Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Golden_6 said:
Paying big bucks for English is absolutely moronic when we have Darcy unable to break into the side and other stars to resign.

Take the cap space, the potential high first rounder and address our defensive weaknesses.
Click to expand...
I’d want us to match the bid and force the trade, pending where we finish. Luke Jackson went for 2 x 1st and 1 x 2nd.

If we can walk away with 3 x 1sts from English and Baz to reset our midfield, count me in.
 
I’ll say this and then Tim will have a blinder next week no doubt, and then I’ll look stupid.. but I’d rather keep Marra and Baz at this point and let Darcy ruck next year OR get a cheap physical ruckman for a year or two. 1mil a year? Fu** off.
 
adogsfan5 said:
I’ll say this and then Tim will have a blinder next week no doubt, and then I’ll look stupid.. but I’d rather keep Marra and Baz at this point and let Darcy ruck next year OR get a cheap physical ruckman for a year or two. 1mil a year? Fu** off.
Click to expand...

Much prefer Baz and jamarra than keeping English.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'd happily let Baz and English go... Pool the draft picks, move ahead in the draft and go for a 1 or 2 lightning quick inside centremen.

It's what we truly lack.

PS. Word around town is that Baz went with his own surgeon, not the club's normal surgeon for his reco. Make of that what you will.
 
He just can’t be counted on to keep his opponent honest or impose himself on the midfield contest.

I don’t know if there’s anyone left that is still in denial about this, but he should be a forward/ruck - send him into the middle against the oppo back up for 20-30% of the game and otherwise play him at CHF. He’ll still get to pad his stats around the ground and we might get 30 goals and some decent down the line bailout marks out of him.

Pay him like a forward/ruck, or if he wants the premium ruck dollars let him go and rack up 25 touches a game in a rebuilding side and take whatever first round pick we get for him. Lobb/Darcy with Smith and a mature backup will suffice for next year.
 
TiAn_ said:
He just can’t be counted on to keep his opponent honest or impose himself on the midfield contest.

I don’t know if there’s anyone left that is still in denial about this, but he should be a forward/ruck - send him into the middle against the oppo back up for 20-30% of the game and otherwise play him at CHF. He’ll still get to pad his stats around the ground and we might get 30 goals and some decent down the line bailout marks out of him.

Pay him like a forward/ruck, or if he wants the premium ruck dollars let him go and rack up 25 touches a game in a rebuilding side and take whatever first round pick we get for him. Lobb/Darcy with Smith and a mature backup will suffice for next year.
Click to expand...
He isn't that good as a forward
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Again, beware the list cloggers. Don’t have an issue with giving a fringe player from another club a go once in a while (Hamling and Biggs obviously were important in ’16) but generally you should expect them to regress to the mean quickly.

Baker and Poulter were both recruited to fill the wings last year and had good games but weren’t considered good enough for round one.

Bramble was good but Harmes battled. It’s not that any one of these players wasn’t worth a punt, but when you accumulate a number of them over the years it’s just spots on the list going missing just for the sake of (mediocre) depth.
 
TiAn_ said:
He just can’t be counted on to keep his opponent honest or impose himself on the midfield contest.

I don’t know if there’s anyone left that is still in denial about this, but he should be a forward/ruck - send him into the middle against the oppo back up for 20-30% of the game and otherwise play him at CHF. He’ll still get to pad his stats around the ground and we might get 30 goals and some decent down the line bailout marks out of him.

Pay him like a forward/ruck, or if he wants the premium ruck dollars let him go and rack up 25 touches a game in a rebuilding side and take whatever first round pick we get for him. Lobb/Darcy with Smith and a mature backup will suffice for next year.
Click to expand...
He was pretty good rotating forward and ruck in early 2021 when Martin was playing well. Was close to leading the league for contested marks at one point from memory.

Bevo has a major phobia of ruckmen who do nothing other than compete in the ruck. Tim’s regular 20+ possessions is his wet dream so I think that’s where he’ll stay. If we had a capable ruckman who wasn’t a total log around the ground there might be a change but Lobb is at present barely a footballer.
 
We can delve deeper into this issue (I have over the last few years) but I think a part of it is a missing "middle" of developing players that every other team seems to have more of.

Essentially by not drafting a certain type of player, it's left our eventual team selection vunerable - we are forced to pick the whipping boys here in the absence of a certain type of player that we have failed to get onto our list in recent years.

