Analysis 2019 List Management Discussion II

[SOS must stay]

You have to look at things in the whole though, as we're possibly the worst performed team when it comes to late picks and rookie picks.

Start at let's say pick #40 and project forward as to what we've achieved in SOS's time, to date:

Main List - JSilvagni who we would have bid on earlier anyway and Tom Williamson who hasn't played much for no real fault of his own.
Rookie Draft - Not one hit from 9 attempts.
That's poor going for a bottom of the table team screaming to find talent anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere to hide really.

We may be the worst performed with late picks and rookie picks, but in reality, who cares? The late picks are not a priority with our recruitment strategy, for other teams they are, hence the better performance.

I look at the crows recruiting as an example of a team who has been set up to do well with later picks. This became especially obvious last year when the crows had 3 picks in the top 20 of a super draft and went for diamond in the rough types in line with their historical recruiting strategy (a big mistake by them) which would have been the opposite of what our team would have done with those picks. (My bet would be that we would have traded the three picks down to get one of the King brothers and a highly rated mid which we would now be applauded for)

How many other recruiting teams have brought in the caliber of player in the past five drafts our recruiting team has?

*None of these ratings would surprise me within the next 3 years,

Top 30 in the comp:

Walsh
Weitering
Curnow
Mckay

Top 150:

Setterfeild
SPS
Gibbons
Mcgovern
Marchbank
Fisher
Stocker
Silvagni
Dow
O'Brien
Newman
Martin
Newnes

Looking at that list you can see that our focus is top end draft picks and undervalued mature prospects. This strategy is working.

 

[HARKER]

We may be the worst performed with late picks and rookie picks, but in reality, who cares? The late picks are not a priority with our recruitment strategy, for other teams they are, hence the better performance.

I look at the crows recruiting as an example of a team who has been set up to do well with later picks. This became especially obvious last year when the crows had 3 picks in the top 20 of a super draft and went for diamond in the rough types in line with their historical recruiting strategy (a big mistake by them) which would have been the opposite of what our team would have done with those picks. (My bet would be that we would have traded the three picks down to get one of the King brothers and a highly rated mid which we would now be applauded for)

How many other recruiting teams have brought in the caliber of player in the past five drafts our recruiting team has?

*None of these ratings would surprise me within the next 3 years,

Top 30 in the comp:

Walsh
Weitering
Curnow
Mckay

Top 150:

Setterfeild
SPS
Gibbons
Mcgovern
Marchbank
Fisher
Stocker
Silvagni
Dow
O'Brien
Newman
Martin
Newnes

Looking at that list you can see that our focus is top end draft picks and undervalued mature prospects. This strategy is working.

I can put forward Head of Football and CEO and that alone may stand for plenty.
Our approach in regards to later picks / rookie picks hasn't been good and needs to be put under review, but not everyone would be happy for processes to be placed under such a review. I'm just not sure why our List Manager has to take it so personally.

I don't want to see Silvagni gone either and if we did more all our marks by way of players and types, we may not be talking about see Silvagni go.

 

[Michael Jezz]

You have to look at things in the whole though, as we're possibly the worst performed team when it comes to late picks and rookie picks.

Start at let's say pick #40 and project forward as to what we've achieved in SOS's time, to date:

Main List - JSilvagni who we would have bid on earlier anyway and Tom Williamson who hasn't played much for no real fault of his own.
Rookie Draft - Not one hit from 9 attempts.
That's poor going for a bottom of the table team screaming to find talent anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere to hide really.

Yes and statistically, pick 40 onwards has a hit rate of 10%. SOS is batting at AFL averages

 

[SurreyBlue]

I like the way people keep forgetting, conveniently so maybe as well, but SOS didn’t have his recruiting team in play until the last 2 years. Off memory he was batting alone for most part of his early years and or without high quality men supporting him. He deserves better.

 

[KohPhi]

A playing career until you’re 33 is good going these days. A surprise delisting nonetheless

He came back from the dead... Betts had come back from Adelaide.

Betts has the harder path me thinks.

 

[Metalcrusher]

I like the way people keep forgetting, conveniently so maybe as well, but SOS didn’t have his recruiting team in play until the last 2 years. Off memory he was batting alone for most part of his early years and or without high quality men supporting him. He deserves better.

Now now SB why on earth would you bring logic into the debate?

 

[SOS must stay]

I can put forward Head of Football and CEO and that alone may stand for plenty.
Our approach in regards to later picks / rookie picks hasn't been good and needs to be put under review, but not everyone would be happy for processes to be placed under such a review. I'm just not sure why our List Manager has to take it so personally.

