When you've had the length of tenure that Stephen Wells has you're going to have some misses. We all know that. I note you say "more than a couple of top 30 picks". I said, "if they stuff up top 20/30 picks on a few occasions". I'm not sure about your dictionary, but mine shows a difference between a couple and a few. In reality, you're nitpicking. Stuffing up one pick in 5 top 30 picks cuts you some slack. You may even have a speculative pick when you have that many. My point, which I'm sure you understand, is that good recruiters invariably get the early ones right, especially in a good draft.

Your table and indeed my generalisations, don't factor in the poor drafts. You highlight 2003, but we all know that 2003 was a terrible draft. I'd also point out that Wells improved his drafting as he became more experienced and that happens in every profession. All your table does is highlight how good Wells has been. It may get the OP excited, but if you want we can dissect how many good players he recruited in those years and reflect on the quality of each draft. After all, you can only pick from what's on offer.

You highlight Charlie Gardner. He was one of 6 picks in 2001. The others were Stevie J, Bartel, Kelly, Playfair and of course the F/S. And even then Gardner was traded to Sydney, so a second AFL club thought him worthy of recruiting after his stint at Geelong, but you're claiming you've made a decisive point ? Wow.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your point, but I wanted to point out that even those who are seen as the best in the business, are not infallible.

Westcoast took on Steven Armstrong, and even played him in a premiership side.

History is littered with lesser players making cameos. It doesn't mean Gardiner was a hit.

And even in a draft where Wells took so many good choices, he still had enough picks to make a miss and make it earlier than some of the guns he chose.

So maybe it was more a scattershot method based on stockpiling picks?

Maybe they were one of the earliest clubs to think of drafts years ahead in terms of the strength and depth?

I don't know.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your point, but I wanted to point out that even those who are seen as the best in the business, are not infallible.

When has it been argued otherwise ?

Some recruiters are better than others. It's a silly thread.

When has it been argued otherwise ?

Some recruiters are better than others. It's a silly thread.

Not sure it has, but it hadn't been pointed out either.

In any case, I found it an interesting exercise to go through, to see what the benchmark should be.

Aaron Hall

This. We should have grabbed him while he was available. We have a desperate need of a pacy small forward and he would have filled the hole from day one.

Steve J is a good example of what happens after recruitment. What would have happened to him at another club, such as Melbourne? With his lack of off-field discipline in his earlier days, would he have been managed as successfully as it turns out he was at Geelong?

The point is, it's not just recruiters who determine whether a selection will be ultimately successful. There's a lot more required with respect to skills development, pastoral care, team balance and game style.

And I know it's been said before, but recruiters also have to choose players based on the coach's requirements. The coach will identify what he wants - KPF, running half backs, grunt players, or whatever. It's hardly the recruiters fault if he picks up a skinny, highly skilled outside player instead of a hulking key position prospect if that's the player type the coach wants. In short, only those inside the club will know whether a recruiter is good at his job or not.

Blah, blah, blah.

We have the same argument every 6 months.

Recruiters are paid to get it right!

It's hard to pick 18 year olds on what they will become!

Recruitment in the first round is bloody important!

It's easier in hindsight!

You are all right.

My view is that I can forgive whatever a recruiter picks AS LONG as they don't have BS criteria surrounding personality issues, or character judgments. They are kids.

Richmond thought Franklin would be trouble. That sentence should never come into consideration when picking teeanage footballers.

Top 30 picks? 18 teams competing for those picks? I would have thought that recruiters from the mid to top tier teams are going to be pretty much up against it from the outset.

Steve J is a good example of what happens after recruitment. What would have happened to him at another club, such as Melbourne? With his lack of off-field discipline in his earlier days, would he have been managed as successfully as it turns out he was at Geelong? The point is, it's not just recruiters who determine whether a selection will be ultimately successful. There's a lot more required with respect to skills development, pastoral care, team balance and game style. And I know it's been said before, but recruiters also have to choose players based on the coach's requirements. The coach will identify what he wants - KPF, running half backs, grunt players, or whatever. It's hardly the recruiters fault if he picks up a skinny, highly skilled outside player instead of a hulking key position prospect if that's the player type the coach wants. In short, only those inside the club will know whether a recruiter is good at his job or not.

Wasn't BP's principle best available?

Jackson Paine whom Collingwood picked up.

This, Paine looks a beauty. How the hell he dropped to the 50s is beyond me, people were pre-ranking him in the 30s IIRC

This, Paine looks a beauty. How the hell he dropped to the 50s is beyond me, people were pre-ranking him in the 30s IIRC

Was told by Melbourne that they would recruit him. When he slid to 50 the Pies took him very quickly.

I have met him and he is a good lad. Will go very well I believe.

Wasn't BP's principle best available?

But did he mean "best available" in the category (or categories) of player type(s) the coach asked for?

But did he mean "best available" in the category (or categories) of player type(s) the coach asked for?

I think he said best available, meaning that they would choose the best available player irrespective of his position. If you wanted a KPP but a player like Judd was available, then Judd it would be.