Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2022 Draft Thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mofra said:
I posted a while ago the small forwards (just from WA) who went late int he draft.
Like rucks, it's one position where good ones don't necessarily need to come from the pointy end of the draft.

The members video posted a couple of days ago was pretty adamant about aiming for quality and taking the best talent available with our picks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we have just been unlucky and not had a pick in the right spot for a small pressure forward…. It has been a need for a while.
 
LittleG said:
Perhaps we have just been unlucky and not had a pick in the right spot for a small pressure forward…. It has been a need for a while.
Click to expand...
I think we should target (or at least consider) needs with late picks/rookies - this year there seem to be some project talls who are likely to slip to the rookie draft (there are good raw rookie rucks available every year).
In terms of KPDs, there's a raw kid from SA who tested off the charts athletically who would make a good rookie KPD pick IMO - Kyle Marshall.

We've flagged we're making 3 live picks at the draft and have to promote Sweet & Khamis so we'll take at least two rookies as well.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Mofra said:
I think we should target (or at least consider) needs with late picks/rookies - this year there seem to be some project talls who are likely to slip to the rookie draft (there are good raw rookie rucks available every year).
In terms of KPDs, there's a raw kid from SA who tested off the charts athletically who would make a good rookie KPD pick IMO - Kyle Marshall.

We've flagged we're making 3 live picks at the draft and have to promote Sweet & Khamis so we'll take at least two rookies as well.
Click to expand...

I would hope that we would take a kPD late in the draft, unless there is a small forward there we like.
IF that means we need to take 4 picks in the draft and not 3, that would be my preference.
 
Every year we look at the write-up of draft prospects and salivate. Like a kid in a lolly shop overwhelmed with choice in deciding where to spend his meagre pocket money.

The top 40 all seem destined for greatness with fantastic ball-winning ability, infinite athletic capability and great vision/decision making. Yet we know that quite a few of them won't make it. Each year clubs pick up about half a dozen players in the top 40 who don't play more than a dozen games. And a whole lot more who never make it to 50 games. So let's say about a 30-40% of the top 40 don't become long term prospects. (I haven't crunched the numbers - would be happy to hear from anyone who has - but this seems about the correct proportion). And remember 40 picks takes us only just past the second round of the draft.

So have we ever looked backwards to see which kids were a bust and which unlikely kids became elite players, AA selections, etc? I'm not talking about where they were drafted. That's easy to look at in hindsight and say "oh x was a bargain, wish we'd drafted him". I'm talking about the pre-draft form guides.

What I'm wondering is if there is some really reliable determinant (or combination of them, e.g. must have x + y if he's a KPF) for kids who will make the grade. Of course these determining factors might vary according to the expected role of the player (midfielder, KPP, ruck, small forward etc) but if we are looking for "best available" or perhaps "best of the small forwards in this draft" can we discern any pattern from past drafts that will give us a reliable prediction? And implicitly a safer pick.

One principle we should have learned from drafting Kieron Collins is that big slow 18yo defenders with a wide turning circle are a big risk of not kicking on. In my view the draftee's agility and speed has to be at least rated "average" but preferably above average. This would apply to all roles except maybe rucks. (We also need to be mindful that some kids with average speed have other overwhelmingly good traits that make up for it. I give you Marcus Bontempelli as Exhibit A.)

This ability to read the form guide would be particularly useful for picks outside the top 10 where quality is less certain and picks become gradually more speculative as we get towards pick 40. And beyond. It might also be handy if going for a hail mary choice at pick 87 or wondering who's worth a punt in the rookie draft. With late picks and rookies it's no great loss if the player fails but it would be worth considering which traits are most likely to deliver a good long term prospect. Those players reveal themselves as great bargains 5 years down the track (as we've so often celebrated M Boyd, Picken, Morris, JJ, etc).

