Sorry guys, working long days, have only just caught up. It seems like a while since the last pick, so maybe we are up to the autopick.
I thought so initially however what martyg is pointing out is that the current rules states you must The choice of weather to take established players over draftees in the draft is entirely an individual coaches decision - there are numerous best 22 players available in the FA pool for those coaches wishing to increase the depth of their squads. With squad sizes of 28 unless you have a major injury crisis there is no excuse for not being able to field a 15 each week unless you have drafted / taken a risk on an excessive number of young players who will take time to develop and therefore are not guaranteed a game with their club each week. @choppers has clearly used this draft to strengthen the depth of the Banchang squad took what he thought was the best youngster at Pick 1 and has drafted more experienced players (although early in career) with his remaining picks.
I agree with what you're saying but I'm not sure you got the point I was making. The established players that are available in this year's draft aren't of the quality that there has been in previous drafts, I believe due to the list expansion last year.
Agreed this years FAs list on the surface may not be crash hot, however it may point to the fact that we are getting better at picking the good ones out. Equally next years may see a completely different outcome. Also seemed to be a big year for retirements for top end players which may have made delisting process easier. One year isn't enough to make a full assessment to see if mandatory delistments (our equalization process) has worked.
Not really 36 players out of the pool. Last PSD we had 52 live picks. This PSD we have 75 live picks. That's 23 extra picks. Or only 13 less players Or to look at it another way: Last year there were 416 players that were not free agents. This year there are 429 players that are not free agents. Either way its an extra 13 players that are out of the pool - so less than one player each! Plus, last year we had 28 trades totaling 40 players moving home. This year, thus far, we've had 34 trades totaling 47 players moving home. So we've had 6 less players find new homes this year, compared to last year. I'm not sure if that's significant or not (haven't looked at any other years, or done any statistical analysis on any of it - these are just raw numbers). Plus, this is the first year of having a max 28 player list, and having 4 compulsory picks - lets see what happens next year too, before we go trying to make any changes, please. My personal opinion at this point in time is that we may not have given the lower ranked teams an immediate leg up, but we've given them the opportunity to find that leg up. I say this because there are now atleast 72 PSD picks that have currency, so while the lower ranked teams might not be able to draft in "ready-made" scorers, they definitely have a greater capacity to trade for them, boosting team depth, while (maybe) the risk / lottery for drafting good scorers is shared more evenly. Lets see...
The 36 extra player I was referring to was the increase from 26 to 28 squad (mini draft) @JPK, which came out of the pool that would other wise had been there for any of the drafts there after.
So while 23 of those may have been put back (meaning only 13 less in the FA pool come the following draft), the 13 that are kept are the 13 good ones.
I'm prepared to be shot down here, but...the league drafted an additional 36 players in our 2017 preseason mini draft. In order to partake in the 2018 preseason draft we have had to cull 72 players from our lists which should mean that there is an extra 36 players in the pool. Where the issue arises is that of the 72 players de-listed how many were retirees? As much as it pains me to say this, maybe retirees should not be included in the delistments. This would mean a guaranteed 72 players would go back into the pool rather than a watered down amount. I also think that whilst there may be a reduction of experience in the pool this only means there are more kids to choose from. There are plenty of 2nd & 3rd year rookies available but most coaches will overlook them for a first year player even though some of them are more likely to get games over the new rookies. I personally think we need a greater sample size before making any additional changes. It took us three years to revise list sizes; we need to give this legs before we decide to make any changes; we should have a much better idea post the 2018 season.
I totally agree about giving it longer to assess the effects. However, imo the list expansion is cancelling out the benefits of the mandatory drafting and it's going to be virtually impossible to assess each of the changes individually given they were brought in at the same time. In a sense I feel like we're talking in circles a bit. One thing I will say is it's important when discussing/debating these things that we look at it from the pov of 'what is in the best interest of the competition as a whole', rather than 'what would I like / what would benefit me'. I know some coaches maybe feel like they should be rewarded for their excellent drafting and trading but from a long term pov, if other coaches get stuck down the bottom and feel like there is little hope of genuinely competing in the near future, then eventually they will leave and we wont have a competition. After 4 years it's still early days but it's important to think ahead before it's too late.
