Opinion Did we utilise coming last in 2016?

[Lance Uppercut]

yep true. I wish we'd drafted a highly rated mid instead of Zach Merrett

 

[Jade]

yep true. I wish we'd drafted a highly rated mid instead of Zach Merrett

Spud. Delist.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It should also be noted that none of the top draft prospects were key forwards or big bodied midfield bulls.

Taranto? Brodie?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Heard a few whispers that some in the AFL industry believe we have not drafted well in 2016 and did not fully utilise coming last. Also questioning our list development strategy.
The arguments being used are:
We used pick 1 on a small defender
We did not trade pick 1 for 2 picks in the first round of an even draft
We have a propensity to draft utility like players. Laverde, Langford, Francis, redman, brown, Ridley and begley in the last couple of years. These players not pure key position players or midfielders.
Have not addressed long term needs in areas of ruck stocks and key position forwards.
Have not drafted highly rated midfielders except for parish.
Attracted no significant recruits despite having draft picks and number one pick in preseason draft.
Use first selection in rookie draft on a very raw ruck man who has had very limited exposure to any level of footy.
Kept Yestin Eades on the list as a rookie when many in football knew he was not coping with demands and expectations of afl footy.
I do not agree with all of these points however I agree with some.
Thoughts?

people have done a great job debunking most of this, and most of it has probably been said, but some thoughts:

• 1) wtf is a "utility like player"? Is it a pejorative term? Because all I can make out it means is "guys who are a good size". I mean, is Fyfe a utility like player? Is Josh Kennedy for the Swans a ULP? What about Petracca? And exactly what size does one stop being a "midfielder" and turn into a ULP? And how is someone having size like, say, Langford, a bad thing?
• Is Stewart not a KPF?
• Are the same people bemoaning us not addressing our future ruck stocks the same people bemoaning us drafting a young ruck with our rookie pick? In any case, rookie rucks are often the best, and highly rated rucks often duds
• What exactly is a "significant recruit"? Should we have gone down the Hawthorn model and traded all our picks for players, despite having a very different demographics spread?
• How damaging is it "wasting" a rookie spot anyway?

I get that you don't agree with all the points, but if you are going to raise them I guess you're playing devils advocate

 

[Stopher]

Absolutely impossible to tell at this stage.

 

[table tennis]

As much as I rate McGrath's potential, I would have liked us to get another out and out mid. Taranto, McLuggage etc, as it would compliment the stars coming back and helped with transition when Jobs retires.

However, there is absolutely no credibility to the fact that McGrath won't be that player. We haven't seen him play any mid time at the moment. Similar to Dyson Heppell at the same age.

There is incredible excitement from the club in regards to Mutch, Clarke, Begley & Ridley.

For the first two games from Begley, he could be anything.

The other kids went OK in a depleted side in really testing conditions.

I think from what we have seen, which is the only fact we can go off, there is a bright future ahead.

We just need some further conditioning of our whole list, so they can play that manic pressure style for longer than 2 quarters

 

[Ambrosia]

Hard to argue that we haven't drafted too many flankers/utility types. I mean we don't have enough pockets/flanks/wings to fit all of the below into the side.

- Laverde
- Langford
- Redman
- Gleeson
- Dea
- Francis
- Fantasia
- Ridley
- Green
- Begley
- Morgan
- Colyer
- Tipungwuti
- Long
- McKenna

I know not all of them will be good enough to play senior footy but that's a serious amount of draft picks invested into non KPP and non pure mids.

 

[Jade]

That's it - we've gone full potato.

Honestly expected better of this board, really did.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Hard to argue that we haven't drafted too many flankers/utility types. I mean we don't have enough pockets/flanks/wings to fit all of the below into the side.

- Laverde
- Langford
- Redman
- Gleeson
- Dea
- Francis
- Fantasia
- Ridley
- Green
- Begley
- Morgan
- Colyer
- Tipungwuti
- Long
- McKenna

I know not all of them will be good enough to play senior footy but that's a serious amount of draft picks invested into non KPP and non pure mids.

The fixation on "pure mids" is remarkable. In what other football argument do people passionately argue for someone with zero flexibility?

How many "pure mids" does a team need? What even is a "pure mid" and why are they better than someone like Langford for example?

