Something doesn’t add up

[Ants]

Just moving the conversation a couple of degrees.

This discussion has been entirely related to recruiting practices & and how these practices arnt inclusive of indigenous young people, but I think we can do much more inside the club as a whole.

Or rather, how some claim that.

It’s been mentioned that we will have a seat on the board at Tiwi Bombers. I think we also need to have a seat on the board at Essendon for an indigenous person. Whether this is an additional seat or a current seat. Obviously Michael Long is the man we want, but it’s vital that if we are moving forward and championing opportunities for indigenous people… we must have indigenous leadership as a representative at board level.

It would be great to have that at a coaching level, but if we want to be the best club (which we say we are) at supporting & advocating for indigenous people, then there should be representation on the board.

I completely agree with these initiatives.

[Ants]

As others have noted it’s likely coming down to our potential draftee rating system. Which a big factor is risk aversion.

We may often rate an indigenous player & expect them to get to be at our 4th rounder but they get taken by others as a 3rd rounder. And we valued other players higher at our 3rd at the time.

That’s fair enough at top picks.

But what’s not happening it seems is that risk aversion isn’t being discounted at back end of draft or via rookie selections where it should be.

Sorry, but why on earth wouldn’t you be considering risks at every pick? Every pick has a risk and reward equation, and should be considered in that light. As does every potential draftee.

Which is where we as a club supposedly at forefront of indigenous players in the AFL are no longer seemingly taking those risks.

We’re taking risks. We’re just possibly not taking the risks that people here would prefer we take.

We finally tried again with Eades after a long time not doing so, who’d actually done more than most in moving interstate and it failed.

As an example and I might be wrong I see very little difference between Guelfi and Mynott. The list managers even noted they were going to pick Mynott at Guelfi’s spot as well. Not only did we go for a really safe bet with that rookie selection but a similar type player in which we just picked up. Why not take a risk there? We should be doing so. Our pacy outside mid depth, or even smaller fwd depth is so bad we retained Jerrett another year. North took Gordon Narrier at rookie pick 20. Electric pace. Beautiful skills. Kicks goals.

I agree with Benfti completely for spitting dummy on it even if Mynott becomes a good player.

The Narrier type selection as a rookie should be what the club entertains often IMO

I agree with completely with that last point. I reckon we should just about be taking one every year and certainly should have this year

So @Speedy_Gonzales and @aboods, what you seem to be saying is either (a) you know better than the drafting team, or (b) you prefer us to recruit indigenous players over winning premierships. Is that correct?

Because you seem to be saying that we should take players our recruiting team rate as less chance to make it, which would be expected to hurt our premiership chances.

[jonovdp]

And this is where we disagree with you.

There is elite players later in the draft which we are overlooking as we arnt willing to risk a rookie pick on a player that will struggle to adapt socially and culturally to Melbourne life. That is the risk we are overlooking.

A decision you and the club agree on.

[IceTemple]

There is elite players later in the draft which we are overlooking as we arnt willing to risk a rookie pick on a player that will struggle to adapt socially and culturally to Melbourne life. That is the risk we are overlooking.

Really? There are elite players that everyone isn’t picking up? Or is it just us?

[alex.f.94]

And this is where we disagree with you.

There is elite players later in the draft which we are overlooking as we arnt willing to risk a rookie pick on a player that will struggle to adapt socially and culturally to Melbourne life. That’s is the risk we are overlooking.

A decision you and the club agree on.

Seriously id love to see some expansion on this. Who is the elite player? Any names?

people are just making ■■■■ up

[aboods]

As others have noted it’s likely coming down to our potential draftee rating system. Which a big factor is risk aversion.

We may often rate an indigenous player & expect them to get to be at our 4th rounder but they get taken by others as a 3rd rounder. And we valued other players higher at our 3rd at the time.

That’s fair enough at top picks.

But what’s not happening it seems is that risk aversion isn’t being discounted at back end of draft or via rookie selections where it should be.

Sorry, but why on earth wouldn’t you be considering risks at every pick? Every pick has a risk and reward equation, and should be considered in that light. As does every potential draftee.

Which is where we as a club supposedly at forefront of indigenous players in the AFL are no longer seemingly taking those risks.

We’re taking risks. We’re just possibly not taking the risks that people here would prefer we take.

We finally tried again with Eades after a long time not doing so, who’d actually done more than most in moving interstate and it failed.

As an example and I might be wrong I see very little difference between Guelfi and Mynott. The list managers even noted they were going to pick Mynott at Guelfi’s spot as well. Not only did we go for a really safe bet with that rookie selection but a similar type player in which we just picked up. Why not take a risk there? We should be doing so. Our pacy outside mid depth, or even smaller fwd depth is so bad we retained Jerrett another year. North took Gordon Narrier at rookie pick 20. Electric pace. Beautiful skills. Kicks goals.

I agree with Benfti completely for spitting dummy on it even if Mynott becomes a good player.

The Narrier type selection as a rookie should be what the club entertains often IMO

I agree with completely with that last point. I reckon we should just about be taking one every year and certainly should have this year

So @Speedy_Gonzales and @aboods, what you seem to be saying is either (a) you know better than the drafting team, or (b) you prefer us to recruit indigenous players over winning premierships. Is that correct?

Because you seem to be saying that we should take players our recruiting team rate as less chance to make it, which would be expected to hurt our premiership chances.

