List Mgmt. Draft Watch 2015

[Red mist]

We take... DOEDEE!

Do who?

wtf?

Who

.......WHo? From Geelong? Wut?

WHO!?!?!

who?

not to be rude, but fill me in people

Tom dudey?!

Who the **** is that? TOM? WHAT?

Who?

Who?

WTF?

WHO??????????????????????

lolwut

Who?!

Who the ****

Oh my god, who the hell is that?

im confused.

Comedy gold.

 

[Red mist]

Who the **** is Doodoo?

I don't know!

 

[Red mist]

Not entirely comfortable with every player kissing their mother on the lips.

Wtf is this?

 

[Red mist]

SO f*cking angry with this. There is absolutely no reason to have done this the way we did it.

Go and put your resume in then.

 

[Red mist]

It does not matter one bit whether or not he is going to go on an win the Brownlow. We paid more for him than the market was asking, which means we pissed away a pick. Smart clubs pay the right money and get value for picks they don;t need. If we wanted him, trade pick 13 and grab him in the 2nd round

What market?

 

[Redleg Crow]

Go and put your resume in then.

Always good on occasions like this to see who unquestionably back the Crows no matter what. No debate allowed. Crows good. Thinking bad.

 

[Redleg Crow]

I understand the confusion. No-one guessed it.

And there are a few questions that have been asked that are fair - but without knowing who we were hoping to choose from at 13, how can you bag the decision?

If our list was Francis, Milera, Doedee, Burton - and we thought there was a small chance that Francis would slide to 13 so we hang onto it, then when he didn't we went for choices 2 and 3.

Looking forward to seeing what the kid can do, I'm sure everyone will get behind him once he dons the tri-colour-hoops.

PS - SEN mentioned that Carlton kept a spot for Matt Wright in the PSD

I'd say more likely we were hoping Francis to slide to 9.

Also if Doedee is our third pick - more likely a bit lower, after McKay, Kennedy, Hipwood and (!) Himmelberg - then GrommoT's analogy is quite good
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/welcome-draft-pick-17-tom-doedee.1118088/page-32#post-42102515

We went into the draft with two $100 notes and no ability to get change. We got Milera (great that was what everyone else was willing to pay). Then we had to pay $100 for a bloke who most were valuing at around $70. Now that's fine, the Crows clearly think he is worth $100, but he needs to be because that is what we paid for him.

Incidentally this is a prime example of why I think you should be able to trade picks on the day. So we miss out on McKay, great immediately we trade down to say 25, get Doedee plus say a pick for next year.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Drafted players will today walk in to their new clubs for the first time and the only number that will mean something is the new number on their back and on their locker

I'm predicting a tough road for the class of 2015, from pick 15 onwards the draft was even and pretty shallow so it will be interesting grade again in another 3-4 years

 

[arsene wenger1]

What a joke this academy selection process the AFL has introduced...

There's was definitely something that didn't sit right with me when seeing Sydney get up there with pick 3

 

[Redleg Crow]

Drafted players will today walk in to their new clubs for the first time and the only number that will mean something is the new number on their back and on their locker

I'm predicting a tough road for the class of 2015, from pick 15 onwards the draft was even and pretty shallow so it will be interesting grade again in another 3-4 years

Sure, but let's not pretend that draft number doesn't usually have a strong correlation with ability, games they'll play and worth. The reason we note players like Sloane is because they are the exception.

 

[Geoffa32]

Not sure how anyone can knowingly be upset over this. I say knowingly because up untill a month ago I doubt barely anyone here knew who any of the potential draftees. But after a few Youtube clips and on the "advice" of a few Phantom Drafts we are all experts and can take shots at our recruiting team for going against the grain. I personally thing the Phantom Drafts are a nice guide, but they all source their info from the same people. Or just copy each other with a few minor tweaks. Therefore they all fall out pretty much the same way. We all know how closed our club is in relation to giving out info. Doedee was interviewed by 14 clubs, so there was some real interest in him. I think, at this stage, I would back Ogilvie's judgement on this ahead of some random Phantom Drafter who does not do this for a job and is not accountable.


Lets not forget that this recruiting team has been the best in the league, especially given the shit sandwhich they were handed from Trigg. They have done an awesome job in pretty much hitting every mark. Siggins has been the one big bust in this era, a very late pick.Current history in regards to drafting suggests our guys know what they are doing. It is the one department of our club that has been consistently elite since Ogilvie has been with us.

 

[Redleg Crow]

There's was definitely something that didn't sit right with me when seeing Sydney get up there with pick 3

I would not be surprised if the AFL change the bidding point to devalue rounds 2 and 3. Swans using picks 33, 36, 37 and 43 did feel like they were getting pick 3 cheap.

But then perhaps it means clubs need to value those picks more when it comes to trading them? But then how can they? A pick 43 for the Crows is worth only as much as the player we can pick for that number; for the Swans it is part of a pick 3, so right off the bat the value is skewed across the clubs.

If the AFL were to change it, I'd say they could only do it for 2018 as picks for next year have already been traded at the current value.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Sure, but let's not pretend that draft number doesn't usually have a strong correlation with ability, games they'll play and worth. The reason we note players like Sloane is because they are the exception.

Lets not also pretend that draft numbers can present a false economy

Draft numbers do in most instances align with ability however that ability is an assessment at a moment in time and a assessment largely on how junior players have performed against boys

If a high pick ability naturally translated to performance at the big dance then Melbourne would be a pretty good side

There are plenty of high picks that have been past by later picks once they have got to their clubs

It is now a new game

 

[adelaidecrows]

I would not be surprised if the AFL change the bidding point to devalue rounds 2 and 3. Swans using picks 33, 36, 37 and 43 did feel like they were getting pick 3 cheap.

