WH's Best Available Policy

[Silvagnis]

Our needs IMO:

- rebounding HBF's who can also defend ala Enright
- marking medium half forwards.

Andrew Moore

Goes a bit like Robinson with his attack on the ball...

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Always go for the best talent available with a first round pick. We did that with Murph, Gibbs, Kruezer and Yarran. If they turn out to be superstars, it doesn't matter where they play. A teams gameplan is always based around it's strengths. What's important is to make sure you have some strengths in the first place! Having an even spread of players in every position without a heap of ability (e.g Pies) won't ever win you a flag. Top-shelf talent wins flags. Hence our approach is the right one.

There is always more than one way to do things and more than one way to premiership success. Hawthorn has selected needs over best available to set up a structure that could win a premiership...and they did. Of course, they had their stars in place first Hodge etc.

We now have our stars in place and from my point of view should go best available only up to a point, then reach 1-3 spots for a positional needs.

I do agree with not picking a KPP if WH rates them 20+ and we have pick 12. On the other hand if a KPP is rated 15 and we have pick 12...i'm all for reaching when we have significant needs.

I'm sure WH's selection policy evolves over time as Carlton's list improves.

 

[Monkey King]

Always go for the best talent available with a first round pick. We did that with Murph, Gibbs, Kruezer and Yarran. If they turn out to be superstars, it doesn't matter where they play.

Which arcs back to the OP scenario... what if the best talent available to Carlton in the first round over the next 5 years are ruckman? Surely we can't just keep selecting ruckman when there is other top-line talent in the first round. There must be a line drawn somewhere between best available and list requirements. I'm speculating on where the line is and how it is drawn.

 

[Monkey King]

Also rated Kennedy the best player in the draft in 2005 but knew that Kennedy was still a chance to be availalbe at 4 and we could pick him up there whereas Murphy had a zilch chance of slipping through to four. Therefore, gambled on picking Murphy first and hoping Kennedy slid, which is what transpired.

So it's not strictly a best available policy every time.

Great post J_K.

I've never heard that about Murph and Kennedy. Interesting to say the least, especially now that JK's moved on. You're right that Murphy wouldn't have gone past Collingwood; but there were also murmurs that Carlton gave MM a guarantee of sorts that they'd take him if he refused Brisbane under the F/S. Not sure how much that influenced the state of play.

 

[Monkey King]

I think that best available should be the overriding idea, but there also needs to be some parity with the list in its present state.

Our needs IMO:

- rebounding HBF's who can also defend ala Enright

Well hopefully ROK can make his mark next year and this need can evaporate. What we need of HB is accurate disposal from a rebounding defender, and apparently he has a deft left foot and defends well. Fingers crossed.

 

[Shambolic]

Great post J_K.

I've never heard that about Murph and Kennedy. Interesting to say the least, especially now that JK's moved on. You're right that Murphy wouldn't have gone past Collingwood; but there were also murmurs that Carlton gave MM a guarantee of sorts that they'd take him if he refused Brisbane under the F/S. Not sure how much that influenced the state of play.

I doubt this, or at least it is one person's view of it. I sat next to a Carlton recruiter at a B&F one night and they said the only way they could split kennedy and Ryder was likelihood of departing Melbourne. Ryder was a flight risk. History shows Ryder is still in Melbourne~

 

[thegreenmachine]

Which arcs back to the OP scenario... what if the best talent available to Carlton in the first round over the next 5 years are ruckman? Surely we can't just keep selecting ruckman when there is other top-line talent in the first round. There must be a line drawn somewhere between best available and list requirements. I'm speculating on where the line is and how it is drawn.

Over the next 5 years we wouldn't be drafting ruckmen 100% of the time, we would bend just a little bit yes. Kreuzer in 2007 was most definitely a need (arguably best available as well) as we badly needed ruckmen. We're choc-a-block with depth there but there's no problem with adding to that depth if this player has the talent and want to succeed at the highest level.
Hughes might just bend a touch from his policy and go for needs just a touch occassionally but the "best available" policy has worked a treat for our list and there wouldn't be any "need" to abandon it at all.
Yarran was ranked "best available" by Hughes anyway (despite speculation we were going tall last year, just like everyone is doing this year with pick 12). Same with Robinson and Tiller.
By going tall with our first pick this year, I don't completely believe you are abandoning the best available policy (Yarran was very much picked on potenitial).
The first 11 picks will just about all be smalls (and almost certainly the top 5), and in a weak draft (though not as weak as some have made it out to be), it looks like that policy will continue once again, and if we go tall with a KPP we would be getting one the best KPPs in this year's draft.
Would fit our needs but no reason why they wouldn't be best available player either.

