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.

Cox et al are the exceptions rather than the rule. The fact is that most of the game's stars came from very early picks. And I'm very much uninterested in participating in the development versus recruitment argument - you and B_H can knock yourselves out with that in the other thread.

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.

Well said.

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.

Nasher, where has it been said that the Coach has absolute power? The relationship between the head recruiter and the head coach is one of the most important offield relationships a club can have. They both need to put an immense amount of trust and faith in each other. The Head of Recruiting needs to know what vision the coach has in terms of game style and structure, while the coach needs to know what potential draft prospects are coming up not only this year, but for the next 2+ years. If they know that the 2014 draft is going to be riddled with quality key forwards, they are likely to turn their attention to other areas in this draft, so that they aren't too unbalanced. The recruiter's job isn't compromised because of this input from the coach, just as the caoch's job isn't compromised because of this input from the recruiter.

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.

Your "whole" list will drive you towards a tilt at the flag. You over value early picks - its common dont worry about it. This is not to say they are not valuable - sadly they are only valuable in the hands of some in modern day AFL football ie 2012

Nasher, where has it been said that the Coach has absolute power? The relationship between the head recruiter and the head coach is one of the most important offield relationships a club can have. They both need to put an immense amount of trust and faith in each other. The Head of Recruiting needs to know what vision the coach has in terms of game style and structure, while the coach needs to know what potential draft prospects are coming up not only this year, but for the next 2+ years. If they know that the 2014 draft is going to be riddled with quality key forwards, they are likely to turn their attention to other areas in this draft, so that they aren't too unbalanced. The recruiter's job isn't compromised because of this input from the coach, just as the caoch's job isn't compromised because of this input from the recruiter.

Billy, you're preaching to the converted - I couldn't agree more with every word you've said there. My comment was based purely from the words I read from Robbie:

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.

That's talking absolutes - coach "instructing" the recruiter - as distinct from the coach and the recruiter having a discussion and being on the same page.

I actually don't think Robbie's point (the coach should not veto the recruiter) and your point (the coach and the recruiter should have a strong working relationship) are at odds with one another at all - it just seems to me you're both missing each other's points. And I actually agree with both points.

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.

heheheeh - coaches can ask for "types" but thats where we draw the line. "Look I want this "type" of player to fit into my game plan" - but he would never have the final say as you are implying.

So what you could have "sworn" to have heard you have clearly mis-understood - but thats so common around here.

The fact is that most of the game's stars came from very early picks.

I would be very interested in you naming those current day stars for me. It would be a very interesting exercise.

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.

Jordie I said if the recruiter IS INSTRUCTED BY THE COACH TO TAKE A PARTICULAR PLAYER, I'm sure the recruiter is aware of the needs of the club, he wouldn't be much of a recruiter if he wasn't, but it is his responsibility to identify and select talent and if he can see a player that is a stand out, he will select him even if the coach would prefer someone else.

If it comes down to two players that are of equal ability, sure the football department will discuss the merits of both and choose the one most suited but if it goes pear shaped the recruiter cops the blame; hence the title of this thread.

Jordie I said if the recruiter IS INSTRUCTED BY THE COACH TO TAKE A PARTICULAR PLAYER, I'm sure the recruiter is aware of the needs of the club, he wouldn't be much of a recruiter if he wasn't, but it is his responsibility to identify and select talent and if he can see a player that is a stand out, he will select him even if the coach would prefer someone else.

If it comes down to two players that are of equal ability, sure the football department will discuss the merits of both and choose the one most suited but if it goes pear shaped the recruiter cops the blame; hence the title of this thread.

This i doubt, it will be the FD to makes decisions, this includes the head of recruiting. but i doubt it is an individual of any varieties choice.

