List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

[Duckimus Prime]

2017 is the draft we could've cleaned up on KPD.

We would be a powerhouse if we managed that draft.

I mean sure we could've kept our first round pick instead of spending it in 2016 to grab Todd Marshall and Sam Powell-Pepper.

Then we could've made a massive reach with selecting Noah Balta (pick 25) or Sam Taylor (pick 28) at pick 12.

If we kept our second round pick at 31 we could've had reasonable punts at Tom McCartin and Harrison Petty. McCartin though is another failed forward who moved into defence. But then again, apparently being able to pick that is a thing we should've been doing with Josh Battle and Brennan Cox.

We also had 34 that we traded out for a 2018 picks. But that was spent in moving up into early picks in 2018 draft. So you're giving up Rozee.

Nathan Murphy is a ducking, flopping flog that wouldn't have had a career outside of gifts for wearing black and white stripes. So skip out on him.

Charlie Ballard is into the 40s so getting into taking someone 10 picks earlier than any one else in the league thought too.

The only part where its actually looking like a reasonable alternate selection is Joel Garner and Dom Barry. Richmond's Ben Miller not a couple picks later and Brendan Zerk-Thatcher. So we could've gotten BZT with a fourth instead of a plateau'd Duursma. Of course both aren't a option for everyone here because Joel Garner is a world beater we definitely should've been playing every week.

 

[Buget]

We go through this every year.
Port can’t develop talls. Port don’t pick talls. Port don’t pick talls early enough. We overpay for talls.

Literally every team is like this.

Outside of maybe west coast, Freo and the crows, no one seems to consistently draft and develop talls.

So which talls should we have taken with the draft picks we had? Which of wines, wingard, Rozee, butters, Bergman, etc should we swap out for a tall?

Bulldogs: JUH, Cordy, Darcy, Croft,
Geelong: Scarlett and Hawkins
Brisbane: Andrews
Collingwood: Moore, Quaynor
Suns: Read, Walter, + Lynch and May as via draft concessions
Crows: Michaelany
Hawthorn: Dear
Essendon: Daniher

Whilst I don’t disagree with your point, you’re missing some key information. 3 of the 4 players mentioned at the Dogs went F/S or NGA. 2 of which were way before Port had a pick.

So did Scarlett, Hawkins, Daniher, Michaelanny.

According to Midweek Tackle:

• As mentioned in past trade news, Miles Bergman has parked contract talks until the midway point of the season. Has mentioned to Ken about his homesickness in the past. He does not want to be defined by his football and wants to have family, friends and hobbies outside of footy. A move to the Saints would most likely enable him to play more midfield time rather than a defender.
• Leek Aleer will most likely seek a move away from the Giants due to how well stocked they are in the tall defender department. Saints are keen to acquire his services with offers up to 900k to get him to join their club.

Thats some fair capital that the Saints would have to give up for Bergman and Aleer. They probably have the cap space, but not the picks.

I can’t see them dealing NWM or Phillipou and they only have pick 7 and no second rounder.

 

[Addy23]

can’t see them dealing NWM or Phillipou and they only have pick 7 and no second rounder.

We absolutely hold all the cards here. They chase a player of ours that's out of contract. They gotta deal a fairly. I'd be in NWM's ears from now trying to convince him to come over if they are doing that to Bergman. If we don't end up with NWM by himself or Phillipou + decent pick for Bergman I'd be extremely disappointed

 

[n4nirvana]

According to Midweek Tackle:

• As mentioned in past trade news, Miles Bergman has parked contract talks until the midway point of the season. Has mentioned to Ken about his homesickness in the past. He does not want to be defined by his football and wants to have family, friends and hobbies outside of footy. A move to the Saints would most likely enable him to play more midfield time rather than a defender.
• Jase Burgoyne has interest from other rival clubs monitoring his situation with him being out of contract this year.
• Nothing much about Kane Farrell aside from he may leave but Callum Twomey mentioned Farrell is keen to stay at the club
• Leek Aleer will most likely seek a move away from the Giants due to how well stocked they are in the tall defender department. Saints are keen to acquire his services with offers up to 900k to get him to join their club.

Oh so Victorian GMs are using the media to indicate who they want and Fish

 

[Peninsula Boy]

I mean sure we could've kept our first round pick instead of spending it in 2016 to grab Todd Marshall and Sam Powell-Pepper.

