List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[murphster]

I don't think we're overdoing it in that department though.

TDK, BSOS, Macreadie as project talls.
Finbar, Cottrell as athletic projects.
Owies as a Cat B free hit.
Polson got lucky with his last extension.

Besides that lot, I think everyone else on the list as AFL-capable, even if they're not fully developed. And among this lot are a few who are probably not far off getting a run.

So if one or two of this group make the grade, and we cycle one or two others off the list next year, it's not unreasonable to expect the club to draft another one, perhaps two, to keep the cycle going. That's how the late picks work - bring someone in, give them a year or two to show some development, if they do they buy some more time and opportunity, and if they don't they make way for another outside chance.

Owies really started to play some good footy in the second half of the year, applies great pressure and is a good tackler and started to really hit the scoreboard later in the year, wouldn’t be surprised to see him make his debut next year, could turn into a great small forward option for us. Well worth the rookie spot, cat b at that.

Cottrells tank is exceptional and his kicking is good as well has plenty to work with, another worth his spot on the list, will just take time.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Owies really started to play some good footy in the second half of the year, applies great pressure and is a good tackler and started to really hit the scoreboard later in the year, wouldn’t be surprised to see him make his debut next year, could turn into a great small forward option for us. Well worth the rookie spot, cat b at that.

Cottrells tank is exceptional and his kicking is good as well has plenty to work with, another worth his spot on the list, will just take time.

Yeah, these players all have "something", just a matter of working out if their previous deficiencies can be improved upon, or worked around with a particular role or structure.

Feel like TDK is a monty for the long term.
BSOS has plenty of tools, just not sure whether he's a forward, defender or bit of both.
Macreadie, Cottrell and Owies have a bit to work with and should be solid role/depth players. May never get a good run in the seniors, but opportunity could come knocking.
Polson got messed around a little with his role in the side, but I don't think that alone can account for his lack of impact. Got one year to make a statement, or he's gone.
Finbar is a genuine project - no idea what role he plays long term if he makes it, so wouldn't be surprised if he gets a third season just to give the club a bit more time to move his magnet around the board and see what eventuates.

 

[ferrisb]

Sometimes I feel like clubs over think late round picks when a gift horse is looking at you. Worpel was an example for me, the kid was not a superstar but was a very solid player in his junior years and everyone is taking these project players while Hawks get a good solid player.

There are always these players that drift down the draft order and often I feel like the Cats always select these players and get a solid output from these options. Charlie Constable was another example.

I can understand teams passing on them IF they think the player's (lack of) pace or (poor) kicking skills make them unplayable at AFL level.

But IF a team is passing because they think the player's weakness will stop them becoming elite (but still very AFL-capable).....then that's where the overthinking occurs IMO.

 

[Coona Blues]

Yeah, these players all have "something", just a matter of working out if their previous deficiencies can be improved upon, or worked around with a particular role or structure.

Feel like TDK is a monty for the long term.
BSOS has plenty of tools, just not sure whether he's a forward, defender or bit of both.
Macreadie, Cottrell and Owies have a bit to work with and should be solid role/depth players. May never get a good run in the seniors, but opportunity could come knocking.
Polson got messed around a little with his role in the side, but I don't think that alone can account for his lack of impact. Got one year to make a statement, or he's gone.
Finbar is a genuine project - no idea what role he plays long term if he makes it, so wouldn't be surprised if he gets a third season just to give the club a bit more time to move his magnet around the board and see what eventuates.

I think the club may embrace the NGA academy as well. A distinct possibility Cam Wild or Sunny Brazier get a Cat B gig.

 

[mediumsizered]

I think the club may embrace the NGA academy as well. A distinct possibility Cam Wild or Sunny Brazier get a Cat B gig.

Would not be disappointed if Wild was given such an opportunity. Brazier, on the other hand, seems to lack the hunger for the game.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Constable - drafted at 36
Worpel - drafted at 45


O'Dwyer - drafted at 66
Cottrell - taken in the preseason SSP

Let's not compare these players, eh?

Sorry, I should have made it more clear.

I said sometimes CLUBS (Not Carlton) over think these late round picks. It happens every year a certain solid player drops while a few project players get selected.

 

[LemmingMaster]

I can understand teams passing on them IF they think the player's (lack of) pace or (poor) kicking skills make them unplayable at AFL level.

But IF a team is passing because they think the player's weakness will stop them becoming elite (but still very AFL-capable).....then that's where the overthinking occurs IMO.

I sometimes wonder if teams are looking for the touchdown player in the late rounds and overlooking the player that can sit ranked 14-22 on your list.

