Jed Anderson

[tigerlove]

This draft is the weakest in 10 years,

Seems such a categoric statement. Only history will tell how weak this draft will be.

 

[Scoop]

Seems such a categoric statement. Only history will tell how weak this draft will be.

It's not me, I take that statement from Gary Buckenara and Brett Anderson, two draft gurus.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

The last 24 months, North have owned the free agents/trade market. They are in the window and understand it.

Or are completely overrating their list. Scraped into the finals on the back of a run of wins against rubbish opposition. Played us, their mentally fragile bunnies, in week one of the finals. Then played an injury ravaged Swans, whom as a result were in the most patchy form of any of the top 8. Play West Coast and only manage one half of intense football, season over.

I personally think their finals run papers over where they're really at. If it doesn't turn out for them. Massive holes in their list for years to come. Could be in the same shape as us immediate post Wallace era.

 

[bigwow]

Wow Hawks raped em. No wonder Hawks are so good. They win most deals they complete.

Whats more ridiculous is other clubs helping them stay on top by buying into trades to ensure they secure ready made replacements, Lake retires, make play for Carlisle using picks traded in
for a bloke they can more than cover.

 

[Scoop]

Or are completely overrating their list. Scraped into the finals on the back of a run of wins against rubbish opposition. Played us, their mentally fragile bunnies, in week one of the finals. Then played an injury ravaged Swans, whom as a result were in the most patchy form of any of the top 8. Play West Coast and only manage one half of intense football, season over.

I personally think their finals run papers over where they're really at. If it doesn't turn out for them. Massive holes in their list for years to come. Could be in the same shape as us immediate post Wallace era.

Made last years prelim as well. The last two years, they are a game away from the Grand Final. You don't get that lucky.

And they are going for it. I would as well. We aren't that far behind them.

 

[Giardiasis]

This draft is the weakest in 10 years, trading out for a player who has spent the last three years at the best club in there development program and has shown glimpses of being a quality A grade footballer is a very smart move.

The last 24 months, North have owned the free agents/trade market. They are in the window and understand it.

Oh ok, so then there are no principles of drafting and trading, just decisions made upon valuations by footy department staff.

 

[Ian4]

so N-O-R-F continue their run of handing charity first round draft picks to the hawks. what a joke.

 

[Mappa]

North have no real choice.

Ageing list, need to top up before a huge clean out.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Made last years prelim as well. The last two years, they are a game away from the Grand Final. You don't get that lucky.

And they are going for it. I would as well. We aren't that far behind them.

Based on how they looked for the majority of the 2015 season. I don't think on a whole they were as good as the year before. Were lucky for things aligning in September the way they did. I'd rate their performance in 2014 as far more commendable.

 

[tigerlove]

It's not me, I take that statement from Gary Buckenara and Brett Anderson, two draft gurus.

Whoever they think they are I don't know how anyone without a crystal ball could say a draft is going to be the worst in 10 years.

 

[tigersnake]

Whoever they think they are I don't know how anyone without a crystal ball could say a draft is going to be the worst in 10 years.

They are professional evaluators of footy talent, and top ones at that. They would have data evaluation frameworks in place, as well as years of professional experience. It may or may not be the weakest in 10 years, but I reckon its a safe bet that's its a below average draft.

 

[tigerlove]

They are professional evaluators of footy talent, and top ones at that. They would have data evaluation frameworks in place, as well as years of professional experience. It may or may not be the weakest in 10 years, but I reckon its a safe bet that's its a below average draft.

Below average and worst in 10 years can be very far apart. My point remains no-one, no matter how clever you think you are, can predict the future, particularly to make such comments as that. Personally I wouldn't be throwing away high draft picks because a draft is apparently looking weaker than some previous years. I reckon just like every year we're going to have some previously under-rated ripper players come out of the draft and some previously over-rated being total flops. The best teams seem to grab great players deep into any draft.

 

[zippadeee]

:blah

so N-O-R-F continue their run of handing charity first round draft picks to the hawks. what a joke.

