Brad Lloyd

[Deathly]

Caro Wilson doesn't actually watch football.

 

[scon]

Surely you'd have to actively avoid all things football to be that ignorant.

 

[Freo_4eva]

Watched bits of 360 & On The Couch for the first time in yonks.
Surprised that Slobbo, The Horse Masturbator and the couchers were far more balanced/reasoned in their assessment of the loss and rebuild than our board.
They were measured and strangely objective.

Recruitment generally and the fact that we have only selected two A graders with our last 10 first round picks were identified as the ground zero of our woes.
Edit: just saw that Jonathan Brown said Lloyd would want to lift his game at Carlton.We'd only picked 4 A graders from 10 drafts.

Garry Lyon his usual sly, disingenuous self. Got a bit of Doghorn about him that bloke.

Thought the same thing.. tuned in for once, expecting a bloodbath to make me feel better. Got nothing

 

[FreoMonocle]

To the "draft local" mob.

Say we have pick 6. We have a good local prospect worthy of that pick but on draft night another club takes them ahead of us.

The next local prospect is roughly valued at about 60. Take them with pick 6? That would be muppetry in the extreme. You need to look at all the options across Australia so that you can hopefully secure top talent worthy of that top pick and not just guess as to who you should take instead.

Also, it get's more nuanced than that (life is nuanced, it's rarely black and white). What if all the locals that year are locked down small defenders and you have plenty on the list - but you are critically short of a wingman and could also use a small forward and probably develop a ruckman for the future. Still go for the local?

Recruiters need to look at the whole competition due to those sorts of considerations - and they do. Factors such as go home will be evaluated and if we had the choice between a local ruck and a victorian ruck and they were considered equal, recruitment would take the local ruckman every day of the week and twice on sundays. Where, in hindsight, someone has proved to be overlooked, it's obvious that they had some knock on them at the time that made recruitment hesitate. They are looking at the dedication, character or whatever as an 18 year old prospect, they don't see the star player at 25 who chose to pull up their socks, knuckle down or whatever, let alone going from being reliant on mum driving them to training when she could be bothered, to being at a club and training every day for a living.

 

[tonygeeks]

To the "draft local" mob.

Say we have pick 6. We have a good local prospect worthy of that pick but on draft night another club takes them ahead of us.

The next local prospect is roughly valued at about 60. Take them with pick 6? That would be muppetry in the extreme. You need to look at all the options across Australia so that you can hopefully secure top talent worthy of that top pick and not just guess as to who you should take instead.

Also, it get's more nuanced than that (life is nuanced, it's rarely black and white). What if all the locals that year are locked down small defenders and you have plenty on the list - but you are critically short of a wingman and could also use a small forward and probably develop a ruckman for the future. Still go for the local?

Recruiters need to look at the whole competition due to those sorts of considerations - and they do. Factors such as go home will be evaluated and if we had the choice between a local ruck and a victorian ruck and they were considered equal, recruitment would take the local ruckman every day of the week and twice on sundays. Where, in hindsight, someone has proved to be overlooked, it's obvious that they had some knock on them at the time that made recruitment hesitate. They are looking at the dedication, character or whatever as an 18 year old prospect, they don't see the star player at 25 who chose to pull up their socks, knuckle down or whatever, let alone going from being reliant on mum driving them to training when she could be bothered, to being at a club and training every day for a living.

Trade up when the talents there , trade down when it's not

Not that hard to work out is it ?

When has the first WA player ever been rated at 60


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Purpletown]

I was listening to The Age podcast today and Caroline Wilson's only question seemed to be "Why isn't Ross Lyon playing more younger players?"

She clearly hasn't watched us this year, just glanced at the results.

Caroline Wilson is a muppet. It's fun watching her just to see how stupid she can be.

 

[FreoMonocle]

When has the first WA player ever been rated at 60

Re-read, I said, "We have a good local prospect worthy of that pick but on draft night another club takes them ahead of us". That draftee valued around pick 60 was the 2nd best WA talent in that scenario.

 

[tonygeeks]

Re-read, I said, "We have a good local prospect worthy of that pick but on draft night another club takes them ahead of us". That draftee valued around pick 60 was the 2nd best WA talent in that scenario.

Still a pretty unlikely scenario and that's when you trade it out for a ready made ' bring him home ' deal or on the odd occasion where it's stupid to do that make the smart play. I don think even the most die hard ' buy local ' supporter ( me ) would advocate only drafting WA kids





On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Taylor]

Typical Freo, we know assistant coaches, list manager are looking, hopefully we have been on the front foot aswell.
Up the road Brady Rawlings has announced a few category B players, a 245 game player, previous experience with North.
Who will be the next no name at Freo?