I disagree with most of the points raised here. The one obvious point that is valid is that it’s too early to fully understand all the ramifications of the recent list expansion + mandatory delistments + 4 PSD pick minimum. I would still prefer to expand our lists 1-2 spots to 29-30 players but it does make sense to wait one more season before making any further changes. In terms of this equalisation of the competition argument, I think that a lot of you are missing the major stumbling block here. Rating and choosing players is SUBJECTIVE. Each coach is going to have a different opinion on each player. One lowly ranked coach might waste an early 1st round pick on an absolute spud while another highly ranked coach might not enter the draft until the 3rd or 4th round and still find a gun player that improves his squad. An obvious recent real world example of teams with similar conditions having vastly different results would be Gold Coast versus GWS. This is a COMPETITION. That’s what makes it fun. That’s why we invest time and effort to get better at this - in an attempt to win because we are competitive. It has been and still is a massive learning curve for me in many ways and I enjoy it obviously - otherwise I wouldn’t do it. An even competition will come from coaches having a competitive spirit. I think everyone here in the ORFFU does and this competition gets better every year irrespective of these supposed equalisation measures. This modern PC attitude of let’s all share the players is lost on me. “You’ve had you’re turn now throw him back in the pool to make way for a new toy. Give someone else a go.” This isn’t a modern game of pass the parcel where every time the music stops the kid gets a prize. Some get lucky and win a prize, some don’t. That’s life. Isn’t this a KEEPER league. Aren’t we supposed to be investing in these kids we draft and enjoy watching them develop over the years? If we choose to trade or cut a player early that we don’t see working out or fitting our team needs then that should be our choice. If it comes back to bite us when the kid suddenly becomes a star then bad luck. We shouldn’t be forced to drop these players just to then repeat the cycle and do it all over again next year. That is something that would make me lose interest.
That turned into a lengthy rant! The main point is, as mentioned earlier, that we have to find that balance of keeping drafting and list management difficult but fun. I found the needle on this current PSD moving away from the fun side and way over to the difficult side. I can only see it being harder again next season. This system seems to disadvantage coaches who make good choices and build solid deep squads. They just have to break up what they’ve built and throw some quality players back in the pool at the end of the year. This sucks and it doesn’t actually help a lower ranked coach (or “equalise the competition”) because there is nothing stopping him from overlooking that quality player that could improve his squad immediately and just drafting another spud. That’s what makes this completion great! Free reign to pick and choose any available players and manage your list any way you see fit. I could go on... but that’s enough for now.
@Mick some good points there, cannot really argue with your pov. I think everyone has added some value to this discussion. Coming from a coach that had just thrown in the "chasing an ORFFU Premiership" to "rebuild" phase, I see both sides of the argument. I think coaches that currently have the best midfields may have retiring champions all in one season and then suddenly they are in the same boat as me. It can change pretty quickly and when you decide to cash in on past heroes (Pendles+Gray) for early picks and younger players, its a hard thing to do! If you hold onto the older players too long then you will lose any bargaining chips that you have in trade discussions and you will struggle to rebuild quickly. I think all teams will eventually have a crack at the GF and most of us will collect a wooden spoon too, its just inevitable I believe. The one thing I think we all agree on is to leave things as they are for a year or so and see how it works out for us. We all want a strong competition with active coaches who all believe we will have a red-hot crack one year.
Enjoying reading the different points of view. Buffaloes are in agreement with everyone that we need more time to gauge what impacts the changes will have but good to keep the discussion and observations flowing
@Mick 100% agree on all points. if we go back to the poll only 10 coaches voted for mandatory delistments. I wouldn't call that a majority as 8 coaches did not vote it in and yes technically it is but by only one vote, that's why I believe there has been much discussion about the topic with all coaches having valid points.
[QUOTE="Mick, post: 195804, member: Isn’t this a KEEPER league. Aren’t we supposed to be investing in these kids we draft and enjoy watching them develop over the years? .[/QUOTE] Just on this point and the idea that people are being forced to de-list players they would otherwise keep - we’re more than 3/4 through the draft and not one of the 18 coaches has re-drafted one of their delistees.
I agree on your main point about finding that balance. Where that lies is something we're all gonna have our own opinion on. Imo list management since the expansion has become too easy. With 15 starting players required, we previously had 11 surplus spots which made it a bit of a challenge to balance out having enough depth players to cover injury as well as young developing players for the future. I think having the 2 extra spots now makes it too easy to have both. On the delisting side of things, I can understand me having some retiring players made it easier for me this year. But I'm also in the Addicts league where the delisting process cuts far deeper than what we have here. As I've always had a fairly strong list there, each year I've had to cut what I thought were quality players and it hurts to do it. The result though is each year there is heaps of genuine talent available in the draft, which gives everyone a feeling of being a real chance at success and makes for an exciting draft - don't we all like the idea of picking up a player that can immediately improve our team. Obviously there's no way of ensuring the best players end up at the lower teams but at least it gives them the opportunity and that's the important part. I'm not suggesting we go to the same extreme here, because when it is that severe it does take away from the keeper aspect to an extent, but I assure you it is an effective equalisation measure. Whether we need equalisation is something that you and I probably wont agree on from what you've said. The way I see it, there's no point in building an all-conquering dynasty if you've got nothing to conquer and you can't expect people to keep playing if they have no hope of winning.