Our Drafting Philosophy

[GVGjr]

Let me make a point right off the bat, I think we did well in the draft and have picked some exciting players but I'd like to examine how we are ranking players and addressing gaps within our playing list.

I've already made mention in another thread that the players we selected at the National draft all have very similar playing traits.
The 5 players selected with our live picks are all possess good kicking skills, they also possess very good endurance with Draft Combine results for the Beep Test that range from 14 - 6 to Daniels superb 16 - 1. This is in the top bracket of the players tested at the Combine which I think is a good read of how the game will be played once an IC limit is eventually reduced.

The players we drafted are also mainly forwards that move into the midfield rather than the other way around although Daniel might be the exception but I think he is projected more as a forward in next 2 seasons. Cordy who was gift wrapped for us before the National Draft is the exception from the midfielder forward focus. There is also an indication is that Webb will be used in the back line perhaps as a replacement for Higgins.

A typical draft philosophy says that clubs draft for best available and trade for gaps within the playing list but in essence most clubs like to come away from draft day with a balanced list. Melbourne after getting midfielders at picks 2, 3, 40 and a father son selection at 42 topped off their impressive night with the tall defender. The Saints nabbed 2 KP bookends then selected one of the best athletes and an exciting small forward.

Dalrymple was full of smiles after our efforts and even indicated that we got (all?) the players we wanted.
Draft nights are great, it's gives supporters a chance to get excited and forget about the previous season especially after a season like we experienced. It's all about the future.

From my assessment the biggest test of our draft day strategy was mainly around if we would take Webb or Hamilton at pick 27. We wanted both of them and I'm sure there was a sigh of relief at pick 39 when Hamilton was still available.
We finished the night with two more midfielders/forwards knowing that we already had Cordy.

While we had a good night, I wonder if the picks we had really meant so much? I know we wanted pick 28 from Carlton for Jones and Tutt but had to settle for pick 46 for Jones. I'd almost bet that if things were slightly different and we had picks 26, 27, 28 (from Carlton for Jones instead of 46), 39 and 35 (the last pick has been moved up by 10 positions from 45 just for the hell of it) we would have come away from the night with exactly the same players.

Now we can say that's how we rated them and that we did get the best available but is that happening because we just rate players a lot differently to other clubs?

I believe we entered the draft with a list of the type of players we wanted with the traits of versatility, endurance and skill I detailed above and not necessarily a genuine 'best available' list.

I think we see a gap within the playing list and then go all-in to cover that. We also have some form in this area so lets review some of our draft efforts:

Years ago (2006) we assessed our list as needing some flair and run and proceeded to draft 4 indigenous players in Hill, Stack, Lynch and a rookie spot for Harbrow. I went to a club function where it was talked about. Was that the best available or filling out a wish list?

In 2008, 3 key position players in Cordy, Roughead and Jones.

In 2009 Eade was desperate for kicking skills and we went for Howard and Tutt. Both selections were regarded as reaches.

Lets ignore 2010 when even our 2 father son selections in Wallis and Liberatore were similar types.

In 2011 we wanted players capable of cracking in and selected guys with physical traits in Smith and Talia along with more mature types in Dickson and Campbell, Redpath and Austin as rookies.

In 2012 after the success of Pendlebury and Fyffe tall (big) midfielders were all the rage and we got both Stringer and Macrae and then landed not one but two small forward/midfielders in Hrovat and Hunter. We also topped up with a rookie promotion of Johannisen and Campbell and a rookie list selection of another mature player in Goodes.

Last year we continued focus on a tall midfielder/forward in Bontempelli, a needs based small defender with kicking skills in Fuller and yet another small forward/midfielder in Honeychurch. With Honeychurch that's 3 forward midfielders in 2 seasons.

This year 5 forward forward/midfielders.

Can this really be a coincidence of all the players we select as being the best available all happening to have similar traits to the other players selected on the night?

I remain convinced that we say it's best available but in reality we identify a particular style and trait and really track that down on the night. We will pretty much come away from draft nights with the majority of players we have on our wish list.

