List Mgmt. 2014 Draft + DFA Talk Part II

[RockJobster0312]

IMHO our real need now and for the next several years is classy mids. Our top line is good, but not enough depth. Our talls are good and we have depth, but several need to step up a bit. To me it seems pretty obvious that if we trust our development people then another top grade mid is the biggest need. Especially if they have run and carry.

Then we need young depth in KPs and ruck (but rucks can be found in trades and state leagues)

So, I like what is coming out of the club. Although the comment about Wright at the end of the article posted was interesting - if he is there we are interested.

It seems to met that there is a common theme starting to emerge with ruckman for most teams. We've seen Grundy drop and now there is a very good chance Wright will slide. Most teams seem to draft them relatively late, and will likely trade for one. I think most teams are of the understanding now that a tall takes 3-4 to really their straps. Ruckman possibly even more.

I know it was the ethos at Sydney under Roos (and seems that Horse inherited it) to take mids and trade for bigs. I think that we've taken a similar approach. Obviously we still select talls in the draft, just with our later picks.

Bit of a nothing article tbh....

Hahaha, 99% of the articles about the draft are to be honest.

 

[Mr Magic]

It seems to met that there is a common theme starting to emerge with ruckman for most teams. We've seen Grundy drop and now there is a very good chance Wright will slide. Most teams seem to draft them relatively late, and will likely trade for one. I think most teams are of the understanding now that a tall takes 3-4 to really their straps. Ruckman possibly even more.

I know it was the ethos at Sydney under Roos (and seems that Horse inherited it) to take mids and trade for bigs. I think that we've taken a similar approach. Obviously we still select talls in the draft, just with our later picks.



Hahaha, 99% of the articles about the draft are to be honest.

Why get talls with later picks if not good enough? Is that because we want to clog our list for 3-4 years before turning them over stuffing up our list management strategies?

 

[RockJobster0312]

Why get talks with later picks if not good enough? Is that because we want to clog our list for 3-4 years before turning them over stuffing up our list management strategies?

By later picks I mean say Griffiths at 19 (after I think Martin at 3) and Elton at 26 (after I think Vlastuin at 9) so they are still relatively high. Obviously say McBean with a pick in the 30s is there as well.

I can't say I've done the research to back up my argument - so I leave myself well open to being proved extremely incorrect - but a large percentage of best 22 talls across the AFL are not necessarily high draft picks. Off the top of my head ruckman like Pyke, Mumford, Giles, Maric, Jacobs, Cox, Bellchambers, Sandilands, Clarke, Jamar, Goldstein etc were all late picks/ rookie selections. And they are just rucks let alone key position forwards/ backs. We could add players such as Crameri to that list.

Take say Tom Boyd and Joe Danniher, possibly the two highest talls to come out of the last few drafts. Neither has really dominated from year 1 (or year 2 despite a good EF for Danniher) - at least not on a consistent basis. It still seems a consensus that no matter how good or how high a players potential is, it takes 3-4 years before they really hit their straps. There is (off the top of my head again) very few talls who shown a dominance in their first couple of years.

My point is that your always going to have a talls 'clog your list' for the first few years in the AFL system. The players we have picked up in this regard (Griffiths, Elton, McBean) have all been at our second selection or higher, and certainly have the physical attributes to contribute at AFL level.

Notwithstanding all of that, I certainly think there is validity in your comment.

 

[Mr Magic]

By later picks I mean say Griffiths at 19 (after I think Martin at 3) and Elton at 26 (after I think Vlastuin at 9) so they are still relatively high. Obviously say McBean with a pick in the 30s is there as well.

I can't say I've done the research to back up my argument - so I leave myself well open to being proved extremely incorrect - but a large percentage of best 22 talls across the AFL are not necessarily high draft picks. Off the top of my head ruckman like Pyke, Mumford, Giles, Maric, Jacobs, Cox, Bellchambers, Sandilands, Clarke, Jamar, Goldstein etc were all late picks/ rookie selections. And they are just rucks let alone key position forwards/ backs. We could add players such as Crameri to that list.

Take say Tom Boyd and Joe Danniher, possibly the two highest talls to come out of the last few drafts. Neither has really dominated from year 1 (or year 2 despite a good EF for Danniher) - at least not on a consistent basis. It still seems a consensus that no matter how good or how high a players potential is, it takes 3-4 years before they really hit their straps. There is (off the top of my head again) very few talls who shown a dominance in their first couple of years.