I expect list managers and draft specialists at each club have their own well-worked rules of thumb and of course they have watched and tracked some of these kids since they first became teenagers, but even national recruiting managers get it wrong sometimes. Yes, even with top 10 picks.

What made me think of this today was reading Mofra's comment about Kyle Marshall testing off the charts athletically. I started thinking: is that going to give us a high probability of a long-term player? I wondered for instance whether that write-up could have been applied to Ryan Gardner (with all his much-discussed current strengths and weaknesses) 6-7 years ago ... and how well or poorly we relate descriptions of raw prospects to the finished products. Especially knowing that "big men take more time".​

Anyway (tl;dr) what would your list of "must haves" be for:
  • KPDs
  • KPFs
  • Midfielders generally
  • Wingers / outside midfielders
  • Rucks
  • Small forwards
  • Mid-sized utility players (HB/HF flankers)
And what would your "must nots" include?
Are there any universal "must haves" that apply to all players regardless of their role? (e.g. work ethic?)
Under what situations - if any - would you consider breaking those rules?

For the purpose of the exercise ignore issues of list balance. We're just looking at "best available" or "best in role".
 
dogwatch said:
Every year we look at the write-up of draft prospects and salivate. Like a kid in a lolly shop overwhelmed with choice in deciding where to spend his meagre pocket money.

The top 40 all seem destined for greatness with fantastic ball-winning ability, infinite athletic capability and great vision/decision making. Yet we know that quite a few of them won't make it. Each year clubs pick up about half a dozen players in the top 40 who don't play more than a dozen games. And a whole lot more who never make it to 50 games. So let's say about a 30-40% of the top 40 don't become long term prospects. (I haven't crunched the numbers - would be happy to hear from anyone who has - but this seems about the correct proportion). And remember 40 picks takes us only just past the second round of the draft.

So have we ever looked backwards to see which kids were a bust and which unlikely kids became elite players, AA selections, etc? I'm not talking about where they were drafted. That's easy to look at in hindsight and say "oh x was a bargain, wish we'd drafted him". I'm talking about the pre-draft form guides.

What I'm wondering is if there is some really reliable determinant (or combination of them, e.g. must have x + y if he's a KPF) for kids who will make the grade. Of course these determining factors might vary according to the expected role of the player (midfielder, KPP, ruck, small forward etc) but if we are looking for "best available" or perhaps "best of the small forwards in this draft" can we discern any pattern from past drafts that will give us a reliable prediction? And implicitly a safer pick.

One principle we should have learned from drafting Kieron Collins is that big slow 18yo defenders with a wide turning circle are a big risk of not kicking on. In my view the draftee's agility and speed has to be at least rated "average" but preferably above average. This would apply to all roles except maybe rucks. (We also need to be mindful that some kids with average speed have other overwhelmingly good traits that make up for it. I give you Marcus Bontempelli as Exhibit A.)

This ability to read the form guide would be particularly useful for picks outside the top 10 where quality is less certain and picks become gradually more speculative as we get towards pick 40. And beyond. It might also be handy if going for a hail mary choice at pick 87 or wondering who's worth a punt in the rookie draft. With late picks and rookies it's no great loss if the player fails but it would be worth considering which traits are most likely to deliver a good long term prospect. Those players reveal themselves as great bargains 5 years down the track (as we've so often celebrated M Boyd, Picken, Morris, JJ, etc).

I expect list managers and draft specialists at each club have their own well-worked rules of thumb and of course they have watched and tracked some of these kids since they first became teenagers, but even national recruiting managers get it wrong sometimes. Yes, even with top 10 picks.