Lets hope that this is the right recipe and it will just take a bit of time to really start reaping some rewards. It's an interesting approach but I'm not sure it's really best available.

[boydogs]

A typical draft philosophy says that clubs draft for best available and trade for gaps within the playing list but in essence most clubs like to come away from draft day with a balanced list

I think pure best available is more obtainable now with the increased movement of players through trades and free agency, but what really happens is clubs look at who is available in the draft and trade for who they won't be able to get through drafting. They are still drafting for needs, but perhaps not reaching as much to get what they most need in the draft because they are more likely to get that through trading now


This year 5 forward forward/midfielders.

Webb is a defender, Daniel & Hamilton are mids, Dale & McLean are forwards. None of them are talls, but 4 of the other 6 players added to the senior list outside of the draft are.

We obviously assessed the draft as weak for talls in our pick range and went for Hamling & Redpath rather than reaching in the draft.

[mighty_west]

My wish before the draft was for us to select best player available with each selection mainly because we had five picks under 50 in a draft which was predicted to run deep enough for us to grab quality with each pick, so I'm happy with the way we went about it.

We obviously wanted to tick off a few points with each player, good skills, endurance and versatility which to me indicates that not only have we gone for best player but also not all necessarily the same type, i don't believe they are necesarilly all forward/mids.

From the very limited times I've watched Daniel and Webb play, both totally different to one another, I'd label Daniel a pure midfielder especially given his endurance and ability to find the ball, always seems to have so much time when in posession, and as mentioned Webb has been earmarked as a defender with his sublime left boot.

Perhaps there were other types that other clubs rated higher at our selections, but you just wonder if those skills or endurance etc were up to speed with the types of players we were after, player X may have been generally rated higher than McLean or Webb but they may have also lacked in the qualities we were seeking.

[FrediKanoute]

My feeling is that with junior footballers as a rule the better players are generally midfielder and forwards - hardly ever defenders. If I think back to my days as a junior, from U13 through to U18's it was a rare occaision that our best player was a Backline player. Why? Because good junior players are always played in a position where they can influence a game. I recall a game when I played a season at Keilor Park U18's where a certain Joe Misiti got dropped Essendon U19's into the Keilor Park U16's - he was given a licence to roam and proceeded to kick 13 goals in a half of footy against St.Olivers.

In terms of what we have picked and why - no point picking guys who are mid sized and specialist backmen. They are playing back generally because there is a deficiency in their game (kicking, endurance, speed, too outside). Mids and forwards are the guys you want because they have the ability to impact a game. Most can be taught to be backmen, but its almost impossible to transform a backman into a forward.

[GVGjr]

Webb is a defender, Daniel & Hamilton are mids, Dale & McLean are forwards. None of them are talls, but 4 of the other 6 players added to the senior list outside of the draft are.


During the Carnival, Webb played as a forward who rotated through the midfield. He kicked 4 goals in one game. As I stated in the opening post all the players we selected are versatile types so it's not a stretch to think Webb could make it as a defender and it's probably a smart move to have him as a defender but going into the draft I think most teams saw him as more of a forward than a midfielder or defender. Probably in that order.

Hamilton's bio on AFL.com reads "Medium forward who is composed and makes good decisions by hand and foot. Has excellent endurance and great awareness" which is a typical type of commentary for the players we selected. His highlight reel shows a lot of work being done in the forward line. To me Hamilton plays a lot like Giansiracusa did as a junior and out of the players we selected he seems to have the most natural goals sense.

Daniel played his football for SA as a genuine midfielder but even Dalrymple's comments on the night projected him initially as a forward. McLean and Dale are more noted as forwards than midfielders although that will change in time.


We obviously assessed the draft as weak for talls in our pick range and went for Hamling & Redpath rather than reaching in the draft
I think it was more because there had been 3 years of development put into the two players which was obviously something we couldn't get from the draft.

[GVGjr]

In terms of what we have picked and why - no point picking guys who are mid sized and specialist backmen. They are playing back generally because there is a deficiency in their game (kicking, endurance, speed, too outside). Mids and forwards are the guys you want because they have the ability to impact a game. Most can be taught to be backmen, but its almost impossible to transform a backman into a forward.

