Recruiting List Development 2017 - How do we develop our list?

[Killer_Mike]

Also because of the year off guys like Hooker, Heppell and Hurley should be in the top 100 aswell

Yep, we are starting to build depth.

The players are on our list we just need to be patient while we learn Wooshas game plan. I think this preseason is going to see some substantial gains as we increase our defensive structures and midfield structures.

 

[calyam]

End of year player ratings.

4 in the top 100 this year but with potential for another 3 or 4 next year.

That would put us in the top four teams.

The most pleasing thing about that list is how young we are. Only Goddard past his peak.

View attachment 418853

We should have around seven players in that group next season - maybe six if Goddard begins to drop off. Potentially more if a Gleeson or a Parish takes the next step.

We clearly have our best list since our last finals win.

For perspective, Adelaide currently has 11 players in the top 100. Geelong has 5 players. Richmond has 4 players. GWS has 9 players.

The main difference between Geelong / Richmond and us is that their top-line players are among the best players in the league. We have All-Australians - and I consider us to be a bit top heavy - but they have superstars in Dangerfield / Martin who contribute massively most weeks.

It's a shame that Jobe's peak just didn't line up with the development of the rest of the list. We'd probably be top 4 with the 2011 to 2013 version of Jobe in our side.

Adelaide and GWS, by comparison, tend to get a more even contribution from across the board. Most of their players do their job well even though there isn't a huge number of traditional superstars.

I think it will be easier to replicate the success of Adelaide and GWS than Geelong or Richmond. Replicating the latter requires us to either draft or trade for a genuine top 5 player. Replicating the former requires us to emphasise development, creating continuity within the group and use trades / free agency to improve the quality of our bottom half dozen players.

 

[Killer_Mike]

We should have around seven players in that group next season - maybe six if Goddard begins to drop off. Potentially more if a Gleeson or a Parish takes the next step.

We clearly have our best list since our last finals win.

For perspective, Adelaide currently has 11 players in the top 100. Geelong has 5 players. Richmond has 4 players. GWS has 9 players.

The main difference between Geelong / Richmond and us is that their top-line players are among the best players in the league. We have All-Australians - and I consider us to be a bit top heavy - but they have superstars in Dangerfield / Martin who contribute massively most weeks.

It's a shame that Jobe's peak just didn't line up with the development of the rest of the list. We'd probably be top 4 with the 2011 to 2013 version of Jobe in our side.

Adelaide and GWS, by comparison, tend to get a more even contribution from across the board. Most of their players do their job well even though there isn't a huge number of traditional superstars.

I think it will be easier to replicate the success of Adelaide and GWS than Geelong or Richmond. Replicating the latter requires us to either draft or trade for a genuine top 5 player. Replicating the former requires us to emphasise development, creating continuity within the group and use trades / free agency to improve the quality of our bottom half dozen players.

I personally think an even contribution is the way to go anyway.

I do think that both Joe and Hurley fit the superstar criteria though. Both elite players in their positions and I think both Fantasia and Walla are up their as well.

We obviously need a mid to step up into that category but they are few and far between.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

I'd put Z Merrett in potential superstar status too, could win a brownlow.

 

[BrunoV]

Top 100 players is interesting. There would be lucky to be 15 players in the league whose performances are more significant to a result than those of Daniher and Hurley. That's in a positive sense, by the way.

I don't really rate the 'barometer' perspective. The barometer plays well because of the performance of the team and he tends to indicate that the team is playing well.

Then they are just players like Sloan who can't handle tags but whose failure to perform in a match is part of a more significant problem in that match.

Hurley saves games and Daniher wins them regardless of how we are playing.

 

[revival_mode]

big joey d 84? those rankings is whack yo

 

[DapperJong]

Goddard isn't top 100

 

[DapperDon]

AA CHB ranked mid 300's?

What a really well done ranking system they have in place

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

AA CHB ranked mid 300's?

What a really well done ranking system they have in place

It's based over the course of more than a year, not playing in 2016 has skewed their positions.

 

[Lore]

It's laggy af. All of our suspended players are lower than they should be, and any player who has had injuries recently and either missed games or played at less than 100% fitness is also lower than they should be. If they were injured before they were suspended then they're basically worth nothing on this ranking system. As an algorithm it doesn't do a bad job of figuring out who the best players are out of the ones that have actually played basically every game at 100% fitness, but that's about all it shows, which for an Essendon supporter is worth about three tenths of sfa.

 

[DapperDon]

It's based over the course of more than a year, not playing in 2016 has skewed their positions.

Then the system is completely flawed.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

Then the system is completely flawed.

