Pick 11...... KPP or Mid?

[John Dee 445]

If he was pick 50 and failed then OK. But at pick 9 and nothing but a delisting then that's ouch.

Molan was a bust, no doubt about that, but he didn't fail because of lack of talent. CC's comments post debacle also seem mostly self-serving. He just had the capacity to get injured in every way immaginable. Doing your knee after being knocked unconcious and falling after marking the ball, and that was just for starters.

The debacle was mostly a result of extreme misfortune, rather than the fault of CC or Molan. Every draft has stories like this, just nowhere near as bad.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Molan was a bust, no doubt about that, but he didn't fail because of lack of talent. CC's comments post debacle also seem mostly self-serving. He just had the capacity to get injured in every way immaginable. Doing your knee after being knocked unconcious and falling after marking the ball, and that was just for starters.

The debacle was mostly a result of extreme misfortune, rather than the fault of CC or Molan. Every draft has stories like this, just nowhere near as bad.

We will never really know if it was lack of talent. i had heard reports going both ways on Molan. But based on Camerons assessment, it seemed to me we got a young KPP ahead of his station in the draft and it did not work out. It cost us pick 9 hurt.

You are right though. Its not isolated and we are not the only ones who stuff it up. We got Sylvia and Brock at 3 and 5 in 2003 and there many other Clubs who blew first round picks on no value players....And then there is Richmond...

[Guest hangon007]

You are right though. Its not isolated and we are not the only ones who stuff it up. We got Sylvia and Brock at 3 and 5 in 2003 and there many other Clubs who blew first round picks on no value players....And then there is Richmond...

At least we/you have the refreshing honest to admit it ... those blokes down at Tigerland still can't see the error.

Edited October 26, 2009 by hangon007

[old55 22,853]

You could say that the mistake with Molan wasn't so much putting needs ahead of talent - but completely misreading Molan's market worth. We needed tall defenders and he may have been the best potential tall defender in the draft - it's just that he wasn't worth any more than pick 50.

The 2001 draft is a good example of not fixing on a tall - OK if we didn't take Molan at 9 we would have had to take Matt Maguire, Aaron Rogers, Tom Davidson, LRT, Ashley Hansen, Henry Playfair or Brad Miller - sure some of them would've been better than Molan but we would've passed on Brent Reilly, Nick Dal Santo, James Kelly, Steve Johnson, Sam Mitchell and Leigh Montagna - all went before Hansen. We went tall with 3 picks in a row - but you can't pick a good tall if there isn't any there.

we took:

Molan - Rogers

even best case talls:

Maguire - LRT

when we could've had:

Dal Santo - Mitchell

Brian Harris was taken at 71 in that draft, but then Dane Swan was taken at 58.

Surely on that evidence no-one can say we MUST take talls at 11 and 18.

Scully-Trengove-Maguire-LRT OR

Scully-Trengove-Dal Santo-Mitchell

which one are you going to be happiest looking back on?

Best available.

Edited October 26, 2009 by old55

[Hobbits's 17]

Best available pick at 11 or 18. However, does anyone believe that one of those picks must definitely be a KPP for our club? In my opinion i think it should. I can recall Bailey saying mid year that the club needs a good mid and key forward.

[Guest Watts=Saviour]

I'd take Talia in a heartbeat if available, even if we could take Butcher.

I don't really care though, I'll be happy with a mid.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

Best available.

Beautifully put.

End of argument I would have thought.

By the way, when comparing a key position forward and a midfielder how do you determine "best available"? What do you take into account in your judgement?

[Carn dees 108]

Beautifully put.

End of argument I would have thought.

By the way, when comparing a key position forward and a midfielder how do you determine "best available"? What do you take into account in your judgement?

Which will play their role the better i guess.

[Hiram Cowfreak 76]

I reckon we'll be chasing an indigenous player with pick 11..... Jetta, and if gone, Troy Taylor.

Too much work going into the Darwin campaign to not stock up on local boys (Taylor is from the NT I think) and we are steadily putting together a formidable team of "brothers" who are going to be a joy to watch for the next 10 years.

[hoopla 418]

The 2001 draft is a good example of not fixing on a tall - OK if we didn't take Molan at 9 we would have had to take Matt Maguire, Aaron Rogers, Tom Davidson, LRT, Ashley Hansen, Henry Playfair or Brad Miller - sure some of them would've been better than Molan but we would've passed on Brent Reilly, Nick Dal Santo, James Kelly, Steve Johnson, Sam Mitchell and Leigh Montagna - all went before Hansen. We went tall with 3 picks in a row - but you can't pick a good tall if there isn't any there.

we took:

Molan - Rogers

even best case talls:

Maguire - LRT

when we could've had:

Dal Santo - Mitchell

Brian Harris was taken at 71 in that draft, but then Dane Swan was taken at 58.

Surely on that evidence no-one can say we MUST take talls at 11 and 18.

Scully-Trengove-Maguire-LRT OR

Scully-Trengove-Dal Santo-Mitchell

which one are you going to be happiest looking back on?

Best available.

With hindsight, you'd have to think that the 2 All Australians in that list were just about the best recruits of 2001 - Swan (58) and Lake (Harris) (71). Lake vies with Scarlett as the best tall defender in the competition.

