Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d be inclined to do it if this guy is rated as highly as what a Daicos or Ashcroft is and can have an immediate impact.

IMO I’d take 1 superstar mid ahead of 3 good players. With picks from about 8-20 they usually end up as good players, it is very hard to find a superstar. While the pick 1 as a mid in uncompromised highly rated draft should be a game changer (I’d say this is to risky if it were a key forward).

In addition, you really do need star players to win premierships and unfortunately the bulldogs aren’t a destination club so we need to draft these players.

We can afford to be more creative with how we recruit role players (via trade, free agency and later draft picks) as we are actually a chance to bring in good role players like doedee.

The other factor to consider is you can get a player in their first year like Ashcroft or Daicos that is on min chips that can be top 5 on list standard almost immediately. This gives you more opportunity from a cash perspective with free agency and player retention etc.

Saying all this I imagine that the club won’t offer up the 3 first round picks as they will want to re energise the list profile while we have spent a lot of draft capital in recent years on Darcy JUH which has probably been to our short term detriment.

Also doubt Hawthorn do it unless 1 of the first rounders was min top 5 as they are smart enough to look at Premiership Teams primarily built in the draft like Melbourne and see it was won off the back of their midfield superstars Oliver and Petraca that went top 5 (Richmond the same with Cotchin and Martin). These players are very hard to get access to without those top picks.

To use Melbourne as an example again pick 1 could be the difference between picking up a Oliver compared with 3 later first rounders like Salem, Pickett and Jake Bowey (That would be absolute best case to get 3 really good players that are unlikely to be starting mids - chances are you get one dud that plays a handful of games and none would be as good as what Pickett is).

Still I know which option I’m taking and that would be picking up the star mid bull as they get it done when it matters.
That assumes that pick 1 will be a star, and picks in the teens will be just ok.

In 2009 Nat Fyfe was pick 20, Tom Scully was pick 1.
In 2013 we resisted the temptation to try and package up pick 4 for pick 1. We ended up with Bontempelli, while GWS took Tom Boyd.

Drafting being an inexact science means I'd much rather not play around with picks and just take what we get to the draft.
 
I just realised, we have Brisbane’s 1st and 2nd, have traded out our 2nd, but also have Melbourne’s and Geelong’s 4th round pick. Not a bad haul in a reputed superdraft.
We also have Brisbane's second
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'd much rather hold our first few picks and get a few "good" players than go all out for one high draft pick.

We did that for marra and Darcy, our bottom 6 each game day gets carried hard by our top few and if they don't fire we're screwed.
 
2018 was much hyped as a super draft, but I think it is fair to say it has turned out to be about average. I'm always very skeptical of these claims.

Super draft? More like Stupid and daft.

Anyway, hopefully we can get a few exciting young mids in. I think we have recruited well, but would be good to start bringing in a new generations of mids to push the current crop.
 
That assumes that pick 1 will be a star, and picks in the teens will be just ok.

In 2009 Nat Fyfe was pick 20, Tom Scully was pick 1.
In 2013 we resisted the temptation to try and package up pick 4 for pick 1. We ended up with Bontempelli, while GWS took Tom Boyd.

Drafting being an inexact science means I'd much rather not play around with picks and just take what we get to the draft.

We were very keen but would also have had to sell our souls for Jack Martin in the concession era, which was a dodged bullet.

Trading picks for established talent? Absolutely
Trading up big time for the draft? That’s a no from me dog
 
A few good players is better than one great player. We have arguably the best player in the league in Bontempelli. But even if he plays his best game, we don't always win. The teams that do well consistently, have a great team structure and good role players built around their stars. One of the criticisms of us, is our lack of depth, players playing non natural positions and a one way midfield.

As attractive as Reid would be to get now, unless he is a crazy good once in a generation player. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for us to land him as well. I would rather take 3 first round picks to the draft. At least we know we will land 3 solid players with high odds to be best 22 players. It will close a lot more holes, and build more depth than any one lone player will.

