Didn't.................thats a worry................people keep telling me Liddle is a great up and comer.Hopefully he is,but that is bullshit...........sorta Greg Swann'ish.Stick to the front office mate.

_________________
All my dangerous friends

I can join the dots and understand what you're alluding to, without saying Liddle undermined SOS, and it doesn't bode well for me.

But, I'd like to know facts before I join the hysteria. Liddle has questions we need him to answer. Period.

I do believe that list manager courted both Ellis and Butler's manager long before the Trade period. So there was interest there.
I'd like to know if the "tour" of the club happened before list manager turned his attention elsewhere.

No need to jump to conclusions, but good to ask the questions.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Greg Swann burnt Ratten to a crisp.

I still recall to this day Ratten wanted to recruit key players to the club in 2010 but Swann intervened belittled Ratten and said no we are going to the draft and what did we get

Watson, McCarthy, Mitchell and McGinnes.

If I sense a de ja vu then it's not fair - I know CEO's need to make prominent decisions but CEO meddling in key decisions and getting them woefully incorrect still rings in some of our heads.

Hmm, I feel like there’s some rumours/suspicions being put across as facts in this thread.

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

Hopefully that's the case internally as well. We need in-fighting. It's un-Carlton not to. A summer of monumental upheaval would do the world of good.

You can ignore the author's ratings, here is a list of trades and draftees under Silvagni.


https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/11/11/ ... t-carlton/

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

The media's fascination with SOS is.... fascinating

_________________
"I had to eat"

Yep, and it's inevitible because of his profile and standing in the game, not just at Carlton.

I mean, take a look all the people in the AFL/VFL Team of the Century, and SOS easily has the best record in the draft from that group.

#tallpoppy

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

The writer's credibility is summed up by claiming pick 135 for Palmer as ugly. Oh dear.

Four intakes between 2015 and 2018:

30 players drafted, 18 remain... including Polson, Macreadie, Finbar & Goddard
4 free agents, 0 remain
15 players traded in, 7 remain... including Lang... only 2 (Plowman & Marchbank) of the 9 from 2015 and 2016.

49 total acquisitions for 20 spots filled - 9 via first round picks.

Excluding the four spuds listed above, Fisher, de Koning and Williamson, plus Jack & Ben, are the remnants of 21 draft picks outside the first round... effectively 3/19. I don't know what the benchmark is, but 3/19 seems pretty bad. However, only 4 second and third round picks used during his tenure (Jack, Macreadie, Fisher & de Koning). The rest (15 by my count) have been used for trades.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

For the draft you can do the analysis yourself.

For instance take picks between 51 and 70

https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/p ... on/medians

Picks needed to get a 100 gamer is 5.3

We have selected 7 players.
Finbar
BSOS
Schumacher
Polson
Williamson
Kerr
JSOS

I think JSOS will get to 100 games. That would mean meeting the benchmark. If Williamson stays injury free then that will exceed the benchmark.

Schumacher, Kerr and Polson not going to happen. But you don't hold onto those not capable, you cut them rather than clog the list.

Feel free to do the rest to test your hypothesis. I'd be interested. For players traded in you would have to assess the draft pick given up, but for example in the Plowman trade his value alone would cancel out the dead wood that came with him.

What does jump out from the data is that there are two significant drop-offs. After pick 20 and after pick 50.

I think people have a lot of bias for seeing late picks running around doing well forgetting the hundreds of players who didn't even play a game. Certainly if you do nail those picks and your earlier picks you are at a huge advantage to other teams given the levels of failure at those late picks. But of course there is a reason for that failure...

I got myself interested. And this is just for discussion as a statistical breakdown and not a whole world review of players abilities, only that they were/would be good enough to beat the statistical medians at their pick range for games played, which of course at this stage sometimes involves prediction against form and injuries to get to the games played range. So yes, there is opinion and projection involved.

For Picks 31-50
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 3.1
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 7.2
Players drafted in this range
H. Macreadie

Very unlikely to make 100 games. Players in this range only 50/50 to play more than 40. Macreadie also unlikely to get to that many games.

For Picks 21-30
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 2.9
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 7.6
Players drafted in this range
TDK
Fisher
Cuningham

I think likely one of those will make 100 games. A small chance two will as it looks like injuries will be the determining factor rather than ability.

