The consensus is that the Paul Roos midas-touch filters to all areas of recruiting. When we associate the name Paul Roos with identifying/recruiting talent, we feel cozy inside. But this doesn't stack up with all forms. Reviewing the history of all player inputs to the club in his time with Sydney reveals a skewed pattern.

So lets look at Sydney under Roos. Against the consensus, his National Draft association isn't great. You could argue that his latter days with Sydney were better with Rohan/Jetta/Reid in 09, and DanHan at pick 30 in 08. Jesse White is unfulfilled talent at pick 79. But there are are many duds in the National Drafting of the Paul Roos Sydney era.

I have always maintained that a coach should be entirely responsible for chasing an established AFL player (eg. Neeld - Pederson). Equally, I have always put the responsibility of recruiting players that have never played a senior AFL game (eg. Salem) in the basket of the recruiter. So my chronic respect of Paul Roos doesn't diminish one iota; it just provides a reality check that all isn't gold after he touches it. Credit where it is due, Paul Roos was quoted during the Jolly get, that "the draft is a lottery above pick 15".

His rookie gets have been pretty good with Pyke, Jack, Nick Smith, Terlich, Simpkin, Sam Rowe etc.

His trade targeting of established AFL players (Kennedy, Richards, Shaw, Jolly, Ball, etc..) is second-to-none, so Dom Tyson should be a bonefide pretty soon.

One counter-argument could be that he has spent more time in junior development in the past 2-3 years, in contrast with his days before/during the Roos-Sydney era.

Source - Footywire

In reality no selection would have much Paul roos influence... We have 3 to 4 full time people working on this. To think a coach comes in and say oh I have been on th coach all year but I know this kid and Brighton college is just silly...

Roos is a great coach and creates good cultures but to say he is responsible for everything at Sydney when they have a 20 man footy department is stupid

In reality no selection would have much Paul roos influence... We have 3 to 4 full time people working on this. To think a coach comes in and say oh I have been on th coach all year but I know this kid and Brighton college is just silly...

Roos is a great coach and creates good cultures but to say he is responsible for everything at Sydney when they have a 20 man footy department is stupid

Agree wholeheartedly. But I would say most have overrated the Swans ND output in their golden era.

I don't think the Swans would be relatively worse than any club when it comes to this Teenage Lottery Draft that we have in the AFL.

We can all point to failures but unless you can show me a bell curve that illustrates a marked difference between clubs - I would say that even the best teams have failures.

Maybe not as many as us, but failures none-the-less...

Note: 35 of the 105 players taken in the Top 15 from 1999 to 2005 didn't play 100 games.

I don't think the Swans would be relatively worse than any club when it comes to this Teenage Lottery Draft that we have in the AFL.

We can all point to failures but unless you can show me a bell curve that illustrates a marked difference between clubs - I would say that even the best teams have failures.

Maybe not as many as us, but failures none-the-less...

Note: 35 of the 105 players taken in the Top 15 from 1999 to 2005 didn't play 100 games.

How many of those played for Melbourne? And was that the highest % amongst all clubs?

Note: 35 of the 105 players taken in the Top 15 from 1999 to 2005 didn't play 100 games.

You sure? I thought it was the other way around, that only 35 DID play 100 games.

I know that from the draft overall, only 13% get to play 100 games, and a third never play a single game.

Sorry, digression perhaps!

The consensus is that the Paul Roos midas-touch filters to all areas of recruiting. When we associate the name Paul Roos with identifying/recruiting talent, we feel cozy inside. But this doesn't stack up with all forms. Reviewing the history of all player inputs to the club in his time with Sydney reveals a skewed pattern.

So lets look at Sydney under Roos. Against the consensus, his National Draft association isn't great. You could argue that his latter days with Sydney were better with Rohan/Jetta/Reid in 09, and DanHan at pick 30 in 08. Jesse White is unfulfilled talent at pick 79. But there are are many duds in the National Drafting of the Paul Roos Sydney era.

I have always maintained that a coach should be entirely responsible for chasing an established AFL player (eg. Neeld - Pederson). Equally, I have always put the responsibility of recruiting players that have never played a senior AFL game (eg. Salem) in the basket of the recruiter. So my chronic respect of Paul Roos doesn't diminish one iota; it just provides a reality check that all isn't gold after he touches it. Credit where it is due, Paul Roos was quoted during the Jolly get, that "the draft is a lottery above pick 15".

His rookie gets have been pretty good with Pyke, Jack, Nick Smith, Terlich, Simpkin, Sam Rowe etc.

His trade targeting of established AFL players (Kennedy, Richards, Shaw, Jolly, Ball, etc..) is second-to-none, so Dom Tyson should be a bonefide pretty soon.

One counter-argument could be that he has spent more time in junior development in the past 2-3 years, in contrast with his days before/during the Roos-Sydney era.

Source - Footywire

So what actually is your point and what is the point of the thread?

Is this just a "get the ball in play" post hoping for some intelligent discussion to follow?

In reality no selection would have much Paul roos influence... We have 3 to 4 full time people working on this. To think a coach comes in and say oh I have been on th coach all year but I know this kid and Brighton college is just silly...

Roos is a great coach and creates good cultures but to say he is responsible for everything at Sydney when they have a 20 man footy department is stupid

I am certain however that whilst the senior coach may not have much if any input into the actual selections he would make it very clear, and be asked and required to do so, tell the recruiters exactly what he needs for his list. Not necessarily names, but types.

So what actually is your point and what is the point of the thread?

Is this just a "get the ball in play" post hoping for some intelligent discussion to follow?

Can you tell the posters of this thread that they are contributing to a thread with no point. You will be generously saving them a lot of time.

In fact, can we commission you to go through every thread and sum it up in a "3 word slogan" so that all we have to do is read your Herald Sun headline.

The circumstance of being a coach of a highly successful club determined Roos' recruiting strategies. In his position, he was often confronted with situations where he knew he wasn't going to benefit from early picks so he and his team created their own particular style which worked beautifully because, on top of having a good eye for talent, they were also very good at developing that talent within the culture that existed at the club. I'm hoping he achieves the same now that he's with us.

How many of those played for Melbourne? And was that the highest % amongst all clubs?

We have had Molan, Bell, and Smith. I have only looked at the raw numbers but if I am bored on the weekend I will attach teams to them.

And bing - those numbers are correct - however, if I went to 150 games the number jumps to half. The drop off after around Pick 25 is startling - I will try to illustrate it properly when I have time (and find the right graph).