Rhys Palmer

[old55 23,593]

You are yet to rebut my suggestion that there are a number of clubs who have done better,

How about actually providing some analysis of drafting at those clubs relative to MFC's rather than just generalising with bald statements - who knows - you might have a point. Why should someone else do the hard yards for you yet again? It's your MI.

Your superficial approach has been exposed at least twice in this thread already when you claimed:

- 98 and 00 were poor years without actually examining what picks we had and who else we might have selected

- comparing Hine with CAC on the basis of his performance in 05 and 06, years you said were too early to rate for CAC

[Hannabal 4]

Answer me this, given your obvious preoccupation with Hine. Do you believe he made good use of those choices? Because really that is the crux of the whole thing. You play the hand you are dealt.

My "preoccupation" is with your responses, not with Hine. You disregarded CAC's "last couple of drafts", but when asked to name recruiters that had done "better" over the journey you refer to Hine. Why ? Hine has only been around the last 2 drafts. Why refer to Hine as a recruiter that may have done better than CAC when his frame of reference is the very two drafts you discount ? It may escape your memory, but you start your analysis of Melbourne's recruiting from the 2003 draft. You also say on another post when referencing Collingwood and Hine, "They have, however, made other wise drafting decisions to rebuild their list". What are these "decisions" and when were they made ?

You said that 2000 was a "shocker" for CAC. Thompson was a fantastic pick at 16 whilst our next pick was 62. You subsequently acknowledged our draft penalties in that year, so do you retract this description of 2000 ? You were also asked to look at the players taken after CAC's picks to clarify who would've been better. You've never under taken the task.

As for Hine ? The last two years look very good. He had 2 top 5 picks in 05 which obviously helps, but based on the talent available the Pies have done well in the last 2 drafts. Mind you, they're draft years you disclude in your analysis. In 2004 C'wood drafted Egan at 10, Rusling, Iaccabucci, and Cloke as a FS. If we disregard the FS, and I assume you'll agree that it's reasonable to do so, how does Egan, Rusling and Iaccabucci stack up against Bate, Dunn, and Newton ? You didn't just overlook our "last couple of drafts", you overlooked the last 3. Many players have already been dlisted from the 2004 draft yet you won't acknowledge obvious successes. More self serving decisions on your part.

I still can't fathom our "differences of opinion" though. I've rated CAC's drafts on a previous post. Where do you disagree ? Your simplistic approach to evaluating CAC's performance rests with "He's yet to recruit a gun and he's yet to recruit a fantastic KPP". We agree on those fronts, so would CAC, but it only paints a narrow margin of the entire debate ?

If I get time I'll analyse Port, Brisbane, Geelong and the Swans as per your request. But seeing as you're the one making the claim that they've recruited better, why don't you do it ? The one reason I'll do it is that I enjoy comparing the various clubs recruiting exploits. It's a fun past-time during the off season.

But do you know what Warren, I doubt you've any idea how well those clubs have recruited. I suspect you just look at the ladder and assume others are doing it better. You also don't take into account coaching and development. In fact, you just skim the surface before forming these concrete 'opinions'. This simplistic approach sums up the quality of your posting.

[warren dean 193]

My "preoccupation" is with your responses, not with Hine. You disregarded CAC's "last couple of drafts", but when asked to name recruiters that had done "better" over the journey you refer to Hine. Why ? Hine has only been around the last 2 drafts. Why refer to Hine as a recruiter that may have done better than CAC when his frame of reference is the very two drafts you discount ? It may escape your memory, but you start your analysis of Melbourne's recruiting from the 2003 draft. You also say on another post when referencing Collingwood and Hine, "They have, however, made other wise drafting decisions to rebuild their list". What are these "decisions" and when were they made ?

You said that 2000 was a "shocker" for CAC. Thompson was a fantastic pick at 16 whilst our next pick was 62. You subsequently acknowledged our draft penalties in that year, so do you retract this description of 2000 ? You were also asked to look at the players taken after CAC's picks to clarify who would've been better. You've never under taken the task.

