2015 Draft Discussion

[snooplions]

Without a doubt we would tell them to piss of. It's a very fanciful scenario.

Most of what i wrote turned into fanciful nonsense the further i went. But I do hope that we don't find ourselves in a scenario where our desire for Schache has us between a rock and a hard place. The only good thing about finishing last would be that at least it would guarantee that Schache is coming to Brisbane and cut out all of the uncertainty that being second last brings.

 

[lionshine]

Most of what i wrote turned into fanciful nonsense the further i went. But I do hope that we don't find ourselves in a scenario where our desire for Schache has us between a rock and a hard place. The only good thing about finishing last would be that at least it would guarantee that Schache is coming to Brisbane and cut out all of the uncertainty that being second last brings.

In complete honesty if we finish second last and Schahce goes number 1 we get Weitering or Francis. Imo we can't really lose. This is a very strong top 3.

 

[snooplions]

In complete honesty if we finish second last and Schahce goes number 1 we get Weitering or Francis. Imo we can't really lose. This is a very strong top 3.

One plays kpd while the other is a swingman. They just don't fit Brisbane's needs like Schache appears to imo.

 

[captainrich]

Rant starts here<

As were at least 35 players in his Draft ....and near the same in this Draft.
Offloading would help....no matter what we get in return.

Sorry (I've bit my tongue for so long too...).
I did not rate him at the 2013 Draft (obviously) ... actually cringed when his name was called (similarly as with Polec previously).
I had Sheed at that Pick (as the selections fell) - would be happy with that now (hindsight is a wonderful thing) ... (not to mention we could have taken McCarthy ...oh, I just did ...).

Just look closely at Aish when next he plays. Skill/ Athletic deficiencies aside (for a Pick 7), the kid is "soft" (ala Polec).
If you watch closely he makes subtle decisions that mean he will avoid any physical contact. It happens so often that I am convinced when there is contact that it is by accident.
Harsh...yes .....based on what I have witnessed ...YES.
To be supposedly "held to ransom Pickering Style" has probably escalated my level of dissatisfaction, admittedly.

>Rant ends here

hindsight is a wonderful thing, noone could have predicted for him to have such an impact so early.

He was quite a raw forward prospect (basically a midfielder with a growth spurt which moved him forward) and then had a horrific broken leg, basically he was quite a speculative choice.

its probably partly down to GWS's development team that he has performed like this, who knows if he could do similarly with us, it can also be noted with GWS he is almost always taking the 2nd defender and probably has one of the best midfields delivering him the ball...something else he would struggle with here

 

[carnthemlions]

hindsight is a wonderful thing, noone could have predicted for him to have such an impact so early.

He was quite a raw forward prospect (basically a midfielder with a growth spurt which moved him forward) and then had a horrific broken leg, basically he was quite a speculative choice.

its probably partly down to GWS's development team that he has performed like this, who knows if he could do similarly with us, it can also be noted with GWS he is almost always taking the 2nd defender and probably has one of the best midfields delivering him the ball...something else he would struggle with here

Most people thought GWS were going to turn him into a defender when they drafted him.
Hindsight can quickly turn into revisionism when talking about the draft.

 

[FromOldFitzroy]

My cousin went to a match in Geelong & sent me this-
Schache. A formidable display, they has no answer,so in a sense it was harder to rate the pertormance.Led very well and always to the correct flank,suiting his kicking foot,which helped him slot some tricky goals. Marked well and used his body superbly.Someone referred to his inability to get separation. They were watching from a hotel in Werribee. !"

I've been sprung, even with my Tony Mokbel hairpiece, false nose and eyelashes

 

[Crusha]

hindsight is a wonderful thing, noone could have predicted for him to have such an impact so early.

He was quite a raw forward prospect (basically a midfielder with a growth spurt which moved him forward) and then had a horrific broken leg, basically he was quite a speculative choice.

its probably partly down to GWS's development team that he has performed like this, who knows if he could do similarly with us, it can also be noted with GWS he is almost always taking the 2nd defender and probably has one of the best midfields delivering him the ball...something else he would struggle with here

Agree ....... I confess I didn't have him in my top 20. I had McStay & Gardiner ahead of him (in the reverse order to how we selected them), but did have him penciled for our Pick at 28 (where we took Taylor), had he still been available. So like I said, hindsight ...and all that ....

Not so for Aish though - that was just a drafting error - there was plenty of signs (to me anyway) that he was overrated, hence my cringe when we selected him.
Looking back through my notes, I had Sheed, Dunston, Freeman, Dumont, Honeychurch & Lang (in that order) ahead of him as midfielders (but not Cripps...my bad), and would swap any of those now in a heartbeat.

 

[captainrich]

Agree ....... I confess I didn't have him in my top 20. I had McStay & Gardiner ahead of him (in the reverse order to how we selected them), but did have him penciled for our Pick at 28 (where we took Taylor), had he still been available. So like I said, hindsight ...and all that ....