For Picks 11-20
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 2.1
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 3.7
Picks needed for an All Australian 5.9
Players drafted in this range
Charlie
Stocker

One of those will definitely play 100 games. Very strong chance 2 will. Charlie staying injury free likely to be a 200 gamer and I personally think for him AA is possible.

For Picks 6-10
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 1.7
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 3.6
Picks needed for an All Australian 6.2
Players drafted in this range
LOB
SPS
Harry

Two of those will play 100 games. One will play 200. (not LOB)

For Pick 1
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 1.0
Picks needed for a 200 gamer 1.5
Picks needed for an All Australian 1.8
Players drafted in this range
Walsh
Weitering

Both look to be 200+ game players and possible AA candidates.

From a statistical point of view, drafting in this era will end up beating the median for picks needed for games played by players in that pick range, with the exception of 31-50 where only one player was taken.

For the Rookie Draft
For Pick 1-10
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 3.3
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 4.7
Players drafted in this range
Hugh Goddard
Matt Shaw
Cam OShea (PSD but ill put him here)
Kym Le Bois
JGM

This is our area of complete failure. Not even close to getting even a 50 game player. The only thing to remember here is that only 56% of players taken here even play a game. But its still a failure in my opinion.

For the Rookie Draft
For Pick 11-30
Picks needed for a 50 gamer 4.8
Picks needed for a 100 gamer 6.2
Players drafted in this range
Galluci
ASOS
Bugg

Again, complete failure. Not even close to getting even a 50 game player. Only 49% of players taken here even play a game. Only 33% play more than 10. Even at those rates it is still a failure in my opinion.

But again, the rates of success down here are very very low.

TLDR
National Draft, even the later picks, projects to be a success. Rookie draft, even at its low levels of expectation for supplying 50 game players, is a fail.

Come back in five years for the results.

Very nice analysis toddk......

Puts real numbers to confirm what we all suspect, and that is we have done poorly with late/rookie picks

Go Blues

_________________
“Every single element of the Club has to be the best in the league, meticulously and methodically, and only by doing this will we be elite and challenge for number 17.”
Greg Lee

Good data for sure, but I’m not sure I could get behind the ranges knowing how compromised the draft has been. For instance, Cunningham was a first round pick (1-18) in the mid 20s.

Might not make a difference? Certainly doesn’t distract from the narrative. We’ve squandered our opportunities between 19 and 54.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

For information. The ranges are pre described by draft guru. I just followed their ranges.

It shows our picks from 1-70 will likely perform above the median with the exception of our single pick between 31-50 which was Macreadie at 47.

Our rookie picks will perform below the median.

Actually reckon Kerr and Schumacher were decent picks for picks 65 and 74. We had so many of the same type they were squeezed out, especially Kerr. He would've been playing most times, and probably decently, except we did very well with our key position picks. That left Kerr too far down the pecking order.

Reckon Williamson is a good pick at 61 if not for injuries. We know he would how down a position each week if fit.

In the last 10 premiership teams 79 players were top 20 picks
77 were either pick 50 or worse, rookie, pre season,category b rookie or mid season

I can only think of Williamson, Gibbons and Newman who was traded for a future 4 th rounder who have been any good from the second category that our recruiting team have picked.
Richmond had 9 in this years team.
Sydney had 12 a few years back
In order to build a premiership squad the recruiting team have to find the diamonds in the rough

You’re right.

We should have traded our first and second rounders for fourth and fifth rounders.

Then we’d have a profile that can win a premiership.

Does it occur to you that a team could win a flag with just first and second round picks?

And that our profile is likely to be different to a team like Sydney who haven’t been down the bottom year after year and therefore haven’t had those picks?

There are a million things that go into winning a flag. Having a profile that matches any specific previous winner isn’t necessarily one of them.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

I don't think that's a valid interpretation of keogh's point, and I've hardly been his biggest supporter on here.

The fact remains that we have recruited many players with late/rookie picks or so-called "free hits" (bullshit expression), and nearly all of them have been utter gash. Anyone who's recruited (and dismissed) knows how detrimental a high turnover of inadequate staff is to a company. They can't all be winners, but if they're all losers then you ain't going anywhere.

Yep, our late picks have been crap but how many have we had compared to other teams?

This fantasy that you can’t build a successful team without close to half your team being successful late picks is bullshit.

I love to see us pick up a few “free hits” but just because our drafting profile doesn’t look like team X’s profile is irrelevant.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb