Rhys Palmer

[Adzman 2,154]

Trent for me with pick 4. That would be a FANTASTIC result. I have no doubt if the dees had had pick 2 in the draft ehy would take Trent with pick 2.

WA boys worry me a little. Even SA boys tend to want to head home.

If we can grab a GUN victorian, lets bloody well do it.

[Jarka 767]

Best. Player. Available. It is as simple as that when it comes to drafting. Trade week and the later draft picks are where you should address specific positional requirements. I don't think we should ever be taking a punt on a player for a specific position when there are evidently better options available at that pick. At least, not with sub-20 picks anyway.

As you say, our midfield is very blue collar at the moment, because the two most promising components (McLean and Jones) are yet to blossom fully. We need to inject a bit of pace or ingenuity that can start winning us some clearances, where we consistently got obliterated in 07. Masten seems to be a genius at the stoppages, and Palmer is the sort of player who can be the 'first receiver' and break away from the scrum, as well as get his own ball when called upon to do so.

If Cotchin is unavailable, which he almost certainly will be, then I think we will probably take either Palmer or Masten, with Palmer leading the way only due to Masten's OP. We can then pray that either Rance, McEvoy, or Henderson are still around at 14. If you follow the phantom draft that Jarka put up, then it seems doubtful, but I have seen 2-3 other 'Top 10s' where are at the tail end, if they are there at all.

One thing is proven about phantom drafts, they're rarely completely accurate because the clubs represent 16 different points of view. Melbourne is a good example, of recent years we've taken a bunch of players tipped to go much later ie McLean, Dunn and Frawley come to mind. CAC seems to think outside the box a bit (which I admire)

[Diablo 1]

One thing is proven about phantom drafts, they're rarely completely accurate because the clubs represent 16 different points of view. Melbourne is a good example, of recent years we've taken a bunch of players tipped to go much later ie McLean, Dunn and Frawley come to mind. CAC seems to think outside the box a bit (which I admire)

His record certainly speaks for itself. I'll back whoever we pick up all the way, because I think CAC brings a very intelligent approach to list management.

I wouldn't mind picking up Grimes at 21, if he's still there. If he is as committed and determined as people are suggesting, then he already has the mindset to be an AFL player, and this would lend itself to working hard at his deficiencies to ensure that the missing 'class' gets incorporated into his game. I think we need to get a tall at either 14 or 21, however.

[Freak 100]

yeh, I remember when we were all [censored] because we picked up James frawley instead of James Sellar. Now, sellar has almost been forgotten about.

[Yencks 8]

I played footy against Henderson this year.....very good player..needs a couple of years in the gym, but gee can he take a good grab. We'd have to patient though...bigger boys take longer to develop...unlike midifielders who can almost slot right in and play 8-22 games

....sure you did...lol....what team tom?

[kramer 0]

Still think Tiges will take Cotchin but if he does slip, WCE wouldn't care less what his dad says.

They'll draft him, Fly his whole family there, give it a spin.

Then his dad will come up saying something like "After having a closer look at the WCE setup, I'm more then happy with Trent playing with the Eagles"

i love that.... how true!!!

[warren dean 193]

His record certainly speaks for itself.

It certainly does! He started with us in 1997 when Schwab moved back into the club - we were last. 10 years later, we are third last. He is the only one who seems to have escaped scrutiny and is still with us. If his recruitment and list management is so great, why after 10 years are we in the position we are in. And if anyone says, "yes but we have been finalists six out of the last 10 years" etc, etc, my answer is it wasn't enough to save Daniher. I've heard before the ridiculous argument that it is CAC's job to recruit the talent and then the role of the Coaches to turn them into good players. He has selected an array of underachievers for a long time now. I think CAC is very overrated by posters on this board. He has been moderately successful in his role - nothing more, nothing less.

