Delisted 8: Ben "Goblin" Hobbs - Delisted - 20/10

[VelvetSledge]

Contract Status: Out of contract 2025
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 12, Schnitzengruben

 

[King Patty]

Some how the version of Hobbs who is 6'5, 90kgs with top level endurance and inside hardness/intensity to match (i.e. Ned Long) fell all the way to the rookie draft. We can't keep letting these recruiters off based on Cal Toomey's phantom draft. The philosophy is so obviously flawed.

And Long was delisted by Hawks before being redrafted.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

The issue is it’s hard to tell what an 18yo will turn into in 3 years time. It’s not like US sports where players are drafted in their 20s after several years in a professional environment and are mostly known quantities.

To be fair to local recruiters even NFL a lot of top picks still bomb out even after starring from 18-22 in College

 

[doug85]

Fair call , but I don't think anyone at the time would have contemplated calling his name at pick 13. My comments were in the context of saying the selection of Hobbs at that pick can't be called a Dodoro shocker.

Agree.

A few teams tried to trade up to get our pick to take Hobbs too. Pretty sure Richmond offered pick 18 and an F1. I think the dees were interested too?

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Drafting for need rather than for “best player available” might see better results.

Looking back the reactive drafting / recruiting and inability to evolve has been very average. The game has changed a bit over the last few years which hasn’t helped. Not long ago we were bemoaning the need for a “midfield bull” and nowadays they are really that important.

Reactive is the best way to describe it.

 

[King Patty]

Hobbs slimmed down to play the HFF role.
never given opportunities to play inside mid....

His kicking let him down....sometimes kick a goal, sometimes miss everything or not make the distance from 30m out.
Also Brad didn't give him a lot of opportunity, similar to Tsatas dominate VFL midfield, but not given same opportunity at AFL level.

I think Hobbs will get a chance somewhere - likely Eagles, or will be given a SSP train on opportunity like VOSS got.
If not, maybe he goes to WAFL or SANFL and dominates and gets back onto a list in the MSD.

I guess hes a bit similar to Will Phillips, a bit of a man child, couldn't break tackles like he could at Under 19 level and found out to a degree. But you also have blokes like him that play a role and contribute.

 

[eth-dog]

Agree.

A few teams tried to trade up to get our pick to take Hobbs too. Pretty sure Richmond offered pick 18 and an F1. I think the dees were interested too?

Richmond offered 17 and 28.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Hobbs slimmed down to play the HFF role.
never given opportunities to play inside mid....

His kicking let him down....sometimes kick a goal, sometimes miss everything or not make the distance from 30m out.
Also Brad didn't give him a lot of opportunity, similar to Tsatas dominate VFL midfield, but not given same opportunity at AFL level.

I think Hobbs will get a chance somewhere - likely Eagles, or will be given a SSP train on opportunity like VOSS got.
If not, maybe he goes to WAFL or SANFL and dominates and gets back onto a list in the MSD.

I guess hes a bit similar to Will Phillips, a bit of a man child, couldn't break tackles like he could at Under 19 level and found out to a degree. But you also have blokes like him that play a role and contribute.

He got some stints in the midfield but he wasn’t as good as Caldwell, Durham etc

I gather Scott liked his endeavour though so he was given games in the forward line

 

[fairbump_playon]

They told us Will Phillips was a gun and Jye Clarke, too. Tsatas had star potential. Why are recruiters getting away with telling us with players who clearly do not have the tools to be elite AFL players are worthy of being early picks?

You're correct that they're often getting it wrong

But they get away with it because no-one else is getting it right. Twomey gets the phantom draft right because he accurately reports what clubs are thinking & planning, not because he has actually rated the talent.

The questions to be answered are would a paradigm shift in rating players deliver better results.. or is recruiting kids based on 17yo form just always going to be a tough exercise?

Not helped because we have a very uneven "feeder" system across junior comps. The national champs is the only time the best play each other. It's a few games in a fortnight.

We have 18 clubs doing everything they can to gain a competitive edge. If there was a simple solve surely at least one brilliant club would find that edge and surge ahead in terms of draft success.

 

[King Patty]

Those who go away from consensus often get ridiculed as well.

 

[ant555]

Hobbs slimmed down to play the HFF role.
never given opportunities to play inside mid....

His kicking let him down....sometimes kick a goal, sometimes miss everything or not make the distance from 30m out.
Also Brad didn't give him a lot of opportunity, similar to Tsatas dominate VFL midfield, but not given same opportunity at AFL level.

I think Hobbs will get a chance somewhere - likely Eagles, or will be given a SSP train on opportunity like VOSS got.
If not, maybe he goes to WAFL or SANFL and dominates and gets back onto a list in the MSD.

