The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[TigerMasochist]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Why are we looking at Carlton as our yardstick on how we should be recruiting? Carlton have been just as an abysmal failure as us when it comes to onfield success. On top of it they have cheated their way through. Why don't we look at maybe a team like Adelaide who have managed to remain competitive over many years. They picked up Talia, Gunston, Craig in this draft, all talls. They already have Bock, Davis, Griffin, Hentschel, Maric, McKernan, Otten, Rutten, Sellar, Shaw, Stevens, Tippett and Young all over 190cm. So they had 13 talls and still chose 3 more in the draft. I envy the tall list they have built up. Some wont make it but they have enough to ensure that some will. The quality of the talls that they have compared to us is chalk and cheese. Look closely at the other very successful clubs and you'll notice a similar pattern.

EDIT: Sorry also missed Moran at 199cm, so make that 17 + rookies.

Would never use Carlscum as the yardstick for anything other than measuring elite lying cheating filth.
The mention of Carlscum was purely to highlight the fact that they took no talls where we actually took a couple, also to highlight their chief recruiters opinion that most of the talls on offer were perhaps worthy of rookie selection at best.

It's easy for the S.A. and W.A. teams to carry a few extra talls on their lists, their spare players get allocated to various league teams still getting a decent quality game if they miss the ones.
We feed our players back to Coburg with a minimum local player component to their sides so we often have our spares forced back to the Coburg magoos, great matchday experience for them.

 

[Tango]

brodders,

i have already said i would have taken 2 of the best available big bodied KPP with our last 2 picks instead of taking a small fwd and med utility or flanker

i would also be taking more talls in the pre or rookie drafts to try and get our tall stock up to about 20 allowing us the chance to trim the talls next year with those that are not up to it or those that are undersized

yes 20 would be more than we require and would eventually be trimmed back but at least we would have some cover for the developing and undersized kids we have now, if we cut simmonds and polak next year possibly another that didnt make it we would be at about 17 talls and then would be able to attak that draft in a more balanced approach - at least it would have given us more depth in the tall dept for next year

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Not much after pick 71.Mostly Rookie upgrades.So i don,t think we missed on much by taking Nason.

72. Sam Jacobs •••••••••••••••••Carl

73. Jesse O'Brien ••••••••••••••••Bris

74. Brodie Martin •••••••••••••••Adel

75. Josh Thomas •••••••••••••••••Coll

76. Shane Thorne ••••••••••••W Bull

77. Will Johnson •••••••••••••••••St K

78. pass•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Rich

79. Greg Broughton •••••••••••Frem

80. Cruize Garlett •••••••••••N Melb

81. pass •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Syd

82. Daniel Stewart •••••••••••••Port

83. Aaron Joseph •••••••••••••••Carl

84. Bryce Retzlaff ••••••••••••••••Bris

85. Simon Buckley ••••••••••••••Coll

86. Liam Picken•••••••••••••••W Bull

87. Zac Dawson •••••••••••••••••St K

88. Wade Thompson ••••••••••Port

89. Robin Nahas ••••••••••••••••Rich

90. Kristin Thornton •••••••••••••Syd

91. Matt Maguire ••••••••••••••••Bris

92. James Mulligan •••••••••W Bull

93. Luke Miles ••••••••••••••••••••St K

94. Andrew Browne ••••••••••••Rich

95. Pearce Hanley •••••••••••••••Bris

The same was probably said about Bock/Rutten/Lake/Fisher - none taken in top 50, all obviously considered B grade or C graders by the experts.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Would never use Carlscum as the yardstick for anything other than measuring elite lying cheating filth.
The mention of Carlscum was purely to highlight the fact that they took no talls where we actually took a couple, also to highlight their chief recruiters opinion that most of the talls on offer were perhaps worthy of rookie selection at best.

It's easy for the S.A. and W.A. teams to carry a few extra talls on their lists, their spare players get allocated to various league teams still getting a decent quality game if they miss the ones.
We feed our players back to Coburg with a minimum local player component to their sides so we often have our spares forced back to the Coburg magoos, great matchday experience for them.

This is a damn good point.

 

[GoodOne]

i dont think anyone is claiming our talls are in a healthy state. the debate we are having is what we should have done this draft.

you say we should have taken more talls. others including myself say we were right to take who we took, assuming we did so bc we believe they were best available. if we took smalls over better talls for list management i would be concerned.

you also go on about our list of talls for next year. how would you have gone about solving that problem?