[Diablo 1]

It certainly does! He started with us in 1997 when Schwab moved back into the club - we were last. 10 years later, we are third last. He is the only one who seems to have escaped scrutiny and is still with us. If his recruitment and list management is so great, why after 10 years are we in the position we are in. And if anyone says, "yes but we have been finalists six out of the last 10 years" etc, etc, my answer is it wasn't enough to save Daniher. I've heard before the ridiculous argument that it is CAC's job to recruit the talent and then the role of the Coaches to turn them into good players. He has selected an array of underachievers for a long time now. I think CAC is very overrated by posters on this board. He has been moderately successful in his role - nothing more, nothing less.

Please. Do not underestimate how poor development was under Daniher. Players basically had to be great from the get-go, in their 20 mins of game-time, or they'd spend the next 2 months in the twos. I'd love to know how you justify saying the argument that it is the coach's job to develop players qualifies as 'ridiculous'. You sort of touch on that, then don't really explain why you feel that is the case. Who's job is it? Should CAC deliver us the finished article every time?

[rpfc 28,433]

It certainly does! He started with us in 1997 when Schwab moved back into the club - we were last. 10 years later, we are third last. He is the only one who seems to have escaped scrutiny and is still with us. If his recruitment and list management is so great, why after 10 years are we in the position we are in. And if anyone says, "yes but we have been finalists six out of the last 10 years" etc, etc, my answer is it wasn't enough to save Daniher. I've heard before the ridiculous argument that it is CAC's job to recruit the talent and then the role of the Coaches to turn them into good players. He has selected an array of underachievers for a long time now. I think CAC is very overrated by posters on this board. He has been moderately successful in his role - nothing more, nothing less.

So you think he's a success and you're complaining that we think he's a success.

CAC was chased hard last year by Collingwood, and is highly respected. And if performance is the measure of a recruiting manager then: 1st on the ladder at Rd.18 2004, 2nd Rd.12 2005, and 3rd Rd.18 2006, is not bad at all.

You cannot blame CAC for the weak minds and lack of maturity in our senior players, that has seen us blow great chances of a top 4 finish three years in a row.

When you complain about everything, you're not going to persuade anyone.

[Nasher 33,616]

It certainly does! He started with us in 1997 when Schwab moved back into the club - we were last. 10 years later, we are third last. He is the only one who seems to have escaped scrutiny and is still with us. If his recruitment and list management is so great, why after 10 years are we in the position we are in. And if anyone says, "yes but we have been finalists six out of the last 10 years" etc, etc, my answer is it wasn't enough to save Daniher. I've heard before the ridiculous argument that it is CAC's job to recruit the talent and then the role of the Coaches to turn them into good players. He has selected an array of underachievers for a long time now. I think CAC is very overrated by posters on this board. He has been moderately successful in his role - nothing more, nothing less.

Which recruiter has been better?

[Yencks 8]

Which recruiter has been better?

good call...that's what i was thinking before...how has geelongs been, they have never had high draft picks...or maybe WC, who picked up daniel kerr after we got scotty thompson.

[deanox 9,924]

geelong have a plethora of father son player in their team that they got cheap.

the thing with our list, and ive been saying this for a while, is the pain of the draft penalties for salary cap cheating. we are still feeling that now. that is why we will still feel it for another 2-3 years, until we have a list that is completely unaffected by the penalties.

[warren dean 193]

So you think he's a success and you're complaining that we think he's a success.

CAC was chased hard last year by Collingwood, and is highly respected. And if performance is the measure of a recruiting manager then: 1st on the ladder at Rd.18 2004, 2nd Rd.12 2005, and 3rd Rd.18 2006, is not bad at all.

You cannot blame CAC for the weak minds and lack of maturity in our senior players, that has seen us blow great chances of a top 4 finish three years in a row.

When you complain about everything, you're not going to persuade anyone.

Firstly, I said he has been moderately successful. Secondly, being chased by Collingwood is no recommendation. They chased and got Noel Judkins from Essendon a few years ago when he was the premier recruiting man in the comp and then promptly warehoused him when things went belly up. You base the assumption that he is a good recruiter on incomplete season results - 2004 - lost elimination final 7th; 2005 - lost elimination final 8th; 2006 - lost semi-final 5th. Result - ND sacked; CAC stays.

