List Mgmt. Carlton's 2018 Draft Thread (cont. in Part 2)

[Sharks On A Plane]

I see what you are saying, normally a lot of teams used to have a FF, CHF and a resting ruckman when using 3 talls, Crows are a bit of an exception.

I agree that that most set ups like this will be too slow to be able to lock the ball in forward 50.

I think Curnow is the key to making it work, he is so good at ground level the often crumbs his own contests that is how well he moves, Mckay also is a lot quicker than expected.

The beauty is that Luko can play wing and a variety of roles, we may even be able to roll Charlie through the middle, Mckay can pinch hit in the ruck so there is a lot of flexibility if things are not going our way.

I think because all of them would have a 2nd position that negates the negatives because they don't all have to stay forward during a match.

Very good assessment.

 

[footyfan1978]

Anyone else find it interesting that at the beginning of the season, everyone talks up the positives of the draftees and how good their strong traits will translate to AFL level. However, come the end of the season, everyone talks on the negatives and how their weaker traits will not translate to AFL level.

It's hard for me to get attached to any draftees at the moment, because with the trade period and live trading at draft night, who knows what we're going to do!

It is certainly best strategy as a fan with no say in what we get to not get too fixated on one player going into a draft. Then you just celebrate who you get that night and find out more about them once they part of club. Learnt that hard way back when we lost Goddard and Wells not to bother spending too much time on draftee excitement before your picks are done.

 

[bigdog43]

Anyone else find it interesting that at the beginning of the season, everyone talks up the positives of the draftees and how good their strong traits will translate to AFL level. However, come the end of the season, everyone talks on the negatives and how their weaker traits will not translate to AFL level.

It's hard for me to get attached to any draftees at the moment, because with the trade period and live trading at draft night, who knows what we're going to do!

Prime example was the fixation on Worpel's kicking skills.... he looks like he's going alright at the moment!

 

[ParapMarkets]

For the last 15 odd years our drafting and list management has been appalling due to selecting for perceived needs rather than selecting the best players. Now, our past recruiters may state that they were picking best available, either way, the record was disgraceful

I think it was the opposite, we actually kept taking the “best available” and then found ourselves with a massive hole in our list. 2010, through desperation, we went all out for KPP because we had neglected recruiting them for years.

 

[Blues90]

Call me silly but I hate the idea of rolling Charlie through the middle when he is going to be an elite fwd. He won't be a elite mid why take that away makes 0 sense what so ever

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[mrkyuss]

Call me silly but I hate the idea of rolling Charlie through the middle when he is going to be an elite fwd. He won't be a elite mid why take that away makes 0 sense what so ever

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Why wouldn’t he be an elite mid?

 

[Blues90]

Why wouldn’t he be an elite mid?

Because everyone's strengths as a junior are still their strengths in the afl . I seen a few of his junior games where he spent time in the middle he is a much better forward. Besides, paying half forward his always running up the ground you want him to rest in the midfield? That doesnt make any sense either

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Blue_Fusion]

I think it was the opposite, we actually kept taking the “best available” and then found ourselves with a massive hole in our list. 2010, through desperation, we went all out for KPP because we had neglected recruiting them for years.

Lucas over Talia the prime example.

 

[ParapMarkets]

Call me silly but I hate the idea of rolling Charlie through the middle when he is going to be an elite fwd. He won't be a elite mid why take that away makes 0 sense what so ever

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Doesn’t make sense to me either. His hard running style will see him up and down the ground anyway. He will spend time as a winger I think, but really I think he is too good in his position for us to try and turn him into a midfielder. I think his current role gets the most out of his strengths.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Call me silly but I hate the idea of rolling Charlie through the middle when he is going to be an elite fwd. He won't be a elite mid why take that away makes 0 sense what so ever

Yeah I'm with you on that. Play them in their best pos.

Always disliked this "can play another pos" argument. If we're going to recruit a kpf, then he plays as a kpf. If we want a winger, then go after the best winger available.

Our key needs are mids and small/medium forwards. Of course there's the "what if Charlie or Harry do their knee?" argument, but then there's also the "what if Cripps does his?"

