So, 3 weeks into a new year and based on conversations I have been party to, many of us are wondering wtf we did wrong. Simply. We did not recruit for now. Recruiting for the future requires patience, and is assisted by a lack of other guys doing the same thing. This may be a dead horse, but I am prepared to flog it to the bone, if we only ever have to cut to 24 we are not cutting hard enough. By cutting to 22 we will see and enable a forced renewal at the edges, and looking at a lot of sides right now, they are struggling at the edges, not at the core. Discuss, we have 20 rounds before a change can be made under normal circumstances.....
Must admit I have been considering the same problem Len (after all it is the fantasy players anonymous round). This next paragraphs may be unpalatable to some members of the association but, notwithstanding, I will throw it out there in the interest of a frank discussion. A decision to rebuild through a 'youth' (i.e., not necessarily immediately contributing) policy has two parts. First, there is trading, then there is drafting. Let's look at the second part first. While some high draft picks start contributing from round one (e.g., Luke Dunstan) others are learning their trade in the magoos or lower grades (insert your favourite example here - for me this is Darcy Gardiner. Now think about the first part - how do you get a high draft pick? Either your team did poorly the previous year and / or you traded out an in demand player - think fallen premium. Some members feast on the older. fallen premiums - they are happy to trade off the holding period for immediate points. Further, some teams make poor draft choices. To illustrate this I am going to go through a trade of mine with ant - not try to humiliate ant (he is big enough to defend himself and there is nothing to defend in this trade it was a balanced one). I traded Tom Hickey and a second round draft pick to secure NDS from the Cockatoos. All well and good; ant had a working strategy of older players out, younger star players in. As he has noted his first round draft pick delisted himself. So, albeit indirectly, a player averaging 114 this year has gone for a zero. But what about Hickey you rightly ask - he is young and averaging 96. Yep, that will probably work out for ant - and that is why I chose the example - because it was a balanced trade. ](I was light on mids and Hickey was unlikely to play as he was number 3 ruck behind Jacobs and HMac.) By balanced I mean there were n]o comments in the completed trades thread other than it works for both parties. But consider if a similar trade does not work out. If Hickey or NDS does not perform. Consider how ant or I would have gone from (relatively) close to certainty to a hopeful future. ]Please take the time to consider how your own trades / draft picks worked out. For the record my draft picks were Simpson (ytd - 53), Burbury (46), Griffiths (89), Perris (0) and Gardiner (0). One in five good, hardly a pass mark. Note that (i) Simpson was picked as cover for HMac,and (ii) Griffiths is 22.6 years and was pick 2 in the 2009 National draft, has been in the system for five years and has now played 22 games - hardly a rookie. From memory my only other trade was with sNoZ to pick up draft pick 89 for Tim Sumner. ] ]Last year I was lucky enough (yes lucky) to have second and third in the AFL rising start awards; B Crouch was my first pick in the 2013 PSD, he had played the NAB Cup, and Titch who I selected late in the inaugural draft. The former has a broken leg and the latter is in danger of being dropped by the Swans for a lack of form. One week the rooster, next week the feather duster. Such is the potential with rookies. Moral of the story, you need a base of performing prems and journey men to indulge a desire for new talent. My fear with a reduction to 22 from 24 for the PSD is that the rich might get richer as the teams performing poorly trade out their contributing players in the search for the next Luke Dunstan. How might we overcome that - perhaps we specify a minimum number of players on each list who are eligible for the year's rising star award? ]I really wish I had a time machine, as feel sure I would come back and report that, if nothing changes, the top teams in 2014 will be the top teams in 2017.