Was it brought up that Daniher asked for a KPP "Molan" in the end, when Cameron knew he wasnt best available at the time? this was definitely a coaches decision, *if true*

I am arguing that it is not *just* Barry to blame but Bailey and Daniher and all the past FD who gave him the scope to recruit players for game plans which are outdated

Cox et al are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Is he - what about Sandilands, Mumford & our very own first ruckman Jamar! Lets throw in Jolly. Just remind me where they were picked up in the drafting process?

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.

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

My god. Are you both completely inept? Is it so difficult to understand?

I have never claimed that I know via inside knowledge that BP was pushed out. I have never presented 'facts' because I don't have any!!! I am not spreading rumours !

I have simply said that the whole thing looked a bit odd and without having or knowing the 'facts', I wouldn't be surprised if BP had in fact been told that they were going to find

a new recruiter by years end and that he needed to vacate the position. There is no need for fact in order for me to share that. Because I am not preaching that that's how it all

went down! Make sense?

RPFC. You believed Tom Scully word for word throughout the whole of last year did you not? People questioned rightfully. Look how that turned out.... feel silly much?

This is a [censored] internet forum and I'll share whatever opinions I have on whatever matters I like. I have not for one minute stated that what I believe is fact. You Nasher, are the

one who is continuously accusing me of doing so. If it is so ludicrous of me to think that BP could have in fact been moved on, why is it that others believe so too?

Get off your high horse.

Well said. Nasher, where has it been said that the Coach has absolute power? The relationship between the head recruiter and the head coach is one of the most important offield relationships a club can have. They both need to put an immense amount of trust and faith in each other. The Head of Recruiting needs to know what vision the coach has in terms of game style and structure, while the coach needs to know what potential draft prospects are coming up not only this year, but for the next 2+ years. If they know that the 2014 draft is going to be riddled with quality key forwards, they are likely to turn their attention to other areas in this draft, so that they aren't too unbalanced. The recruiter's job isn't compromised because of this input from the coach, just as the caoch's job isn't compromised because of this input from the recruiter.

That in a nutshell, was my argument which you just fail to grasp. I argued that the coach shouldn't have absolute power by instructing the recruiter to take a particular player. I've reiterated that point several times since but it falls on deaf ears. I've had enough.

This i doubt, it will be the FD to makes decisions, this includes the head of recruiting. but i doubt it is an individual of any varieties choice. Was it brought up that Daniher asked for a KPP "Molan" in the end, when Cameron knew he wasnt best available at the time? this was definitely a coaches decision, *if true* I am arguing that it is not *just* Barry to blame but Bailey and Daniher and all the past FD who gave him the scope to recruit players for game plans which are outdated

Jordie let nme say it for the final time.

The job of the recruiter is compromised if he is told by the coach to select a certain player, a player who he thinks is not the best and most appropriate player for that pick.

Now I'm not saying it doesnt happen, but if it does and the player turns out to be a dud then guess who wears it? The recruiter, not the coach or the FD, so if this happens often enough the recruiters reputation is shot and he becomes unemployable; that's what I mean by compromised.

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.

Turnbull was working part-time with us while BP was recruiting. But yes, before 08 he was opposition analyst

And I'm very much uninterested in participating in the development versus recruitment argument - you and B_H can knock yourselves out with that in the other thread.

So Im I because when the "acid" was put on Benny Boy (B_H) to "name names" - he ignored it - he even was that emotional he couldn't remember where the discussion had started - now I wonder why - because the facts dont support his argument - hope you can at least take up the challenge.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Dr Who

Obviously Nasher can speak for himself, but...

I would be very interested in you naming those current day stars for me. It would be a very interesting exercise.

