Player Development

[Yoda_]

Not sure I mentioned or implied 'old washed up' players. Agree with your devil you know concept though. I tend to take the other opinion though. You generally can have a good idea whether the devil you know is ever going to make it; however the devil you don't know - might just need a change of environment, more opportunity or just a change fulls top to flurish.

If we had those high picks (round 1 & round 2) we may not have seen guys like Dell in particular who are generally just 'depth'.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

This was a reaction to our early 2000's drafting and trading where Sheedy thought he could grab another premiership by topping up with a raft of washed up old guys or mid tier fringe players.

For the record though, I agree with what your trying to say here that the young smalls should generally be showing something early. Recruiting 'depth' guys like Dell'Ollio should be cut as soon as not required which some would argue was last year.

One last thing, these draft sanctions some would argue have saved a few guys from the snip.
The age old saying "the devil you know is the better you don't" when it comes to recruiting late/rookie/speculative picks.

Strong username to post content ratio is strong.

 

[Yoda_]

Strong username to post content ratio is strong.

what are you actually trying to get at here Benjamin?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

That your "age old saying" sounded like Yoda was reciting it.

 

[60sbomber]

Seems to me that the OP intended to have a discussion about player development, rather than how well we have drafted.

I think we have drafted pretty well, especially in lower picks and in rookie picks. But that is talent identification, and is a pat on the back for the recruiting staff. To the extent that some of these lower picks have been nurtured and developed into players, then, yes, player development has been good, but most of them were better than their lowly draft ranking right from the time they began (Bellchambers, Gleeson, Baguley, Hibberd, Howlett). Hooker I would call a development success.

Player development is how well we develop those players we draft, into AFL standard players.
True development success can measured in terms of players improving where maybe they were deficient. We can look at blokes like Myers, Hocking and maybe Crameri as success stories in this regard. That is, players who did not look real good when they first started, but became very good players in time. Some of this is due to the player's own personal qualities in improving themselves, and some is down to opportunity eg injuries can cruel someone like Darcy Daniher or Gumby, or even someone like Alex Browne who has had constant interruption to stall his progress. Kav is a bit like that as well.

However, if you take the view that pretty much most players drafted in the top 50 or so probably have the natural ability to play AFL successfully, you have to look at how many of them fail to produce and why. If you eliminate those cruelled by injury, how have we done?

If you go back to the latter Sheedy years, we were terrible. Since then, not too many misfires come to mind.

For purposes of this discussion, the following have been our 17 national draft picks before pick 50 since 2007
07 Myers (pick 6), Pears (23), Darcy Daniher (FatherSon/39)
08 Hurley (5),Zaharakis (23)
09 Melksham (10), Carlisle (24), Colyer (26), Long (33)
10 Heppell (8), Steinberg (31), Browne (48)
11 Kav (19), J. Merrett (31)
12 Joe (FS/10), Ashby (34)
13 Z. Merrett (26)

At this stage, only Colyer sticks out for me as a someone who we have failed to develop successfully.
Arguably, Pears is a victim of injury, Steinberg was probably just a poor pick and didn't have the necessary ingredients, and Kav is still a question mark.

In my view, admittedly without having watched their lists closely enough to know where there might have been failures, Geelong and Collingwood seem to have been the best at player development over recent years.

 

[yodellinhank]

Around a decade ago we had late picks (66) like Austin Lucy. Recently we've had Luke Davis (64) who, partly due to injury, was also a fail.

It's the rookies where we've really improved out of sight.

Davis is definitely one who makes me wonder. All reports early on from the VFL were positive and there was talk of him debuting before the ankle (?) injury made him disappear right off the radar. Seemed to show a little in the NAB when he returned, only to fade away completely off the list.

Another from that draft Michael Ross seemed to be promising at one stage.

In fact, of that group selected we are left with Heppell, Steinberg, Browne and Hibberd. Hibberd is an out and out development win. Heppell burst onto the seen and has steadily progressed, he could become a top player. Jury well and truly yet to decide Steinberg and Browne.