Then we could've made a massive reach with selecting Noah Balta (pick 25) or Sam Taylor (pick 28) at pick 12.

If we kept our second round pick at 31 we could've had reasonable punts at Tom McCartin and Harrison Petty. McCartin though is another failed forward who moved into defence. But then again, apparently being able to pick that is a thing we should've been doing with Josh Battle and Brennan Cox.

We also had 34 that we traded out for a 2018 picks. But that was spent in moving up into early picks in 2018 draft. So you're giving up Rozee.

Nathan Murphy is a ducking, flopping flog that wouldn't have had a career outside of gifts for wearing black and white stripes. So skip out on him.

Charlie Ballard is into the 40s so getting into taking someone 10 picks earlier than any one else in the league thought too.

The only part where its actually looking like a reasonable alternate selection is Joel Garner and Dom Barry. Richmond's Ben Miller not a couple picks later and Brendan Zerk-Thatcher. So we could've gotten BZT with a fourth instead of a plateau'd Duursma. Of course both aren't a option for everyone here because Joel Garner is a world beater we definitely should've been playing every week.

Its easy to get into the second round.

It's talent evaluation. You have to see the tall guys and hope they play in the forward line but they just might have attributes to play behind the ball too.

I think traded our 2nd rounder for Jack Watts. We could have McCartin, Petty, Ballard, Zerk with that pick.

We could've tried for Balta, Taylor, the De Koning brothers.

The thing about it is that if we picked up a couple of these guys and developed them well, we don't need to be using first rounders to nab middling talls.

Balta and Taylor are a reach at 12 but split the picks and get Taylor and Petty or Ballard and you've got half your spine for the next decade.

We're just a poorly run outfit.

 

[Addy23]

Its easy to get into the second round.

It's talent evaluation. You have to see the tall guys and hope they play in the forward line but they just might have attributes to play behind the ball too.

I think traded our 2nd rounder for Jack Watts. We could have McCartin, Petty, Ballard, Zerk with that pick.

We could've tried for Balta, Taylor, the De Koning brothers.

The thing about it is that if we picked up a couple of these guys and developed them well, we don't need to be using first rounders to nab middling talls.

Balta and Taylor are a reach at 12 but split the picks and get Taylor and Petty or Ballard and you've got half your spine for the next decade.

We're just a poorly run outfit.

Of all the names of you mentioned, no one would be anywhere near the level they are right now if we drafted them.

It's all down to development. Just wait till Lord goes to Geelong or Melbourne and starts becoming a solid tall forward. We just don't have coaches who know how to develop players and don't have a gameplan that suits our talls.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Of all the names of you mentioned, no one would be anywhere near the level they are right now if we drafted them.

It's all down to development. Just wait till Lord goes to Geelong or Melbourne and starts becoming a solid tall forward. We just don't have coaches who know how to develop players and don't have a gameplan that suits our talls.

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

According to Midweek Tackle:

• As mentioned in past trade news, Miles Bergman has parked contract talks until the midway point of the season. Has mentioned to Ken about his homesickness in the past. He does not want to be defined by his football and wants to have family, friends and hobbies outside of footy. A move to the Saints would most likely enable him to play more midfield time rather than a defender.

His manager was on Gettable before the Trade Period last year, and he said that he didn't expect anything to happen contract wise with Miles until the second half of the season. Miles likes to take his time in making any decisions.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

The thing about it is that if we picked up a couple of these guys and developed them well, we don't need to be using first rounders to nab middling talls.

Balta and Taylor are a reach at 12 but split the picks and get Taylor and Petty or Ballard and you've got half your spine for the next decade.

You've just suggested spending pick 12 to select guys that went in the 20s back to the 40s.

And you said you don't want to be using first rounders to select middling talls.

 

[jackag24]

All of this revisionist draft pick history relies heavily on hindsight

It's easy to look back now and go "Well no shit we should have taken Sam Taylor at pick 28, it's so obvious"

But i agree with the general sentiment that we have neglected our KP stocks in the drafts for too long

 

[Macca19]

Again you wouldn’t build a forward line around rookies and delisted players. At some point you have to invest. That’s not saying every early pick is a gun just as no pick is but it gives you a greater chance of success.

Asking to spend a could second round picks over a 15-20 year period isn’t asking for much from a list management perspective.

