Superdraft

[Kenny_01]

I wrote this on the mainboard but thought I'd copy it here for discussion amongst Docker supporters. I don't think pick 13 is a sure bet by any means and the match comittee did what was best given where we are at.

--

So after losing our pick 13 to secure Chris Tarrant, most on Bigfooty have been having a dip at Freo of trading such a high pick in this superdraft.

But in reality, draft picks are far more riskier than taking a proven player in Tarrant, even if the draft is a superdraft.

If you look back at the draft in 2001 which also was marked as a superdraft, only about 5 of the 20 players drafted in the top 20 are performing at a level as good as Tarrants, or higher. To suggest that pick 13 is a certainty to grab a very good player is really a baseless statement. A 17 year old is always going to be a risky prospect and while you might find a gem, you are equally as likely to find a dud.

"Superdrafts" also can run really deep so you are a decent chance to find players with later picks. The difference between the top 20 minus the top select few and the next 20 after that and the 20 after that is not as great as one would think, as evidence in the 2001 draft.

The Dockers are obviously aiming for a premiership so they felt obtaining Tarrant will really help ease the burden on Pavlich because he won't get 2 defenders. They thought Tarrant's game will suit Subiaco and he have all seen how effective Tarrant's game is when he is allowed to lead out and run all day. He sets up many goals, takes a lot of marks and isn't exposed to one of his weaknesses which is kicking for goal. The simple fact is that players of Tarrant's ilk and age hardly ever become available at the trade table.

He might be a risk to take but I think you will find he is a less riskier prospect than pick 13. I think the popular Bigfooty opinion of using losing in tradeweek is quite unfounded and I think it has more to do with the blunder we made in 2001 when we traded our first pick. We clearly have our goal are pursuing that agressively; we're not going to die wondering.

 

[Freo95]

Imo the draft is ideal for a club who is wanting to rebuild.
Our time is now, a bit of fine tuning is all we needed. CC has done that now. I have faith in the decisions the FFC make in regards to recruiting etc. I'm very happy to get tarrant & solomon, cant wait for next year!
Bring on 2007!

 

[ImperialPurple]

Yeah exactly kenny. People comparing this to Croad in 2001 - well I'm not sure what they are thinking.

In 2001 we were coming off a 2-20 wooden spoon season, were $8mil in debt, and were desperate for members and some sort of profile in the wider community.
In 2006 we are coming off a 16-9 PF appearance, making $1mil profits, have record membership and are pushing for a flag.

The difference is so enormous that to call it chalk and cheese is understating it.

The players - Croad was a 21 year old with potential, didn't want to leave Hawthorn, certainly didn't want to come to WA, and basically walked into an ambush fuelled by supporter expectation and the media's bloodthirst.

Tarrant is 26 year old proven former AA, who asked to be traded from his club with WA his preferred destination. He's used to dealing with scrutiny by the media, and he won't have the huge expectations by the supporters (I wouldn't think), as we have other proven stars in our team now, led by Pav. He won't be expected to do it all alone (as Croad was), he won't be seen as the "messiah" (as Croad was), he'll just be another piece in the puzzle.

Pick 13 could be awesome, or could be a total dud. Even pick 1s won't necessarily be a superstar - look at Goddard as a recent example. A good player, but no champion. Look at Des - same again.

Like Kenny said - at least they haven't "played it safe", and CC certainly won't die wondering. Good on him - he has my support.

 

[Borry]

It's not about how long the window of opportunity is there is whether the team can grab the opportunities when they are there and make the most of them.

Freo obviously seem to take the attitude of a team that is seeing this.

 

[Ysaye]

I wrote this on the mainboard but thought I'd copy it here for discussion amongst Docker supporters. I don't think pick 13 is a sure bet by any means and the match comittee did what was best given where we are at.

--

So after losing our pick 13 to secure Chris Tarrant, most on Bigfooty have been having a dip at Freo of trading such a high pick in this superdraft.

But in reality, draft picks are far more riskier than taking a proven player in Tarrant, even if the draft is a superdraft.

If you look back at the draft in 2001 which also was marked as a superdraft, only about 5 of the 20 players drafted in the top 20 are performing at a level as good as Tarrants, or higher. To suggest that pick 13 is a certainty to grab a very good player is really a baseless statement. A 17 year old is always going to be a risky prospect and while you might find a gem, you are equally as likely to find a dud.

