A question about the draft

[alwaysadog]

2009 Charles Sutton Medal Results

1. Matthew Boyd 154 votes
2. Daniel Cross 145 votes
3. Dale Morris 133 votes
4. Brad Johnson 131 votes
5. Brian Lake 125 votes
6. Jarrod Harbrow 123 votes

Given that within 24 hours our attention will turn to drafting and bearing in mind that over the last few years we have moved on several of our first round draft picks I was wondering if the above sheds any light on or has any significance for the annual meat market aka “The Draft”.

Only one first round draft pick amongst them and additionally, our best first year player replicates the pattern, Picken was off the rookie list. Take out Johnno (a first round pick at number 11) and Crossie (a fourth round pick at number 56) all of the rest did not make it by the standard route ie they were not drafted on to a senior list in the year they became available.

Boyd was picked up from the Frankston seconds after being passed over by club drafting staff and Morris was at Werribee after being spurned at the draft, both are now All Australians. Lake was passed over as an 18 year old and after a health improvement via an operation was picked up by us in a subsequent draft with a fifth round pick at number 71. He remains the one example of our former recruiting manager’s capacity to recruit a tall who holds down a regular position in the side, and of course he too is an All Australian. Jarrod Harbrow was rookie listed by us after the drafting process failed to identify his talents, but interestingly that well known talent spotter GVG had rated him highly in pre draft discussions.

IMHO it either suggests that we place undue emphasis on the draft; for all the time, money and importance we accord it we get at least equal value from other sources, or that there are many players who are not ready at 18 to have their potential assessed and we should (and perhaps do) spend an equal amount of effort on following up on players who miss out.

Maybe we should be looking at replacing the draft in its current form.

[Doc26]

2009 Charles Sutton Medal Results

1. Matthew Boyd 154 votes
2. Daniel Cross 145 votes
3. Dale Morris 133 votes
4. Brad Johnson 131 votes
5. Brian Lake 125 votes
6. Jarrod Harbrow 123 votes

Given that within 24 hours our attention will turn to drafting and bearing in mind that over the last few years we have moved on several of our first round draft picks I was wondering if the above sheds any light on or has any significance for the annual meat market aka “The Draft”.

Only one first round draft pick amongst them and additionally, our best first year player replicates the pattern, Picken was off the rookie list. Take out Johnno (a first round pick at number 11) and Crossie (a fourth round pick at number 56) all of the rest did not make it by the standard route ie they were not drafted on to a senior list in the year they became available.

Boyd was picked up from the Frankston seconds after being passed over by club drafting staff and Morris was at Werribee after being spurned at the draft, both are now All Australians. Lake was passed over as an 18 year old and after a health improvement via an operation was picked up by us in a subsequent draft with a fifth round pick at number 71. He remains the one example of our former recruiting manager’s capacity to recruit a tall who holds down a regular position in the side, and of course he too is an All Australian. Jarrod Harbrow was rookie listed by us after the drafting process failed to identify his talents, but interestingly that well known talent spotter GVG had rated him highly in pre draft discussions.

IMHO it either suggests that we place undue emphasis on the draft; for all the time, money and importance we accord it we get at least equal value from other sources, or that there are many players who are not ready at 18 to have their potential assessed and we should (and perhaps do) spend an equal amount of effort on following up on players who miss out.

Maybe we should be looking at replacing the draft in its current form.

There will be increased emphasis on picking up rookie listed mature age recruits in the coming seasons ala Fremantle's success with Greg Broughton or even Richmond's with Nahas last season. The arrival of the GC17 compromised draft and then West Sydney will force clubs to delve even deeper for that diamond in the rough outside the obvious.

With that said pretty happy with our first rounders in Coons and Griff with Coons already holding a Brownlow.

[alwaysadog]

There will be increased emphasis on picking up rookie listed mature age recruits in the coming seasons ala Fremantle's success with Greg Broughton or even Richmond's with Nahas last season. The arrival of the GC17 compromised draft and then West Sydney will force clubs to delve even deeper for that diamond in the rough outside the obvious.

With that said pretty happy with our first rounders in Coons and Griff with Coons already holding a Brownlow.