You wouldnt build a forward line over late picks because history shows there is no value in KPFs with late picks. If you want a gun KPF, you have to go early.

History shows different for KPDs. There is a reason why their value lies later in the draft, just like rucks. They are higher risk and you can often get great KPDs with late/rookie picks or as mature agers.

There is also nothing really wrong with trading in a type of player and knowing what you are getting as opposed to waiting 3-4 years for a KPD for an early KPD to hopefully make it.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

You've just suggested spending pick 12 to select guys that went in the 20s back to the 40s.

And you said you don't want to be using first rounders to select middling talls.

You first brought up the pick 12 scenario. I didn't quite understand where you were going with it Ducky but I went with it.

I am happy to use a lower pick to drop back to pick up key positions players in the draft with a load of potential. In that 2017 draft, it was possible to grab one or two guys, even three. There was plenty about. I thought Richmond did well with their massive draft hand this year picking up a fair whack of tall timber with a lot of potential. They went early with Jonty Faull at 14, Luke Trainor at 21, Harry Armstrong at 23 - both of which I love, Tom Sims at 28. If those guys pay off, they will be set.

What I wouldn't use a first rounder for is splitting picks to pick up middling key position players in the trading period like Ratugolea and Soldo.

 

[Macca19]

Its also very easy in hindsight to list blokes who've been successful and suggested we should have picked them.

Instead of Brennan Cox, we could have just as easily picked Lewis Young or Jack Maibaum, both fails.

Instead of trading our picks in 2017, we could have picked Oscar Clavarino who had a very strong back catalogue pre draft....didnt play a game.

I don't recall anyone even mentioned Sam De Koning as an option on here pre draft. Everyone mentioned Will Gould as an option, he was a flop.

In hindsight you always make the right call and we'd be sitting here having won the last 17 premierships.

 

[TeeKray]

You wouldnt build a forward line over late picks because history shows there is no value in KPFs with late picks. If you want a gun KPF, you have to go early.

History shows different for KPDs. There is a reason why their value lies later in the draft, just like rucks. They are higher risk and you can often get great KPDs with late/rookie picks or as mature agers.

There is also nothing really wrong with trading in a type of player and knowing what you are getting as opposed to waiting 3-4 years for a KPD for an early KPD to hopefully make it.

Yep.

Also playing in defence is much easier than playing in attack. That's why so many failed key forwards become serviceable or even top quality key defenders. You don't need a high level of talent to be a good key defender, you just need a bit of size and some footy smarts.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

You first brought up the pick 12 scenario. I didn't quite understand where you were going with it Ducky but I went with it.

I brought up pick 12 from 2017 because it was suggested about selecting defenders who were gone from the draft pool before our second round pick. That means we would've had to give up pick 12 for them. Which would've also been giving up Marshall or SPP.

I am happy to use a lower pick to drop back to pick up key positions players in the draft with a load of potential. In that 2017 draft, it was possible to grab one or two guys, even three. There was plenty about.

The 2017 draft was was one we deliberately traded out of, because thats how the potential was rated.

I thought Richmond did well with their massive draft hand this year picking up a fair whack of tall timber with a lot of potential. They went early with Jonty Faull at 14, Luke Trainor at 21, Harry Armstrong at 23 - both of which I love, Tom Sims at 28. If those guys pay off, they will be set.

They did this after having so many picks that they'd already taken multiple midfielders. They also gave up a significant number of best 22 players to get this draft haul.

This is nothing like using a first round pick to draft guys that are rated in the 30s.

This thread is constantly full of using hindsight to say we should've drafted so-and-so 20 picks higher than anyone actually did without actually even considering who we'd lose by changing that draft choice. Like the ridiculous suggesting of drafting players instead of Jackson Mead in 2019, when the only reason we could take Mead in the mid 20s was because he was a father-son.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yep.

Also playing in defence is much easier than playing in attack. That's why so many failed key forwards become serviceable or even top quality key defenders. You don't need a high level of talent to be a good key defender, you just need a bit of size and some footy smarts.

You also need to be developed to play there, and be selected to play KPD when a starter is out and you're next in line.

This has been our issue with developing talls for the entire Hinkley era. We don't select like for like. We play players out of position, we play smaller players. We just don't give developing talls a go apart from a few exceptions.

