Freo Draft Policy / Methods

[Clay Davis]

From this draft it will be interesting to compare the development of Pitt against the obvious selection if we went for a tall in Darling.

I'm going to side with you on this one. I'm slightly puzzled why we went all softish outside Vic mids this draft. We've failed with regards to drafting them almost as much as we have with talls (the only true success you could rate has been Mundy).

 

[E Shed]

Who says they're soft? And none of them are small. Just slight.
The draft strategy is pretty clear. Good runners, medium height with elite ball skills who can play all over the ground. The total running zone.
I was very pleased to hear Lloyd say that Harves is very good at seeing where the game is going and we are drafting accordingly. We were definitely ahead of the curve last year with our frontal press and running game.

 

[Clay Davis]

Who says they're soft? And none of them are small. Just slight.

I saw a lot of outside game in Pitt. I never said any of them were small.

Our two weaknesses were either ball accumulating mids or talls depending on your point of view. We've failed to address either in the immediate future through the draft.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

I saw a lot of outside game in Pitt. I never said any of them were small.

Our two weaknesses were either ball accumulating mids or talls depending on your point of view. We've failed to address either in the immediate future through the draft.

in person or off highlight reels? most people called hilly a softish outside player... we have all seen though that when it is his turn, he goes as hard as anyone.

josh mellington was said to have some real mongrel in him by simon lloyd

viva le miche im unsure of, but he is the most solid of the lot, not that that means he is hard of course

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

three tanks on the battlegrand, smashing shit up. mcphee can run all day, can deboer and crowley?

crowley over the last 6-7 years has always been in our top 3 for fitness, so yes he can. i used to often say that matty deboer cant kick and wasnt in our best 22, every time ive said he cant do something, he has gone and made an idiot of me, so im willing to say that if he cant currently run all day (which i reckon he probably can anyway) then he wont be far off it come round 1

 

[theGav56]

I'm going to side with you on this one. I'm slightly puzzled why we went all softish outside Vic mids this draft. We've failed with regards to drafting them almost as much as we have with talls (the only true success you could rate has been Mundy).

Your going to "side" with me? On what exactly...that it will be interesting to see how the strategy works out?

 

[Selggad]

I'm going to side with you on this one. I'm slightly puzzled why we went all softish outside Vic mids this draft. We've failed with regards to drafting them almost as much as we have with talls (the only true success you could rate has been Mundy).

I saw a lot of outside game in Pitt. I never said any of them were small.

Our two weaknesses were either ball accumulating mids or talls depending on your point of view. We've failed to address either in the immediate future through the draft.

"we've failed" seems to be one of your catch crys, Clay. I think you are jumping the gun.

We've picked up Faulks and Griffen in the trade period, look pretty likely to get Anthony n the PSD and have Sibbo and Shepheard on the rookie list. Roberton is also 191 cm and may put on a another cm or two to make him the same size as either Tarrant or Pav. That is 6 talls I see on the list at 22 years or under. Perhaps the club knows a little more about these guys than you do and thinks we have enough talls at the moment. Perhaps they are going to take another in the rookie draft and as someone commented else where, they feel that the medium sized mids are a better use of our higher draft picks than KPFs who are uncertain unless taken in the top handful of picks - of which we had none.

And also, how have you managed to translate "I've saw a lot of outside game in Pitt" to the statement we''ve taken 3 soft outside Victorian mids"?. your statement is not based on anything that I can see. Mellington is meant to have a bit of mongrel according to Lloyd. Minchie is apparently a courageous player and Pitt has supposedly has the best boot in the draft so playing him outside makes sense. Not much point having himon the bottom of a pack dishing out handballs.

I agree I would have liked a pure inside midfielder, but I don't think that because the club has followed a different drafting strategy to what I would have done that we have failed. I think the club probably has more knowledge of the players strenghts and weaknesses, both ours and those drafted, our strategy for list management ,and what our direction is, and have drafted accordingly.

 

[Clay Davis]

in person or off highlight reels? most people called hilly a softish outside player... we have all seen though that when it is his turn, he goes as hard as anyone.

Difference is, I never called Hill soft or outside. He showed far more in his highlights reels than Pitt has. Same goes for Fyfe, Mora, etc.

