List Mgmt. List Management 2025-26

[TeeKray]

You wouldnt build a forward line over late picks because history shows there is no value in KPFs with late picks. If you want a gun KPF, you have to go early.

History shows different for KPDs. There is a reason why their value lies later in the draft, just like rucks. They are higher risk and you can often get great KPDs with late/rookie picks or as mature agers.

There is also nothing really wrong with trading in a type of player and knowing what you are getting as opposed to waiting 3-4 years for a KPD for an early KPD to hopefully make it.

Yep.

Also playing in defence is much easier than playing in attack. That's why so many failed key forwards become serviceable or even top quality key defenders. You don't need a high level of talent to be a good key defender, you just need a bit of size and some footy smarts.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

You first brought up the pick 12 scenario. I didn't quite understand where you were going with it Ducky but I went with it.

I brought up pick 12 from 2017 because it was suggested about selecting defenders who were gone from the draft pool before our second round pick. That means we would've had to give up pick 12 for them. Which would've also been giving up Marshall or SPP.

I am happy to use a lower pick to drop back to pick up key positions players in the draft with a load of potential. In that 2017 draft, it was possible to grab one or two guys, even three. There was plenty about.

The 2017 draft was was one we deliberately traded out of, because thats how the potential was rated.

I thought Richmond did well with their massive draft hand this year picking up a fair whack of tall timber with a lot of potential. They went early with Jonty Faull at 14, Luke Trainor at 21, Harry Armstrong at 23 - both of which I love, Tom Sims at 28. If those guys pay off, they will be set.

They did this after having so many picks that they'd already taken multiple midfielders. They also gave up a significant number of best 22 players to get this draft haul.

This is nothing like using a first round pick to draft guys that are rated in the 30s.

This thread is constantly full of using hindsight to say we should've drafted so-and-so 20 picks higher than anyone actually did without actually even considering who we'd lose by changing that draft choice. Like the ridiculous suggesting of drafting players instead of Jackson Mead in 2019, when the only reason we could take Mead in the mid 20s was because he was a father-son.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yep.

Also playing in defence is much easier than playing in attack. That's why so many failed key forwards become serviceable or even top quality key defenders. You don't need a high level of talent to be a good key defender, you just need a bit of size and some footy smarts.

You also need to be developed to play there, and be selected to play KPD when a starter is out and you're next in line.

This has been our issue with developing talls for the entire Hinkley era. We don't select like for like. We play players out of position, we play smaller players. We just don't give developing talls a go apart from a few exceptions.

After years of doing that at key forward we actually backed in Marshall and Georgiades. We looked like we were going to give Hayes a decent run and we promptly dropped him and picked Finlayson ahead of him for half a season. If we played Hayes for the rest of that season we'd have lost nothing and we could probably have traded him for a 2nd-3rd round pick. Instead we just delisted him. We are horrible at maintaining the value of our players, and that's because talls hold their value so well and we just refuse to play them so it spooks other clubs.

We haven't played a developing KPD for a single game since what, Dougal Howard switching back in 2018? Logan Austin in 2016? I guess we played Jarrod Lienert as a KPD a few times but he was generally more of a running defender than a proper KPD. It's a crime. Just like the forward line in the 2013-2019 era, we're having to play smalls and players out of position there because we've flatout refused to plan and develop properly. People can say "oh but we didn't have anyone ready", but that's the consequence of not taking KPD development seriously.

 

[Long live PAFC]

Whilst I don’t disagree with your point, you’re missing some key information. 3 of the 4 players mentioned at the Dogs went F/S or NGA. 2 of which were way before Port had a pick.

Was meaning that those clubs with FS or NGAs got lucky and huge advantages that Port hasn’t had. Not that we should or could have drafted those players.

Ie Collingwood got Moore - A star KPD. So they could focus their trade, FA and draft to other needs. Port has had to draft or trade in KPDs. Same with the dogs and talls.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

I brought up pick 12 from 2017 because it was suggested about selecting defenders who were gone from the draft pool before our second round pick. That means we would've had to give up pick 12 for them. Which would've also been giving up Marshall or SPP.

