Strategy Rookie draft

[GHS33]

Good suggestions as historically Wells likes his SA players and he didn't take one last night (well technically Parfitt has played in SA but he is from NT). I am interested to know as I know you know the SA guys well, have you seen Liam Mackie play and if so where would you rate him?

I've seen him play for Glenelg and Sacred Heart and don't rate him as a draft chance. Very surprised he got a state combine invite.

 

[Jeff76]

I won't bother guessing this one, its clear we are all shit at this draft thing

 

[CatRiot]

As we have recruited 3 tall forwards (Black, Ravu, House), I don't see the immediate need for another tall forward. Aside from Battle, who was selected in the draft, I don't rate the rest of the KPFs left as they are not very strong at contested marking.

The best KPDs in Logue and B Cox were taken by Fremantle, and geez, they will have a decent spine after recruiting McCarthy and Kersten along side the two best KPDs in this draft. They did well, and will be a good team again in 2 years. So I see no options for KPDs remaining.

We've recruited 2 decent medium defenders in Stewart and Tuohy, along with Ruggles being upgraded. We seem to have some depth there. However, its the part of the list that will turnover the most in the next year, and we probably lack a development HPF/BP, so we could go another. Sam Walker looks like a good kick and mark. Jamie Hampton has speed and can accumulate from the back half, and might be like a Wojo type, whereas Whimpress can zone off an intercept mark well. Bailey Morrish however, seems the best well-rounded type that can intercept mark, has speed (top 10 in repeat sprints, 20m sprints, vertical leap) and elite kicking (might lack a right foot though). In Morrish, we will have a good speedy type of defender that can break lines, setup play and intercept mark. Surprised he wasn't selected.

We still lack a pure goal sneak, and permanent Forward Pocket type. As we are in the window, I think its good to continue with the strategy of selecting ready made players if they are good enough. I have to go with 20yo, Liam Ryan from WA, kicking 40 goals from 16 games, averaging 4 marks a game in his debut at WAFL level. I liked his highlight reel, seems fast and can mark overhead. I love forwards that can mark the ball, its so critical.

Aside from that, Sam Simpson looks like a decent midfielder that will take time, and seems logical to select him at the rookie draft.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I won't bother guessing this one, its clear we are all shit at this draft thing

I predict VFL players and blokes with funny names.

 

[year of the cat]

I really respect your posts like this, even when I disagree with some of the content as I do here I really respect the effort you put in and the way you analyse the issues mate.

On the bolded I am not so sure, looking at the draft it was very instructive to me what happened beyond 40 (where we took Stewart). Mature agers went early as Cameron the WAFL ruck (who we may have wanted to take rather than Abbott) went in the 40s as did Hannan from the Dogs vfl side and then guys like the fatter Rioli (who is a rookie pick in a normal year if ever I have seen one) and a retread like DeBoer went in the 50s. By the range around where we took House and Abbott clubs were taking massive spec picks like Lewis Young and Polson and Signorello and Johnstone and if you look at what went after Abbott there are a few spec guys there. And then a lot of recruiters passed in the 70s when they didn't need to. That to me says while Twomey was selling it as a deep draft most of the clubs and recruiters didn't think that way as when they start taking lots of mature agers and spec picks towards the back end it generally is because they think the depth isn't there.

I agree that some clubs were taking speculative picks late in the draft but really only one per club from what I've seen. Players like Poholke, Maibaum, Macreadie, Himmelberg, Graham, Allison, Coll's father sons, Williamson, D. Clarke, Lyons, Garthwaite and Morrison were all taken after our speculative pick Esava at 43. So whilst the Bulldogs cherry picked a mature aged, they are probably in a better position now to having just won a flag with a young list and can afford to be a little more liberal in refining their list. I suppose it comes down to where you see Geelong's list currently? Clearly Wells still thinks we are right front and centre in winning a flag next year and into 2018. I am less optimistic.

As I said last night Geelong didn't really 'forfeit' kids, we have only pushed the selections back. Whether people like it or not we were always going to take 2 or 3 mature agers out of 10 we were never going to take 10 kids which is why I predicted we would take both of Stewart and House. So the net number of kids is the same as what it would have been it's just that instead of taking the kids last night and the mature agers on Monday we are doing it the other way around and took some mature agers last night and kids on Monday. Whether we have lost out doing that or not is hard to say until after the rookie draft.