I've expressed my thoughts on this debate previously, so I'm not going to go into detail on why I think cutting to 24 should remain bar repeating that: - Cutting too many players results in player churn and diminishes the feeling of loyalty and 'ownership' of your players. The washing machine league syndrome. - A lack of willingness to invest in guys and bring them through from being youngsters not getting a game to becoming starting 15 players. But just in terms of what is happening around the league right now, I believe that we have had some teams very cruelly hit by injuries to good players. Again, using Ant's team as an example (sorry Ant), there would be at least a half dozen players currently injured and not in that team. These guys are the sorts of guys you do retain - good young established scorers like Lids and Christensen, Walker, etc. Cutting harder at draft time wouldn't help alleviate this situation. In fact, what might occur is that these injured players might be in danger of the chop. I know we've already seen guys like Menzel and Whitecross delisted from their teams because (at least in the Whitecross case) the team owner couldn't afford to hold onto them and have a LTI taking up a spot on her list. Right now, people can chop as many players as they want. If they want to knock their list down to 22 (or 20 or 18) then they can. If they want to cut a couple of extra players and rebuild like that, they can as well. Plenty of coaches, including myself, delisted older players in favour of younger ones, or traded older players for draft picks. Would holding onto an extra older player as backup to cover for injuries have been handy for some - most likely, yes. There were plenty of solid older players who'd average 70 on the year (especially up back), delisted and not picked up (as an exercise, do we have a list of the top 10 point free agent/un drafted point scorers thus far this year - I reckon there'd be a couple of older players nearer the top). Personally - I shed some younger players and picked up older ones through trades. My best backman thus far this season is Josh Gibson, who is 30 and who I got in a trade with Ant - and I've needed the depth up back with Rance, Walker, Seedsman, Otten all missing games. Josh Gibson is a player 'at the edge' as Len would describe him - Rance, Seedsman and Otten are, on the other hand, core players and not 'on the edge'. Could I have traded harder? Yes - there are two guys I already see on my list as mid-year delist bait. But this is the thing - no-one knows how things will shape up. One of those guys I'm looking at delisting mid-year - Nathan Foley - was a starting midfielder for me last year and someone I thought would be a bench players this year as the young kids progressed. What has happened is those young kids have passed him more rapidly than I thought, and he has de-evolved more rapidly too. So I'll correct this at mid-year. And mid-year has increased in importance as an opportunity to correct mistakes made earlier on, and to draft people to fill needs based on exposed form at AFL level. Maybe we let things correct themselves through realising the greater importance of mid-year drafting (and the opportunity to cut players at that time) rather than cutting more players at the start of the year and perhaps leaving ourselves open to issues there. We all make our own choices with our own teams, and we approach things differently. Forcing people to cut too deeply and turn over too many players locks many of us in to the same approach towards rebuilding or maintaining our teams (and it might just take a bit of the fun and adventure out of the ORFFA).
My 2c is people get far too caught up in wanting young talent. We have TWO drafts per year, in these two drafts are plenty of talented young kids all the way through to the 20's. The approach I have taken is trying to get at least 1 decent young kid per draft (2 per year) if I wasn't getting that kid then maybe I would trade harder for youngsters. But as it is I can get 2 per year to replace potentially 2 retirements or delistments and my team will be fine for the forseeable future. As it is I have Jackson MaCrae and GHS who cant even get a game in my starting 15, so why would I want more youth to bring my team scoring down until they hit their ropes? This game is about scoring the most points right? Not about who has the youngest list.
I am happy with it at 24, however I would like to see a squad increase (again) to 30. I play SC each season, and have a draft team each season. I aim for first every season. Powlett Packers is what I get my most enjoyment from. I have keen interest in sports team management, and put careful consideration into each decision. I thoroughly enjoy it. I probably need to start writing a little more on the Packers page. My personal analysis shows that the perceived bottom teams are not far off the 6-10 range. The very top mostly drafted very well and I tip my hat to them. It will take another 2-3 seasons for the initial draft to water down a bit, and I think with the current system some of the coaches who went a different path or had to correct initial draft failings will be in and around the top 4-6.... if they recruit well, which takes significant research and commitment. I am in year one of an almost total overhaul. I drafted too old, and had no young blood coming through. I Ross Lyoned myself. Yet in 3 rounds, despite a severely depleted list due to injury, I have scored over 1000 every round. In year one of a rebuild. Research shows that if I had just a couple of injuries, I would be averaging around 1100-1200. Not enough for finals, but not far off it. I summary, my opinion is that a) I don't want to take away from those who had a great initial draft and b) I think with good decision making teams can improve reasonably quickly with the current format, and there is enjoyment to be had in the journey (unlike standard supercoach).
jimbowan wrote: My 2c is people get far too caught up in wanting young talent. We have TWO drafts per year, in these two drafts are plenty of talented young kids all the way through to the 20's. The approach I have taken is trying to get at least 1 decent young kid per draft (2 per year) if I wasn't getting that kid then maybe I would trade harder for youngsters. But as it is I can get 2 per year to replace potentially 2 retirements or delistments and my team will be fine for the forseeable future. As it is I have Jackson MaCrae and GHS who cant even get a game in my starting 15, so why would I want more youth to bring my team scoring down until they hit their ropes? This game is about scoring the most points right? Not about who has the youngest list. 100 times this. Well said Jim. If I can add my 2 or 3 cents to that - last year I had TOO many young players. Balance was way skewed the wrong way - what I wouldn't have given for a couple of wiser heads or experienced (consistent) players in the grand final against Foul Bay! I see the mid-year draft as a massive and perhaps slightly underrated opportunity to bolster playing lists. I go harder for picks in the mid-year draft than in the PSD because the mid-year draft has the benefit of picking players on exposed form in the AFL. This list of draftees from the 2013 MSD gives an indication of the talent on offer. Lots of decent solid players available: http://tooserious.net/forum/Forum/tabid/91/forumid/15/postid/57371/scope/posts/Default.aspx#57371.
