Game Day 2019 Draft - picks 23, 55, 60, 65, 68, 83 Thursday 28 November : Mead + 2 picks?

[Butters Made Me Do It]

I think it's fair to say the club successfully executed on their intended strategy, which as you have pointed out was to get some high ceiling players. I also think it's fair to say in these days of high end analytics that they have some data to back up the decision. However, at a fundamental level it seems like a flawed strategy in that it doesn't have an appropriate risk attitude... you don't invest limited capital (==draft picks) into risky projects (==players) unless you can take the loss (==all of them going bust). GWS can take a punt on speculative players as they have the list to sustain failure. With our list we can't take afford for them to all go bust. Now I am coming at this from a portfolio management perspective but the principals are the same.

Bang on here, the risk is the reason why I felt ours was the sort of draft you have when you’re a top four side. Bizarre to trade into that.

 

[Tibbs]

Yes it is laughable. James Worpel, Sam Hayes and Sydney Stack were brilliant pick ups at their respective draft positions. I reserve superlatives for selections that actually deserve them.

I'm not saying that I know better than our team of recruiters. If anything I am saying that our list management strategy is rubbish, not our recruiting. However, the implication that our recruiters should be free from scrutiny just because they are "professionals" is foolish in the same way that saying Ken Hinkley is a "professional" head coach and makes all the right decisions is foolish. Our recruiting team have made some very obvious, very costly blunders over the years...Ben Jacobs and Mitch Harvey come to mind.

Your hindsight is magnificent! I applaud you! Let's revisit this in three years time shall we?

I reckon that Williams will establish himself on a different level to Robertson. He has a quality that is indefinable that says to me ... I am a star.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Your hindsight is magnificent! I applaud you! Let's revisit this in three years time shall we?

I reckon that Williams will establish himself on a different level to Robertson. He has a quality that is indefinable that says to me ... I am a star.

OK I was a bit cheeky with my selection of examples...recognition bias got me! However, to double-down on my point I think that John Butcher and Mason Shaw were brilliant draft picks at the time even though they ended up being abject failures as players.

On that point, you should never judge the quality of an uncertain decision on the outcome. You should always judge the quality of a decision on the logic and process that lead to the decision. For example, if you bought $1000 worth of lotto tickets and won 2mil this would still be a poor decision because the probability of winning was low. As a result, I am very happy to say that our draft was rubbish right at this moment because I don't believe the logic that lead to the decision was sound.

Anyway, I obviously hope Dylan Williams ends up being a gun because I want to see us be successful.

 

[Tibbs]

OK I was a bit cheeky with my selection of examples...recognition bias got me! However, to double-down on my point I think that John Butcher and Mason Shaw were brilliant draft picks at the time even though they ended up being abject failures as players.

On that point, you should never judge the quality of an uncertain decision on the outcome. You should always judge the quality of a decision on the logic and process that lead to the decision. For example, if you bought $1000 worth of lotto tickets and won 2mil this would still be a poor decision because the probability of winning was low. As a result, I am very happy to say that our draft was rubbish right at this moment because I don't believe the logic that lead to the decision was sound.

Anyway, I obviously hope Dylan Williams ends up being a gun because I want to see us be successful.

Butcher was an obvious pick, not a brilliant pick. In an average draft, Shaw was a pick-and-hope, as was Clurey with him. One came good the other didn't. As for "the logic and process that lead to the decision" of our drafting this year, it honestly stuns we that with zero knowledge of the thinking, planning, processing, and reasoning of our team, you can judge it as "rubbish." Other adjectives, such as "risky" etc, maybe, but rubbish! C'mon! You immediately lose credibility.

If our four drafts this year all go on to become AA, 200 game players, are you still going to say the draft was "rubbish" because the team took too much of a gamble, and didn't pick the player you wanted? While at the same time labelling the Butcher and Shaw Draft as brilliant? Seriously, by that logic,you are just being an idiot.

 

[Pablo Escobar]

Butcher was an obvious pick, not a brilliant pick. In an average draft, Shaw was a pick-and-hope, as was Clurey with him. One came good the other didn't. As for "the logic and process that lead to the decision" of our drafting this year, it honestly stuns we that with zero knowledge of the thinking, planning, processing, and reasoning of our team, you can judge it as "rubbish." Other adjectives, such as "risky" etc, maybe, but rubbish! C'mon! You immediately lose credibility.

If our four drafts this year all go on to become AA, 200 game players, are you still going to say the draft was "rubbish" because the team took too much of a gamble, and didn't pick the player you wanted? While at the same time labelling the Butcher and Shaw Draft as brilliant? Seriously, by that logic,you are just being an idiot.