I guess hes a bit similar to Will Phillips, a bit of a man child, couldn't break tackles like he could at Under 19 level and found out to a degree. But you also have blokes like him that play a role and contribute.

Not sure he slimmed down to play half forward. It was more catch 22. Be a bit stronger or try and build some sort of tank to suite how the game has gone.

 

[BrunoV]

Drafting for need rather than for “best player available” might see better results.

Looking back the reactive drafting / recruiting and inability to evolve has been very average. The game has changed a bit over the last few years which hasn’t helped. Not long ago we were bemoaning the need for a “midfield bull” and nowadays they are really that important.

I think that's a big part of it. I have no doubt that carefully targeted needs based recruiting was the source of Wells' recruiting 'genius'. It seems that for the vast majority of young players who come onto Geelong's list there is always a clear plan - and the players are usually a very good fit for that plan. It's a bit different with the mature agers they take on as immediately useful functional depth (e.g. Atkins, Martin and Mannagh).

The reason that I am not prepared to accept recruiting genius even at Geelong is because it seems that they make the same mistakes early in drafts that other clubs do. Getting the 'best available', accumulating the talent, doesn't seem to work even for their well oiled machine. It seems to me to be the common theme for Clarke and Cooper Stevens. Even if Bruhn wasn't experiencing his legal troubles he'd likely be seen similarly. It seems that reputation is the key factor in the recruitment of these players. It doesn't make sense that their rate of converting top picks into quality players is lower than the rate for later picks unless they approach the task differently - and I think there is a lot to suggest that they do.

When they took a calculated punt on a raw athlete in 2020 who can provide that burst around stoppages they've got a player they bring into the game at half back, because of those athletic qualities, to develop as a mid. They certainly didn't recruit Holmes because of his record.

I want to believe that when you're recruiting for needs that the discussion is broadened. If you need a meat axe inside mid to play as a battering ram, the first thing to do is to identify the inside mids who fit the criteria - their reputation is not really relevant. You're then weighing up the competing qualities. It is clear that this never happened with Hobbs and Long because there is no conceivable way that anyone could have considered Hobbs a better option - let alone a top pick at the same time Long was a rookie. Every one of the attributes Long has for the role is significantly better. His issue was exposed form or so I am led to believe - it can't really have been kicking because Hobbs can't kick either.

It seems to me that first round recruiting is about recruiting players in the anointed range more than it is about identifying players suited to AFL football. It is not always a problem because it will follow that players who are really well suited to AFL football will establish themselves at the top of the class. But it is far too regularly an issue. The intercept defenders really illustrated the point for a while from about 2020 as a group of players who could not play any role other than as Jake Lever found their way into top 10 calculations and have all struggled in the senior system because they don't have the physical capacity or ability to play 1v1. The intercept game can be developed, the physical characteristics to play on key forwards cannot.

And Long was delisted by Hawks before being redrafted.

I put this down to a tactical issue. They've let Worpel go to Geelong and McGinness has fallen out of the team. They just tried to trade Hustwaite to us. Even their choice of Merrett suggests that they don't intend to to set up for an inside slog any time soon.

Collingwood clearly always liked Long - he played VFL for the Pies in the 6 months between his delisting and getting back into the system. He's basically played every game he has been fit to play for the Collingwood senior team. It was not as though he was taking the VFL apart for 6 months, proving something which Collingwood didn't already know. His numbers at Hawthorn VFL dropped because he was playing different roles.

I'm not even trying to claim any special insight. 194cm, 90kg inside mids with endurance running closer to wingmen than not will always work at AFL level as long as they have demonstrated a basic feel for the game. Ned Long being able to play AFL was the most obvious thing ever.

 

[jannissary]

I think that's a big part of it. I have no doubt that carefully targeted needs based recruiting was the source of Wells' recruiting 'genius'. It seems that for the vast majority of young players who come onto Geelong's list there is always a clear plan - and the players are usually a very good fit for that plan. It's a bit different with the mature agers they take on as immediately useful functional depth (e.g. Atkins, Martin and Mannagh).

The reason that I am not prepared to accept recruiting genius even at Geelong is because it seems that they make the same mistakes early in drafts that other clubs do. Getting the 'best available', accumulating the talent, doesn't seem to work even for their well oiled machine. It seems to me to be the common theme for Clarke and Cooper Stevens. Even if Bruhn wasn't experiencing his legal troubles he'd likely be seen similarly. It seems that reputation is the key factor in the recruitment of these players. It doesn't make sense that their rate of converting top picks into quality players is lower than the rate for later picks unless they approach the task differently - and I think there is a lot to suggest that they do.

When they took a calculated punt on a raw athlete in 2020 who can provide that burst around stoppages they've got a player they bring into the game at half back, because of those athletic qualities, to develop as a mid. They certainly didn't recruit Holmes because of his record.