After years of doing that at key forward we actually backed in Marshall and Georgiades. We looked like we were going to give Hayes a decent run and we promptly dropped him and picked Finlayson ahead of him for half a season. If we played Hayes for the rest of that season we'd have lost nothing and we could probably have traded him for a 2nd-3rd round pick. Instead we just delisted him. We are horrible at maintaining the value of our players, and that's because talls hold their value so well and we just refuse to play them so it spooks other clubs.

We haven't played a developing KPD for a single game since what, Dougal Howard switching back in 2018? Logan Austin in 2016? I guess we played Jarrod Lienert as a KPD a few times but he was generally more of a running defender than a proper KPD. It's a crime. Just like the forward line in the 2013-2019 era, we're having to play smalls and players out of position there because we've flatout refused to plan and develop properly. People can say "oh but we didn't have anyone ready", but that's the consequence of not taking KPD development seriously.

 

[Long live PAFC]

Whilst I don’t disagree with your point, you’re missing some key information. 3 of the 4 players mentioned at the Dogs went F/S or NGA. 2 of which were way before Port had a pick.

Was meaning that those clubs with FS or NGAs got lucky and huge advantages that Port hasn’t had. Not that we should or could have drafted those players.

Ie Collingwood got Moore - A star KPD. So they could focus their trade, FA and draft to other needs. Port has had to draft or trade in KPDs. Same with the dogs and talls.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

I brought up pick 12 from 2017 because it was suggested about selecting defenders who were gone from the draft pool before our second round pick. That means we would've had to give up pick 12 for them. Which would've also been giving up Marshall or SPP.

Fair enough. I agree but also sometimes you have to go for your guy.

The 2017 draft was was one we deliberately traded out of, because thats how the potential was rated.

Obviously they were very wrong.

If you look back on it, it was more that the list management doubled down on trading and getting readymade players which usually means they thought they were close to winning. Pick 31 for Jack Watts. FAs in Rockliff, McKenzie and Motlop.

I'm not even going to harp on what was possible with that pick 31. I talked about it many times before on here.

They did this after having so many picks that they'd already taken multiple midfielders. They also gave up a significant number of best 22 players to get this draft haul.
This is nothing like using a first round pick to draft guys that are rated in the 30s.

I've got to this point and we really are arguing two slightly different things here. This is usual for BigFooty.

My understanding is all you are saying is that you don't pick a guy that is in the 2nd round with your 1st rounder. I generally agree but there is room to move on that.

All I'm saying is that in the 2017 there were a lot of very good players especially defenders in the middle rounds that we missed out on, used for a middling player who is famous for swimming and ****, and from about late in the first round into the second round there are some serious key defenders to be picked up usually.

This thread is constantly full of using hindsight to say we should've drafted so-and-so 20 picks higher than anyone actually did without actually even considering who we'd lose by changing that draft choice. Like the ridiculous suggesting of drafting players instead of Jackson Mead in 2019, when the only reason we could take Mead in the mid 20s was because he was a father-son.

Hindsight is easy and 20/20.

I was just highlighting that 2017 had a lot of key backs throughout the draft.

You take Jackson Mead with the points. Any father, son will huge potential has to be gobbled up. You can't use Mead in this argument.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I was just highlighting that 2017 had a lot of key backs throughout the draft.

You take Jackson Mead with the points. Any father, son will huge potential has to be gobbled up. You can't use Mead in this argument.

Mead came into the conversation because someone literally suggested taking Josh Worrell (pick 28) or Charlie Comben (pick 31) at pick 25 instead of Mead. Which was not possible because we were using picks later than those two to match the bid on Mead.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Its also very easy in hindsight to list blokes who've been successful and suggested we should have picked them.

Instead of Brennan Cox, we could have just as easily picked Lewis Young or Jack Maibaum, both fails.

Instead of trading our picks in 2017, we could have picked Oscar Clavarino who had a very strong back catalogue pre draft....didnt play a game.

I don't recall anyone even mentioned Sam De Koning as an option on here pre draft. Everyone mentioned Will Gould as an option, he was a flop.

In hindsight you always make the right call and we'd be sitting here having won the last 17 premierships.

You can't use 20/20 hindsight but you can show that opportunities were lost. You can also show that even if your strike rate is decent, it would help the structure of the list a great deal.