My point is that your always going to have a talls 'clog your list' for the first few years in the AFL system. The players we have picked up in this regard (Griffiths, Elton, McBean) have all been at our second selection or higher, and certainly have the physical attributes to contribute at AFL level.

Notwithstanding all of that, I certainly think there is validity in your comment.

Lot of your talls are ruckmen! Cox etc... so I think they can be in a different category regarding late picks.

Griffith's I am not sure you can call late because he slid due to shoulders I think and was just outside first round. Apart from a few key backs most good KPP are usually high draft picks I think

 

[Dr Tigris]

Why are our talls good as a group? Seriously, maybe our problem is the rest of the team is not getting the support we need from our talls collectively. Sure Rance and JR have been solid but to me saying our talls are good is a stretch IMO although there is room for development like our mids.

Magic, that isn't my point. Our talls need a lot of work to move from OK to good. But the talent is there. My point is that I think it is quite clear that we need more quality in the midfield to be a real contender. You can get by with decent/good tall stocks and win a premiership. But without an outstanding midfield you get nowhere near. Right now our top end midfield is brilliant, but the depth is just so so. So to me that means going mids early and in number. But if a really good tall lands to us then that is a real temptation. However, our major need is quality in the midfield. And this draft looks like we will get a good mid at 12.

I see us as having a heap of talented youngish talls. But they really need to step up, apart from JR, Trossman and Ivan. However, we have that talent in the squad. Our depth mids are not potential quality. Simply and arguement of where we need more numbers. In a year or two we need to invest in talls as our current guys get older. Just balancing the list needs over time.

 

[RockJobster0312]

Lot of your talls are ruckmen! Cox etc... so I think they can be in a different category regarding late picks.

Griffith's I am not sure you can call late because he slid due to shoulders I think and was just outside first round. Apart from a few key backs most good KPP are usually high draft picks I think

Why should ruckman be in a different category? It's part of my argument that regardless of draft position talls take longer too develop.

Insofar as KPP are high draft picks, some of them are. But take the All Australian KPP this year. Hooker (#54 in 07), Talia #13 (and was considered the best KPD in his class) Rance #18 (and was considered the best KPD in his class). Mackenzie was #29 in his draft class. Talia and Rance (certainly the latter) were expected to go much much higher than they did.

My points are in response to your question why take talls with our later picks if they are not good enough? it is not should we or should we not take talls with our first pick. My point is firstly talls take longer to develop - something that seems is universally accepted. We have seen a lot of picks become genuine AFL guns from later picks, and have seen highly rated talls become absolute busts. How are we to know that they are not good enough when we know they will take longer to develop and that there is enough evidence to suggest that later talls can become guns.

Though in saying all that, are we in a position to add say Wright to our list - knowing he will take some time to develop and would likely to play the majority of his first few years in the VFL - when we are trying to move up the ladder significantly in the next few years?

 

[Mr Magic]

Magic, that isn't my point. Our talls need a lot of work to move from OK to good. But the talent is there. My point is that I think it is quite clear that we need more quality in the midfield to be a real contender. You can get by with decent/good tall stocks and win a premiership. But without an outstanding midfield you get nowhere near. Right now our top end midfield is brilliant, but the depth is just so so. So to me that means going mids early and in number. But if a really good tall lands to us then that is a real temptation. However, our major need is quality in the midfield. And this draft looks like we will get a good mid at 12.

I see us as having a heap of talented youngish talls. But they really need to step up, apart from JR, Trossman and Ivan. However, we have that talent in the squad. Our depth mids are not potential quality. Simply and arguement of where we need more numbers. In a year or two we need to invest in talls as our current guys get older. Just balancing the list needs over time.

Yeah but is the talent there in the talls? Because it takes longer its a bit more difficult to be definitive, it is easy to say the talent is there when maybe it isn't but we don't know for sure because we are hoping they develop.

Not accusing you of anything, I am just not as convinced that any perceived talent is necessarily there in the amounts we need. I was happy to stick with Rance but some of this others are a bit more speculative IMO and I certainly wouldn't be putting them in the same basket as Rance thats for sure!

The thing is with a mid. Stuff it up like with Arnott possibly we can fix it quickly with easy replacements. Stuff up KPP prospects recruiting and development we can be looking at a 4-5 year hole in development not easily replaced at all which can really stuff our team prospects and windows!


BTW I would argue Hawthorn win premierships on their KPP stocks not their mids. Plenty of mid fields are better than Hawthorn's IMO. A lot of their talent is in the front half and they rely heavily on Hodge whether in the middle or defense!