Fair enough. I agree but also sometimes you have to go for your guy.

The 2017 draft was was one we deliberately traded out of, because thats how the potential was rated.

Obviously they were very wrong.

If you look back on it, it was more that the list management doubled down on trading and getting readymade players which usually means they thought they were close to winning. Pick 31 for Jack Watts. FAs in Rockliff, McKenzie and Motlop.

I'm not even going to harp on what was possible with that pick 31. I talked about it many times before on here.

They did this after having so many picks that they'd already taken multiple midfielders. They also gave up a significant number of best 22 players to get this draft haul.
This is nothing like using a first round pick to draft guys that are rated in the 30s.

I've got to this point and we really are arguing two slightly different things here. This is usual for BigFooty.

My understanding is all you are saying is that you don't pick a guy that is in the 2nd round with your 1st rounder. I generally agree but there is room to move on that.

All I'm saying is that in the 2017 there were a lot of very good players especially defenders in the middle rounds that we missed out on, used for a middling player who is famous for swimming and ****, and from about late in the first round into the second round there are some serious key defenders to be picked up usually.

This thread is constantly full of using hindsight to say we should've drafted so-and-so 20 picks higher than anyone actually did without actually even considering who we'd lose by changing that draft choice. Like the ridiculous suggesting of drafting players instead of Jackson Mead in 2019, when the only reason we could take Mead in the mid 20s was because he was a father-son.

Hindsight is easy and 20/20.

I was just highlighting that 2017 had a lot of key backs throughout the draft.

You take Jackson Mead with the points. Any father, son will huge potential has to be gobbled up. You can't use Mead in this argument.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I was just highlighting that 2017 had a lot of key backs throughout the draft.

You take Jackson Mead with the points. Any father, son will huge potential has to be gobbled up. You can't use Mead in this argument.

Mead came into the conversation because someone literally suggested taking Josh Worrell (pick 28) or Charlie Comben (pick 31) at pick 25 instead of Mead. Which was not possible because we were using picks later than those two to match the bid on Mead.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Its also very easy in hindsight to list blokes who've been successful and suggested we should have picked them.

Instead of Brennan Cox, we could have just as easily picked Lewis Young or Jack Maibaum, both fails.

Instead of trading our picks in 2017, we could have picked Oscar Clavarino who had a very strong back catalogue pre draft....didnt play a game.

I don't recall anyone even mentioned Sam De Koning as an option on here pre draft. Everyone mentioned Will Gould as an option, he was a flop.

In hindsight you always make the right call and we'd be sitting here having won the last 17 premierships.

You can't use 20/20 hindsight but you can show that opportunities were lost. You can also show that even if your strike rate is decent, it would help the structure of the list a great deal.

I was happy that we burned pick 36 on Tom McCallum because we were trying to get a key defender with a decent pick. He didn't work out but the overall idea was good. Unfortunately that whole draft year for us has been jettisoned out of the airlock.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Mead came into the conversation because someone literally suggested taking Josh Worrell (pick 28) or Charlie Comben (pick 31) at pick 25 instead of Mead. Which was not possible because we were using picks later than those two to match the bid on Mead.

Not everyone puts a lot of time into the drafting threads.
The person got it wrong.
Correct politely and move on.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Ultimately, if the club had really wanted to develop key defenders to AFL level in the last half a decade, we would have. We're not just unlucky. We haven't made it a priority and so it hasn't happened. We've always prioritised winning now over tall development too much, and the result is that we haven't won anything and we haven't developed any key defenders.

 

[afl2004]

Ultimately, if the club had really wanted to develop key defenders to AFL level in the last half a decade, we would have. We're not just unlucky. We haven't made it a priority and so it hasn't happened. We've always prioritised winning now over tall development too much, and the result is that we haven't won anything and we haven't developed any key defenders.

Allir and McKenzie being got for peanuts and turning into 7 to 9 out of 10 every week defenders has not help that "we will sort it out later" attitude

 

[Long live PAFC]

You also need to be developed to play there, and be selected to play KPD when a starter is out and you're next in line.

