Opinion 2014 Draft ( Live discussion ) Mod notice post #6629

[Bradschi]

was rated by all as a top 20 selection tho. Boekhurst was not rated in the top 20

are you able to give us a list of players u knew who we ranked higher and lower than boekhurst

Most of the information are from the media and people who claims to have connections, so unless someone from our own recruiting team comes out to say who we rated and where we rated them, you cannot be entirely sure who was rated where, in this case, Boekhorst in the top 20.
Mick said yesterday that the best players were picked at our picks in the draft to fit our needs so that's mission accomplished.
Only thing that matters now is to get behind the new kids and the club.
If you want to judge, save it for another 12 months or at least after they've had a kick.

 

[zeeCFC]

Everyone is tiptoeing around the fact that is obvious now. Rogers refuses to "play the game". He has his list - which I respect - but it seems he refuses to look at what the other teams are doing and play the field to improve his odds of snagging better than expected picks.

If Rogers thinks BB was the 8th best player, great. However, he should know what all the other teams are doing, and he should therefore select BB at an appropriate position to maximise our draft. IF we could have got him later, we SHOULD have got him later.

Absolutely no one in the media predicted "Tweets" to go as high as he did. Nor did anyone in any of the Phantoms (not that they mean much). So one must ask the question why did Rogers pull the trigger so quickly when (and this is speculation, but I assume it is correct) BB would be there at #28? Heck, going on everything I read up until draft night, BB may have even been there for pick 63 or the Rookie Draft.

This indicates to me that we are not exploiting what other teams are doing. That means we are not researching what other teams are doing. This puts us at a major disadvantage. It is also evident that we have perhaps the worst poker faces out of all the teams. We went early on Bootsma when we could have had him much later. We telegraphed to the world our intentions with Jeffy Garlett and Mitch Robinson and, in turn, got shit all for them because we had volunteered our intentions and therefore we had forfeited any sort of leverage at the bargaining table.

Drafting and trading is 50% game, and 50% research. We are only half in the game at the moment. My faith is waning.

Stopped reading here.

The phantom drafters and media don't follow players for four years tracking their progress, let alone keep track of an ex volleyball player who is just having a break out year. Shane Rogers is the guy who picked Menzel so he knows when to identify a good slider. He also knows who invited Boekhorst in the week before the draft and whether Essendon planned to take Boekhorst at 20, a mature wingman who could be their Winderlich replacement when he is retired/banned. If you're going to attempt looking at every reason Rogers is wrong just find it somewhere within yourself to perhaps give him the benefit of doubt that maybe someone in the CFC has a plan and has done due diligence.

 

[zeeCFC]

I'm 100% sure people are angry because Laverde sat there at #5 on so many peoples' mock drafts for so long.

Knightmare took Reece McKenzie at #5 in the Bigfooty Phantom while every man and his dog had Petracca a certain pick 1.

I know on the internet it's easier to go down swinging than swallow your pride but people need to give it a bloody rest.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

I'm not bagging BB, I'm saying that Rogers picks his players where he thinks they are going to go, with scant regard to what other clubs are doing. I've heard him say that in an interview. In my opinion this is a flawed strategy.

 

[Matty411]

With respect PC, I think that we're much more likely to come out on top down the track by focusing on best player for the club not just how other ppl may have rated the talent. Let's see what our kids come up with before worrying about who we didn't pick.

 

[Mezzoculo]

I'm 100% sure people are angry because Laverde sat there at #5 on so many peoples' mock drafts for so long.

Knightmare took Reece McKenzie at #5 in the Bigfooty Phantom while every man and his dog had Petracca a certain pick 1.

I know on the internet it's easier to go down swinging than swallow your pride but people need to give it a bloody rest.

Agree with everything but your last sentence, zee. This is a Carlton fan forum and one poster's opinions are just as valid as the next poster's.

Perhaps a suggestion that folk take their criticisms over to the Chicken Little thread would be more fruitful.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Absolutely no one in the media predicted "Tweets" to go as high as he did. Nor did anyone in any of the Phantoms (not that they mean much). So one must ask the question why did Rogers pull the trigger so quickly when (and this is speculation, but I assume it is correct) BB would be there at #28? Heck, going on everything I read up until draft night, BB may have even been there for pick 63 or the Rookie Draft.

