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.

This is where we get in to trouble, if what you say is correct. Clearly Cook was not the best available and the person that has to wear his selection is BP not DB, so if the Coach selected Cook and the Recruiter wanted someone else his position and his reputation have both been compromised and he is no longer the recruiter, the Coach is.

I don't doubt that the coach will influence the later picks, these are somewhat of a lottery anyway, but the crucial first round picks are what a recruiter lives and dies by.

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.

Wonder who the "they" were. BTW did he explain the rest of the disasters in that year?

Anyone who doesn't think Prendergast was pushed out the door by Neeld has rocks in their head.

Of course they dressed it up nicely as him having seen 'coaching opportunities' at Carlton. Everyone's got to save a modicum of face, including those that run the club because after all, the buck stops with them.

Prendergast was a crap recruiter. A slew of first round picks and no identifiable stars. Case closed.

This is where we get in to trouble, if what you say is correct. Clearly Cook was not the best available and the person that has to wear his selection is BP not DB, so if the Coach selected Cook and the Recruiter wanted someone else his position and his reputation have both been compromised and he is no longer the recruiter, the Coach is.

I don't doubt that the coach will influence the later picks, these are somewhat of a lottery anyway, but the crucial first round picks are what a recruiter lives and dies by.

There is absolutely no way you can tell if Cook is a bad pick or not.

Anyone who doesn't think Prendergast was pushed out the door by Neeld has rocks in their head.

Of course they dressed it up nicely as him having seen 'coaching opportunities' at Carlton. Everyone's got to save a modicum of face, including those that run the club because after all, the buck stops with them.

Prendergast was a crap recruiter. A slew of first round picks and no identifiable stars. Case closed.

I, like you Range, hope this bites you on the arse!

There is absolutely no way you can tell if Cook is a bad pick or not.

I, like you Range, hope this bites you on the arse!

I think I can.

I said in my post that he wasn't the best available but if you want me to go further I have.

Wonder who the "they" were. BTW did he explain the rest of the disasters in that year?

It's been burned in my mind for years that Cameron basically said without saying that he took Molan because Daniher said so - but it was a long time ago now and I don't have any proof. As for the rest of the players we took that year...

Interesting that we weren't the only club to bomb out that year. North's picks were David Hale at 7, Ashley Watson at 14, Rod Crowe at 30, Ben Robbins at 54, Re-drafted Mick Martyn at 61 and took Hugh Foott at 80. Collingwood hit the jackpot with Dane Swan at 58, but they took Richard Cole, Tom Davidson and Mark McGough before him. Wow.

Meaningless in the context of our recruiting, but it proves that even the superest of drafts, plenty of clubs pick up plenty of duds. Just a shame we happened to be one of them.

I think I can.

I said in my post that he wasn't the best available but if you want me to go further I have.

So who was the best available at pick 12 in 2010? Looking at their resumes, I wouldn't have thought too many Clubs would've knocked back the All Australian CHF. And from all reports, "a" club were going to draft Cook with their first pick but we beat them to it. Would BP make this up? Why would he?

So who was the best available at pick 12 in 2010? Looking at their resumes, I wouldn't have thought too many Clubs would've knocked back the All Australian CHF. And from all reports, "a" club were going to draft Cook with their first pick but we beat them to it. Would BP make this up? Why would he?

It doesn't matter what other clubs did or do. Only what we do. Let the record ... the list ... speak for itself.

It doesn't matter what other clubs did or do. Only what we do. Let the record ... the list ... speak for itself.

So who was the best available at pick 12 then Range?

May I suggest you change your signature to 202? - 202? - 202?.

I think that BP or any recruiters job will be to build profiles on all draftee's, then do rankings of who are THE best players in order for example.

Then on draft day they will see who available at each pick, is the clear "best" available? is therea need within a few picks? what types of players do we need? are they around our pick?

Then the coach will have an input and a decision will be made, imo by the coach on who we need and it is the upto the recruiting team to pick these players.

Simply picking the best avaialable with every pick may mean you end up with 40 midfielders, obviously never going to happen.

So when do you start to focus on needs ect, who's decision is it to make this call ect?

I think the recruiter will advise the coaching staff and the coach on who is available at certain points, they will play out mock drafts ect, situations and know who they want at each point in the draft.

The recruiter will never have free reign on the recruiting of a club, so how can they be singled out, this is my biggest point i imagine

It's been burned in my mind for years that Cameron basically said without saying that he took Molan because Daniher said so - but it was a long time ago now and I don't have any proof. As for the rest of the players we took that year...

Interesting that we weren't the only club to bomb out that year. North's picks were David Hale at 7, Ashley Watson at 14, Rod Crowe at 30, Ben Robbins at 54, Re-drafted Mick Martyn at 61 and took Hugh Foott at 80. Collingwood hit the jackpot with Dane Swan at 58, but they took Richard Cole, Tom Davidson and Mark McGough before him. Wow.

Meaningless in the context of our recruiting, but it proves that even the superest of drafts, plenty of clubs pick up plenty of duds. Just a shame we happened to be one of them.

However we've mastered the art, we've become the experts at turning Golden picks in to Rusty shovels.