It really depends a bit on your definition of star, but these were all taken in the top 30, most the top 15:

Hodge, Ball, Judd, Bartel, Kelly, Dal Santo, Cooney, Franklin, Rioli, Fyfe, Pavlich, Cooney, Gibbs, Selwood, Murphy, Pendelbury, Thomas, Nick Riewoldt, Goddard, Cotchin, Kreuzer, Boak, Frawley, Jack Riewoldt, Sylvia, Josh Kennedy, Mitch Clark, Ryder, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Lewis, Bate, Stanton, Mundy, Wells, Steve Johnson, Didak, Shaun Burgoyne, Scott Thompson, Kerr, Kane Cornes, Petrie, Jordan McMahon, Corey, Glass, Bob Murphy, Green, Hayes, Headland, Burton, Bolton, Wocjinski, Travis Johnstone, Ottens, Croad, Luke Power, Tarrant, Chad Cornes, Solomon, Nick Stevens, etc.

Future stars: Natanui, Watts, Martin, Trengove, Rohan, Hill, Hurley, Yarran, Grimes, Dangerfield, Gaff, Swallow, Coniglio, Day, Wingard, Butcher, Hartlett, Melksham, Menzel, Duncan, Bastinac, Scott Selwood, Leuenberger, Ben Reid, etc.

And there's a lot of borderline players left out.

Is he - what about Sandilands, Mumford & our very own first ruckman Jamar! Lets throw in Jolly. Just remind me where they were picked up in the drafting process?

Now you're talkling ruckmen exclusively?

It's well known that they are a lottery, so usually taken with late picks.

Very few ruckmen are taken early, and even fewer justify that early draft position.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by José Mourinho

Jordie let nme say it for the final time.

The job of the recruiter is compromised if he is told by the coach to select a certain player, a player who he thinks is not the best and most appropriate player for that pick.

Now I'm not saying it doesnt happen, but if it does and the player turns out to be a dud then guess who wears it? The recruiter, not the coach or the FD, so if this happens often enough the recruiters reputation is shot and he becomes unemployable; that's what I mean by compromised.

Ok i agree with you, but when you say he will pick a player if he thinks he is a clear standout is wrong imo.

I dont think a recruiter will have that authority, he will try and push his point but i doubt he would ever go against the opinon of the overall FD

I am not spreading rumours !

This is a [censored] internet forum

Well you have a funny way of going about it stmj.

Admit it, you love it.

Well you have a funny way of going about it stmj.

Admit it, you love it.

Please explain to me how I am spreading rumours...

Your "whole" list will drive you towards a tilt at the flag. You over value early picks - its common dont worry about it. This is not to say they are not valuable - sadly they are only valuable in the hands of some in modern day AFL football ie 2012

Your 'whole' list?

Are we going to talk about 'depth' again?

Top 30 picks still around from 2000-2005:

Hawthorn: Burgoyne (Trade), Hodge, Hale (T), Gilham, Roughhead, Franklin, Lewis, Ellis, Bailey, and Birchall.

Collingwood: Didak, Ball (T), Cloke (F/S - 39), Thomas, and Pendelbury.

Geelong: Bartel, Kelly, Johnson, Ablett (F/S - 40), Lonergan, and Varcoe.

WCE: Kerr, Waters, Rosa, Kennedy (T), and Hurn.

St Kilda: Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Dal Santo, Gram, Goddard, Clarke, and Ray (T).

Carlton: Judd (T), Walker, Russell, Bower and Murphy.

Best Of The Rest: Thompson, Kane Cornes, Petrie, Reilly, LRT, Wells, J McVeigh, Mackie, Cooney, Stanton, Watson (F/S - 40), Chaplin, Mundy, Deledio, Williams, Van Berlo, Griffen, Higgins, Ryder, Addison.

Melbourne: Rivers, Sylvia, Dunn, Bate, Clark (T) and Jones.

* - I put in the Father-Son selections as they would presumably go in the top 30 with the bidding process we have today.

It's no surprise that the teams that did the best out of these top picks, and developed these players properly, are the best teams right now.

RPFC. You believed Tom Scully word for word throughout the whole of last year did you not? People questioned rightfully. Look how that turned out.... feel silly much?

One side refused to take the word of a simpleton, the other refused to take rumours as facts.

This is a [censored] internet forum and I'll share whatever opinions I have on whatever matters I like..