Quite aside from the fact that never will all of the players listed play in the same team, you have 10 positions called pocket/flank/wing, and that's not even counting the bench. Yet according to you, 15 is too many, even not accounting for the fact that at least 5 of the players you've mentioned could also be playing in the midfield? How does that work again?

 

[eth-dog]

Exactly. I love the fact that none of the players listed there are "pure mids". Fyfe, Ablett, Dangerfield, Bontempelli, Martin are widely considered some of the best players in the game. What do they have in common? The ability to impact the game in multiple areas of the ground.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Exactly. I love the fact that none of the players listed there are "pure mids". Fyfe, Ablett, Dangerfield, Bontempelli, Martin are widely considered some of the best players in the game. What do they have in common? The ability to impact the game in multiple areas of the ground.

spot on. I honestly think it's the nomenclature more than anything that creates this kind of strange outcome. "Pure" mids. It seems to signify something to people by it's binary opposite - whereby the use of the phrase implicitly implies that players who aren't "pure mids" are more "diluted", or "corrupted", or other opposites to what pure means. Yet, when you unpack what people actually mean by pure mid, the "pure" prefix actually refers to where the player will play their footy exclusively. Which, as I mentioned above, leads to the bizarre situation where people think that inflexibility is actually a positive thing, which is clearly nonsense when you give it a modicum of critical thought.

One of the questions I posed above is, what makes a pure mid better than a player who can play perfectly well in the midfield but can also impact the game elsewhere, and I think if people honestly thought about that question they would struggle to answer it adequately. Perhaps it's an unconscious bias towards the "jack of all trades, master of none" cliche, but that is clearly a concept unsupported by any actual evidence in most cases. Take one of your examples in Fyfe. Would people prefer, say, Luke Parker to Nate Fyfe? One is a player who'd probably epitomise the "pure mid" stereotype, and who would be one of the best examples in terms of being a talented player. But does that alone make him better than Fyfe? Clearly not. Would people pick him over, say, Bontempelli? I severely doubt it. Why is a player like Bontempelli so highly regarded? Obviously its his talent but you could also mount an argument it's the structural advantages he gives a team by dint of his flexibility - the exact opposite trait offered by the pure mid.

And really, that gets to the absolute nub of what I'd argue. And that is: talent always wins out. It doesn't matter if you're a "pure mid", or a "utility like player" - it only matters that you can play footy at a sufficiently high level. And that's what will ultimately decide whether a player is valuable to the team.

Thus, once you really think about it, the concept of the "pure mid" as a preferential player is in reality a nonsense. If anything a pure mid is something you don't want, if you are comparing him to a player of exactly the same talent, with the same capacity to play footy in the zone where the umpire bounces the ball, who can offer other benefits when required. Of course, you are happy to have a pure mid in your team, such as a Merrett for example, but only when they are actually an outstanding player who plays in the midfield exclusively because they are a good player, and not because of their lack of flexibility in that they can only play in the midfield.

 

[DapperDon]

That's it - we've gone full potato.

Honestly expected better of this board, really did.

Why?

You've been around long enough to know better

 

[eth-dog]

spot on. I honestly think it's the nomenclature more than anything that creates this kind of strange outcome. "Pure" mids. It seems to signify something to people by it's binary opposite - whereby the use of the phrase implicitly implies that players who aren't "pure mids" are more "diluted", or "corrupted", or other opposites to what pure means. Yet, when you unpack what people actually mean by pure mid, the "pure" prefix actually refers to where the player will play their footy exclusively. Which, as I mentioned above, leads to the bizarre situation where people think that inflexibility is actually a positive thing, which is clearly nonsense when you give it a modicum of critical thought.

One of the questions I posed above is, what makes a pure mid better than a player who can play perfectly well in the midfield but can also impact the game elsewhere, and I think if people honestly thought about that question they would struggle to answer it adequately. Perhaps it's an unconscious bias towards the "jack of all trades, master of none" cliche, but that is clearly a concept unsupported by any actual evidence in most cases. Take one of your examples in Fyfe. Would people prefer, say, Luke Parker to Nate Fyfe? One is a player who'd probably epitomise the "pure mid" stereotype, and who would be one of the best examples in terms of being a talented player. But does that alone make him better than Fyfe? Clearly not. Would people pick him over, say, Bontempelli? I severely doubt it. Why is a player like Bontempelli so highly regarded? Obviously its his talent but you could also mount an argument it's the structural advantages he gives a team by dint of his flexibility - the exact opposite trait offered by the pure mid.

