Another 3 delistings

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

If you are a mature player you don't get that additional 'potential' pricing factor.

No doubt, but on the same token, regardless of your age, you don't get some randomly allocated +9000 speed bonus. The sum of your talents, combined with your worth to a particular team, is what determines your draft position.

If Pitt was a 23 year old - he would be delisted immediately.

If Pitt was 23 years old he may not have been drafted at all. The general idea of the draft is to pick the tomatos before they ripen. If it was based on who is batter now, the majority of players picked in the ND woudln't be 18 year olds, for the converse reasoning to your initial point.

Yes but aren't you saying he does not even have the potential to be A grade?

Clay's argument is that all mature age players are slow as ****/have pace as a clear negative/aren't up to AFL standard, therefore are not worth being picked in the ND. That argument is blatantly flawed, as supported by the majority of players we and other clubs have picked up recently.

I'm not arguing the potential upside of an 18 year old V a 23 year old, I have no doubt the 18 year olds have more potential. I'm arguing against the opinion that if you aren't 18, you are ****ing slow, therefore you are not worthy of being picked up in the ND. That argument is ridiculous to me.

 

[Alfonz]

Clay, I think you are underrating Silvagni and Broughton. Especially the latter. He is one of our better players. I would only rate Mundy, pre-leg Barlow, Pav, Sandi, McPharlin and Fyfe ahead of him. Then I would hope Hill and Morabito can join that group, but they aren't there yet.

I realise you might say something along the lines of ... "well that is the problem ... if Broughton is in our top 5-10, then that just reflects how average our side is". I can see that might have a little bit of merit, but I still think Broughton is a top quality AFL footballer.

But that doesn't mean we should go drafting any more mature age players than we have been over the last few years.

 

[Clay Davis]

Clay, I think you are underrating Silvagni and Broughton. Especially the latter. He is one of our better players. I would only rate Mundy, pre-leg Barlow, Pav, Sandi, McPharlin and Fyfe ahead of him. Then I would hope Hill and Morabito can join that group, but they aren't there yet.

I realise you might say something along the lines of ... "well that is the problem ... if Broughton is in our top 5-10, then that just reflects how average our side is". I can see that might have a little bit of merit, but I still think Broughton is a top quality AFL footballer.

But that doesn't mean we should go drafting any more mature age players than we have been over the last few years.

Nothing wrong with being in our top 10, but he's not an A-grade footballer in the league, and may never be. He's 26 next year - only two years younger than Ryan Crowley.

We all like to hang shit on Ryan Crowley, but people seem to forget that every time Crowley goes back to the WAFL, he slaughters them. Absolutely dominates. Crowley looks like a slow trundler at AFL level, and is ridiculously good at WAFL level. That's what you're going to get more of if your recruiting focus becomes completely towards mature age players, as CamTinley seems to envisage.

 

[CamTinley]

Nothing wrong with being in our top 10, but he's not an A-grade footballer in the league, and may never be. He's 26 next year - only two years younger than Ryan Crowley.

We all like to hang shit on Ryan Crowley, but people seem to forget that every time Crowley goes back to the WAFL, he slaughters them. Absolutely dominates. Crowley looks like a slow trundler at AFL level, and is ridiculously good at WAFL level. That's what you're going to get more of if your recruiting focus becomes completely towards mature age players, as CamTinley seems to envisage.

I've never said that. I've said Top 40 selections go for best available after that, mature age. Since then I've realized that the talent really only goes to Pick 24 roughly so that equates roughly to your first two picks.

The number of draft picks we have wasted on young players over the past ten years is ridiculous. Like all clubs we just seem to pick them to justify the employment of "professional recruiters" who get it wrong far more often than they get it right. I've spoken to these recruiters and they are so tunnel-visioned it's ridiculous.

 

[Clay Davis]

I've never said that. I've said Top 40 selections go for best available after that, mature age. Since then I've realized that the talent really only goes to Pick 24 roughly so that equates roughly to your first two picks.

The number of draft picks we have wasted on young players over the past ten years is ridiculous. Like all clubs we just seem to pick them to justify the employment of "professional recruiters" who get it wrong far more often than they get it right. I've spoken to these recruiters and they are so tunnel-visioned it's ridiculous.

We have wasted draft picks on young players because we have failed to develop them. Other clubs haven't. Mature recruits look better because they have done their own development. It papers over the cracks of what prevents Freo becoming a premiership club - getting the best out of your own players.

