According to the The AGE last week we have recruited poorly and/or the evolution of the press defeated our recruiting.

Barry P slunk off rather quietly and I wondering whether this was a Neeld driven situation after arriving and assessing all of the draftees of the past 5 or 7 years? Or did he see the writing on the wall?

It's clear there has been a lot of clearing out of the footy dept (with the exception of Mahoney and Royal) so has anyone heard anything concrete on BPs departure?

What sort of scuttlebutt are you looking for?

BP was responsible for the 2008 to 2010 drafts. 2011 draft we traded to get Clark and there may have been some other influences in our choice of Magner and Sellar.

Prior to that period Craig Cameron was responsible for recruiting.

BP took up an assistant coaching role at Carlton.

In some cases, I think its too early to assess some of the picks but I think there has been sufficient carriage of time to assess Cameron's choices. And its not a good report card overall.

What sort of scuttlebutt are you looking for?

BP was responsible for the 2008 to 2010 drafts. 2011 draft we traded to get Clark and there may have been some other influences in our choice of Magner and Sellar.

Prior to that period Craig Cameron was responsible for recruiting.

BP took up an assistant coaching role at Carlton.

In some cases, I think its too early to assess some of the picks but I think there has been sufficient carriage of time to assess Cameron's choices. And its not a good report card overall.

RR i think BP saw the writing on the wall and took up the option at a club that was going somewhere in the next few years.

Some would say clever thinking.

Was trying to ascertain whether he had been given the cold shoulder from Neeld, whether he saw the writing on the wall, whether he jumped etc. Either way he is not around to see whether his choices come good or not.

Maybe he thinks the picks are no good and he better find another job, I don't know. Just testing to see what is out there..

Would it be fair to say that BP was responsible for us taking Magner?

As head of recruiting- Yes.

If not and he had lost that responsibility or his role was compromised then its no wonder he looked elsewhere.

Would it be fair to say that BP was responsible for us taking Magner?

Billy i had the opposite feeling that it was Neeld who was hot for this guy.

Billy i had the opposite feeling that it was Neeld who was hot for this guy.

It is something that we will never know. For all we know Neeld might have said to BP "go out and get me a tough, hard at it mature age rookie who might have an immediate impact".

The angle you take on this opinion is likely to match your angle on BP in general. I think BP had done a good-very good job in terms of later draft picks, with Howe being the obvious one. It's the first rounders that he "may" have appeared to have made mistakes, but is that only because of the direction/game plan the coach at the time was wanting to take, hence why certain selections were made? Again, your view on that will vary depending on your stance of the first sentence of this paragraph.

It is something that we will never know. For all we know Neeld might have said to BP "go out and get me a tough, hard at it mature age rookie who might have an immediate impact". The angle you take on this opinion is likely to match your angle on BP in general. I think BP had done a good-very good job in terms of later draft picks, with Howe being the obvious one. It's the first rounders that he "may" have appeared to have made mistakes, but is that only because of the direction/game plan the coach at the time was wanting to take, hence why certain selections were made? Again, your view on that will vary depending on your stance of the first sentence of this paragraph.

The position of the recruiter is somewhat compromised if he is instructed to pick a particular player, or type of player by the coach, or anyone else at the club. He ceases to be the recruiter and is simply a number caller outer if that's the case.

I can't see the point of having a recruiter, that scours the country looking at all the best available talent, and then throws all that away and just picks who the coach instructs him too. If the club is close to a flag and they need a mature age player like Geelong did with Ottens than fair enough, but if he picks up a second rate player above his choice of best available through instruction then his position is untenable.

BTW I think we have to have a long hard look at the supposed "talent" he picked up later in the draft I can't see a lot of good stuff there either.

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by RobbieF

The position of the recruiter is somewhat compromised if he is instructed to pick a particular player, or type of player by the coach, or anyone else at the club. He ceases to be the recruiter and is simply a number caller outer if that's the case.

I can't see the point of having a recruiter, that scours the country looking at all the best available talent, and then throws all that away and just picks who the coach instructs him too. If the club is close to a flag and they need a mature age player like Geelong did with Ottens than fair enough, but if he picks up a second rate player above his choice of best available through instruction then his position is untenable.

BTW I think we have to have a long hard look at the supposed "talent" he picked up later in the draft I can't see a lot of good stuff there either.

Robbie, I seriously don't know if you're taking the pi$$ with this post or not.

The main problems we have now - no senior players of quality, no leadership - go back to the Cameron years.

We should have a core group of 24 - 27 year olds leading the way. Instead we have SFA

It's our drafting over this period that has dropped us firmly in the mire

Too early to assign a pass or fail to Prendergast

OK so we can argue about who made which mistakes in the past (and whether they in fact were mistakes) but what are we doing to rectify this now? This coming draft will determine how we fare over the next few years considering our multitude of likely high (and other) draft picks so why have we not got a proper full time herad recruiter in to replace Prendergast yet. OK there is the Collingwood guy that has been talked about but is this even likely to occur before this years draft? Will he be able to bring across his "IP"? What if he turns around at the end of the year and says "thanks but no thanks"?