There are idiots of all types on this forum, especially those abuse people just for their opinion

 

[Granny Duurs is Lovely]

OK I was a bit cheeky with my selection of examples...recognition bias got me! However, to double-down on my point I think that John Butcher and Mason Shaw were brilliant draft picks at the time even though they ended up being abject failures as players.

On that point, you should never judge the quality of an uncertain decision on the outcome. You should always judge the quality of a decision on the logic and process that lead to the decision. For example, if you bought $1000 worth of lotto tickets and won 2mil this would still be a poor decision because the probability of winning was low. As a result, I am very happy to say that our draft was rubbish right at this moment because I don't believe the logic that lead to the decision was sound.

Anyway, I obviously hope Dylan Williams ends up being a gun because I want to see us be successful.

I agree with judging decisions on logic not hindsight. However in this case we don't have the data to present the logical arguments, as only the club has that. We therefore can't say it was a logically good or bad decision with any confidence, its all speculation at this point.

 

[robbo1981]

There are idiots of all types on this forum, especially those abuse people just for their opinion

And ones who correct grammar if you get what one is trying to say stfu .

 

[EskimoPAFC]

The demons have been failures for 60+ years.

They've probably blown more top draft picks than the other 17 clubs put together, and currently have Simon Goodwin and Troy Chaplin on their coaching staff.

In the 2019 draft they used two top 10 picks on a ruckman and an inconsistent 171cm player.

I'm not saying you are wrong on Robertson, he could be a good to great player and I would have been happy for us to take him, even with 12, but as a general rule if you do the exact opposite of what Melbourne wants to do every time you're probably gonna go ok.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

My short take on this draft so I can quote it later and feel smart.

Dylan Williams will be the best player drafted. Period. Georgiades will end up very handy.

We are gonna really regret not taking Kemp at 12.

Edit: best player drafted by any club, not just best of ports picks

 

[Nemisis]

My short take on this draft so I can quote it later and feel smart.

Dylan Williams will be the best player drafted. Period. Georgiades will end up very handy.

We are gonna really regret not taking Kemp at 12.

Edit: best player drafted by any club, not just best of ports picks

I agree with the Georgiades bit ...

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Butcher was an obvious pick, not a brilliant pick. In an average draft, Shaw was a pick-and-hope, as was Clurey with him. One came good the other didn't. As for "the logic and process that lead to the decision" of our drafting this year, it honestly stuns we that with zero knowledge of the thinking, planning, processing, and reasoning of our team, you can judge it as "rubbish." Other adjectives, such as "risky" etc, maybe, but rubbish! C'mon! You immediately lose credibility.

If our four drafts this year all go on to become AA, 200 game players, are you still going to say the draft was "rubbish" because the team took too much of a gamble, and didn't pick the player you wanted? While at the same time labelling the Butcher and Shaw Draft as brilliant? Seriously, by that logic,you are just being an idiot.

Yes I will still say the draft was rubbish even if the players end up being successful. As previously said you can't measure the quality of a decision based on the outcome because you can get lucky/unlucky.

Yes John Butcher and Mason Shaw were brilliant picks. They addressed needs and had good runs on the board at the time. It was unfortunate that neither of them came off.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

I agree with judging decisions on logic not hindsight. However in this case we don't have the data to present the logical arguments, as only the club has that. We therefore can't say it was a logically good or bad decision with any confidence, its all speculation at this point.

The problem with this is that makes the club immune to criticism. No one here works for the club, does that mean we shouldn't be able to criticise at all? Why bother having a forum at all? Ken Hinkley should be able to just run us to the ground with endless 10th place finishes until we go into complete irrelevance.

I don't have enormous knowledge regarding the drafted players, but I do think I have reasonable knowledge of the makeup of our list. Given our list as it stands I think this draft was rubbish.

 

[Sleezy]

The problem with this is that makes the club immune to criticism. No one here works for the club, does that mean we shouldn't be able to criticise at all? Why bother having a forum at all? Ken Hinkley should be able to just run us to the ground with endless 10th place finishes until we go into complete irrelevance.

I don't have enormous knowledge regarding the drafted players, but I do think I have reasonable knowledge of the makeup of our list. Given our list as it stands I think this draft was rubbish.

Knowing when to play the percentages, and when to take the risk, is what separates good from great.

I'd be interested if you can name a best in their field sportsman or team that only plays the percentages. I can't think of any.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Knowing when to play the percentages, and when to take the risk, is what separates good from great.

I'd be interested if you can name a best in their field sportsman or team that only plays the percentages. I can't think of any.

