".

Obviously it counts for very little if our recruiters got their assessments wrong, but in the short term, you can see why Conole was grinning.

I really like this analysis, but taking the assumption of a club's draft board being set in stone, it's worth noting that that sort of ratio (6106:8274) would be roughly average for most clubs, since no club could possibly do "worse" than what's on their own draft board (i.e. the worst anyone could possibly do is exactly even - with pick 21 you have to take the 21st player on your list).
Given each clubs boards are unlikely to be identical (especially past the top 10), ratios very close to 1 would be unlikely. It follows that the more picks you take, the more "talent for free" you'll get, under that assessment.

It makes the punters happy to see a 9th rated player taken at 15, but the same sort of thing would be happening at all clubs, and it wouldn't be at all unusual for clubs to pick up a player rated by them to be in the 20s with a pick in the 60s or 70s.

I doubt we'll ever see a draft where Conole doesn't come out grinning, he knows how to execute a draft and how to plan well for each possible scenario, or at least the team as a whole does. There's not much point assessing a draft for at least 3-4 years, but I think we'll look back on this one and be pretty happy.

 

[Fatcat08]

Can't say I disagree with much here. I still maintain though, I doubt a team like St Kilda wouldn't even list guys like O'brien and Richards on their lists, even if they didn't particularly want them - they'd just be lower, to be picked up if they slid far enough.

Noble's said he prefers the old adage that you draft for talent, trade for needs, though I listen to Noble with a grain of salt (shrewd operator, and he puts out the narrative that he wants people to hear. Whether that's us fans, the media, or the opposition). Of course, as you've said, drafting best available is quite the generalisation, and if we had a need quite close to the talent level of someone we didn't need, you'd most likely spring for the needs pick.

I don't think you can do what TBD did though, and say "well, we didn't include all of the highly rated guys, but based on our needs-based list vs where we recruited them, we saved enough points for a bonus pick 4". Hell, if the club wanted to, they could've just cut off all the names they knew would be gone, and we could've got multiple number-1 points worth of quality!

From my point of view, this was clearly a much more speculative draft than the last one. Very shallow, and clubs much more willing to go with a smoky who may make the cut at a higher pick - presumably because they didn't rate the standard of the draft this year. Last year, I could see how our overall strategy was being achieved through the draft and trade period. This year, it appears from the outside a lot more crude, and I can't pick the strategy overall. Traded names in for overs, out for unders, in a weak draft. Trading up, but then taking players who, from what guys like Twomey have said, would've been there anyway (I know - Twomey could easily be wrong). I don't specifically think the club did a bad job, it just means that I can't see what they were going for. Makes it difficult to judge how we went when you can't pick the macro-strategy of the period. Of course, we won't know how it all works out until about 5 years down the track. That said, I'm pretty happy with last year's draft/trade period, even if it's early.

On Stephenson, I'd say we were in a perfect place to take a risk. I'm guessing that you think we'll have sufficient talent on the list to challenge in 3 to 4 years as long as we don't screw anything up, in which case, fair enough. At the moment, I don't. I think we lost too much to homesickness, and have replaced them with solid b-grade citizens who'll help out nicely, but I still think we haven't got the a-graders to challenge, especially since Zorko/Beams will be B-graders, not A-graders, by the time we're ready. So really, I'd have been all for taking a risk on someone like Stephenson who might be more grateful if he slid to 15/18 and stick around. Of course, I don't have the medical reports, so it could be far too big a risk to take. I would, of course, prefer to be wrong on my assessment of our list talent, and time will tell if I am. We'll see yet.

Just on one point, if there was ever a draft to trade in players who fit our list for overs, and clear the decks a bit for unders then this was clearly the year to do it. Wouldn't have wanted to do it next year from early appearances, that's for sure.

 

[MSB ROYS]

I have a man crush on Cam. Go Lions.

 

[countryVicLion]

Jeez, Berry just personifies leadership. Second year player, rang all the draftees and offered to pick them up at the airport and take them out for a meal.

That’s why he is Berrygood


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Monkey Daniel]

There's been a couple of mentions of Ling and go home factor, not the case
Very happy to move interstate, especially Sydney. Falcons coach DOK played for Swans and gave him a good insight to how the club operates.
When I spoke to him in the week of the draft, he had no issues with Brisbane especially with Falcon players already on our list. Parents supportive of his move interstate too.

 

[Gadzorks]

Just watching the draft again, Cam looks like he idolizes Hodgey, just a brilliant idea of Fagan to get Luke to the club. It is really nice to see a young guy who genuinely seems excited to be a Lion.

Now, let's get The Clug and Witho signed.

Do you reckon that they had Cameron specifically in mind when Fagan approached Hodge with the initial cheeky comments? Iirc we knew we were getting pick 1 by then and probably knew who rayner's afl idols were.

