Autopsy 2018 JLT Series - Game 2: Melbourne v St.Kilda

[aussierulesrules]

Sinclair with our high rookie draft pick, too.

And Skunk for nothing because we would have taken him with pick 1 of the preseason draft had they not delisted him.

 

[PaddysurDaddy]

the good thing about that handball stat is next time richo tells the boys to handball more, they won't go over the top with it like they did the other night, that's some good experience. Because sometimes the call will come down to use their hands more, it's good that they know how much is too much

 

[StCicatriz]

It's not exactly reasonable to expect us to have found "elite" talent with picks in the 20's and beyond in the compromised 2011 and 2012 drafts!

The latter draft was pure garbage after the top 10 or so and I doubt any other club did better from picks 25+ in 2011 than we did, getting Seb, Newnes (who have 5 top 8 B&F finishes between them already), and Webster (also two top 10's), who are all best 22.

Trout's drafting is not spectacular, but it's very solid. He generally gets good value from his picks.

This. I was extremely critical of trout early on and questioned his ability to find match winners

But he's been solid. Put it this way I think he and the recruitment team are significantly better then the coaching.

Trouts not perfect but he's very solid. A number of clubs would kill for that. He's done pretty damn well for the draft hand he's had. Trades for the most part have been good as well.

 

[StCicatriz]

Moves I didn't really like at the time that have paid off:
- Roberton selection
- Carlisle trade
- Gresham selection
- Webster selection
- Sinclair selection
- Membrey trade/selection

The coffield and clark picks could be his finest moment. I think everyone loved the Hawthorn trade but I think most wanted it packed up into another trade for an elite star. But it could turn out that both those players end up being that. If trout then finds another elite player at trade time or the free agency period he could have absolutely nailed the strategy.

I really really didn't like taking pick 7 and 8 to the draft either. I wanted another 2018 first or an elite player.

 

[sunny3193]

This. I was extremely critical of trout early on and questioned his ability to find match winners

But he's been solid. Put it this way I think he and the recruitment team are significantly better then the coaching.

Trouts not perfect but he's very solid. A number of clubs would kill for that. He's done pretty damn well for the draft hand he's had. Trades for the most part have been good as well.

Yes, spot on.
(I would say ripping post but that’s yours and you could go me for royalties).
I think we need to put his performance into another context.
The club has been restricted by its business model for many, many years.
There just has not been the funds required, or available, to invest in the business.
It was all about survival.
In the case of a business like a football club, investing in the business is clearly investment in human capital.
In other words: player recruitment and development.
From memory (2015?), I think the Spencer board made an announcement that they would be expanding investment in football operations of some serious $k’s, even at the detriment of the club’s profit position.
A gutsy move.
So prior to 2015, I think it safe to say that Trout was operating an underfunded department.
The measurement in which his performance needs to be fairly assessed is that of his peers in a similarly underfunded environment.
After all, you cannot pick talent if you do not have the resources to identify that talent.
So pre 2015, don’t measure his performance against the fully funded behemoths of the comp: Collingwood, West Coast, Hawthorn etc.
Measure his performance against like underfunded peers.

From 2015 on, the argument is less valid.

(This same argument applies to our player development too).

There is a reason why smaller clubs find it difficult to compete against larger clubs, irrespective of the competition.

That is why this new deal at Etihad is so important and why Finnis describes it as a “game changer”.

People on here are, mostly, completely ignorant of it’s importance.

As for 2012; that was a really, really poor draft. Have a look at it. Our drafting is as bad as nearly everyone else’s.

 

[StCicatriz]

Yes, spot on.
(I would say ripping post but that’s yours and you could go me for royalties).
I think we need to put his performance into another context.
The club has been restricted by its business model for many, many years.
There just has not been the funds required, or available, to invest in the business.
It was all about survival.
In the case of a business like a football club, investing in the business is clearly investment in human capital.
In other words: player recruitment and development.
From memory (2015?), I think the Spencer board made an announcement that they would be expanding investment in football operations of some serious $k’s, even at the detriment of the club’s profit position.
A gutsy move.
So prior to 2015, I think it safe to say that Trout was operating an underfunded department.
The measurement in which his performance needs to be fairly assessed is that of his peers in a similarly underfunded environment.
After all, you cannot pick talent if you do not have the resources to identify that talent.
So pre 2015, don’t measure his performance against the fully funded behemoths of the comp: Collingwood, West Coast, Hawthorn etc.
Measure his performance against like underfunded peers.

