Can only teams with top draft picks (and father-sons) be successful?

[lockheed]

There's been a long ongoing discussions, mostly within the Bye Bye Brad discussion, regarding whether our immense mediocrity is because we've only had middling draft picks for many years, or whether its because we have an immensely mediocre list management and coaching set up. The discussion arises, in another form, during the "play the kids" discussion, with the contrary argument being that, while we would probably lose more games in the short-term, and hence get better draft picks, the risk of developing a losing culture is too high.

I find this argument too simplistic. Obviously, one or more very high draft picks, who develop to become match winning champions, are invaluable. Whereas I believe in that cliche, that the bottom six determine a premiership as much as the top six. And the chain metaphor works as well - every part of the club must be working together, and teh club is only as strong as its weakest link.

My evidence: Exhibit 1 is an astute observation from kangatime:

From 2014, 15, 16 and 17 Rising star nominations there have been 52 players nominated that were taken out side of the top 10. We've had one, Clarke.
Is it Joyce or Brad?

Exhibit 2 is the are the last two paragraphs from the following article in The Age - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...fter-buckleys-big-gamble-20170702-gx31jt.html

"The Tigers attract attention for their star power - Dustin Martin should get another three Brownlow votes - but look at the pedigree of some of these other players. They are brumbies playing like thoroughbreds.

Kane Lambert (second most touches for tigers) rookie list. Toby Nankervis good all year but shaded on Saturday, recycled from Swans. Caddy, at his third club. Jayden Short rookie. Dan Butler fourth round pick. Castagna rookie. Sam Lloyd late pick and now Tyson Stengle of the rookie list boots two in the best win of the year."

I'd argue that it's the ability of the coaching staff to get the maximum of "lesser' picks that is a critical factor in success. Spud, and more recently, BBB and Sugar, have been some of our successes. Jason Johannisen is another example. He's a rookie, won last year's Norm Smith, and was integral to the Bulldogs success last year. The fact that coaches have worked out how to nullify him has been a factor in the Bulldog's poorer form this year.

Another key factor is having a game plan that makes the best use of the players abilities, one that is ideally robust under final's pressure. Again, the Bulldogs got it right last year. I struggle to define ours. I know that we excel at allowing the opposition to mark our kick ins, and that we often rely on a handball driven style that is very susceptible to pressure. And our skills remain deplorable. [Can anyone describe our game plan? Is it worth a separate thread?]

In summary, I agree our lack of high draft picks, champion father-son selections and academy picks are significant factors explaining our lack of recent success. Nonetheless, our poor match selections, our inability to blood young players (until this year) and develop them, our persistence with out of form senior players, our lack of a discernible game plan, our lack of skills and so on, are also significant factors in our ongoing mediocrity.[/QUOTE]

 

[King Corey]

I think you answered your own question there.

 

[Tas]

We have a number of issues, in varying degrees of problematic and the number of rising star nominees is the least of those issues. Perhaps it is a reflection on the type of players we recruit, our slow rate of development, the relatively negative aspect of our game plan, our reluctance to play kids when in form and while eligible, the flaws in our team structure, the lack of leadership and consistency from the mature players, etc.

We have a number of problems which holds back individuals and the team, most of our senior group struggles to string two good quarters together let alone two good games, it is not a great environment for excellence atm. We just have a lack of class and leadership all around and it is not a great environment for young players to excel.

 

[LT Smash]

If JWS stayed healthy and if Lachie Hansen became an 80 goal a year key forward, we would have at least reached a grand final. Also, on the alt history scale, if we'd selected Joel Selwood, Travis Boak or Jack Riewoldt instead of Hansen, see above. The first was an unavoidable tragedy. The second was a self inflicted wound.

 

[FloozyRoozy]

It honestly depends on how the clubs develop their players.

 

[koshari]

If JWS stayed healthy and if Lachie Hansen became an 80 goal a year key forward, we would have at least reached a grand final. Also, on the alt history scale, if we'd selected Joel Selwood, Travis Boak or Jack Riewoldt instead of Hansen, see above. The first was an unavoidable tragedy. The second was a self inflicted wound.

glad you didnt mention rory instead of LA.

 

[koshari]

It honestly depends on how the clubs develop their players.

it also has a great deal to do with the ceiling of said players, i have little doubt hanson for example reached his ceiling as a player.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

It honestly depends on how the clubs develop their players.

and we do it terribly.

