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.

RR not sure the above means much.

The MFC web site does not show the director who's main responsiblity is the football department.

however as you suggest

Spin

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.

My exact Point on Luke Ball RobbieF....We rolled over once again.

RR not sure the above means much.

The MFC web site does not show the director who's main responsiblity is the football department.

however as you suggest

Spin

I guess there must be differences across different club websites OD. But the point I'm making is that the info spouted in the article is incongruent with that job he's got at the Blues. What's more it's a clear step down from being national recruiting manager at Melbourne.

So ... why is the article written in that way? Because it is stage managed to save face for all concerned.

People should try to view most of what emanates out of clubs through the media with this lens. And it should be an unbiased lens that critically analyses information and isn't swayed by allegiances to club colours.

Try telling Rhino Richards that...

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

Of course he got the Ass, the direction of recruiting changed the day Neeld walked in the door.

Why do you, Rhino and others take everything at such face value?.

You're making the incorrect assumption that I have an opinion on this matter one way or the other.

All I'm saying is I think it's poor form (at best) to spread dirt when you're without any facts other than "reading between the lines", which for me is just a synonym for "guessing".

Of course he got the Ass, the direction of recruiting changed the day Neeld walked in the door.

That would imply that there was a direction beforehand; if there was I certainly can't see it.

BP took up an assistant coaching role at Carlton.

Although it might be titled "assistant coach" I would suggest he will be an "oppostion analysts" and at Draft time will use his recruiting experience at the trade table & the assessment of recruits compared to their current list. Its a little bit of a "new age" role. Quite a few clubs are using this type of role - with relatively reasonable success.

I believe BP saw the writing on the wall and left. Either way it does not really matter, big mistakes occurred in BP reign. Mis reading talent when he had the cream of the cake at his disposal, and failing to be elite in his processes and not interviewing top talent (Martin). His agenda was to recruit Scully and Trengove and he didn't show due diligence in his role. What upsets me more was BP's supervisor did not either know that BP's processes were poor or didnt care. It showsthe MFC were less than professional in recruitment.

I love my club, but I think I have little respect for it. That's why I doubt it's ability to win a premiership and think Neelds obvious attempt to make changes are too big even for him.

Why is it that Martin and Reivolt can improve in a team without an elite mid to look up to, and a weak football dept? Yet our talented youngsters stagnate with the same constraints?

Although it might be titled "assistant coach" I would suggest he will be an "oppostion analysts" and at Draft time will use his recruiting experience at the trade table & the assessment of recruits compared to their current list. Its a little bit of a "new age" role. Quite a few clubs are using this type of role - with relatively reasonable success.

Opposition analysts have been around forever. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Barry did before we gave him the recruiting gig.

I guess there must be differences across different club websites OD. But the point I'm making is that the info spouted in the article is incongruent with that job he's got at the Blues. What's more it's a clear step down from being national recruiting manager at Melbourne.

So ... why is the article written in that way? Because it is stage managed to save face for all concerned.

People should try to view most of what emanates out of clubs through the media with this lens. And it should be an unbiased lens that critically analyses information and isn't swayed by allegiances to club colours.

I am not disagreeing with you Range Rover.

I was just making the observation that club web sites are basically propaganda machines.

Take most of what they saw with a grain of salt.

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

Picks 70 & 82 were probably amongst our best in that mob -- however I will say it once again, Luke Molan's horrendous run of impact injuries never allowed his value to be assessed.

Picks 70 & 82 were probably amongst our best in that mob -- however I will say it once again, Luke Molan's horrendous run of impact injuries never allowed his value to be assessed.

While it is unfortunate monoccular it is classic chicken and egg.

The nett result is he was a bust.

Never played a game end of story

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.

Come on

The recruiter is part of a team that includes the senior coach at its head. Of course they are going to discuss the potential cattle dependent on the coach's vision for the future, or would you think that the recruiter should present the senior coach with a group of his favourites and then let the coach work it out? That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Come on

The recruiter is part of a team that includes the senior coach at its head. Of course they are going to discuss the potential cattle dependent on the coach's vision for the future, or would you think that the recruiter should present the senior coach with a group of his favourites and then let the coach work it out? That would be the tail wagging the dog.