9 new players were selected that draft, one is on a list at another club and we are left with 4. Compare that to the cats who took 8, lost one due to rookie list restrictions and I think have only delisted one other of the group so far.

 

[Yoda_]

Davis is definitely one who makes me wonder. All reports early on from the VFL were positive and there was talk of him debuting before the ankle (?) injury made him disappear right off the radar. Seemed to show a little in the NAB when he returned, only to fade away completely off the list.

Another from that draft Michael Ross seemed to be promising at one stage.

In fact, of that group selected we are left with Heppell, Steinberg, Browne and Hibberd. Hibberd is an out and out development win. Heppell burst onto the seen and has steadily progressed, he could become a top player. Jury well and truly yet to decide Steinberg and Browne.

9 new players were selected that draft, one is on a list at another club and we are left with 4. Compare that to the cats who took 8, lost one due to rookie list restrictions and I think have only delisted one other of the group so far.

Could also add Taite Silverlock who was drafted with such promise early before injury stifled him right off the map

 

[yodellinhank]

Seems to me that the OP intended to have a discussion about player development, rather than how well we have drafted.

I think we have drafted pretty well, especially in lower picks and in rookie picks. But that is talent identification, and is a pat on the back for the recruiting staff. To the extent that some of these lower picks have been nurtured and developed into players, then, yes, player development has been good, but most of them were better than their lowly draft ranking right from the time they began (Bellchambers, Gleeson, Baguley, Hibberd, Howlett). Hooker I would call a development success.

Player development is how well we develop those players we draft, into AFL standard players.
True development success can measured in terms of players improving where maybe they were deficient. We can look at blokes like Myers, Hocking and maybe Crameri as success stories in this regard. That is, players who did not look real good when they first started, but became very good players in time. Some of this is due to the player's own personal qualities in improving themselves, and some is down to opportunity eg injuries can cruel someone like Darcy Daniher or Gumby, or even someone like Alex Browne who has had constant interruption to stall his progress. Kav is a bit like that as well.

However, if you take the view that pretty much most players drafted in the top 50 or so probably have the natural ability to play AFL successfully, you have to look at how many of them fail to produce and why. If you eliminate those cruelled by injury, how have we done?

If you go back to the latter Sheedy years, we were terrible. Since then, not too many misfires come to mind.

For purposes of this discussion, the following have been our 17 national draft picks before pick 50 since 2007
07 Myers (pick 6), Pears (23), Darcy Daniher (FatherSon/39)
08 Hurley (5),Zaharakis (23)
09 Melksham (10), Carlisle (24), Colyer (26), Long (33)
10 Heppell (8), Steinberg (31), Browne (48)
11 Kav (19), J. Merrett (31)
12 Joe (FS/10), Ashby (34)
13 Z. Merrett (26)

At this stage, only Colyer sticks out for me as a someone who we have failed to develop successfully.
Arguably, Pears is a victim of injury, Steinberg was probably just a poor pick and didn't have the necessary ingredients, and Kav is still a question mark.

In my view, admittedly without having watched their lists closely enough to know where there might have been failures, Geelong and Collingwood seem to have been the best at player development over recent years.

Yeah, I'm trying to decide which way the scales are tipping. Take a player like Baguely, and many doubted he would be of any use on first sighting. Had a few tools, seemed to have too many limitations. Now he's an important part of the side and executes his role really well. If the club can have similar success with the likes of Kommer, DVU etc then surely we are on the way up through sheer depth.

Or conversely are we seeing too many go through the club like Leroy, Reimers, Neagle? Did the club get enough out of Slattery/Prismall/Lonergan types? Where do you rank a guy like Ryder? Will we see the likes of Hurley & Zaharakis go from good to great like we've always expected? If they don't is it realistic to expect similar of Daniher?

I'd always thought of development as an intangible wank, but maybe there is something to it?