Agree GC 17 will speed the process for other clubs, but it seems we have already had that emphasis. Coons and Griff are two good first rounders but how many less than adequate ones have we had?

[Doc26]

Agree GC 17 will speed the process for other clubs, but it seems we have already had that emphasis. Coons and Griff are two good first rounders but how many less than adequate ones have we had?

I'm suspecting that your opinion is already well accepted but increasingly more resources will be allocated to research opportunities that sit outside the Nat Draft where the talent tends to be the 'known knowns' that are spoon fed up.

No more proof of this is needed with the success we're having with Boyd, Morris, Harbrow and Picken obviously all coming to us outside the Nat Draft.

Having suitable talent scouts available to a club has and will always be integral to the success of a club and particularly so to clubs such as ours where we're not above the ledger in terms of a level playing field e.g membership base, compromised fixture, corporate backing, geography etc

In terms of apparent first round selection failures we're not alone here and hopefully we can learn from these going forward.

[ledge]

I think interstate clubs have been doing it for years, West Coast and Adelaide have always seemed to be able to bring in big bodied ready made players.

[mjp]

The draft and the processes around it are 'fine'. It isn't the fault of the system that things fall through...it is the fault of the recruiters.

1/.They all sit together at the games.
Why they do this I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever understand. They sit around, talk to one another, make comments and notes as what seems is a collective...aren't they competing?

When the revolution comes and I am the head recruiter, I am going to find a group of people who have strong opinions of their own and are prepared to stand behind their recommendations - right or wrong. My guys will be the ones sitting by themselves, protecting their notes like they are solid gold and talking to the opposition about benign subjects like the weather.

2/.It isn't talent identification guys...it is football recruiting.
Pick the guys who can play. Watch a mix of senior footy and u18's. Don't dismiss reserves competitions - a guy in the 2's might have something you are after...and remember, the senior coach at the club he is playing at has a completely different agenda to you.

The other thing to note is how they adjust to a 'change' in level. Playing 18's? What happened when they played in the seniors, or in the national carnival? Did they panic? Did their kicking fall apart? We fall back to our worst habits under pressure and THAT is the player you are recruiting...someone who has gone through the school of hard knocks and played 18's/reserves/league probably has undergone some good personal and football development along the way - they might be the same player under pressure or in space...the superstar junior? Well, no-one really knows just yet.

3/.Only 2 'tests' matter - the rest you can see with your own eyes during games.
What 2 tests? The 3km and the beep test. But guess what - the times they run dont matter all that much...it is how they go about it. You want the guy who is prepared to gut out a couple more in the beep than you thought he would...not the one who stopped the second he hit some kind of internal threshold. The beep is not about speed or endurance - it is about want to. The 3km is where you want someone who simply has a go...if they blow up after 2kms? Who cares...that is what an AFL pre-season is for. As for things like agility, 20m sprint etc etc...watch games instead! Does the opposition run them down? No - well that means they are fast. Do they always get the break on their opponent on a lead? Well, that means they are good at changing direction.

4/.Talk to them and talk to their parents.

Don't believe the hype. Find out for yourself. And there is no need to be aggressive, or put the player on the spot - you want to get to know them, not get them to tell you want they think you want to hear - these Gen y'ers can do that ALL day and then wake up and do it again. The way the dominant adult in their family behaves is the way they are going to be - observe, take your time and understand.

[Doc26]

The draft and the processes around it are 'fine'. It isn't the fault of the system that things fall through...it is the fault of the recruiters.

1/.They all sit together at the games.
Why they do this I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever understand. They sit around, talk to one another, make comments and notes as what seems is a collective...aren't they competing?

When the revolution comes and I am the head recruiter, I am going to find a group of people who have strong opinions of their own and are prepared to stand behind their recommendations - right or wrong. My guys will be the ones sitting by themselves, protecting their notes like they are solid gold and talking to the opposition about benign subjects like the weather.

2/.It isn't talent identification guys...it is football recruiting.
Pick the guys who can play. Watch a mix of senior footy and u18's. Don't dismiss reserves competitions - a guy in the 2's might have something you are after...and remember, the senior coach at the club he is playing at has a completely different agenda to you.

