Recruiting AFL Draft Watch 2024 - What do we do, we don't have a top 10 pick?

[jdstorm]

I find it all a bit conflicting. If he/they (Scott & Vozzo) bought into the Essendon people/media noise that the list was underperforming, why would he/they then come out with the whole 8-year plan/not a short term fix stuff? If they rated the list, why would it then be an 8-year process?

I do think it's two years too late in some ways - at the very least, one year.

The 8 year thing wasn’t a plan it was a window. As in we have 8 years with this group that we rate to get a finals win or more.

Just need to fix at the margains but it’s a contending group.

At some point that changed and Essendon’s PR team is saying we’re going to copy north/hawthorn and do a proper rebuild likely because the rich coteries are pissed that the hawks won a final and were mired in mediocrity (despite their meddling being the reason)

In practice what we are doing is trying to rebuild/rebalance on the fly with the only path available to us.

 

[Keystone agony]

For me the way i interpret things

2023 - Year 1. Scott just a look over how everything is run and how the players perform for the good chunk of the first half to 3 qtrs of season

2024 - Realisation performed pretty well in 2023, sat high on the ladder for a group that did not have high training standards. Lets in still strong training standards and more game plan and see where this group can get to? Got to the same spot and didnt perform/stand up when it was needed

Well weve fixed the training standards, implemented game plan and were still in the same spot. ....... the group/quality isnt there. We need to find and develop quality

2025: onwards

Think we won 18/23 i50 counts i read somewhere

Teams who win i50 counts... win ~ 77% of games

 

[Keystone agony]

The 8 year thing wasn’t a plan it was a window. As in we have 8 years with this group that we rate to get a finals win or more.

Just need to fix at the margains but it’s a contending group.

At some point that changed and Essendon’s PR team is saying we’re going to copy north/hawthorn and do a proper rebuild likely because the rich coteries are pissed that the hawks won a final and were mired in mediocrity (despite their meddling being the reason)

In practice what we are doing is trying to rebuild/rebalance on the fly with the only path available to us.

Hawthorn never did a proper rebuild

They just have a coach ~20% better than anyone else right now

 

[faible]

Hawthorn never did a proper rebuild

They just have a coach ~20% better than anyone else right now

73.4% of all statistics are made up

 

[Duckworth]

73.4% of all statistics are made up

5 thirds of people are bad at statistics.

 

[bombreys]

The 8 year thing wasn’t a plan it was a window. As in we have 8 years with this group that we rate to get a finals win or more.

Just need to fix at the margains but it’s a contending group.

At some point that changed and Essendon’s PR team is saying we’re going to copy north/hawthorn and do a proper rebuild likely because the rich coteries are pissed that the hawks won a final and were mired in mediocrity (despite their meddling being the reason)

In practice what we are doing is trying to rebuild/rebalance on the fly with the only path available to us.

He might wish he never said it (the 8-year thing) - and maybe it was just an off the cuff comment.

Isn't rebuilding on the fly exactly what we've been doing the past 15+ years?

 

[bombreys]

Hawthorn never did a proper rebuild

They just have a coach ~20% better than anyone else right now

They did, they just didn't have heaps of top-end picks. They hit the draft quite heavily with top 50 picks though. And played them.

By the middle of the 2024 season, we were well over 2 years older per player than they were. That's a fairly massive difference.

 

[faible]

They did, they just didn't have heaps of top-end picks. They hit the draft quite heavily with top 50 picks though. And played them.

By the middle of the 2024 season, we were well over 2 years older per player than they were. That's a fairly massive difference.

A bit misleading, given Goldy alone drags that average up quite a bit. We played pre-bye with Goldy and had 26yr 4mo and 116 games, post-bye without we were 25yr 10mo and 104 games. We got younger up to and including the Sydney game, then brought Heppell back for a farewell.

In the Hawthorn v Port prelim, Hawks were the older and more experienced side of the two.

They're young-ish, but not that young. They've gotten older this offseason, we've gotten younger.

 

[bombreys]

Can you really expect them to have a plan to start with if they where hired without a dep dive into the list ?
The whole 8 year plan was not actually an 8 year plan. Somehow it has morphed into an 8 year plan. What was said is the core of young players would make up the group for the next 8 years or in other words they had confidence in the blokes under 24 to be the core of the list well into the future.
At no stage have they ever predicted anything except long term hard work.
2023 was a waste for sure but that was the price for not landing their number 1 priorities as far as coach and CEO. I am glad they got Vozzo even if he did spend 2023 evaluating things.
You can not count out what effect the end of this year had. No one is thinking we blew a premiership chance as such but we 100% choked when a finals spot was ours for the taking and it had an impact on their thinking.

