How to rate our recruiters

[nutbean 8,838]

I have been pilloried before for calling the draft a lottery.

Most of the so called experts get the top 20 or so correct but not necessarily in the right order.

I believe that recruiters need to be judged on how the players we draft perform.

I can see a debate raging for many moons to come as we watch Oliver's career unfold and undoubtedly his progress will be compared to Parish as this to me ( and many others) was the choice we faced.

I have no problem with rating our recruiters against the performances of who we recruit.

If recruiters are rated against who we could have had most supporters of all clubs are going to be sorely disappointed at some point.

Our recruiting has been poor in the past ( pre the Roos era) - it was not poor because we could have had Wines or Martin, it was poor because the likes of Toumpas, Morton and Cook were just not good enough.

[ManDee 7,343]

How to rate our recruiters?

I would suggest a scale of 1 to 10.

Edited November 26, 2015 by ManDee

[deespicable me 1,578]

If Essendon are just starting on a similar re-build that we did when Roos first arrived, then they should hopefully be 2 to 3 years behind us in developing a successful team. This draft has tied us to them a bit in terms of how their two early picks go versus ours.

Oliver will get compared to Parish and Francis as we had a choice of three and Weiderman will get compared to Harry McKay and Curnow as they were the three tall forwards in the mix for our pick 7 and again we had the choice.

Because we are probably (hopefully) ahead of both Carlton and Essendon in developing a successful team our picks should be given every chance to flourish. I especially like how Weidermann can be introduced to the team slowly and he doesn't have to be the main man at all with Hoges commanding the entire defence of all opposition teams. So if they are a bust and some of those other guys are clearly better in a couple of years then I'd say Taylor and co. will be viewed poorly by many on here.

Lets hope our recruits go well.

I like the Bullies recruiting in the last few years, I think they might be viewed as the top team in the recruiting wars at the moment.

It can change quickly though.

[Chris 2,892]

I have been pilloried before for calling the draft a lottery.

Most of the so called experts get the top 20 or so correct but not necessarily in the right order.

I believe that recruiters need to be judged on how the players we draft perform.

I can see a debate raging for many moons to come as we watch Oliver's career unfold and undoubtedly his progress will be compared to Parish as this to me ( and many others) was the choice we faced.

I have no problem with rating our recruiters against the performances of who we recruit.

If recruiters are rated against who we could have had most supporters of all clubs are going to be sorely disappointed at some point.

Our recruiting has been poor in the past ( pre the Roos era) - it was not poor because we could have had Wines or Martin, it was poor because the likes of Toumpas, Morton and Cook were just not good enough.

I don't think it is as simple as basing it on the future performance of the player, there are far too many variables to make it just that. for instance, what happens if the player gets a bad injury and never fully recovers, what if the development of the player is not up to scratch (as ours wasn't), what if there is a massive go home factor like with Nic Nat? It is far too simple to just say lets wait and see how the players perform.

[dee-luded 2,959]

How to rate our recruiters?

I would suggest a scale of 1 to 10.

Lets c,,, maybe prior to Dec 22 2012 (old time)

Maybe currently

Maybe currently

[DeeZee 7,463]

Top Notch

[TheoX 1,222]

Taylor hasn't put a foot wrong yet.

[Demon_JB 1,389]

Can I just say, I think this new Demons outfit is justified by the pick of Clayton Oliver. Old Melbourne would have been sucked in the hype of Parish and the media and would have just pulled the trigger on him at pick 3. Our recruiting team obviously identified a need, identified his strength as a player and chose him at 3 despite Parish being the clear front runner for pick 3 long before Clayton.

[poita 3,914]

Can I just say, I think this new Demons outfit is justified by the pick of Clayton Oliver. Old Melbourne would have been sucked in the hype of Parish and the media and would have just pulled the trigger on him at pick 3. Our recruiting team obviously identified a need, identified his strength as a player and chose him at 3 despite Parish being the clear front runner for pick 3 long before Clayton.

That's all true, but we most likely didn't need to trade up from pick 6 to get Oliver. That trade up came at a cost.

[Demon_JB 1,389]

That's all true, but we most likely didn't need to trade up from pick 6 to get Oliver. That trade up came at a cost.