I love the MFC but I won't and can't ignore the fact we've stuffed up the best chance we've had for nearly 50 years to consolidate the club and maybe win a flag.

Our recruiters have done an abysmal job and they have done it consistently and for as long as I can remember.

So who was the best available at pick 12 in 2010? Looking at their resumes, I wouldn't have thought too many Clubs would've knocked back the All Australian CHF. And from all reports, "a" club were going to draft Cook with their first pick but we beat them to it. Would BP make this up? Why would he?

I would have thought that Darling would have been best available and if he was gone then Atley, I know we don't need midfielders but I guess a spare wouldn't hurt.

If we got sucked in to the whispers about who was going to draft who then I can understand why we are so bad at this caper.

I would have thought that Darling would have been best available and if he was gone then Atley, I know we don't need midfielders but I guess a spare wouldn't hurt.

A little off topic, I guess, but I'd argue that we need midfielders more than anything. Class ones.

So who was the best available at pick 12 then Range?

May I suggest you change your signature to 202? - 202? - 202?.

Jack Darling.

The sig stays for the time being but believe me ... I'd just be happy with one piece of silverware while I'm still breathing.

I would have thought that Darling would have been best available and if he was gone then Atley, I know we don't need midfielders but I guess a spare wouldn't hurt.

If we got sucked in to the whispers about who was going to draft who then I can understand why we are so bad at this caper.

How good a job did West Coast do in putting everyone off the scent (Darling). By draft day he was basically viewed as Ned Kelly incarnate!

Hats off to them. They play for keeps that mob.

we missed some good picks in recent drafts...before they got drafted...i was expecting us to go for Vardy, Talia, Atley and Darling

It doesn't matter what other clubs did or do. Only what we do. Let the record ... the list ... speak for itself.

It never ceases to amazes me that comment; it seems that every year when we stuff it up we justify it by saying, "none of the other club's wanted him" or "all the other recruiters passed him over too". It's amazing how those other clubs manage to pick up the good players on second round selections isn't it?

But we keep thinking that we're doing well when all the other clubs are passing us by, fluking those good players while we kid ourselves that we've got the best available.

A little off topic, I guess, but I'd argue that we need midfielders more than anything. Class ones.

Agree, we need about 3-4 decent midfielders, another frawley type backman, and one of Watts and Cook to develop as the forward target, but midfielders more than both of those

How good a job did West Coast do in putting everyone off the scent (Darling). By draft day he was basically viewed as Ned Kelly incarnate! Hats off to them. They play for keeps that mob.

Yes and we play by the book, winning isn't everything you know, just as Jack Watts. Pip, pip old boy.

BTW as they say winning isn't everything it's the only thing.

Anyone who doesn't think Prendergast was pushed out the door by Neeld has rocks in their head.

Try telling Rhino Richards that...

I certainly remember him having a go at me for interpreting the scenario that way..

Ahhh BP, the guy who impersonated being a recruiter for us. Wasn't he Camerons understudy? Combined they did very well in ruining this footy club.

Try telling Rhino Richards that... I certainly remember him having a go at me for interpreting the scenario that way..

I don't know what Rhino said at the time, but if it'd been me I'd have had a go at you for casting aspersions for the sake of idle gossip when you wouldn't have a damn clue one way or the other.

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.

Its an interesting point who has ultimate say. There is no doubt a heirachy but it seems clear to me in the corporate world the CEO of a small company (substitute Coach) asks his HR Manager (substitute recruiting manager):

1. who is out there

2, What do we need

3. What is your opinion on each

Before ultimately making the final decision.

I can see the coach having ultimate authority in a line ball call when the footy department is genuinely torn between two or three players. If I was coach I would want that authority but then someone does need to keep an eye on the future because the coach in all liklihood wont be there in the long term.

I don't know what Rhino said at the time, but if it'd been me I'd have had a go at you for casting aspersions for the sake of idle gossip when you wouldn't have a damn clue one way or the other.

Why do you, Rhino and others take everything at such face value? There's "gossip" and then there's having the nous to read between the lines we're drip-fed in the media. Surely you must be aware that clubs 'spin' information to headline starved journos.

Here's the article from the Hun on Jan 16 stating that Prendergast "quit" Melbourne to "pursue a coaching career" at Carlton. Really?? As an "opposition analyst"? I would have thought a good way to prepare for a coaching career is actually, you know ... to coach.

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226244554306

Yet on the Carlton Footy Club's website (look down towards the bottom) he's not even named on the extended list of the club's football department.

http://www.carltonfc...36/default.aspx

Now, ask yourself what really happened.

Spin.

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by Range Rover

Its an interesting point who has ultimate say. There is no doubt a heirachy but it seems clear to me in the corporate world the CEO of a small company (substitute Coach) asks his HR Manager (substitute recruiting manager):

1. who is out there

2, What do we need

3. What is your opinion on each

Before ultimately making the final decision.

I can see the coach having ultimate authority in a line ball call when the footy department is genuinely torn between two or three players. If I was coach I would want that authority but then someone does need to keep an eye on the future because the coach in all liklihood wont be there in the long term.

2 bob each way there junior; make a decision one way or the other, is it the coach or the recruiter?