From 2015 on, the argument is less valid.

(This same argument applies to our player development too).

There is a reason why smaller clubs find it difficult to compete against larger clubs, irrespective of the competition.

That is why this new deal at Etihad is so important and why Finnis describes it as a “game changer”.

People on here are, mostly, completely ignorant of it’s importance.

As for 2012; that was a really, really poor draft. Have a look at it. Our drafting is as bad as nearly everyone else’s.

I think you are right sunny. I remember going to some u18 games here in WA and trout was there with ameet. Plus I think the part time WA recruiter. That was it.

Last year I saw atleast 4-5 saints recruiters at the game.

That's a massive difference

 

[Stewart66]

This. I was extremely critical of trout early on and questioned his ability to find match winners

But he's been solid. Put it this way I think he and the recruitment team are significantly better then the coaching.

Trouts not perfect but he's very solid. A number of clubs would kill for that. He's done pretty damn well for the draft hand he's had. Trades for the most part have been good as well.

He went Rogue though picking McKenzie instead of Touk Miller who all our other recruiters wanted .

 

[SufferingS8INT]

Yes but none is none. 100 games times none is still none. Longer doesn't lack that at all and that wont be even a slight reason he may eventually get replaced.

Well it’s good to see that you’re a mathematician as well as a pain in the ass. I didn’t say either had none and I didn’t say it would be the reason he’d be replaced. I said ‘I wish Longer had Marshals inner mongrel’. Split hairs all you like but my meaning was that Marshal, Although a lot smaller than Longer, goes a lot harder!! Yes Longer has had some good physical performances but all i remember from his most recent outing is him being pushed over and out of a contest by a Carlton player smaller than him. Not saying Marshal out muscled Gawn, but he definitely had a lot harder of a crack!!!

 

[VDS66]

Yes, spot on.
(I would say ripping post but that’s yours and you could go me for royalties).
I think we need to put his performance into another context.
The club has been restricted by its business model for many, many years.
There just has not been the funds required, or available, to invest in the business.
It was all about survival.
In the case of a business like a football club, investing in the business is clearly investment in human capital.
In other words: player recruitment and development.
From memory (2015?), I think the Spencer board made an announcement that they would be expanding investment in football operations of some serious $k’s, even at the detriment of the club’s profit position.
A gutsy move.
So prior to 2015, I think it safe to say that Trout was operating an underfunded department.
The measurement in which his performance needs to be fairly assessed is that of his peers in a similarly underfunded environment.
After all, you cannot pick talent if you do not have the resources to identify that talent.
So pre 2015, don’t measure his performance against the fully funded behemoths of the comp: Collingwood, West Coast, Hawthorn etc.
Measure his performance against like underfunded peers.

From 2015 on, the argument is less valid.

(This same argument applies to our player development too).

There is a reason why smaller clubs find it difficult to compete against larger clubs, irrespective of the competition.

That is why this new deal at Etihad is so important and why Finnis describes it as a “game changer”.

People on here are, mostly, completely ignorant of it’s importance.

As for 2012; that was a really, really poor draft. Have a look at it. Our drafting is as bad as nearly everyone else’s.

Probably explains getting players like Lee and Co.

 

[Verdun66]

Probably explains getting players like Lee and Co.

That was partly the Pelican if memory serves. We were intent on adding depth so went for a couple of 2 for 1’s. Saad and Milera were then weren’t they? Both had their moments, but ultimately for different reasons checked out.

But as pointed out earlier they were very compromised drafts around that time. And i remember it being said that you could throw a blanket over about picks 10-30 and not find much different in quality. So doubling your chances of a draft success was reasonable.

