List Mgmt. Carlton's 2020 Draft Thread

[Metalcrusher]

From what I've read, Carroll has improved in the areas I saw as a weakness.

Best clearance player in the WAFL colts and his contested work is spoken of highly. A lot can change in a year, Samo looked like a no.1 pick in his U17 game, as did O'Brien.

Hoping Carroll could turn into a [PLAYERCARD]Josh Dunkley[/PLAYERCARD] type.

im glad you rectified that, I left it a day to see if you would modify your post

 

[zeeCFC]

im glad you rectified that, I left it a day to see if you would modify your post

I tried to add as many disclaimers about him being 16 in that game etc.

I wouldn't hold it against him and the club rated him in the top 25 along with Durdin, so the talent is there but certainly not letting the slider hype get to me after viewing the U17 game.

More keen to see how we develop Stocker, Honey, Philp, Kemp, Dow...

 

[Arr0w]

I don't think any list is ever perfectly balanced. You can say that Carlton didn't address all their needs - I can say that no club did. There are always a multitude of gaps on a list and it's about identifying which ones are most critical to the success of the club and then prioritising those.

Yep, if injuries hit our tall stocks then we may be forced to play a bit smaller than we'd like. But the senior KPP quality is there for a long time to come, we're not needing to forward plan to replace an aging group of talls, it's just a replacement for Jones in 2-4 years.

So the club presumably made a conscious decision to overlook KPF depth, additional ruck depth (beyond the 3 recognised options on our list) and KPD depth to improve our pace from the back line, speed and ball use through the midfield, and our dedicated small forward stocks. Those are all areas that our senior 22 was already struggling with.

We could have gone further with our list cuts and then traded some future picks out to bring in another couple of quality young talls. That would have impacted our draft hand next year though.

TLDR: every list has more "needs" than they can address in any given off-season, seems we just prioritised the exposed needs of our senior list rather than emergency-only or future needs which are less time critical.

I agree, that no club hits perfection, you need to constantly assess the changing nature of the list, with players improving and or declining, but some areas need to be prioritized

While you can manufacture other areas, even a smaller forward line if injuries hit, you just can't manufacture KPD height

Jones and Levi are 30+, leaving only Weitering when I believe we are a serious contender

You can certainly address this in the trade period, but you the use up valuable, limited commodities, that you may need for other areas moving forward.

Most most consistent, top end, successful sides, prioritize talls

 

[Metalcrusher]

I tried to add as many disclaimers about him being 16 in that game etc.

I wouldn't hold it against him and the club rated him in the top 25 along with Durdin, so the talent is there but certainly not letting the slider hype get to me after viewing the U17 game.

More keen to see how we develop Stocker, Honey, Philp, Kemp, Dow...

to right!

 

[HARKER]

Trade for needs, draft best available ( certainly within the 1st, 2nd rounds). Just like Carroll being a slider. Clubs can also manipulate this with trading after the trade period and during the draft

As for "professional", show me a recruiter that has a better than 2 in 3 picks strike rate and or picking the best player per position over their tenure, heads up, they don't exist

Until you or anyone disproves what I believe to be the case, happy to stay with how I see it, while you can continue to listen to others

That's a well worn cliche that doesn't hold up by way of demonstration. Clubs these days balance needs and best available.

You are of course entitled to that stance as being your stance, but it's simply not the only method the industry explicitly subscribes to.
Did the CFC go this way? They even told us the types they were after, beforehand. That's a dead giveaway right there.
It's just not black and white...many shades of grey in there.

Like I said; Listen to the recruiters/list managers discuss this. You don't have to, but it's......educational.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I agree, that no club hits perfection, you need to constantly assess the changing nature of the list, with players improving and or declining, but some areas need to be prioritized

While you can manufacture other areas, even a smaller forward line if injuries hit, you just can't manufacture KPD height

Jones and Levi are 30+, leaving only Weitering when I believe we are a serious contender

You can certainly address this in the trade period, but you the use up valuable, limited commodities, that you may need for other areas moving forward.