Could have started with a simple we rate rayner 1- what can we do to overcome retention issues? However it started was a brilliant move.

 

[Gadzorks]

'It's fiiiine'. Rayner could get a walk on in kath and kim.

He came across really well - almost better than out captain. Hope he finds the lack of media and attention good for his footy.

 

[winged1]

Do you reckon that they had Cameron specifically in mind when Fagan approached Hodge with the initial cheeky comments? Iirc we knew we were getting pick 1 by then and probably knew who rayner's afl idols were.

Could have started with a simple we rate rayner 1- what can we do to overcome retention issues? However it started was a brilliant move.

Amazing the difference having a Snr player/coach come in who everybody looks up to. There is a bit of the Matthews vibe with Hodge.

 

[spotthedog1]

Just on one point, if there was ever a draft to trade in players who fit our list for overs, and clear the decks a bit for unders then this was clearly the year to do it. Wouldn't have wanted to do it next year from early appearances, that's for sure.

Two bits to your statement there - it was a good year to clear out players for unders, and it was a good year to bring in players for overs.

• I agree with you that in a weak draft, trading in players for overs is higher value. The downside of that is that, apparently, we rated Darcy Fogarty at 5 (source: Xplo). He went to Adelaide, for the Cameron pick.
• I completely disagree with you though that in a weak draft, trading out players for unders is smart. You're getting less than normal, and at worse than normal quality. Trading out Schache for points equating to pick 21 next year might be a worth a high quality player. This year, pick 21 was after clubs had started taking shots at smokies. It devalues lower currency.

 

[winged1]

Schache was shot here, he would have never fulfilled his potential here. He may never fulfil his potential.

The club made a pragmatic decision, one they wouldn't have taken easily or lightly.

We all need to move on.

 

[jackess]

Schache was shot here, he would have never fulfilled his potential here. He may never fulfil his potential.

The club made a pragmatic decision, one they wouldn't have taken easily or lightly.

We all need to move on.

If the events of trade period didn't leave you to this assumption then there is something wrong. None of us would have expected the majority of Vic clubs declaring they are not interested in him but that's how bad the situation was.

We made the best of a horrible situation. It's pretty clear.

 

[captainrich]

we should be thanking the dogs for taking a punt on him and giving us anything even close to value

 

[Jman78]

I’m quite amazed with Rayner. Just so happy he is at the Lions, his attitude and excitement will meld seemlessly into our team. Just seems happy, energetic, determined and to top it off from a nice family.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[xplo]

The downside of that is that, apparently, we rated Darcy Fogarty at 5 (source: Xplo). He went to Adelaide, for the Cameron pick.

Just checking notes. It was 6 FWIW (not that that changes much).

 

[luthor]

I’m quite amazed with Rayner. Just so happy he is at the Lions, his attitude and excitement will meld seemlessly into our team. Just seems happy, energetic, determined and to top it off from a nice family.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Before the draft, Fagnob and others from the club kept telling anyone who wanted to listen that Rayner was a special talent AND a terrific personaility.

Yet the doubters were casting aspersions on his "character".

There is still the "endurance" thing but does anyone doubt anymore that we have a great kid who looks and sounds like a competitive beast.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Before the draft, Fagnob and others from the club kept telling anyone who wanted to listen that Rayner was a special talent AND a terrific personaility.

Yet the doubters were casting aspersions on his "character".

There is still the "endurance" thing but does anyone doubt anymore that we have a great kid who looks and sounds like a competitive beast.

It was an uphill battle as most of us were already spooked by the early rumours especially just losing Schache.

Endurance is the issue and should be fixable

 

[Fatcat08]

Two bits to your statement there - it was a good year to clear out players for unders, and it was a good year to bring in players for overs.

• I agree with you that in a weak draft, trading in players for overs is higher value. The downside of that is that, apparently, we rated Darcy Fogarty at 5 (source: Xplo). He went to Adelaide, for the Cameron pick.
• I completely disagree with you though that in a weak draft, trading out players for unders is smart. You're getting less than normal, and at worse than normal quality. Trading out Schache for points equating to pick 21 next year might be a worth a high quality player. This year, pick 21 was after clubs had started taking shots at smokies. It devalues lower currency.

I can't agree on the second part. Mainly because this draft was clearly very even from a drafting point of view where the ratings each club had on players was extremely different. Therefore the risk of not getting the player you wanted was much much lower and the reduced probability of such as you moved down the order was not significant. While it's not a great metric, the sheer number of guys who were late picks that were rated higher in the majority of mocks was incredible and I've never seen anything like it in my 10 years following AFL reasonably seriously.

I guess part of my position is based on my belief that had we held onto schache then we would have gotten either similar or less next year. I think the unusual nature of this draft helped us make the best of a bad situation.

