59 minutes ago, Matsuo Basho said:

I'm sorry but picking Sam Weideman ahead of Charlie Curnow was unforgivable by Jason Taylor. He overlooked a generational player there in Curnow. People can say 6 other clubs did as well but it's not good enough. At pick 9 (Weideman) and pick 12 (Curnow) a clear decision had to be made between the two and Taylor went the wrong way. Add that to his resume please, bolded, highlighted, and underlined.

Reactionary post.

Four weeks ago everyone was saying ‘how did we not take McKay instead of Weid!?’ McKay was starring and Curnow couldn’t buy a goal.   Now Harry plays badly and Curnow stars and there’s a flip.

Thats why operating in hindsight is so easy.

18 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Reactionary post.

Four weeks ago everyone was saying ‘how did we not take McKay instead of Weid!?’ McKay was starring and Curnow couldn’t buy a goal.   Now Harry plays badly and Curnow stars and there’s a flip.

Thats why operating in hindsight is so easy.

Ask 20 pundits/journos and 1000 random fans if they think we got it wrong. 

Curnow was touted as the most explosive and exciting tall at the 2015 draft but of course we went the vanilla choice. 

It was the wrong call by a so-called seasoned professionally paid head recruiter. A terrible call.

4 minutes ago, Matsuo Basho said:

Ask 20 pundits/journos and 1000 random fans if they think we got it wrong. And I would agree with them- but that’s hindsight.  Show me 20 journos and pundits who said we made a mistake at the time, then you’ve got a point.

Curnow was touted as the most explosive and exciting tall at the 2015 draft but of course we went the vanilla choice.  Not really, no.  The knock on Curnow at the time was that he didn’t play as a tall at all.  He was always seen as developing into a big athletic on-baller/wingman- which he still probably will.

It was the wrong call by a so-called seasoned professionally paid head recruiter. A terrible call.  I’m not defending the selection of Weideman- he could still turn out to be a good player, but there were a lot of good players in the first round of that draft (and some stinkers). My preference at the time was McKay (still is).  My point was how fickle and easy it is to lambast a selection years later.

And, for what it’s worth Carlton passed on Curnow twice, so they clearly had zero idea how good he was.

Finally, we got the best player in that draft anyway, so we’ll done Taylor! (and special thanks to Sydney for matching the Mills bid)

 

 

19 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

 

I can appreciate the hindsight argument but there are important differences between random supporters and journos and the head recruiter at an AFL club. One gets PAID to get these crucial decisions right, the others don't. One observes these kids carefully over several seasons, the others don't. In short your head recruiter gets professionally paid to have exactly what makes them an expert in that field and that's ... FORESIGHT.

As for being 192cm (6"4') instead of 195cm that is a big trap to fall into when you're a recruiter analysing as athletic a specimen as Curnow. He had a leap like superman and a build like a young Greek God at 18yo. The scope for exploding into the player he's becoming was so obvious, if a tad risky. Give me the next Anthony Koutoufides any day over a stock standard 195cm young key tall with no game whatsoever below his knees. There were some huge wraps about Curnow online going into the draft at the time. Plenty were saying he was a top 3 talent there for the taking. 

I recall about three days before that 2015 draft Curnow was busted for drink driving or something and it was all over the paper, with SOS coming out and saying the Blues were disappointed and would be having a hard think about their first few selections. That was VERY suspect at the time. I'm not convinced that wasn't a furphy that sucked clubs like ours in. It's happened before at draft time (see Jack Darling).

 

1 minute ago, Matsuo Basho said:

I can appreciate the hindsight argument but there are important differences between random supporters and journos and the head recruiter at an AFL club. One gets PAID to get these crucial decisions right, the others don't. One observes these kids carefully over several seasons, the others don't. In short your head recruiter gets professionally paid to have exactly what makes them an expert in that field and that's ... FORESIGHT.

As for being 192cm (6"4') instead of 195cm that is a big trap to fall into when you're a recruiter analysing as athletic a specimen as Curnow. He had a leap like superman and a build like a young Greek God at 18yo. The scope for exploding into the player he's becoming was so obvious, if a tad risky. Give me the next Anthony Koutoufides any day over a stock standard 195cm young key tall with no game whatsoever below his knees. There were some huge wraps about Curnow online going into the draft at the time. Plenty were saying he was a top 3 talent there for the taking. 

I recall about three days before that 2015 draft Curnow was busted for drink driving or something and it was all over the paper, with SOS coming out and saying the Blues were disappointed and would be having a hard think about their first few selections. That was VERY suspect at the time. I'm not convinced that wasn't a furphy that sucked clubs like ours in. It's happened before at draft time (see Jack Darling).

 

I look forward to this commentary happening every time Curnow jags a few goals.

I also look forward to this commentary dissipating as it did with the NicNat vs Watts debate.

