Opinion Our Current Rebuild Will Ultimately Fail - Prove Me Wrong

Remove this Banner Ad

GreyCrow said:
I like how you use someone's opinion to bolster the same arguments made by the positivity posters.

It's literally wafer thin analysis that has no comparison or details on how they arrived at each grading.

Much like your posting

An example

Pick 29 – Jack Gunston

3 time Premiership Player, best and fairest, All Australian and 3 time club leading goal kicker….the only concern is none of this was for Adelaide. Regardless, the selectors picked a gem here and it isn’t their job to keep the players at the club.

Ranking A+

Then whos' ******* job is it????
Click to expand...
Haha I came across it on Twitter this morning and posted it here for anyone interested to peruse. Whoever the person is they obviously put a bit of work into it....obviously a Crows supporter.

Not unexpected that some would disagree....."much like my posting" 😂🤣😂🤣. You really know how to hurt a guy's feelings. 🤣😂🤣😂
 
Last edited:
GreyCrow said:
I like how you use someone's opinion to bolster the same arguments made by the positivity posters.

It's literally wafer thin analysis that has no comparison or details on how they arrived at each grading.

Much like your posting

An example

Pick 29 – Jack Gunston

3 time Premiership Player, best and fairest, All Australian and 3 time club leading goal kicker….the only concern is none of this was for Adelaide. Regardless, the selectors picked a gem here and it isn’t their job to keep the players at the club.

Ranking A+

Then whos' ******* job is it????
Click to expand...
The analysis should have just focused on Hamish time in charge, Gunston was Rendell
 
GreyCrow said:
I like how you use someone's opinion to bolster the same arguments made by the positivity posters.

It's literally wafer thin analysis that has no comparison or details on how they arrived at each grading.

Much like your posting

An example

Pick 29 – Jack Gunston

3 time Premiership Player, best and fairest, All Australian and 3 time club leading goal kicker….the only concern is none of this was for Adelaide. Regardless, the selectors picked a gem here and it isn’t their job to keep the players at the club.

Ranking A+

Then whos' ******* job is it????
Click to expand...

Some of the rankings are extremely generous

Lots of players given N/A when they should have been ranked. These are the standouts to me

Shaun McKernan C-
Sam Shaw N/A
Sam Kerridge C-
Mitch Grigg C
Cam Ellis-Yolmen B
Harrison Wigg C-
Wayne Milera B-
Tom Doedee A+
Myles Poholke N/A
Elliott Himmelberg B
Andrew McPherson B
Chayce Jones B
Ned McHenry B

Some of these are howlers. How does Wigg get a C- when he didn't play a single game? Ellis-Yolmen and Himmelberg B grade? Can't rate Sam Shaw or Myles Poholke?

I know some of the players are inflated in ranking due to being late picks but surely picking a very average player with a late selection should cap the ranking to C at the absolute most
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Scorpus said:
Some of the rankings are extremely generous

Lots of players given N/A when they should have been ranked. These are the standouts to me

Shaun McKernan C-
Sam Shaw N/A
Sam Kerridge C-
Mitch Grigg C
Cam Ellis-Yolmen B
Harrison Wigg C-
Wayne Milera B-
Tom Doedee A+
Myles Poholke N/A
Elliott Himmelberg B
Andrew McPherson B
Chayce Jones B
Ned McHenry B

Some of these are howlers. How does Wigg get a C- when he didn't play a single game? Ellis-Yolmen and Himmelberg B grade? Can't rate Sam Shaw or Myles Poholke?

I know some of the players are inflated in ranking due to being late picks but surely picking a very average player with a late selection should cap the ranking to C at the absolute most
Click to expand...
These guys who played less than 20 games surely are Ds. Who is this joker?
 
Scorpus said:
Some of the rankings are extremely generous

Lots of players given N/A when they should have been ranked. These are the standouts to me

Shaun McKernan C-
Sam Shaw N/A
Sam Kerridge C-
Mitch Grigg C
Cam Ellis-Yolmen B
Harrison Wigg C-
Wayne Milera B-
Tom Doedee A+
Myles Poholke N/A
Elliott Himmelberg B
Andrew McPherson B
Chayce Jones B
Ned McHenry B

Some of these are howlers. How does Wigg get a C- when he didn't play a single game? Ellis-Yolmen and Himmelberg B grade? Can't rate Sam Shaw or Myles Poholke?