Let's examine the recruiting. In fairness to the players involved we will disregard the last couple of drafts as it is either too early to tell or players have already exited the club, e.g Heath Neville. So we'll start at 2003 and work our way backwards. Recruited Sylvia at 3, McLean at 5, traded for Holland for pick 20 and got CJ under father-son. Read preseason and Davey off the rookie.

ATM - Sylvia - disappointing; McLean - promising but has been injury prone (not CAC's fault); Holland - serviceable; CJ - hasn't come on; Davey - a bargain; Read - gone!

2002 - Bell at 14 - showing some good signs; 426 at 15 - gone; Rivers at 26 - gun rest - gone!

2001 - the superdraft - guys like Dal Santo went after we picked (wait for it) Molan at 9 - gone; Steve Armstrong at 25 - gone; Aaron Rogers at 26 - gone; the only bloke left on our list from that draft - Miller at 55.

2000 - nobody left - best was Thompson at 16 - now gone; the rest were rubbish who went within 2 years.

1999 - CAC's best draft and ironically the year we lost our first round pick due to draft penalties. Green at 19; Wheatley at 20; Whelan at 50 and Bruce at 64 as well as Godfrey in the preseason. Clark never made it.

1998 - SFA- Chris Lamb at 13 - gone and not much else.

1997 - Trapper at 1; Troy Longmuir at 22; Luke Ottens - dud; Nathan Brown at 66 and Guy Rigoni at 77 were steals and provided good value. etc etc.

Yze and Neitz were at the club before CAC, as were Robbo (first drafted in 96, then delisted then rookied), JMac off the rookie list. We traded picks 2 and 18 in the 97 draft to acquire White.

Now, I'll grant you that we have a couple of promising players in Bate and Jones; I'd say the jury is still out on Dunn, Frawley, Petterd and the like, and Bartram looked good in his first year but we need to see how he returns from injury.

Who has done better in terms of recruiting? - You'd have to look at Stephen Wells at Geelong; and I'd think WCE and Port Adelaide have been quite good considering they have never really had a lot of low picks. Derek Hine has done well at Collingwood even though they did tank in 05 to get Thomas and Pendlebury. The Hawks have had the benefit of a few early picks but have also used some of their later picks astutely. Sydney have not had a really poor year since before Eade became coach. Very few early picks but a lot of success. I have always rated Ricky Barham as an astute recruiter.

As I said, I rank CAC as a moderate success. He has one stellar performance to his name (99), some absolute shockers (98, 00, 01) and since then has been up and down. He has been unlucky in that this draft (07) and 03 were relatively weak drafts, when we have had our lowest finishes, and of course losing pick 5 in 99 due to draft penalties. We have done OK out of the rookie draft.

I guess what I am saying is after 10 years in the caper he is yet to unearth a genuine champion player! Now, whether or not I persuade you or anyone else is totally irrelevant to me. The basis of any argument should be fact. These are the facts of CAC's time in recruiting at the MFC. A moderate performance - no more, no less!

[Deeman 1,497]

Best. Player. Available. It is as simple as that when it comes to drafting.

I've always wondered about that. I would imagine that it's relatively simple with the top two or three but what happens when you get to pick four and there might be four or five players perceived to be of about equal value or ability. Surely then you're entitled to say "well, we need a full back or a running defender or a ruckman" and then chose from that group accourding to your needs?

[rpfc 28,433]

I guess what I am saying is after 10 years in the caper he is yet to unearth a genuine champion player! Now, whether or not I persuade you or anyone else is totally irrelevant to me. The basis of any argument should be fact. These are the facts of CAC's time in recruiting at the MFC. A moderate performance - no more, no less!

My point has been that most Demonland posters would say that CAC has been a success and you've rebutted by saying he is a moderate success. In recruitment, success is success. Especially for a cash strapped outfit like us. We already have massive turnover of staff at the club (due to Steve Harris, who is a challenge to work with) and I hardly think that it is necessary to remove a successful part of footy department.