I don't want to see Silvagni gone either and if we did more all our marks by way of players and types, we may not be talking about see Silvagni go.

If they cant see the great job Silvagni has done, they should be the ones under review.

I see your point of view as slightly contradictory. You state that proper list management is all about picking for need but what if the list managers think we don't need the probable talent levels of late draft or rookie listed players to be on our list at all. We've gone through the 5 year rebuild where almost the entire list is high end talent in each position. Why would we expect the list managers to put time and resources into these late picks when the objective is to bring in high end talent and cheap, undervalued role players who we have been picking up for free?

Those late picks should just be for players we rate highly that have slipped through, speculative picks which could be low risk, high reward, trade currency or older, short term players to fill a hole.

Cuningham
Curnow
McKay
Marchbank
Weitering
SPS
Fisher
O'Brien
Setterfield
Dow
DeKoning
Kennedy
Plowman
Walsh
Stocker
Lang
Goddard
Newnes
Martin
Pick 9

That's 20 former 1st and 2nd picks SOS has brought in over the past 5 off seasons. Almost half the list. Throw in Murphy, Cripps, Docherty, Kruezer and there's your list strategy. A whole team of first and second round talent, with known, mature role players to fill in the gaps. What coach could come in and say Silvagni hasn't provided them with enough talent to do their job? That's all Silvagni should be judged on, not how he uses each pick.

All first or second round talent:

Docherty Weitering Plowman
Newnes Marchbank SPS
Walsh Cripps Setterfield
Fisher Curnow McGovern
Martin McKay Kennedy

Kruezer Murphy Dow

Stocker Lang Goddard O'Brien Cuningham TDK

That's the list strategy.

Look at Deluca as an example, he's shown as much as you could expect from a 23 y.o. mid season rookie but SOS and co still aren't convinced he's worth a list spot. I'm confident if he showed this form 2 years ago he would have got a contract but still probably would have been delisted this year as the five year plan draws to its conclusion and he gets squeezed out for more first and second round talent.

I find it bizarre that people would question Silvagni on how he's used a few picks late in the draft, especially given that he didn't have a full team of recruiters to start the rebuild with.

 

[HARKER]

If they cant see the great job Silvagni has done, they should be the ones under review.

I see your point of view as slightly contradictory. You state that proper list management is all about picking for need but what if the list managers think we don't need the probable talent level of a late draft or rookie listed players to be on our list at all. We've gone through the 5 year rebuild where almost the entire list is high end talent in each position. Why would we expect the list managers to put time and resources into these late picks when the objective is to bring in high end talent and cheap, undervalued role players who we have been picking up for free?

Those late picks should just be for players we rate highly that have slipped through, speculative picks which could be low risk, high reward or older, short term players to fill a hole.

Cuningham
Curnow
McKay
Marchbank
Weitering
SPS
Fisher
O'Brien
Setterfield
Dow
DeKoning
Kennedy
Plowman
Walsh
Stocker
Lang
Goddard
Newnes
Martin
Pick 9

That's 20 former 1st and 2nd picks SOS has brought in over the past 5 off seasons. Almost half the list. Throw in Murphy, Cripps, Docherty, Kruezer and there's your list strategy. A whole team of first and second round talent, with known, mature role players to fill in the gaps. What coach could come in and say Silvagni hasn't provided them with enough talent to do their job? That's all Silvagni should be judged on, not how he uses each pick.

All first or second round talent:

Docherty Weitering Plowman
Newnes Marchbank SPS
Walsh Cripps Setterfield
Fisher Curnow McGovern
Martin McKay Kennedy

Kruezer Murphy Dow

Stocker Lang Goddard O'Brien Cuningham TDK

That's the list strategy.

Look at Deluca as an example, he's shown as much as you could expect from a 23 y.o. mid season rookie but SOS and co still aren't convinced he's worth a list spot. I'm confident if he showed this form 2 years ago he would have got a contract but still probably would have been delisted this year as the five year plan draws to its conclusion and he gets squeezed out for more first and second round talent.

I find it bizarre that people would question Silvagni on how he's used a few picks late in the draft, especially given that he didn't have a full team of recruiters to start the rebuild with.

Thank you for your considered post.

If it was up to me, I don't want to see Silvagni go either, but sometimes you just know that your possibilities are limited.
There's a power-play at hand and as I put forward the other day (and thanks to Sparks) - This town ain't big enough for the both of us.

Seems to me that Silvagni is being squeezed and the 'squeezies' have the ammunition to get the job done.
There's clearly much more to this than to exit out one individual. We'll see how it plays out and who the victor may be.