The other thing to note is how they adjust to a 'change' in level. Playing 18's? What happened when they played in the seniors, or in the national carnival? Did they panic? Did their kicking fall apart? We fall back to our worst habits under pressure and THAT is the player you are recruiting...someone who has gone through the school of hard knocks and played 18's/reserves/league probably has undergone some good personal and football development along the way - they might be the same player under pressure or in space...the superstar junior? Well, no-one really knows just yet.

3/.Only 2 'tests' matter - the rest you can see with your own eyes during games.
What 2 tests? The 3km and the beep test. But guess what - the times they run dont matter all that much...it is how they go about it. You want the guy who is prepared to gut out a couple more in the beep than you thought he would...not the one who stopped the second he hit some kind of internal threshold. The beep is not about speed or endurance - it is about want to. The 3km is where you want someone who simply has a go...if they blow up after 2kms? Who cares...that is what an AFL pre-season is for. As for things like agility, 20m sprint etc etc...watch games instead! Does the opposition run them down? No - well that means they are fast. Do they always get the break on their opponent on a lead? Well, that means they are good at changing direction.

4/.Talk to them and talk to their parents.

Don't believe the hype. Find out for yourself. And there is no need to be aggressive, or put the player on the spot - you want to get to know them, not get them to tell you want they think you want to hear - these Gen y'ers can do that ALL day and then wake up and do it again. The way the dominant adult in their family behaves is the way they are going to be - observe, take your time and understand.

Good commentary although I do feel that the system is at fault in that it somewhat encourages lazy recruiting practice by not adequately rewarding recruiting effort, particularly so with the National Draft process. Guess it's our version of socialism at work. However, the Rookie process does encourage/offer more creativity in recruiting effort where all your points come into play.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Good commentary although I do feel that the system is at fault in that it somewhat encourages lazy recruiting practice by not adequately rewarding recruiting effort, particularly so with the National Draft process. Guess it's our version of socialism at work. However, the Rookie process does encourage/offer more creativity in recruiting effort where all your points come into play.

Why would you think that?

I would agree if recruiting was an exact science but it is nothing like that. I'd say the no. 1 player in the draft has ended up being the best player about twice in a decade.

There's gold available at every pick, it's just bloody hard to find. The lazy go along with the general concensus, you could almost be a recruiter by reading BF, yet every year blokes taken in the rookie draft turn out to be diamonds.

[mjp]

Good commentary although I do feel that the system is at fault in that it somewhat encourages lazy recruiting practice by not adequately rewarding recruiting effort, particularly so with the National Draft process. Guess it's our version of socialism at work. However, the Rookie process does encourage/offer more creativity in recruiting effort where all your points come into play.

With no disrespect I have a pretty good idea how it works, how the recruiters work and how hard it is to get them to see what is right in front of their face.

[Doc26]

Why would you think that?

The lazy go along with the general concensus, you could almost be a recruiter by reading BF, yet every year blokes taken in the rookie draft turn out to be diamonds.

But this is really the point I'm making. There seems good reward for identification investment through the rookie draft and is why your point "yet every year blokes taken in the rookie draft turn out to be diamonds" is validated.

I'm not saying you turn your back on the Nat Draft at all but with limited resources where best do you focus attention when significant effort in identification may go unrewarded simply because you're not next in line or your diamond ends up sparking late interest at draft camp. Scully, Lewis Jetta, Rohan, Morabito, Dustin Martin, Jack Trengove, Alex Carey etc are all goners unless the numbers just happen to fall right.

[Doc26]

With no disrespect I have a pretty good idea how it works, how the recruiters work and how hard it is to get them to see what is right in front of their face.

No disrespect taken as I don't disagree with you on your views on recruiters and maybe you do know the machinations. It's not the point I'm endeavouring to make. I'm just saying that assuming they did do all you say with the effort involved that this effort is not nullified or unrewarded simply because of the way the draft process is structured as it is. And yes, those clubs that are well prepared, having performed the necessary identification due diligence are no doubt in a better position than those that have blinkers on. However it's not to say simply due to the way the numbers fall that they might still just snare your diamond/s anyway.