JT will always be asked 

Petracca and Brayshaw over DeGoey

Oliver over Parish

Weideman over Curnow (note Carlton picked McKay before Curnow)

its always a tough call but it’s also important to see the “busts” like Schache and Pickett

Btw I would have picked Petracca, Brayshaw & Oliver and JT got these correct 

2 hours ago, Matsuo Basho said:

I'm sorry but picking Sam Weideman ahead of Charlie Curnow was unforgivable by Jason Taylor. He overlooked a generational player there in Curnow. People can say 6 other clubs did as well but it's not good enough. At pick 9 (Weideman) and pick 12 (Curnow) a clear decision had to be made between the two and Taylor went the wrong way. Add that to his resume please, bolded, highlighted, and underlined.

lovely in hindsight mate. Charlie curnow had an underwhelming junior year with added question marks over his character as well as size to play key position. 

very easy to sit there later and decide that we shouldve taken curnow. 

 

1 minute ago, spirit of norm smith said:

 

Weideman over Curnow (note Carlton picked McKay before Curnow)

 

I don't think that mattered. They had successive picks and knew they'd get both. They may have named Curnow after McKay for other reasons. Keep the ego in check etc.

1 hour ago, Matsuo Basho said:

Ask 20 pundits/journos and 1000 random fans if they think we got it wrong. 

Curnow was touted as the most explosive and exciting tall at the 2015 draft but of course we went the vanilla choice. 

It was the wrong call by a so-called seasoned professionally paid head recruiter. A terrible call.

Were those same pundits/journos/fans saying that the Saints got it wrong with Paddy, even before the concussions when he wasn't getting a kick?

The one that I can never forget for us, was taking Gysberts over Talia.  

There are of course many examples of lower picked players starring in the AFL.

It is not an exact science of course and hindsight has been the best selector over the years, but some have just seemed so obvious and it annoys, when the amateurs get it right, over the professionals.

11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

JT will always be asked 

 

Oliver over Parish

 

its always a tough call but it’s also important to see the “busts” like Schache and Pickett

No he won't.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Were those same pundits/journos/fans saying that the Saints got it wrong with Paddy, even before the concussions when he wasn't getting a kick?

The one that I can never forget for us, was taking Gysberts over Talia.  

There are of course many examples of lower picked players starring in the AFL.

It is not an exact science of course and hindsight has been the best selector over the years, but some have just seemed so obvious and it annoys, when the amateurs get it right, over the professionals.

Again. Professionally paid head recruiter who should have the foresight to get more of these huge calls right than wrong. Like anyone in the cut throat world of elite sport you live and die on the thinnest of margins. If you’re on the wrong side of the ledger you get the chop and the search for someone better begins. Coach, player, admin, recruiter - that truism stands. Our list has holes. It lacks depth and is short on stars/matchwinners. After five years in the gig it’s not good enough.

Joining in the effort to assemble something to compare Taylor's record to - here we have the Eagles.

For brevity I've only included the 'good' or adequate enough picks, and any first rounders.

2018 - Nothing to report yet, though also no first rounder.

2017 - Jarrod Brander in the first round, no action so far. Oscar Allen, Liam Ryan and Jack Petruccelle making this draft look like a winner.

2016 - 1st round, Daniel Venebles. Then Willie Rioli and Jake Waterman of note, later.

2015 - No first round, and only pick playing regular games is Tom Cole

2014 - First Round Liam Duggan, only other is Jackson Nelson

2013 - First Round Dom Sheed, then Tom Barass.

2012 - no first round, then Mark Hutchings and Callum Sinclair

2011 - no first round, and Fraser Mcinnes? An entirely failed draft.

2010 - First round Gaff, priority pick Darling (it pays to tank, eh) also Scott Lycett and the rookie drafting of Jeremy McGovern

2009 - Brad Shepphad at pick 7, nothing else.

2008 - first round Nic Naitanui, priority pick Luke Shuey (ohh boy, isn't tanking awesome)

 

My read of it - aside from nailing their tanking seasons way back in 2008 and 2010, West Coast have actually been pretty ordinary with drafting.

They also traded in Josh Hill, then Sharrod Wellingham (for pick 18... Brodie Grundy), Elliot Yeo (for pick 28), Jack Redden (for pick 21), Lewis Jetta (for Callum Sinclair), and Nathan Vardy (for pick 72).

I'd say our list selection has been overall better than West Coast in recent years. Consider the Eagle shave 15 players in their current best-22 who are Gaff's age (26) or older, of whom 5 are over thirty, I don't think their recent drafting is a part of their success story.

In fact, for West Coast, it all comes back to successful tanking, and the Judd trade, of course.

26 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Oliver over Parish

 

Yeah he really screwed that  one up..   NOT!!!!!!

