Last edited by Doc26; 15-04-2011 at 12:03 PM.
I think it is pretty easy to look back on these things with some hindsight and much more difficult for the draft team at the time, but that list really does not make me feel much better, about Tutt in particular. I actually think that Howard has a lot of potential although will take some time to realise it.
Aside from the names you have already mentioned there are a few players in this list that look likely to make the grade in areas where we may need some cover in a few years time.
At 47 Dylan Roberton has played some promising games for Freo and looks to have some skill and versatility. At 191cm and with a pretty good kick he might be a possible replacement for Shaggy in a couple of years as a versatile third tall.
At 41 Allen Christensen looks like a lively skilled small forward who has broken through for a couple of games for Geelong this year. This is clearly an area where we have a lack as evidenced thorugh the 2010 draft.
This also ignores Astbury, and Carlisle as Key position prospects and Colyer as a speedy inside/outside midfielder who have all broken through for senior games with their respective clubs.
Now in some cases these players have gotten games becasue of the position of the clubs they have been drafted to and does not mean they would have forced their way into our best 22 or even onto our list. I would however like to have any of Reid, Stratton, Roberton or Christensen on the senior list instead of Tutt based on current perfromances all of whom were taken below him. This is I would suggest one of the dangers with a 'best fit' recruitment strategy not 'best player', none of those four are likely to be better small rebounding defenders/wings then Tutt, but all would arguably add depth or balance to our team.
I dont agree with the best available approach in all situations. I have a standard rant about it -- here it is.
'Best available' theorists argue it is about reducing risk -- you take the best available player and you are reducing the risk of picking a dud. This is a great attitude for the draft recruiter to have, because he isn't judged primarily on team performance, but on how well his draft picks turn out.
But the aim of the game is best team performance, not individual performance, and that means having all the elements of the team in place -- the balanced side with depth in all areas.
So if your team is unbalanced, you have to trade. Guess what, trading is also risky! You risk paying over the odds, you risk taking on a Not Quite Right player or head case that doesn't perform at the new club, etc...
So 'best available' isn't reducing the risk, its simply moving it as much as possible from drafting to trading.
You could argue that by taking the best available, you will probably have a surfeit of midfielders (they are usually the ones that come on quickest and are the safest bets), so you then trade your excess midfielders for team balance, but we all know it inst that easy in practice. There are many emotional and practical reasons why you cant just trade away good players for other good players that meet your team requirements. High risk to rely on that.
So that's my rant -- the draft recruiter has to take on some of the risk involved in fielding a balanced side, and that means walking a line between how good are the players available at any given pick compared to how badly we need to fill a hole in the list -- not just saying 'best available, best available' for every pick.
So I am all in favor of taking the best available speedsters and/or elite kicks with our 1st two picks in 09. whether or not they turn out to be the best available speedsters/elite kicks at those picks is what the recruiter should be judged by.
Tapscott is a strong bodied player, but has good foot skills and can play outside.
Pittard can play outside and this is really his bag.
Bastinac can play outside.
Duncan can play outside.
Menzel has been doing a reasonable role for Geelong, has good foot skills and can play outside as well as inside.
Fyfe is one you've mentioned and could play a variety of roles.
Howard may yet be better than all of them, but all of the above have had bigger impacts thus far and certainly some have arguably as much or more scope for improvement.
Good point - we obviously knew about Libba & Wallis years out (Clayton went all tall in 08 with his last draft).
Yes Fyfe taken just after him is looking good and Pittard is establishing himself at Port (I doubt he'd be getting games for us though), but most of the others only compete with what we have on the list, not compliment.
We were clearly after rebounding defenders and team selection this year shows that is exactly what we need. If I had to pick anyone from the list above Howard, I'd probably lean towards Astbury given we would love another quick young tall defender on the list.
Western Bulldogs: 2016 Premiers
He looks good, but he would be behind Roughy & Jones for a spot.
On tall forwards, I haven't ruled a line through Tom Hill either - moved pretty well, and a bloke who is talented yet struggled with injury is exactly the type of punt we should take with later picks IMO.
Western Bulldogs: 2016 Premiers
Good Post Stefoid which I think makes some great points. The other critera that we have to judge drafting perfromance on is how right they get the things we draft for, ie will speed and kicking talent end up being the right mix elements to add to the list and in the right proportion.
In the end I think the team doing the draft are on a hiding to nothing given the number of variables not only in the development of the players drafted, but the form, fitness and fortunes of the existing players and how the game develops in the meantime. Inevitably at some point we look at players drafted by other clubs that we could have drafted and think 'if only' but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I really liked the look of Tapscott pre-draft, and his first few AFL games this year have only increased that view. He would be a great addition to a side like ours.
Duncan was another I liked, although I can understand why we didn't pick him, given we had Wallis/Libba coming the year after.
We desperately need Howard to make it.
What I don't understand about the 'filling needs' hypothesis in this case is that he's only meant to come on in 2013. Surely filling a need on the list is a short-term play, or even maybe a one, two year thing? Five years just seems like such a ridiculous lag -- our entire half-back line may be retired before he even starts to get a game. Look, this may well come off and the recruiters look like geniuses, it's just weird when you pick a medium/small and expect a 5 year development period before you can tell if he's any good -- you would generally expect a quicker return on a small/medium type than half a bloody decade. Heck, that's longer than most AFL players' careers -- it just sounds too much like an excuse.
This type of argument is senseless IMO. Where were Hird, Lake and C Grant picked in the draft? It is far from an exact science and many early picks simply do not make it whilst later picks do.
Too early to tell yet.
What should I tell her? She's going to ask.
Would love a Fyfe, Bastinac or Tapscott who would all fulfill a few needs, though I do think that Duncan will be an absolute star for the Cats, super talent there. Still have high hopes for Howard but it was a fair punt by Dalrymple when you consider the amount of talent still on that list.