Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

[GVGjr]

It's an age old question and one that has been debated for years. Leading into the 2016 season, and with a few gaps in our list, it's time to get your view on how we should approach our 4 primary list selections this year.

Do we approach it primarily to cover our needs or stick with the best available with each selection. Perhaps there is a compromised approach that could do a bit of both?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

This is a bit of a rehash of comments made on other threads, but in the interests of progressing discussion, I'll outline my opinion.

Our usual goal is draft for best available, trade for specific needs. Last year was an outstanding example, we traded in an extremely highly rated key forward/ruck (Boyd), a tall defender (Hamling), and a midsize utility (Biggs). These versatile inclusions allowed us to draft for pure best available.

As it happened, they were all small/lightly framed mids.

On balance, this made our list look a little light, but given the high quality of the players, I think most would regard the trade/draft period as highly productive.

Move forward a year and our trade for specific needs process seems to be in play, with Dogs publicly or heavily rumoured to have chased Kruezer, Carlisle, Lobbe, Z.Clarke, May, Haynes and Leuenberger (and probably others more discretely). Presumably, our list managers had concluded, like many fans, that ruck and kpd are areas of specific need.

For various reasons, all trades failed to eventuate.

So now we have a list heavy with talented but light mids but light on talls.

In my opinion, failure to make trades means an adjustment to our usual drafting rationale. I reckon small/light mids only get taken if they are evaluated as considerably superior to other candidates. Mid sized types would still be valuable, particularly defenders (as potential Murphy/Boyd/Morris successors), but any rated talls must be rated at a premium.

Any tall that is ready to go and rated AFL standard, particularly kpd's, (maybe a Mitch Brown, Marcus Adams, Michael Hartley or Patrick Levicki) may be given extreme preference, to the point of using a pick 21 or 30, where we otherwise may not go so high.

I also reckon there are 3 or 4 promising rucks, even though they'll be years away, I'd love us to see us make a long term investment and take a Nyuon, Flynn, Chol or Goetz at 51 or rookie.

That seems the common sense strategy to me, although Dal & JMac will have considered a lot more variables than I can even think of, so whatever they go with, I'll be excited on the night.

[Bornadog]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I voted best available all the way. We should be picking the most talented footballers available and not speculating. Speculation is a big risk (as is any pick I guess), but we need to minimize that risk by picking good players. We should have traded for needs and now we must wear it.

However, I am happy to speculate in the rookie draft.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

How to keep this short and in slogan form?

- Drafting is a tool of list management, not an end unto itself.

- Late picks are hard enough to get right as it is, without filtering by needs. Addressing needs with only late picks isnt realistic.

- Assigning list management requirements into the 'Trade' area isnt eliminating risk, its just shifting it from one area to another.

- Recruiters and List Managers need to to come up with a coherent, forward-looking plan to work together to make the best list, using both draft and trade options to get the job done.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Its very easy to kick the recruiter when he gets a pick wrong - when he gets one wrong, its obviously wrong and its obviously wrong in a fairly short time frame. Same as when the list manager trades for a player from another club and it doesnt work out.

Its not so easy to point the finger at the list manager when we have a trade period like we just had where we failed to address needs we had identified. We can shrug and go 'what can you do? The players we wanted didnt want to come, or wanted to go elsewhere, or just werent available' Which seems to indicate that we think List Management via trade is just a kind of happy-go-lucky random roll of the dice - pull a handle and maybe players we want will pop up when we want them.

Which it shouldnt be! Acquiring players via trade should be the result of a medium term plan where we assign resources and hit up players on a list over a number of years to achieve the desired results. If that fails, then its a real failure! We FdU bigtime!

And balancing your list purely via trades, even if you get it 100% right, is still going to eat up draft resources required to make trades happen, and unbalance your player payments. Trading is an inefficient way to get players onto the list.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I voted best available all the way. We should be picking the most talented footballers available and not speculating. Speculation is a big risk (as is any pick I guess), but we need to minimize that risk by picking good players. We should have traded for needs and now we must wear it.

However, I am happy to speculate in the rookie draft.

To play devil's advocate BAD, if we evaluate best available as a skinny short mid/forward at all 4 picks, that's who we should select?

[Bornadog]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

To play devil's advocate BAD, if we evaluate best available as a skinny short mid/forward at all 4 picks, that's who we should select?

If they are the best footballers, yes. What is the point in drafting a tall if they can't play.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

If they are the best footballers, yes. What is the point in drafting a tall if they can't play.

That would be perfectly valid if our list managers evaluate that there are 0 talls/mids available that are up to AFL level. Let's hope that's not the case!!

[Greystache]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

The argument for always taking the best available is just a cop out for the recruiter and causes problems for the list manager. Of course it's easier to rate a skinny outside flanker higher than a key position player, you can see on exposed form the type of player they are and how they're likely to develop. The chances of a flanker making the grade are also much better than a key position player. It's the easy, safe option, but it's totally unsustainable. Sometimes you have to put your balls on the line and not take the easy option but instead make the tough call on identifying the players your list needs.

Best available is a joke anyway, given more than half the players taken over pick 20 don't make the grade. It's not as if X player at 31 is a certainty, but there's some doubt Y player will make the grade. It's a lottery anyway.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

If they are the best footballers, yes. What is the point in drafting a tall if they can't play.

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.

[Bornadog]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

That would be perfectly valid if our list managers evaluate that there are 0 talls/mids available that are up to AFL level. Let's hope that's not the case!!

I agree also with Stache, past pick 20, 30 it is a bit of a lottery. I guess what I am saying is if we are going to pick a player for a need, let's pick them because they can play. Sounds easy and logical, but how many times have we and other clubs picked a tall because they looked good as juniors but actually they weren't that good when you break it down. I think players like Ayce were picked for the wrong reasons, as was players like Street, and many others. They were 200cm plus and clubs thought they could make players out of them.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

How many people here have inside knowledge on how the draft selection process works internally? Obviously Simon Dalrymple is head recruiter and has the biggest say on draft picks, with Jason MacCartney and Bevo also having significant input.

Who else? Ben Graham? Assistant Coaches (eg Rohan Smith might contribute to evaluations of prospective picks with good defensive potential, Steven King with a ruckman)?

Obviously a lot of discussion is had, but I'm curious as to how final calls are made. Is it ultimately left solely to SD or do they reach a collective agreement?

[Twodogs]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

How many people here have inside knowledge on how the draft selection process works internally? Obviously Simon Dalrymple is head recruiter and has the biggest say on draft picks, with Jason MacCartney and Bevo also having significant input.

Who else? Ben Graham? Assistant Coaches (eg Rohan Smith might contribute to evaluations of prospective picks with good defensive potential, Steven King with a ruckman)?

Obviously a lot of discussion is had, but I'm curious as to how final calls are made. Is it ultimately left solely to SD or do they reach a collective agreement?

Scouts I guess. Especially if we are looking to fill a type of player. The scouts we have around the country would be asked about the best Key Defender or ruckman they have seen around the traps recently.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

If they are the best footballers, yes. What is the point in drafting a tall if they can't play.

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.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Scouts I guess. Especially if we are looking to fill a type of player. The scouts we have around the country would be asked about the best Key Defender or ruckman they have seen around the traps recently.

Interesting. I wonder if a scout's role advances much beyond identifying raw talent and passing on the info to SD. You don't hear much about scouts, I wonder how many we have officially on the payroll. The whole recruiting process is a bit of a dark art - would make a great doco (starting from the grass roots).