Not so for Aish though - that was just a drafting error - there was plenty of signs (to me anyway) that he was overrated, hence my cringe when we selected him.
Looking back through my notes, I had Sheed, Dunston, Freeman, Dumont, Honeychurch & Lang (in that order) ahead of him as midfielders (but not Cripps...my bad), and would swap any of those now in a heartbeat.

hahaha we should never play this game because it definitely does sting. From what I reckoned McCarthy was probably top 20, wouldn't have lasted past Freo, but GWS with their ridiculous amount of first round selections are able to take risks most teams can't, absolute joke (another thing we should never get started about).

Yeah i was really hopeful we were going to grab Sheed or Freeman but Freeman also came with plenty of doubts about the go home factor and Sheed didn't seem dynamic enough (neither is Aish though).

Wouldn't beat myself about Cripps don't think many people saw his rise either, his beep test was down so low nobody would have thought he would have had the impact he's had

 

[dlanod]

Most people thought GWS were going to turn him into a defender when they drafted him.
Hindsight can quickly turn into revisionism when talking about the draft.

GWS (Silvagni) stated they felt they had the best forward (Boyd) and best defender (McCarthy) after the draft. He also played in defense his first year in the NEAFL. Talent makes fools even of AFL teams.

 

[Skippos]

Hi lads, I've written an article on the new bidding system and written a little bit about Brisbane at the bottom, explaining why it'll be likely necessary to have to bring in another pick to afford both Keays and Hipwood. It can be found here. Sorry about the shameless plug but I thought it might be of interest to you guys as there's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the bidding process.

 

[BigCat2]

Just a general question: last year we had to first nominate players we wanted to select via the academy and f/s bidding early on, before the actual bidding process at the start of trade period. One thing we had to consider here was not nominating players who we didn't think would be picked up in the main draft instead slipping to the rookie draft (eg Hammelmann), and run the risk we would miss out on him, if a club had picked him up in the main draft.

This year with the live bidding, would these players have to be nominated in advance also?

Seems like afl.com.au has heard my question:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-30/live-bidding-set-to-change-academy-nomination-process

The deadline for nominations for father-son and academy players in recent years has fallen on the NAB AFL Draft Combine's final day, which was three days before the annual bidding meeting at Etihad Stadium that kicked off the trade period in early October.

But under the new points-based bidding system, which was unveiled in May, the bidding is likely to take place as a live element of draft night in late November.

It means clubs will have several more weeks to nominate father-son players as priority selections, with the deadline possibly being pushed back to a week before the draft.

The delay in making a decision would benefit clubs who want to wait until after the trade period is completed to see what draft selections they have before committing to drafting a father-son prospect.

It would also allow a player in the position of Josh Dunkley – who is eligible to join the Sydney Swans as a father-son selection but may also enter the open draft – longer to make his call.

 

[LJH2014]

Will we have any picks that won't be used on trade/academy selections?

 

[POBT]

Will we have any picks that won't be used on trade/academy selections?

Presumably our first pick will be live.

 

[Always a Lion]

I know this has been discussed many times before, but I think it needs to be kept firmly on the agenda...

Now that COLA has been rightfully wound back, the academies most relevant function is not just to holt the go home factor. The academy equalisation measures introduced this year disadvantages clubs like ours because we are still liable to lose players to the go-home factor while paying closer to true value for local talent. With the old system, that we may've gotten a local bargain from time to time, such as the Swans got with Heaney last year, is compensation for the losing a player we drafted at say 8 (Longer) and lost after 2 years investment and development at say 31. That loss of value is the gain we may've gotten with a bargain through the old academy system. Actually, reckon it would still fall well short.

Eddie now has much better access to academy players, whilst retaining the access advantage and ability pick off our players from traditional states at grossly discounted rates. This is where the real story is for the expansion clubs.

 

[POBT]

Hi lads, I've written an article on the new bidding system and written a little bit about Brisbane at the bottom, explaining why it'll be likely necessary to have to bring in another pick to afford both Keays and Hipwood. It can be found here. Sorry about the shameless plug but I thought it might be of interest to you guys as there's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the bidding process.

Great article. I commend it to anyone who is looking for some worked examples on how the bidding system works and, more importantly, how it can actually benefit clubs taking Academy or F/S selections late in the draft.

Obviously list management becomes a whole lot more difficult. It may be that we have to take an open mind into trading. If I use Aish as an example, assuming this is a simple trade (ie no other parties, no on-trading of picks), we'd love to get a first round pick (say, Adelaide's pick 12). But, if I understand the bidding process, that pick doesn't help us to secure Keays and Hipwood if it is before anyone bids for Keays and Hipwood. In that scenario, we may actually be better off getting 2 second rounders rather than 1 mid-first rounder to help offset the bidding cost for Academy players.

 

[POBT]

Assuming Mills, Hopper, Kennedy, Keays and Hipwood all go in the top 20-25, I think we're starting to see proof that the Academies have worked by deepening the talent pool. Heeney felt like an aberration last year but I would doubt the history of the draft has ever seen 6 players from NSW/Qld in the top 20 taken. Assuming the talent pool from footy states is the same or better (reasonable assumption), then there can be no doubt that the Academies are good for football. More elite talent is playing at the professional level and non-Academy clubs get to take players later in the draft than would have been the case had the Academy system not been in play.