They've had as many games out of their cat-b rookies as we have.

 

[its free real estate]

To the "draft local" mob.

Say we have pick 6. We have a good local prospect worthy of that pick but on draft night another club takes them ahead of us.

The next local prospect is roughly valued at about 60. Take them with pick 6? That would be muppetry in the extreme. You need to look at all the options across Australia so that you can hopefully secure top talent worthy of that top pick and not just guess as to who you should take instead.

Also, it get's more nuanced than that (life is nuanced, it's rarely black and white). What if all the locals that year are locked down small defenders and you have plenty on the list - but you are critically short of a wingman and could also use a small forward and probably develop a ruckman for the future. Still go for the local?

Recruiters need to look at the whole competition due to those sorts of considerations - and they do. Factors such as go home will be evaluated and if we had the choice between a local ruck and a victorian ruck and they were considered equal, recruitment would take the local ruckman every day of the week and twice on sundays. Where, in hindsight, someone has proved to be overlooked, it's obvious that they had some knock on them at the time that made recruitment hesitate. They are looking at the dedication, character or whatever as an 18 year old prospect, they don't see the star player at 25 who chose to pull up their socks, knuckle down or whatever, let alone going from being reliant on mum driving them to training when she could be bothered, to being at a club and training every day for a living.

No one is saying draft local as an absolute preference. What people are arguing is that there are information asymmetries that affect each club in each state differently, and that by basing our head recruiter out of Melbourne instead of Perth we put ourselves at a disadvantage, because we are not based anywhere near Melbourne or Victoria, when there are 10 other clubs that are.

We are less likely to find bargains by scouring Victoria than we are doing the same in WA.

 

[Taylor]

The NGA system increases that advantage. Finding hidden gems in our zones for super late picks guaranteed to get to us.

 

[Freo Shark]

Tayl0r hows the NGA work, are they able to be bid on by others and say go first rounds or are they guaranteed late pics??

 

[Docker82]

Watched bits of 360 & On The Couch for the first time in yonks.
Surprised that Slobbo, The Horse Masturbator and the couchers were far more balanced/reasoned in their assessment of the loss and rebuild than our board.
They were measured and strangely objective.

Recruitment generally and the fact that we have only selected two A graders with our last 10 first round picks were identified as the ground zero of our woes.
Edit: just saw that Jonathan Brown said Lloyd would want to lift his game at Carlton.We'd only picked 4 A graders from 10 drafts.

Garry Lyon his usual sly, disingenuous self. Got a bit of Doghorn about him that bloke.

Who are the two A Graders:

2008: Hill
2009: Morabito
2010: Pitt
2011: Sheridan, Crozier
2012: Simpson
2013: Apeness
2014: Weller
2015: N/A
2016: Logue
2017: Brayshaw, Cerra

You’ve got to ignore the last three as they’ve all played 20 games or less. Hill is the best player there easily. I’d actually take Weller second tbh on current form which is what we should do.

Did they say Fyfe was a first rounder like is normally said because just because he’s a top five player in the competition and was only just a second rounder doesn’t make him a first rounder.

The above list is diabolical really excluding the last three who need more time. Hill and Weller, maybe Crozier the only players who are better than fringe currently and two of them are at another club.

 

[Taylor]

Tayl0r hows the NGA work, are they able to be bid on by others and say go first rounds or are they guaranteed late pics??

At this point they are open to be bid on by anyone and that bid corresponds to a point value, we get a discount (I think it's 20%) and use that with our points of other picks.

Bids after the first round don't get a percentage discount, they get 197 points off the total (which is the discount on pick #18). That's just to keep it simple.

That means pick #54 which is about 194 points is where any bids become free for us.

 

[Dockernut]

Who are the two A Graders:

2008: Hill
2009: Morabito
2010: Pitt
2011: Sheridan, Crozier
2012: Simpson
2013: Apeness
2014: Weller
2015: N/A
2016: Logue
2017: Brayshaw, Cerra

You’ve got to ignore the last three as they’ve all played 20 games or less. Hill is the best player there easily. I’d actually take Weller second tbh on current form which is what we should do.

Did they say Fyfe was a first rounder like is normally said because just because he’s a top five player in the competition and was only just a second rounder doesn’t make him a first rounder.

The above list is diabolical really excluding the last three who need more time. Hill and Weller, maybe Crozier the only players who are better than fringe currently and two of them are at another club.

Gawd that is awful reading.