This has been our issue with developing talls for the entire Hinkley era. We don't select like for like. We play players out of position, we play smaller players. We just don't give developing talls a go apart from a few exceptions.

After years of doing that at key forward we actually backed in Marshall and Georgiades. We looked like we were going to give Hayes a decent run and we promptly dropped him and picked Finlayson ahead of him for half a season. If we played Hayes for the rest of that season we'd have lost nothing and we could probably have traded him for a 2nd-3rd round pick. Instead we just delisted him. We are horrible at maintaining the value of our players, and that's because talls hold their value so well and we just refuse to play them so it spooks other clubs.

We haven't played a developing KPD for a single game since what, Dougal Howard switching back in 2018? Logan Austin in 2016? I guess we played Jarrod Lienert as a KPD a few times but he was generally more of a running defender than a proper KPD. It's a crime. Just like the forward line in the 2013-2019 era, we're having to play smalls and players out of position there because we've flatout refused to plan and develop properly. People can say "oh but we didn't have anyone ready", but that's the consequence of not taking KPD development seriously.

I don’t disagree with the concept but do think there are some nuance here.

Alipate was running around until 2016. Jonas and Clurey were both developing during the 2013-2016 period. Howard started getting games in 2016. You can only develop so many players at once.

There is a balance between developing players and playing developed players. Leek Aleer may be a better defender at career’s end than Idun, Buckley or Keefe, but right now those players are better and GWS are pushing for a flag. In 2015/16, how would Clurey, Carlile or Jonas have taken sitting out games to give Austin a go? How would Esava or BZT take it if we decided to develop Walsh instead of giving him a run? I’m not saying you need to never drop players or not be tough. Macrae, Daniel, Parker etc all left their clubs because other players were prioritised. So there is need for balance.

Equally players still develop for a long time, it’s not unreasonable to suggest Jonas and Clurey were still developing well after reaching 100 games, or that BZT and Sav are still developing now. Should we cut short BZT’s development to try and develop Walsh?

Also an extra 10-20 games into Hayes and Pasini, as much as I was calling for it, wouldn’t have changed our need to get BZT, Sav, etc.

If KPD drafting and development was so easy, why were Sydney, Essendon, Hawthorn, Adelaide, North, Collingwood - all looking for key backs at the last trade period?

As to the devaluing of players:

• Hayes didn’t get a train on gig at any clubs. Lots of clubs needed a ruck. He was a SANFL b n f winner and had afl games to his name. They could have had him for free but no interest. Meanwhile guys like Ryan and Fullarton were traded, despite no AFL games and poorer form. Hayes just wasn’t that good and an extra 10 AFL games wouldn’t have changed that.
• Pasini was a rookie with a knee and shoulder reconstruction. No interest was appropriate.
• Austin, Impey both netted us about what we selected them for. Howard was better. Houston - let’s not talk about that.

 

[Powerade 08]

There is so much wrong with all these posts that its impossible to actually respond to them.

We just need to draft talls which arent complete crap.

Instead of moving our picks up and down on draft night specifically to target flankers we could try doing that for a highly rated tall.

 

[Imhotep]

We have a prime opportunity to develop a really good KPD in Walsh let's see if Carr has a different philosophy to Ken, or we spend another decade bringing in b graders from other clubs.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I don’t disagree with the concept but do think there are some nuance here.

Alipate was running around until 2016. Jonas and Clurey were both developing during the 2013-2016 period. Howard started getting games in 2016. You can only develop so many players at once.

There is a balance between developing players and playing developed players. Leek Aleer may be a better defender at career’s end than Idun, Buckley or Keefe, but right now those players are better and GWS are pushing for a flag. In 2015/16, how would Clurey, Carlile or Jonas have taken sitting out games to give Austin a go? How would Esava or BZT take it if we decided to develop Walsh instead of giving him a run? I’m not saying you need to never drop players or not be tough. Macrae, Daniel, Parker etc all left their clubs because other players were prioritised. So there is need for balance.

Equally players still develop for a long time, it’s not unreasonable to suggest Jonas and Clurey were still developing well after reaching 100 games, or that BZT and Sav are still developing now. Should we cut short BZT’s development to try and develop Walsh?