As for Hine ? The last two years look very good. He had 2 top 5 picks in 05 which obviously helps, but based on the talent available the Pies have done well in the last 2 drafts. Mind you, they're draft years you disclude in your analysis. In 2004 C'wood drafted Egan at 10, Rusling, Iaccabucci, and Cloke as a FS. If we disregard the FS, and I assume you'll agree that it's reasonable to do so, how does Egan, Rusling and Iaccabucci stack up against Bate, Dunn, and Newton ? You didn't just overlook our "last couple of drafts", you overlooked the last 3. Many players have already been dlisted from the 2004 draft yet you won't acknowledge obvious successes. More self serving decisions on your part.

I still can't fathom our "differences of opinion" though. I've rated CAC's drafts on a previous post. Where do you disagree ? Your simplistic approach to evaluating CAC's performance rests with "He's yet to recruit a gun and he's yet to recruit a fantastic KPP". We agree on those fronts, so would CAC, but it only paints a narrow margin of the entire debate ?

If I get time I'll analyse Port, Brisbane, Geelong and the Swans as per your request. But seeing as you're the one making the claim that they've recruited better, why don't you do it ? The one reason I'll do it is that I enjoy comparing the various clubs recruiting exploits. It's a fun past-time during the off season.

But do you know what Warren, I doubt you've any idea how well those clubs have recruited. I suspect you just look at the ladder and assume others are doing it better. You also don't take into account coaching and development. In fact, you just skim the surface before forming these concrete 'opinions'. This simplistic approach sums up the quality of your posting.

This is becoming repetitive and boring, Hannabal! My opinion, for the last time on this post, is that CAC has been a moderate success. Nothing you say will change that view, as nothing I say will change yours. I am happy that you have felt challenged enough to continue the interrogation. My view is just that- an opinion. Whether or not you believe it is informed, superficial, blah blah et etc is really irrelevant. I am not out to change anybody else's mind, just give a view. People who are keen enough will do the research and come to their own conclusion, without any biased input from you or I. We have had at least two major areas of contention as I recall - this one, and the issue of th eimportance of the club versus the importance of winning. Let's face it, you were right when you once wrote that you didn't think we would agree on much at all. I'm happy to leave it at that. My view has been aired, and I apologise to the mods and other members for taking up so much time on something that really has very little to do with whether or not Rhys Palmer will go to MFC. Let's hope CAC does his best work in 5 weeks time and lands that "big fish".

[Hannabal 4]

This is becoming repetitive and boring, Hannabal! My opinion, for the last time on this post, is that CAC has been a moderate success. Nothing you say will change that view, as nothing I say will change yours. I am happy that you have felt challenged enough to continue the interrogation. My view is just that- an opinion. Whether or not you believe it is informed, superficial, blah blah et etc is really irrelevant. I am not out to change anybody else's mind, just give a view. People who are keen enough will do the research and come to their own conclusion, without any biased input from you or I. We have had at least two major areas of contention as I recall - this one, and the issue of th eimportance of the club versus the importance of winning. Let's face it, you were right when you once wrote that you didn't think we would agree on much at all. I'm happy to leave it at that. My view has been aired, and I apologise to the mods and other members for taking up so much time on something that really has very little to do with whether or not Rhys Palmer will go to MFC. Let's hope CAC does his best work in 5 weeks time and lands that "big fish".

Lame.

[old55 23,593]

This is becoming repetitive and boring, Hannabal! My opinion, for the last time on this post, is that CAC has been a moderate success. Nothing you say will change that view, as nothing I say will change yours.

The problem is you've offered your opinion claiming "I would say I would be as knowledgable about the factual history of trading and drafting as anyone else on this site, and I use these facts to form opinions." without delivering on the factual history.

[Nasher 33,616]

The problem is you've offered your opinion claiming "I would say I would be as knowledgable about the factual history of trading and drafting as anyone else on this site, and I use these facts to form opinions." without delivering on the factual history.