 

[Robertio]

Thank you for your considered post.

If it was up to me, I don't want to see Silvagni go either, but sometimes you just know that your possibilities are limited.
There's a power-play at hand and as I put forward the other day (and thanks to Sparks) - This town ain't big enough for the both of us.

Seems to me that Silvagni is being squeezed and the 'squeezies' have the ammunition to get the job done.
There's clearly much more to this than to exit out one individual. We'll see how it plays out and who the victor may be.

What do you know Harks? You can tell me, i won't tell anyone.

 

[KohPhi]

From what I've heard, SOS being 'squeezed' doesnt have anything to do with how he has built the list.
HARKER is spot on when he says there is a power play occurring.

Edit; source.. recent ex player running around with one of my old local sides.

 

[The Bighouse]

From what I've heard, SOS being 'squeezed' doesnt have anything to do with how he has built the list.
HARKER is spot on when he says there is a power play occurring.

Edit; source.. recent ex player running around with one of my old local sides.

Which would go with “actively undermined” or along those lines, which was posted earlier.
Disappointing to hear this to say the least.

 

[ferrisb]

we don't consider a broken leg an injury at carlton........

Ed Curnow and Cripps clearly don't...

The both tried to play out games with broken legs IIRC...

 

[ferrisb]

An old acquaintanceawho still plays VFL said Webb is an elite talent, and would be a very smart pickup for Carlton

Way too good to playing VFL. Easily in our top 22.

I hope your old acquaintance was not spinning a Webb of lies....

 

[gbatman]

Done it to death but our late picks and rookie picks haven't been bad, they have been average which for a rebuilding bottom club is pretty good.

Our late pick selecting will improve from now on because we're more likely to be targeting types who generally last until late and because our culture has developed and list is matured enough where we can bring in types who may not have a positive impact on our culture.

Shaw, O'Shea, Mullett, Lobbe etc. People need to remember we needed mature players we could get on a one or maybe two year contract and to also remember we were an undesirable bottom side players did not want to go to. It's this type of recruiting that has enabled us to manage our salary cap and put us in a position to draft in multiple big name players but also to manage our player salaries into the long term future.

Need to remember that while Richmond are currently the benchmark for finding players late in the draft, they didn't pick anyone up with late picks until the last two drafts leading into their premiership season for the very same reasons why we have been lean in that department but are likely to resolve that. In fact their recruiting history very closely resembles ours. Heaps of salary dumps and failed rookies/late picks who are long forgotten.

It's not bad recruiting. It's just us following a strict plan which means the chances of us taking players late in the draft and them working out is a little slim.

People need to understand that it's hard to find players late in the draft when...

1. You are trying to build a good culture and you're putting a line through every player who shows signs of possibly not being a consummate professional who will contribute in a positive way to club culture and work ethic. A lot of players who are taken late in the draft are talented players who get left until late for this very reason.

2. You're focusing heavily on core players (talls and mids) because they are the most important, influential and take the longest time to develop. These are the sorts you're less likely to find later in the draft. Talls and key mids nearly always go in the top 30 while your peripheral types tend to be found later.

3. You have a long term salary cap to manage, issues with having too many young players on the list and you need to have mature players who will contribute to culture and work ethic but also want to be at a bottom club on a one year salary. You won't get many takers unless they are desperate and if they are desperate then it's likely no one else wants them. Any senior player on the move will go anywhere else if they get a choice so it's slim picking when it comes to finding senior players. Either way it's worked well, we've had guys play and give the young players some cover and we have been able to offload them when ever we would like. It's this kind of management that will see us being able to manage the salaries of our stars for a long time to come.

4. You're culture and fitness is underdeveloped. Got to remember we haven't had a high performance manager until last season and fitness has been a problem. It's one thing to recruit players but if you can't get them fit then what hope do they have of turning out? A lot of late picks who work out are players who are talented but not very professional or driven. You get them into a strongly led club with a good culture that pushes professionalism and work ethic really hard and get them fit and they turn out, otherwise they end up failures. Richmond have been that for a about a good 5 years now but we're probably only just there now.

What I'm trying to explain here is that top teams appear to be good at finding players late in the draft. People put that down to good recruiting but that's only a small part of the picture. It is good recruiting but it's as much, if not more about those clubs being good places to get the best out of a player who may not be that professional and also says a lot about where that club is at list wise. They are always clubs who have a solid core and are focusing on players who typically turn up late in the draft. We just haven't been one of those clubs for a lot of the time but we're probably getting there now.

