Drafting or Development?

[superfraser]

For years at bigfooty there is post after post after post comparing draftees. And restructuring drafts..

This would suggest that developing players happens exactly the same at each club..

Had the Hawks taken Judd for example he may have been a very good player, but not the superstar he is today.

Had the Tigers taken Buddy he may be the next Jarrod Oakleigh-Nicholls (forgive me if I get his name wrong, I haven't really got any idea who he is.)

I enjoy the debates, but surely the clubs developing styles have something to do with these draftees.

Its not as black and white as we make it out to be.

Maybe Murphy, Gibbs and Kreuzer were the best players in the draft. Maybe Carlton hasn't been right for their development?

Maybe we should give Greg Miller a break and focus on the guys at the Tigers who have stopped Tambling from fulfilling his promise.

etc. etc.

 

[Daytripper]

Development is very, very important.

A young player seems to have a far greater chance of improving if he was drafted by a team like Port Adelaide or Collingwood than he would if he was drafted by Carlton or Richmond.

 

[btdg]

There's way more to recruiting than just pure talent. If it was that easy, all the clubs would get it right. Problem is, on Bigfooty we assume that pick 1 will be the 'best' player from the draft, pick 2 the second best and so on.

In reality, there are many more factors that determine the order players get drafted, and how they turn out.
- Teams might draft for a specific need, taking the third-best available player because he fits their requirements
- Players can drop in the draft due to injury or character concerns; some teams will overlook these, but eventually they become too good a prospect to pass up
- Some players will grow or develop unexpectedly
- Some players just land in the 'right' situation. Others land in the 'wrong' situation. That is basically the luck of the draw
- Some coaches get a lot out of young players (Mick Malthouse in particular). Those players might not go on to the next level, though. Other coaches prefer to develop rookies slowly.

That is just the tip of the iceburg, really. I guess you can only commend those teams that do a good job year-in, year-out of putting together good teams. But ripping on Richmond for taking Tambling over Franklin is a bit rich, I think - most recruiters would have done so at that point...

 

[Tuffy71]

In Judds case it wouldn't have made any difference. I remember when he played the first game of the season for East Perth and the coach made a statement after the game saying that would be the first and last game he would ever play for his WAFL club, he'd only been training for a couple of months.

 

[Captain_Knowall]

A few players stand out in junior competitions against other kids but just don't cut it when they have to play against men, and others that don't stand out, take longer to develope and blossom a couple of years later, hence the reason their will always be high picks that don't work out as well as expected, and then the lowly pick who turns out to be a star.

 

[HFF]

There is an ever-growing pressure on clubs to 'get it right' at the draft table. All the research, studying and talent identification all comes down to that one day in November and the other in December.

However, once the process is complete it all comes down to development. Greater emphasis should and is being placed on the development side of things because if a club is struggling to develop its own players, than ultimately it is seen as a failed draft.