..and then rubbishing them when they are presented.

[Little Goffy 14,568]

There's a limit to how much of a player's career can be attributed to the recruiter.

I've said before that it's probably fairest to look mostly at Rising star award nominations to get a picture of how players are doing when they are still primarily shaped by what they were at draft time, rather than as reconstructed by the club.

Have we had less than two nominations a year since 2002?

Mclean, Sylvia, Petterd, Jones (3rd) Rivers (Winner) Davey (runner up), Bate, Bartram (3rd?).

It's a good run, these last few years. Newton and Frawley both remain eligible don't they?

Who have I missed from the last few years?

No one will deny that 2000/2001 were relatively weak for us, despite picking up a possible captain now at Adelaide (Thompson), but since 2003 the form has been superb. Another couple of years of this level of quality recruitment and we'll be laughing our way into a golden era, particularly now that we actually HAVE a dedicated development coach.

It's blowing my mind how few resources we committed to player development, and the contrast with the new coaching set-up. I guess it's one of the advantages of having a relatively low-profile (low-cash) senior coach, is that we have more money available for the wider coaching staff.

Now, bring me a good young Key Defender, Mr. CAC.

[Jarka 767]

The problem is you've offered your opinion claiming "I would say I would be as knowledgable about the factual history of trading and drafting as anyone else on this site, and I use these facts to form opinions." without delivering on the factual history.

old, you replied to my post earlier and i get the impression that you assumed a couple of things. Main one is that this topic hasn't been discussed before, which is wrong. i'm more than happy to go through my reasons again but i'm too busy this week to give it the time it deserves. Hopefully by sunday afternoon/evening i'll get the chance to post all the KPP's we've missed over the last ten years.

[H.B.K 0]

After reading the reviews of all the players, I have some serious doubts over the overall talent in this draft, and with Pick 4 I believe it will be out of Masten, Palmer, McEvoy, Henderson and Ebert.

Masten has the best profile of them, but I fear of the dreaded OP and he also has the go home factor.

Ebert OP and go home factor (This bloke will do a Thompson to whoever he goes to guaranteed)

McEvoy - on more than 1 occasion I've heard that he is too short to ba an AFL ruckman and too slow for key forward. But has an excellent grab and good kick for a tall bloke.

Henderson - Injured all year, but apparently best big bloke in the draft.

Palmer - can get the ball, but has question marks over his kicking on occasions and also his ability to get better as a footballer.

I believe Rance will slip through the top 10 and be an option for us at 14.

[old55 23,593]

old, you replied to my post earlier and i get the impression that you assumed a couple of things. Main one is that this topic hasn't been discussed before, which is wrong. i'm more than happy to go through my reasons again but i'm too busy this week to give it the time it deserves. Hopefully by sunday afternoon/evening i'll get the chance to post all the KPP's we've missed over the last ten years.

OK, look forward to it! I've seen the analysis done before by Fan and there was precious little there but I'm always willing to look at a fresh take - hope you've got more than 2001 up your sleeve, no-one denies it was a stinker.

[Jarka 767]

Again for you Jarka, a little homework - find the good KPPs taken after CAC's picks. A blind butcher can count them on one hand.

We are a relatively poor club with many deficits compared with other clubs - we've got to make every post a winner. I think CAC is one big winner for us. Now with the new development coaching structure in place to take advantage of his selctions I think we could see a big improvement.

1997 Draft

Our picks

1T.Johnstone

22 T.Longmuir

39 M.Blake

50 L.Ottens

66 N.Brown

77 G.Rigoni

Who we missed

2 B.Ottens

3 T.Coad

9 C.Cornes

82 N.Thompson

No question that TJ has talent but we missed some serious KP talent considering we had the first pick. Fail