 

[tigs2010]

Without doing any research most KPF's tend to go top 30, rucks tend to go after that and mainly rookie. KPD's are all over the place.

 

[Mr Magic]

Why should ruckman be in a different category? It's part of my argument that regardless of draft position talls take longer too develop.

Insofar as KPP are high draft picks, some of them are. But take the All Australian KPP this year. Hooker (#54 in 07), Talia #13 (and was considered the best KPD in his class) Rance #18 (and was considered the best KPD in his class). Mackenzie was #29 in his draft class. Talia and Rance (certainly the latter) were expected to go much much higher than they did.

My points are in response to your question why take talls with our later picks if they are not good enough? it is not should we or should we not take talls with our first pick. My point is firstly talls take longer to develop - something that seems is universally accepted. We have seen a lot of picks become genuine AFL guns from later picks, and have seen highly rated talls become absolute busts. How are we to know that they are not good enough when we know they will take longer to develop and that there is enough evidence to suggest that later talls can become guns.

Though in saying all that, are we in a position to add say Wright to our list - knowing he will take some time to develop and would likely to play the majority of his first few years in the VFL - when we are trying to move up the ladder significantly in the next few years?

I think Ruck man can be put into a different category. There are a couple of reasons I can think of.

1. Statistically I believe the records suggest good ruck man are more likely to be selected later. I think there are reasons for this. Ruck man generally are taller and potentially more speculative in nature as a result.

2. KPP and Ruck man play different roles. Sure you can get some that can play KPP and Ruck but they are pretty rare at the highest levels. When you have a gun forward like G Ablett snr and even a Dunstall, both of whom do not belong in the ruck, you know for some KPP roles they are different to the ruck role requiring different skills and attributes

 

[Mr Magic]

Without doing any research most KPF's tend to go top 30, rucks tend to go after that and mainly rookie. KPD's are all over the place.

It gets clouded for versatility reasons IMO to due to lack of supply of quality KPP's particularly forward. Eg. Roughead, Pavlich and Neitz were arguably gun CHB's with Pav a FB but played forward simply because they couldn't get any better and it is harder to compete well kicking goals as a forward usually.

 

[Calcium Man]

Without doing any research most KPF's tend to go top 30, rucks tend to go after that and mainly rookie. KPD's are all over the place.

Do some research then instead of making up arbitrary observations.

I think people classifying Wright as a ruckman are wrong though. He is Forward/Ruckman like Tyrone and those players are worth their weight in gold.

 

[tigs2010]

Do some research then instead of making up arbitrary observations.

I don't wanna make people feel bad but my guesses are most likely right.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Do some research then instead of making up arbitrary observations.

I think people classifying Wright as a ruckman are wrong though. He is Forward/Ruckman like Tyrone and those players are worth their weight in gold.

His best game this season was when he played in the ruck and his best game after that was as a high CHF. The Brad Ottens comparison was a good one.

 

[Mr Magic]

Is Duggan slow? Read some poster say he ran a 3.1 20 metre sprint!

 

[Prem87]

Is Duggan slow? Read some poster say he ran a 3.1 20 metre sprint!

Duggan did, was mentioned in an AFL article about him.

 

[Calcium Man]

His best game this season was when he played in the ruck and his best game after that was as a high CHF. The Brad Ottens comparison was a good one.

Yeah good comparison.

The thing is he can kick goals. Kicked 27 in 12 matches as a bottom ager and 32 in 13 games this year, think teams are crazy to overlook him especially ones short on KPF.

 

[RockJobster0312]

BTW I would argue Hawthorn win premierships on their KPP stocks not their mids. Plenty of mid fields are better than Hawthorn's IMO. A lot of their talent is in the front half and they rely heavily on Hodge whether in the middle or defense!

Legit question (i.e. not providing a counter argument) but has the game changed that much over the last 5-10 years. I remember when Sydney and the Eagles both won grand finals against each other neither were enamoured with great KPP. Certainly in my opinion not any better than what we have now. LRT, Hunter, Seaby, Hansen, Doyle, Ball, Gaspar and Gardiner all KPP in those '05 and '06 grand finals.

Furthermore, the 07 Grand Final boasted Nathan Ablett and Cameron Mooney as the two forward stalwarts for the Cats. Thurstons and a young Westhoff were KPP for the Power. In 08, Tom Lonergan replaced Ablett for the Cats whereas the Hawks had Robert Campbell and Brent Renouf.

Just an interesting conversation I think.

