List Mgmt. Pick 9

[Jimmae]

I would have described Stephens as a cross between Fisher and LOB, without necessarily being better at anything than either, maybe just more consistent in contested work.

 

[Jeremias]

Modern-day Trent Cotchin?

Sam Walsh says hello.

 

[HARKER]

Selecting best available isn't a scattergun approach, that falls under reaching for a perceived need and bypassing better talent/players

It is because it's not focussed on the bigger picture and accepts taking for talents sake as being the best formula.
What to do with that player afterwards is somewhat secondary as opposed to moulding together the right pieces into their right places.
This is what I see for the CFC, but others will not. Recruiters always want to be seen to be spotting the best talent, but there are many factors as to where, why and where this talent will show its face and at the end, whether thier selections are truly in the best interest of the coach and club.
Like I said before: I don't care for Brownlow medallists. Give me Premierships every day of the week.

Stocker is a midfielder every day of the week

Where he initially plays to hone his craft/work on deficiencies has no bearing medium to long term

Stocker is a midfielder......so is Cripps...so is Walsh...so is Setterfield...so is Kennedy...so is Fisher...so is Gibbons...so is SPS and as are Murphy and ECurnow, but somehow we still want other young players to be involved.
Stocker plays a good role in the back-line and if our midfield is tracking along well enough, I wouldn't want that to change. We'll see.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Selecting best available isn't a scattergun approach, that falls under reaching for a perceived need and bypassing better talent/players

It is interesting, I was talking to a recruiter years ago and I think it was about Gresham at the time. He stated that he really liked him, but at that point in time, had too many players of his same style and hence dropped him down the rankings.

I think often a club's version of best available is also adjusted by the current list needs of a club.

I have no doubt that the likes of McAsey, Finlay, De Koning... they may be rated slightly lower in our rankings due to the current depth we have with tall defenders. Then the likes of Weightman, Taylor, Henry.. may have a slightly higher ranking due to our need to improve out small forwards.

There is obviously a point where a player even if he is surplus to needs, drops too far and you have to select him.

I still think best available is altered by club needs, I know I often look at the juniors with a Carlton glasses. Those tall defenders did not get my excited and I was looking more at rebounding defenders, midfeilders and small forwards.

 

[ABigOlDoofus]

Why wouldn't Stocker play back long term?
He looks a natural to me even upon first NB's viewing, with Hodge coming to mind pretty quickly.
Whichever way, many of our young players will need to have a 'second home' and as much as Stocker looks natural back, Dow looks unnatural forward.
We have to be careful with our selections, otherwise we'll end up with too much of one things and not enough of another and the whole will be worse off for it.

This massive reaching thing never sits well with me and that's coming from a pragmatic viewpoint. Seen it all too often to know it to be true.
There's no shame in taking what may be regarded by the industry to be an end first round player, in the middle of the first round, if that's what's deemed to be the right move for the club and of course clubs will say 'We took the best player available' As if they'd say, 'We took the third best player available'
That would be somewhat silly wouldn't it?

Because his best position going forward will absolutely be inside mid. I'm sure Cripps is a very handy third tall forward, but there's absolutely no reason you'd play him there full time.

 

[ferrisb]

I have enjoyed watching HARKER vs the World in the great Needs vs Best Available debate that has lasted for years.

I have always been a strong believer in the best available argument, at least for the top half of the draft.

HOWEVER...... I see some merit in Harker's arguments, not least the part where player development might be compromised if you don't take existing list demographics into account. Think of when we had four young rucks 10 years ago - all about the same age > It pushed out Jacobs to Adelaide. Jacobs was a recruiting masterstroke as a rookie pick. But we lost him for peanuts due to lack of opportunity.

SO, I propose a compromise.

Instead of saying 'We should use pick 9 on the player we need the most'.....I suggest 'We should not use pick 9 on a player we need the least'. Those two are not the same thing.

Instead of being myopic and focusing on the 20% that you need the most (therefore blinding yourself to the other 80%), perhaps scratch off 20% of the list that wouldn't fit well. Leaving 80% still left on the plate.

