List Mgmt. Collingwood Re-Building Via The Draft

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I’d rather test the market for interest on Sidebottom

Yeah unfortunately we'd need a sucker to pay up.... and theres only one sucker at the trade table and thats Collingwood

 

[Billys Back]

Yeah unfortunately we'd need a sucker to pay up.... and theres only one sucker at the trade table and thats Collingwood

I’d rather keep players I enjoy watching, unless the offer is too good to refuse. I’ve always loved watching Elliot and last week reaffirmed he still has it. Sidey unfortunately just isn’t as exciting these days.

 

[domus]

I'd still like to persist with Kelly as KPF
I actually think Anton Tohill shows promise at FB in VFL
along with Keane and Wilson thats enough KPD's

Wilson is nowhere near being a key position player in any part of the ground. He is not big enough and lacks pace. Shaz 2.0

 

[nahnah]

Need to hit the next 3 drafts hard

 

[nahnah]

Even if we have a random jump up the ladder we need to stick to hitting drafts, no Carlton like short cuts

 

[LarryKinn]

Wilson is nowhere near being a key position player in any part of the ground. He is not big enough and lacks pace. Shaz 2.0

Wilson is the same height as Keane, 194
both taller than Dunn or Shaz, our 2018 spine
but I agree he doesn't seem suited to KPD, more of the Howe role without the hops
steps up when Moore or Roughy rest
He has been used as a utility. 1st as a fwd, then wing, now defence. probably wont be a star but more a solid role player
If they develop, Murphy replaces Mayne and Wilson replaces Howe
I reckon Murphy is on track and I'm hopeful for Wilson
they are all in that mid level age group that have had a few preseasons and need to step up while the kids develop and vets retire

 

[Carringbush2010]

I have more caution about the new kids. It's too early to declare on most of them. I really like what I see from Poulter, McCreery and especially Biance but 6,7 and 2 games respectively is way too early to be marked as best 22. Best 22 to me is when you have had a season or two playing most games and when the selection committee meet you are an automatic in, no real discussion. Flipside is end of last season people were arguing Phillips wasn't best 22 even after 70 straight games.

It's too early to write any off and too early to declare any. There is also best 22 and BEST 22 if you like.

Phillips, Mayne, WHE, Thomas have been best 22 recent seasons. So have Pendles, Elliott, Howe, Sidey, Adams. But the latter are BEST 22. Thats my biggest concern. Our kids dont suggest a lot of top end talent. Its ok to have youngsters who can play in your best 22 but as it stands now if I look at most other clubs lists I would be taking their 24 year olds and under ahead of ours.

Re some teams like Carlton and Melbourne (for most of the last 2 decades) access to draft quality doesnt ensure success without good selections and especially good development. However if you don't have access to the top of the draft compared to most rivals it means your development and selection has to be way above most of your rivals. Not sure i see that in the current Collingwood set up. That's why I think patience and time will be needed while we build in the seasons ahead. Quick bounce back is unlikely.

I fell in love with this post when you said development.

Let's look at the current premier, no one with any fibre of brain would suggest they've had the best list throughout their premiership gluttony. In fact apart from this year and apart from our own list imbalance, there is not a lot of difference in quality - so development has set them apart. Yeah sure there are other factors but the key one being development - particularly game.

Now let's look at a talent laden list like WC, sure they've got a flag, but even in that game it wasn't assured and some may argue if we continued from that manic 1st qtr then they wouldn't have been in the hunt. It would've been disappointing from a list talent perspective.

Then you look at clubs like GC and GWS who've crashed their F1 cars in a V8 supercars race.

Then you look at us - throughout it's history, only once since the 4 peat has it looked like it had a list worthy of dynasty, even then couldn't pull it off. Sure there's nuanced arguments around the why that 07 (where it started to build) to 11 team couldn't continue its dominance, but really it's clutching at straws arguments, reality is that a team with the 2nd highest % across the history of the comp and a 20-2 record can't be ignored. Opportunity missed.

Now we have a blank canvas to work with, if we get the development part right, coupled with the resources we have at our disposal there's no reason why this club can't build a dynasty team.

Apologies to everyone, you all know how I bang on about development, history recent and not has proven development to be key to success.

 

[stormskye]

I fell in love with this post when you said development.

Let's look at the current premier, no one with any fibre of brain would suggest they've had the best list throughout their premiership gluttony. In fact apart from this year and apart from our own list imbalance, there is not a lot of difference in quality - so development has set them apart. Yeah sure there are other factors but the key one being development - particularly game.

Now let's look at a talent laden list like WC, sure they've got a flag, but even in that game it wasn't assured and some may argue if we continued from that manic 1st qtr then they wouldn't have been in the hunt. It would've been disappointing from a list talent perspective.

Then you look at clubs like GC and GWS who've crashed their F1 cars in a V8 supercars race.