Lets take a subsection of players in the draft:

  • "Second" and "Third" round picks (not literally but picks 19-54) in the draft. This suggests that these players were not so self-evidently good to be first rounders and expected to be long-term AFL players, and they were passed over in the first round, but also, were still good and in demand enough that they went reasonably high at the draft, would not be available at the end-of-the-draft, had greater value than a rookie pick/DFA or whatever. Some rough edges but good enough to be part of the draft
  • Were genuine 18 year olds and drafted when eligible. I'm not counting over-agers or mature-agers. The idea being if you get them in your system as young as they can be, and you're drafting them at the first possible time, they have a bit of talent and you can shape and mould them and let your development systems get to work (we have our own VFL team after all). On the other hand, an over-ager, given that they were overlooked as an 18 year old.
  • Take the six drafts from 2017-2022. There's a few mature agers thrown in, but with two rounds and six drafts, the "average" team should have cycled through 10-12 of these players. Some would get delisted within a couple of years, but at least you have those two years to "look at" these players and see if they're developing or not.
So the average team has taken over 10 of these types of players over these years.

How many did we take?

4.

2017: 0
2018: Rhylee West 27 (who we got as a draft discount and pick matching so it doesn't even fully count!)
2019: Louis Butler 53 (who barely scrapes into the pick 19-54 range that I defined)
2020: 0 (even when Adelaide's bid on pick 1 forced a later pick to go behind Adelaide, which player were we competing over for that pick - James Rowe, another mature ager!)
2021: Arthur Jones 43
2022: Charlie Clarke 24

There's a couple of particularly egregious picks in there. For example in 2018 - a second year of not making finals, and one of the few years in that window that we didn't trade for players or have draft bids to match, we actually had a few draft picks of note.

While we got West in with pick 26, we used pick 37 and 45 on an over-ager and a mature-ager - Laitham Vandermeer and Ben Cavarra.

We absolutely reached for Vandermeer and he was being discussed as a rookie pick at best. So it's strange that we were so determined to get him that we didn't want to risk at all that another club would pick him up in the 40s or 50s

Indeed the fact that Vandermeer remains on a list an the 5 players drafted immediately after can be seen as Vandermeer being picked as a "success". But by virtue of the fact he was overlooked as top-ager as opposed to an over-ager is proof that he always had a ceiling as a player. And the fact is we overlooked players who are now established in their teams but actually took a few years to get going (you know, like developing an 18 year old involves) - Jack Ross, Justin McInerney, Bailey Scott, all of who went in the next 17 picks.

Just to compare to what another successful developing club has done, let me take the same paramters and apply them to Sydney:

2017: Tom McCartin 33, Ryley Stoddart 53
2018: James Rowbottom 25, Justin McInerny 44, Zac Foot 51
2019: Will Gould 26, Elijah Taylor 36, Chad Warner 39
2020: Errol Gulden 32
2021: Matt Robers 34, Corey Warner 40

That's 11 total players to our 4. They also had 6 players taken in the first 18 picks so more than one-per-year-first rounder so you can't even say that they took more of these second-and-third round types because they had fewer first roundres.

Obviously not all of those draft picks came out. Indeed they even failed with a few of their first rounders in a way that we didn't (Matthew Ling, Dylan Stephens, etc.) But the fact it, they gave themselves every opportunity to let a player like Rowbottom, Chad Warner to "stick" simply because they were willing to cycle through a large number of these types of players and hope that they would find a diamond that would take to their development systems.

Ended up being a far longer post than intended but our team selection issues make a lot of sense when you look backwards to how our list was constructed the way it was.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
We can delve deeper into this issue (I have over the last few years) but I think a part of it is a missing "middle" of developing players that every other team seems to have more of.

Essentially by not drafting a certain type of player, it's left our eventual team selection vunerable - we are forced to pick the whipping boys here in the absence of a certain type of player that we have failed to get onto our list in recent years.

Lets take a subsection of players in the draft:

  • "Second" and "Third" round picks (not literally but picks 19-54) in the draft. This suggests that these players were not so self-evidently good to be first rounders and expected to be long-term AFL players, and they were passed over in the first round, but also, were still good and in demand enough that they went reasonably high at the draft, would not be available at the end-of-the-draft, had greater value than a rookie pick/DFA or whatever. Some rough edges but good enough to be part of the draft
  • Were genuine 18 year olds and drafted when eligible. I'm not counting over-agers or mature-agers. The idea being if you get them in your system as young as they can be, and you're drafting them at the first possible time, they have a bit of talent and you can shape and mould them and let your development systems get to work (we have our own VFL team after all). On the other hand, an over-ager, given that they were overlooked as an 18 year old.
  • Take the six drafts from 2017-2022. There's a few mature agers thrown in, but with two rounds and six drafts, the "average" team should have cycled through 10-12 of these players. Some would get delisted within a couple of years, but at least you have those two years to "look at" these players and see if they're developing or not.
So the average team has taken over 10 of these types of players over these years.

How many did we take?

4.

