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.

I don't see why career advancement or just greener pastures is any less plausible a reason. As I said, I don't know, and neither do you or Rangey, so I get agitated when you present your speculation as if it's fact. That's how false rumours start and it makes me grumpy.

The other thing that makes me grumpy is your implication is that you're a thinker and I'm not, but no doubt you went for that effect on purpose, so I'll just ignore you on that one.

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...

ahhhhh - but who said he would not be involved in the recruiting process at Carlton?

He is opposition analysts (as Nasher says nothing new) but then there is a nice little twist in the detail. Smart move by Carlton - very smart move.

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 reckon this lens should be applied to anything and everything put out by the media. Applying this lens should be a fundamental skill taught to every kid going through school. It constantly surprises me how few people (no one on Demonland of course) seem to apply this lens. To this lens i'd add it's important to always ask - "what's the agenda" - because there always is one, benign or otherwise. The 2 recent Mifsud palavers would be excellent case studies to use in a class teaching kids how to analyse the media.

It's funny with the explosion in media (24 hour news cycles, blogs, internet, social media etc etc) and the drop in editorial rigor there seems to have been a corresponding decrease in the communities 9perhaps read young people's) capacity to analyse what is pumped out in the media. Perhaps i'm just getting old.

Just thought Nasher. Thought. It's a useful tool.

I think that is his point - it's thoughts, not facts.

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.

That's simply not true - he was opposition analyst for us before he became head recruiter, now he has gone back to that role with the Blues.

I don't think BP would have left if was satisfied in his role - he had the Scully compo picks to use and I imagine he would have been keen to use them. Unlike others I don't blame him for picking Scully - he was the unanimous #1 pick for 2 years prior. But there's no telling what made him unsatisfied - one conclusion is that he didn't like the change of FD or they didn't like him, another is that there was discontent prior to the arrival of the new FD - it's ambitious to speculate without some concrete knowledge.

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

Read this;

http://www.theage.co...1117-17xqp.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?

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.

First of all did you actually read the post I was responding to? It was at best ambiguous and at worst totally contradictory, hence the comment 2 bob each way. All I wanted junior was to come out one way or the other but I’m sure he’s happy that you’ve taken it upon yourself to respond on his behalf. My advice; read it again.

Second why would I admit I’m wrong when I’m not? Point out where I’ve gone down the wrong path, give me the benefit of your wisdom.

.

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.

FWIW I agree with you and that's what I've been saying on here. Why would you have a recruiter that lives or dies by his top selections, in particular, cede this to the Coach and then wear the flack if it goes pear shaped.

Just as an aside; I love it how people tell you not to speculate and then go right ahead and do it themselves.

Ahh! Demonland.

FWIW I agree with you and that's what I've been saying on here. Why would you have a recruiter that lives or dies by his top selections, in particular, cede this to the Coach and then wear the flack if it goes pear shaped.

Didn't mean to step on your argument there, RF. I know you have been saying the bolded part for a few years now.

My point is that I am more than happy to only have the head recruiter have the picks in the top 30 and then let the FD take over from there. So most recruitment is driven by the FD, but they cede to the recruiters on the ones that require the most research and knowledge.

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.

First of all did you actually read the post I was responding to? It was at best ambiguous and at worst totally contradictory, hence the comment 2 bob each way. All I wanted junior was to come out one way or the other but I’m sure he’s happy that you’ve taken it upon yourself to respond on his behalf. My advice; read it again.

Second why would I admit I’m wrong when I’m not? Point out where I’ve gone down the wrong path, give me the benefit of your wisdom.

.

Unless you can show me otherwise, I will not believe that it is so clear cut that the Head of Recruitment, at the end of each draft, is solely responsible for all picks made. The recruiter will present a case for a select few players, and between he and the Football Department, they will all have a high level of input, then I'm quite sure if there are multiple players available at our selection, the coach will have the final decision, unless the recruiter is adamant that there are better options. This doesn't mean the Head of Recruitment's role is compromised.

In any organisation, the person doing the recruiting generally had discussion with their boss about the ideal candidate, and they present their case of both the pros and cons of each candidate. I would guess that 70% of the time the boss will have the final say, with the other 30% of the time the final call will be given to the recruiter. How does that compromise the recruiters job?

Didn't mean to step on your argument there, RF. I know you have been saying the bolded part for a few years now.

My point is that I am more than happy to only have the head recruiter have the picks in the top 30 and then let the FD take over from there. So most recruitment is driven by the FD, but they cede to the recruiters on the ones that require the most research and knowledge.

I agree with that and it I would expect that that would be the case.

Lot of that there.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by RobbieF

now he has gone back to that role with the Blues.

I don't think BP would have left if was satisfied in his role - he had the Scully compo picks to use and I imagine he would have been keen to use them. Unlike others I don't blame him for picking Scully - he was the unanimous #1 pick for 2 years prior. But there's no telling what made him unsatisfied - one conclusion is that he didn't like the change of FD or they didn't like him, another is that there was discontent prior to the arrival of the new FD - it's ambitious to speculate without some concrete knowledge.

