Freo Draft Policy / Methods

[E Shed]

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.

You said they were soft. That's what I picked you up on.

Also it's you saying our weaknesses are mids or talls. The recruiting dept have never said anything of the sort. Bond, Lloyd etc have been consistent is stating they have a very definite model, based on how Harvey sees the game developing and how to use Subi to our strengths.
For several years now we have targeted elite endurance runners of good height with above average football skills capable of playing all around the ground.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. We are following the model our footy dept has developed based on how they think we can best win footy matches.

Also people are missing Fyfe when they talk about inside ball winners. Kid is a genius at getting hold of it around packs and dishing it out in a flash. Didn't anyone else notice this last year?

 

[Boppo]

Look out anyone playing on Morabito next year. It's gonna get ugly.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Morabito will be even better in 2011 - with his evasion skills, ability to run and long kicking - as well as the fact he is almost 100kg - he will just rip apart packs DeBoer style

Between him and Hill I dunno what opposition players are gonna do to deal with them

 

[Clay Davis]

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.

More appeal to authority, which I have little respect or time for.

 

[Clay Davis]

You said they were soft. That's what I picked you up on.

I said they were softish. Tell me if you've seen anything in the clips or draft profiles that suggests they were inside ball winners, or at least, anything but outside.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

I said they were softish. Tell me if you've seen anything in the clips or draft profiles that suggests they were inside ball winners, or at least, anything but outside.

being tagged as soft is IMO the worst stain you can have on you as a player. I dont think there is a grey area, your either soft or your not.... i dont see how you can judge a player as being soft without having seen them play live.... going off his clip you could probably call timmy ruffles soft, because he was a flashy wingman who was often recieving rather than being under packs... the reality is, is that he ran back with the flight playing for perth and was concussed for 3 days, missed 3 weeks and then came back and ran back with the flight the very first contest he was involved in. i think we need to reserve judgement. Pitt could turn into a more skillful deboer

 

[Clay Davis]

being tagged as soft is IMO the worst stain you can have on you as a player.

Like I said - softish. Hardly any hard ball gets at ground level, which reflects draft profile reports. Given his body shape, it's unlikely we'll see him step into that role in the next two years.

 

[greatgatsby]

"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.

This

What's with calling 18yo kids 'soft'? The point is that there is a drafting strategy and it makes sense. Whether the strategy works can't be judged yet. Ultimately there is only one way to judge 'lists': premiership cups.

What gives me confidence is that the best team in the comp at the moment was built according to a strategy and only came together this year. Pound for pound ours is potentially as good (better while Pav and Sandi are around).

I'm happy with the three kids because they have good footy credentials, fit the strategy and seem to have character.

 

[theGav56]

There were decent ball winning mids such as Parker available and a swag if tall prospects many still available in the RD. Clearly what posters here (including myself) saw as weak list areas, are not seen that way by Lloyd and Harvey. Faulks and Griffin and Mz have all been targeted to fill nEeds. JA if he gets to us too. I don't see running your entire draft based on needs as the best way to go, especially given the failure rate of draft selections; targeting skills makes sense.

 

[Scham]

All 3 of our draftees may not be full time bottom of the pack "inside" players Clay BUT they are all very adept at winning their own ball i.e. they don't rely on others to feed it out to them so they're not strictly "outside" in the way that you are portraying "outside".

I personally think players that are a bit inside and a bit outside, as our 3 are, are much more valueable and damaging to the opposition than a one dimensional in and under inside mid.

 

[Clay Davis]

All 3 of our draftees may not be full time bottom of the pack "inside" players Clay BUT they are all very adept at winning their own ball i.e. they don't rely on others to feed it out to them so they're not strictly "outside" in the way that you are portraying "outside".

I personally think players that are a bit inside and a bit outside, as our 3 are, are much more valueable and damaging to the opposition than a one dimensional in and under inside mid.

One of Pitt's highlights clips was a handball receive while running behind from a mark, with a kick up field. Pretty tepid stuff. There have been plenty of dud pre draft highlights over the years, but none have included something that bland. And that wasn't all - a few easy loose ball gets on the wing unopposed. Couple that with draft reports, and it's easy to be underwhelmed, at this stage.

He has decent enough skills for a mid through air, and nice tackling ability, but to me he looks like a player in the mold of Ibbo or Mundy. These are the kinds of players you wait years before they even look A-grade.

 

[Scham]

One of Pitt's highlights clips was a handball receive while running behind from a mark, with a kick up field. Pretty tepid stuff. There have been plenty of dud pre draft highlights over the years, but none have included something that bland. And that wasn't all - a few easy loose ball gets on the wing unopposed. Couple that with draft reports, and it's easy to be underwhelmed, at this stage.