 

[HARKER]

Sometimes I feel like clubs over think late round picks when a gift horse is looking at you. Worpel was an example for me, the kid was not a superstar but was a very solid player in his junior years and everyone is taking these project players while Hawks get a good solid player.

There are always these players that drift down the draft order and often I feel like the Cats always select these players and get a solid output from these options. Charlie Constable was another example.

Worpel was a very good player in his junior years and upon my viewing, had him rated high, but the chances are that he wouldn't be the player he's become if he had been drafted to one of the lowly teams (us included).......or at least not for now.

Hawthorn have in the most, always developed their players well and have assigned them to roles they could understand, work within and thrive in.
Our turn will come as the core is now very good, but we have to make the game simpler for the players that only understand the simple game and not over-Boltonise the whole thing. Teague will serve us well here.

Constable hasn't stood out for lack of opportunity whereas Miers has been a beauty because of it. This is also very important as to why you select the right types and not simply 'the best players'

 

[Arr0w]

Worpel was a very good player in his junior years and upon my viewing, had him rated high, but the chances are that he wouldn't be the player he's become if he had been drafted to one of the lowly teams (us included).......or at least not for now.

Hawthorn have in the most, always developed their players well and have assigned them to roles they could understand, work within and thrive in.
Our turn will come as the core is now very good, but we have to make the game simpler for the players that only understand the simple game and not over-Boltonise the whole thing. Teague will serve us well here.

Constable hasn't stood out for lack of opportunity whereas Miers has been a beauty because of it. This is also very important as to why you select the right types and not simply 'the best players'

Reaching again Harks?

Worpel is a manchild so was always going to be ahead of many in his draft year, but that will balance out in time

Miers went late for a reason, that won't change over time

Unlike Miers, Constable has a few handy midfielders ahead of him, so comparing his output to Miers is flawed longterm

You ALWAYS take best available in the draft, then trade for needs

 

[mediumsizered]

I sometimes wonder if teams are looking for the touchdown player in the late rounds and overlooking the player that can sit ranked 14-22 on your list.

I think there could be a bit of ego attached to this. The media love to talk up recruiters who have found a gem late in the ND or in the Rookie Draft. It can certainly help to ensure a recruiter's tenure at a club if he can point to such gems & also looks good on the CV if seeking to further their career at another club.

 

[ray8182]

Reaching again Harks?

Worpel is a manchild so was always going to be ahead of many in his draft year, but that will balance out in time

Miers went late for a reason, that won't change over time

Unlike Miers, Constable has a few handy midfielders ahead of him, so comparing his output to Miers is flawed longterm

You ALWAYS take best available in the draft, then trade for needs

If you always take best available in the draft all you are doing is collecting talent and not actually building a team. I don’t think trades will cover all the holes that will be created by just taking best available.

That doesn’t mean you reach too far for the right type but you want to draft players that will actually have an impact for the club by bringing something you don’t have.

I thought It had been dismissed years ago this idea that clubs just take best available.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HARKER]

Reaching again Harks?

Worpel is a manchild so was always going to be ahead of many in his draft year, but that will balance out in time
Miers went late for a reason, that won't change over time
Unlike Miers, Constable has a few handy midfielders ahead of him, so comparing his output to Miers is flawed longterm

You ALWAYS take best available in the draft, then trade for needs

Reaching for what?
I don't understand your headline.

My point about Worpel was more about Hawthorns development of players.
The guy could play and was overlooked for reasons (obviously) but Hawthorn made good........but somehow something will balance out?
What does that even mean? Other players will get better but he cannot?

You ALWAYS select best available? Cliche that doesn't stack up and we've covered this ground before, but just for fun and applying your method -
We rate Luke Jackson as the best player at our pick - We have to take him.
At our next pick another ruckman happens to be on top of the page - We have to take him too?
The next pick comes along and guess what? A ruckman - He's best available and you ALWAYS take best available.

Silly isn't it and doesn't play out that way at all unless you want to be seen as a 'hero' recruiter but a poor List Manager.
Who gives a shit if you have 6 good ruck-men on your list, when only one and a half can front up at any one time, you spoil the others for lack of development and opportunity and are then forced to re-invent what you have. Same applies for KPF's, KPD's, Mids etc.

You don't take poor players but you have to have an eye out for needs. It's folly suggesting this not to be important.

 

[HARKER]

If you always take best available in the draft all you are doing is collecting talent and not actually building a team. I don’t think trades will cover all the holes that will be created by just taking best available.

That doesn’t mean you reach too far for the right type but you want to draft players that will actually have an impact for the club by bringing something you don’t have.

I thought It had been dismissed years ago this idea that clubs just take best available.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Of course they don't and look no further than us not attaining the player we most needed - Papley

We've had enough of this 'we'll take this type and turn him into that type' in years prior to Silvagni.
You need a wingman - Take a wingman. A small forward - Get the best one available.