18 minutes ago, Matsuo Basho said:

Again. Professionally paid head recruiter who should have the foresight to get more of these huge calls right than wrong. Like anyone in the cut throat world of elite sport you live and die on the thinnest of margins. If you’re on the wrong side of the ledger you get the chop and the search for someone better begins. Coach, player, admin, recruiter - that truism stands. Our list has holes. It lacks depth and is short on stars/matchwinners. After five years in the gig it’s not good enough.

So for all us lesser mortals can you come out from behind your nickname and tell us who you really are, only to check out your bona fides

You seem to be such an expert on all facets of the modern game from recruiting to fitness via administration, you surely must be involved at the highest level

 

44 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

lovely in hindsight mate. Charlie curnow had an underwhelming junior year with added question marks over his character as well as size to play key position. 

very easy to sit there later and decide that we shouldve taken curnow. 

 

We have to stop falling for the old   "pea and thimble"  con.

Not  Re Curnow,  but generally we miss the harder edged players,  who play tight on the edge.  These character types,  are quite often the match-winners in our physical game of footy.

17 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

So for all us lesser mortals can you come out from behind your nickname and tell us who you really are, only to check out your bona fides

You seem to be such an expert on all facets of the modern game from recruiting to fitness via administration, you surely must be involved at the highest level

 

You keep missing the point. Is it deliberate? 

Merely being “involved at the highest level” doesn’t pass muster. You’ve got to be the best or very close to the best at what you do at the highest level ... or eventually you will get moved on.

This is not a charity. This is not park footy. Succeed or hit the bricks. It’s as simple as that. Always has been, always will.

You can’t look at the outcome in isolation - you don’t learn anything that way. It’s easy to say Curnow is better than Weideman, therefore we made an error, but it’s a thoroughly hollow analysis.

The outcome is a result of a process - it’s the process that should be scrutinised if we want to improve. I can’t wait to hear Matsuo’s thoughts on this - having a crack at analysing a completely opaque process seems right up his alley.

The other thing is we have to be realistic about what an acceptable result is from recruiting. Curnow is a star and that’s lovely - Weideman is progressing nicely as an AFL quality forward; that still makes him a successful pick in my views, just an 8/10 though where Curnow might be a 10. There are still so many duds picked in the top 20, even by the good clubs (see Wells analysis above), that any time you get a decent AFL level player, that has to be at least a pass mark. No doubt I’ll hear trite demands of demanding better and not accepting mediocrity and all that other toss, but you have to acknowledge the facts which are supported by the data.

49 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Joining in the effort to assemble something to compare Taylor's record to - here we have the Eagles.

For brevity I've only included the 'good' or adequate enough picks, and any first rounders.

2018 - Nothing to report yet, though also no first rounder.

2017 - Jarrod Brander in the first round, no action so far. Oscar Allen, Liam Ryan and Jack Petruccelle making this draft look like a winner.

2016 - 1st round, Daniel Venebles. Then Willie Rioli and Jake Waterman of note, later.

2015 - No first round, and only pick playing regular games is Tom Cole

2014 - First Round Liam Duggan, only other is Jackson Nelson

2013 - First Round Dom Sheed, then Tom Barass.

2012 - no first round, then Mark Hutchings and Callum Sinclair

2011 - no first round, and Fraser Mcinnes? An entirely failed draft.

2010 - First round Gaff, priority pick Darling (it pays to tank, eh) also Scott Lycett and the rookie drafting of Jeremy McGovern

2009 - Brad Shepphad at pick 7, nothing else.

2008 - first round Nic Naitanui, priority pick Luke Shuey (ohh boy, isn't tanking awesome)

 

My read of it - aside from nailing their tanking seasons way back in 2008 and 2010, West Coast have actually been pretty ordinary with drafting.

They also traded in Josh Hill, then Sharrod Wellingham (for pick 18... Brodie Grundy), Elliot Yeo (for pick 28), Jack Redden (for pick 21), Lewis Jetta (for Callum Sinclair), and Nathan Vardy (for pick 72).

I'd say our list selection has been overall better than West Coast in recent years. Consider the Eagle shave 15 players in their current best-22 who are Gaff's age (26) or older, of whom 5 are over thirty, I don't think their recent drafting is a part of their success story.

In fact, for West Coast, it all comes back to successful tanking, and the Judd trade, of course.

Whaaaat?? How could you possibly come to that conclusion?

Flyin' Ryan, Petrucelle, Rioli, Barrass, Darling, McGovern, Lycett, Shuey. All post-R1 draft and rookie draft picks. 4/5ths of a premiership winning spine and some incredibly talented role players. 

Come on LGoffy let's be real.

 

12 minutes ago, Nasher said:

You can’t look at the outcome in isolation - you don’t learn anything that way. It’s easy to say Curnow is better than Weideman, therefore we made an error, but it’s a thoroughly hollow analysis.