Most most consistent, top end, successful sides, prioritize talls

And we have prioritised talls.

Harry, Charlie, Weiters, TDK, Pitt, Gov, Marchy, Kemp(?), Parks(?).

There's plenty there for a long time, what we're lacking is solid, reliable, but cheap depth. Trengove would have been a nice addition here. Marsh would be worth a good look. One, maybe two solid talls who can play both ends if called upon and we're well covered.

We may still secure one this year, but if not then all it means is that we're hoping our injury curse ****s off for at least 12 months.

And if it doesn't - well - good teams find a way to get by with undersized options when they need to.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Trade for needs, draft best available ( certainly within the 1st, 2nd rounds). Just like Carroll being a slider. Clubs can also manipulate this with trading after the trade period and during the draft

As for "professional", show me a recruiter that has a better than 2 in 3 picks strike rate and or picking the best player per position over their tenure, heads up, they don't exist

Until you or anyone disproves what I believe to be the case, happy to stay with how I see it, while you can continue to listen to others

How can one "disprove" a philosophical opinion on the nature of player recruitment?

This shit between you two is like watching two old blokes in a retirement home arguing about which sandwich spread is the best.

 

[zeeCFC]

Do what you gotta do to be better.

Richmond took needs with Dan Rioli, Castagna and Butler and it transformed their forward line and pressure gauges.

I would take best available when the needs pick is noticeably not as good. Needs would have made us take Schache over Weitering.

Austin has talked about list breakdowns and depth - so he's aware of areas of thin depth but we also have a durable and versatile [PLAYERCARD]Levi Casboult[/PLAYERCARD] and the ability to play McGovern and perhaps Silvagni back.

First player movement period under the new regime, will have to wait and see if there's a rigid philosophy or we're just taking advantage of the good foundation that was left by SOS.

 

[Arr0w]

And we have prioritised talls.

Harry, Charlie, Weiters, TDK, Pitt, Gov, Marchy, Kemp(?), Parks(?).

There's plenty there for a long time, what we're lacking is solid, reliable, but cheap depth. Trengove would have been a nice addition here. Marsh would be worth a good look. One, maybe two solid talls who can play both ends if called upon and we're well covered.

We may still secure one this year, but if not then all it means is that we're hoping our injury curse fu**s off for at least 12 months.

And if it doesn't - well - good teams find a way to get by with undersized options when they need to.

This is where you((others) and will always differ

The bolded players are not KPDs, while if it is true Kemp has grown, that does alleviate the concern somewhat

 

[HARKER]

How can one "disprove" a philosophical opinion on the nature of player recruitment?

This sh*t between you two is like watching two old blokes in a retirement home arguing about which sandwich spread is the best.

Vegemite and avocado, of course -

What I've found interesting the last couple of months (trade and draft) periods, is just how open List Managers, ex List-managers, coaches and players....industry in general, have been. It's just different.

Areas of discussion they would have not entered into previously now just seem to roll off the tongue. It's a big shift. It's interesting. I like it.

 

[La Dispute]

Carroll still looks a couple of years younger physically when playing at WAFL level - no doubt against guys who are a year so older and are already considered in the the top bracket and likely early draft picks he'd struggle.

He's a bit of a long term project, but that suits us to a tee as we try to prioritise giving Dow, Stocker, Kemp and co time (Ramsay?) at the stoppages in the next couple of years, and if he comes on earlier than expected all the better.

Also has the added benefit of spending plenty of time at half back, and could easily start here and progress onto a wing like [PLAYERCARD]Ryan Burton[/PLAYERCARD].

 

[Arr0w]

That's a well worn cliche that doesn't hold up by way of demonstration. Clubs these days balance needs and best available.