Number one picks are the most overrated in almost any sport, and they seldom end up being the best player in their draft year.
 
Last edited:
That assumes that pick 1 will be a star, and picks in the teens will be just ok.

In 2009 Nat Fyfe was pick 20, Tom Scully was pick 1.
In 2013 we resisted the temptation to try and package up pick 4 for pick 1. We ended up with Bontempelli, while GWS took Tom Boyd.

Drafting being an inexact science means I'd much rather not play around with picks and just take what we get to the draft.
Your right no one knows if number 1 is going to be a star. I’m not a draft watcher so I have no idea how good the proposed 1 is.

My point is more that at top end of the draft 1-5 you are much more likely to get star player than you are with a pick in the teens. Teens you are likely to be pretty happy just obtaining a role player. Which admittedly we do need particular on the wings.

And personally I rate the one star player (especially a mid over the 3 role players). I also think there is other ways of obtaining role players by free agency, trading late first round/ second round draft collateral for the finished product or developing later picks.

I really think those late first round draft picks are severely overrated. As for every Fyfe (which is a once in a lifetime pick) there has probably been 100 examples of a Nathan Hrovat, Jackson Hatley, Ned McHenry, Ben Lennon etc.

Subsequently if the recruiters thought this number 1 was a midfielder that was going to make and immediate impact on a club like Sam Walsh, Nick Daicos or Will Ashcroft I’d back them in. One of these guys in the right set up could be an absolute game changer in just year 1 or 2. While I believe a bold move could be the spark that takes us to another flag.

Even if we weren’t flush for talls I’d only take this risk for a mid. I think there’s too much risk with a talls that they don’t adapt to playing with men. Also from a philosophical point of view I believe that mids are impacting games more than ever whilst the influence of tall forwards is diminishing.
 
Your right no one knows if number 1 is going to be a star. I’m not a draft watcher so I have no idea how good the proposed 1 is.

My point is more that at top end of the draft 1-5 you are much more likely to get star player than you are with a pick in the teens. Teens you are likely to be pretty happy just obtaining a role player. Which admittedly we do need particular on the wings.

And personally I rate the one star player (especially a mid over the 3 role players). I also think there is other ways of obtaining role players by free agency, trading late first round/ second round draft collateral for the finished product or developing later picks.

I really think those late first round draft picks are severely overrated. As for every Fyfe (which is a once in a lifetime pick) there has probably been 100 examples of a Nathan Hrovat, Jackson Hatley, Ned McHenry, Ben Lennon etc.

Subsequently if the recruiters thought this number 1 was a midfielder that was going to make and immediate impact on a club like Sam Walsh, Nick Daicos or Will Ashcroft I’d back them in. One of these guys in the right set up could be an absolute game changer in just year 1 or 2. While I believe a bold move could be the spark that takes us to another flag.

Even if we weren’t flush for talls I’d only take this risk for a mid. I think there’s too much risk with a talls that they don’t adapt to playing with men. Also from a philosophical point of view I believe that mids are impacting games more than ever whilst the influence of tall forwards is diminishing.
That’s a good write up. The counter argument would be:
Our first 2 games were very bad. One superstar 18 year old mid won’t push us to a flag.
Our bottom 5 are some of the worst in the league to get games every week. All of them mid-agers that are unlikely to get better as well.
I think we have the oldest list in the competition with more list cloggers than I’ve ever seen during Bev’s tenure. There’s probably 10 players who we could cut from the list that no one would be overly concerned about.
In terms of up and coming talent not already in the team, we have Buss, Clarke, Darcy and Khamis. The rest have big question marks over.
 
Put it like this.

Geelong lost Gary Ablett Jnr and won the 2011 premiership - If they lost any three of Scarlett, Ling, Enright, Bartel etc would they have won the 2011 premiership?

Hawthorn lost Buddy and won the next two premierships. If they lost any three of Hodge, Lewis, Mitchell, Roughead etc would they have won those premierships?