The outcome is a result of a process - it’s the process that should be scrutinised if we want to improve. I can’t wait to hear Matsuo’s thoughts on this - having a crack at analysing a completely opaque process seems right up his alley.

The other thing is we have to be realistic about what an acceptable result is from recruiting. Curnow is a star and that’s lovely - Weideman is progressing nicely as an AFL quality forward; that still makes him a successful pick in my views, just an 8/10 though where Curnow might be a 10. There are still so many duds picked in the top 20, even by the good clubs (see Wells analysis above), that any time you get a decent AFL level player, that has to be at least a pass mark. No doubt I’ll hear trite demands of demanding better and not accepting mediocrity and all that other toss, but you have to acknowledge the facts which are supported by the data.

you would think so eh.... but then even THAT is accepting mediocrity,

• and you know I've been waiting for a flag since my birth,
• and it's been since 1964
• and we should have got it right at least once,
• and I'm also worried about never winning a flag in my lifetime,
• and it's the norm smith curse
• and we're a weak club with no culture
• and why the eff did we recruit toumpas?
• and mark neeld
• and none of our coaches seem to have a plan b, when we lose (but seem to have a great plan when we win)

11 minutes ago, Nasher said:

You can’t look at the outcome in isolation - you don’t learn anything that way. It’s easy to say Curnow is better than Weideman, therefore we made an error, but it’s a thoroughly hollow analysis.

The outcome is a result of a process - it’s the process that should be scrutinised if we want to improve. I can’t wait to hear Matsuo’s thoughts on this - having a crack at analysing a completely opaque process seems right up his alley.

The other thing is we have to be realistic about what an acceptable result is from recruiting. Curnow is a star and that’s lovely - Weideman is progressing nicely as an AFL quality forward; that still makes him a successful pick in my views, just an 8/10 though where Curnow might be a 10. There are still so many duds picked in the top 20, even by the good clubs (see Wells analysis above), that any time you get a decent AFL level player, that has to be at least a pass mark. No doubt I’ll hear trite demands of demanding better and not accepting mediocrity and all that other toss, but you have to acknowledge the facts which are supported by the data.

 

You're cherry picking my analysis which originally looked at ALL of Taylor's post-R1 draft and rookie draft picks, leading to my conclusion that it is a key reason why the list current has holes and lacks depth. Missing out on stars like Curnow and DeGoey is just the icing on top. We laud the shrewd recruiting to nab Oliver, then you've got to look at the negative side of the ledger as well. It's significant.

And please factor into your 'data' humiliation in a preliminary final and our current ladder position - 16th!

 

Evaluating Weideman vs anyone else in his draft year needs to be in context of team balance at the time he was drafted in November 2015.  Taylor said it would take a few years for him to hit his straps. 

And, we had Watts and Hogan to give Weidemen the space to develop.

There is no way Taylor could have anticipated our other 194+cm forwards (Watts and Hogan) to be traded out in the next few years.

If Taylor had thought losing them was likely he almost certainly would have taken a more 'ready to play' forward eg Curnow instead of Sam.  As it stands, I'm very happy we have Sam.

Context is important.

Edited June 16, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Apologies for potentially throwing a bit of a grenade into the thread, but given we're also currently 'critiquing' the game plan, structures, assistant coaches, lack of a cohesive base, fitness boss, CEO and head coach, doesn't that put a bit of a disclaimer on making definitive calls on our recent recruiting in the context of everything else that is inarguably wrong or, at best, questionable?

 

1 hour ago, Matsuo Basho said:

Again. Professionally paid head recruiter who should have the foresight to get more of these huge calls right than wrong. Like anyone in the cut throat world of elite sport you live and die on the thinnest of margins. If you’re on the wrong side of the ledger you get the chop and the search for someone better begins. Coach, player, admin, recruiter - that truism stands. Our list has holes. It lacks depth and is short on stars/matchwinners. After five years in the gig it’s not good enough.

So do you fire the Carlton recruiter for missing Oliver or praise him for getting Curnow..?

Fire the Brisbane recruiter for getting Schache or praise them for getting hipwood?

Fire the GWS recruiter for getting Pickett or praise him for getting Himmelberg?

5 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

So do you fire the Carlton recruiter for missing Oliver or praise him for getting Curnow..?

Fire the Brisbane recruiter for getting Schache or praise them for getting hipwood?

Fire the GWS recruiter for getting Pickett or praise him for getting Himmelberg?

See my reply to Nasher above.

Also, Carlton and Brisbane are halfway through the 5-6 year process of restocking with talent and then being able to truly assess all of that talent. We can make a pretty clear assessment of the MFC now. 

GWS are a lot more complex to analyse given their unique draft concessions and obvious challenges with player retention.

 

Edited June 16, 20195 yr by Matsuo Basho