The club did a thorough review after ND resigned and came to the conclusion that CAC has been successful with moderate spending in recruiting and no spending on development.

You also cannot give the argument that other recruiters have been more successful by pointing out Pendlebury and Thomas when you yourself have excused the 2004/5/6 drafts for CAC's judgement because 'it is too early' to assess those players.

And my pointing out of the ladder positions deep into the season is to point out that we had/have a skilled enough team to achieve a top 4 position (well done CAC) only to be undone by things, surely, out of the control of Recruitment and List Mananger: the lack of testicular fortitude of the senior players.

[warren dean 193]

My point has been that most Demonland posters would say that CAC has been a success and you've rebutted by saying he is a moderate success. In recruitment, success is success. Especially for a cash strapped outfit like us. We already have massive turnover of staff at the club (due to Steve Harris, who is a challenge to work with) and I hardly think that it is necessary to remove a successful part of footy department.

The club did a thorough review after ND resigned and came to the conclusion that CAC has been successful with moderate spending in recruiting and no spending on development.

You also cannot give the argument that other recruiters have been more successful by pointing out Pendlebury and Thomas when you yourself have excused the 2004/5/6 drafts for CAC's judgement because 'it is too early' to assess those players.

And my pointing out of the ladder positions deep into the season is to point out that we had/have a skilled enough team to achieve a top 4 position (well done CAC) only to be undone by things, surely, out of the control of Recruitment and List Mananger: the lack of testicular fortitude of the senior players.

If you re read my post you will see that I didn't use Collingwood's acquisition of Thomas and Pendlebury as a pointer to their recruiting acumen, rather they were simply rewarded for the tank. They have, however, made other wise drafting decisions to rebuild their list. Those same players who lack "testicular fortitude" were the players good enough to get us into the positions you highlighted. You can't have it both ways. My point in summary, is that the whole football club has underperformed. This includes Admin, Coaching, Recruitment and playing list (and probably supporters for that matter as well). If CAC gets more resources we may get better results. Ditto for the coachig staff! Player development would have been compromised in much the same way and for much the same reasons as recruiting if your statement about the review is correct. If the club puts appropriate resources into all areas of the club, then maybe our story will be different into the future! Whether or not most Demonland supporters think CAC is a success or not is irrelevant! The ultimate proof is in performance. I have given you an abbreviated review of his draft history. What do you make of it? Do you agree or disagree with my assertions? Why or why not? That is really the point!

[Guest unstable punt]

Palmer remains my second choice behind Cotchin. Both are talented players who play more of an outside role, though neither is afraid to put his head over the nut when the time comes. Cotchin is supposed to be more skillful, whilst Palmer is probably a better athlete. In all honesty, Mini-Chief, I wouldn't expect WC to balk at the fact that Cotchin is a Victorian. To avoid him purely because of the relatively small risk that he will want to return home would be poor recruiting on their behalf.

I think West Coast will get Cotchin, and we will get either Palmer or Masten. If Masten didn't have OP I think there would be no contest, based on what I've read about how highly he is rated. However, he does have OP, and so I anticipate we will choose Palmer.

we are going to get one or the other, when it comes to 3rd or 4th or 5th, its a lottery who's going to be the best.

[deanox 9,924]

for rpfc and warren dean, i remember hearing or reading CAC comment that a 'successful' draft pick according to how we rank them, is a player that plays 100 games. (on rethinking that, he may have said 50 games, but that seems way to low for me). 100 games is an interesting one, because if miller plays 15 this year then gets dumped he will qaulify as a 'success', we did get reasonable service out of him, but was he any good? prob not. i then have the issue that the club fields 22 players for 22 rounds every year, so be that judgement chances are most teams would have a similar level of success with drafting.

[Hannabal 4]

As I said, I rank CAC as a moderate success. He has one stellar performance to his name (99), some absolute shockers (98, 00, 01) and since then has been up and down. He has been unlucky in that this draft (07) and 03 were relatively weak drafts, when we have had our lowest finishes, and of course losing pick 5 in 99 due to draft penalties. We have done OK out of the rookie draft.

