Delisted #25 Cooper Vickery

[scaryness]

Not sure about this one. Highlights were fairly mild.
Any description of a lightweight half-back flanker who is "speedy but not damaging" is a red flag.

Pretty much

 

[Kiama Chris]

Pretty much

Struggled to see why we drafted that whole bunch except Mitchell who looked a possibility.

 

[dosser]

Poor bloke - only ever got 3 pages on Bigfooty.

He should have injured Mills's other arm.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Signed with Carlton VFL

 

[caesar88]

I know his body's not even cold yet, but Vickery is still to date the weirdest selection I think I have ever seen. From the time his name was called out to the time he was delisted, his whole stint just felt like a weird fever dream. No one was moved when we selected him with a pick 27 (!!!), no one was moved by any of his VFL performances, and nobody was moved when he was delisted after his initial draft contract had expired. Hell, even our media department weren't moved by him at all - not a single interview with Vickery in his entire two years as a Swan. (See the link below)

Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club. All the latest news, videos, results and information.

Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club

www.sydneyswans.com.au

My inclination when assessing players generally veers towards holding the player & coach accountable for how they turn out, rather than the recruiters. However if a player is taken with a pick 27 and is being delisted two years later, then I think it is very reasonable to ask what da heck the recruiters were doing drafting him in the first place.

Regardless, wish him all the best. Hopefully he can fulfil whatever potential he has with Carlton's VFL side.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Signed with Carlton VFL

Carlton where all the ex Sydney/GWS players go

 

[Kiama Chris]

I know his body's not even cold yet, but Vickery is still to date the weirdest selection I think I have ever seen. From the time his name was called out to the time he was delisted, his whole stint just felt like a weird fever dream. No one was moved when we selected him with a pick 27 (!!!), no one was moved by any of his VFL performances, and nobody was moved when he was delisted after his initial draft contract had expired. Hell, even our media department weren't moved by him at all - not a single interview with Vickery in his entire two years as a Swan. (See the link below)

Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club. All the latest news, videos, results and information.

Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club

www.sydneyswans.com.au

My inclination when assessing players generally veers towards holding the player & coach accountable for how they turn out, rather than the recruiters. However if a player is taken with a pick 27 and is being delisted two years later, then I think it is very reasonable to ask what da heck the recruiters were doing drafting him in the first place.

Regardless, wish him all the best. Hopefully he can fulfil whatever potential he has with Carlton's VFL side.

Like you, I struggled to see the logic in his selection. He was more a HB/winger type than a small lockdown defender. Another twig. At least Leidler has credentials as a lockdown defender and comes as a rookie, not a second round pick.
Shocking effort at the draft that year when the lowest pick is the only one left.

 

[tombomb]

I don't really get what they expect when they draft some of these guys.

Vickery was a lightly framed small defender who always looked like he would need a few years to develop his body.

Then he plays exactly like that in his first couple of years. He is never going to get much of the ball in the role he is in. There is no effort made to move him away from the backline to get him more involved in the game. Meanwhile we play top-up players in the middle of the ground.

His second year was much better than his first and he was starting to become reliable as a small defender at VFL level. And then we delist him.

So why draft them in the first place?! At his size, he was never going to come in and play like Maynard or Starcevich straight away.

It makes zero sense to me that you would invest such a high pick in the draft on a player and then not even try to play them around the ball in the reserves. I could say similar things about Konstanty.

Fingers crossed they don't just stick Bowman in a pocket and watch him get 7 possessions a game for two seasons before his inevitable delisting.

 

[BloodySwan]

I don't really get what they expect when they draft some of these guys.

Vickery was a lightly framed small defender who always looked like he would need a few years to develop his body.

Then he plays exactly like that in his first couple of years. He is never going to get much of the ball in the role he is in. There is no effort made to move him away from the backline to get him more involved in the game. Meanwhile we play top-up players in the middle of the ground.

His second year was much better than his first and he was starting to become reliable as a small defender at VFL level. And then we delist him.

So why draft them in the first place?! At his size, he was never going to come in and play like Maynard or Starcevich straight away.

It makes zero sense to me that you would invest such a high pick in the draft on a player and then not even try to play them around the ball in the reserves. I could say similar things about Konstanty.

Fingers crossed they don't just stick Bowman in a pocket and watch him get 7 possessions a game for two seasons before his inevitable delisting.

I don't believe they just look at onfield performance. General attitude and how they gel with the rest of the squad is a big factor.