I'm not the least bit worried about our later picks in the draft. Yeah it would be good to see more hits there but there's good reasons why it's only been average and there are good reasons to expect that things will appear to improve in this area from here on. Knowing we can take risks on less professional types, more a focus on types who are typically hits later in the draft, knowing we can bring players to the club and the staff and culture will drive them to reach their potential.

We're in a good position now and I wouldn't be overly concerned with our drafting. We'll start hitting more late in the draft purely for where we are at list wise, development wise and staff wise. It's been hard to find players late in the draft but it's getting easier and results will follow.

 

[KohPhi]

I hope your old acquaintance was not spinning a Webb of lies....

loop

 

[JuddgementDay]

Done it to death but our late picks and rookie picks haven't been bad, they have been average which for a rebuilding bottom club is pretty good.

Our late pick selecting will improve from now on because we're more likely to be targeting types who generally last until late and because our culture has developed and list is matured enough where we can bring in types who may not have a positive impact on our culture.

Shaw, O'Shea, Mullett, Lobbe etc. People need to remember we needed mature players we could get on a one or maybe two year contract and to also remember we were an undesirable bottom side players did not want to go to. It's this type of recruiting that has enabled us to manage our salary cap and put us in a position to draft in multiple big name players but also to manage our player salaries into the long term future.

Need to remember that while Richmond are currently the benchmark for finding players late in the draft, they didn't pick anyone up with late picks until the last two drafts leading into their premiership season for the very same reasons why we have been lean in that department but are likely to resolve that. In fact their recruiting history very closely resembles ours. Heaps of salary dumps and failed rookies/late picks who are long forgotten.

It's not bad recruiting. It's just us following a strict plan which means the chances of us taking players late in the draft and them working out is a little slim.

People need to understand that it's hard to find players late in the draft when...

1. You are trying to build a good culture and you're putting a line through every player who shows signs of possibly not being a consummate professional who will contribute in a positive way to club culture and work ethic. A lot of players who are taken late in the draft are talented players who get left until late for this very reason.

2. You're focusing heavily on core players (talls and mids) because they are the most important, influential and take the longest time to develop. These are the sorts you're less likely to find later in the draft. Talls and key mids nearly always go in the top 30 while your peripheral types tend to be found later.

3. You have a long term salary cap to manage, issues with having too many young players on the list and you need to have mature players who will contribute to culture and work ethic but also want to be at a bottom club on a one year salary. You won't get many takers unless they are desperate and if they are desperate then it's likely no one else wants them. Any senior player on the move will go anywhere else if they get a choice so it's slim picking when it comes to finding senior players. Either way it's worked well, we've had guys play and give the young players some cover and we have been able to offload them when ever we would like. It's this kind of management that will see us being able to manage the salaries of our stars for a long time to come.

4. You're culture and fitness is underdeveloped. Got to remember we haven't had a high performance manager until last season and fitness has been a problem. It's one thing to recruit players but if you can't get them fit then what hope do they have of turning out? A lot of late picks who work out are players who are talented but not very professional or driven. You get them into a strongly led club with a good culture that pushes professionalism and work ethic really hard and get them fit and they turn out, otherwise they end up failures. Richmond have been that for a about a good 5 years now but we're probably only just there now.

What I'm trying to explain here is that top teams appear to be good at finding players late in the draft. People put that down to good recruiting but that's only a small part of the picture. It is good recruiting but it's as much, if not more about those clubs being good places to get the best out of a player who may not be that professional and also says a lot about where that club is at list wise. They are always clubs who have a solid core and are focusing on players who typically turn up late in the draft. We just haven't been one of those clubs for a lot of the time but we're probably getting there now.

I'm not the least bit worried about our later picks in the draft. Yeah it would be good to see more hits there but there's good reasons why it's only been average and there are good reasons to expect that things will appear to improve in this area from here on. Knowing we can take risks on less professional types, more a focus on types who are typically hits later in the draft, knowing we can bring players to the club and the staff and culture will drive them to reach their potential.

We're in a good position now and I wouldn't be overly concerned with our drafting. We'll start hitting more late in the draft purely for where we are at list wise, development wise and staff wise. It's been hard to find players late in the draft but it's getting easier and results will follow.

Great post - so well articulated.
I could agree more!

 

[Brackets]

Great post - so well articulated.
I could agree more!

Most definitely one of the best contributors on this board. Whenever doubt creeps in I look for a lengthy gbatman post to put me back at ease.

 

[toddkurnski]

Done it to death but our late picks and rookie picks haven't been bad, they have been average which for a rebuilding bottom club is pretty good.