1998

13 C.Lamb

60 L.Speers

72 L.Taylor

14 L.Penny

36 D.Jacobs

38 B.Fevola

39 T.Thurstans

75 K.McGregor

Disaster of a draft for us. Fail

1999

19 B.Green

20 P.Wheatley

42 M.Clark

50 M.Whelan

63 S.O’Brien

64 C.Bruce

29 A Hunter

36 R Biglands

40 D Hille

74 M Burton

Can’t argue about this one, no real KP talent that we missed. Pass

2000

16 S Thompson

62 D Breese

73 R Funcke

80 Mitchell Craig

23 D Petrie

27 T Richards

29 J Charman

30 S Rocca

33 M Pike

CAC wouldn’t have this one on his resume. Fail

2001

9 L Molan

25 S Armstrong

26 A Rogers

55 B Miller

21 M Maguire

22 M Seaby

24 S Johnson

38 A Hansen

46 J Waite

62 D White

71 B Harris

What were we thinking? Fail

2002

14 D Bell

15 N Smith

26 J Rivers

39 G Moorcroft

54 C Hunter

66 R Ferguson

10 J Laycock

20 W Minson

30 D Merrett

45 K Simpson

51 T Boyle

72 B Fisher

Rivers is a good result but it’s offset by Smith. Pass (just)

2003

3 C Sylvia

5 B McLean

36 C Johnson

12 R Murphy

15 T Chaplin

46 M Pettigrew

55 S Fisher

58 B Hudson

No KPP’s looked at however I strongly believe that trading away our 2nd round pick was a bad move. Fail

2004

13 M Bate

15 L Dunn

43 M Newton

18 C Wood

23 S Rusling

40 I Maric

62 M Egan

Dunn and Newton were drafted to be KPP’s, one looks to fit the role but the other doesn’t. Pass

2005

12 N Jones

53 S Buckley

60 C Bartram

68 H Neaville

14 G Birchall

20 P Bower

25 W Mills

33 S Gilbert

42 Warnock

Once again we made a mistake by giving away valuable picks. Bower or Gilbert would have been very handy, our actual picks were good though. Pass

2006

12 J Frawley

30 R Pettard

46 C Garland

62 I Weetra

14 J Sellar

16 M Brown

63 T Goldsack

64 N Gill

71 J Westhoff

I’m not sold on Frawley but it’s far too early to tell, very happy that they’ve abandoned the mindset of trading away valuable picks for players on the decline.

I didn’t put too much effort into rookies, I’m sure there were many I missed.

2004

40 Jaymie Graham

2003

15 Nick Maxwell

2002

19 Quinten Lynch

40 Ben Rutten

2001

27 Robert Campbell

2000

26 Dean Brogan

To answer Old’s question we could have had a spine of:

B.Fevola

C.Cornes

M.Egan

B.Rutten

So tell me Old, how many fingers do you actually have?

My main concern with our efforts with drafting KPP’s is the fact that over the last 10 years we’ve used 5 first round picks on them and only one of them look like being successful (Frawley, still a long way to go though). No matter how you look at it 1 in 5 is a poor return. 13 picks in total have been used on KPP’s, with 1 success (Rivers), 2 possibles (Newton and Frawley), 1 doubtful (Miller), 1 work in progress (Garland) and 7 delisted (Dunn isn’t a KPP). 3 in 13 isn't very flattering, although it seems that CAC's efforts have improved in time, but it's a pity we had to throw away 5 years to get to that level. CAC has a great record with mids and utilities, so the question is are we drafting the wrong type of KPP's or are we failing in their development?

[grazman 7,436]

It's been a fascinating discussion, but I think there's a couple of points that should be highlighted.

Firstly there's a recruiting team. Are we confident that every single selection is actually the kid that CAC would he himself choose? If Don Barron approached him and said "This is the kid we have to take" would Craig not give that due consideration? It's a matter of public record that Luke Molan was not his choice, he was under instruction. There were others too I believe. So how do you assess one person's performance when it's clearly a team process? (should it be "Come on let's work as a team and do it my way" or "It was a team effort and everyone else let me down" )

Secondly I might be drawing a pretty long bow here, but I reckon WA clubs can highlight WA talent a little better than there interstate rivals, ditto SA clubs. I think it's probably an issue for the Lions to look at as well, because I don't believe they do it particularly well. Going through the drafts and picking out blokes we could have had can only be done with the benefit of hindsight. How much did any other clubs know about Dean Cox or the Cornes boys? If you don't have the resources to look at players in one comp as often as others then it gets harder to make the calls. I'm sure the recruiting department sit down and do a thorough evaluation of their own performance, I'm also sure they are a lot tougher on themselves than we are. You learn from your mistakes.