I guess what I am saying is after 10 years in the caper he is yet to unearth a genuine champion player! Now, whether or not I persuade you or anyone else is totally irrelevant to me. The basis of any argument should be fact. These are the facts of CAC's time in recruiting at the MFC. A moderate performance - no more, no less!

Let's examine the recruiting. In fairness to the players involved we will disregard the last couple of drafts as it is either too early to tell or players have already exited the club, e.g Heath Neville. So we'll start at 2003 and work our way backwards. Recruited Sylvia at 3, McLean at 5, traded for Holland for pick 20 and got CJ under father-son. Read preseason and Davey off the rookie.

ATM - Sylvia - disappointing; McLean - promising but has been injury prone (not CAC's fault); Holland - serviceable; CJ - hasn't come on; Davey - a bargain; Read - gone!

It's unreasonable to “disregard” the last two drafts when 2 of those players finished in the top 3 in the most recent B&F ! It's not too early to call Jones or Bate a success.

I suggest your decision to “disregard” the last two drafts was self serving.

Getting back to 2003, you say that “Sylvia is disappointing”, yet other than Waters, Peake, Adcock, and Butler there's arguably no other players from this draft (save McLean) that have shown anything. It's shaping up as one of the most disappointing drafts there's been. In light of this, together with Sylvia's promise, and recognising that he's yet to do a preseason, it's a pick that is certainly not without merit. And we may look back lauding the decision. With McLean and Davey it's a very good draft.

2002 - Bell at 14 - showing some good signs; 426 at 15 - gone; Rivers at 26 - gun rest - gone!

Once again, have a look at the players after Smith. The cupboard is almost bare. Have you studied the players chosen after Smith ? Bell and Rivers ensure this draft is a success.

2001 - the superdraft - guys like Dal Santo went after we picked (wait for it) Molan at 9 - gone; Steve Armstrong at 25 - gone; Aaron Rogers at 26 - gone; the only bloke left on our list from that draft - Miller at 55.

No argument. It's a disaster.

2000 - nobody left - best was Thompson at 16 - now gone; the rest were rubbish who went within 2 years.

You must learn more about the history of our drafts, Warren. Thompson was a brilliant get at 16 and our next pick in 2000 was 62 due to draft penalties. This draft should only be judged on our only real "live pick" and it was excellent.

1999 - CAC's best draft and ironically the year we lost our first round pick due to draft penalties. Green at 19; Wheatley at 20; Whelan at 50 and Bruce at 64 as well as Godfrey in the preseason. Clark never made it.

Yes, a great draft considering the draft penalties.

I'm not going to review every recruiter and no doubt some are very good, but you'll find that in the last 5 years Craig's work stacks up against any recruiter. I'm also not going to continue to judge CAC on drafts from 8/9 years ago. Whilst I'll no longer hang him for 2001, I'll also stop the plaudits for 1999. It's too long ago now and really no longer relevant. The art of recruiting has changed immensely in the last few years and Craig has far more experience. Yes CAC needs a "star" and of that he's well aware.

It's easy to cherry pick, but if you look deeper a story starts emerging. I'm very satisfied with Cameron's recent performances.

[warren dean 193]

It's easy to cherry pick, but if you look deeper a story starts emerging. I'm very satisfied with Cameron's recent performances.

Well thanks, Hannabal. I think you've endorsed everything I said. I said in my original post that CAC has been unlucky in that 03 and the current years were our best draft picks in the worst draft! You can't disregard his first few drafts because then you would be cherry picking! You agree he needs to find a star, and you are right, we were excluded from rounds 2 and 3 of the 2000 draft, as well as round 1 of 1999. My point about the last couple of drafts stands, notwithstanding Bate and Jones coming second and third in the B&F with vote tallies that would have barely qualified for our top 12 in 2006. It is too early to label either a success. The history of players having a stellar first year or two and then disappearing from view.... Phil Walsh, Frank Marchesani, Greg Madigan, Mark Dwyer (Fitzroy version) etc etc. Let's wait and see before we pass judgement on them. To say the drafting of 8 years ago is no longer relevant is a bit of a worry given that the 99 draft currently provides us with most of our senior leadership group. I am pleased that you are pleased with CAC's performance. For a guy who wants success as much as you say you do, you are easily pleased! And to think you once said we wouldn't agree on anything!

