Opinion Drafting since 2003 (taken from the Myers thread)

[yaco55]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the best way to rate a teams drafting is to compare their picks with those around them?

It's all well and good to say our picks were poor, however that means nothing unless you compare the players that went around them.

In essence, you're deliberately ignoring any context to our picks because it doesn't suit your argument.

It's not relevant, because the debate is about EFC's early first round draft picks, and how good these players are ?

And I didn't say that our picks were poor - In a perfect world they could be better - But they are on average, good, solid picks, excluding Heppell/Stanton, probably Hurley and possibly Ryder, and of course its too early to discuss Kavanagh and Joe D.

What's the relevance of saying that Dane Swan was picked in the 40's/Goodes in the 30's, Cox a rookie etc.

 

[yaco55]

Ryder hasn't pulled his finger out yet. However, if he was to magically start playing with 100% intensity he could become one of the best few players, of any player, in the league.

Even on cruise mode he is a VERY good player.

I still have faith that he'll get it all together and tear the comp apart. Hopefully while Watson and Goddard are still capable.

I fairly much agree with your assessment - Ryder on ability should make it into the Top 5 Rucks and possibly AA.

And a top 3 finish in the B and F would be nice.

 

[yaco55]

One thing that no-one is willing to answer is top 3 finishes in the B and F.

You expect early draft selections to feature prominently.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Apart from the Steinberg disaster when Parker was available and represented a critical need, the selections have been fine. I guess in my view we have gone a little KPP heavy but you can always trade KPP's. Honestly we got the 2nd best player out of Heppells draft (maybe even the best one, although I would MARGINALLY take Swallow), and we got the clear number 1 pick last year despite not having the number 1 pick. Yes we can point at Melksham, Myers, etc...but these are all going to give our side 120-200 games...is that really a fail? A fail is a Mitch Thorp, Gumbleton (so far), etc...that don't contribute much at all to the team regardless of injuries.

 

[matt_bas]

I think its more in reference to his draft class/age bracket

Fair enough

 

[blitzer]

I reckon our drafting over the last decade has been solid maybe even slightly on the good side. Which is why as the players from the 1999-2001 drafts are finally retiring we will probably move up the ladder a bit. An area of strength has been the PSD and rookie drafts for us, where we've done quite well. Guys like Crameri, Hardingham, Hibberd, Bellchambers, Hocking, Howlett are more than handy and will be an integral part of our side going forward. Late picks in the national draft have been pretty ordinary, 3rd rounders have not paid off at all for us over the years. First round picks have been OK, on par or slightly above (some good players but you'd expect that), 2nd round picks have mostly been pretty decent, with Zaharakis the best one, then probably Carlisle.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

It's not relevant, because the debate is about EFC's early first round draft picks, and how good these players are ?

It's fundamentally relevant, and baffling that you can't seem to wrap your head around it. The simple fact is you can only pick from the players that are available, and the players taken in the next ten or so picks can be seen as those who were viable options at that point.

One thing that no-one is willing to answer is top 3 finishes in the B and F.

Which is why arbitrary measures like this are absolutely useless. They take no account of what players were actually available. It doesn't matter in the slightest if player x hasn't topped the B&F if all or almost all other players available at that pick were worse.

 

[NAB777]

There are a few factors to consider when evaluating the clubs performance over the past 10 years... but if you look at the players we took, and our ladder positions, I don't see how it is possible to consider our drafting 'above average'.

I'm not sure we can sugar coat it.. the clubs performance over the past 10 years has been sub par. There has been something wrong with our drafting/player development for a while now.

Time will tell how the last 4-5 years' drafting will treat us.

 

[yaco55]

It's fundamentally relevant, and baffling that you can't seem to wrap your head around it. The simple fact is you can only pick from the players that are available, and the players taken in the next ten or so picks can be seen as those who were viable options at that point.

Which is why arbitrary measures like this are absolutely useless. They take no account of what players were actually available. It doesn't matter in the slightest if player x hasn't topped the B&F if all or almost all other players available at that pick were worse.