It's like the assumption that people should buy and sell houses in good markets, when in reality you're far better doing so (especially if upgrading) of doing so in a down market.

 

[spotthedog1]

I can't agree on the second part. Mainly because this draft was clearly very even from a drafting point of view where the ratings each club had on players was extremely different. Therefore the risk of not getting the player you wanted was much much lower and the reduced probability of such as you moved down the order was not significant. While it's not a great metric, the sheer number of guys who were late picks that were rated higher in the majority of mocks was incredible and I've never seen anything like it in my 10 years following AFL reasonably seriously.

I guess part of my position is based on my belief that had we held onto schache then we would have gotten either similar or less next year. I think the unusual nature of this draft helped us make the best of a bad situation.

It's like the assumption that people should buy and sell houses in good markets, when in reality you're far better doing so (especially if upgrading) of doing so in a down market.

I can see what you mean, but think we might have to agree to disagree. The ratings were flat because the talent levels were lower and much more speculative.

For your example, if you're swapping one house to another, you upgrade when prices are low (as the percentages work for you), and downgrade when they're high (as the percentages work for you) - this is equivalent to a player swap with picks attached. If you're just converting one house (player) to cash (picks), it's always better in a high market.

 

[briztoon]

I can see what you mean, but think we might have to agree to disagree. The ratings were flat because the talent levels were lower and much more speculative.

For your example, if you're swapping one house to another, you upgrade when prices are low (as the percentages work for you), and downgrade when they're high (as the percentages work for you) - this is equivalent to a player swap with picks attached. If you're just converting one house (player) to cash (picks), it's always better in a high market.

I disagree.

It largely depends on the value of the player a club is looking to, or having to trade. If you are trading a Dangerfield, you want it to be a strong draft. But if you are trading a speculative player, you are probably better off doing it in a weak draft, where clubs will be more willing to give up picks outside of the much shallower recognised value zone.

If we had held on to Schache and he had another season like the 2017, we would have had to give him away. No team is going to give up a first round pick next year for a player in a similar situation as Schache, teams are even go to see value in late second round picks. We could have found ourselves with a player no one was willing to trade for.

Going in to next year, the talk isn't just the quality of the top end talent, it's also how deep the draft looks at this stage.

I was extremely frustrated with what the club received in the Schache trade, considering his top age year as a junior and how he performed at the U18 champs, and then his positive performances in his first year. However we've also seen greater emphasis on players mental health in the league over the past couple of years, and like it or not, and not having any idea what's going on with Schache, clubs will have factored in welfare issues when trading for such a player.

The Bulldogs will have factored this in when trading for Schache. They're taking a risk on a talented player that they may have to commit significant time and welfare resources to off the field. Or they may not have to.

If you want to look at a player comparison, Charlie Cameron stunk it up for much of the year at Adelaide, with many fans criticising him, often saying that he had checked out and that his partners desire to return to QLD was impacting on his football. But when the heat was on during the finals for Adelaide, Cameron stood up big time. With Schache, the club had to roll out the PR machine as to why Schache didn't play in the NEAFL final, and there was much discussion here about why.

There's been no concern about Cameron performing to his ability this year at the Lions. However, some members here have speculated whether Schache will find himself in the right head space to perform now that he's back in Melbourne.

 

[spotthedog1]

I disagree.

It largely depends on the value of the player a club is looking to, or having to trade. If you are trading a Dangerfield, you want it to be a strong draft. But if you are trading a speculative player, you are probably better off doing it in a weak draft, where clubs will be more willing to give up picks outside of the much shallower recognised value zone.

If we had held on to Schache and he had another season like the 2017, we would have had to give him away. No team is going to give up a first round pick next year for a player in a similar situation as Schache, teams are even go to see value in late second round picks. We could have found ourselves with a player no one was willing to trade for.

Going in to next year, the talk isn't just the quality of the top end talent, it's also how deep the draft looks at this stage.

I was extremely frustrated with what the club received in the Schache trade, considering his top age year as a junior and how he performed at the U18 champs, and then his positive performances in his first year. However we've also seen greater emphasis on players mental health in the league over the past couple of years, and like it or not, and not having any idea what's going on with Schache, clubs will have factored in welfare issues when trading for such a player.

The Bulldogs will have factored this in when trading for Schache. They're taking a risk on a talented player that they may have to commit significant time and welfare resources to off the field. Or they may not have to.

If you want to look at a player comparison, Charlie Cameron stunk it up for much of the year at Adelaide, with many fans criticising him, often saying that he had checked out and that his partners desire to return to QLD was impacting on his football. But when the heat was on during the finals for Adelaide, Cameron stood up big time. With Schache, the club had to roll out the PR machine as to why Schache didn't play in the NEAFL final, and there was much discussion here about why.