He has decent enough skills for a mid through air, and nice tackling ability, but to me he looks like a player in the mold of Ibbo or Mundy. These are the kinds of players you wait years before they even look A-grade.

Easy only for you it seems.

 

[Clay Davis]

Easy only for you it seems.

Nah, not really. I've been happy with the past three drafts, didn't complain at all.

This has still been a great trade/draft period, but I haven't been this underwhelmed with an ND since 2006.

 

[Nickos66]

Just out of Curiosity, who did we bring in in 2006? seems like yonkeys dears ago.

 

[Selggad]

More appeal to authority, which I have little respect or time for.

Clay occasionally you post something worth while but this isn't it. We have a professional football department who are trained to know what is happening in the game. Their jobs are recruiting, developing game plans, developing talent and knowing the ins and outs of the contemporary game. They actually know why they are doing things. You are surmising on what you think would be best. As it is done without any concrete knowledge of the Freo plan, your opinion isn't actually worth much. I am not appealing to authority. I am acknowledging they probably have reasons for their decisions. You are just having a little tanty "I know best". You don't.

 

[willoblue]

i beleive that the player who has inspired Freo's drafting is Nate Fyfe.

this bloke was drafted as a skinny almost KPF (a bit short) who did admittedly play upfield at times during the colts, but has exceeded expectations with the way he was able to float from the forward line to midfield & beyond, whilst winning contested possessions.

he was one of the most impressive debutants with regard to not only what he did, but how he did it, & what he could do in the future.

i think that the recruiters went looking for players with skill and vision who could find the ball.

they look like a bunch of inside / outside composite players who might start at half forward & move to the midfield like Ablett did.

if they can approach the play of Gazza, we have done very well.

 

[Alfonz]

What are we supposed to do when we only have picks 20 and beyond? Give it up Clay, you can't just take someone for the sake of them filling a certain position if they aren't all that good at that position. I'd much rather have 3 guys with upside who fit our gameplan and can kick, run and impact games in their position, instead of some average slow inside player who won't be that good anyway.

I wonder whether people, including myself, overstate the importance of finding this inside machine. I think of some of the top clubs, and they don't really have that many. Collingwood has Ball, Saints have Hayes, Hawks have Mitchell ... and that is really all. They have a few others like Burgoyne or Pendlebury who can win a ball in close, but are also receivers and outside players as well (i.e. well rounded players).

When you think of the ability of Mundy, Morabito, Fyfe, Hill, Palmer, Barlow, McPhee, Broughton, DeBoer, Pavlich & Sandilands in combination around the packs, I don't know if we really need more inside clearance winning types. Especially average ones.

No problems with not taking any talls, history suggests pretty much all the talls post-20 will turn out to be complete duds. It would be a fluke if you got lucky with one. Maybe Darling will be OK, but he is not the sort of character we want.

 

[leungtl]

One of Pitt's highlights clips was a handball receive while running behind from a mark, with a kick up field. Pretty tepid stuff. There have been plenty of dud pre draft highlights over the years, but none have included something that bland. And that wasn't all - a few easy loose ball gets on the wing unopposed. Couple that with draft reports, and it's easy to be underwhelmed, at this stage.

Could you please link us to some of these draft reports which make you feel underwhelmed?

Emma Quayle projected him to go at 11 and the HUN at 13, so clearly they're seeing something which a 2 minute pre-draft highlight package doesn't...

At the end of the day, you only have to look at our recruitment/gameplan in the last few years and the benefits we've reaped from it... while I'm not saying we should have complete blind faith in the coaching staff, they've hardly given us reason to be cynical!

 

[Clay Davis]

Clay occasionally you post something worth while but this isn't it. We have a professional football department who are trained to know what is happening in the game. Their jobs are recruiting, developing game plans, developing talent and knowing the ins and outs of the contemporary game. They actually know why they are doing things. You are surmising on what you think would be best. As it is done without any concrete knowledge of the Freo plan, your opinion isn't actually worth much. I am not appealing to authority. I am acknowledging they probably have reasons for their decisions. You are just having a little tanty "I know best". You don't.

I've read all these arguments directed at me before, particularly around the time of the Tarrant trade. To run with your argument, you're essentially assuming that the football department is infallible.

I don't see their current selections being important to success in the short term, nor do I see them covering long term holes after players aged 28 and above retire. I don't see how my opinion here isn't true.

We'll be a team filled with flankers and journeyman talls. I just don't see that being a premiership team. Sounds closer to 90s Freo than a side like Collingwood.

 

[Clay Davis]

I wonder whether people, including myself, overstate the importance of finding this inside machine. I think of some of the top clubs, and they don't really have that many. Collingwood has Ball, Saints have Hayes, Hawks have Mitchell ... and that is really all. They have a few others like Burgoyne or Pendlebury who can win a ball in close, but are also receivers and outside players as well (i.e. well rounded players).