Then you look at us - throughout it's history, only once since the 4 peat has it looked like it had a list worthy of dynasty, even then couldn't pull it off. Sure there's nuanced arguments around the why that 07 (where it started to build) to 11 team couldn't continue its dominance, but really it's clutching at straws arguments, reality is that a team with the 2nd highest % across the history of the comp and a 20-2 record can't be ignored. Opportunity missed.

Now we have a blank canvas to work with, if we get the development part right, coupled with the resources we have at our disposal there's no reason why this club can't build a dynasty team.

Apologies to everyone, you all know how I bang on about development, history recent and not has proven development to be key to success.

Agree 100%. It’s not just the list, it’s everything. Rich are proof however that a good game plan is essential, they don’t have the most talent, but are so well drilled it works. They don’t overthink footy. Get the ball forward and give your forwards a chance.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Agree 100%. It’s not just the list, it’s everything. Rich are proof however that a good game plan is essential, they don’t have the most talent, but are so well drilled it works. They don’t overthink footy. Get the ball forward and give your forwards a chance.

On face value it seems that 'everything' is underrated - everyone on here is like our list is bottom 4 - it's not quality wise, it's imbalanced from an age / experience / kpp perspective are major factors to our on field demise. But it's performing far from potential.

It still has core quality.

 

[Gone Critical]

I fell in love with this post when you said development.

Let's look at the current premier, no one with any fibre of brain would suggest they've had the best list throughout their premiership gluttony. In fact apart from this year and apart from our own list imbalance, there is not a lot of difference in quality - so development has set them apart. Yeah sure there are other factors but the key one being development - particularly game.

Now let's look at a talent laden list like WC, sure they've got a flag, but even in that game it wasn't assured and some may argue if we continued from that manic 1st qtr then they wouldn't have been in the hunt. It would've been disappointing from a list talent perspective.

Then you look at clubs like GC and GWS who've crashed their F1 cars in a V8 supercars race.

Then you look at us - throughout it's history, only once since the 4 peat has it looked like it had a list worthy of dynasty, even then couldn't pull it off. Sure there's nuanced arguments around the why that 07 (where it started to build) to 11 team couldn't continue its dominance, but really it's clutching at straws arguments, reality is that a team with the 2nd highest % across the history of the comp and a 20-2 record can't be ignored. Opportunity missed.

Now we have a blank canvas to work with, if we get the development part right, coupled with the resources we have at our disposal there's no reason why this club can't build a dynasty team.

Apologies to everyone, you all know how I bang on about development, history recent and not has proven development to be key to success.

I think you are severely under rating the talent Richmond have had at their disposal. Their top end is especially strong. They have developed really well but the raw talent of Reiwoldt, Cotchin, Rance, Grimes, Lynch Edwards and now Bolton is something you can build on. Then add the linchpin Dusty and that gives the coaching staff a canvas to paint on. Our 2010-11 list was a similar canvas but we are a mile off that now.

 

[magpie_marty]

I fell in love with this post when you said development.

Let's look at the current premier, no one with any fibre of brain would suggest they've had the best list throughout their premiership gluttony. In fact apart from this year and apart from our own list imbalance, there is not a lot of difference in quality - so development has set them apart. Yeah sure there are other factors but the key one being development - particularly game.

Now let's look at a talent laden list like WC, sure they've got a flag, but even in that game it wasn't assured and some may argue if we continued from that manic 1st qtr then they wouldn't have been in the hunt. It would've been disappointing from a list talent perspective.

Then you look at clubs like GC and GWS who've crashed their F1 cars in a V8 supercars race.

Then you look at us - throughout it's history, only once since the 4 peat has it looked like it had a list worthy of dynasty, even then couldn't pull it off. Sure there's nuanced arguments around the why that 07 (where it started to build) to 11 team couldn't continue its dominance, but really it's clutching at straws arguments, reality is that a team with the 2nd highest % across the history of the comp and a 20-2 record can't be ignored. Opportunity missed.

Now we have a blank canvas to work with, if we get the development part right, coupled with the resources we have at our disposal there's no reason why this club can't build a dynasty team.

Apologies to everyone, you all know how I bang on about development, history recent and not has proven development to be key to success.

Richmonds VFL team has been developing decent players the last 5 years?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think you are severely under rating the talent Richmond have had at their disposal. Their top end is especially strong. They have developed really well but the raw talent of Reiwoldt, Cotchin, Rance, Grimes, Lynch Edwards and now Bolton is something you can build on. Then add the linchpin Dusty and that gives the coaching staff a canvas to paint on. Our 2010-11 list was a similar canvas but we are a mile off that now.

No ones doubting their top end, but it's not a wc or giants for out and out talent in qty, our top end talent is no different in quality - depth and balance is the glaring difference.

In saying that our 2018 'depth' is majorly different through development to now, we had no name players turn into headliners. Much like your Grahams, Higgins, Bakers etc of Richmond throughout that time. Three differences to our 2019 to 2020 to the premier

• Balance
• Game style
• Development

Our should've been dynasty team has more talent than the current premier, hard to argue, the numbers of the 2011 season points to that.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Richmonds VFL team has been developing decent players the last 5 years?

