Prediction Changes v Hawks

[TheMcManusNose]

Have to give them props for identifying talent later in the draft and then introducing a whole host of youth into a contending side though. A large part of the reason why we are where we are right now is that we didn't do enough of that through our own contending years.

Absolutely it has been pretty well done. Not to the point of refreshing the side, but balancing playing kids who may not contribute with still winning. They've had some key injuries which have allowed them to do so as well.

Waterman, Rioli and Venables have all had good exposure and the former two have stuck pretty well. Venebles obviously needs more time. They'll probably want to get a few more into Ainsworth and Petrucelle before the year ends as well.

Definitely a good point of comparison with us - although I would argue that had we not cocked up our recruiting as much a few years in a row we would have done a lot better in that respect.

 

[wayToGo_]

Waterman, Rioli and Venables have all had good exposure and the former two have stuck pretty well. Venebles obviously needs more time. They'll probably want to get a few more into Ainsworth and Petrucelle before the year ends as well.

Isn't it all relative though? They are still playing the second oldest B22 this week (and were oldest the past two weeks and most weeks from memory), the fewest under 50 games players, and the most 150+ games players. So yes it's great that they are playing guys like Waterman and Rioli but other teams (like Richmond) are performing equal or better and are playing a lot more youngsters. So do they really deserve much credit for doing the least of everyone but still performing well?

 

[TheMcManusNose]

Isn't it all relative though? They are still playing the second oldest B22 this week (and were oldest the past two weeks and most weeks from memory), the fewest under 50 games players, and the most 150+ games players. So yes it's great that they are playing guys like Waterman and Rioli but other teams (like Richmond) are performing equal or better and are playing a lot more youngsters. So do they really deserve much credit for doing the least of everyone but still performing well?

Yes I think they do. It's precisely because they have an older team that makes it all the more important. You can only really play with the list you have, and in that context they have done well in introducing those players for extended without disturbing their side. I think it does contrast with our history a bit, although as I mentioned I think that is partially due to other factors.

 

[wayToGo_]

Yes I think they do. It's precisely because they have an older team that makes it all the more important. You can only really play with the list you have, and in that context they have done well in introducing those players for extended without disturbing their side. I think it does contrast with our history a bit, although as I mentioned I think that is partially due to other factors.

Yeah I think sometimes we are too harsh on ourselves - and the media happily help that skewed perception. Back in 2015 and prior West Coast and Hawks were really no better than us at exposing youth. West Coast had either just one or no players with less than 50 games exp in their B22 for their finals games in both 2016 and 2017 and generally only had a maximum of 2 throughout those seasons. I'd argue they've managed to trade in players to fill roles more so than developing their own young players - eg Yeo, Redden, Jetta, Cripps, Vardy, Petrie, Mitchell, Ah Chee, Wellingham...

They've done ok with Barrass & Duggan but who else have they developed well in recent times?

 

[TheMcManusNose]

Yeah I think sometimes we are too harsh on ourselves - and the media happily help that skewed perception. Back in 2015 and prior West Coast and Hawks were really no better than us at exposing youth. West Coast had either just one or no players with less than 50 games exp in their B22 for their finals games in both 2016 and 2017 and generally only had a maximum of 2 throughout those seasons. I'd argue they've managed to trade in players to fill roles more so than developing their own young players - eg Yeo, Redden, Jetta, Cripps, Vardy, Petrie, Mitchell, Ah Chee, Wellingham...

They've done ok with Barrass & Duggan but who else have they developed well in recent times?

And that recruiting approach they took previously is fine, given that they were a team with a decent amount of experience but a few obvious holes. The Redden and Jetta trades are now very much paying dividends for them. I don't think that in any way takes away from what they've done this year though. I've just personally been impressed with how they've played those kids and stuck with them even when they've had absolute potato games. Especially in a year where many, including myself, thought those positions in the 22 and the kids developing in them would have seen them lose a few more games.