Well that not 100% accurate - maybe, just maybe he has gone on to an extended role at Carlton!

Ever consider it was nothing to do with "discontent" - in fact it was an outstanding opportunity to use all his skill sets?

Just a thought!

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Dr Who

Just as an aside; I love it how people tell you not to speculate and then go right ahead and do it themselves.

Ahh! Demonland.

If you mean me, I have no problem with speculation. I have a problem with derogatory speculation presented as fact.

Unless you can show me otherwise, I will not believe that it is so clear cut that the Head of Recruitment, at the end of each draft, is solely responsible for all picks made. The recruiter will present a case for a select few players, and between he and the Football Department, they will all have a high level of input, then I'm quite sure if there are multiple players available at our selection, the coach will have the final decision, unless the recruiter is adamant that there are better options. This doesn't mean the Head of Recruitment's role is compromised.

In any organisation, the person doing the recruiting generally had discussion with their boss about the ideal candidate, and they present their case of both the pros and cons of each candidate. I would guess that 70% of the time the boss will have the final say, with the other 30% of the time the final call will be given to the recruiter. How does that compromise the recruiters job?

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

Will you read this slowly and try to comprehend what I've said, I'm sick of trying to explain it to you.

Didn't mean to step on your argument there, RF. I know you have been saying the bolded part for a few years now.

My point is that I am more than happy to only have the head recruiter have the picks in the top 30 and then let the FD take over from there. So most recruitment is driven by the FD, but they cede to the recruiters on the ones that require the most research and knowledge.

Makes no sense - in fact the opposite would hold more weight. You judge a modern day recruiter by what he does with the lower picks - not the earlier picks.

If you mean me, I have no problem with speculation. I have a problem with derogatory speculation presented as fact.

Actually, I wasn't referring to you.

Believe it or not I don't have a problem with you.

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

Will you read this slowly and try to comprehend what I've said, I'm sick of trying to explain it to you.

Robbie, I will PM you for both our sakes.

Cheers

Makes no sense - in fact the opposite would hold more weight. You judge a modern day recruiter by what he does with the lower picks - not the earlier picks.

I don't think I agree with that. You're less likely to get a player of real influence with late picks - it's the early picks that have the biggest impact on the club's on field fortune. Our misuse of these through the 00's is a huge part of why we suck now.

the coach will have the final decision,

The day this happens you are finished - it just does not happen.

Robbie, I will PM you for both our sakes.

Cheers

Whatever, you've got your opinion I've got mine and I can't see either of us changing.

Makes no sense - in fact the opposite would hold more weight. You judge a modern day recruiter by what he does with the lower picks - not the earlier picks.

I couldn't agree less.

The top picks is where the talent is - clubs have to get these right. Recruiters are the instruments clubs use to draft, it is the main responsibility to get these picks right.

I don't care about the abstract art of talent spotting in far-flung leagues with lower picks - I care about picking stars with top 10 picks that will help drive our flag tilt.

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

Will you read this slowly and try to comprehend what I've said, I'm sick of trying to explain it to you.

What do you think his job is robbie?

He cant be allowed to just pick best available all the time, as a list has many needs, and best available may be one dimensional?

The FD will tell him yeah if someone is a stand out we take him, if not we need this type of player who are they, are they around that range.

A recruiter doesnt get compromised just because they dont get 100% control, i would assume that they are scoping players for a particular game plan or profile all the year.

I don't think I agree with that. You're less likely to get a player of real influence with late picks - it's the early picks that have the biggest impact on the club's on field fortune. Our misuse of these through the 00's is a huge part of why we suck now.

No problems you dont have to agree -

"You're less likely to get a player of real influence with late picks" - what players like Cox, Magner, Boyd, Bartel, Swan etc

"it's the early picks that have the biggest impact on the club's on field fortune." - myth they will only have an impact if you are investing the dollars to develop properly.

"Our misuse of these through the 00's is a huge part of why we suck now." - why we "suck" now is our inability to develop, mature to peak performance and help our players to recover from injury - its very common in the lower spending sides.

J_T, I don't mean to speak on Robbie's behalf, but I don't think he's saying the coach shouldn't have input (I certainly believe the coach should have a say), his issue lies with the coach having absolute power of veto when it's outside his area of expertise. That's my take on it, anyway.

The day this happens you are finished - it just does not happen.

Well, where possibly in deeper poo than I thought. I could've sworn that the driving factor behind all selections at last year's drafts (NAB, PSD and Rookie) was Neeld's desire to get harder bodies on the list.

I would imagine if BP went to Neeld at pick 50-odd and said "we have 2 choices, both I rate as near identical, the only difference is one's a light-framed forward pocket, the other is a hard-at-it in and under player, but if I had to lean one way or another, I'm thinking the light-frame boy", I would imagine Neeld's response would be, as he has been quoted saying during draft preparations before "Queen's Birthday, 80,000 crowd, Dane Swan tearing us a new one in the midfield, what's our best chance of stopping him, light frame forward or grunt?".