On the rest to me there are two separate issues (and they shouldn't be lumped together). One is the strategy of trading early picks to fill needs and age gaps (which we have done) and the history of then taking some 'reaches' with the early picks we have left. While I think our trade period last year was really good I agree there is a genuine debate to be had there as to whether thats the best way to go. On the injuries I totally agree with you that is an issue I just don't have the medical data to quantify whether it's poor decisions or bad luck and whether it falls on our recruiters or medical staff but I agree it's an issue.

True, you could argue we have "only pushed the selections back" of the kids. But from a strategy point of view, if we are going to take kids at some stage in the draft, ND or rookie, surely you'd do in earlier and therefore have access to the best available talent rather and use you rookie picks on House and Abbott who will only play AFL if we are putting one or two on the long term injury list in any case? I'm not sure why, unless Wells just does not rate the talent late, strategise the way he did?

The second separate issue is our strategy of taking mature guys with our late picks and rookie picks. On this I find it interesting that for a club with good recruiters our record with rookie picks in the 90s and early 00s was very poor. I think part of it is that we were drafting too many raw roject types this is an issue because with high picks you can afford to give them 4-6 years if they need development or have injuries etc but with late or rookie picks you can really only give 2 years (maybe 3 at the most) so by drafting project types you dont get enough time to see their full development before you have to decide whether to cut them. I believe that our late pick/rookie strike rate has got a lot better (I haven't got time to do the data analysis but to my eye we are getting a better strike rate) as we are focusing on drafting either more mature age players or U18 guys who are more mature physically and therefore can show their wares better in years 1 and 2. Laidler Podsiadly Mumford Walker Burbury Simpkin Sheringham Hartman Gore Menegola Ruggles and now last night's guys are all examples of this. Now not every pick comes off but I do tend to think it's a better strategy than just picking raw spec picks with every late pick.

I haven't decided on whether I like Parfitt yet although I will say I can't agree if most people are upset that we didn't take Bolton instead. Bolton is inconsistent and often lazy and while he is a very good player I doubt he will ever become a proper midfielder at AFL level and my theory is you shouldn't be taking specialist small forwards with early picks unless their surnames are Rioli or Motlop-the data says most good small forwards are taken late. So I am pretty happy we didn't take Bolton. Battle I was more surprised we passed on but time will tell on that.

Anyway back to the rookie draft any thoughts on who/what you would like to see us take?

I agree our late picks/rookies haven't been great compared to some other clubs. Pods is a rare win from a long list. Wells receives a lot of kudos for producing the list that won us 3 flags and rightly so. But if you take the credit you should also be prepared to wear the critiques if warranted. It's not a great record he has had for a long time now. He has to get better here.

Juries out for me re Parfitt. If you put aside the injury potential then he certainly has some attractive qualities. I would have taken a few others in front but we have to wait and see before unfairly criticising here I think. I'm not sure I agree with you re Bolton. Sure, he'd likely start as a forward but he reminds me a lot of Peter Matera with his run and carry. I reckon he'd make a great outside wing type personally.

With regard to rookies I suppose I can only look at whom I liked who wasn't taken yesterday. Walker, Morrish, Duman, Dundan, LeBois, Junker, Whimpress and Stengle are some names that appeal to me.

I doubt we'll look at either LeBois or Stengle though after yesterday.

 

[AM]

"We're very excited that Sam Simpson wasn't picked and (should) get through to us at the rookie draft," list manager Stephen Wells told AAP.

"So we'll take Sam and then use another three picks.

"We'll go back and do our homework now to try and find the best group of players for us to consider."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/26/cats-crows-offer-sons-guns-afl-spot

 

[Two Planks]

Sure, he wasn't in the position of GWS, Bris or even Ess, but this was a deep draft where decent talent could be taken right to the very end. Aside from Parfitt and Narkle (jury out on Esava as he's a project that could be an inspired choice or a flop - but a risk nevertheless), Wells forfeited the opportunity to utilise the six picks he had available. Instead, for reasons I'm still struggling to understand, he took 3 VFL players from Geelong.