 

[Viceregal]

Great article. I commend it to anyone who is looking for some worked examples on how the bidding system works and, more importantly, how it can actually benefit clubs taking Academy or F/S selections late in the draft.

Obviously list management becomes a whole lot more difficult. It may be that we have to take an open mind into trading. If I use Aish as an example, assuming this is a simple trade (ie no other parties, no on-trading of picks), we'd love to get a first round pick (say, Adelaide's pick 12). But, if I understand the bidding process, that pick doesn't help us to secure Keays and Hipwood if it is before anyone bids for Keays and Hipwood. In that scenario, we may actually be better off getting 2 second rounders rather than 1 mid-first rounder to help offset the bidding cost for Academy players.

Oh good - now that someone I know and trust has clicked on the link and effectively reported back that it is genuine I can go and have a look myself! Thanks POBT ... oh and Skippos

 

[dlanod]

I went in expecting to nitpick when he put it on the D&T board given how often these are wrong, but it looked like he nailed everything (except Essendon should be getting back pick 66 for Daniher).

 

[Viceregal]

Just to confirm ...

1) we nominate the people we want to take in the ND and who we will Rookie if no one else takes them
2) trade period (where amongst other things we ensure we have the appropriate picks available to get the guys in 1 during 3 without killing 2016
3) ND where we find out during the course of the live bidding who wants 'our' boys and picks bounce all over the place as a result of the process of paying for them.

Btw do the guys we pick get paid according to the round where the pick was bid on or the top pick we use to pay for them (eg if pick 18 was bid for Keays and we paid for him using a 2nd round pick ... would he be on the pay scale of a 1st round draft pick or a 2nd round draft pick?)

 

[Skippos]

I went in expecting to nitpick when he put it on the D&T board given how often these are wrong, but it looked like he nailed everything (except Essendon should be getting back pick 66 for Daniher).

Yeah that was what I wasn't 100% sold about. I'd be told that first round matches dont make up for lost points exactly but then others seem to think its precise. To be perfectly honest, the AFL have t communicated that very effectively.

 

[dlanod]

Just to confirm ...

1) we nominate the people we want to take in the ND and who we will Rookie if no one else takes them
2) trade period (where amongst other things we ensure we have the appropriate picks available to get the guys in 1 during 3 without killing 2016
3) ND where we find out during the course of the live bidding who wants 'our' boys and picks bounce all over the place as a result of the process of paying for them.

Btw do the guys we pick get paid according to the round where the pick was bid on or the top pick we use to pay for them (eg if pick 18 was bid for Keays and we paid for him using a 2nd round pick ... would he be on the pay scale of a 1st round draft pick or a 2nd round draft pick?)

#1 might change according to a recent AFL.com.au article.

They would get paid according to the bid on pick, because if someone bids pick 18 on Keays and we match we move up to pick 18, whoever was there before moves down to pick 19, and the rest of our picks and the picks of the clubs after those are shuffled around accordingly.

 

[dlanod]

Yeah that was what I wasn't 100% sold about. I'd be told that first round matches dont make up for lost points exactly but then others seem to think its precise. To be perfectly honest, the AFL have t communicated that very effectively.

The Moore example in the AFL's documentation had the same situation as your Daniher example but in that case Collingwood would not have used the pick they got with those left over points, so that may have been why they were "wasted". There's been no other reference to losing first round pick points anywhere but unfortunately I can only go off the public AFL data on this one which is internally inconsistent.

 

[Cooties]

Next we'll hear the AFL have brought in Duckworth and Lewis as consultants to "just clear things up"

 

[dlanod]

Obviously list management becomes a whole lot more difficult. It may be that we have to take an open mind into trading. If I use Aish as an example, assuming this is a simple trade (ie no other parties, no on-trading of picks), we'd love to get a first round pick (say, Adelaide's pick 12). But, if I understand the bidding process, that pick doesn't help us to secure Keays and Hipwood if it is before anyone bids for Keays and Hipwood. In that scenario, we may actually be better off getting 2 second rounders rather than 1 mid-first rounder to help offset the bidding cost for Academy players.

Throwing out a potential Dixon trade, we'd be much better off any two picks above about 30 than getting pick 12 if we're likely to be forced to use them for bidding. Picks 29 & 30 give us 20 more points than pick 12, and both can be used on players bid on after pick 12. Getting 24 and 30 (hypothetically Adelaide getting a second second rounder and sending it plus 30, their normal second rounder in this scenario, to us) instead would see us at least 10% better off and potentially more.

 

[WA Lion]

Throwing out a potential Dixon trade, we'd be much better off any two picks above about 30 than getting pick 12 if we're likely to be forced to use them for bidding. Picks 29 & 30 give us 20 more points than pick 12, and both can be used on players bid on after pick 12. Getting 24 and 30 (hypothetically Adelaide getting a second second rounder and sending it plus 30, their normal second rounder in this scenario, to us) instead would see us at least 10% better off and potentially more.

which is why I like that the academy component is now after the trade period, as it allows us to identify our academy kids and what they will likely cost, and make informed trade choices based on what we are prepared/need to pay for academy players