51 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree wholeheartedly, I can't believe we haven't been linked to any of Papley, Martin or Brad Hill. These guys are the exact kind of players we need. It's a bit disheartening as either we haven't bothered or were quickly rebuffed.

All of them are too expensive. Doesn't mean we haven't reached out.

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by A F

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We thought we'd raided the draft from 2007-2009 and so wouldn't be impacted because we had already stocked up. We stuffed those 3 years of picks, no one else to blame.

Hang on Gonzo

You and at least 95% of the supporter agreed with going all-in on the draft AND with all the choices as well

The club did exactly what the supporter base wanted it do.  So you can't complain now.  Nor can anyone else for that matter.  Be careful what you wish for was never more apt.

With the odd exception we were all-in on the tanking too.  Lets be honest here. 

And you know my views on the draft.  Are you still a believer despite all the evidence to the contrary?  Weideman is another top 10 pick and he could end up adding to the long list of busts.

I have been an advocate of trading picks for decades now.  The safe,  sensible and assured way of bringing talent to the club.  In fact,  if the club had have gone down the trading path the years of misery wouldn't have happened.

And if anyone thinks I'm talking in hindsight go back and have a search of my posting.  I've been nothing but consistent.  For decades.

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Macca

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Hang on Gonzo

You and at least 95% of the supporter agreed with going all-in on the draft AND with all the choices as well

The club did exactly what the supporter base wanted it do.  So you can't complain now.  Nor can anyone else for that matter.  Be careful what you wish was never more apt.

With the odd exception we were all-in on the tanking too.  Lets be honest here. 

And you know my views on the draft.  Are you still a believer despite all the evidence to the contrary?  Weideman is another top 10 pick and he could end up adding to the long list of busts.

I have been an advocate of trading picks for decades now.  The safe,  sensible and assured way of bringing talent to the club.  In fact,  if the club had have gone down the trading path the years of misery wouldn't have happened.

And if anyone thinks I'm talking in hindsight go back and have a search of my posting.  I've been nothing but consistent.  For decades.

I was definitely all in on the strategy, including tanking to ensure we secured the priority pick. I am not saying the strategy was wrong, just the execution.

Drafting is an inexact science especially in our game where we take kids out of high school and expect them to come into a bottom placed team and singlehandedly drag them back up the ladder. I don't think you can discount the draft though, it's still the best way to secure elite talent. You can trade out draft picks but the chances of prying an elite player from an opposition team is extremely small even if you do offer them a top draft pick or 2 in return.

The answer in my mind is to target mid-upper range players via trade, continue to identify the traits that can't be taught in drafting (skill, game awareness and competitiveness) and too up with free agency. If the FA rules are changed this will give more flexibility in securing talent via this method but as it stands it is extremely unlikely you will get a guy like Tom lybch via FA, it's more likely to be a guy like Tomlinson.

With the odd exception we all wanted and/or willingly accepted Scully,  Morton,  Toumpas,  Watts,  Trengove,  McLean,  Sylvia (RIP),  Gysberts,  Cook,  Maric,  Strauss,  Blease & Tapscott.  And others.

The draft is flawed,  always has been and always will be.  We pluck these kids out of high school,  bestow greatness on them and when those ridiculous expectations aren't met we lash out at anything and everything. Madness.

The club,  the recruiters and then the player in question gets the blame.  And then we start banging on about who we should have picked instead.

This place has any number of threads and posts all based on a myth. 

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Macca

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I was definitely all in on the strategy, including tanking to ensure we secured the priority pick. I am not saying the strategy was wrong, just the execution.

Drafting is an inexact science especially in our game where we take kids out of high school and expect them to come into a bottom placed team and singlehandedly drag them back up the ladder. I don't think you can discount the draft though, it's still the best way to secure elite talent. You can trade out draft picks but the chances of prying an elite player from an opposition team is extremely small even if you do offer them a top draft pick or 2 in return.

The answer in my mind is to target mid-upper range players via trade, continue to identify the traits that can't be taught in drafting (skill, game awareness and competitiveness) and too up with free agency. If the FA rules are changed this will give more flexibility in securing talent via this method but as it stands it is extremely unlikely you will get a guy like Tom lybch via FA, it's more likely to be a guy like Tomlinson.

The draft has failed us but the warning signs were there and are always there.  The buy-in is way over the top.  I've never understood it (the buy-in)

It's as if people don't want to question anything they've been told.  And they don't know when to quit.  Have a read of the post directly above.

