Do you still believe in drafting best available? Then do you also accept the consequences of that?

[Dry Rot]

We all know the old drafting best available vs drafting for needs argument, and I think most here would advocate for going for best available.

Fair enough.

But what about the likely consequences of that?

The Lions seem to have a team of giants, and we have half a team of mostly good inside mids.

Surely the consequences of this philosophy is that you have to be willing and able to trade what you have a surplus of?

Yet fans go off their brains when this is suggested. "Oh, it will wreck the fabric of the team etc"

Well, the inconvenient truth is that we have lots of inside mids, and bugger all fast, skilful players, true forwards or good tall forwards (especially after Stringer leaves).

In the next couple of years, should we be shopping around one or two of our big name inside mids to get what we need?

[boydogs]

We don't have too many inside mids. In fact we could do with a couple more to release Bont to the outside and Dahlhaus forward

A couple of years ago maybe we did but Stevens is gone, Honeychurch likely delisted, Smith mostly forward after his 3rd ACL, Prudden's gone

Dunkley's the only one we've picked since Bont/Honey in 2013

[ledge]

Go best available if they aren't what we need because what we need isn't in the draft then trade to other clubs for what we need,personally I still believe we have a good balanced list, it's our set up that's not working between the line coaches. We go into our forward 50 more than any other club, just lower the eyes and deliver properly and problem solved , I know that seems simple but seriously Why is football so statistic driven and over analyzed?
It's a two kick game in the simplest and easiest manner for a footballer to understand, one kick out of the centre to the forward line then one through the sticks.
Does my head in how the media, the clubs,the coaches go so far in depth they make the bloody simple look like rocket science it seriously must do a lot of naturally gifted footballers heads in. Meetings and meetings about stuff that's out the door once they are on the field and chase a ball with milliseconds to get it and dispose of it.
Sorry my rant I've had it now.
Go back to my first sentence.

[Dry Rot]

We don't have too many inside mids.

Well we must have too many of something else given the holes in our list.

[GVGjr]

Best available with early selections is still the way to go. There has to be a bit of commonsense applied though.

Recruit the best players and trade for gaps is the right approach

[comrade]

Well we must have too many of something else given the holes in our list.

Too many of these:

Tall defenders (Collins, Young, Adams, Roberts, Cordy)
Mid size forwards (Dickson, Stringer, Greene, Lipinski, Crameri, Clay Smith)

And the holes are there due to lack of quality. Look at our key forward stocks: Cloke, Redpath and Boyd. 3 is probably ok to have on a list but those names are shocking. One is almost on the retirement scrap heap, one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude, and Boyd is a hybrid ruck/forward.

[bornadog]

Best available with early selections is still the way to go. There has to be a bit of commonsense applied though.

Recruit the best players and trade for gaps is the right approach

Agreed. I don't mind later picks in the draft to be a mature player for need.

[always right]

Too many of these:

Tall defenders (Collins, Young, Adams, Roberts, Cordy)
Mid size forwards (Dickson, Stringer, Greene, Lipinski, Crameri, Clay Smith)

And the holes are there due to lack of quality. Look at our key forward stocks: Cloke, Redpath and Boyd. 3 is probably ok to have on a list but those names are shocking. One is almost on the retirement scrap heap, one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude, and Boyd is a hybrid ruck/forward.
Young was drafted as a forward.
Adams can play both ends as he proved in the WAFL.
Dickson and Smith are both small forwards.
What is the dodgy off field attitude you speak of with Redpath?

[comrade]

Young was drafted as a forward.
Adams can play both ends as he proved in the WAFL.
Dickson and Smith are both small forwards.
What is the dodgy off field attitude you speak of with Redpath?

A) Young is a defender for now.
B) Adams has played his best footy in defence, his ability as a forward is unproven.
C) Fine, Dickson and Smith are small forwards. As a collective, we've got too many mid sized and small forwards then.

[westbulldog]

re the comment about Jack Redpath i.e "one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude", could the poster elaborate on this ? Redpath is by all accounts pretty popular at the Club. I think you need to back up that comment or withdraw it.

[Twodogs]

re the comment about Jack Redpath i.e "one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude", could the poster elaborate on this ? Redpath is by all accounts pretty popular at the Club. I think you need to back up that comment or withdraw it.

