Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

[Bornadog]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

edited as the previous post said it already.

We failed to trade for needs this year. There was a risk that would happen, and it did.

What I would to think is that our drafting policy is and was always going to modify in response to that risk becoming reality. Jason makes the trade(s) we need and Simon gets less draft picks to play with, but is free to choose best available with them. Trades dont eventuate, and Simon has more draft picks at his disposal, and a focus on drafting at least one player to fill a need with them, should the draft fall favourably. Nobody is asking him to draft any old nuffy over 193cm. But he has to modify his strategy away from purely best available in such a way to have a realistic chance of helping out with list management. Drafting 2 rookie projects and hoping they are best 22 in 5 years time isnt a realistic attempt to solve the problem.

It has to work like this. And I think as soon as we couldnt give 11 away to get that tall player, splitting it into 2 picks is an indication that it will.

I wonder what went through his head when he drafted Howard? Was it a needs basis, ie replace Gilbee?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I agree with you Bornadog. Because if they're good footballers, they're always worth something.
The draft picks 'hold' their value and can be traded for picks and/ or needs later on.

They're still good cards to have in your hand.

That's where the debate gets tricky. If you take 'best available' similar types year after year and they don't get games, their trade value diminishes, meaning your overall list starts to suffer over time.

For example, we have AFL quality smalls like Hrovat and Honeychurch struggling to get games over similar types. This year there is a real chance one (or both) will get jumped by Maclean/Daniel/Dale/Webb and have a year of 3 or 4 (or 0) games. If we then decide they are surplus to requirements, we will never be able to trade them for their real value - we'll get peanuts. If we get another bunch of small mid/forwards this year, the problem is exacerbated.

I generally support the idea of best available but, year on year, I think it does need to be tempered by list balance, especially in a year where trades don't get done to address list balance.

That doesn't mean taking any old dud tall. Of course our recruiters do the full due diligence, but I think in years like this a tall (especially with kpd potential) or a rangy flanker type rated as marginally riskier than a small mid should be bumped up the order. Sometimes the risks of list imbalance trump the risks associated with individuals.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I wonder what went through his head when he drafted Howard? Was it a needs basis, ie replace Gilbee?

I think I remember him saying 'best available'.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I agree with you Bornadog. Because if they're good footballers, they're always worth something.
The draft picks 'hold' their value and can be traded for picks and/ or needs later on.

They're still good cards to have in your hand.

There is some truth to this, but there is also some 'and then magic happens'. Trading surplus players for needed players just aint that easy. As a general rule, if they are good enough to get good compensation for, you dont want to let them go, and if they arent, you dont get much for them.

What is much more likely is giving away your own decent draft picks and a stack of salary cap to attract decent needs, both of which are expensive. Drafting affects trading and trading affects drafting. Simon and Jason should be joined at the hip with a 5 year plan in front of them.

[Mofra]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

That's where the debate gets tricky. If you take 'best available' similar types year after year and they don't get games, their trade value diminishes, meaning your overall list starts to suffer over time.

For example, we have AFL quality smalls like Hrovat and Honeychurch struggling to get games over similar types. This year there is a real chance one (or both) will get jumped by Maclean/Daniel/Dale/Webb and have a year of 3 or 4 (or 0) games. If we then decide they are surplus to requirements, we will never be able to trade them for their real value - we'll get peanuts. If we get another bunch of small mid/forwards this year, the problem is exacerbated.

Exactly - and we've been able to exploit this by getting Koby Stevens cheap, Biggs for virtually nothing, Hamling in too.
Hrovat is a good example - he'd be worth little on an open market but internally we know he can play well so is worth more to us.

[Mantis]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Our list profile means we really have to look at filling some of the gaps we have.

It is a fine balance, but with 3 picks within 10 of each other we should be able to get a nice mix of players.

[Cyberdoggie]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Our list profile means we really have to look at filling some of the gaps we have.

It is a fine balance, but with 3 picks within 10 of each other we should be able to get a nice mix of players.

And the fact that we have traded down our first pick also means we must be confident of finding those players within those 3 picks.

Usually you would think that all the good talls would be taken by then, so it's an interesting play by SD and JM. Very interested to see what we end up with. If SD can come find some more top quality players like he has in recent years but again this time without high first round picks then he will go a long way to immortalising himself amongst the bulldogs faithful.

Simon hasn't picked up a lot of genuine talls in his drafting, Stringer more of a mid sized tall, Cordy the same, so it's a bit of a mystery what type he'll look for if at all with those picks.

[The Doctor]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

With 2 of our first 3 picks I'd like to see us pick 2 talls with one of them a key defender. The other choice preferably a midfielder with breakaway pace and the abilty to kick a goal.

my KPD would be Glass McCasker. I think Weitering aside he is the best key defender. Tall, athletic, great reach and can rebound. Beat Schache at the nationals and he will go in the top 2. I see lots of development & improvement to come

The 2nd tall spot ideally a versatile KP like Ben McKay. A lot to work with here and the style of player we are craving for. I guess it remains to see what his true best position will be.

The other choice might come down to who slips through. Would love to see the polish and silky skills of Ah Chee in our line up but I think he should be gone in the top 10. I don't mind Aidyn Johnson if over his quad injury (all season with a quad is a worry), Fiorini would be a good fit for us. these 2 while different players have skill sets we are looking for.

if we can't get the breakaway midfielder I don't mind adding to our stockpile of bigger midfielders who can take on various roles. Redman would be ideal.


One thing we might do is look at half backs. We got rid of several and have Murph and Boyd in the their last year or two.

[dadsgirl16]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Ben and twin brother on SEN this morning...sound like solid citizens

[northernsoul74]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Just listened to todays AFL road to the draft podcast. Interesting listen. They've done a mock draft with Brent Sanderson and have us taking Josh Dunkley then Jade Gresham. They reckon Gresham will be too good to turn down at that pick even though he's not really what we need. Seem to think no decent talls will be left by the time we have our first pick.

[Twodogs]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Is that a reach for McKay Doc?

[The Doctor]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Is that a reach for McKay Doc?

I doubt he'll be available at our pic

[boydogs]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

my KPD would be Glass McCasker. I think Weitering aside he is the best key defender. Tall, athletic, great reach and can rebound. Beat Schache at the nationals and he will go in the top 2. I see lots of development & improvement to come

Why do you rate Glass-McCasker over McKay, Collins, Skinner & Adams?

[Mofra]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

BF rumour about us reaching for a huge ruckman at pick 30.
Weird as ruckmen are rarely drafted these days, let alone at pick 30

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

http://www.afl.com.au/draft/road-to-the-draft

Just listened to todays AFL road to the draft podcast. Interesting listen. They've done a mock draft with Brent Sanderson and have us taking Josh Dunkley then Jade Gresham. They reckon Gresham will be too good to turn down at that pick even though he's not really what we need. Seem to think no decent talls will be left by the time we have our first pick.

Had a listen to this as well. Twomey and Sanderson live and breathe the draft, so their thoughts are of interest. Its a lengthy podcast but they do it well, as they alternate picks and can call academy picks (with the other taking the position of the academy club and matching the bid or declining). They give a little discussion on club needs with every pick.

For anyone following the draft keenly, well worth a listen (go to above link and click on episode 27).