I can't see where I said that, are you really responding to my post?

In 2001 in a super draft, we picked Mplan who was not regarded a top or first round pick. Talls in this draft were not highly regarded and our agenda for a KP player over took 'best available' bad move regardless of Molans injuries.

Of course he got the Ass, the direction of recruiting changed the day Neeld walked in the door.

This is not correct.

Opposition analysts have been around forever. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Barry did before we gave him the recruiting gig.

Yes, but they are extending the role - its so cool. Think Carlton have been burnt a few times - hehehehe - they are fixing up a "small problem".

this is not a shot at BP for the job he did but, i think his biggest error he made was judging the style of play that was being slowly introduced and picking the right players to suit that style, and i understand that this may not be achievable unless you have a crystal ball that is faultless,or it could be a development issue, depends which way you want to look at it

this is not a shot at BP for the job he did but, i think his biggest error he made was judging the style of play that was being slowly introduced and picking the right players to suit that style, and i understand that this may not be achievable unless you have a crystal ball that is faultless,or it could be a development issue, depends which way you want to look at it

well have a stab at it. nature or nurture (or could it be both)?

I think the Saints have more to weep over in the 2001 draft. Missing Judd and Bartel could drive anyone to drink!

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.

Yep.

I agree, & as we look back we drafted poorly in both poor draft years and also in good ones. Burt we also failed to have enough resources attributed to the footy dpt at the time.

The changing face of the AFL didn't help either as we were just holding on.

And when we did slip down the ladder, we got the draft year wrong, & slipped onto weak drafts.

Except since 2009.

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.

Here's a beauty for all you "know-it-all's".

Read this;

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-future-is-in-their-hands-20101117-17xqp.html

This is a link to Emma Quayle's 2010 Phantom Draft. As a massive % of posters on here juice up every time Emma opens her mouth regarding draft picks, she too would've passed on Darling at our pick. In fact, she didn't even have Darling in her Top 25. Yet, there was a thread on here recently trying to create interest in someone like Emma becomming our head recruiter. did the Eagles pull the wool over her eyes too?

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

It's not a case of having 2 bob each way RF, it's about how the roles are, and how they work with each other. You are incorrect in what you are saying, and I think you need to admit it.

FWIW, I think the paradigm I would go for is the recruiters pick the first two in the National Draft (ie. teenagers in the top 30 picks) and the recruiter then hands over to the FD to pick the older than 21 brigade of players playing in state leagues.

I think is still a lottery when you go past those top 30 picks (hell, I think outside the top 10 is a lottery).

Some may think - 'two picks?! That is a waste of an investment in recruiting!'

My answer to that is - it is really important you get those top picks right so I disagree.

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by rpfc

You're making the incorrect assumption that I have an opinion on this matter one way or the other.

All I'm saying is I think it's poor form (at best) to spread dirt when you're without any facts other than "reading between the lines", which for me is just a synonym for "guessing".

If I can add my two cents - I guess its how information on this site is presented.

I have been known to stick my head in the sand but I don't disrespect opinions contrary to my viewpoint. I have real problems with opinion being presented as fact.

You're making the incorrect assumption that I have an opinion on this matter one way or the other.

All I'm saying is I think it's poor form (at best) to spread dirt when you're without any facts other than "reading between the lines", which for me is just a synonym for "guessing".

Which is still an opinion....on the matter...

I'll have mine. You have yours.

There is no spreading dirt is there? I will simplify it for you.

From an outsider's point of view, it seemed strange that BP would leave MFC for a coaching role when he is and was a recruiter...He was an apprentice recruiter under Turnbull when he was with us.

BP decided to move on the back of a massive FD overhaul at MFC.

Now anyone with half a brain would think twice about the matter. It's a bit odd. Most would agree.

No dirt. Just thought Nasher. Thought. It's a useful tool.

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by stevethemanjordan