Toast Morabito tracking thread

[rodney hoo]

This whole, 'this draft lacks depth' does my head in. In fact it's bullshit.

For every supposedly shallow draft there are gems dug up in the 3rd round and massive busts from the Top 10. It all comes back to our ability to identify talent.

Absolutely no different to a supposedly 'deep' draft.

This whole pre-draft analysis has gone way over the top and is polluted by peoples opinions who have no credibility, factual analysis to back up their opinions nor historical accuracy from their previous 'predictions.

In fact it has become an industry by itself. An industry that is about as useful as Human Relations, Marketing and Occupational Health and Safety.

Groups of good young footy players barely differ from year to year.

It's partly because vic metro got beat, Melbourneites still don't reliase it's a national game and so as soon as vic metro are crap it's straight away a poor draft.
It still gives me the shits that they don't understand this and why Murdock chucks his $$$$$ at it.

 

[Bicco]

What's the bet our KPF that we draft at 22 turns out to be a 10 year player and club legend. There's a great ESPN doco called 'The Brady 6' which goes through the 6 quarterbacks taken before Tom Brady ( Brady was last at pick 150 or something). Without going into detail the interesting thing the recruiters say is that they couldn't test his spirit/heart. Just because a player doesn't dominate beep tests/vertical leaps, doesn't mean they won't be the best the game has seen. The opposite is also true . NicNat, I'm looking at you.

 

[Quokka]

Usually I am fine about shifting guys to the rookie list, but probably not this time. We look like drafting more guys in than is ideal in a draft that lacks depth. Not only does it mean that anyone drafted at selection 96ish is even more speculative than usual, it means Morabito is more attractive to other clubs to take a punt on.

I reckon if Freo wanted to rookie list Morabito the bad publicity would stop another club signing him up as much as his injury history and that is really saying something. Not only would a club be taking the chance on a guy that has spent the vast majority of the last six years on the long term injury list they'd also risk a lot of bad publicity if they were seen to be taking advantage of Fremantle wanting to move him to their rookie list even if technically they'd be in their right to select him.

Either way I hope the club doesn't rookie list him, if Morabito is going to play regular AFL again you'd think its going to take a trouble free preseason and if that happens he's as likely to be ready for senior footy as any of our late draft picks.

 

[itsduffy]

Has anyone actually heard any updates on him? Will he be ready for selection Rd 1?

 

[Paracleet]

What's the bet our KPF that we draft at 22 turns out to be a 10 year player and club legend. There's a great ESPN doco called 'The Brady 6' which goes through the 6 quarterbacks taken before Tom Brady ( Brady was last at pick 150 or something). Without going into detail the interesting thing the recruiters say is that they couldn't test his spirit/heart. Just because a player doesn't dominate beep tests/vertical leaps, doesn't mean they won't be the best the game has seen. The opposite is also true . NicNat, I'm looking at you.

Did they do another documentary on every other player who has been pick 150 to see how they went?

 

[apparentlydead]

Did they do another documentary on every other player who has been pick 150 to see how they went?

Nah, but they're doing a movie on Jack Watts.

He's starring in the remake of Bridget Jones' Diary.

 

[Bicco]

Did they do another documentary on every other player who has been pick 150 to see how they went?

Pretty sure the doco was about how recruiters got it so wrong, not right!

 

[Taylor]

Sport recruiting seems like it could be as much of a boys club as commentary and senior coaching is in the AFL.

Less and less now obviously but there was an attitude that unless you had played the game at the top level you wouldn't understand the he well enough to talk about it or coach.

 

[couldhavebeen]

Has anyone actually heard any updates on him? Will he be ready for selection Rd 1?

I heard a rumor that he is scheduled to have talks with the Club this week about his future since the Club has to finalize its list before the draft .
He did train and was pain free after training since he came back from Germany so I am of the opinion they will keep him on our list but then again the Club maybe of the opinion that he has missed so much time being injured that enough is enough .
We can't blame the Club if they do call and end to his time at Freo .They have stood by him far longer that almost any other club would have IE Menzel Geelong .