Finally if we want to be arbitrary and analyse the players we've missed that were good, how about the ones that were bad?

Anyone up for the challenge of comparing our individual draftees against their cohorts, our first, second, third rounders against the league averages etc.... oh yeah that's a Stan the Statictian from Stradbroke Islands dream.

Whilst it maybe still too early to make the call I'm far more happy with Frawley than I would've been with Sellar. Jones and Petterd are out of the box, ditto bartram. If they are too recent then let's go back to the "no good draft of 03"

Anyone remember when it looked like we were going to get Tennace and Ryley Dunn, - perhaps Farren Ray or Kepler Bradley would have been better choices?

I get far more excited by the draft than the trade period. As Fan would say - I'm turning into a bit of a blue sky junkie.

[Slartibartfast 17,297]

Like Graz I think it has been an excellent debate. I’d like to make a couple of points:

Firstly many of the players you say we missed were not really available to us. In 1997 we took Johnstone at one and traded 2 for White. We were bereft of midfielders in 97 so to take a mid was sensible. Few would argue we did badly with White. Many argue for Trav. I don’t. But having taken Travis, we never got a chance at Ottens, Croad or Cornes. They were gone by our next pick. Everyone missed Thompson in a sense as he was pick 82 and even Hawthorn passed him up 6 times before taking him with their 7th pick.

You’ve marked 2000 as a fail. Thomson is as good or a better player than Petrie, Richards, Charman and Rocca. We’d delisted Pike for disciplinary reasons, we were hardly going to redraft him. By the time we got our second pick in 2000 (we lost picks 2 and 3 through salary cap penalties) all the players you’ve mentioned were gone. It’s hard to say Cameron failed when he never got a chance to pick them and it’s even harder to argue he failed by picking Thomson ahead of them.

Another thing you need to take into account is the limitation that existed of only taking one 17 year old. For example, in 1997 we couldn’t take Goodes (who slipped to 43) because he was a 17 year old and we’d already taken Travis as one.

But much of this begs the bigger issue. Drafting is not an exact science. Just about every club has missed early picks. Vance, Hill, Cupido, Roach, Beetham, Livingstone, McDougall, Smith, Angwin, Molan, Walsh, Brennan, Bradley, Trotter, Dunn, Meesen and Egan are all picks in the top 10 who have failed or are seriously disappointing at this time. If you look at the top 20 draftees the list grows almost exponentially.

The test of Cameron is not to look and identify what he has missed but to compare his strike rate to the strike rate of the other recruiters. When you’ve done this and proved him to be in the bottom half I’ll take note. I suspect that he would be top quartile and I further suspect he’d be very close to top in the last 3 or 4 years.

Time will tell how good his recent picks are but one thing is clear. In my opinion it is a meaningless analysis of any recruiter to point out who he has missed. I’d be interested to see the results of a comparative analysis of all recruiters over his time and I’d be interested to see the parameters of the analysis. It would be a major task and one I won’t be doing.

[rpfc 28,441]

To answer Old’s question we could have had a spine of:

B.Fevola

C.Cornes

M.Egan

B.Rutten

Isn't it amazing when you can go 5 years ahead of the draft and pick the best kids. Oh wait...

This discussion has been done to death, all I need to know is that CAC is one of the best, we have him, and let's fix other areas of the club before we blame CAC for all our failings.

[deanox 9,927]

...

jarka. imo that is a terrible, self serving assesment. we could have picked up buckley, hird, voss and g. ablett in a draft and you would have claimed it a fail because it didnt get any KPP...