I think that is a very good point. On top of the potential to have a cap on IC numbers, versatile, skillful and endurance based players should be more the focus and I think it explains why we targeted the players we did.

I still believe that we are going into each draft with a focus of addressing one or two needs and them select as many players as we can with that in mind. After selecting Hrovat, Hunter and Honeychurch in 2 years as small forwards/mids we then topped up with with another 4 this year.
If competition for spots is seen as a good thing then we should be in for an exciting time.

[bornadog]

After selecting Hrovat, Hunter and Honeychurch in 2 years as small forwards/mids we then topped up with with another 4 this year.
If competition for spots is seen as a good thing then we should be in for an exciting time.

I think the recruiters would never have envisaged (none of us did) that we would be turning over 10 players in one year. Who would have thought that Griffen, Cooney, Higgins, Tutt, Jones along with delistings/retired would have all happened this year. This left the recruiters no choice but to look for replacements. I see all the replacements coming in as future replacements for these players.

[Mofra]

Webb is a defender, Daniel & Hamilton are mids, Dale & McLean are forwards. None of them are talls, but 4 of the other 6 players added to the senior list outside of the draft are.
McLean finished the year getting 30 touches in the midfield and has above-average endurance.
I suspect he's earmarked as a midfielder long term (classic old-school wingman, or as close to a wingman that exists anymore)

[w3design]

In the draft preview, Dalrymple addressed the needs to draft players ready to play, so players:

* tick if footballer first, athlete second who has good decision making and skills (all five drafted)

* tick if shown ability playing against mature body in man's league (Webb, Hamilton, Dale & Daniel)

* tick ready to play, who can make instant impact thus more chance making it at AFL level ( Daniel can probably start round one, all a chance to debut in season 2015, probably why the speculative talls overlooked in the draft)

* tick if shown rapid up-curve improvement late season (McCrae, Bont, McLean, Hamilton)

* good people, tick strong character rising up to adversities/challenges in life/games (Stringer, McCrae, Honeychurch, McLean, Daniel)

* worked a job outside school. (Bont, Honeychurch, McLean etc..)

* good endurance, can play out a game. (probably one of the reason Foster overlooked)

* versatile, can play multiple positions. (all five drafted)

[F'scary]

I think that is a very good point. On top of the potential to have a cap on IC numbers, versatile, skillful and endurance based players should be more the focus and I think it explains why we targeted the players we did.

I still believe that we are going into each draft with a focus of addressing one or two needs and them select as many players as we can with that in mind. After selecting Hrovat, Hunter and Honeychurch in 2 years as small forwards/mids we then topped up with with another 4 this year.
If competition for spots is seen as a good thing then we should be in for an exciting time.

Agree. Hrovat, Hunter and Honeychurch: of these 3 only Hrovat has established himself (1st rover, centre, wing, high small forward), imo. Hunter (small forward probably deep as much as high, imo) could still be anything or nothing. Honeychurch didn't peg out a spot as a senior player in his first year - "still developing".

Of the 5 new guys, the odds are against all of them being successes.

[mjp]

Webb is a defender, Daniel & Hamilton are mids, Dale & McLean are forwards. None of them are talls, but 4 of the other 6 players added to the senior list outside of the draft are.


Ease up. I think you should say the plan is to turn Webb into a defender. I think you should say the plan is to turn Hamilton into a mid. The reality is both of those players spend as much time forward as any of the others this year - at the champs Hamilton played almost exclusively off the hff (but I acknowledge he played pretty high).

Funnily enough though, the one mid amongst them - Daniel - probably has to become more of a forward in order to be a consistent contributor at senior (AFL) level.

We picked some good players but really did pick the same player 5 times. When you add them to the Hrovat/Dalhaus/Honeychurch/Hunter etc etc etc mix it is worth wondering where they are all going to play.

[mjp]

* versatile, can play multiple positions. (all five drafted)

I don't understand this comment. Left forward pocket and Right forward pocket are not really different positions any more! :-)

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Time will tell if the approach works.