 

[apparentlydead]

Sport recruiting seems like it could be as much of a boys club as commentary and senior coaching is in the AFL.

Less and less now obviously but there was an attitude that unless you had played the game at the top level you wouldn't understand the he well enough to talk about it or coach.

Kinda.

I think it has more to do with social media/sites like this giving pimply faced teenagers the ability to comment on things they really know nothing about, and should be learning instead of commenting.

The introduction of the female perspective/participation has been a breath of fresh air imo.

 

[Taylor]

Kinda.

I think it has more to do with social media/sites like this giving pimply faced teenagers the ability to comment on things they really know nothing about, and should be learning instead of commenting.

The introduction of the female perspective/participation has been a breath of fresh air imo.

Once we get over the group of guys who are intimidated by a woman blowing their socks off on footy knowledge.

 

[Agenfrida]

What's the bet our KPF that we draft at 22 turns out to be a 10 year player and club legend. There's a great ESPN doco called 'The Brady 6' which goes through the 6 quarterbacks taken before Tom Brady ( Brady was last at pick 150 or something). Without going into detail the interesting thing the recruiters say is that they couldn't test his spirit/heart. Just because a player doesn't dominate beep tests/vertical leaps, doesn't mean they won't be the best the game has seen. The opposite is also true . NicNat, I'm looking at you.

Then you get guys like Brady Grey. Tests well and has a massive heart. He's going to be our Tom Brady? I like where your head is at Bicco

 

[Paracleet]

Pretty sure the doco was about how recruiters got it so wrong, not right!

That's my point, they're usually right. That whole 'the recruiters occasionally get it very wrong, ipso facto it's all a waste of time' opinion doesn't stand up to any reasoned scrutiny. It's straight reasoning by exception.

 

[theGav56]

This whole, 'this draft lacks depth' does my head in. In fact it's bullshit.

For every supposedly shallow draft there are gems dug up in the 3rd round and massive busts from the Top 10. It all comes back to our ability to identify talent.

Absolutely no different to a supposedly 'deep' draft.

This whole pre-draft analysis has gone way over the top and is polluted by peoples opinions who have no credibility, factual analysis to back up their opinions nor historical accuracy from their previous 'predictions.

In fact it has become an industry by itself. An industry that is about as useful as Human Relations, Marketing and Occupational Health and Safety.

Groups of good young footy players barely differ from year to year.

Clearly every draft is different and produce different results from each other. They have different strengths, and the fact that gems can be found in every 3rd round is irrelevant. All draft picks are speculative, but the history of players careers at least bears some testimony to the fact that it is not totally arbitrary.

 

[Taylor]

There is a bias involved with the selection of earlier draft picks to play over later selections that will manipulate the games played or years on list return from a player taken in the top five over another facing the same injury history later in the draft.

Gumbleton v Mason Shaw etc

 

[DudleyDocker]

Clearly every draft is different and produce different results from each other. They have different strengths, and the fact that gems can be found in every 3rd round is irrelevant. All draft picks are speculative, but the history of players careers at least bears some testimony to the fact that it is not totally arbitrary.

I think when they talk about the depth of the draft they are more referring to how many absolute A-graders there are at the top end (10 - 15) of the draft. Since we are never really involved in that section it has little bearing on what is going to be available to us.

I'm with apparentlydead on the likelihood of picking up a gem lower down the list in any draft. It would be interesting to see whether the drafts we picked up guys like Lee Spurr, Alex Pearce and Lachie Neale were classed as deep or shallow.

 

[Paracleet]

There is a bias involved with the selection of earlier draft picks to play over later selections that will manipulate the games played or years on list return from a player taken in the top five over another facing the same injury history later in the draft.

Gumbleton v Mason Shaw etc

If you were crunching the numbers you could probably have a stab at filtering out that effect by creating a curve for players who have played a minimum of 100 games (or even 150) and comparing that the curve for all players. I'd be confident they wouldn't be significantly different. (Even less so if you filter Melbourne picks out!)

 

[apparentlydead]

Clearly every draft is different and produce different results from each other. They have different strengths, and the fact that gems can be found in every 3rd round is irrelevant. All draft picks are speculative, but the history of players careers at least bears some testimony to the fact that it is not totally arbitrary.