I did this on TC. May as well put it here too for information and discussion. Take it as a statistical breakdown and not a whole world review of players abilities, only that they were/would be good enough to beat the median at their pick range for games played, which of course at this stage sometimes involves prediction against form and injuries to get to the games played range. So yes, there is opinion and projection involved.

For information, my view prior to doing this was that our list management under SOS has been that we have been excellent at obtaining value for players leaving, using the picks from those players to maximum value with excellent early picks, we have been poor at recruiting mature players, poor at the rookie draft but, we have not held onto our poor picks and trades with poor contracts, Polson aside. This is an often forgotten part of list management, not having bloated and lengthy contracts and recognising the player you brought in isn’t good enough and letting him go swiftly.

Information taken from here
https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison/medians

I’ve just looked at how many picks it takes to get a player to reach a certain amount of games. I am aware of the limitations of this, but if you want to perform some kind of benchmarking then this at least provides some insight, particularly to how hard it is to strike it with later picks. I believe it’s often forgotten how many fail from those picks because you only see the success stories running around each week, not the dozens of players who never made it. (obvious not obvious)

For Picks 51-70
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 3.6
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 5.3
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 11.9
Players drafted in this range (7)
Finbar
BSOS
Schumacher
Polson
Williamson
Kerr
JSOS

I think JSOS will get to 100 games. If Williamson stays injury free, and I think a large majority believe he will play 100 games if he does, that would mean beating the median. Schumacher, Kerr and Polson not going to happen. But you don't hold onto those not capable, you cut them rather than clog the list. Which is also an important part of list management, don’t hold onto players in continued hope.

For Picks 31-50
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 3.1
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 7.2
Players drafted in this range
H. Macreadie

Very unlikely to make 100 games. Players in this range only 50/50 to play more than 40 games. Macreadie also unlikely to get to that many games. Only one pick in this range so hard to judge.

For Picks 21-30
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 2.9
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 7.6
Players drafted in this range
TDK
Fisher
Cuningham

I think likely one of those will make 100 games. A small chance two will, as it looks like injuries will be the determining factor for that to happen.

For Picks 11-20
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 2.1
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 3.7
Picks needed for an All Australian 5.9
Players drafted in this range
Charlie
Stocker

One of those will definitely play 100 games. Very strong chance 2 will. Charlie staying injury free likely to be a 200 gamer and I personally think for him AA is possible.

For Picks 6-10
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 1.7
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 3.6
Picks needed for an All Australian 6.2
Players drafted in this range
LOB
SPS
Harry

Two of those will play 100 games. One will play 200.

For Pick 1
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 1.0
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 1.5
Picks needed for an All Australian 1.8
Players drafted in this range
Walsh
Weitering

Both look to be 200+ game players and possible AA candidates.

From a statistical point of view, drafting in this era in the national draft will end up beating the median for picks needed for games played by players in that pick range, with the exception of 31-50 where only one player was taken.

For the Rookie Draft
For Pick 1-10
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 3.3
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 4.7
Players drafted in this range
Hugh Goddard
Matt Shaw
Cam O’Shea (PSD but I’ll put him here)
Kym Le Bois
JGM

This is our area of complete failure. Not even close to getting even a 50 game player. The thing to remember here is that only 56% of players taken here even play a single game. But it’s still a failure in my opinion.

For the Rookie Draft
For Pick 11-30
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 4.8
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 6.2
Players drafted in this range
Galluci
ASOS
Bugg

Again, complete failure. Not even close to getting even a 50 game player. Only 49% of players taken here even play a game. Only 33% play more than 10. Even at those rates it is still a failure in my opinion.

But again, the rates of success down here are very very low.

TLDR
National Draft, even the later picks, projects to outperform the median. I think the suggestion our late picks have been poor is incorrect, it belies how hard it is to pick good players in that range, and if both JSOS and Williamson play 100 then we have actually beaten the median number of picks required. Rookie draft, even at its low levels of expectation for supplying 50 game players, is a fail. A clear area for improvement.

Come back in five years for the full results.

 

[Brackets]

Come back in five years for the full results.

What time are you thinking?

 

[toddkurnski]

What time are you thinking?

Make it 4 years.

4:53pm, September 30th, 2023

 

[gbatman]

I did this on TC. May as well put it here too for information and discussion. Take it as a statistical breakdown and not a whole world review of players abilities, only that they were/would be good enough to beat the median at their pick range for games played, which of course at this stage sometimes involves prediction against form and injuries to get to the games played range. So yes, there is opinion and projection involved.