 

[FastLife]

We've had what 3 top 5 picks in 15 years. 2 Father Sons.

 

[King Corey]

We've had what 3 top 5 picks in 15 years. 2 Father Sons.

Hawthorn the same on both counts iirc.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

There's been a long ongoing discussions, mostly within the Bye Bye Brad discussion, regarding whether our immense mediocrity is because we've only had middling draft picks for many years, or whether its because we have an immensely mediocre list management and coaching set up. The discussion arises, in another form, during the "play the kids" discussion, with the contrary argument being that, while we would probably lose more games in the short-term, and hence get better draft picks, the risk of developing a losing culture is too high.

I find this argument too simplistic. Obviously, one or more very high draft picks, who develop to become match winning champions, are invaluable. Whereas I believe in that cliche, that the bottom six determine a premiership as much as the top six. And the chain metaphor works as well - every part of the club must be working together, and teh club is only as strong as its weakest link.

My evidence: Exhibit 1 is an astute observation from kangatime:



Exhibit 2 is the are the last two paragraphs from the following article in The Age - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...fter-buckleys-big-gamble-20170702-gx31jt.html

"The Tigers attract attention for their star power - Dustin Martin should get another three Brownlow votes - but look at the pedigree of some of these other players. They are brumbies playing like thoroughbreds.

Kane Lambert (second most touches for tigers) rookie list. Toby Nankervis good all year but shaded on Saturday, recycled from Swans. Caddy, at his third club. Jayden Short rookie. Dan Butler fourth round pick. Castagna rookie. Sam Lloyd late pick and now Tyson Stengle of the rookie list boots two in the best win of the year."

I'd argue that it's the ability of the coaching staff to get the maximum of "lesser' picks that is a critical factor in success. Spud, and more recently, BBB and Sugar, have been some of our successes. Jason Johannisen is another example. He's a rookie, won last year's Norm Smith, and was integral to the Bulldogs success last year. The fact that coaches have worked out how to nullify him has been a factor in the Bulldog's poorer form this year.

Another key factor is having a game plan that makes the best use of the players abilities, one that is ideally robust under final's pressure. Again, the Bulldogs got it right last year. I struggle to define ours. I know that we excel at allowing the opposition to mark our kick ins, and that we often rely on a handball driven style that is very susceptible to pressure. And our skills remain deplorable. [Can anyone describe our game plan? Is it worth a separate thread?]

In summary, I agree our lack of high draft picks, champion father-son selections and academy picks are significant factors explaining our lack of recent success. Nonetheless, our poor match selections, our inability to blood young players (until this year) and develop them, our persistence with out of form senior players, our lack of a discernible game plan, our lack of skills and so on, are also significant factors in our ongoing mediocrity.

[/QUOTE]
A very good post and one that will get plenty of coverage when Brad and the club part ways.

All your points are well made and the club is clearly trying to rectify this by going after quality players at seasons end.

The interesting thing in my mind is that despite all the above negative vibes had (i) Goldie kept us his AA form and (ii) JZ been what we thought he would become, then we probably still have been top 8 this year.

That is, the team still heavily relies on its key players - for us its our highest paid player (Goldie) and our captain (JZ). The form of these 2 have had a massive impact on our current ladder position.

 

[breeno]

I am still amazed that guys like Lambert get passed over in their draft year. He was a gun over at the Knights, rated very highly but missed out on the draft because he wasn't as athletic as recruiters wanted him to be. Put his head down, went over to Williamstown (I believe) in the VFL, killed it there, then got rookied.

We seem to have had a lot of late draft and rookie success with prolific junior players who were looked over by recruiters in their draft year because of some supposedly insurmountable physical defect. Leigh Adams springs to mind as a gun who was said to be too short and too slow. Became a top 10 player for us when he was fit, IMO.

I would like to see us try to snatch more of these types later in the draft instead of letting them go to other clubs. I'm not sure how tapped into local communities the recruiters are but many a time I've seen people who are rated very highly at the grassroots level getting looked over. The story of Pykie seeing Barlow tear Ellis a new one rings a bell.

Other than that, I think with the picks that we have had, we've picked decently. Haven't had the midas touch but haven't flunked it either.