At best, he reminds me of a Mundy type that will take 6+ years to make it into the top 10 players in our team. By that time, we'll have much bigger holes to fill. I'm not writing him off, I just don't see a pressing need for a player of his type in the short or long term.

And also, how have you managed to translate "I've saw a lot of outside game in Pitt" to the statement we''ve taken 3 soft outside Victorian mids"?. your statement is not based on anything that I can see. Mellington is meant to have a bit of mongrel according to Lloyd. Minchie is apparently a courageous player and Pitt has supposedly has the best boot in the draft so playing him outside makes sense. Not much point having himon the bottom of a pack dishing out handballs.

I watched them all - only Mellington impressed well above his placement in the draft, and that was at the TAC level. Pitt's best stuff was against the NSW/ACT, which is on par with dominating at TAC.

I'd like to see where I've said "we've failed" in this thread.

 

[Clay Davis]

Your going to "side" with me? On what exactly...that it will be interesting to see how the strategy works out?

Yes, that.

 

[Selggad]

I'm going to side with you on this one. I'm slightly puzzled why we went all softish outside Vic mids this draft. We've failed with regards to drafting them almost as much as we have with talls (the only true success you could rate has been Mundy).

I'd like to see where I've said "we've failed" in this thread.

Don;t you read what you post?

 

[Clay Davis]

Don;t you read what you post?

So you dispute that we've failed when it comes to recruiting Vic flankers/mids?

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

Difference is, I never called Hill soft or outside. He showed far more in his highlights reels than Pitt has. Same goes for Fyfe, Mora, etc.

At best, he reminds me of a Mundy type that will take 6+ years to make it into the top 10 players in our team. By that time, we'll have much bigger holes to fill. I'm not writing him off, I just don't see a pressing need for a player of his type in the short or long term.quote]

fast and skillfull players will always have a place in our team. i think you undervalue skills, we are very quickly becoming one of the most skillfull teams in the league, come 2012/13 we will be the most skillfull team in the league. with the new interchange rule coming in, fatigue is going to be a greater factor... how do you reduce fatigue? by less hard running, how do you reduce hard running?.... good skills

 

[Selggad]

So you dispute that we've failed when it comes to recruiting Vic flankers/mids?

Ha ha, nice deflection, Clay. Always a good strategy to ignore the subject entirely and start a new subject when you have been comprehensively exposed as wrong in a discussion.

And to answer your question, no, I think we have succeeded admirably when it comes to drafting Victorain Flankers/ Mids. I also do not thnk we have failed in our drafting strategy.

So, do you think

i) you failed to identify that you had already posted "We've failed" in this thread, and,

ii) that I succeeded in showing you where you had posted "We've failed" in this thread

To avoid confusion, can you please answer 'yes' or 'no' to the two questions I have asked you?

 

[theGav56]

Don't hold your breathe Selggad.

The draft looked purely like best available as opposed to needs with an asterisk against skill and speed.

 

[Selggad]

Don't hold your (breath) Selgaad.

No, I've had some discussions with Clay before In some ways he is as bad as Bradey was a couple of years ago

The draft looked purely like best available as opposed to needs with an asterisk against skill and speed.

Very happy with our drafting. KPR makes good points above about skills and speed. I think we will see a few tweaks in the game plan over the next year or two as the boys develop to exploit our developing strenghts.

 

[Clay Davis]

Ha ha, nice deflection, Clay. Always a good strategy to ignore the subject entirely and start a new subject when you have been comprehensively exposed as wrong in a discussion.

Deflection from what? You've hardly shown that:

"we've failed" seems to be one of your catch crys, Clay.

A catch cry is said more a bit more than once.

You're pulling out Sibo and Shepheard (rookie list players who have yet to play a game), Faulks (delisted Sydney player with poor endurance), Anthony (yet to be on the list), Griffin (hardly set the world alight) and Roberton (more a Mackie type player than a true key).

Hardly KPP depth that instills confidence that it will be able to replace Tarrant, McPharlin and Pavlich (all top 10 draft picks) going into the future.

But that's not even my main concern. Our biggest weakness was ball winning mids, evidenced by the way the team performed and how we were forced to use Pavlich when Barlow went down. We've gone and gotten a skinny flanker who makes 2008 Stephen Hill look fat.