Agree that not having a more open minded approach is a little dangerous. Yes, we got the players we wanted, but as GVG said it's because they were a specific type. In other words - we went best available in a type of player. It may work out well - but there are some flaws to it.

For instance, we got somewhat lucky with Boyd in the sense that he wanted to come to us after only one year at GWS. If you can call it luck, it only went through because Griffen wanted to leave. Otherwise - we would still have no key forward. In fact, Redpath would be the only KPF on our list as Jones left.

It also means that we force ourselves into a position where we must draft a certain type. In next year's draft, it is highly likely we will be desperate for one or two key backs and another key forward. It may not work out like that if Redpath/Roberts/Talia/Hamling work out but I'd argue they are all less than a 50/50 of making it as those key posts (I think Roberts can make it as a third tall though).

What if next year we don't rate the key backs/forwards? Or what if it becomes so clear those above players aren't going to make it that we reach for a KPD/KPF?

It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. I'm neither here nor there on our approach but I think a lot of us will look at the development of a player like McDonald with intrigue.

[Remi Moses]

Realistically the best you hope is that 2 or 3 make it and have decent careers .
Gone on what they think is best available at our picks, and I think we'll be interested to see how a few kpp's go whom we didn't pick.

[stefoid]

We didnt really pick best available - we obviously put a line through anyone without an outside game. And to a man they are all good kickers with some creative flair. Areas that were dangerously thin on the list.

Have a look at these skinny guys, though, most of them wont establish for 2 years + if they make it at all. Murph, Picken, Morris & Boyd will be on last legs if not gone. Stevens and Dickson spots are there for whoever is good enough to take them IMO. Grant, Wood, Johanisson and Hrovat will have to fight for their spots with these new arrivals. Honeychruch, Darley and Pruden are no certainties to ever make the best 22 on a consistent basis.

I think this draft has given us a deep and balanced list of smalls. We line up another key position player during the trade period next year and hopefully there is a keypo available with our first draft pick, and we are starting to look like a complete list for the first time in ages.

[Remi Moses]

We didnt really pick best available - we obviously put a line through anyone without an outside game. And to a man they are all good kickers with some creative flair. Areas that were dangerously thin on the list.

Have a look at these skinny guys, though, most of them wont establish for 2 years + if they make it at all. Murph, Picken, Morris & Boyd will be on last legs if not gone. Stevens and Dickson spots are there for whoever is good enough to take them IMO. Grant, Wood, Johanisson and Hrovat will have to fight for their spots with these new arrivals. Honeychruch, Darley and Pruden are no certainties to ever make the best 22 on a consistent basis.

I think this draft gives us a deeper and more rounded list of smalls. We line up another key position player during the trade period next year and hopefully there is a keypo available with our first draft pick, and we are starting to look like a complete list for the first time in ages.

We also lost a few mid types as well. Add in Higgins playing off half back, and I should correct myself in saying we've gone in looking for a specific type and picked what they thought was the best available.
I hope it's not true we're looking to re- rookie Goodes, Greenwood and Pierce.

[bornadog]

Realistically the best you hope is that 2 or 3 make it and have decent careers .
Gone on what they think is best available at our picks, and I think we'll be interested to see how a few kpp's go whom we didn't pick.

I agree you can't expect more than two or three to carve a decent career. I also find it astonishing when people have a go at Clayton when I can list at least two footballers with a career, every year he was with the dogs, except 2002.

[Remi Moses]

I agree you can't expect more than two or three to carve a decent career. I also find it astonishing when people have a go at Clayton when I can list at least two footballers with a career, every year he was with the dogs, except 2002.
Problem is Clayton stuffed up the key early picks.
My opinion is he was a good recruiter, but a tad overrated .
Think it should be taken into account though the resources available at the time in recruiting .

[Bulldog4life]

We also lost a few mid types as well. Add in Higgins playing off half back, and I should correct myself in saying we've gone in looking for a specific type and picked what they thought was the best available.
I hope it's not true we're looking to re- rookie Goodes, Greenwood and Pierce.

The Club has promised to rookie Pearce. That is a given.

[boydogs]

We picked some good players but really did pick the same player 5 times.