This draft best available is flawed for mine too. You shouldn't draft the best kpf over the best mid just because he's a tall and they're harder to find unless its glaringly obvious the tall is the better footballer. What if the perceived best available players are all kpp at every pick? Do we avoid drafting a medium forward or a mid?

 

[DangerousD]

Which players are those?..I am baffled

It is a term that is thrown around a lot when it comes to drafting best available. The idea that you pick a key forward as they are worth more and if you end up with too many just trade one down the track.

It is a situation i see happening if we draft Luko, a tall will need to be traded, the problem with this is, we would have put 3-5 years of development in to this player and then we would need to put more development in to a replacement.

A similar situation would be SOS drafting Boyd and McCarthy when he already had Patton, Cameron, Tomlinson and Bruce. Boyd and Mcarthy were traded 2 seasons later for a lot less than their original picks.

It just doesn't make sense imo, hopefully we draft players who we think will be long term players for our club.

 

[Blue oval]

Lucas over Talia the prime example.

I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about that selection


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DangerousD]

Should we have taken Charlie after recruiting Weitering and McKay? Doubt anyone is complaining about that selection now

Dam straight we should have and im glad we did, having two key position players who compliment each other is not contradictory to team balance and is well within the general consensus of how team structure should look.

I think you have gone off on a little tangent with your other comments with stuff that is not really relevant to what i am asking you.

Although you say its unlikely (which i don't think it is) what if pick 1 this year we pick Luko and at our next pick, the best available is a ruck and then our next second rounder another key forward? We then add BSOS later on and by picking best available we have drafted, Two key forwards, a ruck and a key defender whilst our biggest need is quality mids.

Im asking at what point do you take stock and say geez this kid might be best available but we don't have a spot/need for him?

Keeping in mind that next year the best available could be a key defender/forward or ruck again.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Prime example was the fixation on Worpel's kicking skills.... he looks like he's going alright at the moment!

there are some exceptional field kicks in the AFL, but in my opinion generally field kicking is about the guy running to the right positions at the right time to make it easier on the kicker to put it to the players advantage than it is about the individual players skill level themselves. no one is better at that than hawthorn.

 

[Blue and Blue]

It is a term that is thrown around a lot when it comes to drafting best available. The idea that you pick a key forward as they are worth more and if you end up with too many just trade one down the track.

It is a situation i see happening if we draft Luko, a tall will need to be traded, the problem with this is, we would have put 3-5 years of development in to this player and then we would need to put more development in to a replacement.

A similar situation would be SOS drafting Boyd and McCarthy when he already had Patton, Cameron, Tomlinson and Bruce. Boyd and Mcarthy were traded 2 seasons later for a lot less than their original picks.

It just doesn't make sense imo, hopefully we draft players who we think will be long term players for our club.

I thought you were saying we had already done that policy...thanks for the explanation

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

It is a term that is thrown around a lot when it comes to drafting best available. The idea that you pick a key forward as they are worth more and if you end up with too many just trade one down the track.

It is a situation i see happening if we draft Luko, a tall will need to be traded, the problem with this is, we would have put 3-5 years of development in to this player and then we would need to put more development in to a replacement.

A similar situation would be SOS drafting Boyd and McCarthy when he already had Patton, Cameron, Tomlinson and Bruce. Boyd and Mcarthy were traded 2 seasons later for a lot less than their original picks.

It just doesn't make sense imo, hopefully we draft players who we think will be long term players for our club.

to be fair they such a plethora of picks that there was no way they weren't going to double up on players in multiple positions. it's not like they're undermanned in midfield because they drafted boyd.

but i get what you're saying, and 'best available' is hard to define. IMO rankine will be every bit as good of a small forward as lukosius will be as a tall forward. are tall forwards more valuable than small forwards? in the 90s definitely, but these days i'm not so sure it's as clear cut. gunston or bruest? tex or eddie? cameron or greene? you can make a case for all of them. there's no right or wrong, but the decision needs to made in the context of the way the club is trying to play.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Why would the mindset change from taking what is perceived to be the best players at every pick, especially when you use trade and FA to address needs. And it would be rare, that if we had say pick 10 every year, that the clear standout was a tall. For the last 15 odd years our drafting and list management has been appalling due to selecting for perceived needs rather than selecting the best players. Now, our past recruiters may state that they were picking best available, either way, the record was disgraceful

Should we have taken Charlie after recruiting Weitering and McKay? Doubt anyone is complaining about that selection now

While screaming for mids, why did SOS take Macreadie, Kerr late in the draft and added TDK last year? Because he viewed them as sliders/value picks.