 

[yodellinhank]

Could also add Taite Silverlock who was drafted with such promise early before injury stifled him right off the map

Alot fall into the injury category for us unfortunately, as 60sbomber has pointed out . Long & Daniher both showed more than people give them credit for IMO. Tayte Pears a spectacular example, showed so much and just hasn't made it back since possibly another one in Prismall collided into him.

 

[blitzer]

Its bloody hard to isolate where good drafting ends and development begins. They go together hand in hand and we tend to judge our drafting based on the product of drafting + development from our team and the other teams in the league.

I would say our recent success in rookie drafts and the like points to at least decent development. Guys like Hooker/Bellchambers/Hibberd/Hocking/Howlett were all late draft picks and each of them has been able to consistently improve until they reached a level where they were clearly best 22 or better.
At the other end of the scale players like Melksham and Myers, even Carlisle drafted at high draft picks that didn't take off immediately have started to really improve - again hinting at good development. I can't count guys like Heppell/Hurley who were good from the word go as that's more good drafting than anything.

In recent years players like Gumbleton/Pears/Colyer/Steinberg could probably be highlighted as development/drafting failures (at least to this point in their careers for the 3 current players). You can't win on each and every player but if you have good development and drafting you will win far more than you lose.

 

[eth-dog]

Alot fall into the injury category for us unfortunately, as 60sbomber has pointed out . Long & Daniher both showed more than people give them credit for IMO. Tayte Pears a spectacular example, showed so much and just hasn't made it back since possibly another one in Prismall collided into him.

Daniher would be more than handy right now, he looked a good CHF, if a bit undersized.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

One thing I'm pretty impressed with is the youngsters look pretty comfortable in the zone. That's not an easy thing to achieve.

 

[BrunoV]

Not sure that the line between developement and recruting can be as neatly drawn as it is being done by some.

I think that development is really about ensuring that you, at least, get out of a player what a recruiter saw in him. In that regard I think development is probably more important because good players largely identify themselves though our situation is a little different from the norm because we have had so much success with players from relatively obscure sources.

Most importantly recruiting and development go hand in hand. Take the Melbourne example and put it down to a failure of development because you can rest assured that the overwhelming majority of first and second round picks they took from the start of the Bailey era are not the players that the recruiters thought they would be. When almost all of the picks were commonly regarded as being on the mark it doesn't make sense that they made so many recruiting errors (though there will inevitably be some errors).

Strong development probably accelerates the maturity of a player more than anything so I would not look at development as being limited to long term projects or players whose early careers come along in fits and spurts. Of course there are project players which do take years to develop, they are also pretty obvious (best examples on current list are probably Gregory, Kavanagh and Dalgleish).

If I had to have a guess the clearest examples of the victory of nurture over nature on the list are:
- Crameri, who was taken on as a big bodied midfielder and turned into a powerful mid-sized forward capable of kicking 30 to 40 goals a year;
- Gleeson, who should not be ready for AFL footy almost anyway you look at it;
- Jackson Merrett, who has been able to slot almost immeditely and seemlessly into our team filling importnat and structurally significant roles forward and now more up the ground; and I'm going to put balls on the line and say
- Aylett, who was recruited as a hard running, outside mid/half back and who has been turned into an inside midfield animal.

 

[Zach Package]

One thing I'm pretty impressed with is the youngsters look pretty comfortable in the zone. That's not an easy thing to achieve.

seems to be a real focus in the last two drafts in particular, basically everyone we've drafted has a strong defensive mindset, and just seems to 'get it' very quickly

 

[yaco55]

You still have to pick the right players - Whether there is an industry consensus that player x is worth pick 7 - Means that the industry got it wrong. Development is far less important than shouted from the rooftops - Where it is important is players from Round 3 onwards - These are the players who have a number of weaknesses and need extra development to reach AFL standards.

 

[Yoda_]

Mark Bolton # 4 draft pick

Scott Gumbleton # 2 draft pick


sometimes development is never given an opportunity

 

[bombermick]

We have had some wins lately, but there's no question a club like Collingwood does it better than us. I agree we need to be more ruthless with our delistings, as there are too many that seem to hang onto the list for 1 or 2 years too long. Steinberg is an exception to that as he's now showing something at VFL level by all reports.

