List Mgmt. 2022 Draft Thread - Part I

[George]

Sticking this at the top of each page. If it gets annoying, let me know and I can just put it in the original post of the thread. Credit to Lore

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Again opinions.

Mine is the complete opposite.

Be aggressive. Show you have done the work. Target a player and get him.

I’ve been a big advocate for trading IN to this draft.

I'd like us to be aggressive & use next years 1st to get another 1st this year.

Reckon we'll have a few on the trade table next year after Ross has had a season to assess them.

 

[bird_man]

Disagree. If we need KPPs in four years then drafting them now is a pretty low percentage way of getting them. Last year's flag side had talls they'd traded for (Cameron, Stanley), talls they'd drafted late as mature-age (Stewart, Blicavs), and the rest they'd drafted (Hawkins f/s, De Koning #19, Kolodjashnij #41, Henry rookie #16).

That's 4 talls drafted across 14 seasons who were good enough to win the flag. One every 3.5 years. They've probably drafted 30 other talls in that time none of whom were good enough. Pretty low strike rate.

Trying to pick the eyes out of the draft for "list management" is a low percentage strategy. Just pick mids and running players at every decent pick, and worry about getting talls by trades or FA or mature drafting later.

We aren't Geelong.

They've been able to bring in players for years, St Kilda on the other hand have to over pay players to get them in.

Ignoring key position players in the draft in the hope that you'll just be able to bring them in via trades later seems crazy.

Richmond won three flags with mostly key position players that were all taken in the draft except for Lynch who jumped ship once they had already won their first.

Imagine if they had only picked mids and running players at every decent pick...

 

[bergholt]

We aren't Geelong.

They've been able to bring in players for years, St Kilda on the other hand have to over pay players to get them in.

Ignoring key position players in the draft in the hope that you'll just be able to bring them in via trades later seems crazy.

Richmond won three flags with mostly key position players that were all taken in the draft except for Lynch who jumped ship once they had already won their first.

Imagine if they had only picked mids and running players at every decent pick...

Oh yeah totally, it can work to pick talls if you nail the picks.

But it's much higher risk because you have to nail the picks otherwise you end up with a mediocre midfield and mediocre talls - as we have on our current list.

Whereas if you just pick mids then you have the best possible chance of getting an A grade midfield and then being in a position to lure proven talls from other clubs without having to overpay. Or even if you do overpay, you know that it's justified because they're filling an obvious and immediate gap in the list.

 

[bergholt]

I'd like us to be aggressive & use next years 1st to get another 1st this year.

The problem with doing this is that it's a big risk. It assumes that your current recruiter is good enough to make use of the pick. If they're not, and they mess it up, and they're fired in 12 months, then you're crippling your next recruiter from day one. Given we've had about 5 different head recruiters in the last 10 years, I wouldn't be giving the current guy an extra first rounder until he's really proved himself.

 

[stavro#4]

 

[dudeintheswamp]

Sorry it it's been mentioned but zerohangers latest mock draft has a couple of curveballs.. the Hawks taking Clarke, Cats taking CMac leaving us with the Pou Pou.

Can't see it going that way personally, but would be pretty happy if it did. Looks like a player.

 

[botts]

Some serious games are being played.

 

[stavro#4]

Some serious games are being played.

I reckon this is Hawthorn testing Essendon about trading down.

They would want Tsatas

 

[bird_man]

Oh yeah totally, it can work to pick talls if you nail the picks.

But it's much higher risk because you have to nail the picks otherwise you end up with a mediocre midfield and mediocre talls - as we have on our current list.

Whereas if you just pick mids then you have the best possible chance of getting an A grade midfield and then being in a position to lure proven talls from other clubs without having to overpay. Or even if you do overpay, you know that it's justified because they're filling an obvious and immediate gap in the list.

It's the same as any position on the ground. It works if you nail the picks.

No point having 20 mids if only a handful are any good.

We need quality mids, not shit kickers.

Anyway, I reckon there's zero chance we pick 4 midfielders, time will tell in a week.

 

[BrutThough]

Decent small forwards are a dime a dozen, no-one ever won a flag because they had the best small forward in the comp. Tall depth can come from state leagues etc. Too hard to nail those picks in the draft.

Focus on one area - the midfield - and that gives you the best possible chance of actually getting enough A-graders to be seriously competitive.

Need more than midfielders on the list.

Drafting only mids and having holes in other positions doesn't make us stronger. Just leads to playing mids out of position because we didn't balance the list correctly with players of different strengths.