It may be an effing internet forum, stmj. But it isn't your effing internet forum. People you don't know are responsible for what is posted here. Nasher is not jumping down your throat, he is just saying that you shouldn't try to attach malicious intent when you present your 'thoughts' as 'facts.'

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by rpfc

Obviously Nasher can speak for himself, but...

It really depends a bit on your definition of star, but these were all taken in the top 30, most the top 15:

Hodge, Ball, Judd, Bartel, Kelly, Dal Santo, Cooney, Franklin, Rioli, Fyfe, Pavlich, Cooney, Gibbs, Selwood, Murphy, Pendelbury, Thomas, Nick Riewoldt, Goddard, Cotchin, Kreuzer, Boak, Frawley, Jack Riewoldt, Sylvia, Josh Kennedy, Mitch Clark, Ryder, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Lewis, Bate, Stanton, Mundy, Wells, Steve Johnson, Didak, Shaun Burgoyne, Scott Thompson, Kerr, Kane Cornes, Petrie, Jordan McMahon, Corey, Glass, Bob Murphy, Green, Hayes, Headland, Burton, Bolton, Wocjinski, Travis Johnstone, Ottens, Croad, Luke Power, Tarrant, Chad Cornes, Solomon, Nick Stevens, etc.

And there's a lot of borderline players left out.

Yeah I think you should your definition of star or a-grade player appears very loose.

So no Swan? No Mitchell? No Sandilands? No Goodes? No Jonathan Brown? No Matty Boyd?

Now you're talkling ruckmen exclusively?

No Nasher said he was an exception to the rule. I was merely asking the question was he?

Your 'whole' list?

Are we going to talk about 'depth' again?

Top 30 picks still around from 2000-2005:

Hawthorn: Burgoyne (Trade), Hodge, Hale (T), Gilham, Roughhead, Franklin, Lewis, Ellis, Bailey, and Birchall.

Collingwood: Didak, Ball (T), Cloke (F/S - 39), Thomas, and Pendelbury.

Geelong: Bartel, Kelly, Johnson, Ablett (F/S - 40), Lonergan, and Varcoe.

WCE: Kerr, Waters, Rosa, Kennedy (T), and Hurn.

St Kilda: Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Dal Santo, Gram, Goddard, Clarke, and Ray (T).

Carlton: Judd (T), Walker, Russell, Bower and Murphy.

Best Of The Rest: Thompson, Kane Cornes, Petrie, Reilly, LRT, Wells, J McVeigh, Mackie, Cooney, Stanton, Watson (F/S - 40), Chaplin, Mundy, Deledio, Williams, Van Berlo, Griffen, Higgins, Ryder, Addison.

Melbourne: Rivers, Sylvia, Dunn, Bate, Clark (T) and Jones.

* - I put in the Father-Son selections as they would presumably go in the top 30 with the bidding process we have today.

It's no surprise that the teams that did the best out of these top picks, and developed these players properly, are the best teams right now.

Can you see a trend in the Teams I've placed in bold for you?

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Dr Who

Can you see a trend in the Teams I've placed in bold for you?

Are you trying to get into a 'development is important' argument because I believe that. In fact, you have 'rubbished' a few posts of mine stating that...

The point I am making here is that the talent is at the pointy end of the Nat Draft and it should be the primary concern of the recruiters to get right the names they call first.

Can you see a trend in the Teams I've placed in bold for you?

the trend I can see is that getting a good group of younger players on your list is the first step, then trade for your biggest deficiency shortly thereafter.

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

What a ridiculous statement. I started this thread to seek out a discussion. I imagine every club is different due to the personnel they have.

And IF I was coach I would want the ultimate say in who gets drafted BUT coaches tenure is notoriously short so a club can't rely solely on a coach otherwise you could end up with a new coach coming in and throwing out the previous recruits. But he has to have a key say as his is the most accountable position of all. BP on the other hand can walk and say syonara and we are left holding the baby