Pedantry?

I have been saying this for two months: just because the 'experts' claim they know who are the top talent they will be wrong. History and bitter experience proves this.

Just because you 'think' all the other recruiters would have made so many mistakes - doesn't give credibility to your hypothetical.

We will never know who Fremantle would have taken with Pick 11 or 18 in 2009. All we know is that they chose Fyfe at 20.

And decisions like this is why we are where we are.

I don't begrudge Prendergast or Cameron or anyone who wants to do this job - it's why I don't get involved in the vitriol that gets directed at Prendergast on here.

But I am adamant that the mistakes that we made at the drafts between 2001 and 2011 (save for a couple of years) is why we have been so poor and why Roos has seen 19 changes to the primary list in his two off-seasons.

If you want to discuss ways to make sure a club doesn't have a decade like we have had - that would be great. I would raise the draft age, I would have more picks, a number of 'train on' selections, and the ability for the club to leave the finalisation of their list till the eve of the season.

At the end of the day, you are a pedant. I mean, come on...

At the end of the day, you are a pedant. I mean, come on...

Didn't really know what it was so I had to look it up - I think I am one of those them there things as well.

I can't work you out RPFC. I asked what bit you disagreed with. Very very very simple question.

would every club have taken Morton (for example) at pick 4? Yes or no

is there some degree of 'luck' involved as to whether a kid dominates the big league the same way he did as a junior? Yes or No

is there a component of his success involved that hinges on the coaches, facilities, culture etc that he is exposed to? Yes or no

if you have answered yes three times then we are in agreement

now - the big question - how can anybody answer yes to the above three questions and still maintain that we simply 'made a mistake' in picking him?

now - the big question - how can anybody answer yes to the above three questions and still maintain that we simply 'made a mistake' in picking him?

I'll give it a shot - we picked what was considered the best at the time - that wasn't a mistake. We didn't pick what ultimately turned out to be the best from the draft - that is a mistake.

Emma Quayle is an expert at picking the best at the time but has no idea like the rest of us as to what will prove to be the best when the dust settles in 4 or 5 years.

I think we are on the same page C&B on this.

The only thing I cannot answer is how much independent thought goes into the choices made.

I am gobsmacked that Scully was universally proclaimed to be the best from the draft at that time. He had a very light frame and when he had the ball he only had one out of two weapons covered - excellent by hand but very average by foot.

His greatest attribute was his ability to get to contest after contest but his impact once there was and still is limited. Our recruiters would have been lynched if we had not taken him but there were a lot of boxes that he didn't tick. I don't watch TAC football but from day one you could see - at least with Trengove I get it. Hard at it. Bigger body - when fit in the first 2 years, neat disposal and good pair of hands.

I wonder if recruiters are swayed by the hype ? Or is it truly just a matter of the best 18 years old do not always go on to be great 22 year olds.

WTF?? Viney is still only 20 and you've written him off already? fickle supporters!!

Um no. I did not write anywhere that I'd written him off at all, stop being so dramatic.

Viney is exactly like his old man, all G & D, he will be a great player for us!1

Yep and I fully agree with that. The word elite was used and in the future I think Salem will be the one with elite skills, which was simply my reason as choosing Salem over Viney in a future elite midfield. I think Vineys skills are overrated here but if he could do what Jones has done it'll be great. Viney will be a great demon with 250+ games, there's no doubting that. So no, I'm not writing Jack off, just guessing Salem may turn out the more elite player.

I can't work you out RPFC. I asked what bit you disagreed with. Very very very simple question.

would every club have taken Morton (for example) at pick 4? Yes or no

is there some degree of 'luck' involved as to whether a kid dominates the big league the same way he did as a junior? Yes or No

is there a component of his success involved that hinges on the coaches, facilities, culture etc that he is exposed to? Yes or no

if you have answered yes three times then we are in agreement

now - the big question - how can anybody answer yes to the above three questions and still maintain that we simply 'made a mistake' in picking him?

I don't think what I have said is conflicting, or necessarily ground breaking. All I have said is that the "group think" that sustains the chatter around the junior football circles has given some howlers when it comes to the 'best players from a draft class' - they have been so wrong, so often, and been so damaging to the equality of the game that it is something we should address.

Of course, there is luck involved, but ours has been horrendous, an outlier amongst our peers in the league.

I also wouldn't mind a club that went against what others 'think' they should do. The best example (off the top of my head) I can think of where a tiny bit of left field thinking paid off for us was when Todd Viney took Kent from the WA Colts program. The kid didn't make the WA team for the coveted U/18 Championships but looks to be born with a sherrin in his hands. Not even in the best 30 kids from WA, and yet he may be in the top dozen or so from that draft if my eye is right.

As for whether the club is conducive to developing talent over the last few years - of course it hasn't been. And it has probably exacerbated the underlying 'luck' issue with drafting these teens; we needed to be stable, we needed to have good development structures, but we also needed to pick Dangerfield...