Who do we have that matches any of those players? Our big contested ball and clearance winner is our ruckman. Next best is a guy who has broken his leg.

Maybe Darling will be OK, but he is not the sort of character we want.

If that's the case, then why are we chasing Anthony or having Justin Monaco train with us?

 

[Alfonz]

Who do we have that matches any of those players? Our big contested ball and clearance winner is our ruckman. Next best is a guy who has broken his leg.

As a collective group I think we are OK. We were ranked 5th for clearances and 5th for first possessions over the 2010 season, its not like we are in dire need of improvement.

Hawthorn, Collingwood, St Kilda and Geelong were all ranked in the bottom 8 for clearances/first possessions (and St Kilda right in the bottom couple). The Bulldogs topped the tally for clearances/1st possessions (and by a statistically enormous amount), but ultimately that didn't matter.

You could probably look at these stats better in terms of opponent differentials, this puts Saints/Pies/Cats up there a bit more, but still behind us.

And WC are ranked up there in various combinations of clearance/first possession stats, look how their season went.

Anyway, go for your life:
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/team_rankings?yr=2010&ts=DA&sr=12

My conclusion is clearances/first possessions are somewhat overrated and we do not need to be addressing that area.

Obviously it doesn't hurt to get your hand on the pill first, but it is what you do away from stoppages ... spread/run/carry/kicking/decisions/pressuring the opponent ... which matters the most. And this is what we have gone for in this draft.

On the flipside, our contested possessions could use improving, we don't rate that highly. But I would suspect this has a lot to do with young bodies and should improve as they improve their strength. Also, we are a low possession team and uncontested possessions also reflects we simply don't get much of the ball. So its not just contested ball, but uncontested (outside) as well. I agree the argument to pick up a ball winner has merit, but at 20+ I guess our recruiters just didn't rate who was there in terms of inside types.

 

[Clay Davis]

As a collective group I think we are OK. We were ranked 5th for clearances and 5th for first possessions over the 2010 season, its not like we are in dire need of improvement.

Our leaders in contested possession, clearances and first possessions per game were Barlow, Mundy and Sandilands. When Barlow went down, we struggled big time. Other injuries were a factor, but there was a clear difference between pre and post Barlow injury in the team's form. To break even in the contested ball and clearance stats, we needed to play Pav in the middle - it was hardly ideal.

When Sandilands went down we were utterly screwed, but that is something we aren't covered for anyway.

While Collingwood weren't at the top with clearances or first possessions - they were near to number one at contested ball.

My point is - contested footy still wins premierships, no matter how much you talk about spread and run. The reason why we improved so markedly this year, is because we obtained a player who won a huge amount of contested ball.

Our top two were Barlow and Sandilands. This is why I think it remains a weakness we haven't addressed.

 

[theGav56]

I think another ball winning mid would be very handy, but I also think it is one of the easier gaps to fill through development of existing players (perhaps broughton, Suban or de B going midfield), recruitment such as the Pies did with Ball or drafting (there seems to be mature players in the mold in the RD, or in the current draft players like Parker etc look ready to go).

Talls are another issue but I am confused gravy.... Do you rate KPPs or not? Is the rebuild complete or not? I think some talls on the RL are required, but assuming JA is decent, our timeframe for Pav etc declining is manageable.

 

[Clay Davis]

Talls are another issue but I am confused gravy.... Do you rate KPPs or not? Is the rebuild complete or not? I think some talls on the RL are required, but assuming JA is decent, our timeframe for Pav etc declining is manageable.

I am taking the opinion that a person may believe we need more support through the midfield (short term) and that it's the final piece while we're in the premiership window. This is what I believe.

If you aren't a fan of that idea, you probably believe we need to stretch our ambitions post-Pav (+ McPharlin, Sandilands, and even Tarrant), which means replacing key talls with quality options through the draft, that are ready to go when the holes start appearing.

From my point of view, our best chance to win a premiership is in the next two years. After that, major holes in our best 22 will start appearing.

The recruitment in this draft neither addresses our short term chances at a premiership, nor our long term needs. It seems to be based around a game style that's in vogue now, even despite the fact Collingwood win loads of contested ball. What happens if the pure contested slogs of the mid 00s returns when the players we've drafted peak?

 

[Selggad]

To run with your argument, you're essentially assuming that the football department is infallible.

Not at all. I assume they have better information than me and a plan that they are working too..

However, as you have that take on things, you must assume you are infallible. It certainly seems so.

Personally, I just wish you would STFU. Express an opinion, great. But to go on and on and on ad nauseum is tiresome. We all know your opinon. You write it about 4 or 5 time every f***ing page.