Are you saying we are deciphering best available at picks 50,60,70? It's a lottery. Most teams pick for list management at this end of town. So maybe you should be concerned.

 

[Brodders17]

brodders,

i have already said i would have taken 2 of the best available big bodied KPP with our last 2 picks instead of taking a small fwd and med utility or flanker

i would also be taking more talls in the pre or rookie drafts to try and get our tall stock up to about 20 allowing us the chance to trim the talls next year with those that are not up to it or those that are undersized

yes 20 would be more than we require and would eventually be trimmed back but at least we would have some cover for the developing and undersized kids we have now, if we cut simmonds and polak next year possibly another that didnt make it we would be at about 17 talls and then would be able to attak that draft in a more balanced approach - at least it would have given us more depth in the tall dept for next year

i doubt talls taken late in the draft would add much to our team for next year.
i dont believe we should be drafting for next year, but part of your argument seems to be that we dont have the quantity of quality talls required next year therefore we should have reached for talls in the late part of the ND to solve that problem.

to clarify what i think your position is:
you think we should have taken more talls later in the ND regardless of whether we rated the equal to, slightly less capable than, or a hell of a long behind the guys we did take?
you think the answer to talls problem is to take as many as possible regardless of how we rate them and how we rate who we miss to get them?
you think that those who can see why we didnt take all the talls possible must think we have that area covered?
you think that drafting lowly rated young talls will provide cover for higher rated developing talls that we do have?

 

[Brodders17]

Are you saying we are deciphering best available at picks 50,60,70? It's a lottery. Most teams pick for list management at this end of town. So maybe you should be concerned.

disagree. teams for the most part go with guys they like. some selections will be influenced by list management, just like some early picks are influenced by list management.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

No-one is saying that. The question is primarily whether we should have drafted more KPPs this year and how may talls should there be on our list.

Most who are questioning the drafting of more KPP this year if there were none left that we thought could become AFL players, are saying it will have to be made up next year and the year after probably.

The "experts" are never wrong are they? They question the ability of players, both tall and short, every year. Fortunately, these ratings are often wrong, and many players taken late in the ND or in the rookie draft become very good AFL players. If you don't take a late tall you have no chance of knowing.

Sure we could use another Foley, but I'd prefer if we take a shot at a Bock or a Lake or an Egan

 

[TigerMasochist]

Are you saying we are deciphering best available at picks 50,60,70? It's a lottery. Most teams pick for list management at this end of town. So maybe you should be concerned.

Depends on whether the recruiter believes the leftover talls have the ability to even be worthy of consideration.
Perhaps the smartest option this late in the draft is to have some of the leftovers to the club for some more assessment work, find out how they react to missing out, throw some workload into them alongside the kids who did get drafted. Maybe even pinch some kid who has been invited to a rival club for further assessment.
If there's doubts on the young leftover talls then it's good management to rookie them, it's cheaper and there's no two year lock in rather than just pick them and pray at the end of the draft.

 

[GoodOne]

disagree. teams for the most part go with guys they like. so selections will be influenced by list management, just like some early picks are influenced by list management.

Huh, thats what I said, influenced by list management, not who they perceive is best available at picks 50,60 and 70 because that's impossible to decipher. As I said its a lottery so the smart way is to pick for your list management needs, not who you decipher is best available rgardless of position.

 

[IanG]

yes 20 would be more than we require and would eventually be trimmed back but at least we would have some cover for the developing and undersized kids we have now, if we cut simmonds and polak next year possibly another that didnt make it we would be at about 17 talls and then would be able to attak that draft in a more balanced approach - at least it would have given us more depth in the tall dept for next year

Draftees are given 2 year contracts, we can afford to cut 1 after 1 year but no more.

Brodders raises a good point, if we have 20 KPPs where are we going to play them all?

 

[GoodOne]

Depends on whether the recruiter believes the leftover talls have the ability to even be worthy of consideration.

At the ass end of the draft its impossible to predict. So may as well pick for list management, not some convoluted evaluation system. Understandable for your higher picks where much more information is available and likelihood of success is higher.

 

[GoodOne]

Draftees are given 2 year contracts, we can afford to cut 1 after 1 year but no more.