What made me think of this today was reading Mofra's comment about Kyle Marshall testing off the charts athletically. I started thinking: is that going to give us a high probability of a long-term player? I wondered for instance whether that write-up could have been applied to Ryan Gardner (with all his much-discussed current strengths and weaknesses) 6-7 years ago ... and how well or poorly we relate descriptions of raw prospects to the finished products. Especially knowing that "big men take more time".​

Anyway (tl;dr) what would your list of "must haves" be for:
  • KPDs
  • KPFs
  • Midfielders generally
  • Wingers / outside midfielders
  • Rucks
  • Small forwards
  • Mid-sized utility players (HB/HF flankers)
And what would your "must nots" include?
Are there any universal "must haves" that apply to all players regardless of their role? (e.g. work ethic?)
Under what situations - if any - would you consider breaking those rules?

For the purpose of the exercise ignore issues of list balance. We're just looking at "best available" or "best in role".
Click to expand...
I take into account; Work ethic, on field attitude, repeat efforts not shirking contests all the things you can't teach.
Things I look for on a development stand point are late birthdays, growth spurts, sudden form spikes/development and in game athletic attributes above test results.
 
True story but I can’t remember the guys name. An American successful NFL or college coach was asked his secret for selecting players. He said “ I take them into the woods and tell them to run. Those that run around the trees I play on the offensive team and those that run into the trees I play in the defensive team.
 
dogwatch said:
The top 40 all seem destined for greatness with fantastic ball-winning ability, infinite athletic capability and great vision/decision making. Yet we know that quite a few of them won't make it. Each year clubs pick up about half a dozen players in the top 40 who don't play more than a dozen games. And a whole lot more who never make it to 50 games. So let's say about a 30-40% of the top 40 don't become long term prospects. (I haven't crunched the numbers - would be happy to hear from anyone who has - but this seems about the correct proportion). And remember 40 picks takes us only just past the second round of the draft.

So have we ever looked backwards to see which kids were a bust and which unlikely kids became elite players, AA selections, etc? I'm not talking about where they were drafted. That's easy to look at in hindsight and say "oh x was a bargain, wish we'd drafted him". I'm talking about the pre-draft form guides.
Click to expand...
There have been a few 'analysis' articles that indicate the failure rate for players in the first round is much lower than for later rounds, but long term comparisons between 2nd rounders and later rounds is (surprisingly) marginal.

There are also a few 'magic' ratios that apply to certain positions - one is the ratio of UC vs CP against peers for midfielders.
Once the UC ratio gets above a certain number (something like 65% from memory), the success rate of players diminishes substantially.

IIRC Dalrymple did u18 comp stats before he moved into recruiting so he had a very solid basis for number crunching to help determine his draft order. I'm actually surprised more clubs don't hire actuaries/data miners to assist their recruiters.
 
Scenario:
Philipou, George, Weddle, Hayes, Konstanty, Hewitt, Hollands, Hotton, Clarke
Are all still on the board….

Would you trade the current pick for picks 19 & 20 to GWS? You would get at least 1 of these above players and if you want, first pick of the rest.
 
LittleG said:
Scenario:
Philipou, George, Weddle, Hayes, Konstanty, Hewitt, Hollands, Hotton, Clarke
Are all still on the board….

Would you trade the current pick for picks 19 & 20 to GWS? You would get at least 1 of these above players and if you want, first pick of the rest.
Click to expand...
No. I'd take Phillipou. If Phillipou wasn't there, I'd take Hollands before the GWS deal.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

weltschmerz said:
I'd take Phillipou, I'd make the trade if he wasn't there.
Click to expand...
TBH I'd be comfortable taking George at 11 too, although I think more people would disagree than agree with me.
 
www.afl.com.au

The late draft bolter, powerful mids aplenty, pick swap plans

Cal Twomey and Nat Edwards answer all your burning draft questions on Road to the Draft live
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au

First question is re: our first pick. Raises Hayes, Busslinger & Hollands as options but seems less about inside word on who we're interested in and more about knowledge of the draft generally.
 
Dannnnnnnnnn said:
www.afl.com.au

The late draft bolter, powerful mids aplenty, pick swap plans

Cal Twomey and Nat Edwards answer all your burning draft questions on Road to the Draft live
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au

First question is re: our first pick. Raises Hayes, Busslinger & Hollands as options but seems less about inside word on who we're interested in and more about knowledge of the draft generally.
Click to expand...