Some good discussion in here. Particularly appreciate the contribution from chels, a man of few words who has received praise from the lofty heights of the Big Apple. Chris makes the point that you can in fact delist more than the currently required minimum. The number of coaches who did this is probably an indication of how coaches feel about the numbers. I take Jimbo's point as well. When you are sitting near the top, it is all about points. The only option for teams not near the top is to build. For them, the future is not Hawthorn, but GWS. For me, the final draft pick (in the 70s I think) was pretty much making up the numbers and it turns out he copped an LTI anyway. So I guess Len would reason that if there were more forced delistments, the pool would be richer, ergo 70s would be higher quality. The problem is that I gave up a player I had nurtured for a couple of almost gameless seasons. Indications were the coach would not give him a run. Now he is getting a regular gig and scoring quite nicely. The point being that some decisions are already difficult and, in this case, wrong. Could have re-drafted him you say? Thing is, in getting rid of any player, you weigh up the negatives, eventually talking yourself into it ('well, we gave him two years'). With such negative thoughts prevailing, it is unlikely you would re-draft him. We are already seeing the rise of the Bennells, Cunningtons, Libbas and Treloars. These are the future Abletts, Pendles and Watsons and will change the face, and fortunes, of ORFFA.
It would be useful to read the views of all ORFFA coaches to Len's argument. For mine this is one of those times when all views should be put forward as being of equal value. I live in hope that something consensual, ideally unanimous, comes from this thread. To that end the early offerings from Mr Robert Zimmerman are in the CD player and currently the refrain 'I ain't going to work on Maggie's farm no more' is starting to make a lot of sense.
'Consensual' - it just gives me goosebumps all over. 'Coarse the literal meaning is rather boring compared to the sound. Dig deeper chels 'till you discover the hidden vaults of Blind Boy Grunt. Tried very hard to introduce the local bands here to the culture of Hank and Bob. Sadly it always came out as, 'your shitting heart' or 'ain't gonna work on Maggie's sperm no more'
There is always more than one way to skin the cat I actually didn't mean to start the thread, I made a consciousdecisionnot too, stuffed if I know what the unconscious was thinking.. That said, Terry is right, my thought is the real impact of extended cuts would be felt by the top teams having to cut players they would prefer to keep. This would inevitably result in deeper draft pools as I would also prefer they were all cut at once, the MSD being wholly voluntary. I understand why this is not met with universal love, that doesn't make it the wrong thing, it just means people are considering their own circumstance first and then the league as a whole, human nature is an extremely reliable bitch and motivated my post to prove it I think Prap has a point that there may be a place to extend the teams further and that is also worthy of discussion. I also think in my own case, picking the best youth I could was always going to have aconsequenceif injuries also hit and as has been detailed by others above, is a result of my own choices. My views on all the above are so well know that starting the thread was clearly a case of one whiskey too many, I am content to let the discussion roll without me and will bring it up at a much later time for review with a properly constructed case.
whiskey with a e Len? I suggest you have performed an invaluable service by starting this thread. I fail to understand why anyone interested in the long term future of the association would not have a view on team size and number of de-listings for the PSD and MSD.
chels wrote: whiskey with a e Len? I suggest you have performed an invaluable service by starting this thread. I fail to understand why anyone interested in the long term future of the association would not have a view on team size and number of de-listings for the PSD and MSD. It depends on the day tbh, currently I have a good stock of Jack Daniels, so it's an e I've read every post made and completely understand where people are coming from, I don't believe for a minute I have the only valid thoughts on the issue. It's definitely something that I'd like our collective to think about, we do see much the same people discuss these sorts of things each time, it would be nice to see people bring fresh ideas and approaches. <div>
I don't post about rules or such things terribly often, mainly because I am a go with the flow kind of guy and I like to think that I will be able to adapt and adjust my strategy depending on what rules are thrown up at me. But, because people are calling for everyone to have a say, here I go. I understand in theory the premise behind making list cuts deeper so that there are more 'quality' players in the free agent pool come draft time. Given the way that teams have chosen to draft over the history of the ORFFA though I don't see it making too much difference. My personal opinion (although one that has been shared by Jimbowan earlier) is that youth is too overvalued when the name of the game is scoring points, and that is most easily done by having players play regularly, something that only the best young kids in the land actually do. For the teams that are struggling, they have either been crippled by injury (which a changing of the rules won't fix, it's just bad luck), they have teams that are too young and hence don't have regular point scorers, or have crippled their teams by trading out proven point scorers for 60 cents on the dollar in the hope that the youth/draft picks they bring in will catapult them up the ladder. While I don't really care if the delistment numbers get changed or not, I think the end result if it is changed is that teams will delist their older players and then most teams (apart from those who are in the 'premiership window') will still use the extra draft picks to pick more youth in the hope of uncovering the next 'young gun' of which there are probably only going to be at most 10 players in the draft (so if you are lucky you will get one of them) and the teams who as I said are in the 'premiership window' will pick for the now, take the increased present returns, then continue to rinse and repeat every year. So, I haven't re-read my own ramblings, but the net result at the end of the day I believe will be negligible, unless there is a philosophical shift and more teams recruit for the now, rather than banking all their hopes on the future. But as I said at the top, whatever inevitably gets decided I am cool with.