Also you get to a point and wonder, can we get better than him? In a stacked draft, why would you continue to keep a project player when you have some talent right there?

 

[tombomb]

I don't believe they just look at onfield performance. General attitude and how they gel with the rest of the squad is a big factor.

Also you get to a point and wonder, can we get better than him? In a stacked draft, why would you continue to keep a project player when you have some talent right there?

If their attitude is that bad that we don't even think it is worth trying them in another part of the ground, why did we draft them in the first place?

 

[BloodySwan]

If their attitude is that bad that you don't even think it is worth trying them in another part of the ground, why did we draft them in the first place?

Pure speculation, it might not be that his attitude is that bad but might not be that great. Vickery might just be plodding along, not showing much desire to improve compared to Corey Warner who is building muscle and improving to his weaknesses.

However in the end, in a team of 44 players there are only so many you can dedicate attention to. We have a few project players, sure we can try Vickery in another spot but why? We have Corey, Wicks, Mitchell, Campbell, Sheldrick who have all shown something but not there yet for AFL level. Why spend more time on Vickery when he doesn't add mch compared to the rest?

 

[tombomb]

Pure speculation, it might not be that his attitude is that bad but might not be that great. Vickery might just be plodding along, not showing much desire to improve compared to Corey Warner who is building muscle and improving to his weaknesses.

However in the end, in a team of 44 players there are only so many you can dedicate attention to. We have a few project players, sure we can try Vickery in another spot but why? We have Corey, Wicks, Mitchell, Campbell, Sheldrick who have all shown something but not there yet for AFL level. Why spend more time on Vickery when he doesn't add mch compared to the rest?

Because we are playing top-up players in the middle of the ground in the VFL, over players we invested really valuable draft picks in.

 

[Caj]

I thought it was interesting Beatson speaking after the draft about Cooper's anticipated role.

"We just think we have been looking for a small defender that can play on the likes of Kysiah Pickett, Charlie Cameron and Cody Weightman.
"They're the ones that get under your skin and are hard to match up on. We think he has the potential to be able to do that."



Now Beatson did say that Cooper was in our top 12 players on the draft board and was adamant after his selection, “He’s not a bolter on our list. We just feel we had been looking for a small defender."

So just a couple of observations;
Our recruiters have always said early rounds are best available, later rounds needs can be considered
What did the recruiters see in Vickery, that they thought he could go from a speedy outside running player to a lockdown small defender?

Top 20 on their board

I’m speechless

 

[Kiama Chris]

Top 20 on their board

I’m speechless

I had an issue for quite a number of years with the type of players we were prioritising. Too lightly framed, not sufficiently aggressive in their play, often not tall enough or fast enough.
You can't put meat on a coathanger.
The tall Tassie ruck had no real appetite for the contest.
Think about the guys we have quickly moved on. Often this described them (except Gould). We set ourselves up for failure by choosing Konstanty over Weddle, for instance.
Then we get to the question of development upon which I have spoken long and boringly. It isn't just playing them in the middle but having a game plan that utilises all our players and allows them to develop and show their skills. Watching the ball sail over your head at half forward isn't much chop.

 

[hairy biker]

I had an issue for quite a number of years with the type of players we were prioritising. Too lightly framed, not sufficiently aggressive in their play, often not tall enough or fast enough.
You can't put meat on a coathanger.
The tall Tassie ruck had no real appetite for the contest.
Think about the guys we have quickly moved on. Often this described them (except Gould). We set ourselves up for failure by choosing Konstanty over Weddle, for instance.
Then we get to the question of development upon which I have spoken long and boringly. It isn't just playing them in the middle but having a game plan that utilises all our players and allows them to develop and show their skills. Watching the ball sail over your head at half forward isn't much chop.

Agreed.

We took Vickery when we could have taken Lachie Cowan.
Solid build, aggressive, 188cm, quick and a booming left foot. Noted for his leadership skills and certainly wasn't under the radar given he won the Morrish Medal. Can essentially do all that we wanted Vickery to do.
17 AFL games and contracted to the end of 2026.
Progressing well at Carlton.

As is Hudson O'Keeffe who I was keen on in his draft year.
Strong aggressive ruck, good tap work, developing a second string as a resting fwd.
Still to debut.
Had a few injuries and around the ground work still needs development.
We took Cam Owens (the ruck you mentioned) in the rookie draft, gone after a year,
Carlton took HOK in the pre-season supplementary draft period (after the rookie draft).
Also contracted to the end of 2026.