[Hannabal 4]

My point about the last couple of drafts stands, notwithstanding Bate and Jones coming second and third in the B&F with vote tallies that would have barely qualified for our top 12 in 2006. It is too early to label either a success. To say the drafting of 8 years ago is no longer relevant is a bit of a worry given that the 99 draft currently provides us with most of our senior leadership group. I am pleased that you are pleased with CAC's performance. For a guy who wants success as much as you say you do, you are easily pleased! And to think you once said we wouldn't agree on anything!

Unlike you, Warren, I like to use my eyes when making a judgement call on players and if I'm proven to be wrong so be it. There's no doubt already that Bate and Jones are successful draft picks. My eyes tell me this. They also tell me that Bartram is a success. His disappearance from the team this year affected us greatly. You can 'keep the jury out' on these players while I enjoy their burgeoning talent.

We're still paying for the 2001 draft and in isolation it was terrible. But I also recognise that CAC's recruiting in the last 4 years is almost without peer. And yes, I want success, and I doubt anyone on here has ever called me "easily pleased", but perhaps I have the ability to balance my thoughts with expectations. He's had 2 dud drafts in 9 (1998 and 2001) - last year is too early to call. Two of those drafts were in his first five years. Like many of us, Craig, I suspect, is better at his craft now than 6-10 years ago. Now I could keep beating him over the head for those early drafts, and CAC and I have shared some interesting interludes over the years (perhaps you're a little too much of a Johnny come lately to have read them) but it would be unfair to keep dragging him over the coals without recognising the considerable success he's had recently.

You mention Derek Hine as being a success. How long has he been Collingwood's recruiter ? As you say, under Noel Judkins the fith had a horrible recruiting record. You want to disregard the last 2 drafts but I've a suspicion that they're the only 2 drafts Hine has participated in. Judkins was in charge during the McLean/Sylvia draft and that's where you start your analysis.

I look forward to revisiting this discussion in 12 months.

1997 - b

1998 - d

1999 - a+

2000 - b+

2001 - f

2002 - c

2003 - a

2004 - b+

2005 - b+ (could become an a)

[old55 23,589]

An accurate analysis there Hannabal, CAC's only bad year was 2001, WD agrees that 2000 was wrecked by draft penalties. Was 1998 bad? CAC had Lamb at 13 and his next pick was at 60 - it's hard to make good picks when you don't have any. I agree with you that last few years CAC has shown refinement of the art, I'm excited going into this draft with him selecting at 4, 14 and 21.

[Hannabal 4]

An accurate analysis there Hannabal, CAC's only bad year was 2001, WD agrees that 2000 was wrecked by draft penalties. Was 1998 bad? CAC had Lamb at 13 and his next pick was at 60 - it's hard to make good picks when you don't have any. I agree with you that last few years CAC has shown refinement of the art, I'm excited going into this draft with him selecting at 4, 14 and 21.

f is harsh for 98, but Robocop was a dud. So based on the one 'live' pick that failed d is far more reasonable. I'll edit my post.

[old55 23,589]

f is harsh for 98, but Robocop was a dud. So based on the one 'live' pick that failed d is far more reasonable. I'll edit my post.

I thought Daniher wrecked his career by mis-using him like he mis-used Miller

You know there's a grain of truth in every misconception ...

[jacey 333]

I thought Daniher wrecked his career by mis-using him like he mis-used Miller

You know there's a grain of truth in every misconception ...

Liked Lamb over Nicho back then but that's more of an indication of how bad Nicho was.

Lamb was never gonna be a running back. He got slaughtered and unfairly roasted by ND.