But then perhaps it means clubs need to value those picks more when it comes to trading them? But then how can they? A pick 43 for the Crows is worth only as much as the player we can pick for that number; for the Swans it is part of a pick 3, so right off the bat the value is skewed across the clubs.

If the AFL were to change it, I'd say they could only do it for 2018 as picks for next year have already been traded at the current value.

They got a 20% discount as well. But I feel the piss was being taken when they could just keep downgrading their picks in a shallow draft to top 10 picks. The AFL should change the rule that they can only bid for one academy player. It was just a joke. There was no way GWS should have been able to out bid the Crows for Himmelberg after already being involved in two other bidding wars. It was a farce.

 

[Geoffa32]

Lets not also pretend that draft numbers can present a false economy

Draft numbers do in most instances align with ability however that ability is an assessment at a moment in time and a assessment largely on how junior players have performed against boys

If a high pick ability naturally translated to performance at the big dance then Melbourne would be a pretty good side

There are plenty of high picks that have been past by later picks once they have got to their clubs

It is now a new game

They are like year 12 results. A good way to rate how you went in your final year of school. But pretty much meaningless once you join the workforce or go to Uni/TAFE.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Redleg Crow]

Lets not also pretend that draft numbers can present a false economy

Draft numbers do in most instances align with ability however that ability is an assessment at a moment in time and a assessment largely on how junior players have performed against boys

If a high pick ability naturally translated to performance at the big dance then Melbourne would be a pretty good side

There are plenty of high picks that have been past by later picks once they have got to their clubs

It is now a new game

Again, sure. But your position essentially is, "oh pull them out of a hat, and we'll see how the development goes"
I agree development is absolutely crucial. But I'd prefer our chances with development of a couple top 10 picks over a couple top 30 ones any day.

 

[Redleg Crow]

They are like year 12 results. A good way to rate how you went in your final year of school. But pretty much meaningless once you join the workforce or go to Uni/TAFE.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

Meaningless to an extent.... Personally I'd prefer my surgeon to not be someone who failed Year 12!

 

[Geoffa32]

Meaningless to an extent.... Personally I'd prefer my surgeon to not be someone who failed Year 12!

True.
But what about the kids who get 20s then quit Uni because studying at Uni is too hard without a teacher holding their hand and countless practice exams in September. Or got "lost" during a gap year.




Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Wood_Duck]

Always good on occasions like this to see who unquestionably back the Crows no matter what. No debate allowed. Crows good. Thinking bad.

Its equally amusing to see those that unquestionably slam the club at every opportunity regardless of any substantiating facts.

 

[Vader]

I would not be surprised if the AFL change the bidding point to devalue rounds 2 and 3. Swans using picks 33, 36, 37 and 43 did feel like they were getting pick 3 cheap.

But then perhaps it means clubs need to value those picks more when it comes to trading them? But then how can they? A pick 43 for the Crows is worth only as much as the player we can pick for that number; for the Swans it is part of a pick 3, so right off the bat the value is skewed across the clubs.

If the AFL were to change it, I'd say they could only do it for 2018 as picks for next year have already been traded at the current value.

Lets give it a year or two to see how the points thing works out. This year clubs were more than willing to part with second round selections because the draft was so shallow. There were only about 25 players that anyone rated at all, after which it degenerated into a lucky dip. As a result, these picks had little perceived value to the clubs that were trading them to the Academy clubs.

This means that the Academy clubs got a bit of a free ride due to the nature of the draft. The points value of those picks was probably a bit inflated this year. It will be interesting to see what happens in future drafts, which aren't rated as the worst in living memory. I suspect that clubs won't be quite as willing to give up 2nd & 3rd round picks if they actually think there's a realistic chance of landing a decent player with those picks.

It's also worth noting that the Academy clubs, particularly Sydney, have put all of their eggs in one basket. Sydney got Mills at #3, but their two remaining picks were at #51 and #56 in a draft where the talent was long gone by that stage. They passed on their last 2 selections. That means they will either be taking players in the PSD, or going into the 2016 season with only 38 players on their list. Even if Mills turns out to be a gun, they have still only landed one player and have 4 players (or vacant positions) who are unlikely to make it. This is not sustainable in the long-term, or even the medium-term.

GWS were able to grab 3x Academy players largely because they stayed in the 1st round of the draft. They were also helped by the fact that nobody bid on them with earlier selections. The players they selected (Hopper, Kennedy, Himmelberg) were taken at 7, 13 and 16 for a (discounted) total of 3138pts. Their draft selections (10, 34, 42, 52, 54, 57, 62 & 63) were worth a combined total of 3215pts, with pick #10 accounting for 43% of that total.

The points system could be a good thing, or it could be a disaster. The jury is still out.

 

[Wood_Duck]

How Geelong is not listed as a draft loser beats me

.....so have they had a pick yet?

 

[Wood_Duck]

With what

Leftovers

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Always good on occasions like this to see who unquestionably back the Crows no matter what. No debate allowed. Crows good. Thinking bad.

Some of us at this point are prepared to back the club by pausing and waiting to see how Tom Doedee develops

At this point in time there are no winners or losers in the draft, time will make this judgement

 

[FAITH]

im not slamming the decision, I just would like to know why burton was overlooked.

 

[Wouldbetackler]

im not slamming the decision, I just would like to know why burton was overlooked.

Obviously didn't pass the medical