Don't point to Viney either because he is only a fill in. We've sorted out most of the FD over summer (except Mahoney & Royal) now we need to get the recruitment department right ASAP before we throw another "super" draft (in terms of talent & picks) down the toilet.

Robbie, I seriously don't know if you're taking the pi$$ with this post or not.

What do you see the recruiters position as? Do you think he should pass on a obvious super mid at number 1 because the coach instructs him to pick up a tall prospective KPP player?

Do you reckon he'd ever get another gig if that were the case? Who copped the blame at Richmond for the recruiting disasters there?

I think, depending on the draft, that the first 30 kids should be picked and from there it should be looking at the state leagues for ready made players.

It is still too much of a lottery this teenage draft we have.

But you have to get those picks in the top 10 right, because that is where comparative advantage and disadvantage in playing stocks arises.

That said, Go The Biff is right. We are paying for poor recruitment and/or development from pre-2005 drafted players.

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by rpfc

The position of the recruiter is somewhat compromised if he is instructed to pick a particular player, or type of player by the coach, or anyone else at the club. He ceases to be the recruiter and is simply a number caller outer if that's the case.

I can't see the point of having a recruiter, that scours the country looking at all the best available talent, and then throws all that away and just picks who the coach instructs him too. If the club is close to a flag and they need a mature age player like Geelong did with Ottens than fair enough, but if he picks up a second rate player above his choice of best available through instruction then his position is untenable.

Agree with most of that.

If the Club wants to spot a particular player from another Club, the process of negotiation should be handled by the CEO, head of FD and list management. The recruiter will forfeit the use of the trading picks.

There is a real issue if the Coach is stepping actively into the recruitment process. Its just as bad of the recruitin manager is jumping into the Coaches box and giving directions match day. The FD should be telling the recruiter what they believe they need in type of player. The recruiter should be providing feedback on those requirements and also what he is seeing out there in the market place of talent.

Robbie, I seriously don't know if you're taking the pi$$ with this post or not.

?????The same could be said of your response Billy.

The main problems we have now - no senior players of quality, no leadership - go back to the Cameron years.

We should have a core group of 24 - 27 year olds leading the way. Instead we have SFA

It's our drafting over this period that has dropped us firmly in the mire

Too early to assign a pass or fail to Prendergast

Is it ? I would suggest that none of Tapscott, Gysberts, Strauss, Blease, Fitzpatrick, Gawn ( yes I know he's injured), Cook, Jetta ( yes again), Bennell have yet shown enough to suggest they will make it. I would offer the suggestion that they are, collectively, one dimensional selections which might provide a clue as to why they went to Magner & Crouch in the pre-seasn Rookie draft.

Ticks to Trengove, Watts ( both obvious choices I would suggest ), Howe, Martin

Question marks on Bail, McDonald. was Morton one of his ?

Maric already gone.

Average performance with the picks we have had

?????The same could be said of your response Billy.

Sorry RR, I forgot you felt the need to respond to every post even if they aren't directed at you.

I think, depending on the draft, that the first 30 kids should be picked and from there it should be looking at the state leagues for ready made players. It is still too much of a lottery this teenage draft we have. But you have to get those picks in the top 10 right, because that is where comparative advantage and disadvantage in playing stocks arises. That said, Go The Biff is right. We are paying for poor recruitment and/or development from pre-2005 drafted players.

I just had a look at the 2001 draft and nearly cried, every one of our selections turned out to be a dud and there were at least 9 selected in the Rookie Draft ( not counting Jamar) that were far superior to anyone we took in the national draft.

Read it and weep.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts?year=2001&t=N&s=P

2001 was a shocker for Craig Cameron.

2001 was a shocker for Craig Cameron.

Correct and if I recall we picked up Molan because the coach said we needed a KPP; a classic example of what we talked about above. Mind you the rest of the selections were horrendous as well, we could have picked up the core of an excellent side in that draft alone.

I just had a look at the 2001 draft and nearly cried, every one of our selections turned out to be a dud and there were at least 9 selected in the Rookie Draft ( not counting Jamar) that were far superior to anyone we took in the national draft.

Read it and weep.

http://www.footywire...ar=2001&t=N&s=P

Already have wept.

If you have some free time soon, go and look at the age splits of Geel, Haw, WCE, and Coll. Their most important players are still the ones that were picked up pre-2005.

Drafted from that era, we have Green, Davey, Bate, Dunn, Jamar, Rivers, Sylvia, MacDonald and Moloney (the last two through trades but were drafted in this period).

In both quality and quantity - we have done poorly from those drafts, and they are the key to the success of today.

What do you see the recruiters position as? Do you think he should pass on a obvious super mid at number 1 because the coach instructs him to pick up a tall prospective KPP player?

Do you reckon he'd ever get another gig if that were the case? Who copped the blame at Richmond for the recruiting disasters there?