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Macca

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

That's right

With the odd exception you all wanted and/or willingly accepted Scully,  Morton,  Toumpas,  Watts,  Trengove,  McLean,  Sylvia (RIP),  Gysberts,  Cook,  Maric,  Strauss,  Blease & Tapscott.  And others.

The draft is flawed,  always has been and always will be.  We pluck these kids out of high school,  bestow greatness on them and when those ridiculous expectations aren't met we lash out at anything and everything. Madness.

The club,  the recruiters and then the player in question gets the blame.  And then we start banging on about who we should have picked instead.

This place has any number of threads and posts all based on a myth. 

But it's not the draft per se that's the problem. If we selected Dangerfield instead of Morton, nicnat over watts, Martin over trengove Wines over toumpas etc things would be seen a hell of a lot differently. It's easy to say in hindsight but a lot of these were not outrageous (probably Dangerfield was never in the discussion but the rest certainly were hotly debated).

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

The draft has failed us but the warning signs were there and are always there.  The buy-in is way over the top.  I've never understood it (the buy-in)

It's as if people don't want to question anything they've been told.  And they don't know when to quit.  Have a read of the post directly above.

It depends on the ability to identify talent/traits, the ability to identify what YOUR team needs and how that player will fit in to your structures and the environment they're coming in to

The Cleveland Browns can keep drafting top 3 picks til the cows come home and theyre out if the league in 3 years while the Patriots keep picking in the 20s/30s and finding guys who plug gaps in their next Superbowl team.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But it's not the draft per se that's the problem. If we selected Dangerfield instead of Morton, nicnat over watts, Martin over trengove Wines over toumpas etc things would be seen a hell of a lot differently. It's easy to say in hindsight but a lot of these were not outrageous (probably Dangerfield was never in the discussion but the rest certainly were hotly debated).

And if your Aunty had balls she'd be your Uncle

What the hell were you saying at the time?  Serious question.  But be careful,  everything you said at the time is written in stone.  Everythng.  Own your words.

All these if's and but's are BS. Pure BS

We picked star under 18 prospects.  All of them were standout juniors.  All of them.

The draft is flawed.  It's factual,  not an opinion. 

You've been sold a lemon Gonzo.  You and 1000's of others.  Wake up and quit your complaining

The clubs choices were your choices.  Deal with it.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It depends on the ability to identify talent/traits, the ability to identify what YOUR team needs and how that player will fit in to your structures and the environment they're coming in to

The Cleveland Browns can keep drafting top 3 picks til the cows come home and theyre out if the league in 3 years while the Patriots keep picking in the 20s/30s and finding guys who plug gaps in their next Superbowl team.

Rubbish

It's a cop-out to blame the clubs.  The soft option. Weak.

The draft and drafting is flawed

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Spot on LH.  They need to improve their culture and their ability to develop and retain players, not add more young kids to the mix who might bolt in a few years time.  And that comes from all of the things you've mentioned above.

While I'm not fussed at all with our picks changing, I'm disappointed to see that the AFL have been very short sighted in the 'help' they've given to the Suns.

I don't get it. Some of you seem to care more about GC than Melbourne - offering advice about what they need etc

 

I couldn't give a sh $&#t about GC. I only care about one team, and it's been screwed yet again. I realize I picking recruits isn't an exact science but all the experts are saying there are two standouts in this year's draft and we just had one of them stolen from us.

And if we go to the draft with pick 3 the messiah belief system will kick into gear

Like night follows day.  It's what we do. 

Again and again and again.  We haven't had a top end pick for a while so it stands to reason.

Plenty of top players have been swapped for 1 top 10 pick.  Of late Hogan,  May,  Prestia,  Lynch,  Sheil and a number of others. 

We should do the same or similar.  In fact,  it's what the club has started doing re Lever & May. 

Should we go back to Oscar & Frost instead? 

Yeah,  we could have gone to the draft with the picks but then what?  More busts? 

I don't like the odds with drafting.  Never have.  It's a poor percentage play if all the data is properly analysed.

Give me proven talent any day of the week.  Draft picks are overvalued anyway so how can you lose by trading picks for proven talent?

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree wholeheartedly, I can't believe we haven't been linked to any of Papley, Martin or Brad Hill. These guys are the exact kind of players we need. It's a bit disheartening as either we haven't bothered or were quickly rebuffed.

Under the current AFL system clubs dont choose players the players choose the clubs.

100% word of truth. The players (or manager to be more precise) will sound out clubs interest and present the options which best suit the players needs. Money and success are generally the highest priorities.

We should be thankful some players still believe in loyalty and comradeship. 