Now, it's been suggested we need these mature types for positional depth. I'd suggest that IF we are relying on the likes of House and Abbott to win a flag then it just isn't going to happen. Secondly if one accepts that we do need that positional depth then do it through the rookie draft - those two would have lasted until then. Abbott wouldn't have be taken in either I'd say.

To me, this draft strategy was completely ill-conceived. I'd love to listen to Wells or Scott justify it. It surely can't be on the basis of talent. No one else had these players anywhere near where they were taken. To use a yacht racing analogy, Wells has headed by himself to the other side of the course to the rest of the fleet hoping to pick up a wind shift that the forecasts suggest won't happen.

With regard to Parfitt, I'll reserve judgement but it makes me very nervous to pick up a guy with recent hip and groin issues. The Wells mantra seems to be to look at a talented, injured kid from that year who's standing is likely to fall. That's all well and good, and worked a treat with Selwood, but it's a high risk strategy and one this year that may not have been necessary. When the likes of Bolton, Battle and B.Cox are still available then there were choices out there that were physically sound that also had talent rated highly by some learned draft watchers. But, as I say, I'll bow to Wells' judgement at this stage. But if we hear of Parfitt having to be "managed" in 2017 then the alarm bells will chime.

The choice of Esava was also a little odd to me too. Another project on top of the Irish boy we've just taken. We saw Luxford failed, the Irish ruck (can't remember his name) failed. These are darts being thrown with the hope that one in five or six may hit the bulls eye. But the vision of him looks ok. He has some physical attributes that I can see would be appealing. Hopefully he can also play footy.

It will be interesting to see our approach to the rookie draft. I really have no idea what players, aside from perhaps Simpson, Wells will look at. Unfortunately though, with our picks we'll be picking late.

Sorry for the doom and gloom. I'm by nature a normally optimistic person and have been until recently since we broke the drought in 2007. But I just see more and more signs of hubris invading this club that can only end badly. I tend to think it's time for a bit of change of personal within some of the key positions within the club. Perhaps we are needing a fresh approach? Perhaps some of the current incumbents are weary or lacking the necessary drive? We will see in 2017-2019 whether I'm off the mark (I hope I'm as wrong about this by the way).

Name the 6 guys you would have picked and let us analyze them.

 

[GHS33]

With regard to Parfitt, I'll reserve judgement but it makes me very nervous to pick up a guy with recent hip and groin issues. The Wells mantra seems to be to look at a talented, injured kid from that year who's standing is likely to fall. That's all well and good, and worked a treat with Selwood, but it's a high risk strategy and one this year that may not have been necessary. When the likes of Bolton, Battle and B.Cox are still available then there were choices out there that were physically sound that also had talent rated highly by some learned draft watchers. But, as I say, I'll bow to Wells' judgement at this stage. But if we hear of Parfitt having to be "managed" in 2017 then the alarm bells will chime.

I wouldn't be too concerned re Parfitt's injury history - he recently ran a 14.6 beep test.

Lots of 16/17/18 year olds have groin problems from playing 2 or 3 games each weekend.

 

[Catsnlakers]

If we do use the 4 picks in the rookie draft, i dont want any more then 1 player over 21, as its imperitive to start stockpiling 18-20 year olds so they can develop together and grow together. It is by no means panic stations but by the end of 2018 im hoping we have debuted at least 10 players.

 

[year of the cat]

Name the 6 guys you would have picked and let us analyze them.

Fair call. If you criticise then you need to present an alternative. With the way the draft ran I'd have gone:

26 - Bolton
40 - Brennan Cox (would have been happy to take him with my first)
43 - T.Stewart (you could argue he may have gone between 40 and 43 but chances are he wouldn't)
60 - Morrison (was taken by Hawks late in draft)
68 - Sam Walker (not taken)
69 - Taylin Duman (not taken)

Nice mix of different types. All with good foot skills. Excitement machine in Bolton. I think Matera like. Provide some great outside run for us. One tall (Cox) to work with Gardner as the two talls to take us through the next decade. Two half back types with a combination of composure and run in Walker and Morrison. Stewart to be the ready made replacement that we currently need with Tuohy. And a versatile, running half forward type in Duman.