Hayes feels like a stretch at 11 but he's a genuine full back and we desperately need one of those developing.
 
dogwatch said:
Every year we look at the write-up of draft prospects and salivate. Like a kid in a lolly shop overwhelmed with choice in deciding where to spend his meagre pocket money.

The top 40 all seem destined for greatness with fantastic ball-winning ability, infinite athletic capability and great vision/decision making. Yet we know that quite a few of them won't make it. Each year clubs pick up about half a dozen players in the top 40 who don't play more than a dozen games. And a whole lot more who never make it to 50 games. So let's say about a 30-40% of the top 40 don't become long term prospects. (I haven't crunched the numbers - would be happy to hear from anyone who has - but this seems about the correct proportion). And remember 40 picks takes us only just past the second round of the draft.

So have we ever looked backwards to see which kids were a bust and which unlikely kids became elite players, AA selections, etc? I'm not talking about where they were drafted. That's easy to look at in hindsight and say "oh x was a bargain, wish we'd drafted him". I'm talking about the pre-draft form guides.

What I'm wondering is if there is some really reliable determinant (or combination of them, e.g. must have x + y if he's a KPF) for kids who will make the grade. Of course these determining factors might vary according to the expected role of the player (midfielder, KPP, ruck, small forward etc) but if we are looking for "best available" or perhaps "best of the small forwards in this draft" can we discern any pattern from past drafts that will give us a reliable prediction? And implicitly a safer pick.

One principle we should have learned from drafting Kieron Collins is that big slow 18yo defenders with a wide turning circle are a big risk of not kicking on. In my view the draftee's agility and speed has to be at least rated "average" but preferably above average. This would apply to all roles except maybe rucks. (We also need to be mindful that some kids with average speed have other overwhelmingly good traits that make up for it. I give you Marcus Bontempelli as Exhibit A.)

This ability to read the form guide would be particularly useful for picks outside the top 10 where quality is less certain and picks become gradually more speculative as we get towards pick 40. And beyond. It might also be handy if going for a hail mary choice at pick 87 or wondering who's worth a punt in the rookie draft. With late picks and rookies it's no great loss if the player fails but it would be worth considering which traits are most likely to deliver a good long term prospect. Those players reveal themselves as great bargains 5 years down the track (as we've so often celebrated M Boyd, Picken, Morris, JJ, etc).

I expect list managers and draft specialists at each club have their own well-worked rules of thumb and of course they have watched and tracked some of these kids since they first became teenagers, but even national recruiting managers get it wrong sometimes. Yes, even with top 10 picks.

What made me think of this today was reading Mofra's comment about Kyle Marshall testing off the charts athletically. I started thinking: is that going to give us a high probability of a long-term player? I wondered for instance whether that write-up could have been applied to Ryan Gardner (with all his much-discussed current strengths and weaknesses) 6-7 years ago ... and how well or poorly we relate descriptions of raw prospects to the finished products. Especially knowing that "big men take more time".​

Anyway (tl;dr) what would your list of "must haves" be for:
  • KPDs
  • KPFs
  • Midfielders generally
  • Wingers / outside midfielders
  • Rucks
  • Small forwards
  • Mid-sized utility players (HB/HF flankers)
And what would your "must nots" include?
Are there any universal "must haves" that apply to all players regardless of their role? (e.g. work ethic?)
Under what situations - if any - would you consider breaking those rules?

For the purpose of the exercise ignore issues of list balance. We're just looking at "best available" or "best in role".
Click to expand...

I’m not sure of his full results but Ryan Gardner had a 2.96 second 20m sprint time in the 2015 Vic State combine. Pretty quick for a KPD and only just shy of Josh Weddle’s time and a top 10 in the National combine this year.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

dogwatch said:
Every year we look at the write-up of draft prospects and salivate. Like a kid in a lolly shop overwhelmed with choice in deciding where to spend his meagre pocket money.

