Drafting

[sr36]

I think you make a good point on relativity - people criticise Hine in complete isolation without regard to results achieved by other club recruiters.
I don’t think I’ve seen any one of his critics give a serious assessment of performance in this context.

I don't think I've seen any one of his supporters give an assessment at all of his last decade of draftees. 2012-2018 was not good under any metric.

 

[jackcass]

I don't think I've seen any one of his supporters give an assessment at all of his last decade of draftees. 2012-2018 was not good under any metric.

I went through it at length when I still was posting on Nicks. Go hunt that down.

I should add that I've always been a draft over trade person.

 

[sr36]

I went through it at length when I still was posting on Nicks. Go hunt that down.

I should add that I've always been a draft over trade person.

Sorry I'm going to pass in terms of looking it up. I was a Hine fan for a long time too, but:

Here's a very basic overview of 2012-2018. (Too early for the last two drafts.) Only looking at open draft not academy types.
Off the top of my head he had these picks 5,6,6,10,18,19,20 - a fair few in the 30s and a million late picks.
From that he got the following hits: Langers, Maynard, Phillips, JDG, Mihocek, Stepho, Grundy.

We've since lost 3 of them. There's the hole in our team right there - we currently have only 4 blokes that we drafted in the open draft over the years that should be the core of our team. Yes it's a very simple overview that doesn't factor in the strength of each draft year, or whether some of it was just bad luck, but I struggle to see how anyone can think we got value for our picks over that time frame.

 

[No SPIN]

I don't think I've seen any one of his supporters give an assessment at all of his last decade of draftees. 2012-2018 was not good under any metric.

not good compared to whom?
Given the numbers here who think he’s done badly it’s a very reasonable question.
Aren’t you also interested in the relatively?
It would be far more objective and enlightening to see how Hine stacks up against others.

 

[nahnah]

Overall though, I think our drafting over that period has been as good as any team.

I am surprised by this considering you have made it well known you don't rate two of our most successful picks of this era in Stephenson and Phillips

 

[sr36]

not good compared to whom?
Given the numbers here who think he’s done badly it’s a very reasonable question.
Aren’t you also interested in the relatively?
It would be far more objective and enlightening to see how Hine stacks up against others.

Ok. I'll look it up for you when I have time. But considering we had these picks in the open draft over the time frame 2012-18: 5,6,6,10,18,19,20. Plus a few in the 30s and a heap of late picks, yet currently only have Grundy, Mihocek, JDG and Maynard to show for it - Langers, Phillips and Stepho are the only other hits - I'm very confident that a comparison won't be flattering to Dekka.

 

[jackcass]

Sorry I'm going to pass in terms of looking it up. I was a Hine fan for a long time too, but:

Here's a very basic overview of 2012-2018. (Too early for the last two drafts.) Only looking at open draft not academy types.
Off the top of my head he had these picks 5,6,6,10,18,19,20 - a fair few in the 30s and a million late picks.
From that he got the following hits: Langers, Maynard, Phillips, JDG, Mihocek, Stepho, Grundy.

We've since lost 3 of them. There's the hole in our team right there - we currently have only 4 blokes that we drafted in the open draft over the years that should be the core of our team. Yes it's a very simple overview that doesn't factor in the strength of each draft year, or whether some of it was just bad luck, but I struggle to see how anyone can think we got value for our picks over that time frame.

You've posted elsewhere, basic is an understatement.

 

[jackcass]

I am surprised by this considering you have made it well known you don't rate two of our most successful picks of this era in Stephenson and Phillips

Happy for you to show me where I've suggested I didn't rate them.

 

[sr36]

You've posted elsewhere, basic is an understatement.

Yes I have and yes it is basic. It would take an incredibly complicated analysis to try to argue that we drafted well between 2012-2018, because without going into depth -the results look very thin from a pretty standard batch of picks, whilst we traded some early ones out - we also traded some early ones in.

 

[jackcass]

Yes I have and yes it is basic. It would take an incredibly complicated analysis to try to argue that we drafted well between 2012-2018, because without going into depth -the results look very thin from a pretty standard batch of picks, whilst we traded some early ones out - we also traded some early ones in.

The original post where I suggested "as good as anyone" was 2015 - 2019. You're the 1 who has arbitrarily shifted the goal posts to 2012-2018 which brings the Scharenberg and Freeman selections into it. From memory it doesn't skew our standing on the "as good as anyone" continuum too much as it also captures JDG & Moore & Cox via the RD in 2014. But getting next 2 zero return from 2x top 10 picks is always going to hurt.

But it does beg the question, why not 2008-2020?

As I say, I've done some pretty intensive draft/list analysis when on Nicks which included trades etc. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so again.

 

[sr36]

The original post where I suggested "as good as anyone" was 2015 - 2019. You're the 1 who has arbitrarily shifted the goal posts to 2012-2018 which brings the Scharenberg and Freeman selections into it. From memory it doesn't skew our standing on the "as good as anyone" continuum too much as it also captures JDG & Moore & Cox via the RD in 2014. But getting next 2 zero return from 2x top 10 picks is always going to hurt.

But it does beg the question, why not 2008-2020?

As I say, I've done some pretty intensive draft/list analysis when on Nicks which included trades etc. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so again.

I don't think I saw your original post. I certainly wouldn't include 2019/20 - becasue at this stage who the hell knows. I went back to 2012, because it's the lack of drafting success from then until 2018 that has left a massive shortage of senior blokes in the 21-28 - the age group that usually dominates teams.
In terms of going back to 2008, Dekka was very successful in his early years. His criteria worked. He picked blokes who were the best and smartest footballers, regardless of athleticism - gems like Pendles, Sidey and Beams. But footy has changed and athleticism has become more important. I think he stuck with his criteria for far too long. He missed the focus on elite kicking that saw the Hawks dominate. He missed the focus on speed that saw the Tigers dominate. He gave us a lot of solid and smart footballers without that much athleticism - blokes who would go alright on the wing but you'd be a bit concerned about them in defence or up forward due to pace.

I like Dekka and think his approach is excellent, but I think he's worked with the wrong criteria and we've paid the price. Chugg and McCreery are really pleasing selections for me, as they're not really the Hine type - I hope it means that the Hine criteria has changed; however, I'm not confident as he said in an interview that at that point of the draft he'd switch to drafting for needs. His best available criteria gave us Henry, Macrae and Poulter - who all sound very talented, but they also sound athletically average. Basically, I think he's drafted too many blokes who are athletically questionable and thus our role players are weak.

 

[mwhop]

people saying ned guy inherited the problems on the list
even so, what has happened in the last 2 years with trading and list management is totally inept

 

[Knightmare]

Is it time to review Hine's position? These are our picks since our strong 2014 draft:

2015:
Pick 32 - Brayden Sier
Pick 58 - Tom Phillips (good pick but traded for pick 60+ 5 years later)
Pick 63 - Rupert Wills (delisted)
Pick 65 - Ben Crocker (delisted)

2016:
Pick 30 - Sam McClarty (delisted)
Pick 35 - Callum Brown
Pick 50 - Kayle Kirby (retired)
Pick 57 - Josh Daicos (good pick but gift wrapped to us)

2017:
Pick 6 - Jaidyn Stephenson (traded for a second rounder a few years later)
Pick 39 - Nathan Murphy (Has played 2 games so far)
Pick 57 - Tyler Brown (another gift wrapped player)

2018:
Pick 13 - Isaac Quaynor (gift)
Pick 29 - Will Kelly (gift)
Pick 77 - Atu Bosenavulagi (traded out as steak knives)

2019:
Pick 40 - Jay Rantall (hasn't played yet)
Pick 45 - Trent Bianco (hasn't played yet)
Pick 55 - Trey Ruscoe (has played a few games)

It's obviously even worse if you factor in the trading out of firsts for Beams + Treloar

I've actually completed a video just last night covering my top-100 players from the 2016-2020 drafts. To give a spoiler, the Pies are the only club without a player I categorised as top-50 during that period of time. With a few of the past Pies who have moved inside my top-100 in Stephenson and Phillips, both of whom I still rate.

Through the draft, Collingwood's involvement has actually been minimal. Lots of F/S picks, lots of NGA picks. Lots of trading out of early picks. Nick Daicos who is coming through this year is another in that long line of picks that are chosen for us and means again minimal involvement expected again this offseason.

My understanding of Collingwood's recruiting department is that it's smaller in size than the vast majority of clubs which won't have helped with results and suggests to me Derek probably doesn't have enough support around him.

I'm not necessarily down on Collingwood's drafting as much as Collingwood's salary cap management and trading/free agency decisions - both in those coming and going. I see that as where Collingwood has gotten absolutely killed over this recent stretch of years. Be it the Beams trade (back in), Treloar trade (out), Stephenson (out), Phillips (out), Witts (out). I could go on, and did in my: The Fundamental List Management Mistakes Collingwood have made and need to learn from video.

My view with Collingwood's list at the present time is there are roughly 13 worthwhile best-22 players with the rest of the 22 consisting of guys I'd rather not have to see play in a given week. My hope is a lot of the youth helps with that and a few of those from the last two drafts come through and prove to be additional worthwhile pieces.

As a general strategy, as I feel clubs put too many resources into scouting the u18s, relative to rival talent and state league talent, I'd like to see a redistribution of resources. Absolutely know the early draft talent inside out and know who of those is best, use those those early picks, but from there late and rookie draft I see routinely value in mature agers, and I'm also seeing underutilised players on rival lists everywhere who could slot into Collingwood's best-22 along with many of others, without coming at any major cost. If you know how to find those guys, you can really quickly and at little cost to the salary cap or in terms of assets (picks/players) improve your list, and also do so not just over the short term, but also the medium and long term.

 

[Robroy22]

Knight have u ever offered your services to CFC in this sort of capacity?
Start off volunteering move up later?

You seem to have the goods?

 

[jackcass]

Knight have u ever offered your services to CFC in this sort of capacity?
Start off volunteering move up later?

You seem to have the goods?

I like his write ups but he gets as many wrong as anyone else.

 

[stormskye]

Other than callow who are we getting mid season? .

after this team announcement, and looking at how weak we are despite being full strength For the first time in years , I need some hope..

 

[Knightmare]

Knight have u ever offered your services to CFC in this sort of capacity?
Start off volunteering move up later?

You seem to have the goods?

I enjoy the things I do currently.

Writing for ESPN, making YouTube videos, engaging with people on YouTube, Twitter, Bigfooty. I'd miss that, and I'd miss the flexibility to see the games I want to see, at the pace I want to see them, at the locations I'd like to attend, and to be able to be a generalist rather than just specialising in one particular thing.

I also have a full time position outside of all the footy stuff I do and enjoy the variety in my week.

I'm happy for any club to reach out if they'd like my opinion on how to fill a particular need/for an opinion on a particular player, but ultimately my work is all public so my opinions are pretty easy to find anyway.

I'm not going to say I'd never consider an opportunity in clubland, but if I did it would be likely in some kind of external advisory role as I don't at this stage intend to give up on any of the things I'm doing until a lack of time puts a stop to my flat-out but thoroughly enjoyable schedule.

 

[Knightmare]

I like his write ups but he gets as many wrong as anyone else.

Make enough calls over time and you'll get some and you'll miss some.

For those wanting to see my record with my biggest hits and misses from my 12 years covering the draft I completed a 3 1/2 hour video titled "My biggest hits and misses in my 12 years covering the AFL Draft." and people can decide on my credentials or otherwise.

While many might not realise this, but even more-so than my drafting, I have always fancied my opposition talent ID even more highly, so I may in the future have to go through a lot of my old trade ideas and do a similar video where I keep myself accountable and call myself out on both my hits, but equally my misses and those key learnings from that.

Other than callow who are we getting mid season? .

after this team announcement, and looking at how weak we are despite being full strength For the first time in years , I need some hope..

I'd be comfortable with Callow, but it wouldn't be surprising for Collingwood among other clubs to pick other overagers, and possibly some who will pop up into our awareness and come good this year. Possibly a late bloomer or two.

In my ESPN piece today in answering this year's biggest AFL draft questions, I covered off on those I considered unluckiest. The other four would also be worth tracking in: Logan Young (tall, high motor, high % contested ball winning mid), Jackson Cardillo (high % contested ball winner with explosiveness), Zavier Maher (explosive and classy mid) and Max Pescud (athletic but talented forward).

In saying that though, the % play typically is with mature agers, so I wouldn't be closing my mind to that also. Collingwood have room for another 7 good starting 22 calibre pieces, so if there is a good piece who is already playing to an AFL standard and can slot straight in, that could be the way to go.

 

[Billys Back]

Hine is no longer list manager so we shouldn't be judging his ongoing employment as a recruiter as such. The only thing of relevance is his ability to identify talent and he's in the best 3 or 4 in the league at that. I'm not arguing he didn't do dumb sh*t as list manager, but what seems to go over heads is that the club already addressed that by removing him from the role a couple of years back. Hine is a good recruiter, and with Wright as head of the football department, I think he will get some different strategic direction in terms of how we approach the draft. Hine doesn't work in a silo.

But is he in the best 3 or 4 in the league in terms of talent ID? I don’t think he is at all.

And no he doesn’t work in a silo, but he is ultimately responsible as head of the department.

 

[Billys Back]

Make enough calls over time and you'll get some and you'll miss some.

For those wanting to see my record with my biggest hits and misses from my 12 years covering the draft I completed a 3 1/2 hour video titled "My biggest hits and misses in my 12 years covering the AFL Draft." and people can decide on my credentials or otherwise.

While many might not realise this, but even more-so than my drafting, I have always fancied my opposition talent ID even more highly, so I may in the future have to go through a lot of my old trade ideas and do a similar video where I keep myself accountable and call myself out on both my hits, but equally my misses and those key learnings from that.



I'd be comfortable with Callow, but it wouldn't be surprising for Collingwood among other clubs to pick other overagers, and possibly some who will pop up into our awareness and come good this year. Possibly a late bloomer or two.

In my ESPN piece today in answering this year's biggest AFL draft questions, I covered off on those I considered unluckiest. The other four would also be worth tracking in: Logan Young (tall, high motor, high % contested ball winning mid), Jackson Cardillo (high % contested ball winner with explosiveness), Zavier Maher (explosive and classy mid) and Max Pescud (athletic but talented forward).

In saying that though, the % play typically is with mature agers, so I wouldn't be closing my mind to that also. Collingwood have room for another 7 good starting 22 calibre pieces, so if there is a good piece who is already playing to an AFL standard and can slot straight in, that could be the way to go.

Knightmare, I think it’s also fair to point out that you have achieved good results while not being employed to identify talent, and it not being your full-time role. So, it can be argued that as a full-time

One suggestion I would make is 3.5hrs is a long time haha. Can it be reduced to 5-10minutes?

 

[manicpie]

But is he in the best 3 or 4 in the league in terms of talent ID? I don’t think he is at all.

And no he doesn’t work in a silo, but he is ultimately responsible as head of the department.

You are correct, he is not in the top 3 or 4 in the league, if he was we would have won more than one flag in his time. Actually, I thinkl he seems to be past his use by date well and truely.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare, I think it’s also fair to point out that you have achieved good results while not being employed to identify talent, and it not being your full-time role. So, it can be argued that as a full-time

One suggestion I would make is 3.5hrs is a long time haha. Can it be reduced to 5-10minutes?

I wanted to keep myself accountable, go comprehensive and put it all out there - both on the positive and on the negative as there is always a great deal of interest in my hits and misses and I see value in getting both out there and going into depth so that I can cover my own learning progression and those key things I've learnt from. And like everyone, of course I didn't know everything from the start, and there is always more to learn which is all part of the fun. Hopefully by doing all this, I can help others as well as myself from doing the reflection. But there are timestamps, so you can just flick around based on what you want to jump to and you can visually just see all the names there of those hits and misses if you want to scroll through them, and those best and worst accordingly. And for those who want to take in all of it, YouTube offers x2 speed which I find I use for everything these days.

I'm obviously not full time covering junior talent, as I have an unrelated full time gig, so I don't see as many junior games as the full time junior talent watchers do and I don't get access to nearly the same resources or anything that the public don't, so given that, I'm more than happy with my strike rate, which is pretty competitive without any of that anyway. If I was armed with all of Champion Data's stuff, maybe I could outperform? Who knows. I find the more I have in the way of stats and historical stats, any measurements and historical measures, it really helps and makes projecting ahead a lot more accurate.

What I do find interesting with my drafting v clubs is over the years is I've consistently outperformed them in KPP talent ID. Other positions, on average, clubs beat me, but not with talls. In my video 'The secrets behind how I select key position players than AFL clubs and where they should go.' I go through those names that I have gotten and clubs respectively have gotten over me, and it's really surprising how far ahead my ID has been the whole time. And in there I go into why I outperform and how clubs can approach drafting of key position player to improve their results quite dramatically.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Melbourne certainly drafted themselves a class little player with Kysaiah Picket at 12 in 2019!

 

[Jelly Bean]

Drafting has been one thing, but I agree with an earlier poster - the trading is the thing that I think has been the worst. Giving up so many early picks for players that didn’t work out, and getting low value back for players that went on to work out well (Witts was a good call out earlier). Outside of the first beams trade, I can’t think of a trade that we have really clearly won.

 

[Jelly Bean]

I like his write ups but he gets as many wrong as anyone else.

I’d say fewer wrong than most, but either way his posts and effort are extremely appreciated not just by this community but the broader Bigfooty community.