Leak draft plans

[saynta]

Were you on here in 2012

Most were eating out of Pelchen’s hand and thought his little spreadsheet was a Blueprint to glory!!!

It was like the Simpsons Monorail on here!!!

Getting rid of BJ, McEvoy and Dal was a master stroke. Genius stuff!!!

I have always referred to him as pelican s***.

[Sanctorum]

You know what they say about 'common sense' and it not being very common.

Given the AFL industry and the wider world of drafting sports aren't following your rules a book would go gangsters. Or maybe a pamphlet if you don't have enough rules for a book.

What I think isn't really important because I don't have any power to do anything about it (and I don't have a potentially revolutionary book in my head), but personally I think I stand closer to the general sporting world thinking that drafting and trading is too complex to have any fixed rules, only what is best for your team in any particular moment.

That's the only rule on draft night, all other possible scenarios are just idle speculation....

[B.M]

If you don’t have any rules

You fall for temptation and give in to gut feels and it becomes amateurish.

You definitely need parameters and rigid plans about a few principles

Don’t ever trade out of the first round - pretty obvious
Take best player available with every First and Second round pick!

These are things that stand out to me after following the draft since we fkd up with Daniel Healy.

I’ll say it again

You DONT draft for the now, if you think that way you have zero idea!

Drafting only becomes complicated when you are not clear on the objectives

[Yorkeys]

Isn't the main complication that no one knows how a recruit is going to turn out and there are miriad of variables at play.
How come Chris Waller didn't buy Knight's Choice.

[Nick DalSanto Claus]

Draft for the future. Trade for the present. Geelong, Hawthorn, the Swines and Brisbane have done this well in recent times.

Occasionally, there are gems who fulfill both categories. Harley Reid and Will Ashcroft are good recent examples who are too good to pass up if they become available.

Our best opportunities, historically, have been Judd instead of Ball, Petracca instead of McCartin, Naughton over Coffield, Bontempelli over Billings etc. It just makes me frustrated and sad.

The main factor in play in these examples is the incompetence of the recruiters. You can't beat stupid, no matter how favorable your circumstances are.

[St Dave]

If you don’t have any rules

You fall for temptation and give in to gut feels and it becomes amateurish.

You definitely need parameters and rigid plans about a few principles

Don’t ever trade out of the first round - pretty obvious
Take best player available with every First and Second round pick!

These are things that stand out to me after following the draft since we fkd up with Daniel Healy.

I’ll say it again

You DONT draft for the now, if you think that way you have zero idea!

Drafting only becomes complicated when you are not clear on the objectives

I appreciate you are a black and white kind of guy, but I would argue bring so rigid as to just take the next best guy is amateurish. If you are just taking the next guy off a list you could probably just sack the entire recruiting team and save the club a lot of money. Certainly one way to make it uncomplicated, but I wouldn't be expecting great results.

The only time you can be rigid in your thinking is with pick 1. After that you always have to plan and be ready to adapt and take advantage of opportunities.

You say you risk falling for temptation and gut feels, but that is the entirety of drafting. Drafts aren't solved going in, the first pick isn't always the best player. Drafting is like investing, no-one can predict the future so you need to do your research and make your best guess based on the info you can gather, and even then something unforeseen can completely ruin you despite all your plans.

Your rules have too many exceptions to be serious rules (if you are close to winning a grand final and can trade your first pick for the player you are missing of course you do it), but I am open to changing my mind when your book revolutionises the AFL.

[Brunswicksainter]

I think given our recent list movements it would be truly shocking if we take both pick 8 and 9 to the draft. We are either trading one of those down to get 2 later firsts or making a play for pick 2. Either way I'm happy.

[magnifisaint]

Were you on here in 2012

Most were eating out of Pelchen’s hand and thought his little spreadsheet was a Blueprint to glory!!!

It was like the Simpsons Monorail on here!!!

Getting rid of BJ, McEvoy and Dal was a master stroke. Genius stuff!!!

Who are you replying to?

[diddley]

Thought the rules were pretty obvious to everyone
2nd rule
Never draft for type in the first or second round. Draft the best player available! You are drafting for 12 years plus, lists can change massively in 4-12 years when a draftee becomes prime. You are not drafting for the now, it’s the error in most mock drafts, draft experts look at the current lists needs?! Should never come into it. Also footy styles change!
That’s how you end up with McCartin over Petracca!

If this is the case, then why have you suggested previously that we could/should trade back to gws’s picks if all the top mids are gone by our second pick?
If you were true to your word, then if the first 8 picks are mids, then Armstrong, or a half back flanker could/would be the next best, so draft him regardless of needs. Draft the best available regardless of needs.
Or is that only applicable if the next best is a mid?

[B.M]

I reckon 3 are better than 2 if there’s not a lot in talent difference

But if the two are seen as far better - then 2 can be better than 3

[diddley]

I reckon 3 are better than 2 if there’s not a lot in talent difference

But if the two are seen as far better - then 2 can be better than 3

Is that rule #4?

[B.M]

Could be

[Yorkeys]

I reckon 3 are better than 2 if there’s not a lot in talent difference

But if the two are seen as far better - then 2 can be better than 3

Is that rule #4?

Rule 4 is: even if you chose wisely, its probable that if you pick two players in close order only one will end up a keeper.
Corollary is that if you pick three less talented players you end up with no keepers at all*.
*Law of diminishing recruits (Pelchen & Elshaugh "How talent is an over rated metric compared to twisted logic - or, How to trade down until you must eventually get pick 1". Pelican Books circa 2012.)

[Nick DalSanto Claus]

I reckon 3 are better than 2 if there’s not a lot in talent difference

But if the two are seen as far better - then 2 can be better than 3

Is that rule #4?

Rule 4 is: even if you chose wisely, its probable that if you pick two players in close order only one will end up a keeper.
Corollary is that if you pick three less talented players you end up with no keepers at all*.
*Law of diminishing recruits (Pelchen & Elshaugh "How talent is an over rated metric compared to twisted logic - or, How to trade down until you must eventually get pick 1". Pelican Books circa 2012.)

"Oh, Yorkeys, you've done it again!!!".

*Note to moderators: We really need a laughter emoji symbol similar to the like button.

PS. Yorkeys, I will henceforth send my garments to you for repair, at your cost, naturally. I hath split their sides, more than once due to the hilarity you've caused. (Not because of weight gain.)

[B.M]

Interesting

If we did follow the basic rules principle

We may have landed Judd

We wouldn’t have traded picks 6 and 31 for Barry Brooks

We wouldn’t have traded pick 17 for Fergus Watts

We wouldn’t have traded pick 17 for Andre Lovett

We wouldn’t have traded Brad Hill for picks 8-10-Blake Acres

We would not have drafted Paddy McCartin

[Dave McNamara]

If we did follow the basic rules principle

I agree. Every successful organisation needs to follow the basic rules principle.



For mine though, I'd be 'updating' a couple of those with...

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!

No small mids.

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!

No slow undersized 'key' forwards.

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!

No 'key' forwards, undersized or not, with dodgy kicking actions. (Unless their last name is Loewe.)

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!

No expensive (in terms of salary cap or draft capital) key defenders.

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!

No hipsters!

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!

No expensive (in terms of salary cap or draft capital) 'developing' young ruckmen.

No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids!



But most importantly of all,
No half back flankers whom we 'hope' to one day make into mids! No hipsters!