Ok....time for the resident cellar dweller to pipe up with his 'worlds only superpower' views........ Having always been a proponent of more cuts, I've kind of flipped on that. Where do we stand right now, each year you must cut 6 players (combined PSD & MSD). Ok...that's just over 20% of your squad. But you can cut more......and for me, that seals it. You are forced to cut 6 players to correct/redraft/keep some list churn going but can go deeper & further if you so choose. Happy medium I think. Youth over today........I'lladmit that's my error in my ways, and I think a few others as well. But is it so much as an error, or just rebuilding and not focusing on today but looking for tomorrow? If I had drafted some middle players who score 70 each week, would I be more competitive? Yes.....but I'd also still lose so whats the point of that? I had no choice but to rebuild. And will suck this year & maybe next because of it. That's ok.....I expect to. But I do know that this time next year I will be far more competitive than I am now, and the year after even more so. Now note.....I didn't start the Hoppers with an all in youth approach. First season I think I finished 4th. Then last year.....I hit every injury known to man. Simply nothing I could have done about that. I went from 4th (competitive) to last in one year as I lost half my team. No amount of cuts would have ever fixed that. It just happens. With that in mind, I remain a big supporter of larger clubs. Why not extend the list to 30? Each year you are still cutting 6 players (20%)......the better clubs couldthen afford to take a flyer on a kid for 'next year'.....and the lower clubs could afford to rent a player, add some 70pt depth players to field a more competitive side each week, but not have them taking up the spot of a star kid who could propel your team next year. That's it I guess. I really should have drafted 1-2 players for now, get the 70 pts etc......but I turned over 40% of my team in the last 12 months, traded actively, drafted a shoulder UGH.....for later, not for now. Hindsight, maybe to get off the cellar I needed some more senior players today. My fault.
I think it natural (where the heck did this font come from?) that the top and the bottom view matters differently. And I conclude both are right in their own way. Only time will tell. There is no harm in selecting a few 70ppg players who happen to be in the 23-26 age bracket. The thing is with stars is that they eventually fade. I picked up Juddy in the first draft. At the time he was rated as the 6th best midfielder. When the Chooks made an offer I could not refuse, I passed him on. The reason I did so was that I was terrified of Juddy getting old and having zero currency. Heath Scotland is probably our first case in point. This means that instead of being able to trade specifically to fill a hole in your team, these guys will be delisted and you have to take your chances in the draft. The other factor is the more a player ages the more susceptible he becomes to injury. I do think back on that first draft and 'what if' I had looked beyond the 6th best and taken a punt on a Treloar, a Bennell, etc.
Excellent discussion. And I think this is the right time to discuss this mater. I don't have enough time right now to contribute much, but I have stated my views on this in the past and they have not changed as yet. I think it is best for the association to leave it how it is. I would be open to expanding list size to 29 or 30 maybe, but I would want to see forced delistments remain at 4 and 2.