I want to believe that when you're recruiting for needs that the discussion is broadened. If you need a meat axe inside mid to play as a battering ram, the first thing to do is to identify the inside mids who fit the criteria - their reputation is not really relevant. You're then weighing up the competing qualities. It is clear that this never happened with Hobbs and Long because there is no conceivable way that anyone could have considered Hobbs a better option - let alone a top pick at the same time Long was a rookie. Every one of the attributes Long has for the role is significantly better. His issue was exposed form or so I am led to believe - it can't really have been kicking because Hobbs can't kick either.

It seems to me that first round recruiting is about recruiting players in the anointed range more than it is about identifying players suited to AFL football. It is not always a problem because it will follow that players who are really well suited to AFL football will establish themselves at the top of the class. But it is far too regularly an issue. The intercept defenders really illustrated the point for a while from about 2020 as a group of players who could not play any role other than as Jake Lever found their way into top 10 calculations and have all struggled in the senior system because they don't have the physical capacity or ability to play 1v1. The intercept game can be developed, the physical characteristics to play on key forwards cannot.



I put this down to a tactical issue. They've let Worpel go to Geelong and McGinness has fallen out of the team. They just tried to trade Hustwaite to us. Even their choice of Merrett suggests that they don't intend to to set up for an inside slog any time soon.

Collingwood clearly always liked Long - he played VFL for the Pies in the 6 months between his delisting and getting back into the system. He's basically played every game he has been fit to play for the Collingwood senior team. It was not as though he was taking the VFL apart for 6 months, proving something which Collingwood didn't already know. His numbers at Hawthorn VFL dropped in the twos because he was playing different roles.

begs to ask the question - do we draft them too early? would another 2 years playing in systems (or 3, even) like the VFL et al. prepare them better for the AFL? i can recall during my undergrad seeing people around the university wearing club polos and the like who i could recognise as freshly drafted AFL players, which gives those who don't make it an opportunity for life after football if it doesn't work out. as mentioned with geelong, playwers like atkins, mannagh etc debuted late in their careers (23, 26/7 respectively) and have become great role players in a good team.

 

[BrunoV]

You're correct that they're often getting it wrong

But they get away with it because no-one else is getting it right. Twomey gets the phantom draft right because he accurately reports what clubs are thinking & planning, not because he has actually rated the talent.

The questions to be answered are would a paradigm shift in rating players deliver better results.. or is recruiting kids based on 17yo form just always going to be a tough exercise?

Not helped because we have a very uneven "feeder" system across junior comps. The national champs is the only time the best play each other. It's a few games in a fortnight.

We have 18 clubs doing everything they can to gain a competitive edge. If there was a simple solve surely at least one brilliant club would find that edge and surge ahead in terms of draft success.

I've addressed a lot of this above using Geelong as an example and I don't have any more time to get into detail.

It seems very clear to me that even the best seem to get sucked into recruiting based on reputation which is what creates the lottery. Geelong basically doesn't miss when it recruits players for a specific purpose (i.e. an open slot in its best 22). Who had Shannon Neale as one of the leading young KPFs in the game 4 years ago?

It's going to get really nasty if Toby Conway can get his body right when their new ruck tandem becomes Conway doing the bulk of the lifting with Mitch Edwards replacing the utility role of Blicavs.

 

[katana]

I put this down to a tactical issue. They've let Worpel go to Geelong and McGinness has fallen out of the team. They just tried to trade Hustwaite to us. Even their choice of Merrett suggests that they don't intend to to set up for an inside slog any time soon.

I think they're just backing in crusher nash as a big contested player and prefer to use the other slots on day, newcombe, ward, etc.

 

[Darealrath]

He gave poor man's Joel Selwood vibes (and I mean that as a compliment) when he started but just never progressed.

All the best to him. Could see him dominating at state league level if he goes down that path.

 

[Nicholas61]

And Long was delisted by Hawks before being redrafted.

Bruno is on record here rating him at the time he was at the Hawks reserves and talked about his scope to go to the next level.

 

[King Patty]

Bruno is on record here rating him at the time he was at the Hawks reserves and talked about his scope to go to the next level.

I rated him as a rookie in his draft year, and also when hawks delisted him......mainly due to wanting a taller/bigger mid to tag the likes of Cripps etc.

 

[BrunoV]

begs to ask the question - do we draft them too early? would another 2 years playing in systems (or 3, even) like the VFL et al. prepare them better for the AFL? i can recall during my undergrad seeing people around the university wearing club polos and the like who i could recognise as freshly drafted AFL players, which gives those who don't make it an opportunity for life after football if it doesn't work out. as mentioned with geelong, playwers like atkins, mannagh etc debuted late in their careers (23, 26/7 respectively) and have become great role players in a good team.