 

[dazbroncos]

Sure, he wasn't in the position of GWS, Bris or even Ess, but this was a deep draft where decent talent could be taken right to the very end. Aside from Parfitt and Narkle (jury out on Esava as he's a project that could be an inspired choice or a flop - but a risk nevertheless), Wells forfeited the opportunity to utilise the six picks he had available. Instead, for reasons I'm still struggling to understand, he took 3 VFL players from Geelong.

Now, it's been suggested we need these mature types for positional depth. I'd suggest that IF we are relying on the likes of House and Abbott to win a flag then it just isn't going to happen. Secondly if one accepts that we do need that positional depth then do it through the rookie draft - those two would have lasted until then. Abbott wouldn't have be taken in either I'd say.

To me, this draft strategy was completely ill-conceived. I'd love to listen to Wells or Scott justify it. It surely can't be on the basis of talent. No one else had these players anywhere near where they were taken. To use a yacht racing analogy, Wells has headed by himself to the other side of the course to the rest of the fleet hoping to pick up a wind shift that the forecasts suggest won't happen.

With regard to Parfitt, I'll reserve judgement but it makes me very nervous to pick up a guy with recent hip and groin issues. The Wells mantra seems to be to look at a talented, injured kid from that year who's standing is likely to fall. That's all well and good, and worked a treat with Selwood, but it's a high risk strategy and one this year that may not have been necessary. When the likes of Bolton, Battle and B.Cox are still available then there were choices out there that were physically sound that also had talent rated highly by some learned draft watchers. But, as I say, I'll bow to Wells' judgement at this stage. But if we hear of Parfitt having to be "managed" in 2017 then the alarm bells will chime.

The choice of Esava was also a little odd to me too. Another project on top of the Irish boy we've just taken. We saw Luxford failed, the Irish ruck (can't remember his name) failed. These are darts being thrown with the hope that one in five or six may hit the bulls eye. But the vision of him looks ok. He has some physical attributes that I can see would be appealing. Hopefully he can also play footy.

It will be interesting to see our approach to the rookie draft. I really have no idea what players, aside from perhaps Simpson, Wells will look at. Unfortunately though, with our picks we'll be picking late.

Sorry for the doom and gloom. I'm by nature a normally optimistic person and have been until recently since we broke the drought in 2007. But I just see more and more signs of hubris invading this club that can only end badly. I tend to think it's time for a bit of change of personal within some of the key positions within the club. Perhaps we are needing a fresh approach? Perhaps some of the current incumbents are weary or lacking the necessary drive? We will see in 2017-2019 whether I'm off the mark (I hope I'm as wrong about this by the way).

Not sure im on board with everything but even if I disagree with it - its well thought out and researched. Good stuff.


GO Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

Fair call. If you criticise then you need to present an alternative. With the way the draft ran I'd have gone:

26 - Bolton
40 - Brennan Cox (would have been happy to take him with my first)
43 - T.Stewart (you could argue he may have gone between 40 and 43 but chances are he wouldn't)
60 - Morrison (was taken by Hawks late in draft)
68 - Sam Walker (not taken)
69 - Taylin Duman (not taken)

Nice mix of different types. All with good foot skills. Excitement machine in Bolton. I think Matera like. Provide some great outside run for us. One tall (Cox) to work with Gardner as the two talls to take us through the next decade. Two half back types with a combination of composure and run in Walker and Morrison. Stewart to be the ready made replacement that we currently need with Tuohy. And a versatile, running half forward type in Duman.

Good alternative list as well.

GO Catters

 

[Two Planks]

Fair call. If you criticise then you need to present an alternative. With the way the draft ran I'd have gone:

26 - Bolton
40 - Brennan Cox (would have been happy to take him with my first)
43 - T.Stewart (you could argue he may have gone between 40 and 43 but chances are he wouldn't)
60 - Morrison (was taken by Hawks late in draft)
68 - Sam Walker (not taken)
69 - Taylin Duman (not taken)

Nice mix of different types. All with good foot skills. Excitement machine in Bolton. I think Matera like. Provide some great outside run for us. One tall (Cox) to work with Gardner as the two talls to take us through the next decade. Two half back types with a combination of composure and run in Walker and Morrison. Stewart to be the ready made replacement that we currently need with Tuohy. And a versatile, running half forward type in Duman.

Sounds good.

