OK, that's one If I count Roughie as well in our's that's 2 from over 100 picks (counting 2015 & 2016 MSD from ORFFA and 2016 MSD from ORFFU) ~2% hit rate... I'll try my luck in the PSD thanks
Depends on definition of bolter, but a quick look back shows the likes of Gawn, Tuohy, Williams, Haynes all picked up in one year in ORFFA MSD. That said, I agree that this years MSD didn't appear to hold much comparitve value.
Lots of flotsam and jetsom.... without casting dispersions on this years MSD... I don't see any players that are going to be absolute breakouts past pick 5-6. The lack of depth in the MSD was what got me thinking " can we improve this?" It would be interesting to see if anyone has drafted someone in previous MSD's that has turned into an absolute bolter. You guys might not see him as a bolter but I do; Tom Papley was taken at pick 47 in the 2016 MSD, and that was after his RS nomination.
I guess the point I'm trying to make (clearly badly) is that out of the MSD, you are only going to get a tiny percentage (well less than 5% in my estimation) of picks that will actually turn into a keeper for the club. The PSD would have a much higher hit rate. Now this is obviously because there is a huge injection of new talent... but I don't think you are going to fix it for the MSD by reducing the squad size...
I'm not overly sure how the conversation became about the MSD other than tangentially, it's a small part of list management. FWIW I largely agree with @Bandit in that it is a rare MSD pick that provides anything other than depth. There is the list size question, currently 28 and then there is the draft mechanism question. Whilst I am comfortable with where we sit (as has been pointed out the ladder is reversing to a reasonable extent) I have always held the belief that with list sizes of 28 we should have 6 forced PSD delists and a voluntary MSD. The current split of 4 and 2 allows teams to only cut 4 deep. I don't see an overwhelming need to change, but I do think an amiable and inclusive discussion around the issue is a healthy thing.
Lachlan Hunter (I picked him, traded him away), McDonald-Tipungwuti, Ben Brown, Jarryd Lyons, Shane Edwards... that's five at my end. I'd say all five would find a game in most teams in the league. The MSD is an invaluable resource for mine.
Am happy to have sparked some discussion and can only hope other ORFFANs put there two penny worth in. Cannot fault the 28 list size, delist 6 at the PSD approach Len as it achieves what I set out to try to achieve.
Some players outside the first six picks would be viewed as a hit if the ORFFA Club that selected them retained them for long enough but get delisted before they reach ‘hit’ stage, the below is focussed on the selection aspect. At this stage it looks like the 2013 & 2014 MSD’s were stronger than the 2015 & 2016 MSD’s however we probably have to wait a couple more years for this comparison to be fair. In terms of hits you can’t get much bigger than selecting a future SOO player. The two 2017 SOO players selected at MSD’s: Rory Laird 2013 MSD pick 13 by Birdsville and Elliot Yeo 2013 MSD pick 42 by Venus Bay Another few hits from 2013 were: Jarryd Lyons 2013 MSD pick 19 by Gundagai Lachlan Hunter 2013 MSD pick 31 Darraweit Dane Rampe 2013 MSD pick 39 Lovely Banks A few of the picks from the 2014 MSD are: Ed Curnow 2014 MSD pick 19 by Gundagai Levi Greenwood 2014 MSD pick 23 by Packers Jake Lloyd 2014 MSD pick 24 by Lefties Below are a few 2015 MSD selections outside the top 6 that I would classify as hits: Alex Neal-Bullen 2015 MSD pick 13 by Cows 7 games @ 84 in 2017 Robbie Tarrant 2015 MSD pick 22 by Whitsunday Warriors 11 games @ 83 in 2017 Sam Reid 2015 MSD pick 51 by Packers 10 games @ 78 in 2017 In terms of a bolter MSD pick making an immediate impact it is hard to go past Levi Greenwood early in the second of the 2014 MSD as in five of his first six games for the Packers he polled Les W Medal votes including one best on ground performance. After averaging 71 at the time of the MSD (after only 7 rounds) Greenwood finished 2014 with an average of 94.
Given that several ORFFA clubs have had players out of position, or have scored donuts during 2017 I think it is best if the list size remains at 28 players. When the list size increased by two from 26 to 28 at the 2013 expansion draft I decided to utilise one of the extra two spots as a project player ruckman which has proven to be very effective, however a very slow-burn which only started to improve my best 15 this season - I'll go into more detail on that later on during the weekend in the ruck analysis thread, however my first attempt on a project player ruck in Liam McBean didn't play a single game for the Devils. The extra couple of positions on the list allow you to select a project player or give a young player an extra year on the list to prove if they are worth retaining long-term.
Actually it was the 2013 MSD expansion draft (where we all grabbed another two players after the main MSD).