Actually Colin Wisbey had him at #13. Snoop Dog had him late 40s. Actually he had DVR and Boekhorst going to Collingwood (funny that) and raved about BB being a gun. The lower rating is purely because the group think had him going later, not because of his assessed ability.

BB himself said clubs had told him he would go in the 30s, but they might fudge their guesses a little bit (we did as we never told him he was going higher than the 30s) to throw other clubs off.

We wanted pace and good kicking skills and we got that with our first two selections. Why does it matter if we went DVR and BB or BB and DVR? Maybe we just got a late indicator that BB was being targeted.

 

[zeeCFC]

Agree with everything but your last sentence, zee. This is a Carlton fan forum and one poster's opinions are just as valid as the next poster's.

Perhaps a suggestion that folk take their criticisms over to the Chicken Little thread would be more fruitful.

But how long can they criticise a guy they haven't even seen train yet? It's all based on their insecurities surrounding the Hughes era of drafting. There's having an opinion, but when it's so easily broken down and based on nothing it's useless.

 

[HARKER]

I know this isn't the first time said and nor will it be the last............but:

Carlton went in wanting DVR & Boekhorst with their first 2 selections.
Whether Rogers got spooked by The Dogs taking Boekhorst first, or whether we just went by our order, we got the guys we wanted with the knowledge we wouldn't have access to Brayshaw, Petracca and a couple of others.

Smith was also rated highly so the way I look at it, we did well in terms of getting our men......Whether they're any good or not, is for another argument.

This wasn't just Rogers decision as a wish-list was presented. Listen to Malthouse's interviews and we'll have a better understanding of the process.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

With respect PC, I think that we're much more likely to come out on top down the track by focusing on best player for the club not just how other ppl may have rated the talent. Let's see what our kids come up with before worrying about who we didn't pick.

My point is that by "playing the game" we can effectively have our cake and eat it too by taking our preferences with later draft picks. It's a higher risk option, granted, but anything that gives us an edge must be pursued.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

There is a certain leeway post draft.

However long term, we're not in the habit of repeating 'should haves' over and over, and discussing players we did not select, who now play for another team, and who we are not looking at trading for anytime soon. Becomes just a pointless cycle of negativity.

BB, DVR, Smith and Foster will be discussed based on their playing merits, and Rogers will be assessed based on his selections after a reasonable period of time when it can be assessed clearly.

I do note that Daniel Rich came out of the blocks quickly and the board reacted in regards to the Yarran selection. I dare say most of those now love it when Yarran breaks the line, takes a bounce and slams a goal home on one of his forward forays. We just need to be more realistic about these things.

 

[Mezzoculo]

But how long can they criticise a guy they haven't even seen train yet? It's all based on their insecurities surrounding the Hughes era of drafting. There's having an opinion, but when it's so easily broken down and based on nothing it's useless.

Because its not about BB personally, its about using our first pick in such an unexpected manner. From what I've read on here, even bullish posters such as etsal1 and HARKER were pretty happy that a 'top 5 prospect' slid all the way to 19 and a little shocked he was available to Essendon at 20. In fact, I remember plenty here talking about how happy they'd be if he slid to pick 7 back when it was our first pick.

Personally, I'm more than happy to trust the club and support the position that 'Only those inside the club know the reasoning behind decision x, y and z' but its hardly an argument winner if you already harbour doubts about the decision makers and their drafting/trading strategy. Especially when we've had such a patchy recent history on this exact issue.

Until segments of this board hear -- from an official source -- the motives etc behind drafting our players when we did, then these doubts will remain. And we will have nothing but our opinions and the occasional solid word from trusted posters to support them.

 

[HARKER]

Because its not about BB personally, its about using our first pick in such an unexpected manner. From what I've read on here, even bullish posters such as etsal1 and HARKER were pretty happy that a 'top 5 prospect' slid all the way to 19 and a little shocked he was available to Essendon at 20. In fact, I remember plenty here talking about how happy they'd be if he slid to pick 7 back when it was our first pick.

Personally, I'm more than happy to trust the club and support the position that 'Only those inside the club know the reasoning behind decision x, y and z' but its hardly an argument winner if you already harbour doubts about the decision makers and their drafting/trading strategy. Especially when we've had such a patchy recent history on this exact issue.