 

[ilikepotatoes]

What about taking marks inside 50 and kicking goals, are Hawkins, Buddy, Kennedy, Reiwoldt, etc, in their teams to bring the ball to ground or be forwards and kick goals...they are going to run off him all day...we have been talking about putting ruckmen like Sandi at FF for 10 years and it never works. One of the secrets of Richmond and even Collingwood these days is relentless pressure in the forward line, ruckmen don't give that.

I'll pay Richmond but you've got to be joking about the Pies right? Mason Cox ring a bell to you?

 

[Rion]

Nah bringing in youngsters for a couple of token games each isn't really exposing them. The only ones that have gotten a bit of a run for them have been mature agers. Willie Rioli is the only debutant to play a lot of games and he's 23yo and playing in a forward pocket. Credit it to them for controlling the public narrative about playing youth though.

Well Waterman, Rioli, Venables and Ryan have had significant exposure (in the context of WC contending for a flag) and while a lot of the others have been only 2-3 games at least they've all been trialed. I don't think it's too hard to see a world where another 3 or 4 of those exposed this year become regular's next year.

I just rate how they are actually making moves to rejuvenate their team WHILE contending. I think at the end of each year during the 2013-2015 we essentially just trusted that we'd be back the next year and did very little in the way of improving or 'renovating' the list.

I mean a fair few around here are accepting this down period because they see it as impossible to avoid. WC have got a long way to go to achieve sustained success with this core but you've got to give them credit for actually trying to a degree I don't think we attempted.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

Well Waterman, Rioli, Venables and Ryan have had significant exposure (in the context of WC contending for a flag) and while a lot of the others have been only 2-3 games at least they've all been trialed. I don't think it's too hard to see a world where another 3 or 4 of those exposed this year become regular's next year.

I just rate how they are actually making moves to rejuvenate their team WHILE contending. I think at the end of each year during the 2013-2015 we essentially just trusted that we'd be back the next year and did very little in the way of improving or 'renovating' the list.

I mean a fair few around here are accepting this down period because they see it as impossible to avoid. WC have got a long way to go to achieve sustained success with this core but you've got to give them credit for actually trying to a degree I don't think we attempted.

I actually do think it was at least near-impossible for us to avoid - our list was a bit more unbalanced than theirs is in terms of age, and while we found a few players over the 2010-2013 period we cocked up a few key picks (plus the Mora/Pitt disasters). All of this leads to a bit of a perfect storm.

But I do agree we didn't quite take this approach - we could have played 1-2 more kids per game without really disadvantaging ourselves. The sub rule cooked us a bit in this respect though. Hopefully we learn from that in future.

 

[Nothing]

2011 draft we regularly played Neale, Sheridan, Crozier and Sutcliffe from this draft. Mostly they are C graders (compromised draft). All played in many games in 2013.
2012 draft we got 9 games from our top 3 picks (none are on an AFL list - compromised draft). Tabs the success from this draft.
2013 draft the top 3 picks are all still at Freo with AP and Apeness both being consistently injured during our contending years.
2014 draftees all played in 2015 for at least a game or three, exactly what you are applauding WC for doing.

Some people just see that Freo can do nothing right...

Speak of not right, this is the changes thread.

 

[Rion]

I actually do think it was at least near-impossible for us to avoid - our list was a bit more unbalanced than theirs is in terms of age, and while we found a few players over the 2010-2013 period we cocked up a few key picks (plus the Mora/Pitt disasters). All of this leads to a bit of a perfect storm.

But I do agree we didn't quite take this approach - we could have played 1-2 more kids per game without really disadvantaging ourselves. The sub rule cooked us a bit in this respect though. Hopefully we learn from that in future.

Yeah probably. I just like that instead of throwing up their hands like us and excusing 'meh' picks like Sheridan, Crozier, Apeness etc because they're 'late' picks they've recruited, developed and now given games to a number of their picks and they're all the better for it.

 

[wayToGo_]

Yeah probably. I just like that instead of throwing up their hands like us and excusing 'meh' picks like Sheridan, Crozier, Apeness etc because they're 'late' picks they've recruited, developed and now given games to a number of their picks and they're all the better for it.

But...

WEST COAST

2013 Draft
Sheed - meh
Karpany - fail
Barrass - success
Main - fail
Bennell - fail
Maginness - fail
Powell - fail
Newman - fail

2014 Draft
Duggan - success
Lamb - fail (baa baa)
Nelson - meh
Cavka - fail
Waterman (Alec) - fail
Lucas - fail
Adamson - fail

2015 Draft
Partington - fail
Cole - meh
Mutimer - fail
Allen - fail
Snadden - fail
Colledge - fail
Tunbridge - fail

2016 Draft
Venables - possible
Rotham - fail
Rioli - ok (but drafted at 22yo)
Waterman (Jake) - possible
Gorter - fail
Petrie - ha ha ha
McInnes - ha ha ha

2017 Draft
Brander - too early
Allen - too early
Ryan - ok (but drafted at 21yo)
Ainsworth - too early
Petrucelle - too early
Brayshaw - too early
Burrows - too early/unlikely
Olango - too early/unlikely
England - too early/unlikely

My assessment over the past 5 drafts is two successes (Barrass and Duggan), 2 ok mature agers (Rioli and Ryan), 3 Mehs (Sheed, Nelson, Cole) and 2 possibles (Venables, Waterman). Have they really drafted and developed better than us? I'm impressed with how well they are going but I don't think it has anything to do with their recent drafting and development.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

But...

WEST COAST

2013 Draft
Sheed - meh
Karpany - fail
Barrass - success
Main - fail
Bennell - fail
Maginness - fail
Powell - fail
Newman - fail

2014 Draft
Duggan - success
Lamb - fail (baa baa)
Nelson - meh
Cavka - fail
Waterman (Alec) - fail
Lucas - fail
Adamson - fail

2015 Draft
Partington - fail
Cole - meh
Mutimer - fail
Allen - fail
Snadden - fail
Colledge - fail
Tunbridge - fail

2016 Draft
Venables - possible
Rotham - fail
Rioli - ok (but drafted at 22yo)
Waterman (Jake) - possible
Gorter - fail
Petrie - ha ha ha
McInnes - ha ha ha

2017 Draft
Brander - too early
Allen - too early
Ryan - ok (but drafted at 21yo)
Ainsworth - too early
Petrucelle - too early
Brayshaw - too early
Burrows - too early/unlikely
Olango - too early/unlikely
England - too early/unlikely

My assessment over the past 5 drafts is two successes (Barrass and Duggan), 2 ok mature agers (Rioli and Ryan), 3 Mehs (Sheed, Nelson, Cole) and 2 possibles (Venables, Waterman). Have they really drafted and developed better than us? I'm impressed with how well they are going but I don't think it has anything to do with their recent drafting and development.

Sheed is hardly meh

 

[wayToGo_]

Sheed is hardly meh

Do you rate him? Is he even in their B22 atm? He hasn't been quite a few times this year. I don't think he's lived up to anywhere near the expectations for a draft pick that early. Remember they picked him before Patrick Cripps in 2013 Certainly done more than our Apeness pick mind you

 

[blue shark]

Sheed is hardly meh

Venables is a Shuey clone, and I can see him being at least a B grade.

 

[wayToGo_]

Venables is a Shuey clone, and I can see him being at least a B grade.

Yeah but he hasn't shown it at AFL level yet though. He's averaged 9.7 disposals in his 7 games so far - can't really put him in the success basket until they show something. We took Taylin Duman in the same draft as a rookie pick and he's shown more at AFL level in his 6 games but not putting him in the success basket yet either.

 

[mattis117]

Grey is never going to be a midfielder at AFL level.

Yeah I know

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Do you rate him? Is he even in their B22 atm? He hasn't been quite a few times this year. I don't think he's lived up to anywhere near the expectations for a draft pick that early. Remember they picked him before Patrick Cripps in 2013 Certainly done more than our Apeness pick mind you

Yes I think he's best 22 and yes I rate him.

Them passing on Cripps has nothing to do with me rating or not rating him.

So what if he's been dropped a few times. He was dropped because he has been working on different roles for him and he was developing these roles. Clearly stated on radio through the West Coast coaching group

Just because he's not an A graded doesn't mean he's meh

 

[Vintage]

Are you serious? You think the match committee dont want to win? Who is actually better that they are not selecting? Do you actually football?

By the way, if you still haven the figured it out - I was being sarcastic and having a go at people like freoricci who seem to think Ross would rather pick his mates than win.

 

[wayToGo_]

Yes I think he's best 22 and yes I rate him.

Them passing on Cripps has nothing to do with me rating or not rating him.

So what if he's been dropped a few times. He was dropped because he has been working on different roles for him and he was developing these roles. Clearly stated on radio through the West Coast coaching group

Just because he's not an A graded doesn't mean he's meh

Fair enough. I've been underwhelmed personally. 2013 was a long time ago... when our guys like Langdon and Blakely are locks for B22 (arguably top 10) and occasionally having top 5 impact in games and they are a year younger and this guy is being dropped to work on 'something', I'm not convinced. Im keeping in my 'meh' basket

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Fair enough. I've been underwhelmed personally. 2013 was a long time ago... when our guys like Langdon and Blakely are locks for B22 (arguably top 10) and occasionally having top 5 impact in games and they are a year younger and this guy is being dropped to work on 'something', I'm not convinced. Im keeping in my 'meh' basket

They are in our best 22 and so would he

 

[wayToGo_]

They are in our best 22 and so would he

We don't have to agree. Which of these midfielders would he be ahead of... Fyfe, Mundy, Neale, Walters, Bennell, SHill, BHill, Blakely and Langdon? Midfield is their weakness and he is fringe for them... So I'm highly doubtful he would be B22 for us. I wouldn't even play him ahead of Brayshaw, Cerra and Banfield because they look likely to go past him in a year or two.

 

[Unique Name]

Sheed for a pick 11 is very underwhelming. Average player at best. At full strength he wouldn't be in our B22.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Sheed for a pick 11 is very underwhelming. Average player at best. At full strength he wouldn't be in our B22.

He's better than Sherro and Sutty

 

[Unique Name]

He's better than Sherro and Sutty

And at full strength Sherro and Sutty aren't in our B22.

Not sure why you're being so defensive about this. We get your opinion.

 

[eastfreo75]

But...

WEST COAST

2013 Draft
Sheed - meh
Karpany - fail
Barrass - success
Main - fail
Bennell - fail
Maginness - fail
Powell - fail
Newman - fail

2014 Draft
Duggan - success
Lamb - fail (baa baa)
Nelson - meh
Cavka - fail
Waterman (Alec) - fail
Lucas - fail
Adamson - fail

2015 Draft
Partington - fail
Cole - meh
Mutimer - fail
Allen - fail
Snadden - fail
Colledge - fail
Tunbridge - fail

2016 Draft
Venables - possible
Rotham - fail
Rioli - ok (but drafted at 22yo)
Waterman (Jake) - possible
Gorter - fail
Petrie - ha ha ha
McInnes - ha ha ha

2017 Draft
Brander - too early
Allen - too early
Ryan - ok (but drafted at 21yo)
Ainsworth - too early
Petrucelle - too early
Brayshaw - too early
Burrows - too early/unlikely
Olango - too early/unlikely
England - too early/unlikely

My assessment over the past 5 drafts is two successes (Barrass and Duggan), 2 ok mature agers (Rioli and Ryan), 3 Mehs (Sheed, Nelson, Cole) and 2 possibles (Venables, Waterman). Have they really drafted and developed better than us? I'm impressed with how well they are going but I don't think it has anything to do with their recent drafting and development.

That drafting will catch up with them.