One of the msin reasons why the draft is such a big deal for struggling clubs is because if you're unable to attract contracted talent the draft is the only option.

And we all know how successful that option alone  is. We are not the only example of self combustion

I've said my peace on the afl enough for one night 

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

1 minute ago, Jara said:

I don't get it. Some of you seem to care more about GC than Melbourne - offering advice about what they need etc

 

I couldn't give a sh $&#t about GC. I only care about one team, and it's been screwed yet again. I realize I picking recruits isn't an exact science but all the experts are saying there are two standouts in this year's draft and we just had one of them stolen from us.

Scully & Trengove were the standout picks too.  Martin was 3rd pick but was always 3rd choice

Yet Martin is now being talked about as an all-time great and one of the best ever.  Pick 3.

And even though pick 3 'could' unearth another star the smarter percentage play is to trade the pick for proven talent.  At least you know what you're getting that way.  And draft picks are grossly overvalued

There's even a points system attached to the picks as if busts should never happen.  It's just nonsense.  Pure unadulterated nonsense.

18 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Under the current AFL system clubs dont choose players the players choose the clubs.

100% word of truth. The players (or manager to be more precise) will sound out clubs interest and present the options which best suit the players needs. Money and success are generally the highest priorities.

We should be thankful some players still believe in loyalty and comradeship. 

One of the msin reasons why the draft is such a big deal for struggling clubs is because if you're unable to attract contracted talent the draft is the only option.

And we all know how successful that option alone  is. We are not the only example of self combustion

I've said my peace on the afl enough for one night 

It shouldn't necessarily be assumed that clubs go to the draft because they can't attract proven talent.  It's my belief that a lot of clubs don't realise that drafting is flawed

But the thinking has changed and is still changing.  Clubs give up top 10 picks for talent a lot more than they used to

GWS get it but probably by default.  They have off-loaded top 10 picks who don't measure up a lot quicker than any other club.  So as to double-dip and even triple-dip through the draft.  The odds are about 50/50 so if you get a stack of chances in the one year .....

Yet people point the finger at them for picking players in the draft who don't measure up.  Same as they do for every other club.  GCS on the other hand hang on to top end picks in a reverse way but lose their good choices to the vultures down South.

With drafting I prefer to embrace the bad news as well.  Most others don't want to know about the bad news.  They simply prefer to blame the clubs for the hundreds of busts that the draft delivers (over time)  Or they throw out the 'Development' card.  Another cop-out.

Great players with great talent are born. But the great under 18 form is only a guide.  It is not foolproof.  The facts bear that appraisal out.

If we improve enough in 2020 we can get shafted by next year's priority pick too.

A hidden gem in the pps to GCS is the first pick of the second round (currently #20). 

It is very valuable due to the structure of the draft schedule (Day 1 is for round 1 only) and of live pick trading.  Last year the first 3 picks of the second round were traded overnight after round 1 as clubs traded up the order for any preferred players not taken in round 1.  Those picks are so valuable the AFL has left Day 2 of the draft free this year for clubs to set up live-pick trade positions. 

GCS can extract maximum value for pick #20 should they trade it.  Whoever holds it, it will be a very valuable chip in live trading come the end of Day 1 of the draft.

The live-trade premium for our pick #20 is the reason we reportedly do not want to trade it to Freo for Langdon.  I would really like the club to stand its ground on this and find another way to give value for Langdon.  Please don't blink, Dees!

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But it's not the draft per se that's the problem. If we selected Dangerfield instead of Morton, nicnat over watts, Martin over trengove Wines over toumpas etc things would be seen a hell of a lot differently. It's easy to say in hindsight but a lot of these were not outrageous (probably Dangerfield was never in the discussion but the rest certainly were hotly debated).

Agree. The choices were scattered. 

I was fully behind selections of Morton Watts Scully Trengove . They were right at the time. 

Had extreme surprise with Gysberts Cook Tapscott Maric and even Bennell.  How we missed Sloane after “promising” him is another complete BP shocker. 

Toumpas over Wines was ridiculous.  Wines and Viney made sense  

Agree with Oliver over Parish.  

Agree with Trac and Brayshaw. 

Lever for 2x 1st rounders is still a strange one. 

8 hours ago, Macca said:

It shouldn't necessarily be assumed that clubs go to the draft because they can't attract proven talent.  It's my belief that a lot of clubs don't realise that drafting is flawed

But the thinking has changed and is still changing.  Clubs give up top 10 picks for talent a lot more than they used to

GWS get it but probably by default.  They have off-loaded top 10 picks who don't measure up a lot quicker than any other club.  So as to double-dip and even triple-dip through the draft.  The odds are about 50/50 so if you get a stack of chances in the one year .....