I'll try to do better next time

 

[DapperDon]

I'll try to do better next time

That's all I can ask for.

Thank you

 

[DERO]

Josh Green is better than Hurley.

 

[BrunoV]

We've already got 3 taller forward types in Stewart, Daniher and Hooker. I reckon we just rotate which one we use as the second ruck. So instead of Daniher spending 20% of his time in the ruck maybe he spends 10% so maybe goes into the ruck every second quarter and Stewart/Hooker take the other 2 quarters. Have all 3 spend a bit of time practicing ruck technique in the preseason so they are ready as required. Basically the old adage - train as you mean to play.

The days of 2 genuine ruckman are pretty much over - every team is using a tall key position player to be their second ruck or else an even shorter player eg Richmond.

The best way to avoid playing non rucks in the ruck is to get a ruck with elite endurance that can handle big minutes. Mind you - even they tend to get worn down a bit as the years go on - looking at Goldstein now. Unfortunately Bellchambers doesn't seem to have a big tank - hopefully if he gets a better preseason he'll go better in that area.

The specialization required in the ruck and forward positions makes it difficult but there are more than enough players in the AFL who are good enough as dual position players so I don't think that it's correct to say that selecting two players in a side who can play as genuine ruckmen is over.

Jenkins, Lobb, Sinclair, Tippett and Ben Brown (though I doubt Brown will play a lot in the ruck given the level he has now reached as a forward) are all examples of guys who could be selected as forwards or rucks. Peter Wright is getting there. Daniher is another who works because of the quality of his around the ground play though he has been a poor tap ruck. The Nic Nat and Lycett combination has generally worked because of the mobility of those two players though I'm not sure that either would be looked at as specialist forwards. Petrie started life as a ruck and then settled forward and played effectively alongside Brown, Goldstein and Waite.

I think that ultimately we want the competitive advantage of having a relief ruck who could hold down the position in his own right, whether because the number 1 gets hurt or simply to obtain an advantage for the time that the number 1 is resting.

It will ultimately all come down to the characteristics of the other tall forwards and the rucks in question. Based on conventional wisdom we are 'too tall' on paper but the reality is that we have the balance of key forwards almost perfect. Dainher being a freak aside, that's the advantage of Stewart who is essentially Tom Lynch (Adelaide) in the body of his namesake (i.e. Gold Coast's Lynch). Adelaide's Lynch is never going to be in a conversation as someone who makes a side too tall - that Stewart is probably the best pressure player we have of the forward 6 (Tippa is more spectacular but I'd say that the intensity of Stewart's running over a much greater distance has him as the equal of Tippa) means that Stewart never ought to be part of that conversation either (any potential loss of form is another matter).

The only realistic improvement we need to make among the key forwards would be to not have to ruck Daniher. Despite initially wanting it, I wouldn't ruck Stewart either. Yes, the forwards do rotate but even allowing for that rotation the workload on Stewart to play as the second ruck is too high unless he is spending more time off the ground - there is no rest playing on-ball. We don't really want to take his strength, being his mobility and endurance, from him or from the team.

Of course there may be times when it's worth mixing things up but the best forward combinations tend to have clearly defined roles among 4 to 6 permanent forwards. I'd definitely like to see Hooker become the second ruck. That's why I like that Dodoro said that he recruited Lavender with an eye to developing him as a ruck/forward. If there isn't another ruck playing forward we're going to continue to use Daniher as the relief ruck and I don't know why we want to keep doing it in the long term.


It would be really interesting to know how the development of young talls is managed and how the presence of developing talls influences recruiting decisions.

Draper had an excellent first year in which he was already capable of playing as the number 1 ruck in the VFL side. That's a significant feat for the 18-19 year olds who grow up playing Australian football let alone a convert who, for all intents and purposes, was closer to being a category B rookie than not. He's a monster of a kid (203-205cm and already 105kgs+) who is genuinely mobile and he's looked at his best engaging in the physical stuff around the ball while his ruck work is really effective (even if he can be out-positioned by older and stronger opponents).

yaco55 has been at pains to point out the difficulty in getting VFL game time into the reserve and developing ruckmen, which is true. Does this mean that we're already looking for another tall to develop alongside Draper moreso than someone who would compete with Draper for the number 1 spot? It would seem to be a strange decision if the recruitment of Lavender meant that Draper's development suffered. Neither is going to make it if they can't play enough football as part of their development.

We put a lot of work into recruiting Lavender who is now on the list for a few years. If that's not going to be a waste of time he's going to need to fit along side the other ruck options in the VFL side. Call it post-season optimism, but looking at it as a whole gives me confidence and I think it provides an insight into how we propose to use the young guys.