I see the recruiters position having many aspects, that I won't go in to a majority of them.

What I would suggest is that the recruiters would start concertrating on the current years draft prospects approx 2-3 years prior to their final U18 year (aka their draft year).

The recruiters would meet with the football department, in particular the coach and maybe even the List Manager, I'm guessing maybe at least once a month, to discuss what prospects are progressing.

For someone like Neeld, I have absolutely no doubt he, in his discussions with the recruiters, would be informing them of where we have holes in our list, how these holes relate to the game plan we are trying to introduce, and through their observations of the current draft stocks as well as what is coming up next year and the year after, be able to guide Neeld in who could be earmarked for that spot, all while Neeld is guiding them as to what our draft needs are.

To say that the role of a recruiter is somewhat compromised because the coach is guiding him is, in my view, totally incorrect.

In terms of established players (as brought up by RR), I think it would depend on the profile of that player for a start. High profile players, or perhaps high expense players, would in my view see a team of the coach, list manager, perhaps CEO, and maybe the football manager and/or Neil Craig (whatever his title is!), approach them.

RobbieF - I just read your latest post. We will never know what Luke Molan could've been. In hindsight, he was a bad 1st round pick, but just take a look at the injuries the poor bloke suffered pretty much from day 1. Actually, while you're there, take a look at the events in his life within 2-3 years of him first being drafted.

I see the recruiters position having many aspects, that I won't go in to a majority of them.

What I would suggest is that the recruiters would start concertrating on the current years draft prospects approx 2-3 years prior to their final U18 year (aka their draft year).

The recruiters would meet with the football department, in particular the coach and maybe even the List Manager, I'm guessing maybe at least once a month, to discuss what prospects are progressing.

For someone like Neeld, I have absolutely no doubt he, in his discussions with the recruiters, would be informing them of where we have holes in our list, how these holes relate to the game plan we are trying to introduce, and through their observations of the current draft stocks as well as what is coming up next year and the year after, be able to guide Neeld in who could be earmarked for that spot, all while Neeld is guiding them as to what our draft needs are.

To say that the role of a recruiter is somewhat compromised because the coach is guiding him is, in my view, totally incorrect.

In terms of established players (as brought up by RR), I think it would depend on the profile of that player for a start. High profile players, or perhaps high expense players, would in my view see a team of the coach, list manager, perhaps CEO, and maybe the football manager and/or Neil Craig (whatever his title is!), approach them.

RobbieF - I just read your latest post. We will never know what Luke Molan could've been. In hindsight, he was a bad 1st round pick, but just take a look at the injuries the poor bloke suffered pretty much from day 1. Actually, while you're there, take a look at the events in his life within 2-3 years of him first being drafted.

This is what I said so perhaps you've misinterpereted it.

The position of the recruiter is somewhat compromised if he is instructed to pick a particular player, or type of player by the coach, or anyone else at the club

I have no doubt that the Coach will have some input in to the type of player that he is looking for but the ultimate responsibility for the recruitment is the Recruiting Manager and they will usually, or should, take the best available.

Luke Molan was a classic example, he was not expected to go anywhere near where we picked him and it was a shock to all, what transpired was tragic for Luke but whether he would have been good enough is just speculation. We should have used that pick for best available, not for a particular type of player that Daniher was after.

This is what I said so perhaps you've misinterpereted it.

The position of the recruiter is somewhat compromised if he is instructed to pick a particular player, or type of player by the coach, or anyone else at the club

I have no doubt that the Coach will have some input in to the type of player that he is looking for but the ultimate responsibility for the recruitment is the Recruiting Manager and they will usually, or should, take the best available.

Luke Molan was a classic example, he was not expected to go anywhere near where we picked him and it was a shock to all, what transpired was tragic for Luke but whether he would have been good enough is just speculation. We should have used that pick for best available, not for a particular type of player that Daniher was after.

So, in 2010 we draft Cook, Howe, Davis and McDonald. Do you think BP said before each of those selections were made "these players are the best available at this pick so we should pick them"? He and Bailey both said in their interviews that they went in to the draft wanting certain players; forwards who can take a mark, and bigger defenders. These players were the best available for our needs, and especially once you get to the 2nd round+ as all picks are quite speculative.

I still disagree with tha tline you re-posted. I'm reading it that should a coach, or someone else within the club, instruct to the recruiter's that we need a certain type of player, that you believe the recruiters role is being compromised. If that's what you are meaning, I just can't see how that is anywhere near accurate. Of course the recruiters are going to discuss needs with the coach, if they didn't, there could potentially end up with a total inbalance of players.

Luke Molan was a classic example, he was not expected to go anywhere near where we picked him and it was a shock to all, what transpired was tragic for Luke but whether he would have been good enough is just speculation. We should have used that pick for best available, not for a particular type of player that Daniher was after.

Cameron admitted on this site some years ago that recruiting Molan was an error of judgement given they went for specific type with the first pick as opposed to best available.