2017: 0
2018: Rhylee West 27 (who we got as a draft discount and pick matching so it doesn't even fully count!)
2019: Louis Butler 53 (who barely scrapes into the pick 19-54 range that I defined)
2020: 0 (even when Adelaide's bid on pick 1 forced a later pick to go behind Adelaide, which player were we competing over for that pick - James Rowe, another mature ager!)
2021: Arthur Jones 43
2022: Charlie Clarke 24

There's a couple of particularly egregious picks in there. For example in 2018 - a second year of not making finals, and one of the few years in that window that we didn't trade for players or have draft bids to match, we actually had a few draft picks of note.

While we got West in with pick 26, we used pick 37 and 45 on an over-ager and a mature-ager - Laitham Vandermeer and Ben Cavarra.

We absolutely reached for Vandermeer and he was being discussed as a rookie pick at best. So it's strange that we were so determined to get him that we didn't want to risk at all that another club would pick him up in the 40s or 50s

Indeed the fact that Vandermeer remains on a list an the 5 players drafted immediately after can be seen as Vandermeer being picked as a "success". But by virtue of the fact he was overlooked as top-ager as opposed to an over-ager is proof that he always had a ceiling as a player. And the fact is we overlooked players who are now established in their teams but actually took a few years to get going (you know, like developing an 18 year old involves) - Jack Ross, Justin McInerney, Bailey Scott, all of who went in the next 17 picks.

Just to compare to what another successful developing club has done, let me take the same paramters and apply them to Sydney:

2017: Tom McCartin 33, Ryley Stoddart 53
2018: James Rowbottom 25, Justin McInerny 44, Zac Foot 51
2019: Will Gould 26, Elijah Taylor 36, Chad Warner 39
2020: Errol Gulden 32
2021: Matt Robers 34, Corey Warner 40

That's 11 total players to our 4. They also had 6 players taken in the first 18 picks so more than one-per-year-first rounder so you can't even say that they took more of these second-and-third round types because they had fewer first roundres.

Obviously not all of those draft picks came out. Indeed they even failed with a few of their first rounders in a way that we didn't (Matthew Ling, Dylan Stephens, etc.) But the fact it, they gave themselves every opportunity to let a player like Rowbottom, Chad Warner to "stick" simply because they were willing to cycle through a large number of these types of players and hope that they would find a diamond that would take to their development systems.

Ended up being a far longer post than intended but our team selection issues make a lot of sense when you look backwards to how our list was constructed the way it was.
Click to expand...
In a sense we won the lottery getting JUH and Darcy when we did, but it smashed our draft capital otherwise.

Our first round selections going back beyond the start of the Bevo era have largely been good. Our remaining draft hand is regularly diminished though.

We’ve also given up a fair few second and third rounders for Schache, Bruce, Keath, Lobb and a few others in that time. It’s not that any of them was terrible (and if we had won in 2021 we wouldn’t care) but it left a bit of a hole in our draft capital.

Back that up with our practice of trying recycled players and there it’s not left a lot of room to experiment with some draftees. I think we need to get a healthy draft hand for a few years straight and make ever post a winner to correct it.
 
Anja_Nees said:
In a sense we won the lottery getting JUH and Darcy when we did, but it smashed our draft capital otherwise.

Our first round selections going back beyond the start of the Bevo era have largely been good. Our remaining draft hand is regularly diminished though.

We’ve also given up a fair few second and third rounders for Schache, Bruce, Keath, Lobb and a few others in that time. It’s not that any of them was terrible (and if we had won in 2021 we wouldn’t care) but it left a bit of a hole in our draft capital.

Back that up with our practice of trying recycled players and there it’s not left a lot of room to experiment with some draftees. I think we need to get a healthy draft hand for a few years straight and make ever post a winner to correct it.
Click to expand...
Agreed yep. And not "wasting" list spots on developing players when you're already a finals team in an attempt to top-up and find whatever mature agers that can slot straight into your 22 is absolutely what teams should do more of.

We won a preliminary final with Hannan, Vandermeer, Martin, Schache, Scott and Treloar in the team. All of who took list spots or draft capital away from the types of players that Sydney drafted above.

That's not to say that I don't think we could have done some things on the margins a bit better. Like did we have to draft Cavarra with pick 45? Was our execution of the mature agers we did recruit actually that good? Just because they were a mature ager doesn't mean that they had to have been delisted in a matter of years like a Will Hayes type was. Did we identify the right mature agers? Was our willingness to promote from our VFL team meaning that we were overlooking mature agers from other state league teams in general? (players like Lachie Shultz were also a mature ager from Williamstown when drafted).

In a way we're paying for our sins for that strategy for those years. I'm not overtly criticisng it for what we did, just providing it as an explanation for where we find ourselves today. For all the criticism of Beveridge and our strategy, I think my post proves that we don't have a large group of developing, medium-level talent to select from, which is causing some of the issues we have.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
Agreed yep. And not "wasting" list spots on developing players when you're already a finals team in an attempt to top-up and find whatever mature agers that can slot straight into your 22 is absolutely what teams should do more of.