 

[Ryan Dixon Webb]

I have a feeling that we will take Lewis Jetta if he is still available at pick 12. Personally I'd prefer a player like him over someone like Carlisle, Panos or Black. He looks great and could dominate straight away, reminds me a lot of Cyril Rioli and the Matera's.

 

[Pafloyul]

With Carlton confirming that they are adopting the best available policy again for the upcoming draft, I begin to consider the intricacies of the system Wayne Hughes employs.

So it goes, Yarran was the most highly ranked kid remaining on Carlton's list, so he's the one we went with. Is this list simply a ranking 1-70, or do they have some additional ranking method to distinguish between the more closely ranked players?

I ask this because while I agree with the best available policy in principle, needs based drafting does have a place in building capable of winning a flag; especially considering our present dearth of young KPF's. A case in point, given our current list - if the highest ranked player remaining for the next 5 drafts running was a ruckman, surely then we would deviate from the plan.

Now of course I don't want to draft a Robbie Tarrant over a Cyril Rioli just because he's a KPP, but what about a situation where we rank the mid at 8 and the KPP at 9. How is the gap between this ranking judged? Perhaps the gap is wide enough that the mid is clearly the better prospect, but if the perceived gap between the two is not a gulf, will the Blues abandon the best available and go KP; or do we just strictly adhere to WH's list?

Any clues?

It's all a crock, anyway, if it exists at all.

You can't tell me that player's like Yarran, Kennedy and Hampson didn't fill a need.

The thing is; just what exactly constitutes 'best available' is is a highly debatable issue. It seems to me that if we followed the rigid 'best available' policy to the letter as defined by many Blues supporters on BF then we would end up like a poor man's Geelong. We'd still have Geelong proper to combat as well as the likes of St Kilda.

There has to be a few subtleties and the acknowledgement that what defines a successful side is forever changing, You can't always trade into your deficiencies without either settling on some form of compromise or without doing damage to the depth of your list or both.

Sometimes the best players don't come good until a few years down the track. You have to think ahead in some cases.

 

[TGR]

Sometimes the best players don't come good until a few years down the track. You have to think ahead in some cases.

That is correct and is taken into account when they consider best available. I can also tell you that the 3 above mentioned players all fell into the best available category under that assumption.

 

[celtic_pride]

If Hughes doesn't at least TRY and pick up one tall key position foward (doesn't have to be the first rnd pick either) in this month's draft, he can piss off as far as I'm concerned.

 

[celtic_pride]

I would also like to point out last year Tasmania beat the Handbags in the Grand Final with a tall structured foward line (admittedly both Roughead and Buddy didn't do much in the granny, but it meant the Handbags put their best defensive resources on them, which cost them badly, with the likes of Fatty Dew running amok) and i think the Hawks midfield is workman-like, rather then 'brilliant', like Geelong's, so that debunks the theory of teams having the best midfield as a receipe for flag success, and I have no doubt that if it was dry/sunny this year on Grand Final day, the Saints would have smashed the Cats by 5 goals plus, in general play and possession time, that would have been obvious, and I think Schinder and Milne would have dobbed most of those 'inexplicable' misses they had if the conditions were normally fine ..

Give me a super talented fowardline over a strong midfield any day of the week.

 

[Azul]

It seems to me that if we followed the rigid 'best available' policy to the letter as defined by many Blues supporters on BF then we would end up like a poor man's Geelong.

With only 1 premiership every 3 years instead of 2? Where do I sign up?

 

[Bluebear]

Rich was touted as the number 3 pick until very very late, maybe only a couple of weeks before the draft

By who?

BF phantom draft?

The question has to be asked why he was not only overlooked by us.......but a bunch of other teams, including Freo were he was a "lock" for so many.