An example this year might be Fischer McAsey, said to be the most talented KPP. He plays both ends, but more so KPD. If we drafted him, he might spend years stuck behind Jones, Weitering, Marchbank down back and behind Charlie, McKay and McGovern up front. Many of these guys might play for us for another 10 years. Of course you get injuries and you can shuffle players around. But do you want McAsey to be a fill-in player for 5 years? Do you want to move McGovern to the backline and Marchbank to a wing just to fit McAsey in? Do we even want to recruit a kid that has a superfluous 'C' in his first name?!?!

Of course if we think McAsey is 20% more talented than anyone else left at pick 9 you select him. But when you are choosing between players you rate 8.5/10, 8.6/10, 8.55/10, it doesn't hurt to take needs (or not needs) into account.

/waffle

TL;DR - Instead of drafting on needs, take the best available BUT try to avoid picking kids you DON'T need...

EDIT: Ignore my post and just read LemmingMaster's post ^^^ instead

 

[murphster]

It is interesting, I was talking to a recruiter years ago and I think it was about Gresham at the time. He stated that he really liked him, but at that point in time, had too many players of his same style and hence dropped him down the rankings.

I think often a club's version of best available is also adjusted by the current list needs of a club.

I have no doubt that the likes of McAsey, Finlay, De Koning... they may be rated slightly lower in our rankings due to the current depth we have with tall defenders. Then the likes of Weightman, Taylor, Henry.. may have a slightly higher ranking due to our need to improve out small forwards.

There is obviously a point where a player even if he is surplus to needs, drops too far and you have to select him.

I still think best available is altered by club needs, I know I often look at the juniors with a Carlton glasses. Those tall defenders did not get my excited and I was looking more at rebounding defenders, midfeilders and small forwards.

Exactly right, it’s not either or it’s a bit of both, a club will take the best available that suits there needs, will always have the needs in the back of there mind when thinking about best available, if best available is Jackson say then we might look for next best available say Ash as he suits our purposes better, but on the same hand we wouldn’t take someone that suits our needs that is rated as going in the next round and also we wouldn’t take Jackson just because he is rated at 2 picks higher either. Middle ground

 

[ABigOlDoofus]

It is because it's not focussed on the bigger picture and accepts taking for talents sake as being the best formula.
What to do with that player afterwards is somewhat secondary as opposed to moulding together the right pieces into their right places.
This is what I see for the CFC, but others will not. Recruiters always want to be seen to be spotting the best talent, but there are many factors as to where, why and where this talent will show its face and at the end, whether thier selections are truly in the best interest of the coach and club.
Like I said before: I don't care for Brownlow medallists. Give me Premierships every day of the week.



Stocker is a midfielder......so is Cripps...so is Walsh...so is Setterfield...so is Kennedy...so is Fisher...so is Gibbons...so is SPS and as are Murphy and ECurnow, but somehow we still want other young players to be involved.
Stocker plays a good role in the back-line and if our midfield is tracking along well enough, I wouldn't want that to change. We'll see.

When Stocker is hitting his straps Ed and Murph will either a. Not be there, or b. On the way out.

Gibbons and Kennedy are also not talented enough that we HAVE to be trying to get them into the team. At best going forward, they're either starting on the bench or fantastic depth.

Besides, most of the young players you mentioned are either combo or outside mids, none of them have the inside nous that Stocker has. It's more of a question of where does Walsh/Fisher/SPS/Setterfield fit, as opposed to where Stocker fits in.

 

[HARKER]

I have enjoyed watching HARKER vs the World in the great Needs vs Best Available debate that has lasted for years.

I have always been a strong believer in the best available argument, at least for the top half of the draft.

HOWEVER...... I see some merit in Harker's arguments, not least the part where player development might be compromised if you don't take existing list demographics into account. Think of when we had four young rucks 10 years ago - all about the same age > It pushed out Jacobs to Adelaide. Jacobs was a recruiting masterstroke as a rookie pick. But we lost him for peanuts due to lack of opportunity.

SO, I propose a compromise.

Instead of saying 'We should use pick 9 on the player we need the most'.....I suggest 'We should not use pick 9 on a player we need the least'. Those two are not the same thing.