You are of course entitled to that stance as being your stance, but it's simply not the only method the industry explicitly subscribes to.
Did the CFC go this way? They even told us the types they were after, beforehand. That's a dead giveaway right there.
It's just not black and white...many shades of grey in there.

Like I said; Listen to the recruiters/list managers discuss this. You don't have to, but it's......educational.

Cliche in who's eyes, yours? Clubs balance their needs by trading, Williams, Saad, Fogarty

Please stop with your deflections, disprove my theory and I will reconsider my beliefs"

"As for "professional", show me a recruiter that has a better than 2 in 3 picks strike rate and or picking the best player per position over their tenure, heads up, they don't exist"

Club told us we would recruit a developing KPD, did we achieve that ? No. So stop sprouting more of your constant propaganda

What I would suggest is you stop listening to these so called "professionals, or what you actually do is only pulling out a snippet and running with it as the main point of your flawless theories


You say you don't want to have a drawn out debate, but you seem to always want to respond to my posts

Now, unless you have any actual facts, best we move on

 

[HARKER]

Cliche in who's eyes, yours? Clubs balance their needs by trading, Williams, Saad, Fogarty

Please stop with your deflections, disprove my theory and I will reconsider my beliefs"

"As for "professional", show me a recruiter that has a better than 2 in 3 picks strike rate and or picking the best player per position over their tenure, heads up, they don't exist"

Club told us we would recruit a developing KPD, did we achieve that ? No. So stop sprouting more of your constant propaganda

What I would suggest is you stop listening to these so called "professionals, or what you actually do is only pulling out a snippet and running with it as the main point of your flawless theories


You say you don't want to have a drawn out debate, but you seem to always want to respond to my posts

Now, unless you have any actual facts, best we move on

Have you listened to the interviews yet? Listen to the interviews and get back to me on the point 'I' raised with 'you'......and you stop deflecting.

 

[Arr0w]

How can one "disprove" a philosophical opinion on the nature of player recruitment?

This sh*t between you two is like watching two old blokes in a retirement home arguing about which sandwich spread is the best.

You know what I find interesting, you highlight an interaction, but only respond to one person

Is that because you hold a different view to mine? Seems like it, which is fine

Point taken though, cheers

 

[Arr0w]

Have you listened to the interviews yet? Listen to the interviews and get back to me on the point 'I' raised with 'you'......and stop deflecting.

I don't need reassurance like you

Disprove it, or move on and stop replying with more of your propaganda

You may have others fooled, but not me

Just like how are we going to fit all these mids in = we lost none and acquired more. Go figure

 

[thylacine60]

The McCarthy experience made me sceptical of drafting skinny KPPs. He was never a chance of playing seniors in his first two years and then we delisted him. There was literally no point in drafting him.

It also makes me think that for KPPs, I’d rather them sit out of football for a year as they build their size/strength in the gym than keep playing and staying skinny and never being a chance to play seniors.

This is even more pertinent with reduced list sizes.

It will be interesting to see how * handle Cox and Reid.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Blokes can't play and work the gym too?

 

[Metalcrusher]

I don't think any list is ever perfectly balanced. You can say that Carlton didn't address all their needs - I can say that no club did. There are always a multitude of gaps on a list and it's about identifying which ones are most critical to the success of the club and then prioritising those.

Yep, if injuries hit our tall stocks then we may be forced to play a bit smaller than we'd like. But the senior KPP quality is there for a long time to come, we're not needing to forward plan to replace an aging group of talls, it's just a replacement for Jones in 2-4 years.

So the club presumably made a conscious decision to overlook KPF depth, additional ruck depth (beyond the 3 recognised options on our list) and KPD depth to improve our pace from the back line, speed and ball use through the midfield, and our dedicated small forward stocks. Those are all areas that our senior 22 was already struggling with.

We could have gone further with our list cuts and then traded some future picks out to bring in another couple of quality young talls. That would have impacted our draft hand next year though.

TLDR: every list has more "needs" than they can address in any given off-season, seems we just prioritised the exposed needs of our senior list rather than emergency-only or future needs which are less time critical.