The "vibe" is that what you see is what you get.......not much upside to him. His best is very good, but he isn't overly quick, and until Walkers brainfade Rich was next to useless in both games against us.

What if the recruiters think that while he might be a standout in his first year, that by year 3 or 4 that many others will have gone past him?

A case in point, given our current list - if the highest ranked player remaining for the next 5 drafts running was a ruckman, surely then we would deviate from the plan.

Train em up and trade em out to build your list.
Lets say the best available this year was a ruck. Take him. Then at the end of next year console yourlself with a second round pick for Jacobs or a first round pick for Hampson if there is no space.

The Lions cashed in on trading out rucks for years. Not a bad busines to be in.
If it's line ball between a couple then you obvioulsy go for what you think best suits your list, but you wouldn't pass on a ruck and go for someone who was considerably lower in quality just beacuse they might fill a need.

 

[Pafloyul]

That is correct and is taken into account when they consider best available. I can also tell you that the 3 above mentioned players all fell into the best available category under that assumption.

I know that there is a huge case for Yarran and Hampson as future 'best available' but I believe Kennedy was a plain old 'pick for need'.

What I'm saying is that the individual needs of each club tempers how they rate them, it's inevitable

 

[Pafloyul]

With only 1 premiership every 3 years instead of 2? Where do I sign up?

You obviously didn't read the nuance of my post. There is not a finite level to being 'good'. We wouldn't win that premiership.

 

[Silvagnis]

I know that there is a huge case for Yarran and Hampson as future 'best available' but I believe Kennedy was a plain old 'pick for need'.

What I'm saying is that the individual needs of each club tempers how they rate them, it's inevitable

I think it was posted on here that we had Josh Kennedy rated at two.

I feel we draft the best available for need if the players are hard to split and they're even.

It's mystifying that people believe a pure silk midfielder or HFF with pace is more readily attainable with a later pick than a KPP.

And less important.

Hayden Ballantyne or Neville Jetta aren't a patch on Yarran.

I wouldn't swap Murphy or Pendlebury for Andrew Swallow in a month of Sundays because we had to choose between Murphy and Kennedy. We needed Yarran's alround skillset and pace as much as we needed a Hurley, yet being a KPP is somehow more important than talent. Stephen Hill would have been as good a fit for Carlton as any of these players and given us the pacy wingman we need.

Class is class.

The best available player with fewer weaknesses that can be improved on over time is the best policy.

Everyone pumps up players in phantom drafts and ignore the flaws that made them available at that pick to sugar coat their selection.

 

[celtic_pride]

Hindsight is always 20/20 I know, but Josh Kennedy wouldn't come close to being in the top 10 of his draft class as it stands now.

I suspect Kennedy won't be in the AFL system in 5 years time, simply because he is one big unit that is too slow for the modern game, he was a 'clunker' of a selection with the Priority Pick and frankly we are lucky to swap him over to the eagles as part of the Judd deal.

I have no idea why so many fans want Kennedy back at the club, he'll never reach any great heights in his career, a mediocre plodder at best.

Ultimately the 'best available' policy is flawed and narrow-minded, and as proven with the Josh Kennedy case, often turns out wrong ...
Another famous example is Des Headland and Josh Fraser, whom at the time of their drafts, were clearly the no 1 rated youngsters in the country, and every club who had the no 1 pick, would have drafted them with the first selection ..

How have their careers panned out, especially considering the players taken after him ?

If Wayne Hughes again is going down this best available talent policy that shows to me is an short-sighted imbecile of a recruiting manager, and should be replaced after this year's draft.

And one last thing ... in the 2004 draft, Richmond and the Bulldogs did take the best 'available' players at the time in Deledio, Tambling and Griffin, all of whom were rated higher then Roughie and Franklin at the time, and yet Tasmania is the only club since that draft to have won a flag ...
The Hawks did take a gamble on using two top 5 picks on KPP's and it paid off spectacular dividends.
I am loathe to say it, but it's time this club took the Tassie Hawk approach with regards to taking a punt on a key position foward in this year's draft.

The success of Tassie's premiership in 08 is proof that Wayne Hughes recruiting philosphy is fundamental bullshit.