 

[Clay Davis]

i think you undervalue skills

I don't. But in 2010 we were heavily reliant on our two main ball winners being a ruckman who is approaching 30 and a guy who now has a broken leg. All three players we picked are skillful - but none of them are huge ball winners. We could have picked two skillful guys and another decent enough skilled extractor, but we didn't.

It's a bit of a worry when we're still under the pump in that area, more than any other.

I don't think we lost too many games in 2010 because we used the ball poorly, but we did lose a few because we couldn't get our hands on it first.

 

[Selggad]

Deflection from what? You've hardly shown that:



A catch cry is said more a bit more than once.

Deflection from how you asked me to show you where you posted "We've failed" in this thread, which I did, and which you have yet to acknowledge. You did not ask me to demonstrate it is your catch cry.

You were very big on the "We've failed" theme in a thread soon after seasons end where your position was we had failed becasue we haven't won a flag. I'm not going to dig up your old posts, it is not worth it, and given you have demonstrated IN THIS THREAD that you don't know what you post, nor will ackowledge when you are proven wrong. There is little point in trying to have a discussion that will go anywhere. You will simply deflect when shown to be wrong. As you are doing now.

 

[Clay Davis]

Deflection from how you asked me to show you where you posted "We've failed" in this thread, which I did, and which you have yet to acknowledge. You did not ask me to demonstrate it is your catch cry.

Why would I ask that? You put it out there that it was a catch cry, I wanted to know where I said it. Pretty simple. The only deflecting from the discussion is you chasing this "we've failed" thing down the rabbit hole.

You were very big on the "We've failed" theme in a thread soon after seasons end where your position was we had failed becasue we haven't won a flag.

Rubbish. I was sick of people calling a single finals win an era of success. Bit of a difference.

I'm not going to dig up your old posts, it is not worth it, and given you have demonstrated IN THIS THREAD that you don't know what you post, nor will ackowledge when you are proven wrong, there is little point in trying to have a discussion that will go anywhere. You will simply deflect when shown to be wrong. As you are doing now.

As if I care.

Back on topic with respect to draft policy - I am sick of people using the argument from authority logical fallacy. I really don't care if you suppose that Lloyd is a brilliant recruiter. That isn't the basis for an argument - form your own opinions and argue from those.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

I don't. But in 2010 we were heavily reliant on our two main ball winners being a ruckman who is approaching 30 and a guy who now has a broken leg. All three players we picked are skillful - but none of them are huge ball winners. We could have picked two skillful guys and another decent enough skilled extractor, but we didn't.

It's a bit of a worry when we're still under the pump in that area, more than any other.

I don't think we lost too many games in 2010 because we used the ball poorly, but we did lose a few because we couldn't get our hands on it first.

i think a list of the following will win enough ball

palmer- 2010 wasnt a reflection of what he is capable of- ball magnet
barlow- played 13 games, will be back early next year
mundy- best and fairest, ball magnet
hill- gets the hard ball when he has to, will increase his average posessions again next year to around 20
broughton- will run through the middle next year, when in the middle this year, got bulk possessions
pavlich- gets plenty of the ball when running in the middle, hopefully doesnt play middle though
ballantyne- runs through the middle at times and gets a lot of the ball

and that isnt to mention, suban, deboer, morabito and co.... i just think we are really developing a great midfield with depth and variety... its not all doom and gloom in the extractor area, deboer, mundy, barlow, sandilands, pav, palmer are all very very good around the clearances

 

[Clay Davis]

i think a list of the following will win enough ball

palmer- 2010 wasnt a reflection of what he is capable of- ball magnet
barlow- played 13 games, will be back early next year
mundy- best and fairest, ball magnet
hill- gets the hard ball when he has to, will increase his average posessions again next year to around 20
broughton- will run through the middle next year, when in the middle this year, got bulk possessions
pavlich- gets plenty of the ball when running in the middle, hopefully doesnt play middle though
ballantyne- runs through the middle at times and gets a lot of the ball

and that isnt to mention, suban, deboer, morabito and co.... i just think we are really developing a great midfield with depth and variety... its not all doom and gloom in the extractor area, deboer, mundy, barlow, sandilands, pav, palmer are all very very good around the clearances

I agree with this, things should progress as players develop, but it is still touch and go.