Yet people point the finger at them for picking players in the draft who don't measure up.  Same as they do for every other club.  GCS on the other hand hang on to top end picks in a reverse way but lose their good choices to the vultures down South.

With drafting I prefer to embrace the bad news as well.  Most others don't want to know about the bad news.  They simply prefer to blame the clubs for the hundreds of busts that the draft delivers (over time)  Or they throw out the 'Development' card.  Another cop-out.

Great players with great talent are born. But the great under 18 form is only a guide.  It is not foolproof.  The facts bear that appraisal out.

Agree with your points @Macca

What makes the AFL so hard is the talent is limited and the options to attract and recruit players is also limited, and both can be affected by AFL house decision on a year to year basis.

I agree with posters above like Steve etc. Success is heavily reliant on having your house in order. But we also need to understand the restrictions

Its a tough industry. Nothing is a given and continued AFL assistance is an insult to the league.

I don't care what our strategy is (draft and rebuild or bring in talent via FA and trading). Just stick to it and see it through (specify a realistic time frame), support the prople and strategy and build something for once. Dont crumble when it gets too hard.

Anyway a bit off topic. It will be very interesting to see what we do with pick 3. I have a strong feeling we will chsae established talent and i think thats a good idea.

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

12 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Agree with your points @Macca

What makes the AFL so hard is the talent is limited and the options to attract and recruit players is also limited, and both can be affected by AFL house decision on a year to year basis.

I agree with posters above like Steve etc. Success is heavily reliant on having your house in order. But we also need to understand the restrictions

Its a tough industry. Nothing is a given and continued AFL assistance is an insult to the league.

I don't care what our strategy is (draft and rebuild or bring in talent via FA and trading). Just stick to it and see it through (specify a realistic time frame), support the prople and strategy and build something for once. Dont crumble when it gets too hard.

Anyway a bit off topic. It will be very interesting to see what we do with pick 3. I have a strong feeling we will chsae established talent and i think thats a good idea.

Our strategy was to srick to it and see it through (drafting) but it failed spectacularly

So again,  the club did what the supporter group wanted it to do.  So we cannot complain now

You make your chouces,  you live with them.

Now ww've changed tack (finally) and are trading for talent.  Again,  the choice of many. 

This time around,  it should work out.  We still have to use the draft for at least 3 choices but those choices will still deliver unknown results

You never 'nail' draft choices.  You get lucky.

 

 

George Santayana said "Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

How many early draft picks have Gold Coast had?

Where are they on the ladder?

Is it working?

If I put water in a tank and it is leaking, should I keep putting water in or fix the leak?

These questions  are not ground breaking or new, why the hell have the AFL not addressed the problem? 

Fix the leaks first!

10 hours ago, A F said:

All of them are too expensive. Doesn't mean we haven't reached out.

I would not be paying $800k plus for any of them. Anyone complaining why we aren't having a crack must think we have no salary cap.

10 hours ago, A F said:

Who would you / are you drafting this year, Stevo? Who's your top 5?

I was joking really.

Dont know enough about thus years current crop to make a comment. 

But from what I've read and seen, I'd be happy with Serong at pick 3 if we hold on to it. 

Has all the attributes we need for a small high pressure forward who can also run through the midfield. 

We need to nail our drafting this year... gc will continually get concessions because it is a [censored] club with no real supporter base.

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Agree. The choices were scattered. 

I was fully behind selections of Morton Watts Scully Trengove . They were right at the time. 

Had extreme surprise with Gysberts Cook Tapscott Maric and even Bennell.  How we missed Sloane after “promising” him is another complete BP shocker. 

Toumpas over Wines was ridiculous.  Wines and Viney made sense  

Agree with Oliver over Parish.  

Agree with Trac and Brayshaw. 

Lever for 2x 1st rounders is still a strange one. 

What matters is what the large majority of the supporter base thought at the time

As individuals,  we have our own thoughts but do those thoughts even matter?  I'd say an emphatic no.

I would have traded a lot of those picks but it isn't about me.  I might have been right too but what is done,  is done. 

Edited September 30, 20195 yr by Macca

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

What matters is what the large majority of the supporter base thought at the time

As individuals,  we have our own thoughts but do those thoughts even matter?  I'd say an emphatic no.

I would have traded a lot of those picks but it isn't about me.  I might have been right too but what is done,  is done. 

I'd say that matters the least