The Rebuilding Myth?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

How do you expect to rebuild the top 6-8 though ?

They are the premium players and with so much research going into junior development it is becoming very very hard to get these players later in the draft.

Development, development, and more development.

Not all players will progress the same way at the same speed and respond the same ways to the same things.

Identifying a ruckman at 18 is much harder than a midfielder. Identifying a project player vs. a no hoper with skills at the bottom of the draft isn't all about the talent scout.

Drafting will always be a low percentage exercise. The more picks taken, the better they're developed, the better chance of getting your hands on a winner.

[saintsRrising]

How do you expect to rebuild the top 6-8 though ?

They are the premium players and with so much research going into junior development it is becoming very very hard to get these players later in the draft.

some luck, Bartel, sam Fisher, NDS, Goose, they are around.

Sydney have done it by developing their own and buying in marquee players (I believe they are clearing the decks to go spending again, Nick davis, barry hall and spider maybe cleared out), North and Port have traded in talent and draft picks, and brisbane have built a winning culture under lethal.

geelong has had the benift of F/S but thats just the luck of the draw, collingwood and richmond have struggled to get return on their F/S players.

Freo, Carlton and Melbourne have had a massive dip into the draft pool for little effective return.

Footscray have had a mixed blessing of trading and drafting.

Dan...none of those teams have only rebuilt their top 6-8 players.

They have in fact all built new talent throughout their list.

Sydney is probably the closest example to chasing top end talent...but even they have gained their LRT's and Co's as well.

[rodgerfox]

"You don't rebuild your whole list - you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly."

Would not players 9-45 on your list get a bit old in the tooth then?

Also since players 6-8 are genuine stars (which IMO is way too many for any one club to actually have depending on your definition.)...how does one only source genuine stars???

That would be mighty impressive drafting and trading.

Not all clubs have 6-8 genuine stars.

That's why Geelong are on top, and Melbourne are on the bottom.

That's why 5 years ago, we were on the bottom. That's why I never believed our 'window was shut' or that our recruitment was so obhorrent - because we'd put together a top 6-8 which would continue to be a top 6-8 for 8-9 years to come.

Carlton are building a very good top 6-8 right now.

[JeffDunne]

If you remove free agency as in teh AFL situation, I don't think the cycle becomes any more inevitable, just more likely given that AFL teams (mainly through budget) employ less process in recruitment and development than the US leagues.

I doubt the US leagues would have a better strike rate than the AFL TBH.

Certainly I doubt that's true with the NFL (can't talk for other leagues).

When you consider the budgets NFL teams work with, the amount of information they have on kids through the college system and the age they're drafted, there's ample evidence to suggest drafts are still a crap shoot regardless of what is spent. No doubt the earlier the pick the more chance you have of success, but it's still a possibility rather than a certainty.

If you want an example from the NFL, look at the New Orleans Saints. In the same draft Reggie Bush went #2 (after being called the best player in the draft in a decade) the Saints also drafted Colston with the 3rd last pick in the draft (7th round).

If both were on the market after just two seasons, Colston would command a lot more than Bush would. This might change going forward but it proves that despite the massive amounts of analysis done on players there are still diamonds in the rough.

As Loomis from the Saints says though, if they were so good at talent evaluation they wouldn't have waited until the 7th to take him.

It's still a crap-shoot.

[Otiman]

To get a shot at a flag, you should be aiming to peak when most teams are bottoming out.

[Dan Warna]

To get a shot at a flag, you should be aiming to peak when most teams are bottoming out.

luck and timing play a part in things.

between the mid 80s and early 90s, MElbourne had a 10 year period without missing the finals, and that covered the final 5 period as well as the final 6. A very very good side by any measure, sadly they ran into a legendary hawthorn team, for much of that era.

Geelong played in the 89, 92, 94 and 95 GFs for NO return, and some legendary players roamed through that team then.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

If you remove free agency as in teh AFL situation, I don't think the cycle becomes any more inevitable, just more likely given that AFL teams (mainly through budget) employ less process in recruitment and development than the US leagues.

I doubt the US leagues would have a better strike rate than the AFL TBH.

Certainly I doubt that's true with the NFL (can't talk for other leagues).

When you consider the budgets NFL teams work with, the amount of information they have on kids through the college system and the age they're drafted, there's ample evidence to suggest drafts are still a crap shoot regardless of what is spent. No doubt the earlier the pick the more chance you have of success, but it's still a possibility rather than a certainty.

If you want an example from the NFL, look at the New Orleans Saints. In the same draft Reggie Bush went #2 (after being called the best player in the draft in a decade) the Saints also drafted Colston with the 3rd last pick in the draft (7th round).

If both were on the market after just two seasons, Colston would command a lot more than Bush would. This might change going forward but it proves that despite the massive amounts of analysis done on players there are still diamonds in the rough.