Nah. Each year a similar number of kids nominate and a similar number of kids get taken. Each year top 10 picks are bust. Each year unknown 3rd rounders are stars.

This whole...'ooohhh nose, it's a shallow draft!'... implies that we're stuffed by not having 3 picks before 30 because every other kid after that is a crab.

It's just horseshit.

A 'strong' draft may have 4 or 5 kids that are readily identifiable as top end talent and will be taken in the top 10, but it doesn't imply that the rest are rubbish, despite what the plethora of 'experts' say.

The whole predraft thing is a massive w@ankfest over nothing.

 

[theGav56]

Nah. Each year a similar number of kids nominate and a similar number of kids get taken. Each year top 10 picks are bust. Each year unknown 3rd rounders are stars.

This whole...'ooohhh nose, it's a shallow draft!'... implies that we're stuffed by not having 3 picks before 30 because every other kid after that is a crab.

It's just horseshit.

A 'strong' draft may have 4 or 5 kids that are readily identifiable as top end talent and will be taken in the top 10, but it doesn't imply that the rest are rubbish, despite what the plethora of 'experts' say.

The who predraft thing is a massive w@ankfest over nothing.

Rubbish. Go back and look at the stats. Drafts don't reflect each other at all. They are consistently inconsistent.

 

[apparentlydead]

Rubbish. Go back and look at the stats. Drafts don't reflect each other at all. They are consistently inconsistent.

If you want to quote stats, then by all means go back and post them up.

It still won't change the inherent truth in what I'm saying.

 

[Paracleet]

If you want to quote stats, then by all means go back and post them up.

It still won't change the inherent truth in what I'm saying.

It is certainly true that some drafts are stronger than other, what is open to debate is whether the opinion of the strength before they happen is any guide. I'd be inclined to agree with you and say that saying weak or strong prior a draft is meaningless horseshit. They can only be judged in retrospect.

 

[Taylor]

Development of players and something as simple as personality management will go a long way to influencing whether a player reaches their best output too.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Then you get guys like Brady Grey. Tests well and has a massive heart. He's going to be our Tom Brady? I like where your head is at Bicco

I think the biggest problem for Brady is timing; he is at Fremantle at the wrong time.
He seems the logical replacement for Lee Spurr and I see a future of Brady beating the pants off classy small forwards.
A great player in waiting, methinks.

This should be the first pre-season in two years that Mora does not start in the re-hab group.
I reckon he will line up on Half back flank before moving to half forward this year.

 

[Superkoops]

I think when they talk about the depth of the draft they are more referring to how many absolute A-graders there are at the top end (10 - 15) of the draft. Since we are never really involved in that section it has little bearing on what is going to be available to us.

I'm with apparentlydead on the likelihood of picking up a gem lower down the list in any draft. It would be interesting to see whether the drafts we picked up guys like Lee Spurr, Alex Pearce and Lachie Neale were classed as deep or shallow.

I agree Dudley. The so called draft experts all come up with similar top 20/25 names (except for one or two surprises) and base their call on a weak or strong draft based on that list in comparison to other years. From a depth perspective I'm not sure how anyone can make the call that one draft is deeper than another and I'm sure the extreme lottery that is after the first 20/25 or so picks will be the same with some gems available later based on the skills of the talent identification teams / recruiters for each of the clubs.

Looking at afl.com.au there is an interesting article about some of the more mature aged (ie 21-25 year old state league players) many of whom I'm sure will make their way onto lists and then it is up to the draftees and the clubs to make them work out from there.

One thing that is certain Geelong will come out after the draft and say their first pick at 60 was rated very highly and a surprise slider - it is the stuff of a spin doctor at its best.

 

[youmewe]

At the end of the 2014 season I had a thorough look at the previous 10 years (2004-13) National (first 60 picks), Rookie (first 30 picks) and Pre-Season (all picks) drafts.

The numbers looked like this...(NB: the figures and comments haven't been adjusted to include 2015 season).

