Reid - "Crows in middle of a 4 year rebuild."

[1970crow]

Why not set the market with regard to the deal that we know that Port could cut? We could have had the currency with relatively low pain moves like: not re-signing Lynch.

There is a very very good chance that Rozee will have a career as good or better than Jones, McHenry, and McAsey combined. One elite player is worth far more than three alrights.

I see a little more in Jones and McAsey, but that's not really in the discussion. Port are a better football dept than us. They aren't petrified of SA players leaving, so shrugged their shoulders and moved on when Chad didn't respond as hoped to his exit interview and polec expected to cash in for 5 based on a contract year uplift They got the assets required to get ahead of us and once they did that, I'm happy enough not trading with Saints. But would have moved Lynch on regardless.

We'd have probably grabbed King anyway and he'd be heading home end of this year.

 

[Trigger13]

This rumour about Trigg returning to the board is a concern. Wouldn’t put it past this insipid club.

 

[1970crow]

This rumour about Trigg returning to the board is a concern. Wouldn’t put it past this insipid club.

Knowing our club, it could just be a shot across the bow of the agitators. "You want board change, no worries, be careful what you wish for though"

 

[Southerntakeover]

No, we just don't think that it was possible to know the ending 5 minutes into the movie.

Did you guess that Vader was Luke's father, when he was still running around on Dagobar, learning how to be a Jedi?

Yes, but also I'm not a boomer.

 

[thebirdman 24]

What? Please * no. Just no.

I'm already out as a member but this would push me out completely. I'll go back to watching local footy.

This rumour about Trigg returning to the board is a concern. Wouldn’t put it past this insipid club.

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Trigger13]

What? Please fu** no. Just no.

I'm already out as a member but this would push me out completely. I'll go back to watching local footy.

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

I’m right behind you. Would be the last straw.

 

[Danger_zone]

Giving this thread a bump. A lot of us thought he was drinking the Kool-aid with this statement.

Given last few matches, our rookies have been exceeding our expectations. We've used a huge number of rookies from previous drafts:

• 2016: Himmel
• 2017: Mcpherson, Fog
• 2018: Jones, Mchenry, Sholl, Hamil, Butts
• 2019: Schoenberg, Mcasey,

We still havent seen Worrel/Occonor debut yet. And we have a huge draft haul this year (3 potential top 10 picks), 5 in the top 30.

Reid's statement is closer to the mark than I thought, which is a bloody nice feeling.

 

[Vhaluus]

I think the statement was a bullshit cover that has just happened to come true because they were forced to play the kids and realized what a good job our recruiters have actually been doing.

 

[Jarman3]

Giving this thread a bump. A lot of us thought he was drinking the Kool-aid with this statement.

Given last few matches, our rookies have been exceeding our expectations. We've used a huge number of rookies from previous drafts:

• 2016: Himmel
• 2017: Mcpherson, Fog
• 2018: Jones, Mchenry, Sholl, Hamil, Butts
• 2019: Schoenberg, Mcasey,

We still havent seen Worrel/Occonor debut yet. And we have a huge draft haul this year (3 potential top 10 picks), 5 in the top 30.

Reid's statement is closer to the mark than I thought, which is a bloody nice feeling.

I'll feel a lot nicer about it if we see the form of our last month this year carry into the first month next year. I want to see some evidence that this is actually a sustainable trajectory rather than just a late-season blip.

 

[latinoheat]

I'll feel a lot nicer about it if we see the form of our last month this year carry into the first month next year. I want to see some evidence that this is actually a sustainable trajectory rather than just a late-season blip.

Agree . Also like to see McHenry and Jones get more of the ball.

 

[moogerfooger]

Not to be too much of a wet blanket but:

1) many rebuilding clubs regress when they lose their second wave of experienced players
2) cheap wins at the back end of the season can be a mirage, see North and Carlton 2019. all three teams we've beaten have been in very poor or very inconsistent form

Time will tell.

 

[Golumless]

Definitely a bullshit statement. That said, to steal a phrase that has caused a lot of pain and misery for an unnamed club, there are certainly some green shoots.

A long way to go though before we're through these woods though.