As Loomis from the Saints says though, if they were so good at talent evaluation they wouldn't have waited until the 7th to take him.

It's still a crap-shoot.

This may be an interesting discussion, as NFL is my weakest US league.

Given that, my perspective is that the NFL draft is much less of a crapshoot. Older players have had more of a chance to drow into their skills, while not falling into the MLB development cycle where players only usually begin to come good - a first rounder is worth more in that league than any other. I don't know what restrictions there are around free agency though, so what kind of team building is possible.

The factor that blows my mind in NFL is the escape clauses from contracts, the regularity with which teams dump players does my head in - I can't believe the NFLPA allowed that in their CBA.

FWIW, I don't think the hit rate is any greater in the US either, just the potential for it through good use of the free agent pool... but you see what teams do over there during their offseasons with contracts, and you wonder at the sanity owners and general managers of those teams. There are always a couple of teams so obsessed with scraping into the playoff picture that they'll spend like it's going out of fashion on ensuring the long term development of the franchise is not given a chance to eventuate.

Most big rebuilds I've seen over there or here tend to be the result of exactly that - an eventual realisation that so much effort has been expended on achieving mediocrity that even that mediocrity is no longer in reach.

The cycle works the way teams make it work. It's easier to draft when it's harder to win and vice versa, but neither rule need hold true 100% of the time.

[JeffDunne]

The factor that blows my mind in NFL is the escape clauses from contracts, the regularity with which teams dump players does my head in - I can't believe the NFLPA allowed that in their CBA.

When looking at NFL contracts there are only two issues worth worrying about - the amount of guaranteed money and the cap implications. A 6 year $20M contract is only as good as the money guaranteed. Otherwise it's a contract with the potential to earn $20M.

The perception is that teams can walk away from their obligations at any time but this isn't the case. NFL contracts tend to be more performanced based than the AFL, but like all leagues, the better you are the more guaranteed money you can command.

Player list rules are complex in the NFL but free agency does keep everyone honest.

Teams can't rebuild through the draft alone - it's impossible. There's too many specific skill positions on an NFL team to be addressed through 7 rounds of a 32 team draft.

The same would be true in the AFL if it wasn't for priority picks and the PSD. In fact, it's why we have them. Otherwise a team like Carlton would never have got out of the hole they were in.

FWIW, I don't think the hit rate is any greater in the US either, just the potential for it through good use of the free agent pool... but you see what teams do over there during their offseasons with contracts, and you wonder at the sanity owners and general managers of those teams. There are always a couple of teams so obsessed with scraping into the playoff picture that they'll spend like it's going out of fashion on ensuring the long term development of the franchise is not given a chance to eventuate.

While some owners do some crazy s***, especially trading away picks in future drafts, I like the fact teams have a choice in how they build their list. Some teams will try and build their franchise through young players at key positions (see Atlanta), others will chase free agents to be competitive year-in-year out. Sydney seems to be the only team in the AFL with that choice due to their cap concessions.

The New England Patriots have been incredibly successful at remaining competitive and they have done it almost exclusively through the additions of free agents. In fact so strong is their reputation, free agents will go there for less than other teams. They have almost perfected the model on how to stay successful in a competition hell-bent on equalisation.

Most big rebuilds I've seen over there or here tend to be the result of exactly that - an eventual realisation that so much effort has been expended on achieving mediocrity that even that mediocrity is no longer in reach.

The cycle works the way teams make it work. It's easier to draft when it's harder to win and vice versa, but neither rule need hold true 100% of the time.

The NFL has become known as the Not-For-Long league for good reason. Teams can shoot from 3-13 seasons to 10-6 seasons and a win away from a Superbowl (see Saints again 2006/7). I'm yet to see a team in the NFL do it through the draft alone. In the case of the Saints it was free agent signing in Drew Brees that was the difference. A player incidently cut from the successful San Deigo Chargers because they had 1st round pick QB waiting in the wings (they did sack a coach too after a 14-2 season)

Houston are a good example of what you're talking about. They're building an impressive team on some early draft picks but did cut a #1 draft pick who has turned out to be a dud.

[rexy]

I believe you should be in one of 3 "Premiership states"

1. Genuine Contender(Dogs, Geelong08)
2. Young list on the rise (Pies, Hawks,08)
3. Replenishing stocks (Eagles08)

So what were the 06 Cats?

Dont think it is as simple as many beleive, the Dockers managed to go from a young list on the rise to replenishing stocks without really ever rising?

The Crows and the Eagles from Replenishing stocks to genuine contenders without needing to rise?

Think a combination of Quality coaches and fitness staff, facilities and astute use of draft picks 10 through 45 can see you remain as a finals contender every year.

The combination of few injuries, a couple of fast developers, senior players maintaining longevity and a strong morale in the group can see that side become a genuine contender at any stage.