Got It.

No point clubs having B and F's as they don't prove anything !

 

[Doss]

He wasn't saying that at all.

He was saying that any measure (whether it be AA, BnF, whatever) needs to be looked at in the context of what others from the same cohort have achieved.

 

[rines]

The only picks I have had a problem with are the two I mentioned..

I said leading up the 2006 draft that my first preferences would be Selwood or Boak.. Boak played around Torquay and was a clear Jet and Selwood had pedigree, hunger and awesome footy smarts. I believe both my nominated players have and will exceed Gumby's output.

I said leading up the 2007 draft that my first preferences would Dangerfield or Rioli. Again I had seen Danger playing and Rioli had pedigree and speed. I believe both my nominated players have and wil exceed Myers output.

I said leading up the 2008 draft that my first preferences would be Rich or Davis. I am happy that Hurley has performed as good as either of these and potential is still the same/personal preference. Happy with EFC decision.

I said leading up the 2009 draft that my first preferences would be Jetta or Menzel. I think Melksham sits below Jetta but ahead of Menzel on exposed form. Still think Jetta would have been exactly the pace/line breaker we need.

Again.. we seem to go in circles.. basically I only think we 'mucked up' two picks really and they were 2006 and 2007.. and no one is yet to disprove that...

 

[GUMBLETRON]

The problem there is that the "muck up" stems, especially in the case of Gumbleton, from injury issues. Meanwhile, the whole reason Selwood slipped to pick 7 was concerns over his knees - his potential to be ruined by injury issues. Given what was known at the time about respective susceptibility to injury, the club made the right choice. That it hasn't worked out is fundamentally a case of bad luck, not of bad drafting. You can't pin injury issues on the recruitment staff, unless they were known about pre-draft, like with the younger Menzel, or Selwood, had he broken down. If anything, Gumbleton's career so far is an indictment on the development and medical staff.

Add to that that the drafting strategy was clear, talls first, to replace an ageing spine, then midfielders, with a view to a simultaneous peak. I think that's a strategy that is fairly-broadly approved of on here. With that in mind, the likes of Boak and Selwood were possibly never a chance. Had you had your way the midfield might be golden, but who would be the tall forwards?

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

Again.. we seem to go in circles.. basically I only think we 'mucked up' two picks really and they were 2006 and 2007.. and no one is yet to disprove that...

So essentially the 2 guys that have been plagued by injury and are both yet to play 50 senior games?
I got news for you sunshine, guys like Dodoro aren't clairvoyants, and these 2 haven't had a chance to prove/disprove that they were deserving of those spots, they're under the pump due to injury, not because of lack of exposed form or ability. It's a case of bad luck not bad drafting.
Hindsight's a wonderful thing when all you're looking for is an excuse to criticize.

 

[Drummer_19]

Gumby was the obv choice for us given how bad our tall stocks were at that point.

 

[BrunoV]

I'm interested in some of the discussion relating to the recruitment of ruckmen. I have to say that the current conventional logic that rucks needn't be drafted early because of the success of rookies is rubbish for so many reasons that I don't know where to start. I'm only going to dot point the rest of the response otherwise I'll be here for the rest of the night.