I was happy that we burned pick 36 on Tom McCallum because we were trying to get a key defender with a decent pick. He didn't work out but the overall idea was good. Unfortunately that whole draft year for us has been jettisoned out of the airlock.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Mead came into the conversation because someone literally suggested taking Josh Worrell (pick 28) or Charlie Comben (pick 31) at pick 25 instead of Mead. Which was not possible because we were using picks later than those two to match the bid on Mead.

Not everyone puts a lot of time into the drafting threads.
The person got it wrong.
Correct politely and move on.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Ultimately, if the club had really wanted to develop key defenders to AFL level in the last half a decade, we would have. We're not just unlucky. We haven't made it a priority and so it hasn't happened. We've always prioritised winning now over tall development too much, and the result is that we haven't won anything and we haven't developed any key defenders.

 

[afl2004]

Ultimately, if the club had really wanted to develop key defenders to AFL level in the last half a decade, we would have. We're not just unlucky. We haven't made it a priority and so it hasn't happened. We've always prioritised winning now over tall development too much, and the result is that we haven't won anything and we haven't developed any key defenders.

Allir and McKenzie being got for peanuts and turning into 7 to 9 out of 10 every week defenders has not help that "we will sort it out later" attitude

 

[Long live PAFC]

You also need to be developed to play there, and be selected to play KPD when a starter is out and you're next in line.

This has been our issue with developing talls for the entire Hinkley era. We don't select like for like. We play players out of position, we play smaller players. We just don't give developing talls a go apart from a few exceptions.

After years of doing that at key forward we actually backed in Marshall and Georgiades. We looked like we were going to give Hayes a decent run and we promptly dropped him and picked Finlayson ahead of him for half a season. If we played Hayes for the rest of that season we'd have lost nothing and we could probably have traded him for a 2nd-3rd round pick. Instead we just delisted him. We are horrible at maintaining the value of our players, and that's because talls hold their value so well and we just refuse to play them so it spooks other clubs.

We haven't played a developing KPD for a single game since what, Dougal Howard switching back in 2018? Logan Austin in 2016? I guess we played Jarrod Lienert as a KPD a few times but he was generally more of a running defender than a proper KPD. It's a crime. Just like the forward line in the 2013-2019 era, we're having to play smalls and players out of position there because we've flatout refused to plan and develop properly. People can say "oh but we didn't have anyone ready", but that's the consequence of not taking KPD development seriously.

I don’t disagree with the concept but do think there are some nuance here.

Alipate was running around until 2016. Jonas and Clurey were both developing during the 2013-2016 period. Howard started getting games in 2016. You can only develop so many players at once.

There is a balance between developing players and playing developed players. Leek Aleer may be a better defender at career’s end than Idun, Buckley or Keefe, but right now those players are better and GWS are pushing for a flag. In 2015/16, how would Clurey, Carlile or Jonas have taken sitting out games to give Austin a go? How would Esava or BZT take it if we decided to develop Walsh instead of giving him a run? I’m not saying you need to never drop players or not be tough. Macrae, Daniel, Parker etc all left their clubs because other players were prioritised. So there is need for balance.

Equally players still develop for a long time, it’s not unreasonable to suggest Jonas and Clurey were still developing well after reaching 100 games, or that BZT and Sav are still developing now. Should we cut short BZT’s development to try and develop Walsh?

Also an extra 10-20 games into Hayes and Pasini, as much as I was calling for it, wouldn’t have changed our need to get BZT, Sav, etc.

If KPD drafting and development was so easy, why were Sydney, Essendon, Hawthorn, Adelaide, North, Collingwood - all looking for key backs at the last trade period?

As to the devaluing of players:

• Hayes didn’t get a train on gig at any clubs. Lots of clubs needed a ruck. He was a SANFL b n f winner and had afl games to his name. They could have had him for free but no interest. Meanwhile guys like Ryan and Fullarton were traded, despite no AFL games and poorer form. Hayes just wasn’t that good and an extra 10 AFL games wouldn’t have changed that.
• Pasini was a rookie with a knee and shoulder reconstruction. No interest was appropriate.
• Austin, Impey both netted us about what we selected them for. Howard was better. Houston - let’s not talk about that.

 

[Powerade 08]

There is so much wrong with all these posts that its impossible to actually respond to them.

We just need to draft talls which arent complete crap.

Instead of moving our picks up and down on draft night specifically to target flankers we could try doing that for a highly rated tall.