Fremantle will only become a premiership club if those 'wasted' picks become quality AFL footballers.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

In the 2009 draft we got

Joel Houghton @ pick @36
Jesse Chrichton @ pick @48
Dylan Roberton @ pick #49
Justin Bollenhagen @ Pick @52

all before picking up Barlow or Silvagni in the Rookie Draft

Our recruiting department was lucky not smart in leaving Barlow till about overall pick #100. I hope they don't dine out for too much longer on the great Barlow Gambit.

In my mind our recruiters are going OK but nothing special.

I agree, I have really only come to this thought after this year though... everyone raves about our 2008 draft period... well, hinkley is gone, palmer is gone and mayne is rubbish.... most years our only saving grace has been our luck in the rookie draft.... other than suban (still has a long way to go), hill, morabito (still has a long way to go), fyfe and ballantyne.... how well have we really done in the national draft?

Barlow trained with Essendon before PSD. Essendon had the pick before Freo in the PSD. I think its accepted that if Ess didnt go Hardingham, they would have gone Barlow.

Freo must have been pretty damn confident that a Melb based club wouldnt draft him, where you got that confidence nobody knows. To be brutally honest, it smells more like luck than good management. Obviously you deserve credit for actually taking him but surely if you thought he was half as good as he was, you wouldnt have waited until he was the 100th player taken. He had an outstanding draft camp and had dominated the VFL that year.

I very much dislike you as a filthy west coast poster... however i grudgingly agree with this.... i was in melbourne after barlows 4th week when it was reveled that the only reason that barlow is not at essendon now, is because matthew knights didnt rate him... even though everyone else at that club were falling over themselves to get him to stay.... we were VERY fortunate to get mick

 

[Clay Davis]

Postman_Pav's original thoughts on Barlow.

You'd hope so given its a highlights video

 

[Nickos66]

We have wasted draft picks on young players because we have failed to develop them. Other clubs haven't. Mature recruits look better because they have done their own development. It papers over the cracks of what prevents Freo becoming a premiership club - getting the best out of your own players.

Fremantle will only become a premiership club if those 'wasted' picks become quality AFL footballers.

I tend to agree with this, word for word.

Cam, it's a bit rich that you say the number of picks we've 'wasted' on young kids over the last 10 years is ridiculous. It's because of buying the players with runs on the board in our 1st 10 years that we stalled so dismally. It's a proven fact that premierships are won through drafting young talent and developing them. Not using our selections over 40 to take punts on established state league players.

 

[prattsta]

Clay's argument is that all mature age players are slow as ****/have pace as a clear negative/aren't up to AFL standard, therefore are not worth being picked in the ND. That argument is blatantly flawed, as supported by the majority of players we and other clubs have picked up recently.

I'm not arguing the potential upside of an 18 year old V a 23 year old, I have no doubt the 18 year olds have more potential. I'm arguing against the opinion that if you aren't 18, you are ****ing slow, therefore you are not worthy of being picked up in the ND. That argument is ridiculous to me.

Clay is somewhat correct though. It's generally the kids with physical/athletic flaws i.e. too short or too slow, that are overlooked entirely in the ND. Even speculative picks in the rookie draft are more often than not on athletic types that have football issues i.e. can't kick, can't mark, has never even seen a football, as opposed to physical/athletic ones. The clubs will back themselves to turn someone into an acceptable kick, or teach them how to read the play, but the clubs can't do a hell of a lot to work on the weaknesses of a hobbit. I mean, it's been a while since stretching racks were in-vogue.

That doesn't mean players like Barlow - who ticked all the physical/athletic boxes when we drafted him - won't slip through the cracks occasionally, but generally if someone is overlooked at 18, the major reason they were overlooked will still be present when they are 22.

To be a consistent A-Grade player you really need to tick all the boxes. Having a physical/athletic flaw will generally prevent that from happening.

 

[Proud Bogan]

I've never said that. I've said Top 40 selections go for best available after that, mature age. Since then I've realized that the talent really only goes to Pick 24 roughly so that equates roughly to your first two picks.

The number of draft picks we have wasted on young players over the past ten years is ridiculous. Like all clubs we just seem to pick them to justify the employment of "professional recruiters" who get it wrong far more often than they get it right. I've spoken to these recruiters and they are so tunnel-visioned it's ridiculous.

Is that kinda like how you firmly believe that the moon landings were fake because the photo's were of poor quality?