1. The most fundamental point is that the successful drafting of rucks late in drafts/promotion from rookie lists says absolutely nothing about the merits of taking a player in the top handful of picks based on his status as one of the best underage players in the land (e.g. Kreuzer, Zac Smith, Luenberger, Ryder and Mitch Clark).
2. If you look at a snapshot of the rucks drafted in the first round from early in the last decade, one reason many of the young ruckmen taken early in drafts are yet to fulfill their potential/be part of the top handful of rucks is injury (e.g. Luenberger, Kreuzer, Max Bailey, McIntosh and maybe even Laycock); if it wasn't for injury there'd be at least 4 of the leagues leading rucks taken from this group.
3. A second reason many early picks haven't excelled as ruckmen is because natural athleticism and football instincts have seen them recast as key position players to their detriment in order to meet structural deficiencies in sides (e.g. Ryder, Mitch Clark and even David Hale).
4. Many of the young talls who have not yet come on were and are not necessarily ruckmen (e.g. Bradley, Tom Williams, Ayce Cordy, Joe Daniher).
5. Some attention needs to be given to improvements made in talent identification, recruiting and development of players. The expectations of rucks have changed meaning that it is no longer acceptable to be a one dimensional lumberer who is a good tap ruckman. Who is to say that whatever it was about Pattinson, Spandemann and James Sellar, for example, hasn't since become better understood as attributes that are not indicators of potential in quality rucks. The perceptions of guys like Cox and Mumford may be totally different today (or they may just still be totally unfit and un-athletic youngsters that are hardly worthy of a spot on a list as 19 year olds).
6. The development of high quality rookies is not unique to rucks in any way.
7. The only thing that you can take from the success of late picks, rookie and mature aged drafting is that most rucks have probably been drafted too young. There are enough controllable and uncontrollable variables in developing young players as it is without having to wait 6 years for a player to be physically prepared to play the game.

If you want to use the experiences of the failed first round selections and successful rookies to inform recruiting I'd say that what is now understood is that the guys who didn't work out ought only ever have been taken as rookies or mature aged players. The outstanding candidates will continue to be drafted early because they are excellent footballers and athletes. The best young ruckmen, who are also gun players, continue to get drafted while clubs seem to be more pragmatic in their assessment of the types who have previously failed (e.g. not one ruck was selected in the first round in 2009). This is all that the current recruiting practice is saying. It is not saying anything about selecting a player who is genuinely worthy of selection early in a draft.

 

[vast]

So many guns out of the 2001 draft and we didnt even get one.

 

[Doss]

2001 draft

18- Shane Harvey
31- Joel Reynolds
34- Simon O'Keefe
47- Andrew Welsh
50- Paul Salmon
64- Daniel McAlister


Welsh was a solid citizen who gave us ten years, and the fish filled a gap for a year admirably. As for the rest:

Harvey- *facepalm*
Reynolds- *facepalm*
O'Keefe- who?
McAlister- what possessed us to redraft I will never, ever understand

 

[eth-dog]

In defence of Reynolds, he is Dick's grandson.

 

[Doss]

In defence of Reynolds, he is Dick's grandson.

That he is, and is also a decently successful real estate agent now, I believe.

Pick 31 quality, however, he was not.

 

[vast]

Salmon at pick 50 geez. Then again only schneider and swan are the only players who did anything meaninful that were takenafter that pick. Was our only real chance to have ricky mott though

 

[Eleven 38]

My cousin knows Joel Reynolds apparently spruiks about how between him and his grandad they have over 300games, 3 brownlows, 4flags and 7 b&f's...

Not sure you can knock him with those stats...

 

[yaco55]

He wasn't saying that at all.

He was saying that any measure (whether it be AA, BnF, whatever) needs to be looked at in the context of what others from the same cohort have achieved.

What other players do is irrelevant - The discussion is how good have our first round draft picks been from 2003.

And a measurement is top 3 in the B and F.

 

[lamaros]

What other players do is irrelevant - The discussion is how good have our first round draft picks been from 2003.

And a measurement is top 3 in the B and F.

Another measurement is how long their hair is.

Both about as useful.

 

[Yoda_]

What other players do is irrelevant - The discussion is how good have our first round draft picks been from 2003.

And a measurement is top 3 in the B and F.

Top 10 is a better measurement for the idiocrcy around here Yaco.. They can be top 10in there best and fairest.!! That means (about) the top 25% of the list.. Which means that they have to be in the top 150 players in the league to be considered a pass..

And here I was being selfish and wanting more top 35 (5% in the AFL) players with our first round picks..

I should be happy with b - c grade footballers.

 

[Yoda_]

(all stats worked off roughly AFL players in 2013 - I really don't give two hoots about the exact number)