14 hours ago, goodoil said:

Why are you basing a stupid and under-researched post on a game off a four-day break against the top side after a 2pt loss against the second top side.  Its nonsense.  

Because this crap has been going on for years. Lets run through his entire drafting/trading history

2013

Trades:

Viv Michie for 54-error

Tyson 9 + 53 for 2 + 20 + 72 -error

Vince for 23-success

Draft

Salem 9- success

Kennedy Harris 40-error

Jayden Hunt 57-success

Harmes 2-success

Rookie 

King 19-error

Georgieou 35-error

2014

Trades

Garlett + 83  for 61 + 79- success

Lumumba for Mitch Clark-error

Frost + 40 + 53 for 23 - error

Draft

Petracca 2 - success

Brayshaw 3- success

Neal Bullen 40- error

Mcdonald 53-error

Rookie

Vandenburg 2-success

White 20-error

2015

Trades

Melksham for 25-success

Howe and Toumpas for Kennedy 29 + 50-error

Fitzpatrick for 94-success

Bugg and 7 for 10 + 43 +64- success

Draft

Oliver 4-success

Weideman 9- error

King 42-error

Hulett 46-error

Rookie

Wagner 6-error

Smith 41- neutral

2016 

Trades

 29 + 68 for Hibberd and 59 -success

Dunn and 51 for 47-error

Draft

Hannan 46-neutral

Johnstone 64-error

Rookie

Filipovic 8-error

Smith 25-error

Kielty 41-error

2017

Trades

10 + 2018 (1rd) + 2018 (4rd) for Lever + 35 + 2018 (3rd rd)- error

Watts for 31 -success

66 for Balic-error

Draft

Spargo 29- error

Fritsch 31-success

Petty 37-error

Baker 48-error

2018

Trades

Kent for 65-error

Tyson for Preuss + 62-neutral

Hogan + 65 for 6 + 23-success

May + Kolodjasnij for 6 -neutral however Ben King looks to be a star and Kolodjasnij will be delisted

Draft

Sparrow 27-neutral but did we really need another inside mid

Jordon 33-neutral but this kid should be pushing for games by now

Nietschke 53-error

Hore 56-success

Bedford 75-neutral

Rookie

Chandler 15-error

Mid-Season

Dunkley 3-error

2019

Frost + 42 + 61 + 2020 4th rnd for 50 + 2020 2nd rd-neutral

22 + 79 + 2020 2nd rd for Langdon 26 + 2020 4th rd-neutral

26 + 50 2020 1st rnd for 8 [pickett]-neutral but looks like error at this stage

Draft

Jackson 3-neutral but Hayden Young is what we needed

Pickett 12- neutral but kid has a long way to go

Rivers 32-neutral but the kid looks to have the goods

Overall more misses than hits

Edited August 1, 20205 yr by Elegt
dunkley

This should have been your first post and then you wouldn’t have copped it as much as you’ve had. 

I would probably add Luke Jackson to that list of puzzling draft selections ..What is the point of a forward who cant mark above his Head ? Hopefully he will come good in this area but I already have m y doubts .

2 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

I would probably add Luke Jackson to that list of puzzling draft selections ..What is the point of a forward who cant mark above his Head ? Hopefully he will come good in this area but I already have m y doubts .

Agree on last year, I think a Caleb Serong / Georgiadis combo would have us looking much better right now. Instead we took 2 raw athletes

15 hours ago, Elegt said:

Surely the chief recruiter is involved in trading

Is the chief recruiter involved in development? 

Just now, Gunna’s said:

Is the chief recruiter involved in development? 

nope, hence why I gave blokes like angus brayshaw and jayden hunt a success 

Elegt....

Its not a 50/50 marking system... it’s also not one guy’s decision.

Rookies, >40 in draft have less theoretical success rates.

 

61% of players play >10 games. Less than 1 in 3 play 50 games. So are they all successes?

 

Would be interesting to have a look at Dodoro, etc “success” or whoever you deem as a replacement... you will be surprised.

 

I don’t read every thread, so probably mentioned elsewhere, the guy 3goals against us this week,  Jason wanted.

Edited August 1, 20205 yr by Steno

5 minutes ago, olisik said:

Agree on last year, I think a Caleb Serong / Georgiadis combo would have us looking much better right now. Instead we took 2 raw athletes

I think the mistake was hoping Jackson would be a good forward option, given he never played there as a Junior, better to get a more natural forward if that is the ultimate aim. Sure he may be a great ruckman one day but he's never going to be a buddy franklin

1 minute ago, Steno said:

Elegt....

Its not a 50/50 marking system...

Rookies, >40 in draft have less theoretical success rates.

 

61% of players play >10 games. Less than 1 in 3 play 50 games. So are they all successes?

 

Would be interesting to have a look at Dodoro, etc “success” or whoever you deem as a replacement... you will be surprised.

 

I don’t read every thread, so probably mentioned elsewhere, the guy 3 against us this week,  Jason wanted.

Yep and we could've drafted Georgiades. We picked 2 players ahead of him

3 minutes ago, Elegt said:

Yep and we could've drafted Georgiades. We picked 2 players ahead of him

Yep, that’s how drafts work..... maybe Jason wanted to.......

Do me a favour and grab Dodoro’s or anyone of your fancy over same time period.... then your are objective......

37 minutes ago, Demonland said:

This should have been your first post and then you wouldn’t have copped it as much as you’ve had. 

Possibly, but half of what he posted was around trading, which Jason Taylor would have very little to do with.  All I could see someone like Mahoney doing is saying 'we are trading our first rounder, do you think we can get this type in the second round and so forth'.

While he might have missed on a few over the years, can any recruiter claim to have hits 100% of the time?  Not a chance.  

At the moment you could regard a selection of someone like Weideman as a miss, as we would have hoped to see more from him to this point.  The same could be said for Brayshaw.  Both picks inside the top 10.

But he was the recruiter who went with both Petracca and Oliver, both clear wins for us.  He was part of the 'mini draft' trade/selection that allowed us to nab Hogan before he hit the draft. 

I'm not going to sit here and say he is perfect - far from it.  But for every perceived 'miss', he has had some hits along the way.

Are elegt and Werridee having a competition to see who can start the most threads?   lol

23 minutes ago, Elegt said:

I think the mistake was hoping Jackson would be a good forward option, given he never played there as a Junior, better to get a more natural forward if that is the ultimate aim. Sure he may be a great ruckman one day but he's never going to be a buddy franklin

I think the ultimate aim is to get an elite ruckman.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

Possibly,

My point was that it’s better to have more substance to an inflammatory statement. Doesn’t make it right or wrong. 

2 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Are elegt and Werridee having a competition to see who can start the most threads?   lol

At least we are starting conversations what are you doing?

Just now, WERRIDEE said:

At least we are starting conversations what are you doing?

I am enjoying them.  Keep up the good work man.

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

My point was that it’s better to have more substance to an inflammatory statement. Doesn’t make it right or wrong. 

I think most us know what he has recruited and it's not great reading.

6 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I think the ultimate aim is to get an elite ruckman.

Why so early? Gawn has heaps of years ahead of him. How long does he have to wait?

32 minutes ago, Elegt said:

I think the mistake was hoping Jackson would be a good forward option, given he never played there as a Junior, better to get a more natural forward if that is the ultimate aim. Sure he may be a great ruckman one day but he's never going to be a buddy franklin

Incorrect.

 

30 minutes ago, Elegt said:

I think the mistake was hoping Jackson would be a good forward option, given he never played there as a Junior, better to get a more natural forward if that is the ultimate aim. Sure he may be a great ruckman one day but he's never going to be a buddy franklin

I think we should have picked up Georgiadies with Jackson's pick the only reason why he wasn't taken early was because he was injured. He's exactly what we need we don't need a ruckman but now we are stuck with him praying that he can become a forward.

7 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Why so early? Gawn has heaps of years ahead of him. How long does he have to wait?

Max is 28.  It typically can take at least 3 or 4 years for a ruckman to mature.  I think the timing is about right.

The other thinking I've heard on Jackson is that he is so mobile he could almost be played as a ruck rover, which having watched him play, I'd say is pretty on the money.

And what's to say that we couldn't play both Max and Jacko, a bit like Cox and Nic Nat?

1 hour ago, Elegt said:

Because this crap has been going on for years. Lets run through his entire drafting/trading history

2013

Trades:

Viv Michie for 54-error

Tyson 9 + 53 for 2 + 20 + 72 -error

Vince for 23-success

2014

Trades

Garlett + 83  for 61 + 79- success

Lumumba for Mitch Clark-error

Frost + 40 + 53 for 23 - error

2015

Trades

Melksham for 25-success

Howe and Toumpas for Kennedy 29 + 50-error

Fitzpatrick for 94-success

Bugg and 7 for 10 + 43 +64- success

2016 

Trades

 29 + 68 for Hibberd and 59 -success

Dunn and 51 for 47-error

2017

Trades

10 + 2018 (1rd) + 2018 (4rd) for Lever + 35 + 2018 (3rd rd)- error

Watts for 31 -success

66 for Balic-error

2018

Trades

Kent for 65-error

Tyson for Preuss + 62-neutral

Hogan + 65 for 6 + 23-success

May + Kolodjasnij for 6 -neutral however Ben King looks to be a star and Kolodjasnij will be delisted

2019

Frost + 42 + 61 + 2020 4th rnd for 50 + 2020 2nd rd-neutral

22 + 79 + 2020 2nd rd for Langdon 26 + 2020 4th rd-neutral

26 + 50 2020 1st rnd for 8 [pickett]-neutral but looks like error at this stage

None of these have anything to do with Taylor.

I'll now wait for you to start a "Sack Tim Lamb, Josh Mahoney and Darren Farrugia (is he even still there?)" thread.

 

Maybe the OP reckons we’re better off with Barry Prendergast? 
 

Taylor has done a great job. Jog on.

Plenty of criticisms of late picks, who for the majority of draftees, don't have long, successful careers. 
Criticising Rookie draft picks looks like desperation too.

There is zero certainty in drafting and even now, after the fact, there's not many convincing alternatives being offered.  The real value of the Lever trade has been covered many times and Lever has outplayed the players taken with those picks.  It's pointless going through it again because the same people only focus on the 'two first round picks' sound bite without looking at what those picks were and who was available at the time. 

For a draftee taken:

31-50: Only 35% play more than 60 games, whilst only 24% make it to 100. 
You've got a 1 in 4 chance of finding a 100 games player.
91% don't make it to 200.

 

51-70: Only 40% play more than 20 games in their career. 
86% don't make it to 100 games whilst 95% don't make it past 200.

A top 10 pick in the Rookie Draft has a 15% chance to play 100 games.
39% of the top 10 never play a game.

 

 

Besides... I though the team was good and the coch terrible..?