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Picking a player based on what he could be, not what he is, is the reason drafting young players is so risky. It's the nature of the beast. Using that to claim that it's our development of players that's flawed is drawing a long bow.

If losing kids after a few years on the list is poor drafting/development, then every single club in the competition is a culprit, Geelong included Clay.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Clay is somewhat correct though. It's generally the kids with physical/athletic flaws i.e. too short or too slow, that are overlooked entirely in the ND. Even speculative picks in the rookie draft are more often than not on athletic types that have football issues i.e. can't kick, can't mark, has never even seen a football, as opposed to physical/athletic ones. The clubs will back themselves to turn someone into an acceptable kick, or teach them how to read the play, but the clubs can't do a hell of a lot to work on the weaknesses of a hobbit. I mean, it's been a while since stretching racks were in-vogue.

That doesn't mean players like Barlow - who ticked all the physical/athletic boxes when we drafted him - won't slip through the cracks occasionally, but generally if someone is overlooked at 18, the major reason they were overlooked will still be present when they are 22.

To be a consistent A-Grade player you really need to tick all the boxes. Having a physical/athletic flaw will generally prevent that from happening.

It's generalising though.

The ones that slip through the cracks, the diamonds in the rough, the players who do have the all round game and are worthy of being on an AFL list, is what we're talking about. Not the 95% of other scrubs who don't have that ability.

I totally agree that the vast majority of guys floating around in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL don't tick all the boxes, I've allready acknowledged that, but I don't think it's a solid enough foundation to build the argument on to say that drafting more mature age players will result in a plodder/VFL standard list. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

Not every footballer worthy of being on an AFL list, in the lower leagues, is a plodder. I'm sure you will agree.

 

[Clay Davis]

If losing kids after a few years on the list is poor drafting/development, then every single club in the competition is a culprit, Geelong included Clay.

Just for argument's sake, who have Geelong delisted from the 2007 national draft onwards?

I can only count three, all from 2007. Freo meanwhile have delisted one from 2007, three from 2008, and two from 2009.

 

[E Shed]

Geelongs recruiting is as good as it gets.

 

[Moo]

i was in melbourne after barlows 4th week when it was reveled that the only reason that barlow is not at essendon now, is because matthew knights didnt rate him... even though everyone else at that club were falling over themselves to get him to stay.... we were VERY fortunate to get mick

Same could be said with any pick.

You can only judge your recruiters on who they select from the pool available, praise if they get it right and knock them if they get it wrong.

Essendon made the wrong call, our guys made the right one.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Just for argument's sake, who have Geelong delisted from the 2007 national draft onwards?

I can only count three, all from 2007. Freo meanwhile have delisted one from 2007, three from 2008, and two from 2009.

I really don't care how many Geelong have delisted or any other vague criteria (which are continually refined) that you use in every discussion to support your view. How many are in the best 22? Good see you chose not to address the opening paragrah. Anyway, you've confirmed my point, no club is perfect.

Geelong's list is in a totally different position, they also have a different game plan, different drafting/trading styles etc, all of which mean that they are going to manage their list and draft in a totally different way than we are. Apples and Oranges.

Regardless, how we go about managing our list may or may not have anything to do with development, it could be a game plan thing, or a drafting thing, you and I don't know and can't claim to know. How you pin the development tail on the delist donkey is beyond me.

 

[Freo Blood]

Apologies in advance if the formatting comes out wrong.
A few facts are always good for a discussion.

I thought we were being a bit harsh on our player development so did some research, and I was right. Look at all the players picked at 25 plus in 2007-09. 2010 is too recent. I also looked at the Rookie draft where we have done really well.

