Recruiting

[juDDa]

Is everyone happy with our draft picks in recent years? IMO the eagles draft very well and can't remember hearing any stories on duds that we picked up. the recruiting team is very organised and professional IMO. your thoughts??

 

[coasting]

I gather you just mean drafting. Recruiting means trades as well and we had some shocking trades during the Judge era. We went through a bad period in the mid to late 90s but the drafting has improved since Mick Malthouse has left the club and Trevor Woodhouse took over. We now seem to only draft ready-made AFL players and don't really speculate with late picks. This method has its drawbacks but it generally ensures that we only get good recruits.

 

[Streaker]

We now seem to only draft ready-made AFL players and don't really speculate with late picks. This method has its drawbacks but it generally ensures that we only get good recruits.

Don't understand where you are coming from here? What drawbacks?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Don't understand where you are coming from here? What drawbacks?

gee whiz, it's not hard.

he means that by taking safer picks you have less risk, but at times might miss out on a bit of upside.

 

[coasting]

Don't understand where you are coming from here? What drawbacks?

There are players worth taking a punt on that might not be a sure thing to make it at AFL level. They may have as much upside as anyone in the draft but because they are no 'sure thing' they will never be drafted by teams that only draft ready-made players... like us. This is how you get 'steals' late in the draft but if you don't draft late you have to hope these players fall to the rookie draft and many don't.

 

[The_Juddanaut]

The Judge era was a joke all together. I mean what were they thinking getting Greg Harding haha he is the meaning of the word "hack" and I just remember the eagles players coming out of defence and hardly kicking to him. Then there was Michael Prior he was always going to be a risk having had several knee ops and because of his age.
But thankfully it is back together and the last couple of years have been very exciting in terms of our picks.

 

[Streaker]

There are players worth taking a punt on that might not be a sure thing to make it at AFL level. They may have as much upside as anyone in the draft but because they are no 'sure thing' they will never be drafted by teams that only draft ready-made players... like us. This is how you get 'steals' late in the draft but if you don't draft late you have to hope these players fall to the rookie draft and many don't.

I don't see how not taking a risk is a drawback. The practice you have described is how you end up with a list full of duds. Taking risks isn't necessary and not a practice that I would recommend. With teams lists getting smaller the days of taking a punt on a player, other than the rookie list, should be well and truly over.

 

[Total Package]

I remember after we had quite a few duds.... I think it was Trevor Nisbett who came out and admitted the Eagles had erred in not going for the best player available but for the type of player they thought would help them out... and that they would no longer be doing this.. and be just picking up the best player regardless of his position. As a result we took Chris Judd when in previous years we might have taken Graham Polak instead Thank god for that change of policy!!!

 

[coasting]

I don't see how not taking a risk is a drawback. The practice you have described is how you end up with a list full of duds. Taking risks isn't necessary and not a practice that I would recommend. With teams lists getting smaller the days of taking a punt on a player, other than the rookie list, should be well and truly over.

You only end up with a team full of duds if you are unwilling to delist the late picks that don't work out.

 

[coasting]

I remember after we had quite a few duds.... I think it was Trevor Nisbett who came out and admitted the Eagles had erred in not going for the best player available but for the type of player they thought would help them out... and that they would no longer be doing this.. and be just picking up the best player regardless of his position. As a result we took Chris Judd when in previous years we might have taken Graham Polak instead Thank god for that change of policy!!!

That was MM's fault. He is doing the same at Collingwood by picking up players like Lokan.

 

[Streaker]

You only end up with a team full of duds if you are unwilling to delist the late picks that don't work out.

But if you pick them up you are stuck with them for 2 years, if you rookie list them you can get rid of them after 1 year.

 

[coasting]

But if you pick them up you are stuck with them for 2 years, if you rookie list them you can get rid of them after 1 year.

Not relevant. It just means you have a higher turn over of players. Players like Jeremy Humm and Kane Munro wouldn't have as long to show something and would have been delisted earlier for another batch of recruits. When you have a low turn over the bottom end guys get a bit longer to show if they belong. If we had delisted one or both of them last year, we could have picked up some of these players... all of whom would be better.

44 – Ricky Dyson
46 – Michael Pettigrew
53 – Daniel Jackson
60 – Julian Rowe
70 – Brent Hartigan
72 – Adrian Deluca

 

[Streaker]

Not relevant. It just means you have a higher turn over of players. Players like Jeremy Humm and Kane Munro wouldn't have as long to show something and would have been delisted earlier for another batch of recruits. When you have a low turn over the bottom end guys get a bit longer to show if they belong.

They also get longer to eat into your salary cap for little for no return and show that they were long shot hacks. So you would advocate keeping the likes of Munro and Humm on the list for long periods to show that they lack talent. Thats why they extended the rookie list, so teams could look at project players rather than making a long term commitment that gives you no value. What you are advocating could see you end up with 4 players who were maybe/maybe nots over a 2 year period. The team would start looking like Hawthorn or Richmond in a matter of 5 years.

 

[Streaker]

all of whom would be better.

44 – Ricky Dyson
46 – Michael Pettigrew
53 – Daniel Jackson
60 – Julian Rowe
70 – Brent Hartigan
72 – Adrian Deluca

Or the other 20-30 odd players in between them that could be a hell of a lot worse. Both Humm and Munro were contracted last year so you would have had to
1/ pay out their contracts
2/ take a 4 out of 5 chance at picking a dud
3/ pay that long shot for 2 years if he was a dud.

Makes sense.

