List Mgmt. 2020 Young Talent time

[Joao]

Was still a much better pick than Simpson though so again it's yet another example of not taking the best available being the wrong decision.

Definitely agree if it is true that we thought he was better but not because Grundy is great but because Simpson wasn't up to it. I don't have a problem with ignoring the ruck, the error is picking a bloke who didn't have the mentality to make the grade.

 

[Carnthedockers]

case in point with Grundy, iirc we apparently had him ranked higher than Simpson, but decided we didn't need a ruck and needed the pace of Simpson

"By draft day it was clear Grundy was slipping down the order. The Dockers liked Grundy, but with Aaron Sandilands in his prime, decided only hours before the draft that they wouldn't pick a ruckman." (https://www.afl.com.au/news/65585/broadcast-guide-premiership). i feel i've seen Duffield write the above before but i can't see it on google

I know one of our recruiters from that time. He said Lyon overruled the whole recruitment team on this one. This was before Grundy even became good.

 

[Taylor]

We went into 2013 with these rucks:
Griffin, Clarke, Sandilands, Hannath and Moller

 

[Bastyy]

We went into 2013 with these rucks:
Griffin, Clarke, Sandilands, Hannath and Moller

And at the time Griffin was a more than handy back up ruck, and Zac Clarke was actually well regarded back then from memory

 

[Dockeroo]

The point is that we should still have picked Grundy over Simpson who added nothing to the club.
Imagine if we had Grundy until 2016 or 2017 - we probably wouldn’t have drafted Darcy then. Or I’d we did, we could then have traded Grundy for 2 first rounders over the last couple of years. Any of these outcomes would have been better than what we did end up doing.

 

[Joao]

The point is that we should still have picked Grundy over Simpson who added nothing to the club.
Imagine if we had Grundy until 2016 or 2017 - we probably wouldn’t have drafted Darcy then. Or I’d we did, we could then have traded Grundy for 2 first rounders over the last couple of years. Any of these outcomes would have been better than what we did end up doing.

No, the point is Simpson was a poor pick because the argument was you should always draft best available. I don't agree and citing Simpson/Grundy is just highlighting that Simpson was a bad pick and I don't think anyone would disagree. It doesn't prove drafting for needs is the wrong strategy.


Edit: Probably should have taken Grundy - the rest of that draft there are barely any AFL standard players. What a shocker.

 

[theGav56]

So where exactly was Grundy the best available pick? Was that only at the Simpson pic? He’s probably the best from that draft. Should he have been ahead of Whitfield? O’Rourke? Plowman? How about Thurlow?

Again, the reality is that clubs and recruiters routinely do not go by the mantra best available. They do a combination of best available and list needs and go for best value on many occasions.

In that draft we had an abundance of rucks and shortage of outside speed and class, and we did what other clubs did before us in that draft and prioritized list needs.

I am also backing the wisdom of the professionals ahead of that of random posters with that strategy. Retrospect is not a drafting strategy.

 

[Scham]

Definitely agree if it is true that we thought he was better but not because Grundy is great but because Simpson wasn't up to it. I don't have a problem with ignoring the ruck, the error is picking a bloke who didn't have the mentality to make the grade.

No, the error was that we (our recruiters) rated Grundy the best available but we chose not to take him. It probably doesn’t always go wrong because we only hear of the ones that do but by Christ there are a lot of examples of clubs going against recruiters thoughts on the best player available and it burning them big time!

I still believe going with your clear highest rated player at the pick (particularly early) is logical. Otherwise why bother doing all of the work to identify who is best? Just identify your needs pre draft and only interview those players, which of course never happens in reality, clubs interview all players they think will be drafted around their picks and many more from years out before needs can even be established.

 

[Joao]

No, the error was that we (our recruiters) rated Grundy the best available but we chose not to take him. It probably doesn’t always go wrong because we only hear of the ones that do but by Christ there are a lot of examples of clubs going against recruiters thoughts on the best player available and it burning them big time!

I still believe going with your clear highest rated player at the pick (particularly early) is logical. Otherwise why bother doing all of the work to identify who is best? Just identify your needs pre draft and only interview those players, which of course never happens in reality, clubs interview all players they think will be drafted around their picks and many more from years out before needs can even be established.

No I don't have a problem with picking for needs, especially that late in the first round. For instance, I 100% categorically reject the idea that we draft a KPD in the first round this year and I'll argue the point as long as you like.

The obvious reason why you list needs have to factored in, at least a little bit is because it could be very easy to become unbalanced. What if you have a good ruck but not top tier (say O'Brien at the Crows) and are picking in the top 5 two consecutive years. Both years the highest ranked player is a ruck. Do you take one or both of them? Of course not.

What if you are Carlton and pretending Curnow is fit. If the highest rated player this year is a KPF do you take them? No.

 

[Dockeroo]

We could end up as high as 10th place if all these teams just above us keep shitting themselves

 

[ilikepotatoes]

We could end up as high as 10th place if all these teams just above us keep shitting themselves

I think we can technically still make 8th

 

[Dockeroo]

I think we will beat north and lose to the dogs who will be desperate to play finals on the last day of the season. Ideally we need Essendon to beat Melbourne in the last game - they won’t beat port Adelaide. The suns play hawthorn and Brisbane tomorrow, if they win 2 games then they will probably finish ahead of us. Not so bothered about the draft but the difference between 13th and 12th next year is significant from an easier draw perspective.