The top 40 all seem destined for greatness with fantastic ball-winning ability, infinite athletic capability and great vision/decision making. Yet we know that quite a few of them won't make it. Each year clubs pick up about half a dozen players in the top 40 who don't play more than a dozen games. And a whole lot more who never make it to 50 games. So let's say about a 30-40% of the top 40 don't become long term prospects. (I haven't crunched the numbers - would be happy to hear from anyone who has - but this seems about the correct proportion). And remember 40 picks takes us only just past the second round of the draft.

So have we ever looked backwards to see which kids were a bust and which unlikely kids became elite players, AA selections, etc? I'm not talking about where they were drafted. That's easy to look at in hindsight and say "oh x was a bargain, wish we'd drafted him". I'm talking about the pre-draft form guides.

What I'm wondering is if there is some really reliable determinant (or combination of them, e.g. must have x + y if he's a KPF) for kids who will make the grade. Of course these determining factors might vary according to the expected role of the player (midfielder, KPP, ruck, small forward etc) but if we are looking for "best available" or perhaps "best of the small forwards in this draft" can we discern any pattern from past drafts that will give us a reliable prediction? And implicitly a safer pick.

One principle we should have learned from drafting Kieron Collins is that big slow 18yo defenders with a wide turning circle are a big risk of not kicking on. In my view the draftee's agility and speed has to be at least rated "average" but preferably above average. This would apply to all roles except maybe rucks. (We also need to be mindful that some kids with average speed have other overwhelmingly good traits that make up for it. I give you Marcus Bontempelli as Exhibit A.)

This ability to read the form guide would be particularly useful for picks outside the top 10 where quality is less certain and picks become gradually more speculative as we get towards pick 40. And beyond. It might also be handy if going for a hail mary choice at pick 87 or wondering who's worth a punt in the rookie draft. With late picks and rookies it's no great loss if the player fails but it would be worth considering which traits are most likely to deliver a good long term prospect. Those players reveal themselves as great bargains 5 years down the track (as we've so often celebrated M Boyd, Picken, Morris, JJ, etc).

I expect list managers and draft specialists at each club have their own well-worked rules of thumb and of course they have watched and tracked some of these kids since they first became teenagers, but even national recruiting managers get it wrong sometimes. Yes, even with top 10 picks.

What made me think of this today was reading Mofra's comment about Kyle Marshall testing off the charts athletically. I started thinking: is that going to give us a high probability of a long-term player? I wondered for instance whether that write-up could have been applied to Ryan Gardner (with all his much-discussed current strengths and weaknesses) 6-7 years ago ... and how well or poorly we relate descriptions of raw prospects to the finished products. Especially knowing that "big men take more time".​

Anyway (tl;dr) what would your list of "must haves" be for:
  • KPDs
  • KPFs
  • Midfielders generally
  • Wingers / outside midfielders
  • Rucks
  • Small forwards
  • Mid-sized utility players (HB/HF flankers)
And what would your "must nots" include?
Are there any universal "must haves" that apply to all players regardless of their role? (e.g. work ethic?)
Under what situations - if any - would you consider breaking those rules?

For the purpose of the exercise ignore issues of list balance. We're just looking at "best available" or "best in role".
Click to expand...

I know Melbourne’s recruiting team’s focus for at least 4-5 years has been players that can win their own contested ball above everything else.
 
TiAn_ said:
I know Melbourne’s recruiting team’s focus for at least 4-5 years has been players that can win their own contested ball above everything else.
Click to expand...
Each recruiting team prioritises something. The past few years Sydney have prioritised footskills and they've gone from average to arguably the best kicking side in the competition.
Our old recruiting team used to prioritise rate of improvement (and often, late birthdays).

