Fremantle in Disarray

[prattsta]

Sorry, I don't get it. What are those percentages indicating, that 16.8% of draftees play between 1 and ten games???

1-10, 11-20 etc is the draft pick range. The percentage is the percent of games played by players taken within that draft range.

E.g. of the 41,295 games played by every draftee taken since 1999 players taken with the first 10 picks have played 16.8%

I think...

 

[4n20]

He has way way way too much time on his hands.

 

[dominguez]

Harvey has actually done very little. Period. Not making ridiculously stupid trades, like every single club, in every single sport around the world is hardly revolutionary. It's the easiest choice in the world. To do nothing.

I agree.

forget about Solomon as well...Drum ummm...he didn't really errr...ummm earn a call up like Thornton and Murphy did..."

Drum's WAFL form was woeful though. Being a top ten pick shouldn't make you an automatic selection. If it does then does the same criteria apply to pick 15? Pick 20? Pick 25? Where's the line?

That's why the smart teams traded into the earlier rounds e.g. Port, Melbourne and West Coast.

You can't trade boiled lollies for chocolates though.

Again, we're taking a middle of the road approach. We didn't trade, we aren't sitting it out, we did nothing.

But surely if we had traded pick 4 you'd be outraged like everyone else?

How is selecting 5 of those guys week in, week out instead of a former #10 draft pick helping to move us forward?

Remember Ryley Dunn was pick 10 and Ryan Murphy pick 12.

We need to be playing finals in 3 years. Tarrant, McPharlin and Pavlich may be gone and this cycle could very well start again.

What do you want Bond, Lloyd and Harvey to do about that though?

If we play finals in 2012 they've done an outstanding job because at this stage I'd say our 2010 best 18 is better than our 2012 best 18.

 

[dominguez]

1-10, 11-20 etc is the draft pick range. The percentage is the percent of games played by players taken within that draft range.

E.g. of the 41,295 games played by every draftee taken since 1999 players taken with the first 10 picks have played 16.8%

I think...

picks 1 - 10 have played 16.8% of total games (of all players) played between 1999-2008

and so on.

Okay, thanks guys.

He did all that research but didn't explain his stats very well.

He has way way way too much time on his hands.

It would have made more sense to focus on the drafts from 99-05 and tell us how many players from picks 1-10, 11-20, etc have played 50+ games.

 

[lionshine]

Don't listen to them Freo! We here the same crap from the journalists up here in Brissy. They hate clubs that are outside of Victoria so do the umpires! Stick in there though Lets fight back

 

[dominguez]

Thanks buddy.

Not sure about Stosur though, much more of a Molik fan.

 

[Moo]

Harvey has actually done very little. Period. Not making ridiculously stupid trades, like every single club, in every single sport around the world is hardly revolutionary. It's the easiest choice in the world. To do nothing.

As someone who has followed our club through trade after trade after trade ...keeping your high draft picks is revolutionary at our club.

In doing very little - either by chance or design is the reason I rate Harvey/Bond so much.

 

[dominguez]

As someone who has followed our club through trade after trade after trade ...keeping your high draft picks is revolutionary at our club.

In doing very little - either by chance or design is the reason I rate Harvey/Bond so much.

That's a bit like Ripper's logic that Connolly was a good coach because we won more games than we did under Drum and Neesham.

We should be compared to the other 15 clubs, not what has been done at Fremantle in the past.

 

[prattsta]

Drum's WAFL form was woeful though. Being a top ten pick shouldn't make you an automatic selection. If it does then does the same criteria apply to pick 15? Pick 20? Pick 25? Where's the line?

Thornton replaced Drum in the round 2 side after a very ordinary WAFL game. Scotty ****ing Thornton.

I didn't mean being a top pick should make him a priority selection; I may have worded it poorly. All I meant was, he obviously had talent to be rated so highly, he was hardly a terrible player at AFL level on exposed form, so why not give him the opportunities. As a second/third tall capable of swinging forward you get a lot worse from a 22 year old.

Also, Drum's WAFL form wasn't woeful at the start of the year, it was good, particularly his game against Souths IIRC then he got injured. Seriously though, how many young guys were given opportunities last season? All of them? Yet the one guy who could potentially be more useful than all of them over the next 5 years was stuck playing at Perth. It was poor management by Harvey.