It's about putting in place all the right pieces to contend and you have to use every resource available to you to do that - Draft and Trade.
No silly hard and fast rules of what you do and where you have to do it.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Best available for all clubs would be different as their desires would be different. I'm also sure they don't have a pure power ranking board. They probably have a ranking system with teir based levels and some positional rankings.

 

[murphster]

Of course they don't and look no further than us not attaining the player we most needed - Papley

We've had enough of this 'we'll take this type and turn him into that type' in years prior to Silvagni.
You need a wingman - Take a wingman. A small forward - Get the best one available.

It's about putting in place all the right pieces to contend and you have to use every resource available to you to do that - Draft and Trade.
No silly hard and fast rules of what you do and where you have to do it.

Best available isn’t such a fine line where it is 1 player, clubs would have 3-4 players on there radars for there specific pick and would then take the 1, out of the 3-4 that they have at that pick, that best suits there needs, it’s just common sense your not going to limit yourself by only having one player earmarked for that pick regardless of team needs.

 

[murphster]

Would not be disappointed if Wild was given such an opportunity. Brazier, on the other hand, seems to lack the hunger for the game.

I think I would actually go the other way, in terms of talent and versatility I think Brazier would be the better option for a NGA slot, Wild is very ho hum for mine has no stand out features to his game where you would say wow he’s good at that, tends to fumble a lot and his disposal at anything over 25mtrs is not good at all.

 

[Sector 7G]

Reaching for what?
I don't understand your headline.

My point about Worpel was more about Hawthorns development of players.
The guy could play and was overlooked for reasons (obviously) but Hawthorn made good........but somehow something will balance out?
What does that even mean? Other players will get better but he cannot?

You ALWAYS select best available? Cliche that doesn't stack up and we've covered this ground before, but just for fun and applying your method -
We rate Luke Jackson as the best player at our pick - We have to take him.
At our next pick another ruckman happens to be on top of the page - We have to take him too?
The next pick comes along and guess what? A ruckman - He's best available and you ALWAYS take best available.

Silly isn't it and doesn't play out that way at all unless you want to be seen as a 'hero' recruiter but a poor List Manager.
Who gives a shit if you have 6 good ruck-men on your list, when only one and a half can front up at any one time, you spoil the others for lack of development and opportunity and are then forced to re-invent what you have. Same applies for KPF's, KPD's, Mids etc.

You don't take poor players but you have to have an eye out for needs. It's folly suggesting this not to be important.

The thing about best available is that it is not as if there is likely to be much difference in the ratings of the player a pick 9 and the next best at 10. Do you take the player you need who you rate as an 8.7 or the one you don't that you rate an 8.75.

 

[windows1]

I think the best available thing is quite hard to execute. Take this draft. As an example for Crows at pick 4: this year picking ‘best available’ amongst Stephens, Serong, Flanders, Ash and Young is splitting hairs really. Like the diff between them all is pretty negligible. Like really negligible. They also play different roles. For me I agree if there is a clear diff between players then yes take the better player. But at the same range of picks early there’s often not much difference.

I think the language can change to make the debate easier. Later on I think Lemmingmaster means ‘take players with runs on the board’ rather than ‘project players’ if the players with runs on the board are still there. Worpel has runs on the board and was being passed over for project players. And I think the point is that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Which I agree with.

 

[HARKER]

The thing about best available is that it is not as if there is likely to be much difference in the ratings of the player a pick 9 and the next best at 10. Do you take the player you need who you rate as an 8.7 or the one you don't that you rate an 8.75.

I think that by default one may lean towards types one likes, but also should lean to some degree to types that fill needs, in order to complete lists.
Recruiters will say they took best available but that may mean different things to different people.

This time last year we were looking for small/medium goal-kicking forwards - They didn't eventuate but we had posters saying that you simply pick things up via trade. Well guess what? That didn't happen either. What if we go into the next year with the same mindset and come up short again, whilst loading up on mids that now simply play musical chairs through the NB's?

Of course you're looking for best players but as you say - A 7.5/10 player you need may be more impactful to the whole, than an 8/5/10 player that really amounts to surplus to needs. Many variables here but you get the idea.

 

[windows1]

I think that by default one may lean towards types one likes, but also should lean to some degree to types that fill needs, in order to complete lists.
Recruiters will say they took best available but that may mean different things to different people.

This time last year we were looking for small/medium goal-kicking forwards - They didn't eventuate but we had posters saying that you simply pick things up via trade. Well guess what? That didn't happen either. What if we go into the next year with the same mindset and come up short again, whilst loading up on mids that now simply play musical chairs through the NB's?