Do you ignore the need for a balanced list - when your "best available" will not necessarily turn out to be the " best player"?

An 18 year old tall may have further to go than an 18 year old small - but that doesn't mean he won't make it.

Realistically there is not going to be a lot to choose between picks 5 and 20. When in doubt look at the balance of your list

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

When in doubt look at the balance of your list

So, Barry Prendergast is sitting at the National Draft with pick 11 and looks at his options. There is a midfielder there he is 95% confident will play 100+ games of AFL football and who has good skills. Then there is a KPF who he is 50% confident will play 100+ games of AFL football but who has known faults.

At pick 18 he thinks there will be a midfielder who is 60% sure of playing 100+ games and a KPF who he thinks is 40% sure of playing 100+ games, but of course he can't be certain.

Nobody argues we don't need a KPF but in this circumstance who do you pick?

[old55 22,853]

By the way, when comparing a key position forward and a midfielder how do you determine "best available"? What do you take into account in your judgement?

What's the likelihood that they'll play ANY effective AFL football.

If there's any doubt about that then I wouldn't be using pick 11 or 18 on them.

That would be the place I'd start.

Then I'd move up through the levels.

What's the likelihood they'll be a 100 game player?

What's the likelihood they'll be a 200 game player?

What's the likelihood they'll be a star?

I would avoid getting involved in the relative value of roles - it's an impossible task.

I'd just assess whether they can compete in the designated role.

I hope for example that this is how we picked Watts over Naitanui and Rich last year.

There is/was some possibility that Naitanui wouldn't play any effective AFL football - so Watts wins

While they'll both probably play 200 games Watts is more likely to be a star that Rich - so Watts wins.

If the two players in question had equal likelihood then I'd pick on need.

I know it's not that simple but that's the basis for a decision.

Otherwise you risk picking Molan over James Kelly.

[old55 22,853]

So, Barry Prendergast is sitting at the National Draft with pick 11 and looks at his options. There is a midfielder there he is 95% confident will play 100+ games of AFL football and who has good skills. Then there is a KPF who he is 50% confident will play 100+ games of AFL football but who has known faults.

At pick 18 he thinks there will be a midfielder who is 60% sure of playing 100+ games and a KPF who he thinks is 40% sure of playing 100+ games, but of course he can't be certain.

Nobody argues we don't need a KPF but in this circumstance who do you pick?

We appear to have been posting at the same time.

According to my approach:

11. as the old saying goes - 9 times out of 10 the Mid, the other time think about it for a minute then take the Mid

18. Now you're in the range where they may be close enough to equal - a good recruiter would admit a fair % error range.

What's the relative likelihood that the KP will be a star compared with that mid?

What do we need - do I assume KP?

Neither of them sounds much chop at 18 actually - how does the ruckman look?

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

Good stuff Old, that's a very good start I would have thought although I would argue you'd have to take into account the "role" that someone plays. Mids v KPP v Rucks v Flankers v Taggers. There must be a "rarity" factor in there and there must be some sort of "value" factor.

All I'm really trying to point out is that I think the well worn phrase "best available" is a crock of rot because you can't compare the different roles. Whether it is formal or otherwise there is a matrix that leads the Barry Prendergast's of this world to call out a players name.

Anyone heard of "Moneyball"?

[Fat Tony 5,090]

I don't think we should be taking a KPP at #11 unless we consider him the next best player (or thereabouts).

I also question the desperate need for another KPF. While it appears as though we need one at the moment because we are struggling, last year we drafted two KPF with star potential (Watts and Jurrah) and Bate is still fairly young and is developing into a good third tall forward.

Players that don’t excite me at #11 are Carlisle, Panos and Vardy. If we pick any of those that early I think BP will be partially selecting on a needs basis. I also think we will be very lucky if Butcher slips through to #11.

At #18 I would again go for the next best player if it is clear cut (although if it is a close call I would have a slight bias for a KPP if we don’t take one at #11).

[hoopla 418]

................. I would argue you'd have to take into account the "role" that someone plays. Mids v KPP v Rucks v Flankers v Taggers. There must be a "rarity" factor in there and there must be some sort of "value" factor.

All I'm really trying to point out is that I think the well worn phrase "best available" is a crock of rot because you can't compare the different roles. Whether it is formal or otherwise there is a matrix that leads the Barry Prendergast's of this world to call out a players name.

Anyone heard of "Moneyball"?

"Crock of Rot".Good call

... and the rarity and value factors are driven by the balance of your list

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,857]

So, Barry Prendergast is sitting at the National Draft with pick 11 and looks at his options. There is a midfielder there he is 95% confident will play 100+ games of AFL football and who has good skills. Then there is a KPF who he is 50% confident will play 100+ games of AFL football but who has known faults.

At pick 18 he thinks there will be a midfielder who is 60% sure of playing 100+ games and a KPF who he thinks is 40% sure of playing 100+ games, but of course he can't be certain.

Nobody argues we don't need a KPF but in this circumstance who do you pick?

Mid at 11. KPF at 18.