"Superdrafts" also can run really deep so you are a decent chance to find players with later picks. The difference between the top 20 minus the top select few and the next 20 after that and the 20 after that is not as great as one would think, as evidence in the 2001 draft.

The Dockers are obviously aiming for a premiership so they felt obtaining Tarrant will really help ease the burden on Pavlich because he won't get 2 defenders. They thought Tarrant's game will suit Subiaco and he have all seen how effective Tarrant's game is when he is allowed to lead out and run all day. He sets up many goals, takes a lot of marks and isn't exposed to one of his weaknesses which is kicking for goal. The simple fact is that players of Tarrant's ilk and age hardly ever become available at the trade table.

He might be a risk to take but I think you will find he is a less riskier prospect than pick 13. I think the popular Bigfooty opinion of using losing in tradeweek is quite unfounded and I think it has more to do with the blunder we made in 2001 when we traded our first pick. We clearly have our goal are pursuing that agressively; we're not going to die wondering.

I accept he might be a less of a risk in terms of pure player for player value but is he what we need to be successful?

It is the same deal for the last few years - we recruit to get good players with minimum risk. What we need to be successful as a team doesn't seem to come into it.

Under our current recruiting strategy, if we had the five best ruckmen in the competition, and the best player available at our first pick or that we could trade for was a ruckmen, then logically we would draft another ruckmen. Its like increasing the speed of a racing car without matching it with better control. We recruit what we require later in the draft, where there is even less probability that we will be successful.

I just don't see how it is a successful recruiting strategy in terms of becoming a better side. In the overall scheme of things it gives our forward line a little bit more strength, but doesn't improve our midfield weakness. The midfield is all crucial to success, there are so many recent examples of sides with super forward lines that can't get the ball to there forwards. Having a big set of forwards with a weak midfield is like having lots of RAM but a small Cache - the cache limits the effect of the RAM.

You can argue that Solomon does (If you agree with the moving of backmen into he midfield), but I would have thought that if we were going to do that, a far safer and cheaper way would be to get fit Antony Grovers and Scott Thorntons and put them in back in the backline (I would be interested to know how many people rate Solomon better than those two).

Sure; our trading was aggressive, but I argue it lacks focus.

 

[Roundhouse]

I accept he might be a less of a risk in terms of pure player for player value but is he what we need to be successful?

It is the same deal for the last few years - we recruit to get good players with minimum risk. What we need to be successful as a team doesn't seem to come into it.

Under our current recruiting strategy, if we had the five best ruckmen in the competition, and the best player available at our first pick or that we could trade for was a ruckmen, then logically we would draft another ruckmen. Its like increasing the speed of a racing car without matching it with better control. We recruit what we require later in the draft, where there is even less probability that we will be successful.

I just don't see how it is a successful recruiting strategy in terms of becoming a better side. In the overall scheme of things it gives our forward line a little bit more strength, but doesn't improve our midfield weakness. The midfield is all crucial to success, there are so many recent examples of sides with super forward lines that can't get the ball to there forwards. Having a big set of forwards with a weak midfield is like having lots of RAM but a small Cache - the cache limits the effect of the RAM.

You can argue that Solomon does (If you agree with the moving of backmen into he midfield), but I would have thought that if we were going to do that, a far safer and cheaper way would be to get fit Antony Grovers and Scott Thorntons and put them in back in the backline (I would be interested to know how many people rate Solomon better than those two).

Sure; our trading was aggressive, but I argue it lacks focus.

I see where you are coming from Ysaye, but I have to disagree.

I think the club does try to recruit to fill our needs, but they employ a talent vs talent comparison as an over-rider when making the final decisions.

As far as the Midfield Weakness vs Forward Line strength debate goes, I think a lot of people underrate our midfield stocks to be honest. I think our terrible clearance record earlier on the year was partly the result of playing Hase (our best clearance winner) when unfit, and having to rejig our midfield set-up when he was missing. I'm not saying that our midfield success is completely reliant on Hase's fitness, I'm just saying that when you lose you best ball getter, it takes a while for other players to adjust into new roles. JLo is also one of our best clearance winners, and his injury problems hurt us in this area as well.

Also, getting Tarrant means that Pav can contest more stoppages in the middle, or the forward half, and getting Solomon means that Mundy, Dodd, Drum and Co can contest more stoppages in the back half.