The recruiters have made some 'reaches' in recent years and perhaps Kinnear owes Sarah Olle an apology when she suggested we may have picked 'bolters' in the Vickery/Mitchell draft.

 

[Callipygian]

I really disagree with these assessments of our recruiting. Recruiting is an art not a science. They use a lot of data in their decision making (these days) but there is still a lot of projection and intuition. Note Kinnear Beatson's use of the word "potential" in his remarks about Cooper after drafting him.

I very much agree with BloodySwan that there are many factors that we don't know about. Sure, Cooper performed in some ways as we might have expected of a small, skinnny player. But in other ways clearly he did not live up to expectations. He may not have progressed as we hoped despite some improvement. His off-field behaviours may have been inadequate for a future AFL player that isn't Ben Cousins level of talent. We don't know. The club doesn't explain that to us and, in this case, I have some sympathy for that approach because it is sparing the players. Equally obvious (to me) is that we saw potential in him and hoped he would turn out better than he did. It didn't happen. That doesn't mean we were wrong from the beginning. Every club has hits and misses. You can equally look at selections like McInerney who the same recruiters reached for but who has turned out brilliantly. Or like Indhi Kirk who hasn't performed better onfield than Vickery but who clearly has shown something that Vickery didn't because he was offered another contract.

 

[caesar88]

I really disagree with these assessments of our recruiting. Recruiting is an art not a science. They use a lot of data in their decision making (these days) but there is still a lot of projection and intuition. Note Kinnear Beatson's use of the word "potential" in his remarks about Cooper after drafting him.

I very much agree with BloodySwan that there are many factors that we don't know about. Sure, Cooper performed in some ways as we might have expected of a small, skinnny player. But in other ways clearly he did not live up to expectations. He may not have progressed as we hoped despite some improvement. His off-field behaviours may have been inadequate for a future AFL player that isn't Ben Cousins level of talent. We don't know. The club doesn't explain that to us and, in this case, I have some sympathy for that approach because it is sparing the players. Equally obvious (to me) is that we saw potential in him and hoped he would turn out better than he did. It didn't happen. That doesn't mean we were wrong from the beginning. Every club has hits and misses. You can equally look at selections like McInerney who the same recruiters reached for but who has turned out brilliantly. Or like Indhi Kirk who hasn't performed better onfield than Vickery but who clearly has shown something that Vickery didn't because he was offered another contract.

Vickery's story mirrors Konstanty's in a way. What could possibly have gone so wrong with these two players that we were prepared to part with them at the first opportunity to do so, and why did the recruiters not see whatever it was at the time of drafting if it was clear enough for the two to be on the outs just eighteen months later? Surely whatever their issues were were prevalent at the time we interviewed and ultimately drafted them, and it certainly doesn't seem like either were an Elijah Taylor-caliber talent to compensate.

Re our recruiters, I'm often quite complimentary of them, but the draft in question has already had Konstanty, Vickery, Owen and Magor gone, and I'm not that confident on Mitchell, either. So our recruiters had five draft picks to use to improve the list and they failed to do so. If a player or coach was given five games to prove themselves and they didn't have one good game out of those five, they wouldn't avoid criticism, so I don't think our recruiters should, either. It doesn't mean they're not good at what they do.

 

[SeanM]

I doubt Konstanty/Vickery did anything wrong. I think we needed to open up senior list spots for the draft. (Kirk was one of our 2 Cat B players)

Both of them might have developed into solid players in time. But I can understand them wanting to refresh the list by drafting 6 new players and hoping 1-2 might have a higher upside.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Vickery's story mirrors Konstanty's in a way. What could possibly have gone so wrong with these two players that we were prepared to part with them at the first opportunity to do so, and why did the recruiters not see whatever it was at the time of drafting if it was clear enough for the two to be on the outs just eighteen months later? Surely whatever their issues were were prevalent at the time we interviewed and ultimately drafted them, and it certainly doesn't seem like either were an Elijah Taylor-caliber talent to compensate.

Re our recruiters, I'm often quite complimentary of them, but the draft in question has already had Konstanty, Vickery, Owen and Magor gone, and I'm not that confident on Mitchell, either. So our recruiters had five draft picks to use to improve the list and they failed to do so. If a player or coach was given five games to prove themselves and they didn't have one good game out of those five, they wouldn't avoid criticism, so I don't think our recruiters should, either. It doesn't mean they're not good at what they do.