Firstly, there is a large degree of ambiguity in those terms. If you mean comparing the low risk-low reward option with the high risk-high reward option, then of course there is a time and place for both those options. As I said earlier, I would've liked to see us go a middle ground with our draft. Take some speculative players and some more sure bets. If we were GWS with their list I would've chuffed with the draft we just did.

Secondly, there is a massive difference between instinctive decisions made on a sports field as a player and slow, methodical decisions made in list management. They are completely different and not comparable. The governance of teams should always be made to maximise the probability of success.

 

[Macca19]

Robertsons floor is higher than Williams, but Williams has a much higher ceiling imo.

 

[Chizza12]

I watched the Australia under 18 vs Casey Demons game again (20/4/19) as I have it recorded on Foxtel. Williams was very good in the game with his playing time split between half back and half forward. He showed game sense , composure and good foot/aerial skills. He definitely has some qualities to get excited about...

 

[OneGreatClub]

Robertsons floor is higher than Williams, but Williams has a much higher ceiling imo.

I always like a high ceiling myself.

 

[Tibbs]

Yes I will still say the draft was rubbish even if the players end up being successful. As previously said you can't measure the quality of a decision based on the outcome because you can get lucky/unlucky.

Yes John Butcher and Mason Shaw were brilliant picks. They addressed needs and had good runs on the board at the time. It was unfortunate that neither of them came off.

Ah, well, we have totally diametrically opposed views of what is brilliant, and what is terrible!

 

[Ishikawa]

I agree that Butcher and Shaw were very good selections. Butcher in particular absolutely had the talent to be a fantastic key forward, those handful of weeks in 2011 were genuinely as exciting as I have seen from a young key forward. But wrecked by injury and then later self doubt.

Shaw had a lot of pedigree as a junior, liked the selection and thought he was tracking pretty well through the SANFL. We missed a trick in not promoting him earlier IMO as is still demonstrating he has a lot to offer in his WAFL performances.

I have no problem at all with the logic of Williams over Robertson and this is coming from someone who thinks Robertson has every likelihood of a solid AFL career. Can Robertson step in immediately and displace Atley & Drew as the inside midfielders on the fringe? I'm not so certain of that and with the AFL midfield already with plenty of guys in the inside mould it makes for at least a couple of unbalanced years in terms of that type of player on our list. We'll see with Williams, but with Rozee inevitably going to make his way up the ground it really opens up for the next quick, mid-size marking forward in the team.

 

[Sleezy]

Firstly, there is a large degree of ambiguity in those terms. If you mean comparing the low risk-low reward option with the high risk-high reward option, then of course there is a time and place for both those options. As I said earlier, I would've liked to see us go a middle ground with our draft. Take some speculative players and some more sure bets. If we were GWS with their list I would've chuffed with the draft we just did.

Secondly, there is a massive difference between instinctive decisions made on a sports field as a player and slow, methodical decisions made in list management. They are completely different and not comparable. The governance of teams should always be made to maximise the probability of success.

I guess I'm questioning your definition of 'maximising the probability of success'.

Does that mean drafting David McKay, Andrew Swallow & Nathan Jones? Averaging 200 odd games across three draft picks would be a 'successful draft', but if you did that every year you'd never win a flag.

On the flipside, if you reached for the Troy Menzel's, Callum Ah Chee's & Dan Venebles every year, you'll never even make the 8.

Williams could end up a Menzel.
Bergman could be a Venebles.
Georgiadis could end up a tweener that never makes it.

But our draft was balanced by:
- A discount low risk inside mid in Mead
- A moneyball KPD in Pasini (there isn't 80 draft picks difference in quality between Pasini and McCasey)
- Building capital to acquire:
- A discount moderate risk outside mid in Schofield
- A discount moderate risk defensive half back in Jones

I'm interested in what your balanced risk draft would have looked like?

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

I guess I'm questioning your definition of 'maximising the probability of success'.

Does that mean drafting David McKay, Andrew Swallow & Nathan Jones? Averaging 200 odd games across three draft picks would be a 'successful draft', but if you did that every year you'd never win a flag.

On the flipside, if you reached for the Troy Menzel's, Callum Ah Chee's & Dan Venebles every year, you'll never even make the 8.

Williams could end up a Menzel.
Bergman could be a Venebles.
Georgiadis could end up a tweener that never makes it.

But our draft was balanced by:
- A discount low risk inside mid in Mead
- A moneyball KPD in Pasini (there isn't 80 draft picks difference in quality between Pasini and McCasey)
- Building capital to acquire:
- A discount moderate risk outside mid in Schofield
- A discount moderate risk defensive half back in Jones

I'm interested in what your balanced risk draft would have looked like?