2007 2008 2009
25 Tom Collier Jack Redden Aaron Black
26 Brett Meredith Jayden Post Travis Colyer
27 Andy Otten Sam Wright Callum Bartlett
28 Marlon Motlop Shaun McKernan Mitch Duncan
29 Brendan WhitecrossDayne Beams Jack Gunston
30 Jarrhan Jacky Daniel Hannebery Luke Ball
31 John McCarthy Jordan Roughead Jason Tutt
32 Levi Greenwood Liam Jones Nicholas Winmar
33 Matthew Westhoff Thomas Gillies Anthony Long
34 Dawson Simpson Liam Shiels Max Gawn
35 Sam Reid Jamie Bennell David Astbury
36 Steven Browne Ashley Smith Joel Houghton
37 Scott Thompson Zac Clarke Jamie MacMillan
38 Myke Cook Matthew Broadbent Sam Reid
39 Darcy Daniher Steven Motlop Sam Grimley
40 Chris Mayne Mitch Robinson Allen Christensen
41 James Polkinghorne Todd Banfield Ayden Kennedy
42 Jack Steven Mitchell Banner Nathan Vardy
43 Easton Wood Liam Anthony Marcus Davies
44 Scott Simpson Rory Sloane Matthew Dea
45 Stuart Dew Jarrad Blight Sam Shaw
46 Dennis Armfield Luke Rounds Benjamin Stratton
47 Toby Thoolen Rhys Stanley Ryan Harwood
48 Jarrad Boumann Nicholas Heyne Jesse Crichton
49 Mitchell Farmer Taylor Hunt Dylan Roberton
50 Dan McKenna Jordan Lisle Jack Fitzpatrick
51 Dean Putt Neville Jetta Troy Taylor
52 Bradd Dalziell Jordan Jones Justin Bollenhagen
53 Kyle Cheney Michael Walters Brayden Norris
54 Cale Hooker Jarrad Redden Byron Sumner
55 Mark Johnson Michael Still Trent Dennis-Lane
56 Matt Austin Ben Bucovaz Josh Cowan
57 Fraser Gehrig Aaron Cornelius Jordan Williams
58 Tony Armstrong Tom Hislop Rhan Hooper
59 Craig Bird Nathan O'Keefe Rohan Kerr
60 Adam Donohue Tom Lee Jesse W. Smith
61 Jaxson Barham Campbell Heath James Craig
62 Josh Smith Alistair Smith Ben Sinclair
63 Guy O'Keefe Luke Lowden Lukas Markovic
64 Pass Rohan Bail Adam Pattison
65 Pass Rhys O'Keeffe Jeremy Laidler
66 Tom McNamara Glenn Dawson Pass
67 Pass Tyson Slattery Jeromey Webberley
68 Pass Tim Ruffles Pass
69 Kepler Bradley Bart McCulloch Taylor Duryea
70 Eljay Connors Pass Matthew Suckling
71 Aaron Kite Warren Benjamin Ben Nason
72 Blake Grima Will Young Sam Jacobs
73 Pass Leigh Brown Jesse O'Brien
74 Pass Paul Cahill Brodie Martin
75 Taylor Walker Shane Savage Josh Thomas
76 Pass Pass Shane Thorne
77 Pass Chris Hall Will Johnson
78 Pass Jason Davenport Pass
79 Pass Pass Greg Broughton
80 Pass Caleb Tiller Cruize Garlett
81 Pass Kieran King Pass
82 Pass Pass Daniel Stewart
83 Pass Colm Begley Aaron Joseph
84 Pass Pass Bryce Retzlaff
85 Pass Pass Simon Buckley
86 Pass Pass Liam Picken
87 Pass Pass Zac Dawson
88 Pass Pass Wade Thompson
89 Pass Pass Robin Nahas
90 Pass Pass Kristin Thornton
91 Pass Pass Matt Maguire
92 Pass Pass James Mulligan
93 Pass Pass Luke Miles
94 Pass Pass Andrew Browne
95 Pass Pass Pearce Hanley

Rookie Drafts
2007 - Collard, Connelly, Pratt. Best others (10): Joseph, L Stevenson, N Grima, Petrenko, C Garlett, Laidler, Ellard, P Hanley, E Curnow, Mumford.

2008 - Sibbo, De Boer, Shepheard, Clancee, Jay VB, Broughton. Best others (9): Suckling, Jordie McKenzie, Jeff Garlett, Nahas, Zac Dawson, Blair, Picken, A Browne, Breust.

2009 – Barlow, Sivagni. Best others (6): Majak D, Howlett, Crameri, Tommy Walsh, Zac Touhy, Clay Beams.

Picks 25+ in recent history we have done as well as anyone - the above really shows it is a lottery after the first 24.

2007: Freo took Mayne, Mark Johnson, Kep. Say two wins; I count only about 15 other decent or even known players on that list of 45 or so drafted. Average 1 per club approx. We have exceeded the AFL average. The only other players I rate as worthwhile are: Collier, Meredith, otten, Whitecross, Greenwood, McCarthy, Westhoff, Simpson, S Thompson (now Kangas), Polkinghorne, Jack Steven, Armfield, Cheney, Hooker, Craig Bird, Blake Grima.