 

[CaptainRisky]

It's the same as any position on the ground. It works if you nail the picks.

No point having 20 mids if only a handful are any good.

We need quality mids, not s**t kickers.

Anyway, I reckon there's zero chance we pick 4 midfielders, time will tell in a week.

This

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

The problem with doing this is that it's a big risk. It assumes that your current recruiter is good enough to make use of the pick. If they're not, and they mess it up, and they're fired in 12 months, then you're crippling your next recruiter from day one. Given we've had about 5 different head recruiters in the last 10 years, I wouldn't be giving the current guy an extra first rounder until he's really proved himself.

Of course its a risk. Only worth doing on draft night if there’s someone still available that they’ve put plenty of work into & they desperately want.

By my count we’ve had 3. Trout, Libba & now Toce.

You’re not sacking someone in 12 months because of who they chose. It takes at least 3 years to see how specific decisions pan out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ads734]

Tsatas struggles to kick under pressure and his technique is probably the worst of the top prospects. However in todays game his running will be an absolute weapon. Mackenzie’s running and kicking is elite as is his size.

Phillapoo could be anything he has the moments probably better then any except for Wardlaw and Sheezel. He kicks with such ease.

The rest I’m
Not too fussed about. Clark is your standard gun in and mid who will burst onto the scene and then may elevate or may stagnate. I’m still high on Jefferson too. Think he has all the tools.

The other one I’d consider trading up for is Hotton the guy is a jet.

 

[bergholt]

Need more than midfielders on the list.

Drafting only mids and having holes in other positions doesn't make us stronger. Just leads to playing mids out of position because we didn't balance the list correctly with players of different strengths.

Most players who end up being small forwards or small backs or wingers or whatever have played as mids in underage because they're the best players on their team. Clearly GWS didn't lose too much by drafting Toby Greene as yet another mid when they already had heaps. Sincs was a mid but selected in the AA side after playing half-back. Last year Brayden Maynard was the AA back pocket but he played midfield in juniors. A million other examples.

The only thing you lose by focusing on running players is not having good enough talls. But talls aren't what wins you flags, you need a relatively small number of good ones. You can win a flag without an A grade key forward or without an A grade key back (probably not both though - Dogs 2016 aside maybe).

And these days more and more good players are putting their hands up to change clubs even when in contract. You can get hold of one or two proven B+ grade talls over a few years if you need. And you can also dig up mature age gems like Tom Stewart or Sam Collins or whoever. AA teams from the last few years have included Stewart, May, Cameron, Lever, Aliir, Dixon, Franklin, Gunston, Kennedy, Daniher, etc etc etc.

What drafting only mids does make more likely is that we'll get a couple of serious A grade mids. They're hard to find at the best of times, even with early picks. And if you don't get A grade mids, you don't win a flag, regardless of the quality in the rest of the ground. So it makes sense to me to focus on getting those A graders that you can't win a flag without.

 

[bergholt]

It's the same as any position on the ground. It works if you nail the picks.

No point having 20 mids if only a handful are any good.

Well yeah. But if you knew in advance which ones were going to be good the whole thing would be easy. The point about taking 20 is that it gives you a better chance to actually have good ones. The rest you can throw away.

It's like the old business quote - "I know half of my marketing spend is wasted, I just don't know which half."

We need quality mids, not s**t kickers.

Totally agree. But if you can tell with 100% accuracy which ones are going to be quality then please get a job at the club. But fundamentally as Jordan says "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take". The fewer you draft, the less likely it is you'll get even one A grader.

Anyway, I reckon there's zero chance we pick 4 midfielders, time will tell in a week.

Yeah agreed unfortunately. Too many spreadsheets and micro-decisions, too little attention to the macro strategy.

 

[bird_man]

Well yeah. But if you knew in advance which ones were going to be good the whole thing would be easy. The point about taking 20 is that it gives you a better chance to actually have good ones. The rest you can throw away.

It's like the old business quote - "I know half of my marketing spend is wasted, I just don't know which half."



Totally agree. But if you can tell with 100% accuracy which ones are going to be quality then please get a job at the club. But fundamentally as Jordan says "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take". The fewer you draft, the less likely it is you'll get even one A grader.



Yeah agreed unfortunately. Too many spreadsheets and micro-decisions, too little attention to the macro strategy.

No idea what you are on about to be honest.

I'm not suggesting you can tell which ones will be good but that goes for any position and taking 20 mids in the hope that 4 will be good and then not having any decent talls makes little sense.

Going through the past all Australian sides the majority of the best mids are taken in the first round. Every now and then you'll find a gem like Lachie Neale but it's pretty rare.