 

[Jarman3]

Not to be too much of a wet blanket but:

1) many rebuilding clubs regress when they lose their second wave of experienced players
2) cheap wins at the back end of the season can be a mirage, see North and Carlton 2019. all three teams we've beaten have been in very poor or very inconsistent form

Time will tell.

The North and Carlton resurgences last year could at least partly be put down to the new-coach bounce that teams often get when they sack the coach mid-season. Caretakers often end up having a much better winning percentage in that part-season when they're caretaker than they ever do once they become senior coach in their own right.

Given that we changed coach during the off season and it took 14 games for Nicks to get on the board, I think we can probably rule out the new-coach bounce as being a factor.

 

[Vhaluus]

The North and Carlton resurgences last year could at least partly be put down to the new-coach bounce that teams often get when they sack the coach mid-season. Caretakers often end up having a much better winning percentage in that part-season when they're caretaker than they ever do once they become senior coach in their own right.

Given that we changed coach during the off season and it took 14 games for Nicks to get on the board, I think we can probably rule out the new-coach bounce as being a factor.

Changing a coach during the off season is actually a bit of an oddity nowdays. Particularly when it isn't part of a planned succession.

 

[Brett Cummings]

I expect to start plaing finals in 2022. Next year would be nice but we could be a bit inexperienced. Idk but the last month of footy has got me very positive.

 

[DJ75]

Not to be too much of a wet blanket but:

1) many rebuilding clubs regress when they lose their second wave of experienced players
2) cheap wins at the back end of the season can be a mirage, see North and Carlton 2019. all three teams we've beaten have been in very poor or very inconsistent form

Time will tell.

This worries me massively. The 3 wins are nice and all, but our club is just stupid enough to see it as a sign we can play finals next year and change direction to push for it. The wins mean nothing other than a little confidence for the playing group. That's it.

We should maintain our direction and commitment to the rebuild. B Crouch should be let go. I bet we re-sign him to a long deal though. We really need to look at what our team will be in 5 years, not in 2021. Please AFC, stick with the long term plan and don't get seduced by meaningless games.

Also, are we the only team in history that actively works against our own good?

2018 - kept pushing for finals when we had a great draft hand. Cost ourselves elite players and player development.
2019 - kept pushing for wins with same core group, even though we were never playing finals. Cost ourselves draft position and player development.
2020 - win 3 games at end of season and risk pick 1 and PSD position.

Are we really that dumb?

 

[Brett Cummings]

This worries me massively. The 3 wins are nice and all, but our club is just stupid enough to see it as a sign we can play finals next year and change direction to push for it. The wins mean nothing other than a little confidence for the playing group. That's it.

We should maintain our direction and commitment to the rebuild. B Crouch should be let go. I bet we re-sign him to a long deal though. We really need to look at what our team will be in 5 years, not in 2021. Please AFC, stick with the long term plan and don't get seduced by meaningless games.

Also, are we the only team in history that actively works against our own good?

2018 - kept pushing for finals when we had a great draft hand. Cost ourselves elite players and player development.
2019 - kept pushing for wins with same core group, even though we were never playing finals. Cost ourselves draft position and player development.
2020 - win 3 games at end of season and risk pick 1 and PSD position.

Are we really that dumb?

Umm, you always play to win. Getting seduced about what? Enjoying winning games? They still may not be good enough to make finals but what do you want them to do next year? Tank? Not trying to win is a terrible attitude to have.

 

[Jarman3]

Changing a coach during the off season is actually a bit of an oddity nowdays. Particularly when it isn't part of a planned succession.

And probably with good reason - when you leave it as late as we did, you risk missing out on good candidates who have already been snapped up by other clubs looking for new coaches, and by the time you appoint one as late as we appointed Nicks you are also too late to build a coaching panel around him because all of the good assistants are also already contracted for the following year. Which is why Nicks got stuck with basically the same panel (sans Campo) this year that Pyke had last year.

 

[Golumless]

This worries me massively. The 3 wins are nice and all, but our club is just stupid enough to see it as a sign we can play finals next year and change direction to push for it. The wins mean nothing other than a little confidence for the playing group. That's it.