2008: Freo took Zac, Walters, Buco, Ruffles and Chris Hall. Say two wins; I count only about 19 other decent or even known players on that list of 55 or so drafted. Average 1 per club approx. We have exceeded the AFL average. The only other players I rate as worthwhile are Jack Redden, Jayden Post, Sam Wright, McKernan, Beams, Hanneberry, Jordan Roughie, Shiels, Bennell, Ash Smith, Mitch Robinson, Banfield, Laim Anthony, Rory Sloane, Rhys Stanley, Taylor Hunt, Nev Jetta, Jarrad Redden (only because a ruckman), Savage.

2009: Freo took Houghton, Crichton, Roberton, Bolly. Say one win, I believe either Robbo or Jesse will come good; I count only about 10 other decent or even known players on that 25+ list of 70 or so drafted. Average ½ a player per club approx. We have exceeded the AFL average. The only other players I rate as worthwhile are Colyer, Duncan, Gawn, Astbury, Sam Reid, Christensen, Vardy, Dennis-Lane, Markovic, Stratton. I may have been a bit harsh on a couple of Richmond players I don’t know much about.

So I think we have done pretty well overall including the rookie draft. There are plenty of busted picks in the 25 plus range, so we should not be too harsh on our player development when all clubs burn the majority of the picks at 25+. By my calculations of the 160 players drafted at 25 plus in 2007-09, only about 50 have shown anything at all. The rookie draft seems to have a better strike rate – perhaps because the players tend to be older.

 

[WAnchor]

^ Interesting post.

What I love is that this one skips your vision: pick 79, Greg Broughton.

 

[CamTinley]

Is that kinda like how you firmly believe that the moon landings were fake because the photo's were of poor quality?

The fake moon landings are a different thread, let's keep things on topic

 

[Proud Bogan]

The fake moon landings are a different thread, let's keep things on topic

Maybe. But your take on that gives an interesting insight into the way you look at things.

 

[Freo Blood]

^ Interesting post.

What I love is that this one skips your vision: pick 79, Greg Broughton.

That was a rookie upgrade I think, I didn't count those as they were already with the club. He was counted in the successful rookie picks section though.

There are also quite a few selections that needed to change clubs to get going. Mumford is one.

 

[Dormammu]

^ Interesting post.

What I love is that this one skips your vision: pick 79, Greg Broughton.

Always first check out the 69.

Particularly the '07.

 

[Clay Davis]

I really don't care how many Geelong have delisted or any other vague criteria (which are continually refined) that you use in every discussion to support your view. How many are in the best 22? Good see you chose not to address the opening paragrah. Anyway, you've confirmed my point, no club is perfect.

Geelong's list is in a totally different position, they also have a different game plan, different drafting/trading styles etc, all of which mean that they are going to manage their list and draft in a totally different way than we are. Apples and Oranges.

Regardless, how we go about managing our list may or may not have anything to do with development, it could be a game plan thing, or a drafting thing, you and I don't know and can't claim to know. How you pin the development tail on the delist donkey is beyond me.

Pick a club and find one that has delisted more players they have drafted since 2007 than Freo. How many of these clubs are there?

If a player is delisted, what are the reasons behind this? If a number of players are delisted not long after they are drafted, what are the reasons?

"Can't claim to know". What garbage. This isn't an epistemological debate. There are two likely reasons why a player is delisted only a few years after drafting - he is either no good in the first place, or hasn't come on as expected. The implication of this is that either our talent identification or development programs aren't up to scratch.

 

[gurncentral]

Pick a club and find one that has delisted more players they have drafted since 2007 than Freo. How many of these clubs are there?

If a player is delisted, what are the reasons behind this? If a number of players are delisted not long after they are drafted, what are the reasons?

"Can't claim to know". What garbage. This isn't an epistemological debate. There are two likely reasons why a player is delisted only a few years after drafting - he is either no good in the first place, or hasn't come on as expected. The implication of this is that either our talent identification or development programs aren't up to scratch.

Not saying you're wrong, but it would be better to consider the number of delistings as a proportion of total picks taken in the draft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Freo has turned over a lot of its list in the last few years. It stands to reason that some of those extra picks will be busts.

Edit: before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not having a go.

 

[Clay Davis]

Not saying you're wrong, but it would be better to consider the number of delistings as a proportion of total picks taken in the draft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Freo has turned over a lot of its list in the last few years. It stands to reason that some of those extra picks will be busts.

Edit: before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not having a go.

Of course. I don't think we'll miss much from those 2008 picks.