Anyway, I think there's a very good reason clubs don't recruit like this

 

[sammm]

Five underrated 2022 AFL Draft prospects

With the 2022 AFL Draft now just over a week away, ESPN's draft expert Chris Doerre has put together his picks for the most underrated prospects heading into the draft. .

www.espn.com.au

 

[bergholt]

I'm not suggesting you can tell which ones will be good but that goes for any position

Exactly. So trying to pick the perfect players for each position is most likely a bad strategy. "Our spreadsheet says that in three years we'll need a KPB so let's take a KPB with pick 27." Ridiculous strategy because most likely that player won't make it and then you'll still need a KPB, or maybe you won't because someone else might improve, or a trade might come up, or something else.

Whereas if you take a mid with that pick because that's your default, then the player will probably fail but if they don't then you have another quality mid to add to your group, which gets you closer to having the critical mass of quality mids that wins games.

and taking 20 mids in the hope that 4 will be good

If you think only 4 of 20 will be good then taking 10 means only 2 will be good. Taking 5 means only 1. If you need 4 A grade mids then the best way to get them is to keep taking mids until you've proven you have your 4.

and then not having any decent talls makes little sense.

Yeah but it's easy to get decent talls, they change hands all the time for cheap prices. Cordy, Jones, McStay, Logue, Jackson, Gunston, Grundy, Frampton, Weideman, Schache, Lobb, Meek, Corbett all moved this year already. Last year Chol, O'Brien, Brander, Campbell, Ceglar, Coleman-Jones, Finlayson, Fort, Kreuger, Ladhams, Lynch, Tarrant, Young, Casboult, Lienert, McCartin, Durdin. Clearly not all A graders but most of them are competitive (with the notable exceptions of Brander and CCJ).

A graders are much harder but if you have a quality midfield you just need competitive talls. Collingwood were good this year with their main talls being Cox, Cameron, Grundy, Kreuger, Magden, Wilson, Johnson, Mihocek, Howe. And because they were good, they were able to attract Hill and Frampton and Mitchell to fill gaps.

Going through the past all Australian sides the majority of the best mids are taken in the first round. Every now and then you'll find a gem like Lachie Neale but it's pretty rare.

Yep, same is true of talls. So if you only have one first rounder each year, should you alternate between mids and talls? That just makes it less likely you'll get enough A graders in either group. At least if you always spend your first rounders on mids, you're more likely to get a group of A grade mids that can then make everyone else look better.

 

[FrogDude]

Exactly. So trying to pick the perfect players for each position is most likely a bad strategy. "Our spreadsheet says that in three years we'll need a KPB so let's take a KPB with pick 27." Ridiculous strategy because most likely that player won't make it and then you'll still need a KPB, or maybe you won't because someone else might improve, or a trade might come up, or something else.

Whereas if you take a mid with that pick because that's your default, then the player will probably fail but if they don't then you have another quality mid to add to your group, which gets you closer to having the critical mass of quality mids that wins games.



If you think only 4 of 20 will be good then taking 10 means only 2 will be good. Taking 5 means only 1. If you need 4 A grade mids then the best way to get them is to keep taking mids until you've proven you have your 4.



Yeah but it's easy to get decent talls, they change hands all the time for cheap prices. Cordy, Jones, McStay, Logue, Jackson, Gunston, Grundy, Frampton, Weideman, Schache, Lobb, Meek, Corbett all moved this year already. Last year Chol, O'Brien, Brander, Campbell, Ceglar, Coleman-Jones, Finlayson, Fort, Kreuger, Ladhams, Lynch, Tarrant, Young, Casboult, Lienert, McCartin, Durdin. Clearly not all A graders but most of them are competitive (with the notable exceptions of Brander and CCJ).

A graders are much harder but if you have a quality midfield you just need competitive talls. Collingwood were good this year with their main talls being Cox, Cameron, Grundy, Kreuger, Magden, Wilson, Johnson, Mihocek, Howe. And because they were good, they were able to attract Hill and Frampton and Mitchell to fill gaps.



Yep, same is true of talls. So if you only have one first rounder each year, should you alternate between mids and talls? That just makes it less likely you'll get enough A graders in either group. At least if you always spend your first rounders on mids, you're more likely to get a group of A grade mids that can then make everyone else look better.

Isn't having too many mids and not enough places to put them exactly why the Bulldogs haven't been a premiership contender in years? It's poor drafting and there is a reason that clubs don't do it. Midfielders keep you in games, talls win them. It's why an AA level forward is worth more than a AA level Midfielder most of the time.