We should maintain our direction and commitment to the rebuild. B Crouch should be let go. I bet we re-sign him to a long deal though. We really need to look at what our team will be in 5 years, not in 2021. Please AFC, stick with the long term plan and don't get seduced by meaningless games.

Also, are we the only team in history that actively works against our own good?

2018 - kept pushing for finals when we had a great draft hand. Cost ourselves elite players and player development.
2019 - kept pushing for wins with same core group, even though we were never playing finals. Cost ourselves draft position and player development.
2020 - win 3 games at end of season and risk pick 1 and PSD position.

Are we really that dumb?

Is there a more overrated commodity in AFL in draft picks?

We didn't cost ourselves elite players by trying to win games and getting pick 9 instead of pick 6. That's bullshit and doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. If we cost ourselves elite players we have done so by who we've drafted and how we've developed them. Right now the best midfielder in the league was pick 58 in his draft year.

No pick guarantees elite players and you'd find the best case scenario for a pick translating into an elite player is around 30% remembering an analysis done a while back on here. If I also remember correctly, the most likely pick to get an elite player is pick 3, not 1.

Teams wouldn't fail rebuilds if draft picks were worth what they are hyped up to be.

 

[Vhaluus]

Is there a more overrated commodity in AFL in draft picks?

We didn't cost ourselves elite players by trying to win games and getting pick 9 instead of pick 6. That's bullshit and doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. If we cost ourselves elite players we have done so by who we've drafted and how we've developed them. Right now the best midfielder in the league was pick 58 in his draft year.

No pick guarantees elite players and you'd find the best case scenario for a pick translating into an elite player is around 30% remembering an analysis done a while back on here. If I also remember correctly, the most likely pick to get an elite player is pick 3, not 1.

Teams wouldn't fail rebuilds if draft picks were worth what they are hyped up to be.

Do you understand how probability works?

The sooner in the draft a player is taken the higher the average number of games played is. Also the greater chance of reaching various thresholds of output within their career.

Of course the draft isn't a slam dunk, if it was there wouldn't be all this talk and debate and retrospective analysis.

 

[Golumless]

Do you understand how probability works?

The sooner in the draft a player is taken the higher the average number of games played is. Also the greater chance of reaching various thresholds of output within their career.

Of course the draft isn't a slam dunk, if it was there wouldn't be all this talk and debate and retrospective analysis.

Don't worry, I do understand how probability works. However whilst it is a factor, this isn't a question of just probability, because there are external factors which play a key role as to why a pick hits the heights they should or don't which are more important than the pick number itself. Think of all the pick 1s who ended up at Carlton, Gold Coast, Saints or Melbourne over the past decade. Not many of them hit the heights they should have for a myriad of reasons. If it was just probability, failures would be a lot more randomised between clubs, not localised to teams who are a basketcase.

Yup, because said player is given a longer leash to succeed, because the club they are at is s**t at that point in time. That means little to whether a player gets to the superstar level he/she is touted as. There are plenty of high picks which go on as well as plateau. After all no one who has false hope in the draft (which the post I responded to had, saying we should have lost more when there is frankly no guarantee that changes anything, we might have picked Jones at 7 instead of 9 for example) is thinking pick 1 gives a long career like what Watts, Kruezer, Scully etc has produced.

We've in the end taken different routes to the same answer: the draft is not a slam dunk. I am comfortable going one step further and saying it should not be seen as the magical answer to solving all the clubs problems, because frankly it cannot and will not do that. Its only one part of the equation to a successful club, and pick numbers are only a fraction of that part of the equation. Having a club with its s**t sorted off-field and a good eye for talent is certainly much more important part to it.

 

[Thetrader15]

Definitely a bullshit statement. That said, to steal a phrase that has caused a lot of pain and misery for an unnamed club, there are certainly some green shoots.

A long way to go though before we're through these woods though.

It smells like we are cooking something good...

 

[Scorpus]

Is there a more overrated commodity in AFL in draft picks?

We didn't cost ourselves elite players by trying to win games and getting pick 9 instead of pick 6. That's bullshit and doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. If we cost ourselves elite players we have done so by who we've drafted and how we've developed them. Right now the best midfielder in the league was pick 58 in his draft year.