 

[czero]

There's been a long ongoing discussions, mostly within the Bye Bye Brad discussion, regarding whether our immense mediocrity is because we've only had middling draft picks for many years, or whether its because we have an immensely mediocre list management and coaching set up. The discussion arises, in another form, during the "play the kids" discussion, with the contrary argument being that, while we would probably lose more games in the short-term, and hence get better draft picks, the risk of developing a losing culture is too high.

I find this argument too simplistic. Obviously, one or more very high draft picks, who develop to become match winning champions, are invaluable. Whereas I believe in that cliche, that the bottom six determine a premiership as much as the top six. And the chain metaphor works as well - every part of the club must be working together, and teh club is only as strong as its weakest link.

My evidence: Exhibit 1 is an astute observation from kangatime:



Exhibit 2 is the are the last two paragraphs from the following article in The Age - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...fter-buckleys-big-gamble-20170702-gx31jt.html

"The Tigers attract attention for their star power - Dustin Martin should get another three Brownlow votes - but look at the pedigree of some of these other players. They are brumbies playing like thoroughbreds.

Kane Lambert (second most touches for tigers) rookie list. Toby Nankervis good all year but shaded on Saturday, recycled from Swans. Caddy, at his third club. Jayden Short rookie. Dan Butler fourth round pick. Castagna rookie. Sam Lloyd late pick and now Tyson Stengle of the rookie list boots two in the best win of the year."

I'd argue that it's the ability of the coaching staff to get the maximum of "lesser' picks that is a critical factor in success. Spud, and more recently, BBB and Sugar, have been some of our successes. Jason Johannisen is another example. He's a rookie, won last year's Norm Smith, and was integral to the Bulldogs success last year. The fact that coaches have worked out how to nullify him has been a factor in the Bulldog's poorer form this year.

Another key factor is having a game plan that makes the best use of the players abilities, one that is ideally robust under final's pressure. Again, the Bulldogs got it right last year. I struggle to define ours. I know that we excel at allowing the opposition to mark our kick ins, and that we often rely on a handball driven style that is very susceptible to pressure. And our skills remain deplorable. [Can anyone describe our game plan? Is it worth a separate thread?]

In summary, I agree our lack of high draft picks, champion father-son selections and academy picks are significant factors explaining our lack of recent success. Nonetheless, our poor match selections, our inability to blood young players (until this year) and develop them, our persistence with out of form senior players, our lack of a discernible game plan, our lack of skills and so on, are also significant factors in our ongoing mediocrity.

Hmm. Stats, they are great - but 76 (the left over nominations after those four years of 128 voting rounds), doesn't go into 40 top 10 picks. So not sure what is going on with that number. Even if every top 10 pick was nominated (possible), there are still another 26 picks to go around. Probably not the most powerful of stats.

But I do like good stats. I'll give you one.

Since 2010, and the new coaching regime that started, we have had the _lowest_ number of rising star numbers of any club. We have had 4 from these past 7 going on 8 years.

In fact, since 2010, we have now dropped to the absolute bottom of the competition in rising stars per year on average since the award was brought in.

Now that is a powerful stat.

 

[Zebrah]

There's been a long ongoing discussions, mostly within the Bye Bye Brad discussion, regarding whether our immense mediocrity is because we've only had middling draft picks for many years, or whether its because we have an immensely mediocre list management and coaching set up. The discussion arises, in another form, during the "play the kids" discussion, with the contrary argument being that, while we would probably lose more games in the short-term, and hence get better draft picks, the risk of developing a losing culture is too high.

I find this argument too simplistic. Obviously, one or more very high draft picks, who develop to become match winning champions, are invaluable. Whereas I believe in that cliche, that the bottom six determine a premiership as much as the top six. And the chain metaphor works as well - every part of the club must be working together, and teh club is only as strong as its weakest link.

My evidence: Exhibit 1 is an astute observation from kangatime:



Exhibit 2 is the are the last two paragraphs from the following article in The Age - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...fter-buckleys-big-gamble-20170702-gx31jt.html

"The Tigers attract attention for their star power - Dustin Martin should get another three Brownlow votes - but look at the pedigree of some of these other players. They are brumbies playing like thoroughbreds.

Kane Lambert (second most touches for tigers) rookie list. Toby Nankervis good all year but shaded on Saturday, recycled from Swans. Caddy, at his third club. Jayden Short rookie. Dan Butler fourth round pick. Castagna rookie. Sam Lloyd late pick and now Tyson Stengle of the rookie list boots two in the best win of the year."