Instead of being myopic and focusing on the 20% that you need the most (therefore blinding yourself to the other 80%), perhaps scratch off 20% of the list that wouldn't fit well. Leaving 80% still left on the plate.

An example this year might be Fischer McAsey, said to be the most talented KPP. He plays both ends, but more so KPD. If we drafted him, he might spend years stuck behind Jones, Weitering, Marchbank down back and behind Charlie, McKay and McGovern up front. Many of these guys might play for us for another 10 years. Of course you get injuries and you can shuffle players around. But do you want McAsey to be a fill-in player for 5 years? Do you want to move McGovern to the backline and Marchbank to a wing just to fit McAsey in? Do we even want to recruit a kid that has a superfluous 'C' in his first name?!?!

Of course if we think McAsey is 20% more talented than anyone else left at pick 9 you select him. But when you are choosing between players you rate 8.5/10, 8.6/10, 8.55/10, it doesn't hurt to take needs (or not needs) into account.

/waffle

TL;DR - Instead of drafting on needs, take the best available BUT try to avoid picking kids you DON'T need...

EDIT: Ignore my post and just read LemmingMaster's post ^^^ instead

It's should never be an absolute case of one over the other, as so many factors come into play -

1. The players available to you and the differential between them. e.g. A 9/10 player double up should not be passed by for a 6/10 need.
2. The state of your list. This is very important as stacking similar type talent won't get you there. I've already used GWS examples of this.
3. There is no 'One Way' That to me is simply ridiculous to employ a cliche as the only way to get business done.
4. History shops that recruiters often 'reach' for needs to then disguise that with the other cliche, 'We took the best player' - You did take the best player but you took the best player for your club for a variety of reasons, having taken into account many factors.
5. Does the coach have a say in who he wants and if so, how exactly would he know who the best players are? He wants 'types' that will help him ASAP.

There is no one absolute way, but to dismiss needs altogether when going to the draft? This is not a good idea.

 

[murphster]

When Stocker is hitting his straps Ed and Murph will either a. Not be there, or b. On the way out.

Gibbons and Kennedy are also not talented enough that we HAVE to be trying to get them into the team. At best going forward, they're either starting on the bench or fantastic depth.

Besides, most of the young players you mentioned are either combo or outside mids, none of them have the inside nous that Stocker has. It's more of a question of where does Walsh/Fisher/SPS/Setterfield fit, as opposed to where Stocker fits in.

I think Gibbons showed in the second half of the year when Teague played him in more of a high half forward link man that he is definitely talented enough to be best 22, has a huge tank to get up and back all day long and did it very well in most games later in the year as well as hitting the scoreboard. Admittedly spots are going to be tight next year but based on last years form guide I would say Gibbo gets a spot in the Rd1 22.

 

[HARKER]

When Stocker is hitting his straps Ed and Murph will either a. Not be there, or b. On the way out.

Gibbons and Kennedy are also not talented enough that we HAVE to be trying to get them into the team. At best going forward, they're either starting on the bench or fantastic depth.

Besides, most of the young players you mentioned are either combo or outside mids, none of them have the inside nous that Stocker has. It's more of a question of where does Walsh/Fisher/SPS/Setterfield fit, as opposed to where Stocker fits in.

I can see Stocker becoming the midfielder we wanted him for....but I can also see other possibilities.

Look at Mills at Sydney. He's a midfielder that's been played elsewhere for long enough, that principle midfield duties may get away from him, if others come on. Do you know what I'm saying? - Do one job well enough and that becomes your job.

Point about Stocker was that he took the back-line on like a duck to water whereas other mids in dow and Fisher lost their way when played forward.
Have to be careful trying to turn some players into something else. It doesn't always pay off if eventually the only home open to the players you took at the top end of the draft are playing last resort back-line posts. Nothing wrong with playing in the back-line but that not where you want to exhaust using all your key picks....They won't last.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Random additional thought on the "draft best available vs. draft for needs" thing:

Most of the time we, as fans, look at needs in the present. Carlton "needs" a small forward, so we over-value small forwards in the draft. Carlton doesn't "need" a key defender, so we under-value them in the draft.