I know some of the players are inflated in ranking due to being late picks but surely picking a very average player with a late selection should cap the ranking to C at the absolute most
Click to expand...

What about Kyle Hartigan A-
Rory Atkins A

Very generous with all his grades.
I wish he was my school teacher
 
maxlilly said:
What about Kyle Hartigan A-
Rory Atkins A

Very generous with all his grades.
I wish he was my school teacher
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed those, probably should be B- grade at best despite playing a lot of games from late selections.

Personally I think A grade should be reserved for picking great players (high B&F or AA types) with maybe an upgrade (say A- to A+) if you take that player as a rookie

B grade would be taking good players, B+ for picking them late, B- or C for taking them early. I'd only consider A if you take a really good player with a mid-season pick or something.

C grade for taking average players anywhere in the draft, lower if earlier. Taking an average 100 game role player with a first round pick should be C- or D, up to a B- for a rookie pick

D grade for taking players too early or fails late in the draft

E and F grade for first round busts depending on how early
 
Here would be my re-rankings

Shaun McKernan D
Sam Shaw D+
Sam Kerridge D
Mitch Grigg D
Cam Ellis-Yolmen C-
Harrison Wigg D-
Wayne Milera C
Tom Doedee B
Myles Poholke D+
Elliott Himmelberg C
Andrew McPherson C
Chayce Jones C-
Ned McHenry C
Kyle Hartigan B-
Rory Atkins B-


In years where you have a few Cs and Ds for later picks, you'd hope that would be balanced with As and Bs in the first round so the overall draft would be a B or better
 
I quite like the methodology the guy who wrote the article used - measuring the players you picked against the likely success of that pick.

But there needs to be another level - the quality of the player, not just the relative quality.

Eg picking a guy in the rookie draft who goes on to play 30 games of AFL is better than most rookie picks. So it's a "win" in one sense. But the player obviously had minimal impact on the fortunes of his club.

So it's a meaningless draft win. In fact you could argue you'd be better off if he'd picked a complete dud because they wouldn't have wasted 30 games someone else could have had to find out that he should be delisted.
 
maxlilly said:
What about Kyle Hartigan A-
Rory Atkins A

Very generous with all his grades.
I wish he was my school teacher
Click to expand...
He's not grading the players

I'm not sure people have understood what he's done. He's measuring the Atkins pick against other 5th round draft selections.
 
Scorpus said:
Here would be my re-rankings

Shaun McKernan D
Sam Shaw D+
Sam Kerridge D
Mitch Grigg D
Cam Ellis-Yolmen C-
Harrison Wigg D-
Wayne Milera C
Tom Doedee B
Myles Poholke D+
Elliott Himmelberg C
Andrew McPherson C
Chayce Jones C-
Ned McHenry C
Kyle Hartigan B-
Rory Atkins B-


In years where you have a few Cs and Ds for later picks, you'd hope that would be balanced with As and Bs in the first round so the overall draft would be a B or better
Click to expand...
Spot on, thats how I would grade them.
He needed to explain his grading system but even then, he was too generous
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
He's not grading the players

I'm not sure people have understood what he's done. He's measuring the Atkins picks against other 5th round draft selections.
Click to expand...

He is, but he's also not leaving much room for the actual stars taken late.

If you have Atkins as an A for a 5th round pick, what happens to (say) Adam Saad and Charlie Cameron

Both were taken as rookies, Saad is better than Atkins, and Cameron is better than both of them by a fair margin. By this system you have to give both A+, or does Cameron get A+++?

His ranking has to scale appropriately so great and elite players can rank highly from rookies

How on earth did Wigg get a C- unless the average late second round pick plays like 5 games? He judged that a player that didn't play a single game was only slightly below expected for a pick 35
 
Scorpus said:
He is, but he's also not leaving much room for the actual stars taken late.

If you have Atkins as an A for a 5th round pick, what happens to (say) Adam Saad and Charlie Cameron

Both were taken as rookies, Saad is better than Atkins, and Cameron is better than both of them by a fair margin. By this system you have to give both A+, or does Cameron get A+++?

His ranking has to scale appropriately so great and elite players can rank highly from rookies
Click to expand...
All are above average picks

Needs to be another layer of scaling for the quality/impact of the player
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
All are above average picks

Needs to be another layer of scaling for the quality/impact of the player
Click to expand...