We were completely slammed in possession differentials as soon as Barlow went down, with both his ball winning ability and link up work missing from our team.

Some security in that area would have been great to get, and if not that, some talent in the talls department.

At 188 cm and 70 kg, Pitt has a build thinner than either Fyfe or Hill, and if you watch all three's pre-draft highlights clips, doesn't compare in terms of raw talent to those two.

I'd rate his ability to a) play next year, and b) cover structural deficiencies much lower than any first or second round pick in the draft we've had since Collard.

He certainly has the ability to turn into a great player, but not before Pav and Sandi are well passed their peak, in my view. That leaves things very open ended.

 

[jinxd]

It's a bit early to tell if we've recruited well this year, given that many of us haven't seen much of the new recruits play but IMO we played a lot of guys outta position last year. For example:
Pavlich - played midfield, half forward and even in defense at times.
de Boer - played forward (but can't kick goals)
McPhee - played everywhere...
Hasleby - played forward ...
Silvagni - played defense, forward (at times) and ruck, etc. etc.

So, the question should be:
a) Are we playing guys out of their natural positions because we were filling gaps last year? (eg. Perhaps MDB will be our inside mid, therefore we don't need to draft a kid?)
or
b) The game has changed so much that we haven't noticed that it's becoming more like soccer, hockey and basketball. In past decades, you had a big KP forward (Matthew Lloyd; Dunstall .. ) but they were getting double-teamed by the opposition, so it was important to have other forwards who were just as dangerous around goals. Evolution?

 

[Arcassius]

b) The game has changed so much that we haven't noticed that it's becoming more like soccer, hockey and basketball. In past decades, you had a big KP forward (Matthew Lloyd; Dunstall .. ) but they were getting double-teamed by the opposition, so it was important to have other forwards who were just as dangerous around goals. Evolution?

I think the trend is towards a greater spread of goal kickers rather than focusing attack through a monster KPF. Harder to double team when the person you leave free is an equally good path to goal.

Have a group of equally skilled hard runners leading in every direction and I would imagine it would be difficult to counter either by zoning or manning up.

 

[Selggad]

Losing Barlow was a big blow, but the main reason we lost games in the seond half of the year was because we were playing a lot of 1st and 2nd year players. They were stuffed. It was very easy to see the fatigue hitting in rounds 14 - 22. We lost one game in Tassie because we played a second or third string side.

Barlow was not bad on the inside but our main extractor was Mundy. Barlow's main strenghts were as the distributor and running to position to create play. We didn;t lose games because Barlow was no longer working as an inside mid.

The big if is Palmer. If he gets back to form, then we have our other inside mid.

Suban and Mora are the other two who look to be inside players. Suban is accused of not winning enough of his own ball at the moment and I think that is fair, but it is mainly due to lack of strength and tank. He is very good on the inside when he goes there and with another pre-season will be more capable of playing that role. Mora is going to take the role Pav does in the middle already. The other likely insider is Crichton. So why draft another developing inside mid? We've got 'em. Some woith a couple of years under their belts. The most likely plug and play was Conca and he was gone.

Drafting fast skilful flanker/mids is in line with our stragety of a fast skilful game. It also helps guarentee our wins at Subi. And I would trust the recruiters to know a lot more about these kids than anybody on this board. I would expect two of them to play this year. I would expect the recruiters to know more about the potential of our list, too. Obviously they know more about Faulks, Sibo, Shep, Robbo, Griffen and Houghton, who I forgot to mention before, than any body posting here.

Most of your previous reply to me, Clay, was complete drivel.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

i agree with a lot of what you said there sel, but i tend to think, with the list we have now, that if any of the younger guys play in 2011, it will be because of a horrific injury toll. And while harves is obviously happy to promote younger players, we no longer have the stephen dodd's or thorntons to simply just replace. lets not forget guys like bollenhagen, crichton, JVB etc who could all very well jump up and play 22 games... this is the beauty of our list at the moment, we are 4 years into a rebuild, now is the time we can start to reap the benefits... we just need a couple of things to go our way i.e barlow making a good recovery is a massive start, next i would say rhys finding form and finally, sandi needs to stay fit..... hopefully griffen can surprise us all, because if he does, watch out, a fit and firing sandi going into a finals campaign would be the most daunting thing opposition teams could think of