IMHO a recruiter cannot be judged with what he does with early picks - but more what he does with the late low probability picks.

I understand where you are coming from but a recruiter will be more heavily scrutinised on the high-value picks at the beginning of the draft - that's where the stars come from.

You have got to get those picks right.

I understand where you are coming from but a recruiter will be more heavily scrutinised on the high-value picks at the beginning of the draft - that's where the stars come from.

You have got to get those picks right.

Very good point - now we bring in the "footy" media. Who are very prone to making calls on the here & now. Sadly, the general public are heavily influenced by what they read & hear. However, again all the research points to the fact that it very difficult to get maximum return for early draft picks - in the short term. The "expectations" way exceed their early output. If you do get it in the short term - there is a high probability it will not be sustained.

Essential we are looking for "stayers" 150-200 game players with early picks - not "sprinters". Can you develop "sprinters" into stayers - it tough and very, very low probability.

IMHO you look for your sprinters in rookie drafts or at the TRADE Table - unfortunately we have not been a success at the trade table of late. I will leave that to you on why I think thats the case.

Cheers

hope he is not mutton dressed as lamb.

Very good point - now we bring in the "footy" media. Who are very prone to making calls on the here & now. Sadly, the general public are heavily influenced by what they read & hear. However, again all the research points to the fact that it very difficult to get maximum return for early draft picks - in the short term. The "expectations" way exceed their early output. If you do get it in the short term - there is a high probability it will not be sustained.

Essential we are looking for "stayers" 150-200 game players with early picks - not "sprinters". Can you develop "sprinters" into stayers - it tough and very, very low probability.

IMHO you look for your sprinters in rookie drafts or at the TRADE Table - unfortunately we have not been a success at the trade table of late. I will leave that to you on why I think thats the case.

Cheers

Some would even call them _ _ _ _ _

Very good point - now we bring in the "footy" media. Who are very prone to making calls on the here & now. Sadly, the general public are heavily influenced by what they read & hear. However, again all the research points to the fact that it very difficult to get maximum return for early draft picks - in the short term. The "expectations" way exceed their early output. If you do get it in the short term - there is a high probability it will not be sustained.

Essential we are looking for "stayers" 150-200 game players with early picks - not "sprinters". Can you develop "sprinters" into stayers - it tough and very, very low probability.

IMHO you look for your sprinters in rookie drafts or at the TRADE Table - unfortunately we have not been a success at the trade table of late. I will leave that to you on why I think thats the case.

Cheers

If I read you correctly, you are saying that you should look to the later picks, rookie draft, and trades for those who are to have an immediate impact.

Essentially, this is affirmation of taking Magner as a 24 year old rookie.

But I don't expect those early picks (and I am talking top 10 picks as I think it's a teenage lottery from there on) to make an immediate impact. You draft in the top 10 for the best player available when they are 23.

So I don't hold judgement over our recent drafts.

As I said many times of late, I am more distressed about our recruiting and development of those players arriving from 2000 to 2005.

I understand where you are coming from but a recruiter will be more heavily scrutinised on the high-value picks at the beginning of the draft - that's where the stars come from.

You have got to get those picks right.

Oh - I should add the media seems also to lack the ability to understand that all "talent" pools are different. They make this crazy assumption because you are a PICK 1 you must be "insert outlandish claim" - but in reality in not true & what you look for from one draft to the next may be based on "needs". The sum of the whole hopefully is greater than the sum of the parts.

As I said many times of late, I am more distressed about our recruiting and development of those players arriving from 2000 to 2005.

Ok yes I've read you have said this a few times. But IMHO - this is where our development & our inability at the trade table has really shown up. Development especially as the game changes - to get those players to adapt.

IMHO Collingwood, Geelong & Hawthorn have and great success in this area due to their vast amount of resources. But sadly us and a few other lower spending teams have missed the opportunity due to a lack of funds. I should also add the Swans here they are masters of the "recycle" under Misson type processes.

PS our inability at the trade table is somewhat out of the clubs hands - IMHO

Edited April 13, 201213 yr by Dr Who

You can have all the "information" in the world, but you also need to attribute the correct weight to each different piece of info.

If you overvalue or undervalue the wrong KPIs, you could well find yourself making an inferior selection.

Why did I think of GWS and meat pies when you said this!!!

I have been reading all the very bad humour - you guys are such dags

I have been reading all the very bad humour - you guys are such dags

The humour has been pretty baa a a d

Ok yes I've read you have said this a few times. But IMHO - this is where our development & our inability at the trade table has really shown up. Development especially as the game changes - to get those players to adapt.

IMHO Collingwood, Geelong & Hawthorn have and great success in this area due to their vast amount of resources. But sadly us and a few other lower spending teams have missed the opportunity due to a lack of funds. I should also add the Swans here they are masters of the "recycle" under Misson type processes.