And really, that gets to the absolute nub of what I'd argue. And that is: talent always wins out. It doesn't matter if you're a "pure mid", or a "utility like player" - it only matters that you can play footy at a sufficiently high level. And that's what will ultimately decide whether a player is valuable to the team.

Thus, once you really think about it, the concept of the "pure mid" as a preferential player is in reality a nonsense. If anything a pure mid is something you don't want, if you are comparing him to a player of exactly the same talent, with the same capacity to play footy in the zone where the umpire bounces the ball, who can offer other benefits when required. Of course, you are happy to have a pure mid in your team, such as a Merrett for example, but only when they are actually an outstanding player who plays in the midfield exclusively because they are a good player, and not because of their lack of flexibility in that they can only play in the midfield.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Bulldogs won the flag.

How many of their 22 played basically only through the middle? Tom Liberatore. That's it. And in reality, he's awesome in that role. His forward play is average.

 

[Jade]

Why?

You've been around long enough to know better

Seriously, we go through four years of tripe, just wanting to get back to a point where losing a game of footy is the worst thing that can happen.

Finally, we're there, we play some blistering footy in the preseason, but fail to win a PRESEASON game, and all of a sudden we've ****ed our list management, we haven't drafted well, McGrath is a spud, Stewart wasn't worth the half eaten bag of Twisties paid for him...

FULL.

*IN'.

POTATO.

 

[DapperDon]

Seriously, we go through four years of tripe, just wanting to get back to a point where losing a game of footy is the worst thing that can happen.

Finally, we're there, we play some blistering footy in the preseason, but fail to win a PRESEASON game, and all of a sudden we've ****** our list management, we haven't drafted well, McGrath is a spud, Stewart wasn't worth the half eaten bag of Twisties paid for him...

FULL.

****IN'.

POTATO.

Just wait for our first bad loss, whatever round it happens in.

Unlimited french fries for all

 

[DapperDon]

Seriously, we go through four years of tripe, just wanting to get back to a point where losing a game of footy is the worst thing that can happen.

Finally, we're there, we play some blistering footy in the preseason, but fail to win a PRESEASON game, and all of a sudden we've ****** our list management, we haven't drafted well, McGrath is a spud, Stewart wasn't worth the half eaten bag of Twisties paid for him...

FULL.

****IN'.

POTATO.

I did lol at McGrath being the wrong choice, before he has even put his boots on for his first proper game.

Also our 4 last drafted mids haven't won a Brownlow in their first few years. They are all s**t utility players

 

[Pweter]

I did lol at McGrath being the wrong choice, before he has even put his boots on for his first proper game.

Also our 4 last drafted mids haven't won a Brownlow in their first few years. They are all s**t utility players

Dude, McGrath and the bloke taken with pick 72 have had the exact same careers to date. Does that mean we chose bad or Richmond chose good? Either way it surely says we wasted pick 1 on McGrath.

 

[DapperDon]

Dude, McGrath and the bloke taken with pick 72 have had the exact same careers to date. Does that mean we chose bad or Richmond chose good? Either way it surely says we wasted pick 1 on McGrath.

Should've traded pick 1 for picks 2,3,4,5,6 and 7

Can't believe we didn't do this!

 

[Mercurial89]

Just wait for our first bad loss, whatever round it happens in.

Unlimited french fries for all

Id argue its already happened, you seen the post game thread from the Geelong game? Sky is falling everywhere.

 

[DapperDon]

Id argue its already happened, you seen the post game thread from the Geelong game? Sky is falling everywhere.

Luckily I was out of town for that one.

When I got a chance to check the score on the Monday I did give a wry smile and think of this board

 

[Ambrosia]

The fixation on "pure mids" is remarkable. In what other football argument do people passionately argue for someone with zero flexibility?