There's been no concern about Cameron performing to his ability this year at the Lions. However, some members here have speculated whether Schache will find himself in the right head space to perform now that he's back in Melbourne.

I don't think we're disagreeing on the first bit. I think you've agreed with me. I was just trying to use Fatcat's example. I think we're on the same page though.

RE Schache - I can see what you mean about whether he'd even be tradable next year, but realistically, in terms of draft points, he lost 2/3rd of his value already. Depending on factors outside my knowledge (eg. potential retirement, potential mental health issues), with a 2nd year KPF, I might've considered risking it. Sure, you might lose halve his value again, and instead of pick 21 equivalent, you might get pick 41. But he was drafted at 2 for a reason, and if he pulls it together as a third year KPF, you might get that mid first rounder again. It's a risk for sure, but when you've already lost a bunch of his value, there's big upside, but not much more we can lose. As I've said though, the club clearly felt him staying at the Lions wasn't an option, so they offloaded him for a packet of crisps. It was a poor year to do that, but them's the breaks.

And actually, I have significant concerns about Charlie Cameron's ability to make it in Brisbane. He mentally checked out halfway through the season. He's attributed that to location, but what if it's not? What if he's just mentally weak? Sometimes you get to the other side and find that the grass isn't greener, your problems aren't solved, and instead you've just brought them to a new location. Added to that, he's played pretty average footy when he's been mostly unaccountable. He's never had the best small defender running with him, who has always gone straight to Betts. Here, they'll go straight to him. How will he cope with that? We apparently paid that much for him because we think he can run through the mids. That's a huge unknown right there. Basically, the way I see it, we don't know whether he can play as the number 1 small forward, we don't know that he can run in the mids, and we don't know that his problems are behind him. About the only thing we do know is that he's fast, and he kicks more behinds than he does goals. GWS delisted Barrett, because despite being good for a tackle, he couldn't kick straight. Charlie Cameron has a worse conversion rate than Barrett.

 

[briztoon]

I don't think we're disagreeing on the first bit. I think you've agreed with me. I was just trying to use Fatcat's example. I think we're on the same page though.

RE Schache - I can see what you mean about whether he'd even be tradable next year, but realistically, in terms of draft points, he lost 2/3rd of his value already. Depending on factors outside my knowledge (eg. potential retirement, potential mental health issues), with a 2nd year KPF, I might've considered risking it. Sure, you might lose halve his value again, and instead of pick 21 equivalent, you might get pick 41. But he was drafted at 2 for a reason, and if he pulls it together as a third year KPF, you might get that mid first rounder again. It's a risk for sure, but when you've already lost a bunch of his value, there's big upside, but not much more we can lose. As I've said though, the club clearly felt him staying at the Lions wasn't an option, so they offloaded him for a packet of crisps. It was a poor year to do that, but them's the breaks.

And actually, I have significant concerns about Charlie Cameron's ability to make it in Brisbane. He mentally checked out halfway through the season. He's attributed that to location, but what if it's not? What if he's just mentally weak? Sometimes you get to the other side and find that the grass isn't greener, your problems aren't solved, and instead you've just brought them to a new location. Added to that, he's played pretty average footy when he's been mostly unaccountable. He's never had the best small defender running with him, who has always gone straight to Betts. Here, they'll go straight to him. How will he cope with that? We apparently paid that much for him because we think he can run through the mids. That's a huge unknown right there. Basically, the way I see it, we don't know whether he can play as the number 1 small forward, we don't know that he can run in the mids, and we don't know that his problems are behind him. About the only thing we do know is that he's fast, and he kicks more behinds than he does goals. GWS delisted Barrett, because despite being good for a tackle, he couldn't kick straight. Charlie Cameron has a worse conversion rate than Barrett.

If a player has genuine welfare issues, tied to being away from home, and nothing the club can do will make a difference, I'm not holding on to the player for a second longer. As much as it might represent a loss to the club, the players well being supersedes all else. And if reports are true, there was a negative impact on the playing group as whole, best just to cut ties and make the best of bad situation.


As for Charlie Cameron the player. I think we're on the same page there. I'm not overly concerned about Cameron having the opposing teams best small defender played on him. Between Rayner, Robinson, Christensen, Taylor, Cameron and even Zorko, that's a lot of "small" talent running through the forward 50. If an opposing team wants to put their best small defender on defensive forward, best of luck to them.

As for Charlie Cameron the person. From my perspective, until something happens, there's no point being concerned.

 

[lioninthesand]

Before the draft, Fagnob and others from the club kept telling anyone who wanted to listen that Rayner was a special talent AND a terrific personaility.

Yet the doubters were casting aspersions on his "character".

There is still the "endurance" thing but does anyone doubt anymore that we have a great kid who looks and sounds like a competitive beast.

Let's just wait to see if he stays longer than 2 years before we start popping the campaign on 'picking the right kid'.