Lets re visit in 3 years

 

[Spazz Cat]

Hope we get Ryan from WA.
Fills a need and would be a bit of a steal.

 

[DangerIsLove]

Would love to get Jonty Scharenberg or Sam Walker
Redraft Luxford
Get Atkins
And get Sam Simpson

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Because if he actually got it right, he would have nothing to complain about.

You will note that very few of the "critics", bitter about the selections , made predictions about who we should draft.....

This post is constructive to the thread, how?

 

[David the Cat]

Its constructive insofar as if you did as I suggested then...

1) We would be better informed as to who you would have selected.... (in advance rather than in hindsight)

2)...which would lead to a better understanding of why you're so better n twisted over a draft.

Easy huh?

 

[Cursed Cat]

Sure, he wasn't in the position of GWS, Bris or even Ess, but this was a deep draft where decent talent could be taken right to the very end. Aside from Parfitt and Narkle (jury out on Esava as he's a project that could be an inspired choice or a flop - but a risk nevertheless), Wells forfeited the opportunity to utilise the six picks he had available. Instead, for reasons I'm still struggling to understand, he took 3 VFL players from Geelong.

Now, it's been suggested we need these mature types for positional depth. I'd suggest that IF we are relying on the likes of House and Abbott to win a flag then it just isn't going to happen. Secondly if one accepts that we do need that positional depth then do it through the rookie draft - those two would have lasted until then. Abbott wouldn't have be taken in either I'd say.

To me, this draft strategy was completely ill-conceived. I'd love to listen to Wells or Scott justify it. It surely can't be on the basis of talent. No one else had these players anywhere near where they were taken. To use a yacht racing analogy, Wells has headed by himself to the other side of the course to the rest of the fleet hoping to pick up a wind shift that the forecasts suggest won't happen.

With regard to Parfitt, I'll reserve judgement but it makes me very nervous to pick up a guy with recent hip and groin issues. The Wells mantra seems to be to look at a talented, injured kid from that year who's standing is likely to fall. That's all well and good, and worked a treat with Selwood, but it's a high risk strategy and one this year that may not have been necessary. When the likes of Bolton, Battle and B.Cox are still available then there were choices out there that were physically sound that also had talent rated highly by some learned draft watchers. But, as I say, I'll bow to Wells' judgement at this stage. But if we hear of Parfitt having to be "managed" in 2017 then the alarm bells will chime.

The choice of Esava was also a little odd to me too. Another project on top of the Irish boy we've just taken. We saw Luxford failed, the Irish ruck (can't remember his name) failed. These are darts being thrown with the hope that one in five or six may hit the bulls eye. But the vision of him looks ok. He has some physical attributes that I can see would be appealing. Hopefully he can also play footy.

It will be interesting to see our approach to the rookie draft. I really have no idea what players, aside from perhaps Simpson, Wells will look at. Unfortunately though, with our picks we'll be picking late.

Sorry for the doom and gloom. I'm by nature a normally optimistic person and have been until recently since we broke the drought in 2007. But I just see more and more signs of hubris invading this club that can only end badly. I tend to think it's time for a bit of change of personal within some of the key positions within the club. Perhaps we are needing a fresh approach? Perhaps some of the current incumbents are weary or lacking the necessary drive? We will see in 2017-2019 whether I'm off the mark (I hope I'm as wrong about this by the way).

Good post, I do get where you are coming from, not that I necessarily agree though.
I am all for a fresh approach if and when the current approach is proven to have failed - no problem there.
But taking a look back since '07 at National Draft selections taken after #50 makes for some pretty sobering reading.
We've got a handful who have made a small contribution and maybe only Pods is the only unqualified success (McCarthy Cowan and the 2015 group still have time on their side to be fair).