 

[manpurple]

Lets all be honest. "Best avalable" is hugely subjective. It's not like "fastest available" which is a measurable thing. This is why clubs "can't believe he was available at our pick". Moneyball and The Draft should be manditory viewing for selectors. In the blue corner we have "lies and statistics" and in the red corner we have "he looks so pretty when he...".

Personally I think that 'best available' is a smoke screen for selectors who don't want to get crucified for picking a dud. Simpson failed and rather than roasting the selection committee for picking a player with issues before the draft people justified it by saying we went with 'best available'. Really? By what measure was he best available? I'm not saying they're wrong I am genuinely curious. This 'best available' smoke screen distorts and justifies all sorts of bizzar things. The 'best' for us may be the fastest or the tallest or the inate tallent. But if we draft another 'gun' mid then poor season scoring wasn't about drafting at all, 'we were just picking best available'.

Just saying.

 

[heypenny]

I wonder if we'll ever move to the NBA approach where draft picks can be traded after selection. That way, you truly pick the best available if you believe they will have strong currency.

 

[manpurple]

I wonder if we'll ever move to the NBA approach where draft picks can be traded after selection. That way, you truly pick the best available if you believe they will have strong currency.

Much more interesting if the trade period opens three days before the draft and closes the day after.

I change the trade system. It needs to be a bit more balenced. Players shouldn't get veto rights and clubs should respect state preferences not club preferences. Then remove compensation picks. Perhaps I'm being controversial.

 

[Taylor]

I agree, once players are paid enough in a year to buy a house outright, they should be able to be traded anywhere. It will be a while before a first year rookie is making $500,000.

 

[eastfreo75]

I wonder if we'll ever move to the NBA approach where draft picks can be traded after selection. That way, you truly pick the best available if you believe they will have strong currency.

We aren’t mature enough for that.

Love to see it.

 

[Ysaye]

Much more interesting if the trade period opens three days before the draft and closes the day after.

I change the trade system. It needs to be a bit more balenced. Players shouldn't get veto rights and clubs should respect state preferences not club preferences. Then remove compensation picks. Perhaps I'm being controversial.

The draft is already enough of a slave labour market mixed in with communist pseudo-equality "balancing rules" for the clubs and I say that as one who has followed the draft intently since 2005. To be honest, I am coming around to the thinking that just having regional selection areas would be much more interesting and focus people back on the actual footy rather than all the weird obsession of trying to intellectually optimize / beat the system.

 

[Lach72]

The draft is already enough of a slave labour market mixed in with communist pseudo-equality "balancing rules" for the clubs and I say that as one who has followed the draft intently since 2005. To be honest, I am coming around to the thinking that just having regional selection areas would be much more interesting and focus people back on the actual footy rather than all the weird obsession of trying to intellectually optimize / beat the system.

Yeah it's interesting...I love the draft and being able to pick your Serong's etc from outside WA, but I feel we've lost a bit of the "local" passion...rarely do you see a kid who came from your suburb or traditional zone playing for the club.

As West Coast and Freo help prop up WA footy we should each get a zone and priority access to one player per year if we want it.
I also wouldn't mind a zone system across the country. with the same thing...One kid in your zone...but using the bid system minus discount

So if Buddy Franklin comes along you pay a first and be done with it

 

[wayToGo_]

Have decided Adelaide need to bid on JUH with pick #1. It should be a crime to take that much talent without an early first round pick. Then choose either McDonald or Hollands once the Dogs match the bid.

 

[eastfreo75]

Have decided Adelaide need to bid on JUH with pick #1. It should be a crime to take that much talent without an early first round pick. Then choose either McDonald or Hollands once the Dogs match the bid.

Roos and Crows tend to call out next best no matter what.

Might be in the interest for the Crows to destroy all of the Dogs points as they have a host of picks.

 

[CapitalA]

Roos and Crows tend to call out next best no matter what.

Might be in the interest for the Crows to destroy all of the Dogs points as they have a host of picks.

I think it would only wipe out their pick 2 with the 20% discount.

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Joao]

Twomey doesn't rate O'Driscoll near our first. Looks like he is unlikely for us then.

Also, Logan McDonald has the most monotone voice going.

 

[arsesmart]

The draft is already enough of a slave labour market mixed in with communist pseudo-equality "balancing rules" for the clubs and I say that as one who has followed the draft intently since 2005. To be honest, I am coming around to the thinking that just having regional selection areas would be much more interesting and focus people back on the actual footy rather than all the weird obsession of trying to intellectually optimize / beat the system.

So richest/most established club wins?

Whatever you want to label it, the draft as it is works pretty well to keep a rotation of contenders happening. It's not perfect that's for sure, but while I'd love to have a real parochial interest in getting best access to locals and all the interest and fanbase that could be built from that, a more open draft is also vital to expanding the game into areas that don't have extensive numbers of players (but then can get the interest to develop them).

 

[mightymouse75]

Twomey doesn't rate O'Driscoll near our first. Looks like he is unlikely for us then.

Also, Logan McDonald has the most monotone voice going.

McDonald's going to slip down to us then