 

[Big Flappy]

To be fair not all first rounders are equal:

2008: Hill (3)
2009: Morabito (4), Fyfe (20)
2010: Pitt (20)
2011: Sheridan (16), Crozier (20)
2012: Simpson (17)
2013: Apeness (17)
2014: Weller (13)
2015: N/A
2016: Logue (7)
2017: Brayshaw (2), Cerra (5)

 

[Purple Jesus]

Who are the two A Graders:

2008: Hill
2009: Morabito
2010: Pitt
2011: Sheridan, Crozier
2012: Simpson
2013: Apeness
2014: Weller
2015: N/A
2016: Logue
2017: Brayshaw, Cerra

You’ve got to ignore the last three as they’ve all played 20 games or less. Hill is the best player there easily. I’d actually take Weller second tbh on current form which is what we should do.

Did they say Fyfe was a first rounder like is normally said because just because he’s a top five player in the competition and was only just a second rounder doesn’t make him a first rounder.

The above list is diabolical really excluding the last three who need more time. Hill and Weller, maybe Crozier the only players who are better than fringe currently and two of them are at another club.

Yep. Pretty much sums up why we're in this hole. Amazing we're able to do as well has we have been sometimes tbh.

 

[scon]

Who are the two A Graders:

They just made the statement and left the world wondering.

 

[Docker82]

They just made the statement and left the world wondering.

To be fair they said our last 10 first rounders. Hill would be the 11th last first rounder.

Yea I’m not making this any better.

 

[scon]

Yea I’m not making this any better.

None of us can.

Won't surprise me if Lloyd's been guided out the door.

 

[Deathly]

Thanks for the memories.

Spoiler

2008: Hill
2009: Morabito
2010: Pitt
2011: Sheridan, Crozier
2012: Simpson
2013: Apeness
2014: Weller
2015: N/A

 

[FreoMonocle]

No one is saying draft local as an absolute preference. What people are arguing is that there are information asymmetries that affect each club in each state differently, and that by basing our head recruiter out of Melbourne instead of Perth we put ourselves at a disadvantage, because we are not based anywhere near Melbourne or Victoria, when there are 10 other clubs that are.

We are less likely to find bargains by scouring Victoria than we are doing the same in WA.

"No one is saying" - you are speaking for yourself, some have inferred that.

As for the "information asymmetries", we already have a local recruiter and they talk to the feeder clubs, they also get a relatively constant presence of people associated with the club (past and present), particularly at Peel and is further enhanced by the academy - which needs to work closely (and exclusively for academy purposes) with the feeder teams in half the state. So the local relationships are already serviced in a way that favours us over any club in the east.

The list manager job is not the same as the local recruiter, it is a managerial job and takes the work done by the underlings, it is not a sit in the park with binoculars on Saturday job (though they'd be a mug if they didn't do a bit of it and just sat in the ivory tower). It includes player trades - and the teams involved are in the east (we scarcely trade with WCE), the big player management companies are based in the east. They would be flying interstate for meetings with their staff members, agents, other teams for trades deals irrespective of being based in Melbourne or Perth, most of the conversation being done the usual way in any national organisation-phone/email/sms.

There are thousands of kids playing footy across the country, that's why it's a team and a manager overseeing recruitment, the same as the sales manager overseeing a team of account managers or similar. So, even if the manager job was in Perth, they are not going to be hanging out with the local feeder teams as a part of their job in the way people seem to be thinking they would, trying to get local bargains.

But the biggest thing overlooked. There is little secret information involved with the draftees, they play out in the public for all to see, particularly congregated into state teams, draft combines and similar. So it is as simple as this, if it's your turn on draft night, you take the best available player or the best that fills a particular need out of the whole draft, factoring in flight risk/medical history/every other consideration, you play a trump card if you want because of father/son or academy. So you need to assess all of the draftees - and so does every other team because it's not a shop where you just get what you want within your budget, you only get to choose from what is available at the time of your pick.

 

[its free real estate]

There is little secret information involved with the draftees, they play out in the public for all to see, particularly congregated into state teams, draft combines and similar.

There is no perfect information available to all buyers in any market, let alone one with as much variability as a drafting market. It is foolish to think that the information a list manager has access to in Melbourne is the same he has in Perth, and that it doesn't vary by the club he's attached to.

Regardless, no other club does it aside from us, and it hasn't succeeded. What makes you think it can succeed?

 

[Taylor]

If the person in at the head of recruiting can have access to all information regardless of location, due to the subordinates fully exploring it for them, then the person in that head recruiting position is functionally redundant. They are a rubber stamp of management.

 

[Dockernut]

If the person in at the head of recruiting can have access to all information regardless of location, due to the subordinates fully exploring it for them, then the person in that head recruiting position is functionally redundant. They are a rubber stamp of management.

Like saying a footballer of ball-kicking.

Rubber stamping of other peoples work is all I’ve ever known Management to do.