Yeah, some good points - I went and found the article/quote and re-read the '8-year plan'/whatever we're calling it and you're right - he wasn't misquoted per se, but his words have definitely been twisted. It was, as you said, more along the lines of the core potentially being intact for 8 years. He probably made a few off the cuff comments in the heat of the moment that weren't quite accurate - I think we'll be in a bit of strife if Gresham's still our forward pocket in 2032

I do hope the end of this season was a reality check for them. I like Vozzo - and I hear (not from someone inside the club, but someone on the outside who knows him) Andrew Welsh is doing/saying all the right things in terms of a long, slow build and hitting the draft.

 

[Keystone agony]

They did, they just didn't have heaps of top-end picks. They hit the draft quite heavily with top 50 picks though. And played them.

By the middle of the 2024 season, we were well over 2 years older per player than they were. That's a fairly massive difference.

How many more top 50 picks have they had since and including 2020?

A proper rebuild is to me what North have done the past 5 years, what Richmond are about to go through for the next 3-4 years

 

[Vindicater]

How many more top 50 picks have they had since and including 2020?

A proper rebuild is to me what North have done the past 5 years, what Richmond are about to go through for the next 3-4 years

And yet Hawthorn have flown right by North.

 

[bombreys]

A bit misleading, given Goldy alone drags that average up quite a bit. We played pre-bye with Goldy and had 26yr 4mo and 116 games, post-bye without we were 25yr 10mo and 104 games. We got younger up to and including the Sydney game, then brought Heppell back for a farewell.

In the Hawthorn v Port prelim, Hawks were the older and more experienced side of the two.

They're young-ish, but not that young. They've gotten older this offseason, we've gotten younger.

I mean, he does drag it up - but he played, so you can't just not include it.

It is a bit crazy to think the Hawks were the more senior side - and as you said, will be older next year. They could be really good annoyingly. Our final round side was actually older overall than both Hawthorn & Port from the PF.

I'm really hoping we focus purely on the draft this offseason (so far, so good, post-trade week) - Kelly, Heppell & Stringer (& Hind, to a slightly lesser extent), brings down that age bracket substantially. Even moreso if Bryan starts next year ahead of Goldy (a likely scenario, one would think).

Using our Round 4 side as an example, the above 5x mentioned players (incl. Goldy) were quite literally our 5x oldest in that 22 (/23). Obviously those 5 need to be replaced so this isn't a perfect stat, but if you just take out those 5 guys entirely, that alone brings the average age of those remaining down from est. 26.2 to est. 24.6.

I'd prefer to largely stay away from DFA's, unless it's the likes of a 23yo Prior, 21yo Culley, etc. I am hoping like hell we don't look at your Parfitt's, Rotham's, etc.

 

[jdstorm]

He might wish he never said it (the 8-year thing) - and maybe it was just an off the cuff comment.

Isn't rebuilding on the fly exactly what we've been doing the past 15+ years?

Saying Dodo + Co were building anything is very kind to them as it implies a level of competence they never demonstrated.

In practice I think we’ve largely been rebuilding since 2020. We’ve just done a mediocre job at it. But we have taken chances at high end talent.

just only had Perkins really play consistently out of that group (Perkins, Cox, Reid, Hobbs, Tsatas, Caddy)

Any other team you’d expect better outcomes from those picks. Probably 2 star level players.

We’ve had better outcomes with the rookie draft/undrafted (Martin, Durham, Mass )

If we’re talking about Rebuilding this team. We’re more remodelling a heritage home. The process is just harder. Can’t do a full knockdown build from scratch rebuild as you don’t really have anything of real value to trade away

 

[P Money]

Average age really is the most meaningless of all the meaningless stats in footy. For example, a team with eleven 19-year-old's and eleven 36-year-old's has the same average age as a team of twenty-two players at 27.5 years old. Those are two (hypothetical) teams with wildly different make-ups and at completely different stages of development - but both have the exact same average age.

 

[Keystone agony]

And yet Hawthorn have flown right by North.