I don't think what I have said is conflicting, or necessarily ground breaking. All I have said is that the "group think" that sustains the chatter around the junior football circles has given some howlers when it comes to the 'best players from a draft class' - they have been so wrong, so often, and been so damaging to the equality of the game that it is something we should address.

Of course, there is luck involved, but ours has been horrendous, an outlier amongst our peers in the league.

I also wouldn't mind a club that went against what others 'think' they should do. The best example (off the top of my head) I can think of where a tiny bit of left field thinking paid off for us was when Todd Viney took Kent from the WA Colts program. The kid didn't make the WA team for the coveted U/18 Championships but looks to be born with a sherrin in his hands. Not even in the best 30 kids from WA, and yet he may be in the top dozen or so from that draft if my eye is right.

As for whether the club is conducive to developing talent over the last few years - of course it hasn't been. And it has probably exacerbated the underlying 'luck' issue with drafting these teens; we needed to be stable, we needed to have good development structures, but we also needed to pick Dangerfield...

I don't think there's a need to change an entire system because one club (us) has been an outlier. I also think no matter how you change it there will still be a collection of busts in first rounds. Hawthorn had Dowler and Thorp. Geelong had recently taken Smedts and Mitch Brown.

One draft pick or draft alone shouldn't impact ladder position that much. For clubs down the bottom it shouldn't just be the draft picks that improve a club but also other changes - players getting healthy, young players maturing, a new coach or a new coaching set, new game plan etc.

I agree it's important that recruiters back themselves and try to remove group think, but at the same time it's not group think when a bunch of similarly qualified people analyse players and come up with similar opinions even without knowledge of what other teams are thinking.

If you apply scores out of 10 for some criteria like the MFC use: Character, skills, performance, physical ability relevant to position and then get a score out of 40 then I don't think it's group think when a lot of teams come out with similar rankings.

I'm not sure the group think is as prevalent as you say either. Apparently we had Lewis Taylor 3rd choice for pick 9 last year ie we would've taken him at pick 11, yet he was still there at pick 29. Same with the Toumpas pick 4, apparently we were seriously considering Ben Kennedy who went to the Pies at pick 20-ish.

..., but we also needed to pick Dangerfield...

And so did the 5 other clubs behind us.

I am gobsmacked that Scully was universally proclaimed to be the best from the draft at that time. He had a very light frame and when he had the ball he only had one out of two weapons covered - excellent by hand but very average by foot.

His greatest attribute was his ability to get to contest after contest but his impact once there was and still is limited. Our recruiters would have been lynched if we had not taken him but there were a lot of boxes that he didn't tick. I don't watch TAC football but from day one you could see - at least with Trengove I get it. Hard at it. Bigger body - when fit in the first 2 years, neat disposal and good pair of hands.

I wonder if recruiters are swayed by the hype ? Or is it truly just a matter of the best 18 years old do not always go on to be great 22 year olds

I am even more gobsmacked that so called experts like Lyon and a senior coach like Malthouse still couldn't get past the hype and proclaimed him the second coming of Judd in his first season at Melbourne when blind Freddie could see what you have noted, he could get to the contest but had very limited impact.

I think the one logical and consistent thing about us all as humans is that we are only human and we are therefore illogical and inconsistent. Of course the hype carries weight. The fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" is much more than just a children's story.

And so did the 5 other clubs behind us.

Again, not an argument that we didn't make a mistake, but an argument that 6 clubs made a mistake.

I am gobsmacked that Scully was universally proclaimed to be the best from the draft at that time.

Who?

I'll give it a shot - we picked what was considered the best at the time - that wasn't a mistake. We didn't pick what ultimately turned out to be the best from the draft - that is a mistake.

Emma Quayle is an expert at picking the best at the time but has no idea like the rest of us as to what will prove to be the best when the dust settles in 4 or 5 years.

I think we are on the same page C&B on this.

The only thing I cannot answer is how much independent thought goes into the choices made.

I am gobsmacked that Scully was universally proclaimed to be the best from the draft at that time. He had a very light frame and when he had the ball he only had one out of two weapons covered - excellent by hand but very average by foot.

His greatest attribute was his ability to get to contest after contest but his impact once there was and still is limited. Our recruiters would have been lynched if we had not taken him but there were a lot of boxes that he didn't tick. I don't watch TAC football but from day one you could see - at least with Trengove I get it. Hard at it. Bigger body - when fit in the first 2 years, neat disposal and good pair of hands.

I wonder if recruiters are swayed by the hype ? Or is it truly just a matter of the best 18 years old do not always go on to be great 22 year olds.

I'm not so much gobsmacked that we picked Scully at number one, I'm gobsmacked that GWS agreed to pay him $6 million over 6 years after only 2 years in the system, and in circumstances where they had 400 other talented first round kids on their list.

That they did though, probably suggests we actually got this pick right.

Again, not an argument that we didn't make a mistake, but an argument that 6 clubs made a mistake.

In retrospect, i.e. not based on the evidence known at the time the decision was made.

I'm not so much gobsmacked that we picked Scully at number one, I'm gobsmacked that GWS agreed to pay him $6 million over 6 years after only 2 years in the system, and in circumstances where they had 400 other talented first round kids on their list.