Bailey Dale = Tory Dickson
Caleb Daniel = Daniel Kerr
Lukas Webb = Nick Malceski
Toby McLean = Shaun Higgins
Declan Hamilton = Marc Murphy

Player comparisons only, not saying they will be that good. I think that's a reasonable attempt at explaining the player they will develop into, which if accurate doesn't look like the same player 5 times

[Maddog37]

If we go tall in the rookie draft then I will feel the draft will be ok. Talls take more time and it makes sense to pay as little as possible while they are not part of the senior team.

I would like to know if the club feels it is better to trade in talls rather than draft them too.

[w3design]

We are shit drafting talls, pretty shit developing talls too, tragic history tbh, you guess the club would be more confident trading proven ones.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Bailey Dale = Tory Dickson
Caleb Daniel = Daniel Kerr
Lukas Webb = Nick Malceski
Toby McLean = Shaun Higgins
Declan Hamilton = Marc Murphy

Player comparisons only, not saying they will be that good. I think that's a reasonable attempt at explaining the player they will develop into, which if accurate doesn't look like the same player 5 times

Heres my take on comparisons

Bailey Dale = David MacKay
Caleb Daniel = There is no modern comparison
Lukas Webb = Jordan Lewis/Nick Suban
Toby McLean = Jamie Elliot
Declan Hamilton = Daniel Giansiracusa

[Go_Dogs]

Heres my take on comparisons

Bailey Dale = David MacKay
Caleb Daniel = There is no modern comparison
Lukas Webb = Jordan Lewis/Nick Suban
Toby McLean = Jamie Elliot
Declan Hamilton = Daniel Giansiracusa

I think these are fairly good comparisons, although I'm not convinced on the Dale one. He's a better kick than MacKay but I'm struggling to find a good comparison.

[Maddog37]

Sam wright from North maybe?

[GVGjr]

Realistically the best you hope is that 2 or 3 make it and have decent careers .
Gone on what they think is best available at our picks, and I think we'll be interested to see how a few kpp's go whom we didn't pick.

I wonder how many players will not make it because we can't be given them enough opportunities in a few positions?
I think a better balanced list 'might' increase the chances of more than 2 or 3 making it.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I struggled with Dale - exciting talent but wasn't sure who was a good comparison

[GVGjr]

I think the recruiters would never have envisaged (none of us did) that we would be turning over 10 players in one year. Who would have thought that Griffen, Cooney, Higgins, Tutt, Jones along with delistings/retired would have all happened this year. This left the recruiters no choice but to look for replacements. I see all the replacements coming in as future replacements for these players.


I get that but we are dressing it up as a best available approach when really it's something else. Also the players we selected aren't genuine speedsters like Griffen and Cooney which is fair enough given they are top end picks but none of the players we selected are fleet footed.
Daniel was mid range for his sprinting in the Combine while McLean and Dale rated in the bottom end.

Does any one think that if picks 45 and 46 were actually 35 and 36 we would have changed things around with our selections?

[mjp]

I struggled with Dale - exciting talent but wasn't sure who was a good comparison

Green. He reminds me of Green.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Green. He reminds me of Green.

Josh Green?

[kruder]

I struggled with Dale - exciting talent but wasn't sure who was a good comparison

Daisy for mine

[Greystache]

Perhaps we mistook drafting philosophy for the approach to cooking ribs on a Weber. Low and slow has been the order of the year.

[mjp]

Josh Green?

If the one from Brisbane is josh then yes!

[Bulldog Revolution]

Its been a very interesting approach to drafting and great thread start GVGjr

I will try and talk to some recruiting people and see where they rated our selections

But Im inclined to think you are right - we are doing things differently, which will either work (Bonti, Stringer, Macrae) or not work.

We do seem to rate and view the player pool a bit differently, but I think with our picks this year we were in a spot where its probably more likely that mids, flankers etc of higher quality were going be available to us. Maybe we can re-fashion Dale and Webb into rebounding defenders.

[Happy Days]

We're copping some heat on here for not going tall at any stage, but I'm honestly fine with it.