You can't trade boiled lollies for chocolates though.

I agree with that, which is why I would've traded someone with value. Crowley, Schammer, Tarrant? I dunno, somebody that would secure a 2nd rounder at least.

But surely if we had traded pick 4 you'd be outraged like everyone else?

Depends, if we'd traded pick 4 (perhaps with something else) for a player and a later first rounder 8-12ish I could've been happy enough. Would depend on the player obviously. We're missing out on the best players at pick 4 anyway, after that it's pretty even for the next 8 or so picks.

Remember Ryley Dunn was pick 10 and Ryan Murphy pick 12.

Drum was actually making a contribution when he played. Solomon, Thornton, Dodd, Grover were the guys playing ahead of him, if we're rebuilding they shouldn't be. Not all of them anyway. Look at Thornton, would we of lost anything by giving Drum all his games last year?

What do you want Bond, Lloyd and Harvey to do about that though?

Buggered if I know, there is nobody on our list at the moment capable of replacing any of them.

If we play finals in 2012 they've done an outstanding job because at this stage I'd say our 2010 best 18 is better than our 2012 best 18.

Do you not see a problem with that? We're supposed to be rebuilding, yet we're going to be worse in 3 seasons than we are next season.

 

[JungleMuffin]

Exactly. There was no justification for keeping someone like Soloman IMO.

Youve seen him play right?

Hes been more than serviceable for us.

 

[dominguez]

Thornton replaced Drum in the round 2 side after a very ordinary WAFL game. Scotty ****ing Thornton.

Unfortunately both Connolly and Harvey have had their favourites who appear to be selected regardless of form.

God knows why but Thornton has been one of those players under both coaches.

I agree with that, which is why I would've traded someone with value. Crowley, Schammer, Tarrant? I dunno, somebody that would secure a 2nd rounder at least.

Like we've mentioned Murphy, Drum and Dunn were early picks. There's no guarantee that a player taken with pick 25 that we got for Schammer/Crowley/Tarrant would be a good player.

Depends, if we'd traded pick 4 (perhaps with something else) for a player and a later first rounder 8-12ish I could've been happy enough. Would depend on the player obviously.

Looks like you love the gambling aspect of trade week just like Señor Dominguez.

We're missing out on the best players at pick 4 anyway, after that it's pretty even for the next 8 or so picks.

That often looks the case pre-draft but when you look back the majority of players taken at pick 3/4/5 would be better than those taken at 9/10/11.

Do you not see a problem with that? We're supposed to be rebuilding, yet we're going to be worse in 3 seasons than we are next season.

Sure it's a problem, but it's not Bond/Lloyd/Harvey's fault.

If the rest of you had also been sending hate mail to Connolly and Schwab we would have got rid of them years ago.

 

[Moo]

That's a bit like Ripper's logic that Connolly was a good coach because we won more games than we did under Drum and Neesham.

We should be compared to the other 15 clubs, not what has been done at Fremantle in the past.

Not quite.

If you or anyone else would like to tell me how we should of played any of the drafts differently than we have to get a major result.

I see lots of generics like we should of cut and slash earlier or drop Thornton, Dodd, Grover etc but these points are never accompanied by how that makes us better.

I'd like to see some best case scenarios to different approaches on how it would make us significantly better -

We slash and burn more in the first year and don't draft any older players

OK best outcome is we could of rookied a Cockie or Ballantyne (or maybe even Broughton?) and maybe this would of freed up a 2nd round pick but at a price of certainly 2 of the players we drafted in 2008. Plus we certainly would of had at least a couple who are not AFL quality sitting on our list.

Look at WC's rookies from that year and tell me how they compare to our effort last year? Slashing in 2007 probably means at least 1 or 2 less rookies from this years batch.

Outcome we rid oursleves of 4-6ish duds earlier and then take say 10 instead of 14 in 2008.

We trade Taz
OK - what do we get for him. I don't see anyone giving up a top 10 for Taz despite our thoughts ...perhaps a pick in the 20's?