[alwaysadog]

With no disrespect I have a pretty good idea how it works, how the recruiters work and how hard it is to get them to see what is right in front of their face.

mjp in response to my initial attempt to highlight the value that we were getting from outside the 18yo draft and suggestion that perhaps we should consider more attention on other areas you counter by arguing from a much better informed position, that the real problem is the way recruiters go about their job of assessing talent both in terms of the criteria they use and the group think processes that occur which work to lowest rather than highest common denominators.

I'm not going to disagree, except in the minor case of players who are not physically mature at 18, as I've long held suspicions about much of the clap trap that passes for informed opinion about what to look for etc.

Where I think my case still has legs is that while you present a compelling case for a change to the way those examining the merits of young players go about their task and although it is high stakes stuff, the future of clubs rests on it, there is no significant body of opinion pressing for reform so IMHO it's not likely to change any time soon.

Though I must admit that occasionally rumblings are heard; on a visit to the WO some years ago and waiting to see someone about a coterie matter I overheard Cam Rose making a forceful point about witchcraft and recruiting and concluding with the question "How come Aaron Davey got passed over 5 times?" Still such episodes make little long term impact.

If that's the case then we've got to find the good fish in those John West rejects and you intimate there’s plenty of them.

[mjp]

Agree with all of that aad. And I will say it again - if Lewis Jetta is the best performed player in the current draft crop (and I am absolutely certain that he is) then why wont he be the number 1 pick? And why is Jetta at 20 seen as a greater 'risk' than Scully at 17?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Agree with all of that aad. And I will say it again - if Lewis Jetta is the best performed player in the current draft crop (and I am absolutely certain that he is) then why wont he be the number 1 pick? And why is Jetta at 20 seen as a greater 'risk' than Scully at 17?

Recruiters philosophy and interpretation of 'potential upside' is incredibly overrated. The logic is applied throughout several forms of the game too. Eg. Geelong Falcons is very kind to namesakes, talls and athletes. It's no suprise so many good players are coming out of the rookie system each year.

Where do you think Jetta will be drafted Mike?

[chef]

What dates are the drafts?

[The Coon Dog]

What dates are the drafts?

Important off season dates (http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=6233)

[Topdog]

Upside is always so over valued. Just look at Rich this year, people are saying he won't improve that much so guys like Yarran have more upside.

Who gives a ****? I'd rather have the guy who has proven he can do it than someone who has a less than 50% chance of improving enough to eventually be better than Rich.

[mjp]

Where do you think Jetta will be drafted Mike?

No idea.

Top 5 after the revolution comes and I am in charge. My WA bias will sneak through, but the only others I would take before him are Lucas and Trengove (yes, SA I know).

I see Scully as a good player but not a real difference maker...

[alwaysadog]

Agree with all of that aad. And I will say it again - if Lewis Jetta is the best performed player in the current draft crop (and I am absolutely certain that he is) then why wont he be the number 1 pick? And why is Jetta at 20 seen as a greater 'risk' than Scully at 17?

When decisions are being made I often wonder how closely and critically criteria about performance etc are examined and what weighting is given to each and how much such data is used to confirm the bias of the recruiters and the hype that has grown up around certain players.

I also wonder how much longitudinal evaluation goes into identifying what can be seen as contributing to the success and failure of drafting and what inbuilt biases need correcting. Someone at VU , I can't rememeber whom, was doing research on this, but it doesn't seem to have seen the light of day.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Agree with all of that aad. And I will say it again - if Lewis Jetta is the best performed player in the current draft crop (and I am absolutely certain that he is) then why wont he be the number 1 pick? And why is Jetta at 20 seen as a greater 'risk' than Scully at 17?

That arguement doesn't quite work.

Certainly Scully hasn't achieved as much at State league senior level as Jetta because it's impossible for him to play up until now.

That has nothing to do with which might end up the better player, Paul Dooley had won a Liston Trophy by the time he was 20.


I'd say BOG in an SANFL prelim would hold Jack Trengove in fairly high stead of the State League performers as well.

[mjp]

Certainly Scully hasn't achieved as much at State league senior level as Jetta because it's impossible for him to play up until now.

I'd say BOG in an SANFL prelim would hold Jack Trengove in fairly high stead of the State League performers as well.

I did suggest that drafting Trengove ahead of Jetta is something that I would do.