As much as a lack of a tall defender of blanket quality is a hole on our list, so is the ability of the players 15-22 on match days. This draft seems to have really targeted talent, and assure that we have a far greater spread across the board. The top end is clearly there or thereabouts, but having 5 of the best 15 players at the turn of the decade got St Kilda ultimately nowhere.

I ask again, what awesome prospect did we miss out on? I think that we're more likely to develop on of Talia, Roberts or Hamling than anyone we could have had access to this year. I still view Talia as somewhat of a prospect and don't think he's been given an equitable chance by the previous regime.

No excusing the Goodes pick though. That's playing for red ink plain and simple.

[LostDoggy]

563Bit of downtime at work so thought I would pull together a list comparison against the Hawks, categorising by position and height.

Lets agree straight up that I have assumed some players in positions that you may place differently, happy to discuss and or make edits.

My key takeaways:
- Average list height very similar, only 1.16cm difference even with our focused 2014 intake (Hawks 188.3, Dogs 187.14)
- We are short in ruck stocks, I wish we had the finances to take 6 rookies like the Hawks, adding a speculative ruck and KPF.
- Average height for the nominal best 25 (IMO) - highlighted red is very similar (Hawks 187.08, Dogs 188.0)
- Have over extended on mid to small defenders, will be interesting to see if some of these transition into midfielders.

Hopefully the attachment is visible

[bornadog]

563Bit of downtime at work so thought I would pull together a list comparison against the Hawks, categorising by position and height.

Lets agree straight up that I have assumed some players in positions that you may place differently, happy to discuss and or make edits.

My key takeaways:
- Average list height very similar, only 1.16cm difference even with our focused 2014 intake (Hawks 188.3, Dogs 187.14)
- We are short in ruck stocks, I wish we had the finances to take 6 rookies like the Hawks, adding a speculative ruck and KPF.
- Average height for the nominal best 25 (IMO) - highlighted red is very similar (Hawks 187.08, Dogs 188.0)
- Have over extended on mid to small defenders, will be interesting to see if some of these transition into midfielders.

Hopefully the attachment is visible

We actually increased our average height over last year in the 190cm plus category during the draft. I am not including rookies.

Boyd, Cordy, Hamling, Redpath and out were Williams, Jones and Young who barely made 190cm.

[Mofra]

We actually increased our average height over last year in the 190cm plus category during the draft. I am not including rookies.

Boyd, Cordy, Hamling and Cordy and out were Williams, Jones and Young who barely made 190cm.
Austin was an out too.
Cordy listed twice?

[LostDoggy]

Austin was an out too.
Cordy listed twice?

BAD believes we only just drafted Ayce Cordy, which is understandable.

[bornadog]

Austin was an out too.
Cordy listed twice?

Sorry meant Redpath on to Senior list. Austin was a rookie.

[GVGjr]

We're copping some heat on here for not going tall at any stage, but I'm honestly fine with it.



Are we really? I've actually stayed away from that point focusing more on the very similar attributes of the players we drafted.



I ask again, what awesome prospect did we miss out on? I think that we're more likely to develop on of Talia, Roberts or Hamling than anyone we could have had access to this year. I still view Talia as somewhat of a prospect and don't think he's been given an equitable chance by the previous regime.


You might be missing the point. I've asked the question around our draft picks that even with improved picks we would have come away with the same players. I've mentioned that if picks 39, 45 and 46 were moved up 10 positions we would most likely selected the same players.
No one has said we should have taken any specific player.

To me this is around two questions:
1) Are we really ranking players in order then selecting the best players as seems to be our public position or
2) Are we identifying specific traits in players we want and targeting them.

If we continue to get the players we wanted in drafts like we have this year when does this start playing dividends? If we don't, how confident are we that our approach is correct?

[GVGjr]

But Im inclined to think you are right - we are doing things differently, which will either work (Bonti, Stringer, Macrae) or not work.

We do seem to rate and view the player pool a bit differently, but I think with our picks this year we were in a spot where its probably more likely that mids, flankers etc of higher quality were going be available to us. Maybe we can re-fashion Dale and Webb into rebounding defenders.

