Can't say I disagree with much here. I still maintain though, I doubt a team like St Kilda wouldn't even list guys like O'brien and Richards on their lists, even if they didn't particularly want them - they'd just be lower, to be picked up if they slid far enough.I don't think any club is walking into a draft with a list ordered purely in terms of talent, so it's not a surprise to me that Brisbane is any different. Every club would order their list to represent the best selections for them. In our case this year that might mean targeted attributes like defensive pressure, speed and/or skills. Hawthorn has always paid a premium for skilled players so would rank them higher than most, Sydney values defensive pressure above all generally, West Coast promotes local talent, Collingwood downgrades anyone over 192cm.
In each case the clubs wouldn't produce a list that represents what BF or the media or anyone else considers "most talented to least talented", without even touching on how ambiguous the concept of comparing talent based off a handful of games against kids, most of whom aren't getting drafted.
I think the club drafted the players 1st, 9th, 10th and 19th of what they considered as the best fits for our team. IMO it would've been irresponsible to do otherwise. It's why I find it funny when clubs insist they don't take needs into account, or homesickness, etc - if you need talls and you have a tall and small is rated within a fair margin after all other considerations, why wouldn't you draft the needed tall even if they rank marginally below the small on "talent"?
In our case it probably means not drafting guys that have told us they'll walk out at the first opportunity, and I'm sure there were some given Clayton reported that that was what he was getting told re: the Suns. It might mean not taking Stephenson if there's a chance that he's going to bust because we're not really in the position to take that risk given our lack of mature top-end talent.
If we took perfect draft picks according to "talent" rankings but none were here in two years, is that a win? Or if we ended up with a team that can't win games because everyone is one-paced or can't win the ball or have terrible skills (all having been issues over the last 15 years at different points)?
They seem funny points to argue - both that the club is trying to rank players by talent (they aren't, and I'd be surprised if any club is, before even touching on how "talent" is so very subjective), and that they should be.
Noble's said he prefers the old adage that you draft for talent, trade for needs, though I listen to Noble with a grain of salt (shrewd operator, and he puts out the narrative that he wants people to hear. Whether that's us fans, the media, or the opposition). Of course, as you've said, drafting best available is quite the generalisation, and if we had a need quite close to the talent level of someone we didn't need, you'd most likely spring for the needs pick.
I don't think you can do what TBD did though, and say "well, we didn't include all of the highly rated guys, but based on our needs-based list vs where we recruited them, we saved enough points for a bonus pick 4". Hell, if the club wanted to, they could've just cut off all the names they knew would be gone, and we could've got multiple number-1 points worth of quality!
From my point of view, this was clearly a much more speculative draft than the last one. Very shallow, and clubs much more willing to go with a smoky who may make the cut at a higher pick - presumably because they didn't rate the standard of the draft this year. Last year, I could see how our overall strategy was being achieved through the draft and trade period. This year, it appears from the outside a lot more crude, and I can't pick the strategy overall. Traded names in for overs, out for unders, in a weak draft. Trading up, but then taking players who, from what guys like Twomey have said, would've been there anyway (I know - Twomey could easily be wrong). I don't specifically think the club did a bad job, it just means that I can't see what they were going for. Makes it difficult to judge how we went when you can't pick the macro-strategy of the period. Of course, we won't know how it all works out until about 5 years down the track. That said, I'm pretty happy with last year's draft/trade period, even if it's early.
On Stephenson, I'd say we were in a perfect place to take a risk. I'm guessing that you think we'll have sufficient talent on the list to challenge in 3 to 4 years as long as we don't screw anything up, in which case, fair enough. At the moment, I don't. I think we lost too much to homesickness, and have replaced them with solid b-grade citizens who'll help out nicely, but I still think we haven't got the a-graders to challenge, especially since Zorko/Beams will be B-graders, not A-graders, by the time we're ready. So really, I'd have been all for taking a risk on someone like Stephenson who might be more grateful if he slid to 15/18 and stick around. Of course, I don't have the medical reports, so it could be far too big a risk to take. I would, of course, prefer to be wrong on my assessment of our list talent, and time will tell if I am. We'll see yet.