I'd argue that it's the ability of the coaching staff to get the maximum of "lesser' picks that is a critical factor in success. Spud, and more recently, BBB and Sugar, have been some of our successes. Jason Johannisen is another example. He's a rookie, won last year's Norm Smith, and was integral to the Bulldogs success last year. The fact that coaches have worked out how to nullify him has been a factor in the Bulldog's poorer form this year.

Another key factor is having a game plan that makes the best use of the players abilities, one that is ideally robust under final's pressure. Again, the Bulldogs got it right last year. I struggle to define ours. I know that we excel at allowing the opposition to mark our kick ins, and that we often rely on a handball driven style that is very susceptible to pressure. And our skills remain deplorable. [Can anyone describe our game plan? Is it worth a separate thread?]

In summary, I agree our lack of high draft picks, champion father-son selections and academy picks are significant factors explaining our lack of recent success. Nonetheless, our poor match selections, our inability to blood young players (until this year) and develop them, our persistence with out of form senior players, our lack of a discernible game plan, our lack of skills and so on, are also significant factors in our ongoing mediocrity.

[/QUOTE]

Is it a lot of factors? Yes.
Do gun players make coaches and game plans look better? Yes.
Do we have any real gun players? No.
Are you more chance of getting a gun player with a top 3 pick? Yes.
Do top 3 picks and/or gun players guarantee success? No.
Should you have used Richmond to suppport your argument? No, you should have used Sydney pre Buddy.

 

[Rad Roo]

It's not just the coach but the coaching team, it seems to be me that due to our success from the 90s the culture at north is still very much the 90s 'long kick to king carey' mantra where richmond did not have success in the 90s, 2000s, and much of 2010s so they had to continue to get the most up to date best practice. This particular mindset is really quite evident in the recruitment of the players. For instance in the midfield, over the years we got people like Daniel Harris, Swallow, Ziebell, Cunnington, Dumont purely due to the fact that these type of mids were instrumental to our 90s success even though they are obselete in today's game.

In recent years, i can see the recruitment starting to improve, the 2016 trade period where we got Ahern, Hrovat, Marley have been quite impressive as we got relevant players for no cost, continued again this year with the pick of Hartung and DFA from essendon, i have no doubt these 2 will be quite handy to fill a role without fuss. So in 2 years time we got ourselves 5 players who are little known but fulfilling quite important roles.

Out of 22 players on field, you need 3 superstars or generals, one for each areas. You need about 6 players as lieutenants to the generals (2 for each area). Then you need at least a dozen of these aforementioned players. It's easier to get the superstars and the generals but much harder to get the other 12 or so as they are quite elusive and unknown. So the ability to identify says something about the vision of the recruitment department. So whatever have happened, we are able to identify the players we need significantly better.

 

[Roozee]

Out of 22 players on field, you need 3 superstars or generals, one for each areas. You need about 6 players as lieutenants to the generals (2 for each area). Then you need at least a dozen of these aforementioned players. It's easier to get the superstars and the generals but much harder to get the other 12 or so as they are quite elusive and unknown. So the ability to identify says something about the vision of the recruitment department. So whatever have happened, we are able to identify the players we need significantly better.

 

[Firestarter]

Is it a lot of factors? Yes.
Do gun players make coaches and game plans look better? Yes.
Do we have any real gun players? No.
Are you more chance of getting a gun player with a top 3 pick? Yes.
Do top 3 picks and/or gun players guarantee success? No.
Should you have used Richmond to suppport your argument? No, you should have used Sydney pre Buddy.

So COLA Sydney?

 

[Rad Roo]

Tanking and being s**t will get u the picks...

 

[North Viking]

To answer the thread title question is a big NO from me.

Article from 2015 but is still applicable to the last 3 years.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/043762cd04e89f6e1f103f5291679024

 

[Luke72]

The Rising Star nominations are a farce, players are nominated after becoming the flavour of the week in the press and often 2 or 3 weeks after their breakout game and as such are also subject to the "big club" mentality. Whoever is doing the voting needs to worry less about what is covered in the press and what is actually happening on any particular given round.

 

[Psicosis]

2017 is the lowest finish we've had since 2006.

2017 is also the year that we got Luke Davies-Unackie - the most talented U18 year old to walk into the club in that 11 year period.