Well i’m in the camp (and I realise it’s a small camp) that we needed to add another quick Small forward. We’ve got no depth imo, because Smith and Colyer won’t be playing forward. We’re relying on Long or Merrett coming good.
So I would have been going for this type instead of an inside mid.
Whether it’s an indigenous player or not I don’t care… but a lot of the better Small forwards do seem to be indigenous

[jonovdp]

Clearly it is just us.

Look at the numbers.

[IceTemple]

I never picked you as the cuckoo type.

[alex.f.94]

Clearly it is just us.

Look at the numbers.

who are the elite players in the rookie draft we overlooked because of social risk factors?

[barnz]

dayle garlett?

[alex.f.94]

elite burglary and methamphetamine procurement skills

[bloodychoir]

‘Elite’ was a poor choice of words on jono’s part, but don’t jump on it like it’s the torch that burns the whole argument. Remind me of young Libs some of you turkeys

[Ants]

And this is where we disagree with you.

There is elite players later in the draft which we are overlooking as we arnt willing to risk a rookie pick on a player that will struggle to adapt socially and culturally to Melbourne life. That is the risk we are overlooking.

A decision you and the club agree on.

Ok, I’m going to focus a bit on this and pick at these statements.

Firstly - To be clear, I’m not saying I agree with the club. I’m not saying I disagree. I do think Benfti (and you) are making a claim, and I’m presenting reasonable challenge to it. I don’t know our inner workings, and don’t claim to.

Secondly - do you have any evidence that we won’t pick a draftee specifically because “that will struggle to adapt socially and culturally to Melbourne life”? Because I’ve several times pointed out that it might just be type (with no reply) and we’re talking a reasonably small sample size here. It seems to me that you’re hanging a lot on Dodoro’s common reframe that they’re good people/family etc., ignoring that that could just be marketing. Just like they may be doubtful about some draftee’s chances, but they’d never say that - each kid is extremely promising and has a bright future. Even though we know most draftees don’t make it.

Thirdly - even if we are doing this, it wouldn’t mean we’re “overlooking” it. It would mean we put more weight on it than other risks, which presumably every draftee (especially rookies) has. Do you have any evidence that it is wrong to put a higher weight on this risk?

Fourthly - you say that there are elite players we’re missing. So either you think all clubs are missing them, or Essendon is missing them.

If the later - do you have evidence of this? Because you should be able to show that other clubs are consistently picking elite players we’ve missed based on historical draft data.

If the earlier - do you have any evidence of this beyond your belief? Obviously, it’s hard to prove a negative, but if this is what you believe your making the assertion so how do you support this belief?

[frosty]

I would question whether it’s “overweighting the risks”, or “underweighting game breaking qualities” or even “underweighting the risks involved with lack of pace”

Or whatever.

There are players who are potentially elite overlooked at every draft pick forever. There is no way of quantifying these. In any analysis players who aren’t drafted can’t be classified as “fails”, but rather they need to be treated as having no further information to study.

Just because Waylen Manson wasn’t drafted doesn’t make him not potentially elite. It just means we never got to find out.

[Deckham]

Just moving the conversation a couple of degrees.

To be a ‘discussion’, it needs to be open, with acceptance of others’ opinions and ideas. Otherwise, it is just a platform to state your view and to take down any opposing views.

[Deckham]

I would question whether it’s “overweighting the risks”, or “underweighting game breaking qualities” or even “underweighting the risks involved with lack of pace”

Or whatever.

There are players who are potentially elite overlooked at every draft pick forever. There is no way of quantifying these. In any analysis players who aren’t drafted can’t be classified as “fails”, but rather they need to be treated as having no further information to study.

Just because Waylen Manson wasn’t drafted doesn’t make him not potentially elite. It just means we never got to find out.

It’s true.
But the other 17 teams failed to find out also.
That’s an indication of some sort, isn’t it?

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

He counted as an incoming player who was not on an afl list the year before, how is it hard to understand? Given the data I was collecting. Listed players moving clubs or changing list positions was not a new Employment opportunity.

But when theres players and picks going both ways, it’s not as clear cut as one opportunity for one player. They gave up one opportunity (early pick) to put a guy on a list, and got 2 players and 2 other (late pick) opportunities in return. So do you count that as 1 player out of 1 pick? Or 1 player out of 4?

Yagmoor was also a pre selection deal, but he was one pick for one player, I’m happy enough with that.

BTW love the assertion that Jed Anderson wasn’t on an AFL list before he got to North!

[frosty]

Yes. It’s an indication that 18 groups of recruiters thought that within their clubs the chances of the player making it were lower than whoever else they took.

What that means is open to plenty of discussion and interpretation.

[Deckham]

Yes. It’s an indication that 18 groups of recruiters thought that within their clubs the chances of the player making it were lower than whoever else they took.

What that means is open to plenty of discussion and interpretation.

Yes, I agree with that. You would hope…that these teams of recruiters are using good data to back up their decisions. Maybe the parameters are not right, hard to say.

[frosty]

I’d say that they (on average across the 18 teams, acknowledging they differ wildly in some cases) are probably right in the vast majority of cases where they have good data and enough consistent information to form a cohesive opinion. The top bunch of u18s who’ve competed against each other in a competition designed to help the recruiters get their head around them for instance.

Around the edges though you’d think it would be harder. Players for whom they don’t have as much data, have seen less often, who play roles that are inherently more streaky (eg small forwards, particularly in week sides).

Can they overlook potentially elite players in that case. For sure.