Yeh I agree. We don't know for certain if Oliver would have lasted at pick 6 however. He might have, but by all reports Essendon seemed just as keen on him also. I think it has all panned out well.

[tilly18 309]

I have been pilloried before for calling the draft a lottery.

Most of the so called experts get the top 20 or so correct but not necessarily in the right order.

I believe that recruiters need to be judged on how the players we draft perform.

I can see a debate raging for many moons to come as we watch Oliver's career unfold and undoubtedly his progress will be compared to Parish as this to me ( and many others) was the choice we faced.

I have no problem with rating our recruiters against the performances of who we recruit.

If recruiters are rated against who we could have had most supporters of all clubs are going to be sorely disappointed at some point.

Our recruiting has been poor in the past ( pre the Roos era) - it was not poor because we could have had Wines or Martin, it was poor because the likes of Toumpas, Morton and Cook were just not good enough.

I am sure Roos is on record as saying the club thought get the draft picks and the rest looks after itself.

Its clearly a mixture of picking the right player and providing the right environment for development.

From 07 through to 10 we had 10 top 20 picks (plus Maric at 21) and we have not hit the jackpot with any of them.

If a player does not work out you can’t just point the finger at the recruiter.

I can’t be convinced we got the selection wrong 11 times.

[jackaub 1,402]

That's all true, but we most likely didn't need to trade up from pick 6 to get Oliver. That trade up came at a cost.

I agree we didn't need 3 as Essendon were always going to go Francis and Parish or someone else .Oli wasn't even in the top 10 until the last few days

Also 25 is overs for Melksham IMO there was plenty of talent on the table at about that number

[nutbean 8,838]

I guess my post is venting - it is way to easy a few years down the track to say - instead of draft X we could have had Y.

And as for saying Oliver would has been there at next pick - you know this how ? Pure speculation.

As an aside however, irrespective of the pick - our philosophy of trading into two picks for this draft as opposed to next year is sound. We need success and we need it quickly. Having two top 10 players with an extra years preseason and experience in them is invaluable.

I will leave Hogan aside as he is a year older ( and freakish) and use Brayshaw as an example. I think he had an exceptional first year but make no mistake his output fell away in the second half of the year ( as expected with a 1st year) - with another preseason in him ( and years experience under his belt) you would expect him to have more impact into year two. With a Key position player you expect even slower development than a mid ( except Hogan - again - freak) - the quicker you get them into your system bulked up and fit , the better.

[nutbean 8,838]

I can’t be convinced we got the selection wrong 11 times.

Put Jensen Button behind the wheel of a Lada in a formula one race and he will still finish last.

[nutbean 8,838]

I don't think it is as simple as basing it on the future performance of the player, there are far too many variables to make it just that. for instance, what happens if the player gets a bad injury and never fully recovers, what if the development of the player is not up to scratch (as ours wasn't), what if there is a massive go home factor like with Nic Nat? It is far too simple to just say lets wait and see how the players perform.

I agree with all that - but it is even simpler as many have suggested that we got one player at pick X wrong because we could have had player Y two picks later.

[Craig Drinker 179]

Hey Demonlanders,

Got asked this question at work but wasn't sure of the answer (mind you I'd had a couple at lunchtime). I know that someone on here will have the answer.

What is the difference between the pre season draft and the rookie draft? The best I could offer was that the players picked in the PSD could play straight away and the rookies would have to wait for a promotion to the list via and injury to a listed player or otherwise?

I don't really understand the pre season draft. Please enlighten me.

[PaulRB 6,435]

It feels like our recruiters, development team and game plan are aligned for the first time in over a decade.

We're picking kids with the attributes that suit our intended game style (contested, physical, defensive both way running) and our development environment is crafting them to their strengths and the game plan.

[tilly18 309]

I agree with all that - but it is even simpler as many have suggested that we got one player at pick X wrong because we could have had player Y two picks later.

Player Y has gone into a completely different environment.

If was about recruitment selection only and nothing else the recruiters would be the highest paid in the industry.

[Chris 2,892]

Hey Demonlanders,

Got asked this question at work but wasn't sure of the answer (mind you I'd had a couple at lunchtime). I know that someone on here will have the answer.