For information, my view prior to doing this was that our list management under SOS has been that we have been excellent at obtaining value for players leaving, using the picks from those players to maximum value with excellent early picks, we have been poor at recruiting mature players, poor at the rookie draft but, we have not held onto our poor picks and trades with poor contracts, Polson aside. This is an often forgotten part of list management, not having bloated and lengthy contracts and recognising the player you brought in isn’t good enough and letting him go swiftly.

Information taken from here
https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison/medians

I’ve just looked at how many picks it takes to get a player to reach a certain amount of games. I am aware of the limitations of this, but if you want to perform some kind of benchmarking then this at least provides some insight, particularly to how hard it is to strike it with later picks. I believe it’s often forgotten how many fail from those picks because you only see the success stories running around each week, not the dozens of players who never made it. (obvious not obvious)

For Picks 51-70
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 3.6
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 5.3
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 11.9
Players drafted in this range (7)
Finbar
BSOS
Schumacher
Polson
Williamson
Kerr
JSOS

I think JSOS will get to 100 games. If Williamson stays injury free, and I think a large majority believe he will play 100 games if he does, that would mean beating the median. Schumacher, Kerr and Polson not going to happen. But you don't hold onto those not capable, you cut them rather than clog the list. Which is also an important part of list management, don’t hold onto players in continued hope.

For Picks 31-50
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 3.1
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 7.2
Players drafted in this range
H. Macreadie

Very unlikely to make 100 games. Players in this range only 50/50 to play more than 40 games. Macreadie also unlikely to get to that many games. Only one pick in this range so hard to judge.

For Picks 21-30
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 2.9
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 7.6
Players drafted in this range
TDK
Fisher
Cuningham

I think likely one of those will make 100 games. A small chance two will, as it looks like injuries will be the determining factor for that to happen.

For Picks 11-20
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 2.1
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 3.7
Picks needed for an All Australian 5.9
Players drafted in this range
Charlie
Stocker

One of those will definitely play 100 games. Very strong chance 2 will. Charlie staying injury free likely to be a 200 gamer and I personally think for him AA is possible.

For Picks 6-10
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 1.7
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 3.6
Picks needed for an All Australian 6.2
Players drafted in this range
LOB
SPS
Harry

Two of those will play 100 games. One will play 200.

For Pick 1
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 1.0
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 1.5
Picks needed for an All Australian 1.8
Players drafted in this range
Walsh
Weitering

Both look to be 200+ game players and possible AA candidates.

From a statistical point of view, drafting in this era in the national draft will end up beating the median for picks needed for games played by players in that pick range, with the exception of 31-50 where only one player was taken.

For the Rookie Draft
For Pick 1-10
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 3.3
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 4.7
Players drafted in this range
Hugh Goddard
Matt Shaw
Cam O’Shea (PSD but I’ll put him here)
Kym Le Bois
JGM

This is our area of complete failure. Not even close to getting even a 50 game player. The thing to remember here is that only 56% of players taken here even play a single game. But it’s still a failure in my opinion.

For the Rookie Draft
For Pick 11-30
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 4.8
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 6.2
Players drafted in this range
Galluci
ASOS
Bugg

Again, complete failure. Not even close to getting even a 50 game player. Only 49% of players taken here even play a game. Only 33% play more than 10. Even at those rates it is still a failure in my opinion.

But again, the rates of success down here are very very low.

TLDR
National Draft, even the later picks, projects to outperform the median. I think the suggestion our late picks have been poor is incorrect, it belies how hard it is to pick good players in that range, and if both JSOS and Williamson play 100 then we have actually beaten the median number of picks required. Rookie draft, even at its low levels of expectation for supplying 50 game players, is a fail. A clear area for improvement.

Come back in five years for the full results.

Good post, very insightful. Certainly shows above average drafting and if you analyse rebuilds in recent times, you look at how Richmond and Hawthorn got and used a lot of top 30 picks like we have, I think this post backs up how important that is.

Rookie draft and PSD, it probably doesn't tell the full story there. We used that draft to bring in some much needed tempory senior players who were always going to be gap filler. A lot of people have spent a lot of time complaining that getting them was a bad idea which I don't agree with. They played a short but important role.

Now how we use the rookie draft will be completly different. No need to put a line through talented players because they wont contribute to club culture or stuff like that. No need to use picks on senior players who aren't that good. I think with a focus on talent and talent alone without those restrictions we'll see much better results.

There's much more too it than 'we have a problem because we haven't recruited good players in the rookie draft'.

But as you said, come back in 5 years for the final result. I don't think it will be that long, I think we will see whether our top end recruiting has been any good next year and whether our late round recruiting is any good with in a year or two.