I can understand the midfield concerns, but I think we are far from panic stations. We beat the "unstoppable" Weagle midfield twice this year when we were firing on only three cylinders. With clearances being the focus of planning throughout pre-season training, and heaps of improvement to come from within the current group, we are going to have one of the better performed midfields in the comp next year. I guarantee it!

 

[rowdy3012]

I like the trade. Looking at the loss to Sydney we need help for Pav. It takes pressure off Murphy making him the 3rd option which is at this stage of his career what he can cope with. JLo can now come off the bench as a resting ruckman and be used sparingly in attack. Which is great the less that soft puss is on the ground the better in my opinion.

I think Solomons arrival spells more trouble for Cook. I love Cookyhis pressure, hardness, footysmarts and heart are first rate. But the fact he is vertically and motionally challenged makes him a liability at times especially with Hasleby, JCarr and Bell also in the team. I think Solomon could provide similar pressure and hardness but with more height. I saw Cook in the finals lining up at half forward running in to the centre to lay some body on someone then roaming the forward line. I think Solomon could do this job but give more of a presence than Cook. I hope Cooky can still get a game hes a legend.

On the draft picks , well our draft choices have left a lot to be desired of late anyway. We have had better luck with rookie listed players being elevated (Johnson, Crowley, Dodd, Warren). A draft choice doesnt mean a certainty and we were 12th in line which lessens the chance. So great work by the Freo admin keep it up

 

[dominguez]

Pick 13 isn't going to be the measuring stick for this trade, it is pick 8. We received pick 8 for Polak and didn't need to trade it for Tarrant if we didn't want to. If pick 8, not pick 13, ends up being a superstar and we don't win a flag with Tarrant it was a bad deal.

Also if we lose any uncontracted players in 12 months because Tarrant and Solomon have taken all our salary cap space it was a bad deal.

 

[Roundhouse]

I like the trade. Looking at the loss to Sydney we need help for Pav. It takes pressure off Murphy making him the 3rd option which is at this stage of his career what he can cope with. JLo can now come off the bench as a resting ruckman and be used sparingly in attack. Which is great the less that soft puss is on the ground the better in my opinion.

I think Solomons arrival spells more trouble for Cook. I love Cookyhis pressure, hardness, footysmarts and heart are first rate. But the fact he is vertically and motionally challenged makes him a liability at times especially with Hasleby, JCarr and Bell also in the team. I think Solomon could provide similar pressure and hardness but with more height. I saw Cook in the finals lining up at half forward running in to the centre to lay some body on someone then roaming the forward line. I think Solomon could do this job but give more of a presence than Cook. I hope Cooky can still get a game hes a legend.

On the draft picks , well our draft choices have left a lot to be desired of late anyway. We have had better luck with rookie listed players being elevated (Johnson, Crowley, Dodd, Warren). A draft choice doesnt mean a certainty and we were 12th in line which lessens the chance. So great work by the Freo admin keep it up

Agree with all that rowdy. I would argue that our drafting lately has been at least fair to good.

Getting Warnock late could really prove to be a big win. From what I have seen this year in the WAFL, he isn't far behind Leunberger talentwise, and this kid is now tipped to go top three in the superdraft.

I can't wait to see who we snag late in the draft this year. I got a feeling the club has done some serious scouting of the potential later rounders.

 

[slappy69]

i also wrote this on the boys over the road's board
its a super draft sure..but how many kids does a club need ?
i think this new mature age rookie rule is terrific..u cant have 7 or 8 18 year olds on a list.
You need a few players that can step up within half a season and play afl football.
In saying that there are some great players running around in the wafl that desrerve a rookie spot atleast.

Chartres from peel was good at times and might get lucky and get a spot somewhere.
Foster ..from east freo not sure how old he was but looked the goods.
Agostino..from east perth being an east perth supporter watched this kid since he was 16 and put his best season together to date.hardly misses a target by foot and kicks out of fb alot.. Thrown into the backline after years in the fwd line watched him beat players like mcdougall bandy polak etc
Seal ..played 3 exceptional games this year that might have been noticed..another east perth boy who knows where the goals are
Newick..might be a bit small to be a ruckman but this blokes quick and has a booming kick!
lang..from perth very consistent backman

 

[GoOsH1]

just feels a lot like the Hay and Ottens deals for me. lets hope it's more of a nathan thompson deal.