 

[BrunoV]

Who are we holding on to too long?

 

[blitzer]

Who are we holding on to too long?

I'd say Colyer, Jetta and Steinberg have all been on the list for a long time for minimal return and none of them look close to being best 22 players despite being physically mature. They have all been overtaken by younger players. Pears might also be in this category but we are a bit short of depth for our talls and I think is closer to being in the best 22 than the above.

 

[ant555]

We have had some wins lately, but there's no question a club like Collingwood does it better than us. I agree we need to be more ruthless with our delistings, as there are too many that seem to hang onto the list for 1 or 2 years too long. Steinberg is an exception to that as he's now showing something at VFL level by all reports.

Do not agree at all. The last 5 years we have been doing it right. The only reason we have hung onto a few this year was the draft penalties.
Hibberd, Baguley, Gleeson. J Merrett, Carlisle(defense) are prime examples of players coming through quickly.

 

[ant555]

I'd say Colyer, Jetta and Steinberg have all been on the list for a long time for minimal return and none of them look close to being best 22 players despite being physically mature. They have all been overtaken by younger players. Pears might also be in this category but we are a bit short of depth for our talls and I think is closer to being in the best 22 than the above.

Jetta will go soon enough, more than likely at the end of the year, Gleeson,Merrett,Merrett,Ashby etc where only just drafted or not on the list when he last signed.
Colyer only got 2 years because of the draft restrictions we had last year and have this year. No point drafting spuds either.
Steinburg in his 3rd year is where you would expect him as a project player. The issue they had with him is they jumped too early
when he was drafted.

 

[rines]

Jetta will go soon enough, more than likely at the end of the year, Gleeson,Merrett,Merrett,Ashby etc where only just drafted or not on the list when he last signed.
Colyer only got 2 years because of the draft restrictions we had last year and have this year. No point drafting spuds either.
Steinburg in his 3rd year is where you would expect him as a project player. The issue they had with him is they jumped too early
when he was drafted.

I agree. I think draft sanctions lead to us (rightfully imho) giving 2 year contracts to guys like Colyer and Kommer.. when perhaps at another time they would have only got 1 year.

Both Colyer and Kommer offer far more to our list, imho, than say a 6th round draft pick of some skinny 18 year old. Especially as we look to play finals footy this year and next.

 

[Doss]

Jetta will go soon enough, more than likely at the end of the year, Gleeson,Merrett,Merrett,Ashby etc where only just drafted or not on the list when he last signed.
Colyer only got 2 years because of the draft restrictions we had last year and have this year. No point drafting spuds either.
Steinburg in his 3rd year is where you would expect him as a project player. The issue they had with him is they jumped too early
when he was drafted.

I still hold some hope for Steinberg. Loved his game across half back against Collingwood at Windy Hill last week.

It's his fourth year, by the way.

 

[BrunoV]

I'd say Colyer, Jetta and Steinberg have all been on the list for a long time for minimal return and none of them look close to being best 22 players despite being physically mature. They have all been overtaken by younger players. Pears might also be in this category but we are a bit short of depth for our talls and I think is closer to being in the best 22 than the above.

Three players on a list for a team which is using first to third year players as depth.

It really is not that big a deal. Colyer, Jetta, Dell'Olio are probably all done at the end of the year. Steinberg may stay on as depth. Hardingham might struggle if his form dips.

 

[rines]

I like the make up of our list.

As I see it, we have:
18 - Clearly best 22 players (Watson, Goddard, Heppell types)
10 - 18-28 range players (fringe but game ready) (Howlett, Hardingham, Gleeson, Kommer types)
6 - Developing but young players (EKav, Ashby types)
3 - Senior players but likely to be moved on (Jetta, Colyer types)
3 - Long term project players (Steinberg types)

I think it is a good mix. Carrying 6 guys that are able to be moved/traded/delisted gives good flexibility without limiting rotations and injury cover and development.