 

[bergholt]

Isn't having too many mids and not enough places to put them exactly why the Bulldogs haven't been a premiership contender in years?

The Dogs were in the GF last year. And they won a (lucky) flag a few years ago with good mids and only GOP talls. And they've made finals the last 4 years in a row.

Consistently being around the mark has meant they've been able to attract decent (not star) free agents and trades to fill gaps: O'Brien, Treloar, Martin, Hannan, Bruce, Keath, Duryea, Crozier, Schache. Not all or even most of those have worked out but they've still been in a position to grab them because they're making finals.

It's poor drafting and there is a reason that clubs don't do it. Midfielders keep you in games, talls win them. It's why an AA level forward is worth more than a AA level Midfielder most of the time.

Yeah but you only need one or two AA forwards whereas you need probably 8 running players of at least B+ grade to be at all competitive. And getting B+ graders (level of around the AA squad) isn't as easy as it sounds. It takes a lot of picks to get a good shot at those 8.

 

[bird_man]

Exactly. So trying to pick the perfect players for each position is most likely a bad strategy. "Our spreadsheet says that in three years we'll need a KPB so let's take a KPB with pick 27." Ridiculous strategy because most likely that player won't make it and then you'll still need a KPB, or maybe you won't because someone else might improve, or a trade might come up, or something else.

Whereas if you take a mid with that pick because that's your default, then the player will probably fail but if they don't then you have another quality mid to add to your group, which gets you closer to having the critical mass of quality mids that wins games.



If you think only 4 of 20 will be good then taking 10 means only 2 will be good. Taking 5 means only 1. If you need 4 A grade mids then the best way to get them is to keep taking mids until you've proven you have your 4.



Yeah but it's easy to get decent talls, they change hands all the time for cheap prices. Cordy, Jones, McStay, Logue, Jackson, Gunston, Grundy, Frampton, Weideman, Schache, Lobb, Meek, Corbett all moved this year already. Last year Chol, O'Brien, Brander, Campbell, Ceglar, Coleman-Jones, Finlayson, Fort, Kreuger, Ladhams, Lynch, Tarrant, Young, Casboult, Lienert, McCartin, Durdin. Clearly not all A graders but most of them are competitive (with the notable exceptions of Brander and CCJ).

A graders are much harder but if you have a quality midfield you just need competitive talls. Collingwood were good this year with their main talls being Cox, Cameron, Grundy, Kreuger, Magden, Wilson, Johnson, Mihocek, Howe. And because they were good, they were able to attract Hill and Frampton and Mitchell to fill gaps.



Yep, same is true of talls. So if you only have one first rounder each year, should you alternate between mids and talls? That just makes it less likely you'll get enough A graders in either group. At least if you always spend your first rounders on mids, you're more likely to get a group of A grade mids that can then make everyone else look better.

No because instead of taking 20 you just target the ones you think will be good.

As I said earlier most AA mids come from the first round. It just so happens there will be plenty this year. After that take the ones you rate that may slide. You don't just take mids for the sake of it otherwise you just end up with a heap of list cloggers.

As for the key forwards that are apparently so easy to pick up, the majority of them are either GOP's or will cost us a fortune and most likely will choose to go to a big club (not St Kilda)

Topping up with players like Cordy doesnt do a lot other than improve our depth.

Pies didn't win the flag. All of Geelong, Richmond, West Coast, Hawthorn etc had quality talls at either end in their premierships.

Anyway, no point going back an forward because as I've already said, there is a very good reason clubs don't draft this way.

 

[phantom13]

If you think only 4 of 20 will be good then taking 10 means only 2 will be good. Taking 5 means only 1. If you need 4 A grade mids then the best way to get them is to keep taking mids until you've proven you have your 4.

This is some false equivalence though cause youre assuming that our pick 9 is as likely as our pick 28, 32, 57, 85 to turn into a grade. Thats not how the draft works.

 

[bergholt]

No because instead of taking 20 you just target the ones you think will be good.

In investing this is called "picking winners". It's a risky strategy because you reduce the surface area for luck to strike.

As I said earlier most AA mids come from the first round. It just so happens there will be plenty this year. After that take the ones you rate that may slide. You don't just take mids for the sake of it otherwise you just end up with a heap of list cloggers.

List cloggers is an overused expression. Someone has to fill those list spots and play for Sandy. Hopefully they turn out to be better than that, but if they don't then it doesn't cost you a huge amount.