Brodders raises a good point, if we have 20 KPPs where are we going to play them all?

The same place other teams do.

 

[IanG]

The "experts" are never wrong are they? They question the ability of players, both tall and short, every year. Fortunately, these ratings are often wrong, and many players taken late in the ND or in the rookie draft become very good AFL players. If you don't take a late tall you have no chance of knowing.

Sure we could use another Foley, but I'd prefer if we take a shot at a Bock or a Lake or an Egan

So you're saying with late picks that we pick blindly based on nothing but list needs? IMHO late picks are more of a lottery but still need to be based on the informed opinion of the recruiting staff, good luck requires good management.

 

[IanG]

The same place other teams do.

No team has 20 KPPs.

 

[GoodOne]

No team has 20 KPPs.

Well Saints have 18, Adelaide 17, Dons 16 before the rookie draft (and they're the only ones I checked), so there may be a couple who will. As others have suggested, we don't have any talented proven talls like these other teams so we need to address this by recruiting a couple more than the others to ensure we get quality in the future. This is critical to our future, as our midfield will be primed within 2-4 years and if we dont have the talls to complement them, we can throw our next window of opportunity out the window.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

i doubt talls taken late in the draft would add much to our team for next year.
i dont believe we should be drafting for next year, but part of your argument seems to be that we dont have the quantity of quality talls required next year therefore we should have reached for talls in the late part of the ND to solve that problem.

to clarify what i think your position is:
you think we should have taken more talls later in the ND regardless of whether we rated the equal to, slightly less capable than, or a hell of a long behind the guys we did take?
you think the answer to talls problem is to take as many as possible regardless of how we rate them and how we rate who we miss to get them?
you think that those who can see why we didnt take all the talls possible must think we have that area covered?
you think that drafting lowly rated young talls will provide cover for higher rated developing talls that we do have?

YES - we are in a dire position
YES - especially instead of a Nason or a Dea or a Webberly
No one with sense can think we have the area covered
Lowly rated by people who many times get it wrong - given the status of our list I'd rather they get it wrong with a tall than a forward pocket or flanker

There is no end to this debate - many of us are of the opinion we have only 2 or 3 long term KPP currently on our list and we need to address it now. We are under no illusion that by selecting extra talls we would get a keeper. Th reality is most will fail.
The rest of you are satisfied the recruiters have done the right thing this year. The answer will become apparent in the years to come.

 

[GoodOne]

So you're saying with late picks that we pick blindly based on nothing but list needs? IMHO late picks are more of a lottery but still need to be based on the informed opinion of the recruiting staff, good luck requires good management.

Yes late picks are a lottery. If the player was a high chance of success they would be higher up in the draft. So the informed opinion isnt going to be anywhere near as accurate so you should recruit for list needs at that stage. Would have thought this is a given.

 

[IanG]

Well Saints have 18, Adelaide 17, Dons 16 before the rookie draft (and they're the only ones I checked), so there may be a couple who will. As others have suggested, we don't have any talented proven talls like these other teams so we need to address this by recruiting a couple more than the others to ensure we get quality in the future. This is critical to our future, as our midfield will be primed within 2-4 years and if we dont have the talls to complement them, we can throw our next window of opportunity out the window.

How is development going to occur properly if 8 of them are paying in Coburg reserves and that side is itself unbalanced? This year we were struggling to manipulate them as it was. The fact is after the rookie and PSD we will in all probabilility be in the middle of the pack in terms of the number of talls.

Yes late picks are a lottery. If the player was a high chance of success they would be higher up in the draft. So the informed opinion isnt going to be anywhere near as accurate so you should recruit for list needs at that stage. Would have thought this is a given.

Informed opinion will lessen the chance of picking a dud even at that late stage, I would have thought that was a given. As I said good luck requires good management.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

So you're saying with late picks that we pick blindly based on nothing but list needs? IMHO late picks are more of a lottery but still need to be based on the informed opinion of the recruiting staff, good luck requires good management.

Where did I say we pick blindly? Why would they be blind picks if done by dedicated recruiting staff?

I would love someone from the club to provide some info on why we didn't go a tall or 2 late in the draft - if it was that they don't think there were any near good enough or that they are satisifed we have enough emerging talls.

I think they have done the wrong thing, you are satisfied and you have every right to support guys in paid positions with lots more information available to them than me.