You want the top end talent, you need the picks where it's going to be available.

 

[Snake_Baker]

My answer to the OP, is no.

Good drafting and trading can bring success.

 

[naturally north]

You need some top end picks to have an opportunity to bring in the very best talent. we tried to get JK via the mini draft but couldn't get a deal done.

How many premiership sides did Roughead, Hodge and Franklin play in?

Superstars bring others into the game, unfortunately ours hold postions at full back, ruck and full forward. Should LDU, Simpkin, Garner all develop as we expect, this thread won't ever see the light of day again.

The three i rated as stars were all developed by North. The old saying about pigs ears and silk purses is true. Sometimes we tend to hold extreme views on drafts and the need for early picks, early picks doesn't necessarily mean 1-4. But since the inception of Demetriou's dream we have found ourselves starting with picks around 16- 21. Hardly an opportunity to get the best talent available. Sure these guys can develop into greats but they slid for a reason.

Durdin, McKay, McKenzie, Atley- first round picks, earliest pick 16. Reality is four years of first round picks and very little to show for it at this stage.

LDU, Simpkin, McDonald, Cunnington, Garner first round picks, latest pick 16. This group will lead us to glory- bookmark it

 

[Pykie]

We've had above average key position players for the best part of 30 years.

Longmire, Carey, McKernan, Martyn, Petrie, Goldstein, Sav, N.Thompson, Brown, Tarrant, McCartney, McIntosh, Hale etc.

Unfortunately, we've probably had a below average number of gun midfielders to accompany the above in the last 25 years. (Except for the mid 90's).

Stevens, Simpson, Bell, Harvey, Grant, King, Wells, Swallow, Cunnington - I would consider to be gun midfielders. Considering there's up to 6-7 midfielders in the side every weekend, you can see how disproportionate it is to the KPP list above it, given KPP's are far rarer commodity.

The game changed in the mid 00's to a fully midfield based game, our sides were hanging onto older gun mids from the end of our 90's side (Harvey, Simpson, Grant), we managed to draft Wells (#2, 2002), Swallow (#45, 2005), Cunnington (#5, 2009) from the end of our halcyon days, which for a 15 year period, isn't nearly enough. With all due respect to those 3, they haven't matched the careers of the guys we had 10 years before them either.

We haven't really been able to turn 25 odd early second round picks in that time into gun midfielders either.

Given the above list only contains 3 I'd consider gun midfielders since the early 00's, the wrecked career of JWS really hurts, as he was destined to enter the list of those 3 others imo. If he had of developed into an AA quality mid as he appeared to be moving towards, it may of even pushed us into a GF at one point, especially when you consider he would of been 28 & 29 years of age during our last 2 preliminary final loses, essentially smack bang in his prime.

LDU (#4, 2017) should be the start of a "non-north" rebuild hopefully, which invests at least 80% of our top picks in this rebuild on midfield prospects. He's the perfect player to build around. We need a list of 10 or so gun mids in the next 15 years if we want to have had success by 2030.

 

[Tas]

My answer to the OP, is no.

Good drafting and trading can bring success.

I think development is more critical than drafting. Getting Black and Harper in a second round was good drafting, they had all the tools needed to be good players and even had a very good season or two but fell off a cliff. They tried to make Harper a midfielder and killed his career, we played Black with a bung shoulder all season because we had nobody better to replace him with. They are example of good recruitment, shithouse player development.

We don't take it serious the consequences for bad development is, it is career killing stuff and we have tolerated too low a standard for too long. We owe it to the kids we draft that we are going to give them every opportunity to be the best they can possible be.

Seriously, if I had a kid that was in this draft, I wouldn't want our club to draft him. That is sad given how much I love the club. We need to do a lot better and we need to put the player first even if it's not necessary the best thing for our list at this point in time. If Durdin is going to make a better key defender but we have enough key defenders, we owe it to him to develop him as a key defender. We fart arse around moving players back and forward like we did Hansen and he ended up mediocre in every position. Some teams like the Crows recruit a KPP and stick him in the one role and develop him in the one role and they come out playing great footy really early. If the club doesn't know where to play you that is a warning sign that there could be clueless people who are ultimately going to dictate if you have a good career or if they ruin it.

Tarrant was one rare exception where we moved him to save his career as his shoulders weren't coping with being cannoned into from behind repeatedly. Overall, our standard hasn't been good enough though.