There is a clique of players who come from the central Victorian towns of Bendigo, Castlemaine, Marybourough and around there who are fairly tight with one another and don't always do the right thing by their teammates in terms of preperation and recovery. You can't have a football club where most of the group are doing the right thing but are being let down by a lack of professionalism from their teammates.

This now has gone past Jake saying that he is going to change his ways to the coach. He also has teammates as well that he has to convince he is serous about his footy. They think Jake is taking the piss while they are doing everything right.

[Mofra]

It depends how much we're reaching by favouring needs over the best available.
We reached for Tim Walsh and Jarrad Grant and arguably Andrejs Everitt.

[jeemak]

I look forward to this iteration of Needs versus Best available resolving a consensus once and for all!

Realistically, it depends on what your list's needs are at the time and the evenness of talent in the pool. If there's a marginal difference between the best available, and a player who fits the needs, then if your need is desperate you'd go for the latter - particularly if that type of player (i.e. key positional) is rarer than others (i.e. inside midfielders).

Hard and fast rules are silly.

[Twodogs]

I look forward to this iteration of Needs versus Best available resolving a consensus once and for all!

Realistically, it depends on what your list's needs are at the time and the evenness of talent in the pool. If there's a marginal difference between the best available, and a player who fits the needs, then if your need is desperate you'd go for the latter - particularly if that type of player (i.e. key positional) is rarer than others (i.e. inside midfielders).

Hard and fast rules are silly.

It's like winning the toss in cricket. You might think about bowling but you always choose to bat. You might think about going needs but you go best available with early picks or you're overspending by taking a player that would have gone later with an earlier pick and missing out on the quality player that pick would have bought.

The sensible thing to have done was to trade that draft pick for the quality player to address the gap during the trade period. If you're drafting to fill gaps then it's effectively too late. You're gambling on a draftee (and taking him with a higher pick than he would normally go for) to fill a gap. Not to mention the fact you are leaving a quality draftee in the pool for a competitor to gobble up. By that stage it's time to cut your losses and go best available. You can't have too many quality footballers, you'll find a position for them to play them.

[jeemak]

It's like winning the toss in cricket. You might think about bowling but you always choose to bat. You might think about going needs but you go best available with early picks or you're overspending by taking a player that would have gone later with an earlier pick and missing out on the quality player that pick would have bought.

The sensible thing to have done was to trade that draft pick for the quality player to address the gap during the trade period. If you're drafting to fill gaps then it's effectively too late. You're gambling on a draftee (and taking him with a higher pick than he would normally go for) to fill a gap. Not to mention the fact you are leaving a quality draftee in the pool for a competitor to gobble up. By that stage it's time to cut your losses and go best available. You can't have too many quality footballers, you'll find a position for them to play them.

So what you're saying is that hard and fast rules are the way to go?

What if we had pick four, and we closely rated an inside mid as the fourth best player over a genuinely talented KPF at five. We went through the analysis and found there was only a marginal percentage difference in our scoring criteria.

We have a glut of inside midfielders, and a shortage of key position forwards.

Would you still choose the inside midfielder?

[GVGjr]

Some of the discussions have moved to a more list management theme than best available.

I still don't see the issue with taking the best available (with some common sense applied) with early picks.
If you recruit the best player and back the training a club can provide clubs should see improvement

[jeemak]

Some of the discussions have moved to a more list management theme than best available.

I still don't see the issue with taking the best available (with some common sense applied) with early picks.
If you recruit the best player and back the training a club can provide clubs should see improvement

Isn't drafting and list management intrinsically linked?

Some elite talent is unbelievably difficult to acquire via trade.

[comrade]

re the comment about Jack Redpath i.e "one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude", could the poster elaborate on this ? Redpath is by all accounts pretty popular at the Club. I think you need to back up that comment or withdraw it.

I'm happy for the comment to remain exactly where it is.

[bornadog]

So what you're saying is that hard and fast rules are the way to go?

What if we had pick four, and we closely rated an inside mid as the fourth best player over a genuinely talented KPF at five. We went through the analysis and found there was only a marginal percentage difference in our scoring criteria.

We have a glut of inside midfielders, and a shortage of key position forwards.

Would you still choose the inside midfielder?

The other consideration is how do you determine the best available? Players that look great in under age football, often don't turn out the best in senior footy. The top five or even the top ten I guess are going to be pretty good players and as you say, they could be a mixture of mids, forwards, backs talls etc, so there is a bit of an element of going with needs.