Adelaide - bizarrely - seem to just accumulate small forwards
 
Last edited:
Jefferson for me is the key to a successful draft for us.

Someone either taking him before us OR trading up to take him at our spot (before Melbourne), will deliver us the best result. Either we get one of the high end midfielders/forwards OR we get a good deal to move back a few spots OR an incredible deal to move back a lot of spots.
 
TiAn_ said:
I know Melbourne’s recruiting team’s focus for at least 4-5 years has been players that can win their own contested ball above everything else.
Click to expand...
Mofra said:
Each recruiting team prioritises something. The past few years Sydney have prioritised footskills and they've gone from average to arguably the best kicking side in the competition.
Our old recruiting team used to prioritise rate of improvement (and often, late birthdays).

Adelaide - bizarrely - seem to just accumulate small forwards
Click to expand...
The generic attributes I'd be looking for (knowing you can't have everything in the one player, except maybe in a top 3 pick) would be:
  • work ethic
  • foot skills
  • footy nous (aka good decision making, as well as positioning/anticipation and game awareness)
  • appetite for the contest which implies a good rate of contested possession (can include CMs) plus hard at the ball, good tackling
  • average to above-average agility and speed
You can do a lot with your list if most of them have those attributes in good measure. Caleb Daniel who is ridiculously short for AFL has been an AA on the strength of at least four of them.

As for dickheads, I wouldn't have a blanket rule to pass them over - I'd assess each of those on their merits. Some can be toxic to team culture (eg Stringer, O'Keefe), some are just wild youths who will play good footy at times but often get into trouble, and will only make great clubmen if you can nurse them to 25 years old ("rough colt --> good horse"). They can sometimes be handy enforcers. The main things is to have a limited quota of them (say a max 10% of the list) and only take them if they have exceptional footy traits. Having strong leaders around the club helps keep them on the straight and narrow.
 
dogwatch said:
The generic attributes I'd be looking for (knowing you can't have everything in the one player, except maybe in a top 3 pick) would be:
  • work ethic
  • foot skills
  • footy nous (aka good decision making, as well as positioning/anticipation and game awareness)
  • appetite for the contest which implies a good rate of contested possession (can include CMs) plus hard at the ball, good tackling
  • average to above-average agility and speed
You can do a lot with your list if most of them have those attributes in good measure. Caleb Daniel who is ridiculously short for AFL has been an AA on the strength of at least four of them.

As for dickheads, I wouldn't have a blanket rule to pass them over - I'd assess each of those on their merits. Some can be toxic to team culture (eg Stringer, O'Keefe), some are just wild youths who will play good footy at times but often get into trouble, and will only make great clubmen if you can nurse them to 25 years old ("rough colt --> good horse"). They can sometimes be handy enforcers. The main things is to have a limited quota of them (say a max 10% of the list) and only take them if they have exceptional footy traits. Having strong leaders around the club helps keep them on the straight and narrow.
Click to expand...

Imagine how good Stringer could have been if he had gone to Geelong
 
ScragCity said:
Imagine how good Stringer could have been if he had gone to Geelong
Click to expand...
How long is a piece of string?
images
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

B
2025 Draft Thread
101 102 103 104 105
Replies
3K
Views
153K
Northernsoul74
Northernsoul74
Dav1d
Opinion BigFooty Bulldogs 2025 Mock Draft
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
200
Views
11K
Ash1337
A
VitalDread
List Mgmt. 2025 Draft Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
House_of_Dahl
House_of_Dahl
Eastdog
2026 Membership Thread
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Graeme Cook
G
goodcop badcop
List Mgmt. 2024 Draft Thread
117 118 119 120 121
Replies
3K
Views
166K
VitalDread
VitalDread
dogwatch
News What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 5
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
19K
Testekill
Testekill
dogwatch
  • Locked
  • Poll
The Jamarra Thread
167 168 169 170 171
Replies
4K
Views
304K
Mutt
Mutt

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top