 

[Joffaboy]

Richos version of hot potatoe

Potato

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[plugger66]

Well it’s good to see that you’re a mathematician as well as a pain in the ass. I didn’t say either had none and I didn’t say it would be the reason he’d be replaced. I said ‘I wish Longer had Marshals inner mongrel’. Split hairs all you like but my meaning was that Marshal, Although a lot smaller than Longer, goes a lot harder!! Yes Longer has had some good physical performances but all i remember from his most recent outing is him being pushed over and out of a contest by a Carlton player smaller than him. Not saying Marshal out muscled Gawn, but he definitely had a lot harder of a crack!!!

Marshall does not go harder than Billy. Glad we couldn't discuss it without being personal. I'm no Billy fan but the comment is crazy.

 

[plugger66]

He went Rogue though picking McKenzie instead of Touk Miller who all our other recruiters wanted .

So Miller was the next pick?

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

Lonie before Daniel (if you wanted a quality small) was reasonably rogue too.

 

[BillingsMagic]

As long as we keep picking the solid b citizen, good character types. Myself & triggering bro will be happy.

 

[plugger66]

Lonie before Daniel (if you wanted a quality small) was reasonably rogue too.

If we play this game we will go insane especially with later picks.

 

[BillingsMagic]

If we play this game we will go insane especially with later picks.

Geez that Judd would’ve been handy. Or even Bartel for Xavier Clark. Oh didums.

 

[bird_man]

Moves I didn't really like at the time that have paid off:
- Roberton selection
- Carlisle trade
- Gresham selection
- Webster selection
- Sinclair selection
- Membrey trade/selection

The coffield and clark picks could be his finest moment. I think everyone loved the Hawthorn trade but I think most wanted it packed up into another trade for an elite star. But it could turn out that both those players end up being that. If trout then finds another elite player at trade time or the free agency period he could have absolutely nailed the strategy.

I really really didn't like taking pick 7 and 8 to the draft either. I wanted another 2018 first or an elite player.

Couple of questions.

Who would you have liked over Gresham at the time?

And why would you have been against Membrey? He was free at a time where we had zero forwards apart from Roo.

 

[StCicatriz]

Couple of questions.

Who would you have liked over Gresham at the time?

And why would you have been against Membrey? He was free at a time where we had zero forwards apart from Roo.

i thought gresham was undersized/small forward, cant remember who i was keen on. i remember liking collins. but i cant remember where i settled.

dont get me wrong i am absolutely stoked with gresham. he is literally a match winner and someone i look forward to watching every week.

on membrey i was happy to take for free, but i just didnt rate him, thats all. obviously wrong there too!!! similar to the roberton one.

 

[Mighty_sainter]

Moves I didn't really like at the time that have paid off:
- Roberton selection
- Carlisle trade
- Gresham selection
- Webster selection
- Sinclair selection
- Membrey trade/selection

The coffield and clark picks could be his finest moment. I think everyone loved the Hawthorn trade but I think most wanted it packed up into another trade for an elite star. But it could turn out that both those players end up being that. If trout then finds another elite player at trade time or the free agency period he could have absolutely nailed the strategy.

I really really didn't like taking pick 7 and 8 to the draft either. I wanted another 2018 first or an elite player.

Think all draft watches including myself all said from the start the top end there is talent and it tampered off after the first 20, witch is why it got considered a poor draft but I didn't understand why posters were so adamant to get rid of our picks because of the 'poor' draft. We had pick 7 and 8 we didn't have 25 and 26. There's always going to be talent at the top of every draft and we were certainly well up there. Next years draft is always stronger. I was on coffield from very early on and posted a few times during the year in our draft thread that coffield is exactly what we needed. speed, ball use, agility, height and leadership. On huntsman I saw a few games where his kicking was just hacking out of packs but he was playing pure inside. His kicking on the outside is pure beauty. Both kids will be rippers you can tell.

