The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

[GVGjr]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

Any thoughts on Dom Tyson? He didn't play well in the TAC cup grand final, but was pretty solid throughout the year.

Top 5 pick maybe top 3. He won't be anywhere near available for us.

[Bornadog]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

Top 5 pick maybe top 3. He won't be anywhere near available for us.

ok, didn't realise he was right up there.

[G-Mo77]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

Skinner yes.

A few others that come to mind;

Thorne, Prato, Mulligan, Ogle, O'Shea

To be fair they're very late picks or rookie selections.

[Bornadog]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

To be fair they're very late picks or rookie selections.

O'Shea and Mulligan from Qld, played little footy, Prato has a basketball background, Thorne speculative and Ogle can't remember.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

To be fair they're very late picks or rookie selections.

I don't subscribe to this theory at all -- there are only 40+ spots on a list, and half of that list has to go out every week and play a game. This means that technically, there is one back-up for every spot in the 22. I know that's not the way it works in practice (although we did have over 35 players turn out for us this year, including two upgraded rookies) but that means that we need all 40+ players to be able to play the game -- there are no 'giveaway' spots on an AFL list, and if we're treating some of them as such it's just a waste of precious resources. To give a parallel in percentage terms, a soccer team puts out 11 players and 3 subs every week. A tournament team (like a World Cup, or Champions League squad) is usually allowed to be around 22-25 players, and none of those 22-25 players would be throwaway selections. I think we get seduced into thinking that 40 is such a large number that we can have non-contributors, when that's simply not the case.

Also, only a tiny percentage (around 2%, 4% max if you trade in another 1st round pick) of your list can be turned over annually with first rounders (unless you load up like GWS), so if you want to challenge, it's the later picks and rookies that you have to get right in order to be refreshing and building a strong list -- Geelong being the perfect example of this. Collingwood has also been able to top up well with quality mature age (but young) talent, and churn through youngsters quickly in order to filter in quality contributors.

I think it is precisely because we've been looking at the later picks as speculative selections in the last 5 years that we've gotten such an uneven return. Heck, we've been looking at our first and second round picks as speculative picks. Yes, I understand there's an element of luck and guessing to all picks, and we've done okay in the rookie draft with Dahlhaus, Picken and Harbrow, but three players out of a whole bunch of picks isn't a great return (I've left Boydy and Morris out as they belong to an earlier drafting era). To be picking up players like Skinner and Rose, in the main draft no less, ahead of far, far surer contributors like Silvagni, Puopolo or Faulks (from right under our nose) is just inexcusable. It's not even hindsight -- many of us were talking about these players as they had already been widely observed, and it doesn't take a genius to know that Skinner and Rose were/are 1000-1 shots. We're trying to pick superstars out of thin air, when our list actually desperately needs more even, mature and consistent contributors.

As a relatively resource strapped club, we simply can't be viewing any picks as 'throwaways' and wasting them if we want to remain competitive -- with that mentality it's no surprise that we have a massive hole in our list of quality contributors in their mid-20s (which would have come from the last 5 drafts). Also, a draft comes around EVERY SINGLE YEAR which gives clubs the chance to refresh regularly -- there really isn't the need to be picking a whole bunch of 5-year project long-shots. I don't want gamblers running our recruitment policy.

[mjp]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

Crozier or Devon Smith first pick for me - I *think* one of them will still be there.

I would grab another mid with leg-speed/gut running ability second. Nelson isn't a bad option - but a mature ager (Hutchings) from the same club is to me a better player and I am very keen for us to be the club that gives him a second chance. Taylor Adams will still be around a bouts our pick - would be a good pickup as well - could also see us picking up Seb Ross if the guys are convinced he can become a bit more of a ball winner.

I also like us to take another mature ager in Michael Florio with a late-ish/rookie pick...size, speed, running ability - seems just the sort of player we need.

[anfo27]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

I'm not up to date with kids available in the draft but I think we really need to look at a KPD as Lake hasn't got much time left so we need to groom a kid for that spot. I know we need pacy midfielders but they are a lot easier to find in my view. Of course if there are no KPP worthy of a first round pick then get the best player but this really should be a focus for us in my book.
I do like the sounds of McKenzie but i like the sounds of anyone that can kick the ball as well as him.