No pick guarantees elite players and you'd find the best case scenario for a pick translating into an elite player is around 30% remembering an analysis done a while back on here. If I also remember correctly, the most likely pick to get an elite player is pick 3, not 1.

Teams wouldn't fail rebuilds if draft picks were worth what they are hyped up to be.

We didn't cost ourselves elite players by getting pick 9 instead of pick 6

But we did cost ourselves a premiership by building a squad that's only been capable of two top 4 finishes since 2006, instead prioritizing making the finals (which we did in places 5-8 on five other occasions).

Finishing mid table, or worse, in places 5-8, does cost you access to elite talent relative to finishing very low and has affected our success.

There is no point planning to just win games in a given year or make the finals. There should be a specific plan to have a squad for winning the premiership and sustained top 4 finishes. That means in the first few years of the rebuild, spending time assessing the list and getting experience into players for the future, instead of dumping in senior bodies to increase that win count.

 

[GrommoT]

Giving this thread a bump. A lot of us thought he was drinking the Kool-aid with this statement.

Given last few matches, our rookies have been exceeding our expectations. We've used a huge number of rookies from previous drafts:

• 2016: Himmel
• 2017: Mcpherson, Fog
• 2018: Jones, Mchenry, Sholl, Hamil, Butts
• 2019: Schoenberg, Mcasey,

We still havent seen Worrel/Occonor debut yet. And we have a huge draft haul this year (3 potential top 10 picks), 5 in the top 30.

Reid's statement is closer to the mark than I thought, which is a bloody nice feeling.

There's also Gollant from 2019 - and also traded in McAdam (kind of young) and Stengle in 2018.

Although it's never nice to have players wanting out of the club, the bright side of players like Cameron, Lever and McNuggets leaving gave us more higher end draft picks than we usually get (even more if it wasn't for the Gibbs trade).

So we've been drafting/trading in lots of youth and not playing them much as we were chasing the ladder. It seemed like we've been stockpiling youth since 2018 and I'm hoping Hamish has made wise and shrewd draft selections.

Maybe they didn't plan it that way but I think Reid isn't wrong to say we have gone a long way to bringing in players needed for our rebuild over the last two years.

So to recap, Mcpherson, Fog, Jones, Mchenry, Sholl, Hamil, Butts, Schoenberg, Mcasey, Worrell, OConnor, Gollant, McAdam and Stengle over the last two years is a big turnover - and I think we mostly feel optimistic about all of them.

[and Keays as well, I guess]

 

[IddyBiddy]

Do you understand how probability works?

The sooner in the draft a player is taken the higher the average number of games played is. Also the greater chance of reaching various thresholds of output within their career.

Of course the draft isn't a slam dunk, if it was there wouldn't be all this talk and debate and retrospective analysis.

Just on this, these boards do, by and large, over value draft picks. Too many posters on here see players like they do cars, once drafted they quickly depreciate in value and if they're not superstars within 2 years then they're a bust. These boards have made fools of a lot of people but the inconsequential nature of their remarks mean too many just keep throwing darts.

To your comment however, you're correct, to a point. The absolute pointy end of the draft - picks 1-3 and perhaps 1-5, give you a strong probability differentiator - ie. 200 games and excess return on investment compared with peers taken after. However, you’re as likely to pick a 100 game player with pick 20 as you are pick 6 and their overall career impact will be close on par. That’s why we see clubs trading for more picks across the first two rounds of the draft than those chasing single top ten picks.

The biggest question we have this year is on Crouch. He will be 27 next season and not yet at 100 games. He'd have to play most every game for the next five years to become a 200 game player at which point he's 32-33 and output has dropped. When Brad's career is ending, a likely pick 2 this year will be coming into their prime with a full further likely 5 years ahead of them (minimum). That's what probability suggests. We should allow Crouch to walk if we believe we have enough other senior capacity to protect a young list. Carlton and Melbourne are both cautionary tales with killing high drafted picks due to lack of senior mentorship and development. Nothing makes a top 5 draft pick an outlier quicker than lowering the mean age and games too far.