The Scott brothers will leave both Geelong & North in a disasters state. Worse then Lyon at skikda.
Anderson should've been worth a pick over 35. Josh Kennedy was a pick in the late 30's.

 

[tigersnake]

Below average and worst in 10 years can be very far apart. My point remains no-one, no matter how clever you think you are, can predict the future, particularly to make such comments as that. Personally I wouldn't be throwing away high draft picks because a draft is apparently looking weaker than some previous years. I reckon just like every year we're going to have some previously under-rated ripper players come out of the draft and some previously over-rated being total flops. The best teams seem to grab great players deep into any draft.

Not that far apart. How many drafts have there been? 25? Statistically speaking, 'worst in 10 years' could be a bit below average. I don't know, but it could be. It's well documented that some drafts are boom and some are bust. Sure you can find good players in poor drafts and poor players in good ones, but its all about the odds. I'll back the experts to know the odds in any given year.

Besides, we've said we'll keep 12.

 

[Rosy]

Hawks are the winners here. Pick 15, pffttt... the return pocks are blah.

Only time will tell who the winner is here. I'll be keeping an eye what the pick 15 player brings to the Hawks compared to what Jed brings to the Kangas. I'd have loved us to have got him.

 

[Gazmatron]

Only time will tell who the winner is here. I'll be keeping an eye what the pick 15 player brings to the Hawks compared to what Jed brings to the Kangas. I'd have loved us to have got him.

Wouldn't it be lovely if the Hawks offered 15 and their other first rounder to GWS for Treloar?

 

[tigerlove]

Not that far apart. How many drafts have there been? 25? Statistically speaking, 'worst in 10 years' could be a bit below average. I don't know, but it could be. It's well documented that some drafts are boom and some are bust. Sure you can find good players in poor drafts and poor players in good ones, but its all about the odds. I'll back the experts to know the odds in any given year.

Besides, we've said we'll keep 12.

The odds are, if you alter your long-term strategy based on guessing who good the next draft is, you'll ultimately lose out. How often in hindsight have the 'experts' been wrong? The best teams manage to find quality players at lower picks consistently regardless of perceived 'depth' of draft.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

Wouldn't it be lovely if the Hawks offered 15 and their other first rounder to GWS for Treloar?

Collingwood's offer is still better.

 

[tigersnake]

The odds are, if you alter your long-term strategy based on guessing who good the next draft is, you'll ultimately lose out. How often in hindsight have the 'experts' been wrong? The best teams manage to find quality players at lower picks consistently regardless of perceived 'depth' of draft.

I disagree, if the boffins reckon its a thin draft, the prudent move is to draft thin, no losing out.

How often have the experts been wrong? I'd need help on that, but my hunch is they'd be on the money mostly. Remember we're talking about overall quality, which affectd he chances of grabbing a good'n late. I don't see it as controversial myself.

The best teams grab good players at lower picks consistently? Yes, but debateable, they have bursts, but this very topic was debated at length somewhere, on a Francis thread I think, it was interesting. But its not that simple.

Find good players at lower picks regardless of draft quality? No, not true. Of course there will be the odd nugget in any year, but its the amount and quality that varies. Even then I'm sure you could find a gun late in every draft, but the point is in a poor draft there will be one or two, in a good draft there'll be a dozen. Ergo, its all about the odds.

So a pick at say 35 in a strong draft will have a 40 to 1 chance of finding a player who will play 100 games, whereas in a weak draft the same pick might have a 60 or 70 to 1 chance. (I'm guessing on those probabilities, but I've read about drafts that were busts and ones that were 'superdrafts'), Hence, picks are generally worth less in a weak draft.

None of this is controversial IMO.

 

[mrposhman]

Reported on the site we cannot mention that North are looking at bringing in Aish for Bastinac and the 2 picks they got from the Hawks along with Anderson for their first rounder.

So they would have got Aish and Anderson for Bastinac and their first. Reckon thats a win for sure if they can pull that off. Giving pick 15 sounds a lot for Anderson but depends what they do with the 2 3rd rounders they got from the Hawks.