I don't think it would make that much of a difference. I've been following Italian soccer more closely than AFL for a few years now and it seems to me that there are many of the same issues (which are not reflected elsewhere).

The problem there is the same as a lot of our first round recruiting. Large parts of the youth set up have become dedicated to satisfying tactical obsession of a coaching philosophy that has slowly suffocated Italian soccer to death. You can see it manifest a lot in many of the underage rep teams where the teams that are selected bear no resemblance to the formations played at senior level, with players that have very few senior-analogues. Slow full backs, goal poaching strikers and small #10s who are not physical. But they can be part of a tactical system to win or place in a junior tournament which wont expose the obsolescence of the style of player selected.

It's very easy to track who the good juniors are. Look for the guys who resemble quality senior players and ignore the ones that don't. But you have to ignore the hype machine that goes into overdrive with average players like Baldanzi, Parisi and pretty much anyone else produced by the Empoli academy (which is basically Essendon level of talent identification - obsolete).

Goal poaching strikers are the easiest to ignore. There is always some kid bagging stacks of goals at junior level but there largely tap-ins. Senior sides, and almost all of the side in the race for European spots, rarely plays guys like that any more so there isn't really any quality these kids have that translates to a higher level. You also need to build in an allowance for a lower rate of scoring for the bigger kids who are drilled to a fault to become a part of the build-up and play in tactical ways that drag them away from scoring opportunities. They're the ones who make it and they start scoring more heavily in senior sides where they can form part of a functioning system.

The current top European nations seems to have no difficulty progressing the top juniors from much younger ages all the way into senior sides. It gets a bit tricker with Italy because finances and out-of-date coaching attitudes mean that younger players are left in limbo for longer, once they emerge out of the youth academies. So there is also an increased lag time but when Casadei, for example, finally ends up back in Italy at 22/23, he hits the ground running and clearly establishes himself as one of the top Italian mids (to anyone paying attention beyond the historical top 3 or 4 teams). There was never really any doubt. It will be the same Ndour and a stack of others who have been forgotten and who I wont trouble you with.

 

[brutus76]

He can find the footy.

Biggest deficiencies IMO were his kicking and slow decision making (no footy brains or instinct).

I think a team will take him as an extractor inside shovelling out handball a where little to no thinking is required.

 

[Moo]

Apologies for the intrusion but it's offseason so I'm bored.

From my posting (Freo) snip from the time of draft.



Hobbs was rated highly - sometimes they just don't work out.

 

[FlyingV]

Apologies for the intrusion but it's offseason so I'm bored.

From my posting (Freo) snip from the time of draft.

View attachment 2462820

Hobbs was rated highly - sometimes they just don't work out.

I just reckon there is a buyer beware warning for anyone planning on using a top pick on a midfielder that doesnt have legspeed/ability to cover the ground well. See Hobbs, Erasmus, Will Brodie… might be putting Tsatas in that bucket too.

 

[Lore]

I just reckon there is a buyer beware warning for anyone planning on using a top pick on a midfielder that doesnt have legspeed/ability to cover the ground well. See Hobbs, Erasmus, Will Brodie… might be putting Tsatas in that bucket too.

Setterfield.

All the ones Dodoro tracked after their drafts and tried to get back later

 

[Foxx]

I just reckon there is a buyer beware warning for anyone planning on using a top pick on a midfielder that doesnt have legspeed/ability to cover the ground well. See Hobbs, Erasmus, Will Brodie… might be putting Tsatas in that bucket too.

They would have all faired a whole lot better before all the rule changes, which support outside runners now. If a player doesn't have outside speed and good foot skills these days, they most likely wont make it.

The best list management are those that keep a close eye on changes and anomalies in the game. And make decisions on players based on that.
I feel we've been 1 step behind in the past.

 

[FlyingV]

They would have all faired a whole lot better before all the rule changes, which support outside runners now. If a player doesn't have outside speed and good foot skills these days, they most likely wont make it.

The best list management are those that keep a close eye on changes and anomalies in the game. And make decisions on players based on that.
I feel we've been 1 step behind in the past.

Totally agree. I remember watching those Hawthorn teams with Hill, Smith, Birchell, Suckling running laps of the G - cutting up teams with their footskills.

Meanwhile we were fumbling around with KPPs for two decades.

 

[eth-dog]

Totally agree. I remember watching those Hawthorn teams with Hill, Smith, Birchell, Suckling running laps of the G - cutting up teams with their footskills.

Meanwhile we were fumbling around with KPPs for two decades.

Yeah, not as if they didn't have Lake, Frawley, Roughead and just some random bloke called Buddy Franklin there whilst they were dominating.