Why would we need to trade any of our young KPP's, they have/will come through to replace the likes of Rowe, ASOS, Jones, Casboult, Kreuzer, Lobbe, Phillips

We as a club have never planned for the medium to long term, that is why we have constantly yo-yo'd through extended periods.

We will get a better indication, of what may take place after the trade period, but I would find it highly unlikely, that we didn't add more genuine KPP's either through the draft or trade periods

Seriously? Should we have taken Charlie after drafting Weitering and McKay...

We had no elite talent KPFs end of 2015, we drafted them when KPFs were a need. McKay was one pick, Charlie was the other to play that role. Now that Charlie has shown he has elite potential and McKay is showing some great signs too, drafting another elite talent KPF when we have a gaping hole in the midfield and medium/small forward departments won't improve our list as much as drafting for those needs. We also knew that KPP take longer to develop so that's another reason we stocked up on them more in that first draft imo.

I don't see why this is such a problem for you. Are Walsh, Smith or Rankine looking like busts at AFL level to you? If they come along as expected it's a huge win for us anyway. Trade for needs, ok who do we trade for? There's not one ooc player worth chasing this year. The contracted guy we're supposedly chasing (but in reality aren't till next year) is not worth losing our top pick in this year's draft when he's available for free next year. There are no fa's worth going for this year either except Gaff who is highly unlikely to leave WCE for us.

Your points about Macreadie, Kerr and TDK - we took mids with our earlier picks in both of those drafts, why did we take mids with our earlier picks if not factoring for needs?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

to be fair they such a plethora of picks that there was no way they weren't going to double up on players in multiple positions. it's not like they're undermanned in midfield because they drafted boyd.

but i get what you're saying, and 'best available' is hard to define. IMO rankine will be every bit as good of a small forward as lukosius will be as a tall forward. are tall forwards more valuable than small forwards? in the 90s definitely, but these days i'm not so sure it's as clear cut. gunston or bruest? tex or eddie? cameron or greene? you can make a case for all of them. there's no right or wrong, but the decision needs to made in the context of the way the club is trying to play.

Would you want Tex, Cameron and Gunston in the same forward line, or would you want to substitute one of those three for one of Eddie, Greene or Breust?

 

[Blues90]

Dam straight we should have and im glad we did, having two key position players who compliment each other is not contradictory to team balance and is well within the general consensus of how team structure should look.

I think you have gone off on a little tangent with your other comments with stuff that is not really relevant to what i am asking you.

Although you say its unlikely (which i don't think it is) what if pick 1 this year we pick Luko and at our next pick, the best available is a ruck and then our next second rounder another key forward? We then add BSOS later on and by picking best available we have drafted, Two key forwards, a ruck and a key defender whilst our biggest need is quality mids.

Im asking at what point do you take stock and say geez this kid might be best available but we don't have a spot/need for him?

Keeping in mind that next year the best available could be a key defender/forward or ruck again.

I was hoping we picked Charlie at one in case he didn't make it to 8 then we didn't pick him there either but luckily he slipped again lol

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Would you want Tex, Cameron and Gunston in the same forward line, or would you want to substitute one of those three for one of Eddie, Greene or Breust?

i would absolutely want an elite small in there. i'm in the 'tank for rank....ine' camp

 

[HalAlaric]

You guys are all crazy!!!

 

[Blue_Fusion]

i would absolutely want an elite small in there. i'm in the 'tank for rank....ine' camp

And I agree, you need to have some talented medium/small forwards to compliment the talls. In terms of talent, not many eclipse Rankine.