Also an extra 10-20 games into Hayes and Pasini, as much as I was calling for it, wouldn’t have changed our need to get BZT, Sav, etc.

If KPD drafting and development was so easy, why were Sydney, Essendon, Hawthorn, Adelaide, North, Collingwood - all looking for key backs at the last trade period?

As to the devaluing of players:

• Hayes didn’t get a train on gig at any clubs. Lots of clubs needed a ruck. He was a SANFL b n f winner and had afl games to his name. They could have had him for free but no interest. Meanwhile guys like Ryan and Fullarton were traded, despite no AFL games and poorer form. Hayes just wasn’t that good and an extra 10 AFL games wouldn’t have changed that.
• Pasini was a rookie with a knee and shoulder reconstruction. No interest was appropriate.
• Austin, Impey both netted us about what we selected them for. Howard was better. Houston - let’s not talk about that.

I don't think we need to stall the development of our existing plauers, we just need to put players in when they're next on the depth chart.

The fact that we don't even have someone on the depth chart suitable to come in despite injury issues at KPD is just more evidence that we don't care about it. And this certainly isn't the first time we've picked a player l undersized or out of position to cover a hole in a KPP or ruck position. We could play Walsh right now, but he's 19.

Should we have left Clurey out to play Austin more? Maybe not, but that was almost a decade ago. We've absolutely had opportunities to blood KPDs in the time since and we haven't done it. Hell, we're effectively playing Bergman as a KPD despite his wish to play up the ground and the rumours that he wants to go.

Hayes didn't get a look in elsewhere because 17 other clubs saw Port, with the worst ruck division in the league, drop Hayes for Finlayson out of position and leave him out despite is losing the ruck badly each week. Stuff like that spooks recruiters. I'm happy that I saw enough to work with that Hayes should have played for the back half of 2022. What did we have to lose? Just a terrible, short sighted decision.

We can either making developing talls into AFL players a priority, or we can continue to pay through the nose for journeymen and role players and wonder why our defence doesn't hold up when it matters.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Where are our talls? We get a couple of injuries and we're playing a half-cooked Soldo as a key forward.

I like Berry and Moraes, they are good players but we keep drafting flanker after flanker.

Now we have our new structureless game plan and we don't have the hardness to play it.

 

[240volt]

I like Berry and Moraes, they are good players but we keep drafting flanker after flanker.

How many years have we been saying this?
The penny never drops.

 

[backtozero]

we might be staring down the barrell of a rebuild, and at the worst possible time

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

List management the past 3 years has truly been horrific. Adelaide Crows Bryce Gibbs deal horrific.

Every chance we are in for a long winter of being towards the bottom of the ladder.

List management and all involved should immediately be sacked

 

[PAFC66]

Butters is gone.

 

[Portmagpies36]

Once you let Houston go, Butters Bergman Farrell they will all be thinking about it club is weak as piss.

 

[240volt]

we might be staring down the barrell of a rebuild, and at the worst possible time

Basically it’s the only way out now.
Unfortunately like you say with Tassie coming in the picks are not going to be there.
So hopefully your young because I doubt I’ll ever see Port win another flag.

 

[scotty13]

we might be staring down the barrell of a rebuild, and at the worst possible time

A bit like the last time we were staring down a rebuild as GC and GWS took all the talent.

 

[drcollossimo]

Butters is gone.

And Bergman time to actually maximise their value the anti-Houston trade

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

Soldo and Ratugolea are players our list management team deemed worthy of chasing and giving up significant player/draft assets for.

 

[1954]

Where are our talls? We get a couple of injuries and we're playing a half-cooked Soldo as a key forward.

I like Berry and Moraes, they are good players but we keep drafting flanker after flanker.

Now we have our new structureless game plan and we don't have the hardness to play it.

Soldo had more than a few mates last night but IMO he was comfortably the worst of a bad bunch, his insipid performance was beyond poor.

He played like someone who had retired a couple of years ago but had been talked into one more game to help make up the numbers, and I suspect when he is out of contract at Alberton he will probably end up in a low grade Melbourne suburban comp.