Scully could have played senior footy - he just didn't. The TAC/VFL alignment makes it absolutely possible and a number of boys did that very thing this season. None of them jumped up like and Aaron Black and nailed a BOG at senior level though.

Why didn't Scully do it? The cynic in me says that the TAC has forgotten part of the reason it was created - to focus on player development. Once there was no doubt he was going to be drafted, getting a senior game (or two) into him should have been treated as a priority.

[mjp]

That has nothing to do with which might end up the better player, Paul Dooley had won a Liston Trophy by the time he was 20.


Now, I never saw Dooley at 20 (or younger) but this is interesting. Ruckman normally are late developers - he was a very good state level player at 20 and career over by 25? Maybe there are some player development and coaching issues that contributed to his demise? Let's be honest when looking at Jetta though - the things he does that are difference makers at state level will translate very well to AFL level...if you can keep his head right, well, he is going to be a really good player.

I guess my point is (or was) SS that it depends what you want out of your first round pick. To me you want impact - and a pretty high certainty of it. Based on what they have done in the last couple of years, that points me to Lucas, it points me to Trengove and it points me to Jetta. The rest of the group are a bit more of a roll of the dice....

[Dancin' Douggy]

Agree GC 17 will speed the process for other clubs, but it seems we have already had that emphasis. Coons and Griff are two good first rounders but how many less than adequate ones have we had?

Farren Ray, Tim Walsh, Sam Power, Jordan McMahon, Luke Penny. 5 flops.

Higgins, Griffen, Cooney, Murphy. 4 hits.

Williams, Everitt, Grant. 3 Yet to be decided.

I went back as far as Jakovich at pick 9 in 1995 and decided mercifully to stop there.

The horror, the horror.......

[Bulldog Revolution]

Farren Ray, Tim Walsh, Sam Power, Jordan McMahon, Luke Penny. 5 flops.



You might think its splitting hairs but look it needs to be said, but I almost cant be bothered

McMahon played 114 games for us, and was still able to be traded for pick 19 which we turned into Ward - I dont see how that can count as a flop of a selection.

Walsh had injuries issues that make it hard to project but I dont think he would have been a successful pick

Power played 80 games for us

Penny played 35 for us and was able to be traded for pick 17 - so again hard to see how that was a failure

Ray played 78 for us, although we did not get much for him in a trade - upgraded draft position by 17 spots

So whilst these guys weren't superstars they clearly had some talent, and dont count as flops of the Oakley-Nicholls, Danny Myer variety.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I agree actually, flop is is too harsh a word. Sorry.
Less than adequate though?

I would say all of those 5 with the exception of McMahon,
would count as "less than adequate"(quoting post) for a first round pick.

McMahon I would count as adequate.

And you can't compare our flops to Richmond's.
No one's flops compare to Richmond's, They have made an art form of it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I did suggest that drafting Trengove ahead of Jetta is something that I would do.

Scully could have played senior footy - he just didn't. The TAC/VFL alignment makes it absolutely possible and a number of boys did that very thing this season. None of them jumped up like and Aaron Black and nailed a BOG at senior level though.

Why didn't Scully do it? The cynic in me says that the TAC has forgotten part of the reason it was created - to focus on player development. Once there was no doubt he was going to be drafted, getting a senior game (or two) into him should have been treated as a priority.

??? U18's can play seniors?

I thought that rule was for overage players playing TAC. That makes me think there was some very strange selections over the course of the year.

[Throughandthrough]

U18's in the SANFL were allowed to play seniors, but had to wait until the National Carnival, unless they had played seniors (generally reserves) the yera before.

In Glenelg's winning reserve team last weekend there was 6 or 7 lads eligible for the 18's.

[Mofra]

The upside discussion here is very interesting - I remember people discussing Shanon Hurn prior to the draft, stating he has no upside because he was naturally big-bodied and he might not be able to handle the transition to senior football where he wouldn´t have that strength advantage. He´s developed into a more than handy type, adding credence to mjp´s argument; sometimes it´s better to just focus on performance.

[mjp]

U18's in the SANFL were allowed to play seniors, but had to wait until the National Carnival, unless they had played seniors (generally reserves) the yera before.

In Glenelg's winning reserve team last weekend there was 6 or 7 lads eligible for the 18's.

Same rule in WA.