Until segments of this board hear -- from an official source -- the motives etc behind drafting our players when we did, then these doubts will remain. And we will have nothing but our opinions and the occasional solid word from trusted posters to support them.

I was devastated when I heard his name read out ahead of Laverde and didn't believe it until I saw it on the running scroll.
That was for 2 reasons: 1. I wanted Laverde 2. I was concerned for possibly losing DVR.
That was my initial reaction and I had to sweat it out feeling that The Dogs would take him at #26 or #27
If it had have been DVR @ #19 and Boekhorst @ #28, I would have digested my meal much easier.

Petracca dropped....Lamb dropped....McKenzie dropped and....Laverde dropped. There may be reasons for that being the case and they may well all end up fine players but listen carefully to Malthouse and you get the impression that it was all very much a collective decision based on a specific policy.
That may not be the case and Rogers may have just shot off on all sorts of tangents, but it does seem to me we had a very clear vision going in.

We now have players that will do everything they can to make us a better club.............but we won't truly know for some time to come.

 

[Mezzoculo]

There may be reasons for that being the case and they may well all end up fine players but listen carefully to Malthouse and you get the impression that it was all very much a collective decision based on a specific policy.
That may not be the case and Rogers may have just shot off on all sorts of tangents, but it does seem to me we had a very clear vision going in.

I agree with you on this. I just don't think posters that have legitimate concerns with aspects of the club's drafting / trading should be slammed because they don't.

 

[HARKER]

I agree with you on this. I just don't think posters that have legitimate concerns with aspects of the club's drafting / trading should be slammed because they don't.

Most won't argue with those that come forwarde with a legitimate argument.
There are two ways to approach the discussion:

1. "Rogers should be sacked for selecting a 21 year old Boekhorst. I'm sick of it. We're shit."
2. "I don't rate Player X because......................... I believe a more balance approach may have been..........."

Opinions are O.K. but informed opinions are much better.

 

[chipzac]

I was devastated when I heard his name read out ahead of Laverde and didn't believe it until I saw it on the running scroll.
That was for 2 reasons: 1. I wanted Laverde 2. I was concerned for possibly losing DVR.
That was my initial reaction and I had to sweat it out feeling that The Dogs would take him at #26 or #27
If it had have been DVR @ #19 and Boekhorst @ #28, I would have digested my meal much easier.

Petracca dropped....Lamb dropped....McKenzie dropped and....Laverde dropped. There may be reasons for that being the case and they may well all end up fine players but listen carefully to Malthouse and you get the impression that it was all very much a collective decision based on a specific policy.
That may not be the case and Rogers may have just shot off on all sorts of tangents, but it does seem to me we had a very clear vision going in.

We now have players that will do everything they can to make us a better club.............but we won't truly know for some time to come.

I know it's pretty irrelevant really, but it would be interesting to know whether the negative reactions to if the selections would be as strong if the selections were other way round (DVR at 19 and Boekhorst at 28); if it was DVR instead of Laverde at the first pick.

 

[HARKER]

I know it's pretty irrelevant really, but it would be interesting to know whether the negative reactions to if the selections would be as strong if the selections were other way round (DVR at 19 and Boekhorst at 28); if it was DVR instead of Laverde at the first pick.

I doubt it as we would have basically been selecting players from the same club, meaning they would have been seen through the same games.

The question may have come down harder on Laverde for having been touted as being the best of the Western Jets players yet fell behind Ellis, Duggan and DVR. The dynamic would be different.

 

[Mezzoculo]

Most won't argue with those that come forwarde with a legitimate argument.
There are two ways to approach the discussion:

1. "Rogers should be sacked for selecting a 21 year old Boekhorst. I'm sick of it. We're shit."
2. "I don't rate Player X because......................... I believe a more balance approach may have been..........."

Opinions are O.K. but informed opinions are much better.

Too true, Harks. But tell me, to which category does the bold section below belong?

Everyone is tiptoeing around the fact that is obvious now. Rogers refuses to "play the game". He has his list - which I respect - but it seems he refuses to look at what the other teams are doing and play the field to improve his odds of snagging better than expected picks.

If Rogers thinks BB was the 8th best player, great. However, he should know what all the other teams are doing, and he should therefore select BB at an appropriate position to maximise our draft. IF we could have got him later, we SHOULD have got him later.