Your posting just keeps improving mate.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Carroll still looks a couple of years younger physically when playing at WAFL level - no doubt against guys who are a year so older and are already considered in the the top bracket and likely early draft picks he'd struggle.

He's a bit of a long term project, but that suits us to a tee as we try to prioritise giving Dow, Stocker, Kemp and co time (Ramsay?) at the stoppages in the next couple of years, and if he comes on earlier than expected all the better.

Also has the added benefit of spending plenty of time at half back, and could easily start here and progress onto a wing like [PLAYERCARD]Ryan Burton[/PLAYERCARD].

needs to work o his tank, his bursts are good though.

 

[Christou2Kouta]

Blokes can't play and work the gym too?

If you ask anyone who wants to put on muscle what to do, spending 4-5 hours a week running around at high intensity, including two hours of high intensity, combative game play would not be a part of anyone’s program.

When you play a match, it takes 48-72 hours to recover and you can’t engage in weight training that will fatigue you and undermine your performance in the 48-72 hours leading up to a game, leaving a small window where weight training with reasonable intensity is viable.

During season they do weights to maintain what they’ve got in terms of power, strength, muscular endurance, they don’t aim to improve.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[teddy-hopkins]

Recruiting in the Teague era...
We took Pittonet to replace Phillips. Every one else:

Eddie Betts (quick small - though slowing down)
Brodie Kemp (quick and tall-ish mid)
[PLAYERCARD]Sam Philp[/PLAYERCARD] (quick small-ish)
Sam Ramsay (quick small-ish)
[PLAYERCARD]Jack Martin[/PLAYERCARD] (quick small-ish)
Josh Honey (quick small-ish)
Fraser Phillips (quick small-ish)
Zac Williams (quick small-ish)
Lachie Fogarty (quick small-ish)
[PLAYERCARD]Adam Saad[/PLAYERCARD] (quick small-ish)
Corey Durdin (quick small-ish)
Jack Carroll (quick small-ish)
Luke Parks (key defender not quick)

Gone
Kreuzer (slow)
Simmo (not quick any more)
Lang (quick but useless)
Schumacher (quickish)
Macreadie (slow)
Lobb (slow)
Polson (quick small-ish)
Fasolo (slow)
Garlett (quick-ish)
Kerr (slow)
BSOS (slow)
O'Dwyer (quick-ish)
Thomas (slow)
Lebois (quick)
Goddard (slow)

So it's fair to say we have a type. Only Pittonet and Parks are anything other than fast runners. I imagine this is based on the game plan that Teague wants to play which relies on huge pressure being applied all over the ground. The second part to it is SOS put us in a pretty good place from a "marking player" perspective. McKay, Dekonig, Weitering, Curnow, Jones, Marchbank, Casboult, Docherty, McGovern, etc. so really not a pressing issue.

Speed at ground level is an issue with a very slow midfield unit in particular.

 

[skadoosh]

Recruiting in the Teague era...
We took Pittonet to replace Phillips. Every one else:

Eddie Betts (quick small - though slowing down)
Brodie Kemp (quick and tall-ish mid)
[PLAYERCARD]Sam Philp[/PLAYERCARD] (quick small-ish)
Sam Ramsay (quick small-ish)
[PLAYERCARD]Jack Martin[/PLAYERCARD] (quick small-ish)
Josh Honey (quick small-ish)
Fraser Phillips (quick small-ish)
Zac Williams (quick small-ish)
Lachie Fogarty (quick small-ish)
[PLAYERCARD]Adam Saad[/PLAYERCARD] (quick small-ish)
Corey Durdin (quick small-ish)
Jack Carroll (quick small-ish)
Luke Parks (key defender not quick)