 

[coasting]

They also get longer to eat into your salary cap for little for no return and show that they were long shot hacks. So you would advocate keeping the likes of Munro and Humm on the list for long periods to show that they lack talent. Thats why they extended the rookie list, so teams could look at project players rather than making a long term commitment that gives you no value. What you are advocating could see you end up with 4 players who were maybe/maybe nots over a 2 year period. The team would start looking like Hawthorn or Richmond in a matter of 5 years.

You completely misread what I said. Actually with more delistings and more speculative picks you would always have more draftees and so have less salary cap problems. Late picks like Munro and Humm would be delisted after 2 years if they didn't show anything... NOT kept on as now... not sure where you got that from.

 

[coasting]

Or the other 20-30 odd players in between them that could be a hell of a lot worse. Both Humm and Munro were contracted last year so you would have had to
1/ pay out their contracts
2/ take a 4 out of 5 chance at picking a dud
3/ pay that long shot for 2 years if he was a dud.

Makes sense.

They were only contracted because we have a low turnover! Munro was taken in 1999 and Humm in 2000. They both could have been delisted several years ago and we could have bought in other players and accessed them by now and delisted again if they weren't any good.

 

[Streaker]

They were only contracted because we have a low turnover! Munro was taken in 1999 and Humm in 2000. They both could have been delisted several years ago and we could have bought in other players and accessed them by now and delisted again if they weren't any good.

Not relevant. Munro wasn't a 4 out of 5 longshot like you are talking about taking. He was an early draft pick and was given an opportunity, an opportunity he deserved, an opportunity you would have used for a long shot anyway.

Jeremy Humm was taken as a long shot and should have been delisted in 2002 but wasn't. In 2002 we went deep into the draft and took Adam Selwood with pick 53 so our next pick would have been at 68. Would you have taken the risk? Might as well have re-drafted a has been like Mick Martyn for another year.

The fact is the further down the draft you go the bigger the risk you take. If you don't have to take that risk then why bother. It's like going to the racetrack and betting $100 on each horse over 100-1, sure you might win every now and then but you are guaranteed to lose more often than not.

 

[coasting]

Munro wasn't a 4 out of 5 longshot like you are talking about taking. He was an early draft pick and was given an opportunity, an opportunity he deserved, an opportunity you would have used for a long shot anyway.

Jeremy Humm was taken as a long shot and should have been delisted in 2002 but wasn't. In 2002 we went deep into the draft and took Adam Selwood with pick 53 so our next pick would have been at 68. Would you have taken the risk? Might as well have re-drafted a has been like Mick Martyn for another year.

The fact is the further down the draft you go the bigger the risk you take. If you don't have to take that risk then why bother. It's like going to the racetrack and betting $100 on each horse over 100-1, sure you might win every now and then but you are guaranteed to lose more often than not.

Erm... Kane Munro a high pick? while Humm was a long shot? How do you figure that when Munro was the 41st player taken in the 1999 draft while Humm was the 36th player in the 2000 draft? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Adam Selwood (pick 53) proves exactly my point about punting on later players who have the talent but slip for some reason (injuries in Selwoods case). Your Mick Martyn reference was outright pathetic and added nothing to this debate. Crow-mosone and myself have explained the point several times over and if you still can't understand what I meant by the drawbacks (of not using late picks on speculative drafting) by now then i'm afraid you never will.

 

[Streaker]

You only end up with a team full of duds if you are unwilling to delist the late picks that don't work out.

You are saying that we should take chances on long shots and then delist them after 2 years rather than taking the safe option. Explain your criteria for delisting a player.

 

[Streaker]

Munro was the 41st player taken in the 1999 draft while Humm was the 36th player in the 2000 draft? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Adam Selwood (pick 53) proves exactly my point about punting on later players who have the talent but slip for some reason (injuries in Selwoods case).

Well actually It is Munro and Humm that show that the point you are making is misguided. These are the players who under your recruiting policy would end up on our list. What would your criteria be to delist a player? You came up with a list of 6 players earlier on. What about the other 20 - 30 in between those 6 players who ended up being crap? Again you would have us drafting them on speculation.

Your Mick Martyn reference was outright pathetic and added nothing to this debate. Crow-mosone and myself have explained the point several times over and if you still can't understand what I meant by the drawbacks (of not using late picks on speculative drafting) by now then i'm afraid you never will.

It added something to the debate in the fact that he was one of the players drafted at about the same pick we would have had in that draft. Crow-mosone and yourself are like 2 peas in a pod. It isn't a drawback not using "speculative" picks in the draft it is common bloody sense. If you can't see that then you never will. Using "speculative" picks in the draft is almost as stupid as picking up a crap player just because he is best mates with another player, but then again you would advocate doing something like that.

 

[jess-jess]

it's an interesting topic you guys are debating. We've benefited in the past by using later picks, ie Embers but there have also been plenty of duds clubs have picked up. By only drafting the bare minimum in receint years, it has meant that we haven't drafted any speculative players while others clubs have with some gaining the rewards.

In a way though, we have speculated through our rookie list, just in a safer way if that makes any sense. If we delist a number of players and have a couple of later picks, it really is up in the air as what you'll get in return and on most occassions these picks wouldn't play in their first year anyway. By using the rookie list better, you're able to draft players, see them develop for a year and promote them after that time in the place of the players that would have been delisted a year earlier, if they have impressed. While it makes the process longer and you'll have the 'dead wood' on your list for longer, it's a much safer way of speculating, and i think we've benefited greatly from this kind of practice over the last couple of years. (i'm not sure if that makes sense, but i hope you can try to see what i'm getting out)