We won a preliminary final with Hannan, Vandermeer, Martin, Schache, Scott and Treloar in the team. All of who took list spots or draft capital away from the types of players that Sydney drafted above.

That's not to say that I don't think we could have done some things on the margins a bit better. Like did we have to draft Cavarra with pick 45? Was our execution of the mature agers we did recruit actually that good? Just because they were a mature ager doesn't mean that they had to have been delisted in a matter of years like a Will Hayes type was. Did we identify the right mature agers? Was our willingness to promote from our VFL team meaning that we were overlooking mature agers from other state league teams in general? (players like Lachie Shultz were also a mature ager from Williamstown when drafted).

In a way we're paying for our sins for that strategy for those years. I'm not overtly criticisng it for what we did, just providing it as an explanation for where we find ourselves today. For all the criticism of Beveridge and our strategy, I think my post proves that we don't have a large group of developing, medium-level talent to select from, which is causing some of the issues we have.
Click to expand...
People often scream for change when we have a bad loss, but every time in recent years I’ve seen posts saying “this is the best side we’ve fielded all year” or something like it we have gone on to lose.

We have some great top end talent and good kids but as annoying as VDM and some of those whipping boys are, their replacements may not be any better. I totally get wanting to blood kids but we will likely get worse in the short term, and the supporters do not have the patience for that.

I’m still optimistic we can make something of this year. It’s only round one. If we don’t then a caretaker can put a rule through players and blood kids if they want.
 
Anja_Nees said:
Again, beware the list cloggers. Don’t have an issue with giving a fringe player from another club a go once in a while (Hamling and Biggs obviously were important in ’16) but generally you should expect them to regress to the mean quickly.

Baker and Poulter were both recruited to fill the wings last year and had good games but weren’t considered good enough for round one.

Bramble was good but Harmes battled. It’s not that any one of these players wasn’t worth a punt, but when you accumulate a number of them over the years it’s just spots on the list going missing just for the sake of (mediocre) depth.
Click to expand...
The additional 2 year extensions for Baker and Poulter made no sense
Especially when we get to round 1 2024 and neither are in the best 23
Surely a 1 year deal for these types is all that is required, I can't imagine they had a a pack of other clubs offering multi year deals after 5 or so okay games of football
 
Struggle said:
The additional 2 year extensions for Baker and Poulter made no sense
Especially when we get to round 1 2024 and neither are in the best 23
Surely a 1 year deal for these types is all that is required, I can't imagine they had a a pack of other clubs offering multi year deals after 5 or so okay games of football
Click to expand...
It’s been a long term problem. Crozier spent three years on the fringe, Schache got three years when we were actively recruiting a replacement and Roberts got extended about a week before Bevo banished him to the VFL more or less for good.

Maybe we do it to show faith or something but it’s bad practice.
 
Anja_Nees said:
It’s been a long term problem. Crozier spent three years on the fringe, Schache got three years when we were actively recruiting a replacement and Roberts got extended about a week before Bevo banished him to the VFL more or less for good.

Maybe we do it to show faith or something but it’s bad practice.
Click to expand...

Maybe Bevo influences over the top of Power to give them more.
 
It's got to be some sort of "we'll show faith in you so you don't have to have your career prospects on the back of your mind" - we don't want players acting selfishly in the back half of a year, or otherwise just underperforming because they're worried, if they're out of contract but still in the 22 by the end of the year.

Of course it leads to issues like Fletcher Roberts highlighted above who had a two-year extension announced while out of the 22 in Round 12, 2017, and proceeded to only be selected for 4 more AFL games (out of about 55 total) in the period of time after the contract was extended. I had forgotten about it but in retrospect it looks bizarre. We could have taken that list spot, taken it to the draft, and even if that player didn't come on, they would have been delisted in 2 years anyway for no additional loss to the playing 22. But at least we would have had the opportunity to look at someone additional in the 2017 draft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Mutt
Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)
320 321 322 323 324
Replies
8K
Views
464K
TMoney22
T
goodcop badcop
Analysis Draft, List and Trade Analysis
Replies
4
Views
1K
BIG_BONTS
BIG_BONTS
Mutt
Rules Posting Extracts or Articles From Sources Which May Breach Copyright
Replies
12
Views
693
Cookie
Cookie
VitalDread
List Mgmt. 2025 Draft Thread
Replies
5
Views
565
House_of_Dahl
House_of_Dahl
goodcop badcop
List Mgmt. 2024 Draft Thread
117 118 119 120 121
Replies
3K
Views
149K
VitalDread
VitalDread
Next Waiting
Opinion Dogs and Horses - The Racing Thread
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
329
Views
11K
King Harold
King Harold
dogwatch
List Mgmt. WB Off Season News Items 2024
Replies
10
Views
1K
geoffjennings79
geoffjennings79

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top