A good system with multiple good players will always be better than a good system with a single generational player.
 
Put it like this.

Geelong lost Gary Ablett Jnr and won the 2011 premiership - If they lost any three of Scarlett, Ling, Enright, Bartel etc would they have won the 2011 premiership?

Hawthorn lost Buddy and won the next two premierships. If they lost any three of Hodge, Lewis, Mitchell, Roughead etc would they have won those premierships?

A good system with multiple good players will always be better than a good system with a single generational player.

Valid point, and I’d personally prefer to keep the picks, but geez you’re taking the piss if you expect us to draft that well


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geelong lost Gary Ablett Jnr and won the 2011 premiership - If they lost any three of Scarlett, Ling, Enright, Bartel etc would they have won the 2011 premiership?

Hawthorn lost Buddy and won the next two premierships. If they lost any three of Hodge, Lewis, Mitchell, Roughead etc would they have won those premierships?

A good system with multiple good players will always be better than a good system with a single generational player.
I get your point but Hodge, Roughy & Lewis were pick 1, 2 & 7 so not really comparable to the standard of players we’d be picking up. Looking at our own team/history, would we have won the flag without Bont? I’d say no.

I think people get way to caught up with looking at draft pick numbers and referring to history, when in reality it’s completely irrelevant. Ie pick 6 can be better than pick 5 100 drafts in a row, does that mean you’d take pick 6 over pick 5 in the next draft? Of course not, you’d take still take the earliest choice.

The question here for our recruiters isn’t pick 1 or pick 9, 10 & 15 etc. The question is Reid or Player A, B & C.

Pick 1 last year is irrelevant, pick 1 next year is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant for our recruiters is basing these guys on what they know about them and their game, not some arbitrary rating on previous years draft picks or whether they’d rather one star or 3 good players etc.
 
Valid point, and I’d personally prefer to keep the picks, but geez you’re taking the piss if you expect us to draft that well


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
We've nailed our first rounders for a fair while now (although Marra and Darcy were free hits).
 
We've nailed our first rounders for a fair while now (although Marra and Darcy were free hits).
I dont think anybody can argue about our early selections in recent memory and the sky's the limit with these two in particular.

The reality is though that we've pretty much mortgaged our future by paying the price of hollowing out the upper end of our list to do so.

This is why Id rather take any potential haul of 3 first rounders to the draft than package them into a potential play for Reid.

The bones are still there but we really need to refresh this list and as it stands we seem well placed to do just that. its a list that is as deep as one of my posts and one win over a flaky team that travels as well as a toddler with colic on a long haul trip doesn't paper over this fact.
 
I dont think anybody can argue about our early selections in recent memory and the sky's the limit with these two in particular.

The reality is though that we've pretty much mortgaged our future by paying the price of hollowing out the upper end of our list to do so.

This is why Id rather take any potential haul of 3 first rounders to the draft than package them into a potential play for Reid.

The bones are still there but we really need to refresh this list and as it stands we seem well placed to do just that. its a list that is as deep as one of my posts and one win over a flaky team that travels as well as a toddler with colic on a long haul trip doesn't paper over this fact.
I'd be happy to grab a youngish running type with our 'lower' first rounder - someone in their early 20s had a lot of football left in them.
Definitely want to take our higher first rounder to draft, and dead-against packaging picks.
 
Interesting thoughts on packaging picks.
Prefer to take all to draft as can see 5-8 list changes next year.
In saying that, let’s say LDU’s manager says he’d like to play for us as he hates Clarko. I’d happily wrap a bow around our top 2
 
That’s a good write up. The counter argument would be:
Our first 2 games were very bad. One superstar 18 year old mid won’t push us to a flag.
Our bottom 5 are some of the worst in the league to get games every week. All of them mid-agers that are unlikely to get better as well.
I think we have the oldest list in the competition with more list cloggers than I’ve ever seen during Bev’s tenure. There’s probably 10 players who we could cut from the list that no one would be overly concerned about.
In terms of up and coming talent not already in the team, we have Buss, Clarke, Darcy and Khamis. The rest have big question marks over.
IMO For an immediate impact you’re likely to get more out of 1 top end pick than 3 late first picks.
It is very unlikely that a late first pick would be able to play early in the year, whilst about 50% of those top end picks that are mids have an immediate impact.

