Along with all the other dubious ones, its inconsequential so don't worry about it and just agree
Eagles draft performance over recent years
- Thread starter Eddie_Sandbrah
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Along with all the other dubious ones, its inconsequential so don't worry about it and just agree
Eddie_Sandbrah
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2023
- 461
- 861
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #52
- Aug 12, 2017
- 3,970
- 7,112
- AFL Club
- GWS
B ... verging on B+ .... but to be fair that was just one of many bad hot takes throughout the rankings. Any ranking that far off can't form the basis for any serious analysis
But I was only over here to congratulate you guys on getting big Flynny (clicked on your list by mistake. So, i'll leave you to do you).
But I was only over here to congratulate you guys on getting big Flynny (clicked on your list by mistake. So, i'll leave you to do you).
Eddie_Sandbrah
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2023
- 461
- 861
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #54
If you think my outcomes are wrong, then point out where and why. Out of 776 players, I'm going to get a few wrong.
Eddie_Sandbrah
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2023
- 461
- 861
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #55
Ok, so you picked up 1 Giant players that may have been misranked. I also reckon de Boer is a C. Taylor Adams is borderline A, but then Riccardi is borderline C. Zac Williams was good in his prime, but meh.
Are there any others?
- Aug 12, 2017
- 3,970
- 7,112
- AFL Club
- GWS
Zac Williams ... played huge games for us and on an 850k a year contract at Carlton, probably better than F. Matt deBoer C at least, James McDonald played one year in our first year as a playign coach to set standards so more than F for us and much more than F over his career. Andrew Phillips would be in the Matt Kennedy category. That's just for gws, multiply this by 18 and you see there is a huge problem with your ratings
- Jul 4, 2015
- 1,326
- 2,404
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Swan Districts
See, think just wrecks all you're good work.
Eddie_Sandbrah
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2023
- 461
- 861
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #58
Williams can't get a game at Carlton.
deBoer is a C
McDonald may have been great for you guys, but he played 1 year.
Phillips? Played 82 games in 10 years?
So let's get this straight, there's 2 guys who are F's that should be C's. (Cumming at this stage of his career isn't better than a C)
That makes 0 difference to the end result.
Do you know how I ranked the teams? This:
| A | 2 | Sam Taylor | Jack Steele | |||||
| B | 7 | Brent Daniels | Devon Smith | Taylor Adams | Harrison Himmelberg | Jeremy Finlayson | Jake Riccardi | Aidan Corr |
Those players you talk of, don't matter. They are loose change.
If you want to argue that loose change matters, fine, go for it, but don't waste time talking about 1 or 2 players than are mis-ranked by 1 grade.
Eddie_Sandbrah
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2023
- 461
- 861
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #59
Are your feeling hurt too? Bro posted an essay as to why he was upset that I don't rate Mike Pyke. Turned out he was half decent in one game.
- Aug 12, 2017
- 3,970
- 7,112
- AFL Club
- GWS
Williams missed this year with an acl ... dude, if you don't know the players, how can you even begin to rank tehm?
Eddie_Sandbrah
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2023
- 461
- 861
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
I noticed you have declined to give feedback on my final rankings, but get stuck and spin your wheels on players that don't really matter......
Do you have a point other than being mad about a few players that might be slightly incorrectly ranked?
You could always get those 776 players, rank them, and see if your outcome is any different to mine? In fact, I've already ranked them for you. All you have to do is change the ones you disagree with, and see if it changes the outcome.
Keys
Looking for a cloud to yell at
- Moderator
- #62
For people, especially those visiting the WCE board, reading this thread -
It’s a very broad brush analysis (the OP has said as much in the first post and in several replies) designed to compare the eagles drafting against other clubs. It is not a detailed breakdown of players careers like Champion Data might do but just a rough guideline
Make your own mind up about how the list was compiled and that will guide how much weight you place on its conclusions. But nitpicking over how player A should have been this or that is boring
If you don’t like it, move on. In the grand scheme of things it’s an interesting discussion point but don’t get bogged down in the minutiae of a bigger picture - like critiquing a painting of the Grand Canyon and complaining a tree was drawn in the wrong spot
PS: I’m not directly equating this thread to the Grand Canyon, it isn’t that grand
It’s a very broad brush analysis (the OP has said as much in the first post and in several replies) designed to compare the eagles drafting against other clubs. It is not a detailed breakdown of players careers like Champion Data might do but just a rough guideline
Make your own mind up about how the list was compiled and that will guide how much weight you place on its conclusions. But nitpicking over how player A should have been this or that is boring
If you don’t like it, move on. In the grand scheme of things it’s an interesting discussion point but don’t get bogged down in the minutiae of a bigger picture - like critiquing a painting of the Grand Canyon and complaining a tree was drawn in the wrong spot
PS: I’m not directly equating this thread to the Grand Canyon, it isn’t that grand
- Jul 4, 2015
- 1,326
- 2,404
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Swan Districts
Agree. Not upset at all. Cheers
- Aug 12, 2017
- 3,970
- 7,112
- AFL Club
- GWS
My apologies, Keys
Intriguing post Keys .
