Rating Our Draft?

[MrMahatma]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

We got 3 players who have actual roles/positions, not just mids who need to be fit in somewhere.

I like it!

Are they any good? Well… no way of confirming that yet so I’m going on what we’ve done and what we know.

A

[Bornadog]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

I gave it a B+ so we are close in our ratings.
Reasons are detailed in previous post.

Sorry GVGjr, I should have explained better as I wasn't questioning your rating.

I was wondering what the OP is asking? Are we rating the players we picked, our performance in how we conducted the draft ie trading, not trading picks, or something else?

I based my rating on the players we got from the pool available at our pick.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

Fox Sports: B+


Selections: Jedd Busslinger (13), Charlie Clarke (24), Harvey Gallagher (39)

Had plans to pick with a ‘best available’ attitude — and it worked out well for the Dogs, who addressed three separate areas of the ground with their three selections. Busslinger, a rangy 195cm defender who reads the ball superbly in the air and has great defensive nous and composure, was widely regarded as the best tall back in this year’s talent pool. Clarke slipped to the second round, but had first-round interest. Renowned for his energy, competitiveness, goal sense and linking ability between the arcs, Clarke and Cody Weightman could be a damaging combination inside forward 50. And 19-year-old ball magnet Gallagher adds midfield depth.

Grade: B+

[Grantysghost]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

I get what you are saying but the draft isn't always about balancing the playing list.
Busslinger and maybe 1 or 2 others were in the mix for pick 13 so not a mistake there.
Clarke or the 12 month wait for George doesn't seem like a huge miss. While I would prefer George Clarke will play senior football next year.
Gallagher doesn't seem like a long shot to me as he is a hard worker with some elite traits.

I'm okay with a logjam of similar players if we pick the ones in form.

After the distractions of Hunter and the laconic nature of Schache we needed high energy and driven players.
Busslinger might be quiet but we shouldn't question is determination. Clarke and Gallagher will be very driven.

Time will tell if it works well or us.

This is a good post G.

Energy - it's what we had in spades in 2016 if you think of Dalhaus, Smith, Biggs et al.

Now I see a bigger picture maybe emerging I might upgrade to a B ! I like Clarke, but George is one of those risk reward scenarios I would've been ok with taking a slight risk. North have really strengthened, could be one of those drafts we look back on for them.

[F'scary]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

B+ upgraded to A- because we made Brissy match earlier on Jasper than they thought. Good payback.

If we include the pre draft trading, I give us an A for the players we got and the way we conducted ourselves - firm with dignity and honour, something at least one other club can't honestly claim.

[mjp]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

I go B for Boring.

The Gallagher selection was - I suppose - a bit inspired but Busslinger and Clarke could have been picked by "Recruiters 'R' Us".

I'm always wary about recruiting 'group think' - that, after all, is what has created the Saints list profile.

I was often incredibly frustrated by Simon D (Zepphy Skinner, Christian Howard, come-on-down) but he had incredibly strong, well formed opinions on players that were MORE than the normal, run of the mill, ESPN Mock-Draft type assessments. Do I think Busslinger was a good pick? I don't know. I know for sure he wasn't a BAD pick...195cm kpp who could catch it at 18's level? Why not? I sorta feel the same about Clarke who to me is a bit slow for the role he purports to play.

What do I wish we did?

Traded up - some way, some how - for Tsatas. Just seems like what we need.
Or closed our eyes and rolled the dice on Allan.

Pick two? Bid on Davey. If Essendon matched, just stand still and take Cowan, Tassie 19th side be damned.

So...I think a B. Nothing at all wrong with it and completely above all criticism...but to me just seemed a bit devoid of "this is OUR GUY" type recruiting...the one you clearly believe in MORE than all the other clubs, the player who has REALLY got your attention.

Back in the day I laughed at Simon flying to Adelaide (supposedly) 6-weeks in a row to watch Howard...but in retrospect I get it. That was HIS horse. I don't get that feeling about this year's selections.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

I go B for Boring.