A key defender drafted now though, isn't likely to feature predominantly at senior level for 2-3 years. Are our needs the same in 2022?

Nope.

Casboult (32yo), Jones (31yo) - not over the hill, but definitely at the point where succession needs to be front-of-mind.
Marchbank (25yo) - perfect...provided his body holds up. Still some doubt on that front, so should have contingencies in place.
Weitering (24yo) - perfect, build the backline around this bloke.
Goddard (25yo), Macreadie (24yo) - maybes, Goddard on fitness, ability and suitability for the modern game, Macreadie on fitness and ability.
Silvagni (21yo) - forward or defender? Still not sure, and certainly no guarantees.

If McAsey is the standout best available at our pick, just because we don't need him right now doesn't mean he's not a worthwhile acquisition for the long-term needs of the list.

Personally, I'd rather we went a different direction, mostly because I'm selfish and a little shortsighted and like the idea of a pacey young lad tearing it up between the arcs. But there aren't many (any?) "types" I think we should blacklist just because.

 

[HARKER]

It is interesting, I was talking to a recruiter years ago and I think it was about Gresham at the time. He stated that he really liked him, but at that point in time, had too many players of his same style and hence dropped him down the rankings.
I think often a club's version of best available is also adjusted by the current list needs of a club.

I have no doubt that the likes of McAsey, Finlay, De Koning... they may be rated slightly lower in our rankings due to the current depth we have with tall defenders. Then the likes of Weightman, Taylor, Henry.. may have a slightly higher ranking due to our need to improve out small forwards.

There is obviously a point where a player even if he is surplus to needs, drops too far and you have to select him.

I still think best available is altered by club needs, I know I often look at the juniors with a Carlton glasses. Those tall defenders did not get my excited and I was looking more at rebounding defenders, midfeilders and small forwards.

If it's not, there's something badly wrong...but the clubs will not tell you at as if they said 'We selected the 5th best player available to us'....well, wouldn't that open up an ugly can of worms. No. They have to say they took the best player available.

Frankly, I find it odd we're even having this discussion and if it was true that List Managers only took the players they deemed to have the best attributes without taking into account how that will impact their list overall - I'd say, "Find a better List Manager"

 

[Arr0w]

It is because it's not focussed on the bigger picture and accepts taking for talents sake as being the best formula.
What to do with that player afterwards is somewhat secondary as opposed to moulding together the right pieces into their right places.
This is what I see for the CFC, but others will not. Recruiters always want to be seen to be spotting the best talent, but there are many factors as to where, why and where this talent will show its face and at the end, whether thier selections are truly in the best interest of the coach and club.
Like I said before: I don't care for Brownlow medallists. Give me Premierships every day of the week.

This is a short term/sighted view. Draftees take 2-4 years before showing any form of ongoing consistency, if they do have a meaningful impact it is rare. Many, have played in various roles as juniors, so they will develop at different rates in different positions, where you see them play in the championships is not always indicative of what they have done in the past, nor the future.

Start by constructing what the squad/best 22 will look like over that period, which probably eliminates the likes of Ed, Murphy, Simmo, Jones, Betts, Krooz, Levi, Newman, Newnes, then think about the whole draft for needs rather than best available.

Bont started as a HBF, only moving to the middle late in his draft year. Right now he could play HB, inside mid, outside mid, or one out in the goal square. Then you have a player that can only play as a small forward, Daniel Rioli. How does that so called formula look now? Perhaps rather than comparing Rioli to Bont, perhaps we can use Shane Edwards, again another player what can play accross HB, HF, midfield

You don't focus on one position and reach for a type. Refine the analysis on what makes a player the ultimate best available, versatility and you have your formula. This is not the 70's where players can only play one role. Or should we pass on another Cripps, Fyfe, Bont, Martin so we can target a perceived future weakness and over reach?

Trading for players is easier, as you have exposed form, there are more known, known's (what a player can produce and where) and for that matter known unknowns (we believe if we can harness fitness and consistency, they can fill position xyz. Point in case, McGovern and Martin

Stocker is a midfielder......so is Cripps...so is Walsh...so is Setterfield...so is Kennedy...so is Fisher...so is Gibbons...so is SPS and as are Murphy and ECurnow, but somehow we still want other young players to be involved.
Stocker plays a good role in the back-line and if our midfield is tracking along well enough, I wouldn't want that to change. We'll see.