How many "pure mids" does a team need? What even is a "pure mid" and why are they better than someone like Langford for example?

Quite aside from the fact that never will all of the players listed play in the same team, you have 10 positions called pocket/flank/wing, and that's not even counting the bench. Yet according to you, 15 is too many, even not accounting for the fact that at least 5 of the players you've mentioned could also be playing in the midfield? How does that work again?

I have miss used the term pure mid in my posts. Very few of the players listed in my post have proven the ability at any level to be damaging midfielders which worries me. For example we have invested relatively high picks in all of Langford, Laverde, Begley and Redman yet it could be argued that all 4 of those players are competing for the same spot and play similar roles.

Throw in Francis and Ridley who have been talked about as playing as lead up forwards then all of a sudden we 6 mid sized marking forwards.

 

[Doss]

I woudn't see Redman as competing for even remotely the same spot as Langford or Laverde. Don't know enough about Begley to form an opinion in that regard yet.

And how does one quantify 'proven the ability'? Most of these guys are young as we know, and have been playing in a severely bad side. What chance have they really had to rip games apart?

They've shown glimpses. Which considering we're they're at in their careers, can hardly be fairly considered inadequate at this point.

 

[Ambrosia]

I woudn't see Redman as competing for even remotely the same spot as Langford or Laverde. Don't know enough about Begley to form an opinion in that regard yet.

And how does one quantify 'proven the ability'? Most of these guys are young as we know, and have been playing in a severely bad side. What chance have they really had to rip games apart?

They've shown glimpses. Which considering we're they're at in their careers, can hardly be fairly considered inadequate at this point.

When I said proven ability I meant across all levels ie AFL, VFL and TAC cup.

I'm trying to point out that we have drafted a lot of blokes did there best work on a flank in junior footy with the hope they will turn into midfielders.

What role do you see Redman playing if it's not similar to Laverde and Langford. Everything he's done points to him being a smart lead up HFF who pinch hits on the wing.

 

[Doss]

I honestly don't know with Redman. He has different physical attributes compared to Langford or Laverde.

I'd say Redman will end up playing more forward than either of the two Ls, though.

 

[foj1]

Wow wee
This has caused some angst
I don't mind people not agreeing with this as this is not my thoughts though I agree with some content. You people are seriously deluded if you do not believe recruiters and coaches are not analysing their players and other clubs lists year round. Seriously deluded.
A utility player by definition is a player who is not a full time midfielder but not big enough to be a key position player. I am sorry if you do not like this term. I didn't invent it.
Stewart is a key position player and shows a bit for sure but you wouldn't say he is a coveted gun prospect.
A rookie ruck prospect is fine. The question is whether Draper is any good. I haven't seen him play. The person I spoke to has big doubts on him.
How dare us not following hawthorns models. Had a fair bit of success that mob!!!
Wasting a rookie spot is criminal. You trivialising a rookie spot is ridiculous. I would have thought a few decent afl players were once rookies.
This thread was about another persons observations about our team. It will be interesting to see what rings true and what doesn't.
Lancey boy you are no less of a supporter if you question your clubs opinion. A few people on this site seem to have the mentality that if you question the decision makers you are not a real supporter. I will always support the club but when we have endured one of the less successful eras in the clubs history I reckon we are all permitted to at least question and analyse decisions and decision makers.

people have done a great job debunking most of this, and most of it has probably been said, but some thoughts:

• 1) wtf is a "utility like player"? Is it a pejorative term? Because all I can make out it means is "guys who are a good size". I mean, is Fyfe a utility like player? Is Josh Kennedy for the Swans a ULP? What about Petracca? And exactly what size does one stop being a "midfielder" and turn into a ULP? And how is someone having size like, say, Langford, a bad thing?
• Is Stewart not a KPF?
• Are the same people bemoaning us not addressing our future ruck stocks the same people bemoaning us drafting a young ruck with our rookie pick? In any case, rookie rucks are often the best, and highly rated rucks often duds
• What exactly is a "significant recruit"? Should we have gone down the Hawthorn model and traded all our picks for players, despite having a very different demographics spread?
• How damaging is it "wasting" a rookie spot anyway?

I get that you don't agree with all the points, but if you are going to raise them I guess you're playing devils advocate