[Mitcha]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

I don't subscribe to this theory at all -- there are only 40+ spots on a list, and half of that list has to go out every week and play a game. This means that technically, there is one back-up for every spot in the 22. I know that's not the way it works in practice (although we did have over 35 players turn out for us this year, including two upgraded rookies) but that means that we need all 40+ players to be able to play the game -- there are no 'giveaway' spots on an AFL list, and if we're treating some of them as such it's just a waste of precious resources. To give a parallel in percentage terms, a soccer team puts out 11 players and 3 subs every week. A tournament team (like a World Cup, or Champions League squad) is usually allowed to be around 22-25 players, and none of those 22-25 players would be throwaway selections. I think we get seduced into thinking that 40 is such a large number that we can have non-contributors, when that's simply not the case.

Also, only a tiny percentage (around 2%, 4% max if you trade in another 1st round pick) of your list can be turned over annually with first rounders (unless you load up like GWS), so if you want to challenge, it's the later picks and rookies that you have to get right in order to be refreshing and building a strong list -- Geelong being the perfect example of this. Collingwood has also been able to top up well with quality mature age (but young) talent, and churn through youngsters quickly in order to filter in quality contributors.

I think it is precisely because we've been looking at the later picks as speculative selections in the last 5 years that we've gotten such an uneven return. Heck, we've been looking at our first and second round picks as speculative picks. Yes, I understand there's an element of luck and guessing to all picks, and we've done okay in the rookie draft with Dahlhaus, Picken and Harbrow, but three players out of a whole bunch of picks isn't a great return (I've left Boydy and Morris out as they belong to an earlier drafting era). To be picking up players like Skinner and Rose, in the main draft no less, ahead of far, far surer contributors like Silvagni, Puopolo or Faulks (from right under our nose) is just inexcusable. It's not even hindsight -- many of us were talking about these players as they had already been widely observed, and it doesn't take a genius to know that Skinner and Rose were/are 1000-1 shots. We're trying to pick superstars out of thin air, when our list actually desperately needs more even, mature and consistent contributors.

As a relatively resource strapped club, we simply can't be viewing any picks as 'throwaways' and wasting them if we want to remain competitive -- with that mentality it's no surprise that we have a massive hole in our list of quality contributors in their mid-20s (which would have come from the last 5 drafts). Also, a draft comes around EVERY SINGLE YEAR which gives clubs the chance to refresh regularly -- there really isn't the need to be picking a whole bunch of 5-year project long-shots. I don't want gamblers running our recruitment policy.

Last time I checked, Skinner 1 game, Faulks 2 games, not a truckload of difference there and I don't subscribe to the theory that Faulks is as you say a "far, far surer contributor. I think you will also find that Rose was selected in the rookie draft and not the main draft as you said. Williamstown actually went a fair way to paying Rose's wage when he was with us after the success of the Liam Picken pick.

[mjp]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

Last time I checked, Skinner 1 game, Faulks 2 games, not a truckload of difference there and I don't subscribe to the theory that Faulks is as you say a "far, far surer contributor.

...and Skinner earned that game with weight of performances, did he?

Faulks was an almost dominant defender in the VFL and after adapting to larger grounds over here became the same in the WAFL - playing on the best opposition forward each week. I understand why we didn't recruit him but given Lake's injuries he would have played a lot of games for us in 2011.

I have said I am happy to have the Skinner pick justified under the 'x-factor', might be a smiling superstar category, but please don't start with the Faulkes was not a surer bet than Skinner.

[azabob]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

...and Skinner earned that game with weight of performances, did he?

Faulks was an almost dominant defender in the VFL and after adapting to larger grounds over here became the same in the WAFL - playing on the best opposition forward each week. I understand why we didn't recruit him but given Lake's injuries he would have played a lot of games for us in 2011.

I have said I am happy to have the Skinner pick justified under the 'x-factor', might be a smiling superstar category, but please don't start with the Faulkes was not a surer bet than Skinner.

With all Freos injuries how come Faulks only played two games?

[GVGjr]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

With all Freos injuries how come Faulks only played two games?