Absolutely no one in the media predicted "Tweets" to go as high as he did. Nor did anyone in any of the Phantoms (not that they mean much). So one must ask the question why did Rogers pull the trigger so quickly when (and this is speculation, but I assume it is correct) BB would be there at #28? Heck, going on everything I read up until draft night, BB may have even been there for pick 63 or the Rookie Draft.

This indicates to me that we are not exploiting what other teams are doing. That means we are not researching what other teams are doing. This puts us at a major disadvantage. It is also evident that we have perhaps the worst poker faces out of all the teams. We went early on Bootsma when we could have had him much later. We telegraphed to the world our intentions with Jeffy Garlett and Mitch Robinson and, in turn, got shit all for them because we had volunteered our intentions and therefore we had forfeited any sort of leverage at the bargaining table.

Drafting and trading is 50% game, and 50% research. We are only half in the game at the moment. My faith is waning.

 

[HARKER]

Too true, Harks. But tell me, to which category does the bold section below belong?

I don't see anything discussing the merit of the player other than where he may.............I repeat may, have been taken.

I can't say this with absolute authority but Boekhorst wasn't going to last too long and certainly not until pick #60. Even Blaine knew this.

It's unfortunate in a way that he was taken at #19 and not #28 where the planning may have been. Why? I don't know but it didn't change the net outcome.

 

[Mezzoculo]

I don't see anything discussing the merit of the player other than where he may.............I repeat may, have been taken.

I can't say this with absolute authority but Boekhorst wasn't going to last too long and certainly not until pick #60. Even Blaine knew this.

It's unfortunate in a way that he was taken at #19 and not #28 where the planning may have been. Why? I don't know but it didn't change the net outcome.

What I see are a serious of questions that no-one here has answered with any detail or any official sanction. And I understand the reasons why.
I can also understand why people remain unhappy with the call -- even though I personally am happy to trust the club on this and may other decisions.

 

[ShanDog]

For mine, it's clear that Malthouse (probably along with other key staff) identified that our list was lacking depth in some areas and needed young players in others (or both). They then gave a mandate to our recruiting team and said "Guys, this is what we need to keep building the list in the right direction."

It's even been said what our needs were publicly, i.e. two mids, half forwards, half backs, a ruck etc.

Rogers and co sifted through all the player info they had for players in those key areas. When time came to use our first pick, they pulled the trigger on the best player that filled those identified gaps, in order.

How can that not be the best way of doing footy business? If Leverde was a player in a 'needed' position, he was ranked by Rogers' team below Boekhorst. Given that they are the ones who pour over their tapes, read reports, interview players, interview player's families and schools and know a lot more about football development than the average BF poster, the only logical thing to do is say "OK. I get it. Let's see how it pans out."

 

[chipzac]

I don't see anything discussing the merit of the player other than where he may.............I repeat may, have been taken.

I can't say this with absolute authority but Boekhorst wasn't going to last too long and certainly not until pick #60. Even Blaine knew this.

It's unfortunate in a way that he was taken at #19 and not #28 where the planning may have been. Why? I don't know but it didn't change the net outcome.

If Boekhorst at 28 would have been agreeable to most, then I think the key to this, is the selection of DVR and how he shapes up against Laverde over time. Reported as one of the best kicks in the draft, I hope his Daniel Day Lewis like left foot is as good as they say.

 

[Omega Blue]

with the preseason draft tomoz any chance that we may take two picks in the preseason draft and effectively have our choice of the best rookie?

 

[Matty411]

with the preseason draft tomoz any chance that we may take two picks in the preseason draft and effectively have our choice of the best rookie?

Don't think so OB - Rogers has stated in earnest we'll take tutt then go to RD. His word has been straight so far so no reason we'll change our plans now - esp. after the draft strategy.

 

[Aphrodite]

with the preseason draft tomoz any chance that we may take two picks in the preseason draft and effectively have our choice of the best rookie?

Can't see it happening Omega.

We have 37 senior listed players as of today and as of tomorrow, Tutt will be added to the senior list via the PSD.
That makes it a total of 38 senior listed players.

We have picks 6, 24, 41 & 58 in the rookie draft & will be using pick 58 for Fraser Russell.

58. Carlton (the Blues are committed to selecting three-year non-registered player Fraser Russell)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-02/2014-nab-afl-rookie-draft-indicative-selection-order[/QUOTE]