Anyway the list of non-first rounders from the last 8 years or so of AA teams is pretty solid:

Nat Fyfe - pick 20
Cam Guthrie - pick 23
Matt Crouch - pick 23
Tim Kelly - pick 24
Jack Steele - pick 24
Zach Merrett - pick 26
Touk Miller - pick 29
Shai Bolton - pick 29
Elliot Yeo - pick 30
Dan Hannebery - pick 30
Luke Parker - pick 40
Rory Sloane - pick 44
Robbie Gray - pick 55
Lachie Neale - pick 58
Rory Laird - rookie pick 5
Matty Boyd - rookie pick 23

That's ignoring guys like Daniel, Sinclair, Saad who weren't really playing as pure mids when picked in the AA side.

The reason they go late is because people don't think they're super likely to make it. So the more you drop your bar for mids by taking more of them, the more likely you are to unearth a Lachie Neale or a Rory Sloane or a Luke Parker or a Rory Laird or whoever.

As for the key forwards that are apparently so easy to pick up, the majority of them are either GOP's or will cost us a fortune and most likely will choose to go to a big club (not St Kilda)

Disagree, plenty change hands every year. Josh Bruce went to the Dogs from us, not a big club, not on a huge contract. And he looked good at the Dogs (until he was injured) because he had good players kicking it to him.

Topping up with players like Cordy doesnt do a lot other than improve our depth.

Yeah totally. But conversely, it does improve our depth. Cordy won a flag because he had good mids in front of him. You don't need superstar talls if you have a bunch of quality mids.

Anyway, no point going back an forward because as I've already said, there is a very good reason clubs don't draft this way.

I haven't heard one! The argument is that clubs don't draft this way because clubs don't draft this way. But the AFL is a pretty dumb industry generally, everyone follows everyone else. Footy clubs are small. They have a couple of people working in recruitment/list management, not exactly a high-performance, innovative environment. If Trout can get a job as head recruiter then clearly they'll hire anyone.

 

[bergholt]

This is some false equivalence though cause youre assuming that our pick 9 is as likely as our pick 28, 32, 57, 85 to turn into a grade. Thats not how the draft works.

Yeah true. But a later pick used on a mid is more likely to turn into an A grade mid (say 1 in 10) than a later pick used on a project tall like Matty Allison or this Keeler kid (0 in 10).

You need a critical mass of A grade mids to be good. The best way to get them is to keep picking mids until you can see you've got them.

 

[bird_man]

In investing this is called "picking winners". It's a risky strategy because you reduce the surface area for luck to strike.



List cloggers is an overused expression. Someone has to fill those list spots and play for Sandy. Hopefully they turn out to be better than that, but if they don't then it doesn't cost you a huge amount.

Anyway the list of non-first rounders from the last 8 years or so of AA teams is pretty solid:

Nat Fyfe - pick 20
Cam Guthrie - pick 23
Matt Crouch - pick 23
Tim Kelly - pick 24
Jack Steele - pick 24
Zach Merrett - pick 26
Touk Miller - pick 29
Shai Bolton - pick 29
Elliot Yeo - pick 30
Dan Hannebery - pick 30
Luke Parker - pick 40
Rory Sloane - pick 44
Robbie Gray - pick 55
Lachie Neale - pick 58
Rory Laird - rookie pick 5
Matty Boyd - rookie pick 23

That's ignoring guys like Daniel, Sinclair, Saad who weren't really playing as pure mids when picked in the AA side.

The reason they go late is because people don't think they're super likely to make it. So the more you drop your bar for mids by taking more of them, the more likely you are to unearth a Lachie Neale or a Rory Sloane or a Luke Parker or a Rory Laird or whoever.



Disagree, plenty change hands every year. Josh Bruce went to the Dogs from us, not a big club, not on a huge contract. And he looked good at the Dogs (until he was injured) because he had good players kicking it to him.



Yeah totally. But conversely, it does improve our depth. Cordy won a flag because he had good mids in front of him. You don't need superstar talls if you have a bunch of quality mids.



I haven't heard one! The argument is that clubs don't draft this way because clubs don't draft this way. But the AFL is a pretty dumb industry generally, everyone follows everyone else. Footy clubs are small. They have a couple of people working in recruitment/list management, not exactly a high-performance, innovative environment. If Trout can get a job as head recruiter then clearly they'll hire anyone.

Ok mate, maybe the club should put you in charge.

Obviously the AFL industry is pretty dumb and you know the secret formula that no other club has worked out yet...

Also, I'm not suggesting you can't find good mids late, but all those players would have been taken because they were rated by the recruiter, just because they were mids