Of course you're looking for best players but as you say - A 7.5/10 player you need may be more impactful to the whole, than an 8/5/10 player that really amounts to surplus to needs. Many variables here but you get the idea.

Can we bust through the theory and have examples? (Said nicely btw!). Maybe this year’s draft. Say at 43. Or 9. What’s an example of what may be there where the different approaches may yield a different outcome?

 

[HARKER]

Can we bust through the theory and have examples? (Said nicely btw!). Maybe this year’s draft. Say at 43. Or 9. What’s an example of what may be there where the different approaches may yield a different outcome?

I've already said what I'd like to see -

If possible trade out the pick #9 for #15 and #20 and then address needs with those picks. (Speed, goal-kickers be it small or medium)
Of course it's risky but it's bold and allows Power to do his job via development and gives Teague what he's been calling for.

Let's not just take another mid that will get lost amongst the other young mids we have, unless they're totally unique and for the right reasons.

 

[windows1]

I've already said what I'd like to see -

If possible trade out the pick #9 for #15 and #20 and then address needs with those picks. (Speed, goal-kickers be it small or medium)
Of course it's risky but it's bold and allows Power to do his job via development and gives Teague what he's been calling for.

Let's not just take another mid that will get lost amongst the other young mids we have, unless they're totally unique and for the right reasons.

Just so I understand: if SOS has say Pickett 35th on the board in terms of player rankings, and a mid he rated at 12th is there at 20- you’d like him to take Pickett?

 

[HARKER]

Just so I understand: if SOS has say Pickett 35th on the board in terms of player rankings, and a mid he rated at 12th is there at 20- you’d like him to take Pickett?

Absolutely. I'm not interested in these numbers as much as filling the gaps and allowing fitness and development to do their job.

I'd happily trade O'Brien for a Rioli and Ryan. I don't care about the numbers. A good system will make things work. Q: Have we a good system?

 

[JustaBattler]

Draftees don't add value to firsts for at least 2-3 years (if ever) unless they are absolute freaks - and these types are generally top10 picks. The whole 'needs' argument falls over when a list build is actually completed - at which point the trade for 'needs' and 'draft for talent' is so obvious it is a no brainer. The criticisms of an incomplete list in terms of every conceivable 'type' is a short term one- in Carlton's case- (unfortunately) made to look worse because of injury and failure to come on with a few players who would have or should have been playing in the so called 'needs' positions.

ALL this has been repeated many times over in response to your calls for 'small forwards' and NOT ONCE has the LOGIC and RATIONALE been addressed by you HARKER

Pickett
LeBois
Lamb
Garlett
Sumner
Owies will be a second year rookie ...

were all small forward types who for one reason or another were delisted - it isn't like the Club has ignored the position. This year . Betts was supposed to be the little extra on top of Papley for a small forward position - we ended up with Betts in trade but to look at drafting as a solution for a curent /need' is to forget that the time needed to develop AFL standard endurance/strength/experience from a typical draftee is a lot longer than this year's 'need'.

Picking up a teenager straight out of high school in a draft and expecting them to score 20+ goals a year and provide AFL standard forward pressure from the get go? Good luck with that!

 

[HARKER]

Draftees don't add value to firsts for at least 2-3 years (if ever) unless they are absolute freaks - and these types are generally top10 picks. The whole 'needs' argument falls over when a list build is actually completed - at which point the trade for 'needs' and 'draft for talent' is so obvious it is a no brainer. The criticisms of an incomplete list in terms of every conceivable 'type' is a short term one- in Carlton's case- (unfortunately) made to look worse because of injury and failure to come on with a few players who would have or should have been playing in the so called 'needs' positions.

ALL this has been repeated many times over in response to your calls for 'small forwards' and NOT ONCE has the LOGIC and RATIONALE been addressed by you HARKER

Pickett
LeBois
Lamb
Garlett
Sumner
Owies will be a second year rookie ...

were all small forward types who for one reason or another were delisted - it isn't like the Club has ignored the position. This year . Betts was supposed to be the little extra on top of Papley for a small forward position - we ended up with Betts in trade but to look at drafting as a solution for a curent /need' is to forget that the time needed to develop AFL standard endurance/strength/experience from a typical draftee is a lot longer than this year's 'need'.

Picking up a teenager straight out of high school in a draft and expecting them to score 20+ goals a year and provide AFL standard forward pressure from the get go? Good luck with that!

The logic has been addressed and proved many times over.

As for picking up teenagers straight out of school? ...... You may need to have a little look into this, as plenty of players drafted (out of school, or a little more senior) have done very well in their first years and continued to do well. Just have a little look and see.