B ranking is above average

For example he's saying that Chayce Jones ranked B is an above average outcome for pick 9 in that draft, which I disagree with

I'd also argue that taking someone like Himmelberg in the 3rd round (ranked B, above average) is actually C (average). Surely 36 games in 6 seasons as mostly a depth player is bang on average for a 3rd rounder
 
Scorpus said:
B ranking is above average
Click to expand...
It is but I'm not sure what you're saying?

Atkins might have been the best pick available at that point of the draft, played more AFL footy than 95% of 5th round draft selections etc.

So let's say an A+ pick or a 95 out of 100 on a ranking scale.

That would then need to be factored against his quality. If 50 out of 100 is a passable AFL footballer I'd maybe generously put him at 55.

(95 x 55)/100 = 52.25 so he'd be a C- pick for mine.

Charlie Cameron easily best pick available at that rookie draft. A 99. Player quality say 95. Total 94.05 A+
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
It is but I'm not sure what you're saying?

Atkins might have been the best pick available at that point of the draft, played more AFL footy than 95% of 5th round draft selections etc.

So let's say an A+ pick or a 95 out of 100 on a ranking scale.

That would then need to be factored against his quality. If 50 out of 100 is a passable AFL footballer I'd maybe generously put him at 55.

(95 x 55)/100 = 52.25 so he'd be a C- pick for mine.

Charlie Cameron easily best pick available at that rookie draft. A 99. Player quality say 95. Total 94.05 A+
Click to expand...

All I was saying is that some players are ranked B when I don't think the player or pick (in the context of the selection or available players) are "above average". So I think the initial rankings being applied are wrong. Some picks can be judged above average selections without needing to go all the way to an A ranking

Draftguru has some excellent stats on draft picks AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

Take Mitch Grigg as an example. He was ranked C. Ignoring his quality as a player, he played 20 games as a pick 41. Draftguru believes that 62% of players in that draft range play 20 games, and 49% reach 40 games. In the four picks directly after Grigg up until our next pick in that draft, 3 of those 4 were 50+ gamers

That pick has to be judged as below average, a D grade

Shaun McKernan played 91 games as a pick 28, 44% of players in that range play 80+ games. Okay maybe that's average as a starting point. But at that draft, the next bunch of picks included Dayne Beams, Dan Hannebery (the next two picks), 200 gamer Jordan Roughead and Liam Shiels

That pick also has to be below average based on that

So in both cases even though I would say both players are below average players, getting that level of below average at that draft pick was also below average drafting
 
Scorpus said:
All I was saying is that some players are ranked B when I don't think the player or pick (in the context of the selection or available players) are "above average". So I think the initial rankings being applied are wrong. Some picks can be judged above average selections without needing to go all the way to an A ranking

Draftguru has some excellent stats on draft picks AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

Take Mitch Grigg as an example. He was ranked C. Ignoring his quality as a player, he played 20 games as a pick 41. Draftguru believes that 62% of players in that draft range play 20 games, and 49% reach 40 games. In the four picks directly after Grigg up until our next pick in that draft, 3 of those 4 were 50+ gamers

That pick has to be judged as below average, a D grade

Shaun McKernan played 91 games as a pick 28, 44% of players in that range play 80+ games. Okay maybe that's average as a starting point. But at that draft, the next bunch of picks included Dayne Beams, Dan Hannebery (the next two picks), 200 gamer Jordan Roughead and Liam Shiels

That pick also has to be below average based on that

So in both cases even though I would say both players are below average players, getting that level of below average at that draft pick was also below average drafting
Click to expand...
Agree on Grigg. That would be a 45 ranking pick on my scale, a D.

McKernan a C-, maybe a 55.

Grigg a non-entity as a player so should get scaled down from there. Overall F. McKernan a meh so probably stays meh or down a fraction. Low C or high D.
 
What I also find interesting from Statsguru's data is this

Between pick 31 and 50, the rate of getting a 200 gamer and the rate of getting a 0 gamer are about the same. One in every seven picks.