Also my view on the first two games probably differentiates to most but I think the main issue has been that our all Australian calibre players have been letting us down other than Tim English or Bont whilst to be blunt we were essentially playing a man down with Darcy (who I think will be a superstar in time) and JUH was also ineffectual.

Also the structure is going to take time to gel.
 
Imo:

-It's fair to describe Roarke as a list clogger. Good defensive efforts from the wing, however extremely nervy/suspect with ball in hand, particularly when given time and space to make decisions. Would he be picked up and played by any other club?

-It's also fair to say that Roarke is one of our best wing options atm. His competition includes Baker, Scott and McComb.

So my belief is that both opinions hold merit and in conclusion we are quite simply ****ed on the wings.
Roarke seas rated above average for disposal efficiency last year. I’m better not many others would be.
The issue is for the 2-3 suoer human efforts we remember in a game there just isn’t enough of them. Rates below average in most stats.
The club though must believe though that with a full run at it he has what we require. They’ve stuck fat with him over the years but apart from last year he just can get a decent run at it.

BTW b4 anyone marks him as Bevos pet, he was initially recruited in 2015.

Costs us little so don’t see him clogging salary cap.
 
I’d move McLean behind the ball and see what he can offer us there as a Doc replacement. I think he’s a bit lost up front at the moment, he’s obviously lost a touch of pace and he’s struggling to get involved forward and whilst he’s capable in front of goal he’s probably not what we need there right now as we just need speed around the talls.

He’s also not really gonna crack it in our midfield, and isn’t suited to the wing. Defence for me makes sense and I think he has all the right attributes to make it there. He’s super competitive and hates to beaten and I think he’d take to the role really well and compete hard one on one. He’s also a really smart footy brain, quite experienced now and usually composed. Good in the air, smart user by foot that would be aided by being behind the ball.

I could see him playing the Matty Boyd/Doc anchor role to support the other flashier smalls like Dale & JJ.

Let’s try it for a few weeks at VFL level
 
I’d move McLean behind the ball and see what he can offer us there as a Doc replacement. I think he’s a bit lost up front at the moment, he’s obviously lost a touch of pace and he’s struggling to get involved forward and whilst he’s capable in front of goal he’s probably not what we need there right now as we just need speed around the talls.

He’s also not really gonna crack it in our midfield, and isn’t suited to the wing. Defence for me makes sense and I think he has all the right attributes to make it there. He’s super competitive and hates to beaten and I think he’d take to the role really well and compete hard one on one. He’s also a really smart footy brain, quite experienced now and usually composed. Good in the air, smart user by foot that would be aided by being behind the ball.

I could see him playing the Matty Boyd/Doc anchor role to support the other flashier smalls like Dale & JJ.

Let’s try it for a few weeks at VFL level

I hope we can work out a spot for him. He's looked pretty slow at AFL level this year
 
For me this trade period, i would like to see us bridge the gap between our A and B tier midfielders
Bring in some extra talent to take over in a few years
I love what Fremantle has done with their midfield. Transitioned from Sandilands, Mundy and Fyfe to Darcy, Brayshaw and Serong. They have quietly built one of the strongest midfields in the competition over the last 5 years
 
Another possibility is whether the Giants have a few Academy players up for draft this year. They got burnt by the Swans last year.

The Dogs and Lions don't look like top 4 sides and one may not make the finals. There is a possibility of trading one of our firsts and our second to the Giants for their first, likely to be in the 4-6 range.

Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top