[Twodogs]

So what you're saying is that hard and fast rules are the way to go?

What if we had pick four, and we closely rated an inside mid as the fourth best player over a genuinely talented KPF at five. We went through the analysis and found there was only a marginal percentage difference in our scoring criteria.

We have a glut of inside midfielders, and a shortage of key position forwards.

Would you still choose the inside midfielder?

In that case you'd spend pick 4 to get a pick 5 rated player. I'm meaning more reaching for second or third round standard players and taking them with first round picks. (A big hello to Footscray premiership hero Christian Howard at this stage of the thread)

[Go_Dogs]

Always take the best player, how you determine the best may change year on year though, where certain attributes are weighted differently based on list management needs, changes in game plan or game style and general evolution based on what successful teams have found that success with.

When you look at our draft clusters, we seem to value certain attributes more highly at times.

[GVGjr]

Isn't drafting and list management intrinsically linked?

Some elite talent is unbelievably difficult to acquire via trade.

Yes but there is a difference. Draft for the best available, trade for the gaps within the list.

I agree elite talent is very hard to acquire via a trade and that is why clubs typically use the best available approach with early selections.
You wouldn't necessarily trade for a player where you already have that position covered.

[always right]

A) Young is a defender for now.
B) Adams has played his best footy in defence, his ability as a forward is unproven.
C) Fine, Dickson and Smith are small forwards. As a collective, we've got too many mid sized and small forwards then.
So why do you think we should be looking at Coughlan from St Kilda?

[comrade]

So why do you think we should be looking at Coughlan from St Kilda?

Because I think he'd be a value Moneyball pick as a rookie.

[always right]

Because I think he'd be a value Moneyball pick as a rookie.

Wouldn't he add to the problem of too many tall defenders?

[boydogs]

Well we must have too many of something else given the holes in our list.


Too many of these:

Tall defenders (Collins, Young, Adams, Roberts, Cordy)
Mid size forwards (Dickson, Stringer, Greene, Lipinski, Crameri, Clay Smith)

And the holes are there due to lack of quality. Look at our key forward stocks: Cloke, Redpath and Boyd. 3 is probably ok to have on a list but those names are shocking. One is almost on the retirement scrap heap, one has dodgy knees and an even dodgier off field attitude, and Boyd is a hybrid ruck/forward.

This is a very old fashioned way of doing it, with a 190cm cutoff between small and tall, and no regard for flexibility or AFL readiness, but as a starting point:

Small Defenders (5/7) - Suckling, Wood, Biggs, Williams, Johannisen
Tall Defenders (6/4) - Cordy, Roberts, Adams, Collins, Young, Morris
Inside Mids (6/7) - Wallis, Dahlhaus, Dunkley, Liberatore, Honeychurch, Jong
Outside Mids (6/7) - Bontempelli, Hunter, Macrae, McLean, Webb, Daniel
Rucks (3/4) - Campbell, Roughead, English
Small Forwards (7/7) - Smith, Crameri, Lipinski, Dickson, Dale, Greene, Picken
Tall Forwards (4/4) - Stringer, Cloke, Boyd, Redpath

Retired/Delisted - Murphy, Boyd, Hamilton

Based on that we probably need a ready made ruck, some developing mids and small defenders and fewer tall defenders. But then downgrade Morris to small, move Adams forward and trade Stringer and things look different

[ledge]

This is a very old fashioned way of doing it, with a 190cm cutoff between small and tall, and no regard for flexibility or AFL readiness, but as a starting point:

Small Defenders (5/7) - Suckling, Wood, Biggs, Williams, Johannisen
Tall Defenders (6/4) - Cordy, Roberts, Adams, Collins, Young, Morris
Inside Mids (6/7) - Wallis, Dahlhaus, Dunkley, Liberatore, Honeychurch, Jong
Outside Mids (6/7) - Bontempelli, Hunter, Macrae, McLean, Webb, Daniel
Rucks (3/4) - Campbell, Roughead, English
Small Forwards (7/7) - Smith, Crameri, Lipinski, Dickson, Dale, Greene, Picken
Tall Forwards (4/4) - Stringer, Cloke, Boyd, Redpath

Retired/Delisted - Murphy, Boyd, Hamilton

Based on that we probably need a ready made ruck, some developing mids and small defenders and fewer tall defenders. But then downgrade Morris to small, move Adams forward and trade Stringer and things look different

And add Trengove.

