-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Some of the discussions have moved to a more list management theme than best available.
I still don't see the issue with taking the best available (with some common sense applied) with early picks.
If you recruit the best player and back the training a club can provide clubs should see improvement
Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
Some of the discussions have moved to a more list management theme than best available.
I still don't see the issue with taking the best available (with some common sense applied) with early picks.
If you recruit the best player and back the training a club can provide clubs should see improvement
Isn't drafting and list management intrinsically linked?
Some elite talent is unbelievably difficult to acquire via trade.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
westbulldog
re the comment about Jack Redpath i.e "one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude", could the poster elaborate on this ? Redpath is by all accounts pretty popular at the Club. I think you need to back up that comment or withdraw it.
I'm happy for the comment to remain exactly where it is.
Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
jeemak
So what you're saying is that hard and fast rules are the way to go?
What if we had pick four, and we closely rated an inside mid as the fourth best player over a genuinely talented KPF at five. We went through the analysis and found there was only a marginal percentage difference in our scoring criteria.
We have a glut of inside midfielders, and a shortage of key position forwards.
Would you still choose the inside midfielder?
The other consideration is how do you determine the best available? Players that look great in under age football, often don't turn out the best in senior footy. The top five or even the top ten I guess are going to be pretty good players and as you say, they could be a mixture of mids, forwards, backs talls etc, so there is a bit of an element of going with needs.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
jeemak
So what you're saying is that hard and fast rules are the way to go?
What if we had pick four, and we closely rated an inside mid as the fourth best player over a genuinely talented KPF at five. We went through the analysis and found there was only a marginal percentage difference in our scoring criteria.
We have a glut of inside midfielders, and a shortage of key position forwards.
Would you still choose the inside midfielder?
In that case you'd spend pick 4 to get a pick 5 rated player. I'm meaning more reaching for second or third round standard players and taking them with first round picks. (A big hello to Footscray premiership hero Christian Howard at this stage of the thread)
They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Always take the best player, how you determine the best may change year on year though, where certain attributes are weighted differently based on list management needs, changes in game plan or game style and general evolution based on what successful teams have found that success with.
When you look at our draft clusters, we seem to value certain attributes more highly at times.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
jeemak
Isn't drafting and list management intrinsically linked?
Some elite talent is unbelievably difficult to acquire via trade.
Yes but there is a difference. Draft for the best available, trade for the gaps within the list.
I agree elite talent is very hard to acquire via a trade and that is why clubs typically use the best available approach with early selections.
You wouldn't necessarily trade for a player where you already have that position covered.
Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
comrade
A) Young is a defender for now.
B) Adams has played his best footy in defence, his ability as a forward is unproven.
C) Fine, Dickson and Smith are small forwards. As a collective, we've got too many mid sized and small forwards then.
So why do you think we should be looking at Coughlan from St Kilda?
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
always right
So why do you think we should be looking at Coughlan from St Kilda?
Because I think he'd be a value Moneyball pick as a rookie.
Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
comrade
Because I think he'd be a value Moneyball pick as a rookie.
Wouldn't he add to the problem of too many tall defenders?
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
Dry Rot
Well we must have too many of something else given the holes in our list.
Originally Posted by
comrade
Too many of these:
Tall defenders (Collins, Young, Adams, Roberts, Cordy)
Mid size forwards (Dickson, Stringer, Greene, Lipinski, Crameri, Clay Smith)
And the holes are there due to lack of quality. Look at our key forward stocks: Cloke, Redpath and Boyd. 3 is probably ok to have on a list but those names are shocking. One is almost on the retirement scrap heap, one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude, and Boyd is a hybrid ruck/forward.
This is a very old fashioned way of doing it, with a 190cm cutoff between small and tall, and no regard for flexibility or AFL readiness, but as a starting point:
Small Defenders (5/7) - Suckling, Wood, Biggs, Williams, Johannisen
Tall Defenders (6/4) - Cordy, Roberts, Adams, Collins, Young, Morris
Inside Mids (6/7) - Wallis, Dahlhaus, Dunkley, Liberatore, Honeychurch, Jong
Outside Mids (6/7) - Bontempelli, Hunter, Macrae, McLean, Webb, Daniel
Rucks (3/4) - Campbell, Roughead, English
Small Forwards (7/7) - Smith, Crameri, Lipinski, Dickson, Dale, Greene, Picken
Tall Forwards (4/4) - Stringer, Cloke, Boyd, Redpath
Retired/Delisted - Murphy, Boyd, Hamilton
Based on that we probably need a ready made ruck, some developing mids and small defenders and fewer tall defenders. But then downgrade Morris to small, move Adams forward and trade Stringer and things look different
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes
GVGjr thanked for this post
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
boydogs
This is a very old fashioned way of doing it, with a 190cm cutoff between small and tall, and no regard for flexibility or AFL readiness, but as a starting point:
Small Defenders (5/7) - Suckling, Wood, Biggs, Williams, Johannisen
Tall Defenders (6/4) - Cordy, Roberts, Adams, Collins, Young, Morris
Inside Mids (6/7) - Wallis, Dahlhaus, Dunkley, Liberatore, Honeychurch, Jong
Outside Mids (6/7) - Bontempelli, Hunter, Macrae, McLean, Webb, Daniel
Rucks (3/4) - Campbell, Roughead, English
Small Forwards (7/7) - Smith, Crameri, Lipinski, Dickson, Dale, Greene, Picken
Tall Forwards (4/4) - Stringer, Cloke, Boyd, Redpath
Retired/Delisted - Murphy, Boyd, Hamilton
Based on that we probably need a ready made ruck, some developing mids and small defenders and fewer tall defenders. But then downgrade Morris to small, move Adams forward and trade Stringer and things look different
And add Trengove.
Bring back the biff
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
comrade
Because I think he'd be a value Moneyball pick as a rookie.
Is that Nick Coughlan that was at Footscray? He is a good footballer. He plays well.
They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
boydogs
This is a very old fashioned way of doing it, with a 190cm cutoff between small and tall, and no regard for flexibility or AFL readiness, but as a starting point:
Small Defenders (5/7) - Suckling, Wood, Biggs, Williams, Johannisen
Tall Defenders (6/4) - Cordy, Roberts, Adams, Collins, Young, Morris
Inside Mids (6/7) - Wallis, Dahlhaus, Dunkley, Liberatore, Honeychurch, Jong
Outside Mids (6/7) - Bontempelli, Hunter, Macrae, McLean, Webb, Daniel
Rucks (3/4) - Campbell, Roughead, English
Small Forwards (7/7) - Smith, Crameri, Lipinski, Dickson, Dale, Greene, Picken
Tall Forwards (4/4) - Stringer, Cloke, Boyd, Redpath
Retired/Delisted - Murphy, Boyd, Hamilton
Based on that we probably need a ready made ruck, some developing mids and small defenders and fewer tall defenders. But then downgrade Morris to small, move Adams forward and trade Stringer and things look different
Good list Boydogs, however, another element needs to be factored in and that is experience. If you look at the tall defenders Morris has the most experience followed by Roberts, and that's it. The other guys are all young which means we may need another tall defender, and I guess that is where Trengove comes in.
A further factor to consider is pace in the midfield. We may have plenty of inside and outside mids, but they all lack pace.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?
Originally Posted by
Twodogs
Is that Nick Coughlan that was at Footscray? He is a good footballer. He plays well.
Forgotten about him. Loved him at the Scary. I really like Gowers from the VFL. Wouldn't mind it if we gave him a spot on the list.