PS our inability at the trade table is somewhat out of the clubs hands - IMHO

Ok, now you are throwing 2 different issues into one, development and trade. I agree with you that development is important and it is an area we have been sadly lacking. Trade for players is not such a big deal in my opinion. If we look at the yardstick in Geelong then appart from Ottens they have not traded anyone into the club for quite a while. They have traded some good quality players out for picks and that's what I would be looking to do. We have traded in Clark and Mclean out for a high pick, I know he was picked up as a high pick but for us to get what we got for him wasn't a bad trade.

We're not going to pick up an A grader with a trade (I think you are alluding to that in your PS) and if we did the cost would be too great, we are better with astute recruiting and quality development to grow our own. Diamond Jim, Big Carl, Templeton, Croswell, Moore etc. didn't bring us team success.

At the end of this season we need to see who has real currency then make decisions to trade for more picks or if a Kennedy or Mumford are around have a serious look. We are too late now to start to top up our senior players, that horse has bolted. It's now up to the new leadership group and coaching staff to show the way forward.

By the way Tim Lamb's police experience might be a real benefit in interviews (interagation), I reckon he might just be able to sniff out a bit of the BS that goes on from time to time.

Ok, now you are throwing 2 different issues into one, development and trade. I agree with you that development is important and it is an area we have been sadly lacking. Trade for players is not such a big deal in my opinion. If we look at the yardstick in Geelong then appart from Ottens they have not traded anyone into the club for quite a while. They have traded some good quality players out for picks and that's what I would be looking to do. We have traded in Clark and Mclean out for a high pick, I know he was picked up as a high pick but for us to get what we got for him wasn't a bad trade.

We're not going to pick up an A grader with a trade (I think you are alluding to that in your PS) and if we did the cost would be too great, we are better with astute recruiting and quality development to grow our own. Diamond Jim, Big Carl, Templeton, Croswell, Moore etc. didn't bring us team success.

At the end of this season we need to see who has real currency then make decisions to trade for more picks or if a Kennedy or Mumford are around have a serious look. We are too late now to start to top up our senior players, that horse has bolted. It's now up to the new leadership group and coaching staff to show the way forward.

By the way Tim Lamb's police experience might be a real benefit in interviews (interagation), I reckon he might just be able to sniff out a bit of the BS that goes on from time to time.

No problems with what you say. But I was merely answering RPFC point re our older brigade. IMHO we have had to make the best of what we have had and lacked the ability to import certain types.

Ottens was essential to the Geelong structure - so much so they tried to talk him into another year this year. Judd was essential in changing the whole Carlton football club. Collingwood have consistently been able to target lesser names and meld them into their structures. Hawthorn fantastic at the trade table to build on their twin towers. Swans are masters of the recycle process.

You underestimate the "value" of the trade table at your own peril.

However, you still have to develop both trades & recruits all be it somewhat differently and at a different pace. You need a complimentary balanced process not a process forced on you to go down one path - recruiting.

Sorry but equalisation thru the recruiting alone process is a myth.

I have been reading all the very bad humour - you guys are such dags

Damned if you're deemed negative, damned if you contribute enlightening material. Thankfully nuts you haven't commented on my post yet.

Optimistically speaking there's undoubtedly a positive reply coming...

He'll have to ram home the need for players who don't hogget (ewe know, those who shear the ball around) regardless of wether they've been earmarked for the draft yet

I was talking to a kiwi the other day, and he couldn't believe how in Australia, we shear sheep. He said "back home, we don't shear them with anyone"...

I was talking to a kiwi the other day, and he couldn't believe how in Australia, we shear sheep. He said "back home, we don't shear them with anyone"...

an oldie but a goodie

is this an opening for kiwi jokes now, or is that too OT?

Trying to work out wether this thread is a load of old footrot.

Trying to work out wether this thread is a load of old footrot.

Would be best if you bale then before it's too late.

Would be best if you bale then before it's too late.

That's the trouble with Melbourne supporters. Wool pulled over their eyes and no fibre.

Speaking of that, I wonder how Tim's Grandma Rino is going?

I'll have to ruminate on that one.

I'll have to ruminate on that one.

Grand-Ma-Rino...

I know the A is meant to be an E, but I couldn't do anything about that...

I'll have to ruminate on that one.

me rume nate liked that one

This thread has morphed into a positive ray of light around here in these dark days, I love it! All because I commented on the punny headline from a serious news story..

Carry on...

I'll have to ruminate on that one.

What about his brother Shaun?

BUMP Just watching Show Me The Money on Stan.

Well worth reading posters views on TLs appointment on this thread 11 years on.

In Dees I Trust!