Gone
Kreuzer (slow)
Simmo (not quick any more)
Lang (quick but useless)
Schumacher (quickish)
Macreadie (slow)
Lobb (slow)
Polson (quick small-ish)
Fasolo (slow)
Garlett (quick-ish)
Kerr (slow)
BSOS (slow)
O'Dwyer (quick-ish)
Thomas (slow)
Lebois (quick)
Goddard (slow)

So it's fair to say we have a type. Only Pittonet and Parks are anything other than fast runners. I imagine this is based on the game plan that Teague wants to play which relies on huge pressure being applied all over the ground. The second part to it is SOS put us in a pretty good place from a "marking player" perspective. McKay, Dekonig, Weitering, Curnow, Jones, Marchbank, Casboult, Docherty, McGovern, etc. so really not a pressing issue.

Speed at ground level is an issue with a very slow midfield unit in particular.

Quick but useless

 

[AndyLucimitis]

View attachment 1026381


Not sure whether this is good or bad

Knightmares rating...it may have been posted already, but I'm not looking.

Am I seeing things - Knightmare gave us an A+ ... and Collingowood only an A.

What a strange year this is ??

 

[thylacine60]

If you ask anyone who wants to put on muscle what to do, spending 4-5 hours a week running around at high intensity, including two hours of high intensity, combative game play would not be a part of anyone’s program.

When you play a match, it takes 48-72 hours to recover and you can’t engage in weight training that will fatigue you and undermine your performance in the 48-72 hours leading up to a game, leaving a small window where weight training with reasonable intensity is viable.

During season they do weights to maintain what they’ve got in terms of power, strength, muscular endurance, they don’t aim to improve.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's a fair response.

 

[El Topo]

Am I seeing things - Knightmare gave us an A+ ... and Collingowood only an A.

What a strange year this is ??

Are you sure it's Knightmare and not (superior, Carlton-supporting) Matt Balmer?

 

[Coona Blues]

Where is the deflection? Have always stated you take best available in the draft, so I will back those selections in

But we didn't address all of out needs via the trade period, no matter what you prefer

There is a difference here, your opinion versus historical facts when it comes to talls and the correlation to flag winning sides

Can we buck the trend? Sure anything is possible, but I will stick with winning formulas

You like to be definitive Arr0w and don't like to be challenged. "Best available in the draft" is always subjective and coloured dramatically by needs.
It is fair that one never overlooks known superior talent, but needs play a much bigger role than you care to admit.

As for the assertion that we didn't address needs, this is just incorrect. We are/were stymied by what was available within our range. Common sense
dictates that we retain one pick for when player strengths and our needs are more apparent. We will know closer to the season commencement how Charlie is tracking, as well as any injuries that may crop up. SSP or Mid season draft is yet to be determined.

Durdin & Carroll shape as good picks, as good as any in the range. Can't profess to know Parks, but from vision reckon 192cm about the mark, and hopefully ala Crippa can grow another couple of centimetres late. As I stated pre draft, there were no "modern" KPD's in our draft range. Will back the club until proven otherwise. I wanted the ruck, I wanted Henry Walsh, but can understand the reticence with the list changes. Parks does look to have the potential to be a Stewart, Haynes type, which would be a great result.

You can keep saying that as though it means something and be grounded with that view, but it's exactly not the way modern clubs do things.

Listened to a lot of list managers on SEN over the course of the trade and draft periods and when it came to this topic they had different views.
Listen to North list manager and Sydneys Beatson from earlier this week. You may be surprised how much they value 'needs'

I've always said theres no 'only one way' to list build and from what I heard from professionals.....they agree.
Don't worry about taking this into some lengthy 'I'll prove you wrong' rhetoric but just listen to the 'Professionals' It may just turn you

No one is going to pass up bankable elite talent for a needs based selection, but I am with you, there is always a significant view to needs when
addressing "best available". There was no need to grab any old 196cm plus defender in our draft range for the sake of optics if we didn't rate him.

Happy with our trade and draft period. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating (hate when that saying is commonly abbreviated, just quietly)