As ive been saying for a long time

Hawks arent the norm, trying to emulate them may not only be mighty difficult it may be impossible

Also need to consider hawks havnt achieved anything yet

Until we bottom out for a while or get a run of academy/father son beneficiarys (Which is less significant now with rule changes) we can only hope to be a middle of the road side

 

[bombreys]

How many more top 50 picks have they had since and including 2020?

A proper rebuild is to me what North have done the past 5 years, what Richmond are about to go through for the next 3-4 years

I think 3..?

They've got 100+ extra games out of their picks compared to ours though.

Fair enough - depends on your definition of rebuild I guess.

 

[bombreys]

Average age really is the most meaningless of all the meaningless stats in footy. For example, a team with eleven 19-year-old's and eleven 36-year-old's has the same average age as a team of twenty-two players at 27.5 years old. Those are two (hypothetical) teams with wildly different make-ups and at completely different stages of development - but both have the exact same average age.

You can use stats to support just about any argument if you look hard enough - but I don't quite agree with it being meaningless. Of the two examples you've listed, can you name any real team that resembles either of the two hypotheticals you've used, in the history of the sport?

Without looking, I'll guess Collingwood and Geelong will be the two oldest sides next year. They'll both be wanting to win the flag.

I'd guess Richmond will be the youngest (or there abouts) - I'd guess they'd be pretty realistic in knowing they're going to finish at the bottom.

You don't want to be the mid-table team with an old squad. It's no man's land and leaves you stuck/without many options.

 

[jdstorm]

Honestly I’m pretty optimistic the about Essendon rebuild. I think there’s a fair bit of talent there.plus a fair bit of addition by subtraction (VORP)

We’ve got 2 FRP next year and likely 3 2nd rd picks after we trade 28/31 that’s a lot of assets to restructure a team/ fill gaps. (Or potentially trade for a star)

 

[eth-dog]

You can use stats to support just about any argument if you look hard enough - but I don't quite agree with it being meaningless. Of the two examples you've listed, can you name any real team that resembles either of the two hypotheticals you've used, in the history of the sport?

Without looking, I'll guess Collingwood and Geelong will be the two oldest sides next year. They'll both be wanting to win the flag.

I'd guess Richmond will be the youngest (or there abouts) - I'd guess they'd be pretty realistic in knowing they're going to finish at the bottom.

You don't want to be the mid-table team with an old squad. It's no man's land and leaves you stuck/without many options.

So being the 7th youngest of last year and becoming a significantly younger squad means?

Pre draft we're the 5th youngest for next year but expect us to end up between 3rd and 6th.

 

[Nifft]

Average age really is the most meaningless of all the meaningless stats in footy. For example, a team with eleven 19-year-old's and eleven 36-year-old's has the same average age as a team of twenty-two players at 27.5 years old. Those are two (hypothetical) teams with wildly different make-ups and at completely different stages of development - but both have the exact same average age.

True. Goldstein alone raises our average age by about 10 years...

 

[P Money]

You can use stats to support just about any argument if you look hard enough - but I don't quite agree with it being meaningless. Of the two examples you've listed, can you name any real team that resembles either of the two hypotheticals you've used, in the history of the sport?

Without looking, I'll guess Collingwood and Geelong will be the two oldest sides next year. They'll both be wanting to win the flag.

I'd guess Richmond will be the youngest (or there abouts) - I'd guess they'd be pretty realistic in knowing they're going to finish at the bottom.

You don't want to be the mid-table team with an old squad. It's no man's land and leaves you stuck/without many options.

Yes it's not ENTIRELY meaningless. Of course there's no two teams like the hypotheticals I've raised, I'm just making an example using the extremes. The point is just saying 'average age' as if that in itself tells a story without providing context and nuance isn't particularly valuable.

A team can be rebuilding with youth while holding a core of senior players 30+ to drive standards/culture etc. Simply spouting 'average age' will tell you they're not rebuilding because they're older than X team that is contending with a core of mid-to-late-20s players. Or they may have a 37YO Goldstein who is literally 8 years older than the next oldest player on the list and completely skewing the average.

 

[bombersim]

Don't forget Menzies as well. j/k

Ok. As long as you don’t forget Bob Hawke.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Average age really is the most meaningless of all the meaningless stats in footy. For example, a team with eleven 19-year-old's and eleven 36-year-old's has the same average age as a team of twenty-two players at 27.5 years old. Those are two (hypothetical) teams with wildly different make-ups and at completely different stages of development - but both have the exact same average age.

The mean is a pretty shitty measure in any dataset with outliers, you’d be better off taking the median age