[Axis of Bob 11,219]

I think that the need to address the needs of your list depends very much on how close you believe your team is to competing for a flag. As an example, take Geelong. Geelong, for years, focussed on taking good running players with their picks that were generally around pick 10. Their first picks each year, from 1999 to today, were (with players traded for with early picks in brackets): Joel Corey, Josh Hunt (Murphy/White), James Bartel, Andrew Mackie, Kane Tenace, Brent Prismall (Ottens), Travis Varcoe, Joel Selwood, Harry Taylor, Mitchell Brown.

Interestingly, every one of those players were running midfielder types, until they drafted in Harry Taylor and Mitch Brown. But by the time they started picking talls they were well into premiership mode. But up until that point, Geelong just kept stocking up on the most obvious talent available.

Geelong traded for a ruckman (Ottens), drafted one father-son (Blake) and rookied one (Mumford). Their key position players were: Scarlett (drafted father son in 1997), Taylor (drafted as a mature player to replace Egan, who was drafted late), Harley (traded on the cheap from Port in 1998), Mooney (traded for late picks in 1999 after being drafted late in 1996), Hawkins (drafted father son in 2006).

While Geelong have been lucky in getting a few father son picks, with Ablett and Scarlett being the most prominent, Geelong have managed to get their key position players sorted out relatively cheaply. Only Taylor (who was an Egan replacement) and Ottens (who was a ruckman trade), have cost them picks in the first round. Meanwhile they have locked in the obvious talent with their early picks and not really speculated at all.

How does this reflect on the Dees? Well if you look at Melbourne's list, we already have our talls in defence sorted out (Frawley, Warnock, Garland and Rivers) and we are better set for key forwards with Watts. Perhaps there's a need for a key forward in a perfect world, but in reality we may not really need another given that we have a number of very dangerous marking players in Jurrah, Morton, Bate, with an able workman in Miller to crunch packs in a similar way tot he modestly talented Mooney.

But what Geelong have are top end midfielders that cut up the opposition. We don't yet have this. But the best way to do this is to keep loading up on the most obvious talent available early. If we need to give up a talented midfielder closer to our premiership tilt in order to fill a gap (like Geelong did with Moloney to get Ottens) then so be it. When we get close to the flag, then we can start reaching to fill our needs. Until that time, we just keep on picking the most obvious talent.

Have we done this so far? Since 2003, our early picks (first round) have been: Sylvia, McLean, Bate, Dunn, Jones, Frawley, Morton, Grimes, (Maric), Watts, (Blease, Strauss). Plus this year we look like taking Scully and Trengove. then we have picks 11 and 18. Luckily we haven't really missed too often with those picks and we haven't really reached early for those players. The result is that we have a good base of talent on our list and we just need to keep adding to it. The more talent we have on the list = the easier it is to trade to fix a weakness when we really need to.

Just keep on picking the most obvious talent

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,389]

Best available and if that means 4 mids - so be it.

I'd be stunned if it plays out that way.

I hope we take the best available player that happens to be a KPF at #11.

[rpfc 28,052]

I'd be stunned if it plays out that way.

I hope we take the best available player that happens to be a KPF at #11.

That's the kind of forward thinking that sees Luke Molan play his 150th early next year as the FF for the MFC.

[Darren Cuthbertson 0]

With hindsight, you'd have to think that the 2 All Australians in that list were just about the best recruits of 2001 - Swan (58) and Lake (Harris) (71). Lake vies with Scarlett as the best tall defender in the competition.

Do you ignore the need for a balanced list - when your "best available" will not necessarily turn out to be the " best player"?

An 18 year old tall may have further to go than an 18 year old small - but that doesn't mean he won't make it.

Realistically there is not going to be a lot to choose between picks 5 and 20. When in doubt look at the balance of your list

You got this method reading the book The Draft and hence you are taking a Hawthorn type approach to recruiting and trying to make it your own.

[old55 22,853]

The more talent we have on the list = the easier it is to trade to fix a weakness when we really need to.

If we are in flag mode and realise that we're a KP and/or ruckman away from a complete set then we can trade one in.

Look at this year with Fevola, Hall and Bradshaw - Jolly, Seaby and Mumford all on the move.

We'll have 1st rounders every year and a stockpile of guaranteed good players for trade.

[hoopla 418]

You got this method reading the book The Draft and hence you are taking a Hawthorn type approach to recruiting and trying to make it your own.

Why not ? Hawthorn's approach to recruiting just won them a flag........

[beelzebub 23,200]

If we are in flag mode and realise that we're a KP and/or ruckman away from a complete set then we can trade one in.

Look at this year with Fevola, Hall and Bradshaw - Jolly, Seaby and Mumford all on the move.

We'll have 1st rounders every year and a stockpile of guaranteed good players for trade.

I think this is a better way of viewing it all. If were warehousing some players with a view to using as depth and then as trade collateral later then you need to take the best 4. I would have thought 3 mids and a 'something"

[Darren Cuthbertson 0]

Why not ? Hawthorn's approach to recruiting just won them a flag........

But they thought outside the square as you know -recruiting Dew and Rioli.

As CAC's biggest critic and a Caro lover please detail your draft wish list.