 

[masai]

Getting Warnock late could really prove to be a big win. From what I have seen this year in the WAFL, he isn't far behind Leunberger talentwise, and this kid is now tipped to go top three in the superdraft.

You're stealing my line, Warnock is da man.

Watch out JLo, another garlic muncher (adopted) is coming through.

 

[theGav56]

Not sure if I agree that the recruiting in recent years has been poor or in the wrong areas. Warnock was recruited because we were perecieved as being a ruckman short with simmonds betrayying us for the filthy lucre. Drum was recruited to be the big bodied midfielder that we constantly say that we are missing. Ditto Dunn. Peake (yes I know he was F?S, but the decision was still made to recuit him, and realistically, a third rounder was probably fair price) was exactly what our midfield needs were, same with Ibbotson. They may not have all worked out, yet, but they are pretty well aligned to what we need.

I think part of the problem with the perception that we recruit despite our needs is that people pigeon hole players according to what they have played prior to be recruited to AFL. For example, Drum may have played Key Position at U18 level, but at AFL level he would find a different role. The coaching staff clearly think he can go midfield. Similarly with Duffield who plays backline at WAFL, but the club website says they view his future as the midfield.

 

[David_Brent]

Gav, Drum has never been a midfielder. He played key defence all through juniors, recruiters asked his TAC side if they could move Drum into the midfield to see if he could play their later in the year. Drum was played through the middle but looked very average in deed. So much so that he was moved back into defence after only 4-5 games, exausting the chances the side was giving him to improve in that area. Doesnt mean he cant make it in the future but he has a long way to go if he was looking very average in a TAC midfield.

Also, Warnock was regarded pretty highly by recruiters. The only problem they really had with him was his size. They really questioned whether he would add enough weight to be an AFL footballer. He was recruited top age (he is 2 yrs older than Leuenberger for the record) and extremely slight. He basically had to add on 25% of his body weight to play ruck, a very big ask. Its achievable but apparantly his parents are both very thin as are his siblings, genetics might not ever allow him to add much weight.

 

[docker_johnno]

Gav, Drum has never been a midfielder. He played key defence all through juniors, recruiters asked his TAC side if they could move Drum into the midfield to see if he could play their later in the year. Drum was played through the middle but looked very average in deed. So much so that he was moved back into defence after only 4-5 games, exausting the chances the side was giving him to improve in that area. Doesnt mean he cant make it in the future but he has a long way to go if he was looking very average in a TAC midfield.

Also, Warnock was regarded pretty highly by recruiters. The only problem they really had with him was his size. They really questioned whether he would add enough weight to be an AFL footballer. He was recruited top age (he is 2 yrs older than Leuenberger for the record) and extremely slight. He basically had to add on 25% of his body weight to play ruck, a very big ask. Its achievable but apparantly his parents are both very thin as are his siblings, genetics might not ever allow him to add much weight.

haha

yes were they the same recruiters who think hurn is still fat and useless?

take your negativity somewhere else.

 

[David_Brent]

haha

yes were they the same recruiters who think hurn is still fat and useless?

take your negativity somewhere else.

Take a hike buddy, I really rate Drum and Warnock, both could be very good AFL players. Just providing abit of background context, it wasnt meant to be negative, its all fact.

FACT 1 - Drum played midfield in TAC last year and struggled. Excelled playing in defence though.

FACT 2 - Warnock is very skinny. Guy Richards from the Pies was drafted at a similar size (Guy was slightly bigger) and still hasnt put on enough weight to handle AFL 4 yrs on.

As I said before, I rate both of them.But I think some people on here have these baseless opinions on players (not just Dockers fans obviously) like; Warnock beat Leuenberger hence he is as good as him (L-berger is 2 yrs younger but already around 90kgs) and Drum is a midfielder when in actual fact he is a very accomplished defender yet to prove his midfield worth.

 

[dominguez]

Spider Burton was skinny and he managed to forge a long afl career. Sure your body would be more susceptible to injury, but if Warnock is only 93kilos in a couple of years he could still be a valuable player.

The latest membership newsletter has a story about what the players eat after training and apparently Warnock eats the most, which is probably a sgn that he will struggle to add weight.