 

[TigerTime88]

Legit question (i.e. not providing a counter argument) but has the game changed that much over the last 5-10 years. I remember when Sydney and the Eagles both won grand finals against each other neither were enamoured with great KPP. Certainly in my opinion not any better than what we have now. LRT, Hunter, Seaby, Hansen, Doyle, Ball, Gaspar and Gardiner all KPP in those '05 and '06 grand finals.

Furthermore, the 07 Grand Final boasted Nathan Ablett and Cameron Mooney as the two forward stalwarts for the Cats. Thurstons and a young Westhoff were KPP for the Power. In 08, Tom Lonergan replaced Ablett for the Cats whereas the Hawks had Robert Campbell and Brent Renouf.

Just an interesting conversation I think.

IMO the game is won in the middle. We have an AA KPP at each end and some young talent surrounding them. Load up on jet midfielders and if we have holes in our KPP when we are a top 4 side then use FA to fill the gaps.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Yeah good comparison.

The thing is he can kick goals. Kicked 27 in 12 matches as a bottom ager and 32 in 13 games this year, think teams are crazy to overlook him especially ones short on KPF.

Agreed. Though I don't think we are one of those teams simply because the likes of Vickery and Griffiths either were first round picks or would have been if not for injuries. Then there's Elton who also was considered a top five pick going into his draft year.

Im also a pretty big fan of Kietel (defender) and Hammelmann who could be had later in the draft.

 

[Mr Magic]

Legit question (i.e. not providing a counter argument) but has the game changed that much over the last 5-10 years. I remember when Sydney and the Eagles both won grand finals against each other neither were enamoured with great KPP. Certainly in my opinion not any better than what we have now. LRT, Hunter, Seaby, Hansen, Doyle, Ball, Gaspar and Gardiner all KPP in those '05 and '06 grand finals.

Furthermore, the 07 Grand Final boasted Nathan Ablett and Cameron Mooney as the two forward stalwarts for the Cats. Thurstons and a young Westhoff were KPP for the Power. In 08, Tom Lonergan replaced Ablett for the Cats whereas the Hawks had Robert Campbell and Brent Renouf.

Just an interesting conversation I think.

It is interesting, Geelong had a freak team but Scarlett and Egan were guns and Mooney and even Ottens with N Ablett pretty handy.

Hall was with the Swans and Cox lifting Eagles, Glass and Hunter were not bad. They were terribly scratchy matches though.

Even when the Saints were up they had Reiwoldt, CHB options solid, FB adequate then Gehrig or others.

The important think is the structures are sound. frankly I think we are suspect in the CHB and CHF areas. Guys like Durdin and Wright should do wonders for us

 

[Dr Tigris]

Mr Magic.
Half agree. We have two very very good KPs - JR and Rance. As in AA good. Around them - Front half, TV and Griff. TV plays every 4th/5th game like and A grader. So he has the talent, application is his problem. He's older and for the first time got shunted out of the team by another KPF. Could be the making of him, he knows what is required and that his existing output won't get him there. Griff showed genuine AFL KPF talent in 2014. Not awesome, but it is there. Knowing that and with serious competition for the first team spot he should improve, both naturally and htrough application. Got others coming, but let them serve their apprenticeship. So forward half three talented guys, one proven star and two definite maybes.
KPBs - Rance AA, Chaplin experienced loose man/chop out man on man (goes OK, but not worth gold and jewels). Astbury showed he can take the monster KPFs adn beat them consistently. Often injured, but seriously has the talent to be a good KPD, maybe very good. Grimes is injured and skinny, but very good lockdown and when up and about nice rebound. So 4 good to very good KPDs, but a big step for 2 to become genuine AFL players.

Overall, that gives us a capable spine in JR and Rance, with support from enough others. These others have all shown genuine AFL level talent. Some are just young and need to learn the AFL level. Some (TV I'm looking at you) have proven talent but just only show it occasionally. in terms of rucks Ivan has a few more years and TV and Griff provide good backup, with the Hampster if needed. OK for about 3 more years. So either young Ivan develops fast, Hampson gets a lot better or we trade someone in around 2016. As the list manager (in my dreams) I'd be relatively happy with that for the next 5 years given the ages. After that I would be worried, but plenty of time on my side. I certainly wouldn't be really comfortable, there is a lot of work to be done on our talls. But it's OKish right now.

My point in all this is that our mids have limited depth, and the young later pick guys coming through are not showing signs of brilliance. For us right now, to aim at a premiership, we need to load our midfield ASAP. Mids come on faster and it's where we have a greater need.

So I am not really arguing with your logic. I just see our list needs as mids first, talls later.