As I said before the amount of risk you can take in with drafted players is dependant on your list quality and how many picks you have. There's a time for the Nathan Jones pick and a time for the Aidan Bonar pick. You shouldn't take three Aidan Bonars in the same draft if you have a bottom 8 list.

Swap out Georgiades with Robertson. I didn't like the Bergman pick, would have rathered Kemp but on a risk level they are probably about the same. Also this is probably me just getting taken up in the Kemp group think. From a position point of view I also prefer Kemp, Robertson and Williams vs what we ended up with.

 

[Sleezy]

As I said before the amount of risk you can take in with drafted players is dependant on your list quality and how many picks you have. There's a time for the Nathan Jones pick and a time for the Aidan Bonar pick. You shouldn't take three Aidan Bonars in the same draft if you have a bottom 8 list.

Swap out Georgiades with Robertson. I didn't like the Bergman pick, would have rathered Kemp but on a risk level they are probably about the same. Also this is probably me just getting taken up in the Kemp group think. From a position point of view I also prefer Kemp, Robertson and Williams vs what we ended up with.

I can see both sides of the Kemp debate. He's the prototype mid - the next Bont. But he could also be the next Moore. Or Francis. The most interesting comment on came from Janus (once we didn't pick him and he'd jumped off the bandwagon) - that picking up a Vic player that can't train or play with the group is a big risk, as he misses making the initial bonds with his cohort.

I'd probably still prefer Kemp to Bergman, but neither are what I'd call low risk bets.

I'd also be interested to see whether Robertson gets past Geelong if we take Kemp. In this scenario, Carlton take Cooper Stephens. Geelong may we'll take Robertson in his place at 16. Anyway, useless hypothetical.

Do you think we need both Robertson and Mead? If I had to pick a mid with an elite kick and good production or a mid with elite production and an average kick - I know which I'd pick.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

I can see both sides of the Kemp debate. He's the prototype mid - the next Bont. But he could also be the next Moore. Or Francis. The most interesting comment on came from Janus (once we didn't pick him and he'd jumped off the bandwagon) - that picking up a Vic player that can't train or play with the group is a big risk, as he misses making the initial bonds with his cohort.

I'd probably still prefer Kemp to Bergman, but neither are what I'd call low risk bets.

I'd also be interested to see whether Robertson gets past Geelong if we take Kemp. In this scenario, Carlton take Cooper Stephens. Geelong may we'll take Robertson in his place at 16. Anyway, useless hypothetical.

Do you think we need both Robertson and Mead? If I had to pick a mid with an elite kick and good production or a mid with elite production and an average kick - I know which I'd pick.

Yes I think we do. As I said before I'm of the opinion our midfield is very thin going into the future and there are big question marks over the players that we have.

Also Mead and Robertson are quite different players and there is enough room for both of them in our future first 22.

 

[Granny Duurs is Lovely]

I can see both sides of the Kemp debate. He's the prototype mid - the next Bont. But he could also be the next Moore. Or Francis. The most interesting comment on came from Janus (once we didn't pick him and he'd jumped off the bandwagon) - that picking up a Vic player that can't train or play with the group is a big risk, as he misses making the initial bonds with his cohort.

I'd probably still prefer Kemp to Bergman, but neither are what I'd call low risk bets.

I'd also be interested to see whether Robertson gets past Geelong if we take Kemp. In this scenario, Carlton take Cooper Stephens. Geelong may we'll take Robertson in his place at 16. Anyway, useless hypothetical.

Do you think we need both Robertson and Mead? If I had to pick a mid with an elite kick and good production or a mid with elite production and an average kick - I know which I'd pick.

I dont think there's enough attention given to the players personalities and go home factor on here. We didnt just pick 3 players with high ceilings this year we went for guys who are smart and well spoken - guys who will have interviewed very well and can handle the complexity of the modern game.

I don't know enough about go home factor of these guys, but I do know that anyone who is able to develop during their mandatory two years before they can ask to go home, is worth more on the trade table. Kemp could ask to go and be worth * all due to injuries, but at least the current guys are able to develop this year.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I dont think there's enough attention given to the players personalities and go home factor on here. We didnt just pick 3 players with high ceilings this year we went for guys who are smart and well spoken - guys who will have interviewed very well and can handle the complexity of the modern game.

I don't know enough about go home factor of these guys, but I do know that anyone who is able to develop during their mandatory two years before they can ask to go home, is worth more on the trade table. Kemp could ask to go and be worth fu** all due to injuries, but at least the current guys are able to develop this year.

Nah we absolutely just went for three players with insane ceilings including dylan ******* williams because we are port ******* Adelaide and we do ballsy ******* s**t