The Gallagher selection was - I suppose - a bit inspired but Busslinger and Clarke could have been picked by "Recruiters 'R' Us".

I'm always wary about recruiting 'group think' - that, after all, is what has created the Saints list profile.

I was often incredibly frustrated by Simon D (Zepphy Skinner, Christian Howard, come-on-down) but he had incredibly strong, well formed opinions on players that were MORE than the normal, run of the mill, ESPN Mock-Draft type assessments. Do I think Busslinger was a good pick? I don't know. I know for sure he wasn't a BAD pick...195cm kpp who could catch it at 18's level? Why not? I sorta feel the same about Clarke who to me is a bit slow for the role he purports to play.

What do I wish we did?

Traded up - some way, some how - for Tsatas. Just seems like what we need.
Or closed our eyes and rolled the dice on Allan.

Pick two? Bid on Davey. If Essendon matched, just stand still and take Cowan, Tassie 19th side be damned.

So...I think a B. Nothing at all wrong with it and completely above all criticism...but to me just seemed a bit devoid of "this is OUR GUY" type recruiting...the one you clearly believe in MORE than all the other clubs, the player who has REALLY got your attention.

Back in the day I laughed at Simon flying to Adelaide (supposedly) 6-weeks in a row to watch Howard...but in retrospect I get it. That was HIS horse. I don't get that feeling about this year's selections.

I've got this feeling that we are going to have one of those look backs at George in 5 years and go why..!

Clarke feels a little Jack Higgins to me which isn't super inspiring.

George, well he's got the potential to be a midfield beast like a Petracca so to me that's a far more inspiring pick.

I blame man buns. They have no place in recruiting.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

I go B for Boring.

The Gallagher selection was - I suppose - a bit inspired but Busslinger and Clarke could have been picked by "Recruiters 'R' Us".

I'm always wary about recruiting 'group think' - that, after all, is what has created the Saints list profile.

I was often incredibly frustrated by Simon D (Zepphy Skinner, Christian Howard, come-on-down) but he had incredibly strong, well formed opinions on players that were MORE than the normal, run of the mill, ESPN Mock-Draft type assessments. Do I think Busslinger was a good pick? I don't know. I know for sure he wasn't a BAD pick...195cm kpp who could catch it at 18's level? Why not? I sorta feel the same about Clarke who to me is a bit slow for the role he purports to play.

What do I wish we did?

Traded up - some way, some how - for Tsatas. Just seems like what we need.
Or closed our eyes and rolled the dice on Allan.

Pick two? Bid on Davey. If Essendon matched, just stand still and take Cowan, Tassie 19th side be damned.

So...I think a B. Nothing at all wrong with it and completely above all criticism...but to me just seemed a bit devoid of "this is OUR GUY" type recruiting...the one you clearly believe in MORE than all the other clubs, the player who has REALLY got your attention.

Back in the day I laughed at Simon flying to Adelaide (supposedly) 6-weeks in a row to watch Howard...but in retrospect I get it. That was HIS horse. I don't get that feeling about this year's selections.

Sometimes the obvious is staring at you dead in the eyes and there's no need to be cute.

More often than not, cute doesn't end up a success at the draft table (Howard) nor does it win you big games. While a bit simplistic, if we rate Busslinger, we need a KPD, thought he was also around best available, why wouldn't we pick him? The mystique of Allan is great and all, but let somebody else close their eyes and 'risk it'. Let's pick the eyes out of what we KNOW we need.

It sounds like we tried trading up, which I am always a fan of, but Essendon didn't want to sell. Fair enough.

Many of us have criticised us having too many 'star mids' anyway, so drafting for needs a little made more sense this year than any other, given the composition of our list. It's not 'sexy', but it's sensible. That's what we need right now IMO.

[hujsh]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

Sometimes the obvious is staring at you dead in the eyes and there's no need to be cute.

More often than not, cute doesn't end up a success at the draft table (Howard) nor does it win you big games. While a bit simplistic, if we rate Busslinger, we need a KPD, thought he was also around best available, why wouldn't we pick him? The mystique of Allan is great and all, but let somebody else close their eyes and 'risk it'. Let's pick the eyes out of what we KNOW we need.