 

[Mr Magic]

Half agree. We have two very very good KPs - JR and Rance. As in AA good. Around them - Front half, TV and Griff. TV plays every 4th/5th game like and A grader. So he has the talent, application is his problem. He's older and for the first time got shunted out of the team by another KPF. Could be the making of him, he knows what is required and that his existing output won't get him there. Griff showed genuine AFL KPF talent in 2014. Not awesome, but it is there. Knowing that and with serious competition for the first team spot he should improve, both naturally and htrough application. Got others coming, but let them serve their apprenticeship. So forward half three talented guys, one proven star and two definite maybes.
KPBs - Rance AA, Chaplin experienced loose man/chop out man on man (goes OK, but not worth gold and jewels). Astbury showed he can take the monster KPFs adn beat them consistently. Often injured, but seriously has the talent to be a good KPD, maybe very good. Grimes is injured and skinny, but very good lockdown and when up and about nice rebound. So 4 good to very good KPDs, but a big step for 2 to become genuine AFL players.

Overall, that gives us a capable spine in JR and Rance, with support from enough others. These others have all shown genuine AFL level talent. Some are just young and need to learn the AFL level. Some (TV I'm looking at you) have proven talent but just only show it occasionally. in terms of rucks Ivan has a few more years and TV and Griff provide good backup, with the Hampster if needed. OK for about 3 more years. So either young Ivan develops fast, Hampson gets a lot better or we trade someone in around 2016. As the list manager (in my dreams) I'd be relatively happy with that for the next 5 years given the ages. After that I would be worried, but plenty of time on my side. I certainly wouldn't be really comfortable, there is a lot of work to be done on our talls. But it's OKish right now.

My point in all this is that our mids have limited depth, and the young later pick guys coming through are not showing signs of brilliance. For us right now, to aim at a premiership, we need to load our midfield ASAP. Mids come on faster and it's where we have a greater need.

So I am not really arguing with your logic. I just see our list needs as mds first, talls later.

I don't think it is just application. I think it is also about structure. Eg. I think next year we should chase Tomlinson to balance out our half forward line. Griffith's still play there even if we get Wright but Tomlinson offers us that more mobile flexible option on the lead with ground level strength as well giving the mid fielders more choice going forward freeing up guys in our forward line like JR deeper. Tomlinson can easily shift to a wing to space out our forwards

 

[tigs2010]

I'd be happy to take Wright as a ruckman anyway. We have nothing in the ruck department outside Maric. We were desperate and got lucky Maric turned out as well as he did. Not sure we can rely on doing that each time we need a ruck. Look at the Hampson deal, it isn't that easy to just go out and grab a quality ruck. We've seen what happens to our team without a quality ruck and it ain't pretty. As soon as Maric came back and gained match fitness our team was good again.

 

[Mr Magic]

I'd be happy to take Wright as a ruckman anyway. We have nothing in the ruck department outside Maric. We were desperate and got lucky Maric turned out as well as he did. Not sure we can rely on doing that each time we need a ruck. Look at the Hampson deal, it isn't that easy to just go out and grab a quality ruck. We've seen what happens to our team without a quality ruck and it ain't pretty. As soon as Maric came back and gained match fitness our team was good again.

One thing with Wright is he can play deeper, CHF and ruck in theory. I am yet to be convinced any of our talls can play a CHF type role apart from Griffith's. Atm I cannot see TV effective at CHF!

 

[RockJobster0312]

I don't think it is just application. I think it is also about structure. Eg. I think next year we should chase Tomlinson to balance out our half forward line. Griffith's still play there even if we get Wright but Tomlinson offers us that more mobile flexible option on the lead with ground level strength as well giving the mid fielders more choice going forward freeing up guys in our forward line like JR deeper. Tomlinson can easily shift to a wing to space out our forwards

Tomlinson looks set to re-sign with GWS.

But I agree insofar as structure. I think our backline structure is okay, but our forward line structure isn't.

We had games in previous years where Ty and JR8 looked to hard to defend against with such an open forward line. But teams (like Collingwood with Mick Naxwell) carved us up when we couldn't stop the third man up problem. Also think out entry into the F50 is suspect - enough that it allows a third tall to rotate of their opponent and be the extra man up.

People forget that 2 years ago, Ty and JR8 kicked the most goals for a duo in the AFL - greater than the then duo of Roughead and Franklin.

The interesting aspect of this is how we integrate the third prong in the forward line being a gun midfielder (Cotchin, Martin, Deledio). Having three talls makes that an extremely congested forward 50, and it would be quite difficult to isolate one of those four 1 out.