Doing things differently is more than okay but of course you need to get it right. I like the players we selected but did they are very similar. Even Roarke Smith has very similar traits.

[Twodogs]

Dalrymple would have had scenarios worked out for whatever set of picks he was handed. Perhaps he meant the players they got were the players they wanted with those picks.

[boydogs]

Lets agree straight up that I have assumed some players in positions that you may place differently, happy to discuss and or make edits.

If Josh Gibson is a key defender then Morris & Kelly are as well
Hamilton is more mid or mid/fwd than defender
Biggs I would have as a defender
Our Roughead is Jordan
Lin Jong not Ling
Some of our talls could be classed as dual position inc Roughead & A Cordy
They have two more players than us, one Cat-B rookie but not sure where the other one comes from

Interesting exercise, we're probably short on developing talls & overstocked on small defenders

[LostDoggy]

If Josh Gibson is a key defender then Morris & Kelly are as well
Hamilton is more mid or mid/fwd than defender
Biggs I would have as a defender
Our Roughead is Jordan
Lin Jong not Ling
Some of our talls could be classed as dual position inc Roughead & A Cordy


They have two more players than us, one Cat-B rookie but not sure where the other one comes from

Interesting exercise, we're probably short on developing talls & overstocked on small defenders

Forgive the mistakes, don't know what I was thinking with Jordan and Lin😁 my bad... Amateur hour. The Hawks have 6 rookies to our four, a KPF and Ruck. We are only running with the 4 I guess due to financial constraints. Other than that, I was surprised how balanced the lists were, and how many players they have in the 174 to 179 bracket

[boydogs]

We are only running with the 4 I guess due to financial constraints

Kinda sorta. You can have 44 on your list, and it's up to you whether that's 38 senior players and 6 rookies, 39 & 5 or 40 & 4 (us). The only exception to that is Category B rookies, players from overseas or other sports. You're showing 46 for Hawthorn with one category B rookie so either there's a duplication/delisting in there or another of their players is a category B rookie.

We've got the full compliment of senior & rookie players just no category B rookies. I wonder what posters would think about listing one of those 6'6" ex-basketballer yanks as a project ruck or KPF

[Go_Dogs]

Other than that, I was surprised how balanced the lists were, and how many players they have in the 174 to 179 bracket

I made this point to a few people after the preliminary finals this year. The Swans are similar in height too, with a number of guys 183cm and below on their list, and best 22.

The problem we have is lack of quality, established KPP's but we need to keep the balance right, and not load up the list with too many development talls which will leave us short in other areas.

As to the thrust of the thread, I think GVG has hit the nail on the head. Our best available was slanted towards a certain type, hence why the players we rated so highly were available at our selections.

It will be interesting to see if this is needs based best available, or if our recruiting team are rating a certain type higher than other clubs.

I think we've gone with a good approach with our picks. In the range we have, I think the type we have identified has the best hit rate.

[LostDoggy]

read more : Former Western Bulldog Jason Tutt relieved to officially join Carlton (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/former-western-bulldog-jason-tutt-relieved-to-officially-join-carlton-20141204-11zx6m.html)


Cue vitriol:)

[azabob]

read more : Former Western Bulldog Jason Tutt relieved to officially join Carlton (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/former-western-bulldog-jason-tutt-relieved-to-officially-join-carlton-20141204-11zx6m.html)

I find it really interesting we tried to keep Tutt.

[Greystache]

Cue vitriol:)

I'd be surprised if anyone could work up enough passion to bother. My overriding response is meh.

[Remi Moses]

Meh for me.
Interesting listening to SEN, and a chap from champion data who said we have the second most inexperienced games played list!
For the first time there are two teams who have an average player list age over 25.
Freo and Norf

[kruder]

Listening to Boyd, Webb and Daniel they all speak really well it looks like the Macca no DH policy has continued which is fantastic.

[LostDoggy]

Listening to Boyd, Webb and Daniel they all speak really well it looks like the Macca no DH policy has continued which is fantastic.

An ironic man may claim it was only truly enforced when he left:)

Not that I'm an ironic man!