Not sure who we are playing in the back half next year? Grover is gone, Dodd is gone, Thornton is gone, Taz is gone ....MJ/Mundy/Broughton (assuming we still have him) perhaps a Post? and ? Shep

Don't take McPhee
OK at 27 we consider him too old ....upgrade another rookie and take a speculative pick. Might be lucky and find another Broughton?

***************************

Not a shot but perhaps I am missing the great players who went late in 2007 or how you can field a team that is remotley competitve if you took over the reigns and cut it apart in a weak draft.

I do compare us to other teams ...I don't see any club who has cleaned out a dozen players and got so much back. I don't think I have seen a better effort at a rookie draft either in a long long time.

All of the above best case scenarios are insignificant when compared to just 2 decisions involving our first picks Palmer and Hill IMHO.

 

[Moo]

Unfortunately both Connolly and Harvey have had their favourites who appear to be selected regardless of form.

God knows why but Thornton has been one of those players under both coaches.

He breaks the lines is the only reason I can see he gets a gig.

 

[dominguez]

Not quite.

Wasn't being critical of any decisions made in the last few years but at the same time I don't think they deserve a pat on the back for simply retaining draft picks.

We trade Taz
OK - what do we get for him. I don't see anyone giving up a top 10 for Taz despite our thoughts ...perhaps a pick in the 20's?

Not sure who we are playing in the back half next year? Grover is gone, Dodd is gone, Thornton is gone, Taz is gone ....MJ/Mundy/Broughton (assuming we still have him) perhaps a Post?

It's disappointing if they didn't test the water during trade week on Tarrant (not saying they did or didn't but the club kept saying he won't be traded).

 

[Moo]

Wasn't being critical of any decisions made in the last few years but at the same time I don't think they deserve a pat on the back for simply retaining draft picks.

Don't you give credit for cutting 7 in a shallow draft and then 14 in a deep draft.

We all play Bond at times, and even Memories (Peace Be With You Always Great One) was advocating 9 to be cut last year.

I will judge Harvey on our game play this year a little more harshly than last.

If we can get a team out that has Sandilands rucking to Palmer, Hasleby, Hill, Ibbotson with Crowley as a stopper ...have McPharlin, Tarrant, Broughton and Hayden in the back half and Pavlich, Mayne, Headland and Ballantyne in the front half - I would expect (regardless of the other players we fit in) that team to win more than they lose.

With the likes of Suban, Duffield, MJ, McPhee, Morabito*, De Boer, Pearce, Mundy, Schammer, VB, Solly, Walters to fill the voids.

 

[prattsta]

Just on trading Taz; McPharlin would simply move back to FB, Pavlich would move to the forward line, Grover, Dodd etc. stay where they were this year. It's hardly the end of the world. Sure, we lose our best defender, but we may of gained Aaron Black, for example. It's all what ifs, at any rate.

 

[DrJon]

Thornton replaced Drum in the round 2 side after a very ordinary WAFL game. Scotty ****ing Thornton.

I didn't mean being a top pick should make him a priority selection; I may have worded it poorly. All I meant was, he obviously had talent to be rated so highly, he was hardly a terrible player at AFL level on exposed form, so why not give him the opportunities. As a second/third tall capable of swinging forward you get a lot worse from a 22 year old.

Also, Drum's WAFL form wasn't woeful at the start of the year, it was good, particularly his game against Souths IIRC then he got injured. Seriously though, how many young guys were given opportunities last season? All of them? Yet the one guy who could potentially be more useful than all of them over the next 5 years was stuck playing at Perth. It was poor management by Harvey.



I agree with that, which is why I would've traded someone with value. Crowley, Schammer, Tarrant? I dunno, somebody that would secure a 2nd rounder at least.



Depends, if we'd traded pick 4 (perhaps with something else) for a player and a later first rounder 8-12ish I could've been happy enough. Would depend on the player obviously. We're missing out on the best players at pick 4 anyway, after that it's pretty even for the next 8 or so picks.



Drum was actually making a contribution when he played. Solomon, Thornton, Dodd, Grover were the guys playing ahead of him, if we're rebuilding they shouldn't be. Not all of them anyway. Look at Thornton, would we of lost anything by giving Drum all his games last year?



