-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Pick 29: Shai Bolton
- Thread starter puregreen
- Start date
you have left a large time span there. Three years maybe , but the big fish need to come in at the end of 3 yrs as our young jets will be close to 50 or possibly more games.
We don't want the Hawthorn model as our team is rubbish atm and needs elite talent badly .
Depends on the definition of duds doesn't it ? There are plenty there who may not be busts but also probably haven't justified where they were picked either.
If we ended up with 5 reasonably early picks and 2 of them became stars, 2 good/decent players and one bust history would say that's pretty successful. What needs to happen on top of that is one or two successful picks lower in the draft and maybe a free agent in the next year or two.
Also shows the differing development timelines of players
3 trading and drafts periods = 24/25/26.
If we lose so many players will have large TPP space and ever increasing going forward so will need to be filled. Can only front end so much. May even look for salary dump trades as well. Cap space trades may come in too.
it's all up to what is available, but i don't like the after Hawthorn 3 peat model. I liked Newey's model that he wanted to do a rebuild, but never got the job and he's actually right. Just pay duds overs for a few years until the stars rise. You're still missing the point as there's no point bringing in trades unless we have enough talented players. Sacrificing picks for unneeded ready made talent is a disaster for me. You aren't going to nail all your picks as history commonly tells us so use as many AS POSSIBLE OVER THREE YEARS TO BUILD A FUTURE TEAM. Your method is Ninthmond mentality with a bitza list.
Our young guns will need a minimum of 3 years.
Last edited:
Agree but to me a dud is someone that is poor and doesn't get above 50 games. There are very few actual duds in that list, but you can't expect every top line draft pick to be a star either, and this is where the nuclear option that has been pushed so hard by some completely falls down, as you simply can't expect to only draft stars with top picks, but ultimately the more picks you have in the top 10, the more 150+ game players you get. Out of that list of top 10's that I showed (50 players), I'd hazard to guess that there wouldn't be more than 5-10 that don't make 150 games.
Nice one liner, care to actually say how many duds there are in your opinion, and what your definition of a dud is?
I'm looking at elite talent drafting and not just a good ordinary footballer who will cruise to 100-150 games. Tambling did that. Our list is bereft of elite talent and I don't believe one draft can haul in 6 jets. i'm being realistic here.
Our potential draft lineup will be anomalous, particularly for a non-expansion club.
Clubs like Collingwood and Geelong will complain if we accumulate say 7-8 first-round picks. Nothing surer.
As for whether they will be guns or not, I like our chances of getting a fab 4 in that midfield. Wouldn’t that be exciting for the fans.
It would make a bottom four finish next season much more palatable.
I want & we need Daniel to stay, Shai will get us some draft premium & I will be happy with that
This is essentially my position also.
We aren’t contending soon so from a flag perspective neither are contributing on that front in the next 2-3 years but Rioli provides pretty good fabric.
Having said that the brutal reality is that a heap of high end picks will presumably be good leaders and help drive culture themselves.
I won’t be *too* upset if the prince was to find a new home.
I don't doubt that, but spreading across 2 or 3 drafts doesn't change anything, pick the wrong players and it doesn't matter which year you make the pick. At the end of the day, you take the 1st rounders when you have them, and back your recruiting team to do what they employed to do.
We could go down your route and butcher picks across a number of drafts instead of butchering them in 1 draft which is what you are saying. Spreading them doesn't reduce the risk, it still relies on the same thing, and thats the recruiting staff getting their picks right.
I think Bolton will never be worth more than he is now.
But I don't think you move him on for solely that reason.
Like others, I've seen things this year I don't like: uncustomary defensive efforts, speculative shots at goal, horrible misses from set shots.
Whereas Rioli screams leadership in the way he goes about it, Bolton is not the reliable top-tier asset our club needs right now ... but he would unquestionably be of enormous value to a club like Fremantle where he can be the 'cream on the top'.
I have to admit, I'm not happy if Bolton stays.
But I'm ecstatic if Rioli does (and slightly devastated if he doesn't).
Doesn't work like that mate. History clearly proves that ELITE Talent is rarely bunched in one draft. You're not going to find Cotchin, Martin, Riewoldt, Rance and Sheds in one draft . They took 3 drafts and two were later picks. If the draft recruiter screws up 3 drafts then he's going to screw one draft no matter how many picks he has. Laws of probability of statistics show it's easier to screw up one draft than two or three. You eventually get one right. I think we may have the best in the business in Toce and he will need to scour through three drafts to get us back to the top. You're still confusing elite talent with role players and we need the elite talent ATM.
Let the 2004 Draft be an ugly reminder to you.
Last edited:
He's a jet mate, but checked out and doesn't want to get injured for his future club. Put him in a half decent side he will take opposition teams to the cleaners. He's actually a more valuable footballer than Rioli as he can play midfield and kick 30-50 goals a season. I want 2 firsts and a second for him, but i won't get my Christmas present .
Other way round for me unless we can get 2FR and a SR for Bolton. HBF are easier to replace and Rioli is a little bit older .
I'm not confusing anything. You are saying that its lower risk to target multiple drafts, but you have the same probability to screw your picks up across mutliple drafts. Actually probability wise, its probably easier to screw up by spreading the picks. As you suggest there are "duds" (you still haven't inferred what a dud is btw) in every draft. If you take 10 picks across 1 draft or 10 across 3, you actually have more chance (probability speaking) to screw it up by taking over 3 drafts, because at least taking every pick in 1 top 10, you are guaranteed you can pick the best players, you aren't guaranteed that by splitting it.
You assumption again is that the picks are correct, but that doesn't matter if you do it all in 1 draft or across multiple.
I haven't said anything about drafting elite or not, but countering your view that you lower the risk of spreading the picks when probability speaking, its actually the opposite.
Yes history shows that no-one has built their premiership list in 1 draft but when has that occurred before? When was the last time teams took lets say 4 picks inside 10? Probably going back to the GWS drafts, its just unheard of, but doesn't change probability.
