Moderator: bbmods
We didn't use pick 6 on josh.Proud Pies wrote:Josh Thomas is an example. We recruited him and his first season he didn't play VFL til about June as he had surgery on both his shins. It was something we knew would need to be done and we recruited him anyway.
I for one am glad we did.
And this is a wonderful policy when you have pick 65 because there is no down side (the regular 65th pick is unlikely to make it wo a lfawed genius that you might turn around is a good strategy). Sometimes simply picking the sixth best player in the country (and minimizing injury downside) is the best use of the 6th pick. I will never forgive Judkins for trying to outsmart the country by passing on the chance to take a known quanitity like Haselby or Pavlich (which is who we would have been choosing between had we kept the three pick - Freo took Haselby at 2 and left Pavlich for 4 because they knew Richmond were looking for a midfielder - if we were there at 2 i suspect they would have taken Pavlich).Tannin wrote:We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money.
I think Hine watches Moneyball every morning before breakfast.Tannin wrote:We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money.
E wrote:And this is a wonderful policy when you have pick 65 because there is no down side (the regular 65th pick is unlikely to make it so a flawed or injured genius that you might turn around or might come good is well worth the downside risk).Tannin wrote:We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money.
However, the 6th pick is different. In that case, i believe that simply picking the sixth best player in the country (and minimizing injury downside) is the best use of the 6th pick. I will never forgive Judkins for trying to outsmart the country by passing on the chance to take a known quanitity like Haselby or Pavlich (which is who we would have been choosing between had we kept the three pick - Freo took Haselby at 2 and left Pavlich for 4 because they knew Richmond were looking for a midfielder - if we were there at 3 i suspect they would have taken Pavlich).
With that said, i agree that it is simply not even worth debating the merits of taking a player at number 6 becasue he is not a star in round 1. I wonder how well the other top 10 draft picks went this weekend????? Its a silly exercise and only worth debating two years in.
I actually remember us all being very upset in the first few weeks of Pendlebury's time as a magpie because he didn't show much early.....
The article doesn't make it clear where the concerns are coming from. Perhaps it's the clubs who baulked that are having regrets they weren't better informed on the day.dalyc wrote:Hi all, the lasts two paragraphs of this article makes me wonder whether we're regretting picking shazza at 6. I hope we haven't stuffed it.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... hvltd.html
Yes, that's a possibility tooMOTR wrote:The article doesn't make it clear where the concerns are coming from. Perhaps it's the clubs who baulked that are having regrets they weren't better informed on the day.dalyc wrote:Hi all, the lasts two paragraphs of this article makes me wonder whether we're regretting picking shazza at 6. I hope we haven't stuffed it.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... hvltd.html
A few years ago, a young magpie named Dawes missed a fair bit of his first season and ended up being a premiership player....Wokko wrote:A young up and coming Ruckman by the name of Brodie Grundy missed a huge whack of football as well. Cemented the number 1 ruck spot by the end of the year. I wouldn't be worried about Scharenberg just yet. You don't often draft a ready to go player that high in the draft.