They have been pretty successful at being prepared to trade out premiership players and replacing them with the next batch of VFL kids. I think they have managed and developed their young depth pretty well.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Even if we have a random jump up the ladder we need to stick to hitting drafts, no StKilda like short cuts

edited for emphasis. StKildas topping up given their mid table position (at best) in recent years has been an unmitigated disaster

 

[magpie_marty]

They have been pretty successful at being prepared to trade out premiership players and replacing them with the next batch of VFL kids. I think they have managed and developed their young depth pretty well.

Footscray has also been good at VFL level the last few years.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Footscray has also been good at VFL level the last few years.

I dont think win-loss success in the VFL in itself is the measure of success. You can win VFL flags with a list full of AFL deadwood. Player development and VFL success dont always go hand in hand.

 

[magpie_marty]

I dont think win-loss success in the VFL in itself is the measure of success. You can win VFL flags with a list full of AFL deadwood. Player development and VFL success dont always go hand in hand.

That's a yes and no.
But I get your point and agree.
Our VFL team has lacked many things.
Constant coaching changes how many have we had in the last 6 years?
We must build the VFL list to add pressure on the senior players,
Thus blokes will not be gifted games year after year in the seniors.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

That's a yes and no.
But I get your point and agree.
Our VFL team has lacked many things.
Constant coaching changes how many have we had in the last 6 years?
We must build the VFL list to add pressure on the senior players,
Thus blokes will not be gifted games year after year in the seniors.

We seem to have the balance right this year, albeit a few too many pimply 18 year olds

 

[Gone Critical]

No ones doubting their top end, but it's not a wc or giants for out and out talent in qty, our top end talent is no different in quality - depth and balance is the glaring difference.

In saying that our 2018 'depth' is majorly different through development to now, we had no name players turn into headliners. Much like your Grahams, Higgins, Bakers etc of Richmond throughout that time. Three differences to our 2019 to 2020 to the premier

• Balance
• Game style
• Development

Our should've been dynasty team has more talent than the current premier, hard to argue, the numbers of the 2011 season points to that.

My call is their top end talent is considerably above ours.

We have no one like Dusty in influence which is no surprise. Lynch and Reiwoldt are a premier pain of big forwards who stand far above the forwards we have. Their group of mids have been exceptional through their flag years. Our backline would equal theirs perhaps but otherwise its not close.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Oakland Athletics style rebuild doesn't focus on getting good players, it focuses on getting cheap fills who have potential and are wasted at their clubs. Think Dan Butler, Aliir, Aliir, etc.

The A's / Moneyball phrase is extremely misrepresented generally.

It wasn't about getting cheap players who had potential, it was about identifying that different metrics drove success of baseball teams / players (that the rest of baseball barely recognised), and then doubling down on players who excelled on those metrics (who were generally cheap because their clubs didn't recognise those metrics as being so important). It wasn't about getting cheap players and hoping they ended up playing better.

Hawthorn is the best example of moneyball list building in AFL. They recognised that kicking efficiency was a key driver of team success, and that left footers generally had 2-4% better kicking efficiency, so they doubled down on left footers.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The A's / Moneyball phrase is extremely misrepresented generally.

It wasn't about getting cheap players who had potential, it was about identifying that different metrics drove success of baseball teams / players (that the rest of baseball barely recognised), and then doubling down on players who excelled on those metrics (who were generally cheap because their clubs didn't recognise those metrics as being so important). It wasn't about getting cheap players and hoping they ended up playing better.

Hawthorn is the best example of moneyball list building in AFL. They recognised that kicking efficiency was a key driver of team success, and that left footers generally had 2-4% better kicking efficiency, so they doubled down on left footers.

Oh dear God thankyou for this post. I despair of reading more posts citing Moneyball without understanding it. You’ve absolutely nailed the concept.

 

[Anzacday]

Moneyball without understanding it

Fair to say we didn't, more like a money ballsup

 

[Jelly Bean]

Oh dear God thankyou for this post. I despair of reading more posts citing Moneyball without understanding it. You’ve absolutely nailed the concept.

I'm a big baseball fan as well as football fan, and Moneyball is one of my favourite books of all time.

 

[Kappa]

Oh dear God thankyou for this post. I despair of reading more posts citing Moneyball without understanding it. You’ve absolutely nailed the concept.

isn’t one of the key points of moneyball that these guys were actually good statistically in key areas but were rated lower because they had other flaws like too old, party boy, bung shoulder ect which caused their value to drop below their performance.

stengle would be the classic example if he was picked up for min salary and as a mid season rookie

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I'm a big baseball fan as well as football fan, and Moneyball is one of my favourite books of all time.

Yep I much prefer the book to the movie, but the movie is still decent.

You’re right, everyone cites cheap players underperforming elsewhere but totally overlooks, for lack of an AFL equivalent, how many pitches they can absorb and what their on-base percentage is.