End of the day as seen on the best 22 thread, we seem to have plenty of debate and options there, seem to have 26 pretty good players and a top 30 who can all play AFL so we're doing something right.

 

[Garters]

Done it to death but our late picks and rookie picks haven't been bad, they have been average which for a rebuilding bottom club is pretty good.

Our late pick selecting will improve from now on because we're more likely to be targeting types who generally last until late and because our culture has developed and list is matured enough where we can bring in types who may not have a positive impact on our culture.

Shaw, O'Shea, Mullett, Lobbe etc. People need to remember we needed mature players we could get on a one or maybe two year contract and to also remember we were an undesirable bottom side players did not want to go to. It's this type of recruiting that has enabled us to manage our salary cap and put us in a position to draft in multiple big name players but also to manage our player salaries into the long term future.

Need to remember that while Richmond are currently the benchmark for finding players late in the draft, they didn't pick anyone up with late picks until the last two drafts leading into their premiership season for the very same reasons why we have been lean in that department but are likely to resolve that. In fact their recruiting history very closely resembles ours. Heaps of salary dumps and failed rookies/late picks who are long forgotten.

It's not bad recruiting. It's just us following a strict plan which means the chances of us taking players late in the draft and them working out is a little slim.

People need to understand that it's hard to find players late in the draft when...

1. You are trying to build a good culture and you're putting a line through every player who shows signs of possibly not being a consummate professional who will contribute in a positive way to club culture and work ethic. A lot of players who are taken late in the draft are talented players who get left until late for this very reason.

2. You're focusing heavily on core players (talls and mids) because they are the most important, influential and take the longest time to develop. These are the sorts you're less likely to find later in the draft. Talls and key mids nearly always go in the top 30 while your peripheral types tend to be found later.

3. You have a long term salary cap to manage, issues with having too many young players on the list and you need to have mature players who will contribute to culture and work ethic but also want to be at a bottom club on a one year salary. You won't get many takers unless they are desperate and if they are desperate then it's likely no one else wants them. Any senior player on the move will go anywhere else if they get a choice so it's slim picking when it comes to finding senior players. Either way it's worked well, we've had guys play and give the young players some cover and we have been able to offload them when ever we would like. It's this kind of management that will see us being able to manage the salaries of our stars for a long time to come.

4. You're culture and fitness is underdeveloped. Got to remember we haven't had a high performance manager until last season and fitness has been a problem. It's one thing to recruit players but if you can't get them fit then what hope do they have of turning out? A lot of late picks who work out are players who are talented but not very professional or driven. You get them into a strongly led club with a good culture that pushes professionalism and work ethic really hard and get them fit and they turn out, otherwise they end up failures. Richmond have been that for a about a good 5 years now but we're probably only just there now.

What I'm trying to explain here is that top teams appear to be good at finding players late in the draft. People put that down to good recruiting but that's only a small part of the picture. It is good recruiting but it's as much, if not more about those clubs being good places to get the best out of a player who may not be that professional and also says a lot about where that club is at list wise. They are always clubs who have a solid core and are focusing on players who typically turn up late in the draft. We just haven't been one of those clubs for a lot of the time but we're probably getting there now.

I'm not the least bit worried about our later picks in the draft. Yeah it would be good to see more hits there but there's good reasons why it's only been average and there are good reasons to expect that things will appear to improve in this area from here on. Knowing we can take risks on less professional types, more a focus on types who are typically hits later in the draft, knowing we can bring players to the club and the staff and culture will drive them to reach their potential.

We're in a good position now and I wouldn't be overly concerned with our drafting. We'll start hitting more late in the draft purely for where we are at list wise, development wise and staff wise. It's been hard to find players late in the draft but it's getting easier and results will follow.

Spot on

 

[Weiterbot23]

We may be the worst performed with late picks and rookie picks, but in reality, who cares? The late picks are not a priority with our recruitment strategy, for other teams they are, hence the better performance.

I look at the crows recruiting as an example of a team who has been set up to do well with later picks. This became especially obvious last year when the crows had 3 picks in the top 20 of a super draft and went for diamond in the rough types in line with their historical recruiting strategy (a big mistake by them) which would have been the opposite of what our team would have done with those picks. (My bet would be that we would have traded the three picks down to get one of the King brothers and a highly rated mid which we would now be applauded for)

How many other recruiting teams have brought in the caliber of player in the past five drafts our recruiting team has?