Now take what I have mentioned above, no Murphy, Levi, MK or Ed, in 4 years time

TDK Cripp Stocker
Walsh SPS Setters

Rotations/Bench: LOB, Fisher, Gibbons/Kennedy, Cunners

Stocker is a midfielder medium to long term, IMHO

It is interesting, I was talking to a recruiter years ago and I think it was about Gresham at the time. He stated that he really liked him, but at that point in time, had too many players of his same style and hence dropped him down the rankings.

I think often a club's version of best available is also adjusted by the current list needs of a club.

I have no doubt that the likes of McAsey, Finlay, De Koning... they may be rated slightly lower in our rankings due to the current depth we have with tall defenders. Then the likes of Weightman, Taylor, Henry.. may have a slightly higher ranking due to our need to improve out small forwards.

There is obviously a point where a player even if he is surplus to needs, drops too far and you have to select him.

I still think best available is altered by club needs, I know I often look at the juniors with a Carlton glasses. Those tall defenders did not get my excited and I was looking more at rebounding defenders, midfeilders and small forwards.

I guess the Gresham scenario proves the point, as he would be best 22 in any side at the moment. Some fair talent taken before him, but not all are producing his output.

I don't care what current squads are like when viewing talent, that has nothing to do with ratings and as long as they add to the whole/sum of all parts, you shouldn't overlook them, believing you will have an abundance or a shortfall in other areas if selected. You only need an ACL/departure/drug ban, form loss, to change the make up of the squad/best 22

 

[Pafloyul]

Yeah, needs are transient and there's probably more to it than simply having a player available to pigeon hole into a certain position on the ground. I'm a firm believer in gaining strengths and building a game style around that. There's a tendency to dilute that in striving too hard to finalise a starting 22. I hate hearing "we have enough... it's time to starting working on our needs!" because we never know what way the competition is going and there is always a club that come along and starts shifting the goalposts, so to speak. If a kid is going to take roughly three years (at least) to make a big enough difference, why are we thinking about our next game?

 

[TerryWallet]

Stephen Wells on the podcast today asked about their 14,17 and 24 picks:

"Not necessarily the best players, but the best players for our footy club. We'll have to look at our list needs and the types of players we need to bring in positionally and see if we can bring in a good combination".

 

[HARKER]

Yeah, needs are transient and there's probably more to it than simply having a player available to pigeon hole into a certain position on the ground. I'm a firm believer in gaining strengths and building a game style around that. There's a tendency to dilute that in striving too hard to finalise a starting 22. I hate hearing "we have enough... it's time to starting working on our needs!" because we never know what way the competition is going and there is always a club that come along and starts shifting the goalposts, so to speak. If a kid is going to take roughly three years (at least) to make a big enough difference, why are we thinking about our next game?

Fair points but (I'll stop soon, because on repeat cycle here) opportunity stands for a lot. It does to me, at least.
Right now we're thread bare on small/medium goal-kickers. Teague wants them, the club want them but we have not got them.
We put our eggs into one basket and that basket broke. Do we just keep waiting, knowing our basket will hold eggs next year or do we become proactive?

We haven't put a lot of effort in this department and loaded up on mids. Are we really better off for having done so?
I think Dow should be a wonderful player but could also become surplus to needs, should we skim over him in favour of giving opportunities to others. I see O'Brien in the same boat and actually more so. I don't want that to come about can see situations where they may.

O'Brien could easily lose a home with Newnes and Martin coming on and it's not too hard to imagine if Dow doesn't play midfield that his opportunities elsewhere may become more and more limited.

Some will call that hindsight recruiting but it's not, as at the time of their uptake, we didn't know what we'd be doing in subsequent years but now we know what we've done and can evaluate things on how they are today and not were two years ago.

Did we plan things out well? I don't think we did.

 

[HARKER]

Stephen Wells on the podcast today asked out their 14,17 and 24 picks:

"Not necessarily the best players, but the best players for our footy club. We'll have to look at our list needs and the types of players we need to bring in positionally and see if we can bring in a good combination".