[Twodogs]

Because I think he'd be a value Moneyball pick as a rookie.

Is that Nick Coughlan that was at Footscray? He is a good footballer. He plays well.

[bornadog]

This is a very old fashioned way of doing it, with a 190cm cutoff between small and tall, and no regard for flexibility or AFL readiness, but as a starting point:

Small Defenders (5/7) - Suckling, Wood, Biggs, Williams, Johannisen
Tall Defenders (6/4) - Cordy, Roberts, Adams, Collins, Young, Morris
Inside Mids (6/7) - Wallis, Dahlhaus, Dunkley, Liberatore, Honeychurch, Jong
Outside Mids (6/7) - Bontempelli, Hunter, Macrae, McLean, Webb, Daniel
Rucks (3/4) - Campbell, Roughead, English
Small Forwards (7/7) - Smith, Crameri, Lipinski, Dickson, Dale, Greene, Picken
Tall Forwards (4/4) - Stringer, Cloke, Boyd, Redpath

Retired/Delisted - Murphy, Boyd, Hamilton

Based on that we probably need a ready made ruck, some developing mids and small defenders and fewer tall defenders. But then downgrade Morris to small, move Adams forward and trade Stringer and things look different

Good list Boydogs, however, another element needs to be factored in and that is experience. If you look at the tall defenders Morris has the most experience followed by Roberts, and that's it. The other guys are all young which means we may need another tall defender, and I guess that is where Trengove comes in.

A further factor to consider is pace in the midfield. We may have plenty of inside and outside mids, but they all lack pace.

[G-Mo77]

Is that Nick Coughlan that was at Footscray? He is a good footballer. He plays well.

Forgotten about him. Loved him at the Scary. I really like Gowers from the VFL. Wouldn't mind it if we gave him a spot on the list.

[Twodogs]

Forgotten about him. Loved him at the Scary. I really like Gowers from the VFL. Wouldn't mind it if we gave him a spot on the list.


I don't know if I could survive a year of watching him spray the ball all over the place after taking incredible mark after incredible mark but I love watching him play. He is a classic bulldog player though. Slightly too short for the job we've given him but makes up for it with copious amounts of crazy brave.

[comrade]

Wouldn't he add to the problem of too many tall defenders?

Not on the main list.

[westbulldog]

I'm happy for the comment to remain exactly where it is.

You may have something factual but without elaboration the current status is just slinging mud and thus has no substance.

[Bulldog4life]

Pick 9: With the retirements of Bob Murphy and Matthew Boyd across the Dogs' half-back line, Nick Coffield is worth considering with their first selection to bolster that area of the ground. The Northern Knights captain won All Australian selection this year after an impressive carnival for the winning Vic Metro side. At 190cm and with a real turn of pace (he ran 2.91 seconds in the 20-metre sprint at the NAB AFL Draft Combine), he plays as a sweeping, general defender who gives drive.

Around the mark: Hunter Clark, Andrew Brayshaw, Aaron Naughton

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-21/your-top-pick-who-will-your-club-draft-first

[GVGjr]

I've mentioned Coffield a number of times during the year and rate him. When playing as a midfielder he is very much an outside player. As a defender or winger I think he is currently more suited to. He will be in the mix for our first selection and I doubt he will be for our 2nd pick.

[Twodogs]

From the vision I've seen of Coffield he seems to make a bit of time for himself and rarely gets too flustered.

[Mofra]

Rumour is Collingwood are very into Coffield, but I'd love him to slip to us.
Would be a real asset as a rebounding HB as he develops, good height at 190cm too.

If we nab a mid or a HF who will transition to midfield with pick 16 we'll have the perfect balance of players we've added to our list, considering we banned a KPF, KPB and an athletic utility/HB at the trade table.

[Twodogs]

Rumour is Collingwood are very into Coffield, but I'd love him to slip to us.
Would be a real asset as a rebounding HB as he develops, good height at 190cm too.

If we nab a mid or a HF who will transition to midfield with pick 16 we'll have the perfect balance of players we've added to our list, considering we banned a KPF, KPB and an athletic utility/HB at the trade table.

Where you say "banned a KPF" do you mean "gained a KPF"?

[chef]

Bagged i think Mof means.

[Twodogs]

Bagged i think Mof means.


That makes more sense than gained.