Similarly, in that draft range, about the same rate for 100 gamers and sub-10 gamers. One in every 3. You should also be getting an All Australian every 10 picks

Going back far enough until players could have played that many games, this our strike rate:

Wigg - 0 games
McGovern - 83 so far
Knight - 55
Grigg - 20
Joyce - 0
Shaw - 24
Sloane - 233
Otten - 109
Jacky - 3
Cook - 14
Tippett - 178
Mackay - 248
Vince - 229
Obst - 5

10 years of drafting. 14 picks in that range. 1 All Australian, 3 200 gamers, 5 100 gamers, 4 sub-10 gamers, 2 0 gamers

So for that range in the draft, our drafting during that period of 2005 to 2014 was basically bang on the AFL average
 
Scorpus said:
Here would be my re-rankings

Shaun McKernan D
Sam Shaw D+
Sam Kerridge D
Mitch Grigg D
Cam Ellis-Yolmen C-
Harrison Wigg D-
Wayne Milera C
Tom Doedee B
Myles Poholke D+
Elliott Himmelberg C
Andrew McPherson C
Chayce Jones C-
Ned McHenry C
Kyle Hartigan B-
Rory Atkins B-


In years where you have a few Cs and Ds for later picks, you'd hope that would be balanced with As and Bs in the first round so the overall draft would be a B or better
Click to expand...
B for Doedee is a bit harsh don’t you think? A- at worst.
 
And since 2014 we've gone these picks between 31 and 50:

Poholke - 16 games delisted
McPherson - 28 games so far
O'Connor - 3 games delisted
Gollant - 8 games so far
Rowe - 22 games so far
Soligo - 3 games so far
Taylor - 0 games so far

So from this group of 7 picks in that range, to go AFL average drafting, we should be getting a 200 gamer and another 100 gamer from this group
 
I don't have time to delve into statistics unfortunately but I'd be interested to see some form of qualitative analysis.

Games played as a stat for instance. Every club has 22 matches x 22 spots every season regardless of anything else. Play well, play badly it's the same. Win, lose it's the same.

Best and fairest results the same. All clubs will have a winner, all clubs will have 10 x Top 10 finishers every season.

Any other form of measurement too. West Coast got pulverised by Melbourne last week. Yet they still got 349 possessions, more marks than Melbourne, more tackles, more 1%ers, same disposal efficiency. Lots of their players would have walked away from the game with good numbers.

All clubs have to pay I think minimum 90% of the salary cap. So no matter what the player's contracts will collectively reach a certain amount so won't necessarily reflect overall quality.

So how does quality get measured?
 
Mutineer said:
thevanguardgazette.com

More from the Gazette…

Adelaide Crows – Comprehensive Draft Analysis Introduction After years of hearing Adelaide fans scold our recruiting staff for disastrous selections across multiple draft years, I began to wo…
thevanguardgazette.com thevanguardgazette.com
Click to expand...

That’s truly terrible analysis.

Any idiot can pull out their crayons and just daub A on any mediocre pick and then parade the number of A’s they gave out

I mean, any serious grown up who gives so many draft classes an A without a hint of irony given our ladder position is as credible as your claims part time recruiter Richard Taylor was widely credited with Richmonds success! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
I quite like the methodology the guy who wrote the article used - measuring the players you picked against the likely success of that pick.

But there needs to be another level - the quality of the player, not just the relative quality.

Eg picking a guy in the rookie draft who goes on to play 30 games of AFL is better than most rookie picks. So it's a "win" in one sense. But the player obviously had minimal impact on the fortunes of his club.

So it's a meaningless draft win. In fact you could argue you'd be better off if he'd picked a complete dud because they wouldn't have wasted 30 games someone else could have had to find out that he should be delisted.
Click to expand...

The Bayesian comparison against expected is needed and missing. Without a qualitative element is as meaningful as putting stickers on your duffel bag at school

What’s also missing is a comparison to other clubs. It’s a competitive industry and we suck - so how is that possible if we keep nailing the draft relative to other clubs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Max and Jake are our future. Rebuild 2.0 should begin now.
Replies
4
Views
446
Bob Neil
Bob Neil
C
Prediction Our Rebuild Will Ultimately Fail - Prove Yourself Correct - 5YR Ladder Prediction
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
193
Views
11K
1970crow
1970crow
George Kramer
Strategy Rebuild Part II
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Moonwatcher
Moonwatcher
1970crow
Did anyone foretell our rebuild strategy
Replies
0
Views
355
1970crow
1970crow
cmndstab
Analysis How were our current players drafted/recruited
Replies
8
Views
928
cmndstab
cmndstab
Cleric
Opinion So, where are we at this stage of our rebuild?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Alwaysacrow
Alwaysacrow
DroppingTheBall
Universal Love Primary nicknames of current Crows AFL list players
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
TubbsFarquhar
TubbsFarquhar

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top