Stephen Wells understands the landscape and isn't afraid to say so, without cliches. Smart.

 

[GT619]

Top-10 pick fancy among 13 prospects set for more medical checks

Clubs will get a final chance to assess Brodie Kemp's reconstructed knee, with the potential top-10 pick among a group of 13 players set to undergo more medical checks before this month's NAB AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

 

[murphster]

Had the same thought about a week ago when trying to think of a similar "known" player.

Sidebum has the benefit of a long career and oodles of experience, I think he's made do with less athletic gifts than Stephens has. Sidebum tends to play a bit more stationary, though he's phenomenal at those little half steps that somehow keep him out of reach of an opponent, while Stephens is more inclined to get on his bike and take the ball with him.

There isn't really a neat equivalent. Shane Edwards-ish? Dylan Shiel with a functioning foot and a bit more composure? Modern-day Trent Cotchin?

I was just going through the draft guide and had a look at some of Stephens stats and one that jumped out at me was his 2 games at SANFL Reserves level where he averaged 31 disposals but the part that stood out was that 19 of those were contested to go along with 8 clearances and 3 tackles and that’s against bigger bodies, not sure why they didn’t give him more inside time at the u18 champs based on that he can obviously do it and it would have been good to let him showcase it in at least 1 or 2 of the games.

He also averaged 18.8 disposals, 2 clearances and 4.7 tackles at senior level in 13 games where his contested rate was around 1 in 3 contested so I guess around 6 contested from his 18.8 which is still a descent rate for a 17 year old against men.

Oh and I would say he could be compared as a bit more outside left sided Marc Murphy and could make a handy replacement.

 

[bmaurizio]

I’m hoping for either Ash or Kemp if we use our 1st Rd pick, both youngsters have very good potential and in time could become fine additions to the playing list.

 

[bmaurizio]

Fair points but (I'll stop soon, because on repeat cycle here) opportunity stands for a lot. It does to me, at least.
Right now we're thread bare on small/medium goal-kickers. Teague wants them, the club want them but we have not got them.
We put our eggs into one basket and that basket broke. Do we just keep waiting, knowing our basket will hold eggs next year or do we become proactive?

We haven't put a lot of effort in this department and loaded up on mids. Are we really better off for having done so?
I think Dow should be a wonderful player but could also become surplus to needs, should we skim over him in favour of giving opportunities to others. I see O'Brien in the same boat and actually more so. I don't want that to come about can see situations where they may.

O'Brien could easily lose a home with Newnes and Martin coming on and it's not too hard to imagine if Dow doesn't play midfield that his opportunities elsewhere may become more and more limited.

Some will call that hindsight recruiting but it's not, as at the time of their uptake, we didn't know what we'd be doing in subsequent years but now we know what we've done and can evaluate things on how they are today and not were two years ago.

Did we plan things out well? I don't think we did.

Agree there is an imbalance of midfielders, but the hounds were baying incessantly for more midfielders over past 3 to 4 seasons.
The pressure is tremendous once a tidal wave begins, calibrating and upgrading a list is a continuous process , no team can escape it, one stagnates they sink.
I reckon Silvagni and recruitment are doing OK.

 

[BluesTragic]

I know there’s been a few negatives directed at him but I’m in the Deven Robertson camp...maybe not at 9 but if we did split the pick I reckon he has upside and is a bull


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TerryWallet]

I know there’s been a few negatives directed at him but I’m in the Deven Robertson camp...maybe not at 9 but if we did split the pick I reckon he has upside and is a bull


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Imo, Robertson will be lucky to get to us at 9 and little chance to get past 10. If you like him, keep the pick and grab him, don't downgrade it.

 

[MITSUHIRATO]

Stephen Wells on the podcast today asked about their 14,17 and 24 picks:

"Not necessarily the best players, but the best players for our footy club. We'll have to look at our list needs and the types of players we need to bring in positionally and see if we can bring in a good combination".

I’m probably in the minority, but I think Wells’ drafting (particularly in the first round) has been average/bordering on poor.