However, I have noticed that you have not bothered to finish many sentences with a full stop, exclamation point or a question mark.
How can a moderator post with so many errors be taken seriously?
Monocle
And the rebuild begins.
- Sep 18, 2003
- 11,823
- 36,028
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Claremont NE Patriots Eagles AFLW
.
Last edited:
Shupe
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 21, 2011
- 13,335
- 10,396
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Indianapolis Colts
Hai
Interesting analysis overall and fair enough on a large selection of data to back it up.
For me, the perception at times with our drafting is our hit / miss ratio at the back end of the 1st Round through the 2nd Round. Especially given that during the period you've highlighted, we only had 4 picks before Pick 13 (Sheppard, Gaff, Sheed and Duggan). So in several of those years, Picks 13 - 36 were our entry point to the draft and you would have hoped we had invested plenty of research into players that would be available by the time those picks came around, not to mention as supporters our first live pick was the player we were most likely to get excited about.
Looking at St Kilda as a comparison point using your data, between Pick 13 (the tipping point of the first round) and Pick 36 (the theoretical normal end of the 2nd Round) it looks like this.
West Coast - 18 Picks for 3 x A/B's, 3 x C's and 12 x F's
St Kilda - 13 Picks for 4 x B's and 9 x F's
So St Kilda, who we have elsewhere in this thread held up as poor, have actually picked up 1 more player in the A/B space from 5 less picks and have a 'Fail' rate of 69% while ours is 67%.
Even Essendon, ranked below us overall, have missed (F) between 13 - 36 on 8 occasions while uncovering 7 who are A/B/C. So a far healthier than us 46% miss rate - from a team that hasn't won a final in how long?
One thing that also impacts my own perception of our drafting is how many of our 'fails' in this range were somewhat surprising picks at the time. Players like O'Neill, Karpany, Partington, Weedon and Foley all went higher than most experts' phantom drafts had them at the time. It isn't just hindsight, a couple of these players went a good 10 - 15 picks before experts tipped them to and didn't work out.
For me, the perception at times with our drafting is our hit / miss ratio at the back end of the 1st Round through the 2nd Round. Especially given that during the period you've highlighted, we only had 4 picks before Pick 13 (Sheppard, Gaff, Sheed and Duggan). So in several of those years, Picks 13 - 36 were our entry point to the draft and you would have hoped we had invested plenty of research into players that would be available by the time those picks came around, not to mention as supporters our first live pick was the player we were most likely to get excited about.
Looking at St Kilda as a comparison point using your data, between Pick 13 (the tipping point of the first round) and Pick 36 (the theoretical normal end of the 2nd Round) it looks like this.
West Coast - 18 Picks for 3 x A/B's, 3 x C's and 12 x F's
St Kilda - 13 Picks for 4 x B's and 9 x F's
So St Kilda, who we have elsewhere in this thread held up as poor, have actually picked up 1 more player in the A/B space from 5 less picks and have a 'Fail' rate of 69% while ours is 67%.
Even Essendon, ranked below us overall, have missed (F) between 13 - 36 on 8 occasions while uncovering 7 who are A/B/C. So a far healthier than us 46% miss rate - from a team that hasn't won a final in how long?
One thing that also impacts my own perception of our drafting is how many of our 'fails' in this range were somewhat surprising picks at the time. Players like O'Neill, Karpany, Partington, Weedon and Foley all went higher than most experts' phantom drafts had them at the time. It isn't just hindsight, a couple of these players went a good 10 - 15 picks before experts tipped them to and didn't work out.
Similar threads
- Poll