*None of these ratings would surprise me within the next 3 years,

Top 30 in the comp:

Walsh
Weitering
Curnow
Mckay

Top 150:

Setterfeild
SPS
Gibbons
Mcgovern
Marchbank
Fisher
Stocker
Silvagni
Dow
O'Brien
Newman
Martin
Newnes

Looking at that list you can see that our focus is top end draft picks and undervalued mature prospects. This strategy is working.

Edited for accuracy

 

[Mr_Plow]

Deluca didn't look happy exiting the club.
Marchbank chewing the fat with Brodie.
No talk of green shoots though. That time is done.

The whole Deluca thing is a mess. Shame.

 

[HARKER]

Done it to death but our late picks and rookie picks haven't been bad, they have been average which for a rebuilding bottom club is pretty good.

Our late pick selecting will improve from now on because we're more likely to be targeting types who generally last until late and because our culture has developed and list is matured enough where we can bring in types who may not have a positive impact on our culture.

Shaw, O'Shea, Mullett, Lobbe etc. People need to remember we needed mature players we could get on a one or maybe two year contract and to also remember we were an undesirable bottom side players did not want to go to. It's this type of recruiting that has enabled us to manage our salary cap and put us in a position to draft in multiple big name players but also to manage our player salaries into the long term future.

Need to remember that while Richmond are currently the benchmark for finding players late in the draft, they didn't pick anyone up with late picks until the last two drafts leading into their premiership season for the very same reasons why we have been lean in that department but are likely to resolve that. In fact their recruiting history very closely resembles ours. Heaps of salary dumps and failed rookies/late picks who are long forgotten.

It's not bad recruiting. It's just us following a strict plan which means the chances of us taking players late in the draft and them working out is a little slim.

People need to understand that it's hard to find players late in the draft when...

1. You are trying to build a good culture and you're putting a line through every player who shows signs of possibly not being a consummate professional who will contribute in a positive way to club culture and work ethic. A lot of players who are taken late in the draft are talented players who get left until late for this very reason.

2. You're focusing heavily on core players (talls and mids) because they are the most important, influential and take the longest time to develop. These are the sorts you're less likely to find later in the draft. Talls and key mids nearly always go in the top 30 while your peripheral types tend to be found later.

3. You have a long term salary cap to manage, issues with having too many young players on the list and you need to have mature players who will contribute to culture and work ethic but also want to be at a bottom club on a one year salary. You won't get many takers unless they are desperate and if they are desperate then it's likely no one else wants them. Any senior player on the move will go anywhere else if they get a choice so it's slim picking when it comes to finding senior players. Either way it's worked well, we've had guys play and give the young players some cover and we have been able to offload them when ever we would like. It's this kind of management that will see us being able to manage the salaries of our stars for a long time to come.

4. You're culture and fitness is underdeveloped. Got to remember we haven't had a high performance manager until last season and fitness has been a problem. It's one thing to recruit players but if you can't get them fit then what hope do they have of turning out? A lot of late picks who work out are players who are talented but not very professional or driven. You get them into a strongly led club with a good culture that pushes professionalism and work ethic really hard and get them fit and they turn out, otherwise they end up failures. Richmond have been that for a about a good 5 years now but we're probably only just there now.

What I'm trying to explain here is that top teams appear to be good at finding players late in the draft. People put that down to good recruiting but that's only a small part of the picture. It is good recruiting but it's as much, if not more about those clubs being good places to get the best out of a player who may not be that professional and also says a lot about where that club is at list wise. They are always clubs who have a solid core and are focusing on players who typically turn up late in the draft. We just haven't been one of those clubs for a lot of the time but we're probably getting there now.

I'm not the least bit worried about our later picks in the draft. Yeah it would be good to see more hits there but there's good reasons why it's only been average and there are good reasons to expect that things will appear to improve in this area from here on. Knowing we can take risks on less professional types, more a focus on types who are typically hits later in the draft, knowing we can bring players to the club and the staff and culture will drive them to reach their potential.

We're in a good position now and I wouldn't be overly concerned with our drafting. We'll start hitting more late in the draft purely for where we are at list wise, development wise and staff wise. It's been hard to find players late in the draft but it's getting easier and results will follow.

We may have chosen to forget or dismiss Barass70's post about SOS being under the pump for exactly his (List Managements) late ND picks and RD picks. We can pretend and make up all sorts of excuses for them, but they've been poor. Not sure why this is even up for debate any more.

Our targeting of types has been unsound and our uptake of many senior players was flawed.
I'm not even going to bring up Smedts, Palmer and even Lang here and the GWS four was part of a bigger and much better picture. No problem.

We didn't target what we really needed and missed opportunities all too readily. We may not like reading that about our club, but it's pretty clear.