He was injured himself

[Sedat]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

With all Freos injuries how come Faulks only played two games?

He was one of the long-term injured list from memory. Then when he finally got his chance he was smashed to pieces running with the fllight of the ball.

[mjp]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

With all Freos injuries how come Faulks only played two games?

Not a bad question actually.

1/.He got injured early.

This shouldn't be understated. His early form was not great, then he got hurt. He was really struggling with the bigger grounds - leadup really means 'lead-up'! in the WAFL early and conceded a couple of bags of 5 and 6. Then he got hurt...so he really wasn't up and going until about AFL Round 8 and was missing a fitness base.

2/.Freo had injuries...but they were the 'wrong' injuries.

McPharlin was fine. Grover was fine. Michael Johnson was fine. The Docker's fans were screaming for Faulkes to replace Johnson but clearly the coaches lacked faith in a 0-game player/had faith in Johnson who has played a bit...and offers ruck support, can kick a goal etc etc.

3/.Faulkes doesn't really play a AFL-type game.

Believe it or not, I am comfortable with not recruiting Faulkes and this is why - he basically doesn't get the ball and is one of those (rare) individuals who legitimately does not care if he gets the ball or not. He is a defender. I actually think in terms of 1-on-1 defenders he would be in the upper-echelon of players in the game today...but when his team gets the ball they are basically one short because not only does he not look to get involved, his kicking does not inspire his team-mates to get him the ball (but he IS getting better).

Faulkes is a really, really good player. He would have played for us (a lot - we had injuries to Lake and Williams concurrently!) and would have been fine.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

I think you will also find that Rose was selected in the rookie draft and not the main draft as you said. Williamstown actually went a fair way to paying Rose's wage when he was with us after the success of the Liam Picken pick.

You're absolutely right -- I was thinking about Thorne when I wrote Rose! (funny how the brain works with word associations like that.)

We definitely drafted Thorne in the main draft, and if that's not a wasted pick I don't know what is. 1000-1 is too short to describe that one. Much like real-life problem gamblers, we're the biggest gamblers when we can least afford to be.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Phil Scully Draft Bonanza

3/.Faulkes doesn't really play a AFL-type game.

Believe it or not, I am comfortable with not recruiting Faulkes and this is why - he basically doesn't get the ball and is one of those (rare) individuals who legitimately does not care if he gets the ball or not. He is a defender. I actually think in terms of 1-on-1 defenders he would be in the upper-echelon of players in the game today...but when his team gets the ball they are basically one short because not only does he not look to get involved, his kicking does not inspire his team-mates to get him the ball (but he IS getting better).

Faulkes is a really, really good player. He would have played for us (a lot - we had injuries to Lake and Williams concurrently!) and would have been fine.

Actually, I'm spewing we didn't recruit him, and regardless of his limitations, you've hit the nail on the head in the bolded point: Even next season Williams is no monty to get on the park with his fragility, and Lake may or may not be okay. We also have Morris with a long-term injury, and Hargrave and Gilbee on their way out. Our out-and-out medium/tall defender stocks are literally Markovic, Mulligan and Barlow. Faulks would not only have played a whole bunch of games last year, he would have also played a whole bunch of games the next couple of years while we sorted out of medium sized stopper situation (I'm ignoring the fact that he got injured.. he's not fragile, and that was an unlucky coincidence that has no bearing on this discussion since it would have been a parallel reality).

I mean, it's not like Morris is a brilliant ball-player either, but we love him because we know he'll stop his opponents 99 weeks out of a 100.

Even from a recruiting balance perspective, what the heck did we need to recruit Moles, Djerkurra, Hooper, Dahlhaus, Tutt, Johannissen (sp?), Thorne and Skinner -- all small, mercurial, midfield/small forward types -- all within a year of each other (how many of these does a list need anyway? That's EIGHT recruits, 20% of a list, invested on ONE type of player. In a way, a break-out like Dahlhaus was the least we could expect after such a huge outlay of picks), while only picking up Markovic as a defensive type (Howard and Barlow don't count). It's not as if we were overflowing with key defenders -- I mean, we upgraded Mulligan FFS.