What is the difference between the pre season draft and the rookie draft? The best I could offer was that the players picked in the PSD could play straight away and the rookies would have to wait for a promotion to the list via and injury to a listed player or otherwise?

I don't really understand the pre season draft. Please enlighten me.

From my understanding the pre season draft is for players who have already played who can then be drafted onto the senior list, not the rookie list. The national draft is only open to players who haven't been signed to a club before.

[Craig Drinker 179]

From my understanding the pre season draft is for players who have already played who can then be drafted onto the senior list, not the rookie list. The national draft is only open to players who haven't been signed to a club before.

Thanks Chris! That sounds good to me.

[faultydet 7,623]

From my understanding the pre season draft is for players who have already played who can then be drafted onto the senior list, not the rookie list. The national draft is only open to players who haven't been signed to a club before.

Incorrect.

Anyone can nominate and be drafted in the National (Main) draft, as was Luke Ball a few years back. You just need to be out of contract.

Anyone out of contract, or newbies can go through the rookie draft. Rookie means you cant play seniors until you are "elevated" to the main list, at the expense of a long term injury, or retirement etc. Thats why its a breeding ground for young ruckmen, who take forever to develop.

Pre Season draft is for ex-listed players, who are out of contract, and either not wanted by their old club, or are seeking opportunities at a new club

[DeeSpencer 26,478]

The number of guys establishing themselves as best 22 combined with the ladder position in a few years time.

With our last recruiter it became very clear that very few of his picks were shaping up as long term prospects. No doubt injury played a role. But by 2012 it was clear that the guys from the 2008-2010 drafts Watts, Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, Gysberts, Tapscott, Cook and Davis (those last two didn't look very likely in the VFL) just weren't shaping up.

Watts did (and still does) have some potential. Blease and Strauss had career altering injuries, Tapscott as well. And obviously with more time Jetta turned it around and Bennell might've been a handy depth player to keep as he is at West Coast.

And of course the team wasn't lifting after 2010 and due to all the failures they went from lifting in 2010 as Bailey got the best of a group that Daniher left behind with guys like Green, Moloney, Jamar, Davey to getting worse because those guys were never the right age or talent level to sustain a side.

Add in the restricted drafts and Mitch Clark's injuries/illnesses and you see why we ended in such a mess.

Under Taylor we've recruited a bunch of guys who look up to AFL and perform well at VFL early in their careers. We've found talent deep (which is something we did well at under BP). We've found high end talent from the picks.

That said with the 3 talls and the raw midfielder this is JT's gutsiest draft. If we get 1 A grader (be it Weideman or Oliver) and 2 consistent starters from this draft we will have had a huge draft.

The next challenge for this group of recruiters is adding some more speed and skill, but I'd be shocked if we've haven't go the base of consistent performers right. If we haven't assembled enough talent to produce a decent midfield with some competitive talls then I'd be really disappointed.

[Chris 2,892]

Incorrect.

Anyone can nominate and be drafted in the National (Main) draft, as was Luke Ball a few years back. You just need to be out of contract.

Anyone out of contract, or newbies can go through the rookie draft. Rookie means you cant play seniors until you are "elevated" to the main list, at the expense of a long term injury, or retirement etc. Thats why its a breeding ground for young ruckmen, who take forever to develop.

Pre Season draft is for ex-listed players, who are out of contract, and either not wanted by their old club, or are seeking opportunities at a new club

Thanks for the correction, could live without the passive aggressive response though, a simple not quite right would have done, especially as I said it was only my understanding and not a definitive answer.

[Lucifers Hero 40,557]

That's all true, but we most likely didn't need to trade up from pick 6 to get Oliver. That trade up came at a cost.

With only pick 6 it was either Weideman or Oliver not both.

We had to get our Forward this year as there aren't any goodies next year at our likely 1st round pick next year.

So with only pick 6 this year we miss out on Oliver.

We have lost nothing but gained a top player one year early.

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

With only pick 6 it was either Weideman or Oliver not both.

We had to get our Forward this year as there aren't any goodies next year at our likely 1st round pick next year.

So with only pick 6 this year we miss out on Oliver.

We have lost nothing but gained a top player one year early.

Totally agree..We needed both players so we made sure we got them

Roos is out at the end of the next year...