Buggered if I know, there is nobody on our list at the moment capable of replacing any of them.



Do you not see a problem with that? We're supposed to be rebuilding, yet we're going to be worse in 3 seasons than we are next season.

Sorry, I'm sick of this goddamn whingeing and whining. You insist we are going to be worse in 3 years? Why exactly? Why does it appear that Fremantle is the ONLY side where no player will develop into a matchwinner? How does ANYONE know how our young players are going to turn out?
Who would have believed that Chris Tarrant could turn himself into one of the comps best defenders? Who would have suggested the Greg Broughton would be so good?

Yet I constantly hear how Harvey is not doing enough/doing too much/standing still/doesn't know what the club stands for/bring in someone Fremantle/change the jumper/no change the song/ROFLMAO/change my pants/Scotty Thornton is the worst player ever to walk the earth etc etc etc etc etc ad f----------g nauseum

I personally know the bloke who is a scout for the Swans over here and he's been very impressed by Freo's trading and drafting decisions over the past couple of years. He thinks we have a fantastic group of youngsters.

 

[dominguez]

Don't you give credit for cutting 7 in a shallow draft and then 14 in a deep draft.

Were many (or any??) of the 14 a shock though? Bell, Farmer, Carr's, Macca, Webster, Black, Warnock, etc. There weren't many tough decisions.

If I recall correctly the biggest shocks were 2 years for Murphy and Thornton and the retention of Browne.

If we can get a team out that has Sandilands rucking to Palmer, Hasleby, Hill, Ibbotson with Crowley as a stopper ...have McPharlin, Tarrant, Broughton and Hayden in the back half and Pavlich, Mayne, Headland and Ballantyne in the front half - I would expect (regardless of the other players we fit in) that team to win more than they lose.

With the likes of Suban, Duffield, MJ, McPhee, Morabito*, De Boer, Pearce, Mundy, Schammer, VB, Solly, Walters to fill the voids.

Spot on.

 

[dominguez]

Sorry, I'm sick of this goddamn whingeing and whining. You insist we are going to be worse in 3 years? Why exactly? Why does it appear that Fremantle is the ONLY side where no player will develop into a matchwinner? How does ANYONE know how our young players are going to turn out?

The problem is that we need to either find a gun forward and defender this year or Hill/Palmer/Suban/Ibbotson/Morabito/Walters need to become absolute superstars to cover for our key position deficiencies.

It's certainly possible that we'll draft a very good KPP on Thursday then trade/draft another in 12 months time but it's unlikely.

 

[E Shed]

Nice one Dr Jon!

 

[prattsta]

Sorry, I'm sick of this goddamn whingeing and whining. You insist we are going to be worse in 3 years? Why exactly? Why does it appear that Fremantle is the ONLY side where no player will develop into a matchwinner? How does ANYONE know how our young players are going to turn out?
Who would have believed that Chris Tarrant could turn himself into one of the comps best defenders? Who would have suggested the Greg Broughton would be so good?

Look at our list. Okay, now, of our KP players how many, if any, will still be at the club in 3 seasons? Of those that are still going to be at the club, will they be better or worse players than they are now? Certainly, we can bring new KP players into the club, but as you would know, KP players take time to develop - and they don't always work out e.g. Adam Campbell. Of those that do look the goods, they will still be a couple of years off their best footy.

When has a team ever been successful without a good group of KP players? As much as the WB are criticised for having a lack of talls (which is actually crap) their defense is one of the best in the comp, lead by, you guessed it two of the leagues better KPD.

Our midfield and gameplan will need to be absolutely amazing if we're to be better in 3 years than we are now. Hopefully it is.

Yet I constantly hear how Harvey is not doing enough/doing too much/standing still/doesn't know what the club stands for/bring in someone Fremantle/change the jumper/no change the song/ROFLMAO/change my pants/Scotty Thornton is the worst player ever to walk the earth etc etc etc etc etc ad f----------g nauseum

I personally know the bloke scouts for the Swans over here and he's been very impressed by Freo's trading and drafting decisions over the past couple of years. He thinks we have a fantastic group of youngsters.