Agree on the recruiters (KB, Dalrymple AND Keane all need to accept responsibility), but also that draft was pretty much a disaster coming through that mid covid period as well.

2022 AFL National Draft - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

 

[Kiama Chris]

Agree on the recruiters (KB, Dalrymple AND Keane all need to accept responsibility), but also that draft was pretty much a disaster coming through that mid covid period as well.

2022 AFL National Draft - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

A couple of those players have played seniors since that list was published.

 

[caesar88]

Agree on the recruiters (KB, Dalrymple AND Keane all need to accept responsibility), but also that draft was pretty much a disaster coming through that mid covid period as well.

2022 AFL National Draft - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

They don't deserve to be hanged for it, but they also probably don't deserve to be put on the pedestal that some put them on.

For example on draft night of that year, we were supposedly interested in Josh Weddle (at least according to Twomey) and he was right there at our live pick, and then we did the whole "Bidney" shenanigans, and a lot of folks were talking up our recruitment team for being savvy and taking the piss and "in Kinnear we trust" etc etc. But when all is said and done we drafted a bust whilst Hawthorn got the good player. So the egg ended up on our face on that occasion.

This is not to say our recruiters haven't had moments of brilliance themselves - the pick-swap with West Coast after Nick Blakey's bid comes to mind - but that just shows the hit-and-miss nature of the recruiting game. There's no point having much confidence in any recruiter IMO.

 

[Caj]

I really disagree with these assessments of our recruiting. Recruiting is an art not a science. They use a lot of data in their decision making (these days) but there is still a lot of projection and intuition. Note Kinnear Beatson's use of the word "potential" in his remarks about Cooper after drafting him.

I very much agree with BloodySwan that there are many factors that we don't know about. Sure, Cooper performed in some ways as we might have expected of a small, skinnny player. But in other ways clearly he did not live up to expectations. He may not have progressed as we hoped despite some improvement. His off-field behaviours may have been inadequate for a future AFL player that isn't Ben Cousins level of talent. We don't know. The club doesn't explain that to us and, in this case, I have some sympathy for that approach because it is sparing the players. Equally obvious (to me) is that we saw potential in him and hoped he would turn out better than he did. It didn't happen. That doesn't mean we were wrong from the beginning. Every club has hits and misses. You can equally look at selections like McInerney who the same recruiters reached for but who has turned out brilliantly. Or like Indhi Kirk who hasn't performed better onfield than Vickery but who clearly has shown something that Vickery didn't because he was offered another contract.

That whole draft was a disaster

Owen the ruck played Footscray VFL this year and wasn’t anywhere remotely near it

Mcinerney isn’t anything more than a good ordinary player, he’s performed to where he was drafted

 

[caesar88]

Mcinerney isn’t anything more than a good ordinary player, he’s performed to where he was drafted

???????

 

[Callipygian]

Vickery's story mirrors Konstanty's in a way. What could possibly have gone so wrong with these two players that we were prepared to part with them at the first opportunity to do so, and why did the recruiters not see whatever it was at the time of drafting if it was clear enough for the two to be on the outs just eighteen months later? Surely whatever their issues were were prevalent at the time we interviewed and ultimately drafted them, and it certainly doesn't seem like either were an Elijah Taylor-caliber talent to compensate.

Re our recruiters, I'm often quite complimentary of them, but the draft in question has already had Konstanty, Vickery, Owen and Magor gone, and I'm not that confident on Mitchell, either. So our recruiters had five draft picks to use to improve the list and they failed to do so. If a player or coach was given five games to prove themselves and they didn't have one good game out of those five, they wouldn't avoid criticism, so I don't think our recruiters should, either. It doesn't mean they're not good at what they do.

I agree the fact that 0.5/5 is a poor result from the recruiters. There's no getting around that. Some of it might be unfortunate, some of it is that it was a bad draft, and some of it is on them.

 

[SeanM]

I also wonder if we were happy to take longer term prospects at that time because we had just made a grand final and had a reasonably strong list. So whoever we drafted might not have got a lot of early opportunities.

Even last year we take a long term ruckman, a mid from our academy and a KPD. Rather than someone like Darcy Wilson who is ready to play in his first season.

The 2024 draft seems more balanced. Dattoli, Bice and Paton seem ready to play early. Whilst Bowman, Andrew and Liedler seem more longer term prospects.