National (#1-60) Rookie (#1-30) Pre-Season (all picks)

Total players: 597-284-67
Average games played: 46-22-33
Median games played: 26-3-21
No. of players still current (% of total): 385 (64.9%)- 87 (30.6%)- 18 (26.9%)
Played 0 games (current players): 73 (30)- 122 (8)- 1 (0)
Played 1-3 games: 51 (25)- 27 (5)- 11 (1)
Played 4-10 games: 65 (34)- 35 (13)- 14 (3)
Played 11-24 games: 99 (55)- 35 (14)- 13 (1)
Played 25-49 games: 93 (56)- 24 (13)- 14 (3)
Played 50-99 games: 117 (93)- 20 (15)- 8 (6)
Played 100-199 games: 93 (86)- 20 (18)- 5 (3)
Played 200+ games: 6 (6)- 1 (1)- 1 (1)

Roughly 2/3 of players drafted via the National draft (ND) are still current vs less than 1/3 of those drafted via the Rookie draft (RD) or Pre-Season draft (PSD).

Nearly ½ of all RD players fail to play even one game.

ND players are far more likely to reach the 100 game plateau (1 in 6.03) compared to the other drafts (RD 1 in 13.52, PSD 1 in 11.17).

At this point let's put the Rookie and Pre-Season drafts aside and concentrate on the National draft.

Breaking the National draft down a little we see something like this …


National Draft 2004-2013 (#1-60)

Pick no.:#1-10 #11-20 #21-30 #31-40 #41-50 #51-60

Total players: 100- 100-100- 100- 99- 98
No. of players still current: 89- 73- 69- 63- 51- 40
Average games played: 76- 57- 44- 40- 34- 22
Median games played: 69- 38- 26- 24- 20- 6
Played 0 games (current players): 2 (2)- 2 (0)- 9 (5)- 19 (9)- 21 (10)- 20 (4)
Played 1-3 games: 1 (0)- 10 (7)- 8 (3)- 8 (5)- 7 (3)- 17 (7)
Played 4-10 games: 3 (2)- 9 (7)- 10 (7)- 11 (5)- 10 (5)- 22 (8)
Played 11-24 games: 16 (13)- 17 (11)- 21 (12)- 13 (5)- 19 (10)- 13 (4)
Played 25-49 games: 19 (17)- 19 (11)- 15 (9)- 13 (9)- 14 (4)- 13 (6)
Played 50-99 games: 28 (26)- 23 (18)- 21 (18)- 21 (16)- 18 (10)- 6 (5)
Played 100-199 games: 26 (24)- 20 (19)- 16 (15)- 14 (13)- 10 (9)- 7 (6)
Played 200+ games: 5 (5)- 0- 0- 1 (1)- 0- 0

Miscellaneous notes

Of the 43 players to end their careers without playing a single game: 6 were top 30 picks the other 37 were #31-60.

Mitch Thorp and John Meesen are the only top 10 picks to play less than 10 games.

Every #1 pick is still playing.

Scott Gumbleton is the only top 3 pick no longer playing. Richard Tambling and Cale Morton are the only other top 5 picks no longer playing.

Only 5 players selected in the top 30 between 2010 and 2013 (possible 120) are no longer playing. Sadly 3 of the 5 are former Freo players (Pitt, Forster and Simpson).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are picks 31-60 worth having?

Over the past 3 years:

34 of a possible 88 haven’t debuted.
48 of 88 have played less than 4 games.
15 of 88 have played between 4 and 10 games.
25 of 88 have played more than 10 games. (Brad Hill is the only one with 50+ games).

Does size matter?

Total Drafted by Height (2004-13, Picks #1-60)

Height- No. of players drafted- Retired- % Current

180 < cms: 48- 22- 54.2%
180 -183 cms: 112- 38- 66.1%
184 -187 cms: 124- 42- 66.1%
188 -191 cms: 110- 42- 61.8%
192 -195 cms: 100- 40- 60%
196+ cms: 103- 28- 72.8%

Chris Masten is the highest 180< cms player drafted (#3, 2007).

Dion Prestia (175cms) is the shortest top 10 pick (#9, 2010).