It sounds like we tried trading up, which I am always a fan of, but Essendon didn't want to sell. Fair enough.

Many of us have criticised us having too many 'star mids' anyway, so drafting for needs a little made more sense this year than any other, given the composition of our list. It's not 'sexy', but it's sensible. That's what we need right now IMO.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/120672/phantom-draft-vii-2006-phantom-afl-draft

Here's an example. Instead of 8, Jack Riewoldt, or 16, James Frawley, we went with 'our guy' at 26. Old Everitt. Could have done worse than the group think there for sure.

I'd argue it's more often than not, not worked for us but that's based on nothing but my innate Bulldog pessimism.

There's one prime example of us beating that group think though if you check no 12 here...

https://www.afl.com.au/news/63953/update-phantom-form-guide-to-the-draft

[Grantysghost]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/120672/p...ntom-afl-draft

Here's an example. Instead of 8, Jack Riewoldt, or 16, James Frawley, we went with 'our guy' at 26. Old Everitt. Could have done worse than the group think there for sure.

I'd argue it's more often than not, not worked for us but that's based on nothing but my innate Bulldog pessimism.

There's one prime example of us beating that group think though if you check no 12 here...
https://www.afl.com.au/news/63953/up...e-to-the-draft

Lewis Taylor higher crikey

[soupman]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

Lewis Taylor higher crikey

Hey go easy on Lewis. I don't see a Rising Star award next to Ben Lennons career achievements, nor Bonts for that matter.

[mjp]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

Sometimes the obvious is staring at you dead in the eyes and there's no need to be cute.

More often than not, cute doesn't end up a success at the draft table (Howard) nor does it win you big games. While a bit simplistic, if we rate Busslinger, we need a KPD, thought he was also around best available, why wouldn't we pick him? The mystique of Allan is great and all, but let somebody else close their eyes and 'risk it'. Let's pick the eyes out of what we KNOW we need.

It sounds like we tried trading up, which I am always a fan of, but Essendon didn't want to sell. Fair enough.

Many of us have criticised us having too many 'star mids' anyway, so drafting for needs a little made more sense this year than any other, given the composition of our list. It's not 'sexy', but it's sensible. That's what we need right now IMO.

To be fair, I went B for Boring not B for Bad. I like Busslinger fine.

Group think never nets us Bont at 4. Never, ever, ever. It's the old "you've gotta risk it for the biscuit" approach...

[azabob]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

To be fair, I went B for Boring not B for Bad. I like Busslinger fine.

Group think never nets us Bont at 4. Never, ever, ever. It's the old "you've gotta risk it for the biscuit" approach...

Our household saying and any decision making comes back to “risk it for the biscuit”

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

I mean, if Buss wasn't available at our pick or wasn't around the mark of best available then I'd hope we'd have gone Allan and taken that risk. But he was available, and was rated best available and we desperately needed a KPD so it made sense.

Clarke vs George is probably the one I'more disappointed with. I'd have preferred the risk here. Nothing against Clarke though.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Re: Rating Our Draft?

well.... I rated at B- purely from my own pleasure perspective.

Happy with 'Bustling Busslinger' though Allen seemed to be a more exciting prospect. Busslinger is literally what we need and has a bit of the Naughton's about him. WA boy, Blonde curly Mullet, Flies for marks in the air confidently and directly and hits the ground running. Ready to go straight away. For any WHO fans he's the Magic Bus.

Clarke V George.

I really wish we went for George and I must admit, as soon as anyone starts comparing a player's on field 'demeanour' to Toby Green I spew up little bit inside.

I also wish we bid on Davey here. I'm sure Effingdon would have matched, and I just wish we made the bastards squirm. So I hope Clark is great and doesn't start eye gouging or kicking people in the face. I hope to be proven wrong but I reckon George is gonna be a gun and North will have totally cleaned up on this draft.

Gallagher is intriguing and looks OK but everyone has a great draft reel.

So............ yeah, nah, yeah