If Lavender could develop his game to the point that he was a competent key forward and relief ruck, say what Ben Brown was before this year, that would be as valuable to the side in the long term as the signing of Gold Coast's Tom Lynch would be. It's not just the ability of the individuals who are part of the forward line which is important, it's the way they all fit together. I'm not sure sides will ever need to drop $800k a year on a second key forward and relief ruck.

 

[Bomberbuzz1]

The specialization required in the ruck and forward positions makes it difficult but there are more than enough players in the AFL who are good enough as dual position players so I don't think that it's correct to say that selecting two players in a side who can play as genuine ruckmen is over.

Jenkins, Lobb, Sinclair, Tippett and Ben Brown (though I doubt Brown will play a lot in the ruck given the level he has now reached as a forward) are all examples of guys who could be selected as forwards or rucks. Peter Wright is getting there. Daniher is another who works because of the quality of his around the ground play though he has been a poor tap ruck. The Nic Nat and Lycett combination has generally worked because of the mobility of those two players though I'm not sure that either would be looked at as specialist forwards. Petrie started life as a ruck and then settled forward and played effectively alongside Brown, Goldstein and Waite.

I think that ultimately we want the competitive advantage of having a relief ruck who could hold down the position in his own right, whether because the number 1 gets hurt or simply to obtain an advantage for the time that the number 1 is resting.

It will ultimately all come down to the characteristics of the other tall forwards and the rucks in question. Based on conventional wisdom we are 'too tall' on paper but the reality is that we have the balance of key forwards almost perfect. Dainher being a freak aside, that's the advantage of Stewart who is essentially Tom Lynch (Adelaide) in the body of his namesake (i.e. Gold Coast's Lynch). Adelaide's Lynch is never going to be in a conversation as someone who makes a side too tall - that Stewart is probably the best pressure player we have of the forward 6 (Tippa is more spectacular but I'd say that the intensity of Stewart's running over a much greater distance has him as the equal of Tippa) means that Stewart never ought to be part of that conversation either (any potential loss of form is another matter).

The only realistic improvement we need to make among the key forwards would be to not have to ruck Daniher. Despite initially wanting it, I wouldn't ruck Stewart either. Yes, the forwards do rotate but even allowing for that rotation the workload on Stewart to play as the second ruck is too high unless he is spending more time off the ground - there is no rest playing on-ball. We don't really want to take his strength, being his mobility and endurance, from him or from the team.

Of course there may be times when it's worth mixing things up but the best forward combinations tend to have clearly defined roles among 4 to 6 permanent forwards. I'd definitely like to see Hooker become the second ruck. That's why I like that Dodoro said that he recruited Lavender with an eye to developing him as a ruck/forward. If there isn't another ruck playing forward we're going to continue to use Daniher as the relief ruck and I don't know why we want to keep doing it in the long term.


It would be really interesting to know how the development of young talls is managed and how the presence of developing talls influences recruiting decisions.

Draper had an excellent first year in which he was already capable of playing as the number 1 ruck in the VFL side. That's a significant feat for the 18-19 year olds who grow up playing Australian football let alone a convert who, for all intents and purposes, was closer to being a category B rookie than not. He's a monster of a kid (203-205cm and already 105kgs+) who is genuinely mobile and he's looked at his best engaging in the physical stuff around the ball while his ruck work is really effective (even if he can be out-positioned by older and stronger opponents).

yaco55 has been at pains to point out the difficulty in getting VFL game time into the reserve and developing ruckmen, which is true. Does this mean that we're already looking for another tall to develop alongside Draper moreso than someone who would compete with Draper for the number 1 spot? It would seem to be a strange decision if the recruitment of Lavender meant that Draper's development suffered. Neither is going to make it if they can't play enough football as part of their development.

We put a lot of work into recruiting Lavender who is now on the list for a few years. If that's not going to be a waste of time he's going to need to fit along side the other ruck options in the VFL side. Call it post-season optimism, but looking at it as a whole gives me confidence and I think it provides an insight into how we propose to use the young guys.

If Lavender could develop his game to the point that he was a competent key forward and relief ruck, say what Ben Brown was before this year, that would be as valuable to the side in the long term as the signing of Gold Coast's Tom Lynch would be. It's not just the ability of the individuals who are part of the forward line which is important, it's the way they all fit together. I'm not sure sides will ever need to drop $800k a year on a second key forward and relief ruck.

One thing that would change this thinking is a change in interchange restrictions but until that happens I agree.
Lavender is an unknown - may thrive at fullback, who knows.