 

[Arr0w]

I think it was the opposite, we actually kept taking the “best available” and then found ourselves with a massive hole in our list. 2010, through desperation, we went all out for KPP because we had neglected recruiting them for years.

Parap, think you highlighted and reinforced my argument.

Our talls, 193+, at the start of the 2010 season were, Kreuzer, Jacobs, Warnock, Hampson, Fisher, Setanta, Austin, Bower, Henderson, Waite, Jamo, Levi, 12 in total (not incuding Thornton as 192, despite playing as a KPD) Surely you would concede that is a fair number of talls on the list, despite debating the quality.

So we go to the draft and with our first pick we select needs, rather than a stand out player in Talia.

Then end of 2010, given the poor drafting and trading of previous years, they decided to reach for every single tall, rather taking best available, despite only losing Fisher (delisting) and Jacobs (because the club was negligent in trading for Warnock previously)

In fact I fail to see any logic in anything Rogers/Hughes did

 

[Arr0w]

Dam straight we should have and im glad we did, having two key position players who compliment each other is not contradictory to team balance and is well within the general consensus of how team structure should look.

I think you have gone off on a little tangent with your other comments with stuff that is not really relevant to what i am asking you.

Although you say its unlikely (which i don't think it is) what if pick 1 this year we pick Luko and at our next pick, the best available is a ruck and then our next second rounder another key forward? We then add BSOS later on and by picking best available we have drafted, Two key forwards, a ruck and a key defender whilst our biggest need is quality mids.

Im asking at what point do you take stock and say geez this kid might be best available but we don't have a spot/need for him?

Keeping in mind that next year the best available could be a key defender/forward or ruck again.

Okay good, so we agree on Charlie, the guy SOS, gave up 2 early 2nd rounders and drafted not only a tall, but more importantly best available

I have never gone off tangent, in how I see, recruiting and list management. You want a short answer on a subject that is way more in depth than one sentence.

Under 26, this is what all areas look like in terms of KPP and midfielder options, that I believe will make it. Backup are ones that can at least rotate through the said area, or not up to it, or may not make it

KPF - McKay, Charlie - Backup Kerr (I have left TDK out, as most of us see him as a young ruckman)
KPD - Weitering, Macreadie - Backup - ZERO
MIDS (Mnimum 3 starting mids, 2 wings) - (Cripps, Dow, Fisher, Kennedy, SPS), Backup and rotations LOB, Cuners, Lang, Jack, Kerridge, Graham, Lamb, Garlett, Willo, Polson, Pickett

Do we have too many KPP's when you look at that list, compared to mids, wings and rotations? Drafting is not what it will do for our list next year or the one after, it is past that point.

Even though, people claim that our number one priority is the midfield, for some strange reason, they want Rankine with our first pick. They even state that while we took Macreadie, Kerr late in the draft, that we took mids earlier, so it was done with a view of needs. When SPS was selected, the next genuine tall was Marshall at pick 16, so I doubt SPS was selected as a needs, more best available. Even read, that if we want a wingman, then we should pick a wingman, so let's bypass the next best 12 players, because we are targeting a wingman, laughable.

But if you want the simple answer, the list is reviewed constantly to assess what talent we have on the list. And as we build a talented list, that starts an upward trend, we will continue to trade/FA for needs, just like the Tigers did when they added Prestia, Caddy and Nankervis.

 

[Accidental genius]

Yeah I'm with you on that. Play them in their best pos.

Always disliked this "can play another pos" argument. If we're going to recruit a kpf, then he plays as a kpf. If we want a winger, then go after the best winger available.

Our key needs are mids and small/medium forwards. Of course there's the "what if Charlie or Harry do their knee?" argument, but then there's also the "what if Cripps does his?"

This draft best available is flawed for mine too. You shouldn't draft the best kpf over the best mid just because he's a tall and they're harder to find unless its glaringly obvious the tall is the better footballer. What if the perceived best available players are all kpp at every pick? Do we avoid drafting a medium forward or a mid?

its handy to have players that can play in multiple positions/roles...they can still play in their primary role but change when needed..plus it should make them better footballers in their primary role too...