I am opposed to the size of the ORFFA lists being extended for the second time in less than two years.Several coaches, myself included have realised that the balance of their drafting has gone too much towards the future at the expense of the present. Several teams will be correcting this balance at least in part during the mid-season period. I believe that 28 players on the list is sufficient, however some of us need to get better at using the spots on our list. One thing we are better coming to grips with is considering the reliable 70 point player vs a teenager who hasn't got as much job security but has greater upside. The flexibility of being able to draft between four and six players (or even more if we wish) at the PSD allows ORFFA coaches to adopt various strategies which I see as a massive positive. In the ORFFL clubs are required to havesix selections at the PSD and at the 2014 PSD several delisted players were selected in the first or second round. The clubs that delisted these players tried to trade them during the pre-season trade period but were unable to do so due to clubs battling to get their list down to the maximum 20 players (ORFFL lists have 26 players). I agree with a comment Chris made above: Cutting too many players results in player churn and diminishes the feeling of loyalty and 'ownership' of your players. The washing machine league syndrome.&rdquo; If we have a mandatory six selections at the PSD it is almost certain that clubs will be forced to delist players they would prefer to keep and would result in what Chris has mentioned above. It would also result in clubs being more hesitant to trade with each other due to the increased difficulty in getting their list down to a maximum of 22 players before the PSD. My strong preference is that we maintain the current system with a minimum six draft selections each year with at least four of these to betakenat the PSD.
For reference, here are the two prev threads about this. Interesting reading! http://tooserious.net/forum/Forum/tab... http://tooserious.net/forum/Forum/tab...
Interesting reading so far, so much so that I will throw my 2c in even though I don't have a lot of time at the moment for anything ORFFA (and I apologise for that...normal service will be restored towards the end of May!) I would like to think that The Spelunkers are one of the 'top' teams, but at the moment we are not performing that way... that is due to a number of factors. 1. Injuries : A. Swallow, B. Reid, S. Reid, Josh Thomas... the last 3 not so big points wise, but they put massive pressure on my team structure 2. Positional changes : This year I have had Hansen go from Fwd to Def, and Thurlow and Pearce lose their Def eligibility... this has left me short in the forward ranks and tight in defence... but that is just the run I am having and Ant and sNoZ are/have fared way worse than me. 3. My Trading : I offloaded Heater, he is down 17 points year on year, and I gained Pearce, who is performing well. I offloaded Davis and Redden, who both have LTI's now, so in all three of those I believe I have had a win. I traded Paparone for Nicholls... I wanted to keep him but needed a ruckman more, and trading Josh Hill to the Lilac's left me short in the forward line, but at that stage it was the right move. So what's the problem? Well I didn't forsee the positional changes screwing me up as much as they have, and that is life too! 4. My Drafting : This is probably the biggest short term failure: Fuller, Apeness, Bontempelli, Acres... longer term I think I will be ok (the last two especially)... but that is a long term proposition... and that is what I drafted them for. If I have to cut more players, then they are going to be the ones coughed up... and I will not be happy about that. I didn't draft these guys to improve my starting 15 this year, because if I am honest I didn't see anyone in the draft that was available to be at that time that would improve my 15. Now there are of course players in hindsight that might improve my 15... but that is what the MSD is for! I approach both drafts very differently... the PSD is a chook raffle (no disrespect to the chief) so I draft with a little more of a speculative view... the MSD you have more qualitative data to make the call, so I address short term issues. So the summary of these ramblings is that I think we are fine as is... and like my Tasmanian Devil friend is intimating, I don't think we should change the rules again until we have had a couple of years to run the current set, as people will be reacting to their current situation. I have made my own bed, and I am prepared to lie in it, as I think are everyone else here... but the sands of time will dictate if people's strategies are improving their squad's standings or not, but you can't make that call in Round 3 (even after Jack has paid a visit). These coaches will make the adjustments they need to make... as they will want their teams to succeed. Some are putting the broom through the joint (Prap and Fisty as an example), others are topping up and will face the tempest of age later (eg The Chief).. they all have their reasons and logic and I understand it. You have to let these strategies have time to evolve... if we change it up again we are going back to square one and resetting. All up for the debate, but no change for at least another 18 months for mine.
Bandit wrote: So the summary of these ramblings is that I think we are fine as is... and like my Tasmanian Devil friend is intimating, I don't think we should change the rules again until we have had a couple of years to run the current set, as people will be reacting to their current situation. I have made my own bed, and I am prepared to lie in it, as I think are everyone else here... but the sands of time will dictate if people's strategies are improving their squad's standings or not, but you can't make that call in Round 3 (even after Jack has paid a visit). These coaches will make the adjustments they need to make... as they will want their teams to succeed. Some are putting the broom through the joint (Prap and Fisty as an example), others are topping up and will face the tempest of age later (eg The Chief).. they all have their reasons and logic and I understand it. You have to let these strategies have time to evolve... if we change it up again we are going back to square one and resetting. All up for the debate, but no change for at least another 18 months for mine. I think this is where I am at also, which is why I said above I would come back much later... I think the majority of our issues are the result of our own activity, I know mine are, and whilst I do feel we need to refresh (churn if you will) a little harder, I don't feel this is time to change anything, and would hope we can continue this discussion over the next year or so as and when ideas, thoughts & strategies come to mind.