That they did though, probably suggests we actually got this pick right.

I'm not gobsmacked we took Scully either. It shows me that the so called experts aren't all that expert at all and recruiters, journo's and the like are seeing these footballers in the little pond called TAC. He was a revelation at the junior level getting to so many contests and whilst his dodgy kicking was known it wasnt as obvious at TAC level where you have more time to dispose of the pill.

Gobsmacked is probably not the right word - I think Scully is the best example possible of recruiters not thinking about "what will this footballer become" and being mesmerised by his one major attribute being his ball winning ability at that level.

Like you I am gobsmacked that GWS paid the price they did for him. I was never a supporter of the conspiracy theory that Sheedy wanted to pay us back for not getting the head coach gig but I am struggling to figure out a reason they paid that amount of money for a kid who was so obviously deficient.

I'm not gobsmacked we took Scully either. It shows me that the so called experts aren't all that expert at all and recruiters, journo's and the like are seeing these footballers in the little pond called TAC. He was a revelation at the junior level getting to so many contests and whilst his dodgy kicking was known it wasnt as obvious at TAC level where you have more time to dispose of the pill.

Gobsmacked is probably not the right word - I think Scully is the best example possible of recruiters not thinking about "what will this footballer become" and being mesmerised by his one major attribute being his ball winning ability at that level.

Like you I am gobsmacked that GWS paid the price they did for him. I was never a supporter of the conspiracy theory that Sheedy wanted to pay us back for not getting the head coach gig but I am struggling to figure out a reason they paid that amount of money for a kid who was so obviously deficient.

Same here 'nut', don't believe the conspiracy and I'm not sure Sheedy would have had much input into the decision anyway. I would like to know the reason he got the deal though.

Same here 'nut', don't believe the conspiracy and I'm not sure Sheedy would have had much input into the decision anyway. I would like to know the reason he got the deal though.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-greater-western-sydney-giants--tom-scully?year=2010

- 39 disposals in just his 7th game.

- 22 disposals and good tackle numbers in his first year

- Tremendous on (and off field) work rate

- Phil Davis and Callan Ward (who at the time was hardly an A grader) were the only other good player they could get

Now I don't know if it was pressure and expectation or maybe even regret that has effected his form since, or if the game has somewhat gone passed him as other players reached his level of endurance and had more skills.

But particularly after his first year when the offer would've been put to him he looked like a future star of the comp. GWS were desperate so hence the big money. Not much different to the Bulldogs and Tom Boyd.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-greater-western-sydney-giants--tom-scully?year=2010

- 39 disposals in just his 7th game.

- 22 disposals and good tackle numbers in his first year

- Tremendous on (and off field) work rate

- Phil Davis and Callan Ward (who at the time was hardly an A grader) were the only other good player they could get

Now I don't know if it was pressure and expectation or maybe even regret that has effected his form since, or if the game has somewhat gone passed him as other players reached his level of endurance and had more skills.

But particularly after his first year when the offer would've been put to him he looked like a future star of the comp. GWS were desperate so hence the big money. Not much different to the Bulldogs and Tom Boyd.

Good points. The big diff though to Boyd is scully offered no promise of star power (ie big media presence, glamour etc)

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-greater-western-sydney-giants--tom-scully?year=2010

- 39 disposals in just his 7th game.

- 22 disposals and good tackle numbers in his first year

- Tremendous on (and off field) work rate

- Phil Davis and Callan Ward (who at the time was hardly an A grader) were the only other good player they could get

Now I don't know if it was pressure and expectation or maybe even regret that has effected his form since, or if the game has somewhat gone passed him as other players reached his level of endurance and had more skills.

But particularly after his first year when the offer would've been put to him he looked like a future star of the comp. GWS were desperate so hence the big money. Not much different to the Bulldogs and Tom Boyd.

I would say Callan Ward was the only good player they got.

If you watched his (Scully) 39 possession game you would see exactly what 'nut' was talking about. Got a lot of ball to no effect. Most of the possessions were in the last Q when his running came to the fore and most were scrubbers or went to the oppo.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-greater-western-sydney-giants--tom-scully?year=2010

- 39 disposals in just his 7th game.

- 22 disposals and good tackle numbers in his first year

- Tremendous on (and off field) work rate

- Phil Davis and Callan Ward (who at the time was hardly an A grader) were the only other good player they could get

Now I don't know if it was pressure and expectation or maybe even regret that has effected his form since, or if the game has somewhat gone passed him as other players reached his level of endurance and had more skills.

But particularly after his first year when the offer would've been put to him he looked like a future star of the comp. GWS were desperate so hence the big money. Not much different to the Bulldogs and Tom Boyd.

As stated elsewhere - his disposal left a lot to be desired. Doesn't matter how much you get the pill if you cant hit a target.

And yes - it is like Boyd. To me Boyd is an enormous punt. Jeremy Cameron I could understand but Boyd is a wing and prayer.

I think you are right though - GWS were desperate for a signing.