You're saying all those players slipped through the MSD completely. Gawn, Tuohy, ZWilliams, McGovern et al
With the conversion rate alone, my 2c is really worth 2.25c AUD so by value alone it should outweigh all other opinions Now, with apologies in advance to my friend & counterpart in the land of the long white cloud, here is my input: ONE: If it ain’t broke…..simple enough philosophy. I think ORFFA is running as smooth as it ever has & continues to do so. All participants are active, there are hardly any grumblings which if you recall back in our embryonic days were quite few and everyone seems relatively happy. Why change for change sake? Donald Trump shows how this can backfire. TWO: More of a selfish reason I guess than anything else. In our first two seasons the Hops were ‘thereabouts’….If I recall made finals and then just missed out. Studying my team, I knew I had to completely rebuild, and thus spent three seasons collecting kitchenware in an attempt to climb back up the standings. 2017 sees me sitting 2nd, however I think that’s a misnomer based on scheduling, but still feel I’m a 4-6th place ladder team. That list build took three full seasons (and lots of shite from fellow coaches….Jelly ahem) but now I feel I should remain in the finals hunt for the next 4-5 years, touch wood. To change list sizes or when delists occur (PSD – MSD) now completely goes against the meaning of & the joy of building a keeper team. Adjusting list sizes will advance rebuilds by teams currently going down that path and could conceivably come to fruition in 1-2 seasons. Adjusting the min delist at the PSD from 4 to 6 not only adds to the pool for other teams to pick over & subsequently ‘get better quicker’, this also detracts from the strategy behind PSD & MSD delisting – where teams in the hunt can get a flyer, or building teams can gamble on a young rookie. Keeper Leagues are named such for patience and strategy of a list over multiple seasons. Re-Draft Leagues are crash & burn, build-up, crash & burn again each & every season. STATS: ORFFA teams have 504 players listed. Each year through two drafts we are required to delist 108 players, the equivalent of 21.5%. That’s a churn of one fifth of all players. At the end of Round 10, AFL Clubs have used a total number of 545 players already this season. The Hoppers are 9-1
My very quick 2c. A flat 'no' to ruck restrictions. Plan your lists better if you don't have a ruck. Or be prepared to give up something of value to get one. In terms of list sizes, I agree with Graeme. List cuts should hurt. As a top of the ladder side over the entire duration of the competition (not said arrogantly), expanding the list size for me has made it easier to keep players and hasn't cut me deeply at all. It should. More players available to draft should allow lower ranked sides (if they pick correctly) to rise quicker to competitiveness. It should take a couple of players off the top teams too. If lower ranked sides want to keep younger blokes for development, then they can and they will. With our being harsh, teams at the bottom of the ladder probably have a bit more 'dead weight' that they can jettison that isn't unproven youth. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't be at the bottom. If the rules change, I don't think teams need to be given extra time to 'prepare' for this eventuality. Positional changes each season mean that teams have to adapt a bit on the fly anyway. Having said all this, I will play to whatever rules have been decided and make the best of it. If the lower ranked sides feel that they need an extra two list spots to house some more talent, then I will use the 'extra' two list spots the same way.
Im showing my cards here but I dont think its actually that high because a lot of teams end up delisting at mid season players who they drafted preseason. For a lot of teams, it makes sense most of time to only cut 4 and then 2 at MSD to keep bulk of squad together. I know this is partly why there are calls to decrease squad or increase forced delists, but I personally think its working fine as is.
If the rules change, i think it should be phased in over time, especially because trades have been done effecting future draft picks. Changing amount of delists for instance would greatly effect the value of future draft picks
I was in favour of increasing mandatory PSD delists to 6 when we increased list sizes to 28 and I'm still of that opinion for the reasons @ChiefRussell has outlined above. I think the goal of wanting to be competitive in the here and now while also stashing away youth for the future has a bit of a 'cake and eat it too' flavour to it. Delists should be a bit uncomfortable and make teams have to think about who to keep and who to cut; whether to keep the 28/29/30yo and hope he keeps it up for a year or two more, or whether take a punt on the 20yo instead. And it should result in higher ranked teams making some tough decisions and losing a player or two they'd prefer to keep. As CR touched on, I'm not sure the current mandatory 4 PSD delists requires that of them. I also agree with the argument that the larger PSD draft pool from 6 delists will make more talent available for teams outside the 8. I think it gives those teams the opportunity to be more competitive without having to endure 3 years of gloomy results waiting - or hoping - for their 19yo's develop into quality players at 22. As for ruck rules, I'm also on the no ruck restrictions bandwagon. It just falls under lists management decisions for me. I traded in a ruck combo in the preseason and it certainly cost me more than a bag of peanuts to do so. It may not work out for me in the long run but that's how it goes. But much like others, I'll play on under whatever rules the majority deem appropriate. EDIT - I'd just like to give a quick shout out to the 7 Battlers players so far who have used the bye rounds to post their season high scores.