 

[gringo2011]

Think all draft watches including myself all said from the start the top end there is talent and it tampered off after the first 20, witch is why it got considered a poor draft but I didn't understand why posters were so adamant to get rid of our picks because of the 'poor' draft. We had pick 7 and 8 we didn't have 25 and 26. There's always going to be talent at the top of every draft and we were certainly well up there. Next years draft is always stronger. I was on coffield from very early on and posted a few times during the year in our draft thread that coffield is exactly what we needed. speed, ball use, agility, height and leadership. On huntsman I saw a few games where his kicking was just hacking out of packs but he was playing pure inside. His kicking on the outside is pure beauty. Both kids will be rippers you can tell.

Yeah I have no patience so seeing two kids that look likely early is very pleasing. I think the patience thing is why people were keen to get a Kelly type in. He'd be an instant kick start towards finals. It's probably a slower but better strategy to get two good young kids in and develop them while we aren't quite there yet. It keeps the TPP low and leaves room to still strike a heavy front load on a stars contract who is up for FA if a good one pops up.


I also reckon this draft was pretty unfairly labelled as weak. I reckon guys like Worpel at 45, Petruccelli at 38, Oscar Allen and L. Fogarty in the 20s, Clav, Spargo, Constable, Murphy, Sam Hayes, Naish, Mc Cartin etc all look like they were very good value lots way outside 20.

 

[plugger66]

Yeah I have no patience so seeing two kids that look likely early is very pleasing. I think the patience thing is why people were keen to get a Kelly type in. He'd be an instant kick start towards finals. It's probably a slower but better strategy to get two good young kids in and develop them while we aren't quite there yet. It keeps the TPP low and leaves room to still strike a heavy front load on a stars contract who is up for FA if a good one pops up.


I also reckon this draft was pretty unfairly labelled as weak. I reckon guys like Worpel at 45, Petruccelli at 38, Oscar Allen and L. Fogarty in the 20s, Clav, Spargo, Constable, Murphy, Sam Hayes, Naish, Mc Cartin etc all look like they were very good value lots way outside 20.

It’s far far to early to call on the draft. A draft is strong if you get champions out of it not nice players and you don’t find that out for a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gringo2011]

It’s far far to early to call on the draft. A draft is strong if you get champions out of it not nice players and you don’t find that out for a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course that's true but I think the "weak" tag was unfair and no one could really qualify why. Some said the first 20 were good but dropped away, which seeing guys who could have gone top 10 drifted into the 40s would make that seem wrong. I think the thing that made people think it was a poor draft was the 17 year olds playing against them had more individual stand outs.

I think it might actually be quite deep but didn't have anyone that looked like an obvious number 1 talent in hindsight. Rayner looks good but not substantially better than plenty of others who went top 10. There are a few of real unknowns that could be the best of the lot too. Stephen and Bonar look like they could be special players but have a few question marks.

 

[plugger66]

Of course that's true but I think the "weak" tag was unfair and no one could really qualify why. Some said the first 20 were good but dropped away, which seeing guys who could have gone top 10 drifted into the 40s would make that seem wrong. I think the thing that made people think it was a poor draft was the 17 year olds playing against them had more individual stand outs.

I think it might actually be quite deep but didn't have anyone that looked like an obvious number 1 talent in hindsight. Rayner looks good but not substantially better than plenty of others who went top 10. There are a few of real unknowns that could be the best of the lot too. Stephen and Bonar look like they could be special players but have a few question marks.

It was weak as the experts called it because a lot of next years players were better and they also watch many games and notice the skills. You can mention names at the moment but really it’s silly because not one single player has played a game yet let alone become champions. I will go with experts until proof of otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gringo2011]

It was weak as the experts called it because a lot of next years players were better and they also watch many games and notice the skills. You can mention names at the moment but really it’s silly because not one single player has played a game yet let alone become champions. I will go with experts until proof of otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they have played games, not serious AFL and early form can seduce, still looks like plenty of guys are going to be as good as most other years. most drafts are pretty solid with the only stinker I can think of being 2012 and even that was because GWS and GC got to pre list players before the drafts.