 

[footballs great]

Hindsight is always 20/20 I know, but Josh Kennedy wouldn't come close to being in the top 10 of his draft class as it stands now.

I suspect Kennedy won't be in the AFL system in 5 years time, simply because he is one big unit that is too slow for the modern game, he was a 'clunker' of a selection with the Priority Pick and frankly we are lucky to swap him over to the eagles as part of the Judd deal.

I have no idea why so many fans want Kennedy back at the club, he'll never reach any great heights in his career, a mediocre plodder at best.quote=celtic_pride;16212201end

What are you on please stop taking it
Kennedy is getting better all the time and will be the WC top forward this coming year and yes I would love to have him back

But he will always be looked at the man who helped get us judd and he did a great thing for the club

 

[Sin City]

I suspect Kennedy won't be in the AFL system in 5 years time

I suspect you have got dumber

 

[celtic_pride]

I stand by my comments, he is a slightly less 'bulky' version of Lance Whitnall, and maybe 10, 5 years ago, players of Kennedy's bulk and lack of speed might have survived the game, but not anymore ..

His lack of aerobic capacity may see him play glimpses of decent player for a quarter or two, but honestly, there is no way in hell he'll ever be a 4 quarter dominant player

If he came back to the club, I'd throw up ... I'd much rather have Ash Hanson then Kennedy at Carlton (and that's saying something, cause i don't rate hanson either)

The bloke might be a hard worker and a nice guy, but the reality is, he hasn't got the fitness base to become a star/stand out at AFL level.
Probably will make to 100 - 150 games but that's it.

 

[Rich2Fevola]

I think it was posted on here that we had Josh Kennedy rated at two.

I feel we draft the best available for need if the players are hard to split and they're even.

It's mystifying that people believe a pure silk midfielder or HFF with pace is more readily attainable with a later pick than a KPP.

And less important.

Hayden Ballantyne or Neville Jetta aren't a patch on Yarran.

I wouldn't swap Murphy or Pendlebury for Andrew Swallow in a month of Sundays because we had to choose between Murphy and Kennedy. We needed Yarran's alround skillset and pace as much as we needed a Hurley, yet being a KPP is somehow more important than talent. Stephen Hill would have been as good a fit for Carlton as any of these players and given us the pacy wingman we need.

Class is class.

The best available player with fewer weaknesses that can be improved on over time is the best policy.

Everyone pumps up players in phantom drafts and ignore the flaws that made them available at that pick to sugar coat their selection.

Ballantyne, Jetta and Yarran are in their first years and both have played in a handful of games and haven't really made THAT Much of an impact yet so how own earth can you say Ballantyne and Jetta aren't a patch on Yarran when none of them have really ever dominated games yet.

Give it three to four years then we'll see.

We never had a chance to pick Hurley or Hill so who cares?

 

[Dramoth]

Zone recruiting?

Clone recruiting

Dont tell the americans though... they hate that sort of thing

 

[Dramoth]

I doubt this, or at least it is one person's view of it. I sat next to a Carlton recruiter at a B&F one night and they said the only way they could split kennedy and Ryder was likelihood of departing Melbourne. Ryder was a flight risk. History shows Ryder is still in Melbourne~

And Kennedy was in a big hurry to pack his bags and leave as well.

I think that if Kennedy hadnt gone, we would have swung some other deal to get Judd and Fev would have been smashing him into next week instead of Carlos.

 

[thylacine60]

I stand by my comments, he is a slightly less 'bulky' version of Lance Whitnall, and maybe 10, 5 years ago, players of Kennedy's bulk and lack of speed might have survived the game, but not anymore ..

His lack of aerobic capacity may see him play glimpses of decent player for a quarter or two, but honestly, there is no way in hell he'll ever be a 4 quarter dominant player

If he came back to the club, I'd throw up ... I'd much rather have Ash Hanson then Kennedy at Carlton (and that's saying something, cause i don't rate hanson either)

The bloke might be a hard worker and a nice guy, but the reality is, he hasn't got the fitness base to become a star/stand out at AFL level.
Probably will make to 100 - 150 games but that's it.

Nonsensical rubbish.