Yes, we've drafted some very good players over the last 2 seasons; hopefully that trend will continue on Thursday night. There is still a lot of work to be done however.

 

[JungleMuffin]

Just on the topic of Harvey, and how people think hes done nothing.....

He turned a Dud CHF, who would be going to close being delisted next year, into an AA quality CHB.

Who gets the credit for that decision?

As for people wanting us to cut the rest of the flak now, im curious as to why theyd like that? Do they sincerely believe, a 7th-8th round pick in this draft, will prove a better recruit than Thornton, Solly, Grover?

Culling the list is fine, but imo, its ******ed to delist a player, and replace him with another, with far less ability. With a draft as dire as this (where most commentators agree that it dies off about 30 or so), id say our chances of drafting a 50 game player with pick 90 or so, are slim to none.

Cutting all the spuds in this draft, would essentially be cutting off our nose, to spite our face.

I saw someone suggesting we redraft Pratt. I actually laughed in real life. Really.

Moo deserves some credit for being one of the only posters in this thread not suffering from an iodine deficiency.

 

[greenred]

Yes, we've drafted some very good players over the last 2 seasons; hopefully that trend will continue on Thursday night. There is still a lot of work to be done however.

If there is still a lot of work to be done and the people in place over the last 2 seasons continue their good drafting, why would anyone want to move them on? The development of the 2007 and 2008 draftees over the next 1-2 years and the gelling of the team is what Harvey should be judged on - if they stagnate, he will be in trouble. Rebuilding a list doesn't happen overnight. Everyone is very quick to complain about the state of the list post-Connolly/Schwab, but not many appear to have the patience to allow Harvey/Bond to correct the deficiencies.

 

[prattsta]

Just on the topic of Harvey, and how people think hes done nothing.....

He turned a Dud CHF, who would be going to close being delisted next year, into an AA quality CHB.

Who gets the credit for that decision?

Harvey.

Though it's worth noting after Tarrant came back from his injury/dropping early in 2008 he put up some pretty decent numbers up forward.

As for people wanting us to cut the rest of the flak now, im curious as to why theyd like that? Do they sincerely believe, a 7th-8th round pick in this draft, will prove a better recruit than Thornton, Solly, Grover?

Culling the list is fine, but imo, its ******ed to delist a player, and replace him with another, with far less ability. With a draft as dire as this (where most commentators agree that it dies off about 30 or so), id say our chances of drafting a 50 game player with pick 90 or so, are slim to none.

Cutting all the spuds in this draft, would essentially be cutting off our nose, to spite our face.

I've never suggested taking 7th-8th round picks, I said we could upgrade some rookies, de Boer, VB and Pearce in place of a couple of the senior guys who were out-of-contract this year, Headland, Dodd and BOB - pretty sure we've already had that conversation already JM...

Grover (maybe) Thornton and Solly would be next year.

My extra selection would've been at #68. It's all irrelevant anyway as it's not going to happen, I just thought it'd create some discussion. Then I would've gone deeper into the rookie draft and been more speculative with 2 of the 4 picks.

I saw someone suggesting we redraft Pratt. I actually laughed in real life. Really.

That was a joke. I've been a Pratt advocate ever since he was drafted based solely on his name. It's a dominant last name. Of all the players that have ever been on the rookie list he's proven to have the best last name. Easily. It's a no-contest.

Moo deserves some credit for being one of the only posters in this thread not suffering from an iodine deficiency.

LOL. Fair enough.

 

[dominguez]

Just on the topic of Harvey, and how people think hes done nothing.....

He turned a Dud CHF, who would be going to close being delisted next year, into an AA quality CHB.

Who gets the credit for that decision?

As for people wanting us to cut the rest of the flak now, im curious as to why theyd like that? Do they sincerely believe, a 7th-8th round pick in this draft, will prove a better recruit than Thornton, Solly, Grover?

Instead of taking the 80th best 18 year old in the country they could do the same thing as last year and take the best 21-22 year olds in the WAFL with later picks.

I saw someone suggesting we redraft Pratt. I actually laughed in real life. Really.

You don't rate Pratt?

I was impressed with his form for Swannies, I'd much rather have Pratt in the back pocket than Thornton.