'07 Dan McKenna (#50), Adam Donohue (#60)
'09 Josh Cowan (#56) Jeremy Laidler (#65)
'10 Jordan Schroder (#54), James Podsiadly (#58)
'11 Lincoln McCarthy (#66), Orren Stephenson (#78), Jed Bews (#86)
'12 Bradley Hartman (#77), Jeremy Stringer (#92)
'13 Josh Walker (#54), George Burbury (#63)
'14 Dean Gore (#55), Jordan Cunico (#59)

So, having a bunch of selections after #50 is unlikely to do much for lifting the list profile based on that evidence - whereas the club has had some success at the draft with 100+ game players drafted sub-#40, e.g. Duncan, Motlop, Guthrie, Harry Taylor.
It makes perfect sense that the higher end draft picks are the better players - not always, but usually.
So going into this draft with 3 selections above #60 never filled me with much confidence that the players chosen would end up any better than say Jordan Schroder.
And how do you, or anyone, *know* that House, Abbott or Stewart weren't on any other clubs radars? We just don't. Maybe the club knew something. Maybe they weren't confident that these players - who I rate as decent prospects, having seen them play against men at VFL level - would last until the Rookie Draft?

I'm less sure about the younger players drafted earlier in the draft, but at least we had those early-ish picks to actually spend on speculative young talent.

But history shows that if you're gonna hit the draft hard, then it's a concentrated group of picks from #40's and below that'll give you your best chance at adding a group of up n comers to the list. The later picks are a raffle, and in a way I can understand why the club chose to use them on known quantities ..

 

[pussygalore]

Would love to get Jonty Scharenberg or Sam Walker
Redraft Luxford
Get Atkins
And get Sam Simpson

I'm thinking along similar lines.

Amusing reading some player comparsions:
Luke Bunker = Matt Priddis
Zach Sproule = Nick Riewoldt

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Cmon mate. A) after taking 3 mature players it's unlikely we will take another 3 as rookies and b) you are better than that as you are good on the analysis so I would like to hear your thoughts as to what and who you think we will be after.

I think with late rookie picks (16 32 48 and 64 the last of which will be Sam Simspon) we may look to needs a bit. I reckon we are well set for small forwards with Narkle and Sam Simpson adding to McCarthy and Gregson and we are reasonably well stocked for tall and medium defenders with Stewart adding to that group. House is more of a KPF than Kersten who was a third tall and I know Black seems to think he is a third tall but he is fairly injury prone if we are talking backups for Menzel so I would like to see us look at another medium forward. Wouldn't mind a skilled ball carrying outside midfielder too so we have some options in the event Motlop doesn't return to his AA form or Murdoch doesn't come back to some of his better 13/14 form. Think we are well set enough for rucks now and the midfield bats reasonably deep.

Was trying to think what need was important. Outside mid does seem an area worth another player. Who should we pick/who would be available.

You were pretty keen on bidding on Sproule, should we go for him.
Personally, with a mature age ruck I'd love to rookie a beenpole 18yo. Not up to speed to know if there is one though.

 

[Larry Donohue]

Sproule
Walker
LeBois
Simpson

 

[Two Planks]

Cavarra
Henry
Sexton
Simpson

 

[catswhiskers]

Would love to get Jonty Scharenberg or Sam Walker
Redraft Luxford
Get Atkins
And get Sam Simpson

Without naming :
1st pick ------known U18 player best of who is there.
2nd ----- if still there I would prefer Sexton but if not Atkins or Tsitas.
3rd ----- speccy pick of kid from deep country a la Hayball/Hartman (I Know they were main list picks- but of that very raw type)
4th ------ Simpson

Luxford was close but stalled and we have to turn over speculative picks a bit quicker than we have done (like Cornell).
At end of next year I would expect to delist 2 or 3 of the picks from House to Simpson. 30 -50%.

 

[catswhiskers]

Cavarra
Henry
Sexton
Simpson

Yep would be happy with Cavarra. Also reckon Delaney is a chance to be re rookied he is a big KPD - Lonergan size. Was travelling alright injury wise.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Was trying to think what need was important. Outside mid does seem an area worth another player. Who should we pick/who would be available.

You were pretty keen on bidding on Sproule, should we go for him.
Personally, with a mature age ruck I'd love to rookie a beenpole 18yo. Not up to speed to know if there is one though.

The only issue is giants can add sproule as a priority rookie if he agrees (like with us and simpson so we wont get a crack at him).

I think the backline has good depth now and the inside mids are good and obviously we have got in 2 mature kpf (black and house) and a backup ruck. I still feel our forward line is uncertain and dependent on hawkins menzel and motlop. So i would like a medium forward to backup menzel and an outside mid/hff to give us a ball carrying option besides motlop.

Henry from the falcons i wouldnt mind for the former havent decided who for the latter.