1997 is a pass. do you consider TJ a failure? he played 160 games for the club and has been a good (if inconsistant) player, who we eventually traded (after getitng 10 years out of him) for pick 14. Ottens, Coad (sic) and Cornes and were inbetween our 1st and 2nd draft picks. we couldnt have got any of them, and we didnt even use the 1st pick on KPP, so that was a stupid suggestion. Yes we couldve used 22, 39, 50, 66 or 77 on N Thompson, but no other clubs picked him up before pick 82 either, he was obviously a real smokey, and not expected to make it. you have highlighted no one who we could reasonably expected the recruiting staff to take at any of the early piks. longmuir played 85 odd games, brown played heaps, and rigoni played his fair few. considering you havnt highlighted any other reasonable players we could have got, i would brand 1997 a success (3 good players out of 6).

agree that 98 was a fail, none of those players made it. but once again there was no obvious standouts waiting for us to pick them with the picks we had. pick 72 is speculative at best, so i dont think that is a good argument regarding ken mcgregor (who isnt that much chop either, unless you are yze_magic).

99, four out of 6 players. i count that as a pass. and a good one at that.

how can you possibly claim 2000 was a fail? we had pick 16. we picked a kid who is excelling at afl level, and is a possible future captain. it is not CAC's fault he wanted to leave is it? after that the only picks we had were 62, 73, and 80. You havnt highlighted anyone who we could have picked up with these picks. 2000 is a pass. (and that you suggested martin pike at 33 indicates you have no real idea about what is going on here...

2001, 100% fail. no questions asked. but as grazman says, was molan CAC's fault, or someone elses?

2002, bell and rivers were great picks ups here, inspired even. what is the point of using laycock as an example when he was a top pick 10 before our first pick? ferguson was eventually a fail, but he was a best first year player and showed lots of potential. could have been the right call.the others were failures, although it can be argued that smith was cruelled by injury. again, your examples of players we missed dont exactly send shivers down my spine...i'll agree with your pass, but i think it was only just.

how can 2003 be a failure? mclean and sylvia are both showing promise and could be 10 year players. CJ hasnt quite had it at afl level, but has shown good promise at vfl, and considering he was a 3rd round father son pick didnt cost much. his skills alone meant he was worthy of a chance. holland for pick 20 has already been shown to be a pretty good use of the pick. we may disagree on that, but he has had an impact at melbourne and has filled the role we desperately needed at the time. his trade was a decision made by the footy dept about chasing a player they wanted, and is not necessarily a slight on CACs drafting ability. pass.

2004, bate dunn and newton all taken as 17 yo bottom age players. if they had've had another year it is likely they all would have gone top round...all have shown great potential to be 10 year players for the club. with only short notice, this looks to be one of our best drafts...

2005. jarka would you have chosen bower or gilbert over jones? you listed 5 players between 14 and 42, but 12 (jones) was the only pick we could have used on them. i believe jones was a great choice in comparison. you have suggested no other uses for the other picks, so i assume you are happy with them. pass.

2006 is to ealry to call imo, but i think we made good selections is frawley and petterd, and i am very interested to see how garland develops, he was a late speculative pick with limited footy background.

jarka, i agree our drafting of quality talls has not seen us pick up a pavlich, a fevola, a lloyd or a hall just yet. but your analysis suggests that our chances of picking one of those sorts of players up have been limited at best. ottens or cornes instead of johnstone, fevola (38) instead of lamb, a decision that 15 other clubs chose to leave him as well...hunter instead of wheatly perhaps. anyone in the 20901 where we had all sorts of prbs (as discussed above).

your grading does not necessarily reflect your research, but having it reflects the case you wish to argue. i give him 7 passes out of 9 seasons, with 1998 and 2001 the fails, and in 2001 he may well have been instructed to take certain players...

[deanox 9,927]

sorry fan, you pretty much said what i said, but it took me a while longer to post it!

[Pepe Dee Pew 0]

Our comparitive lack of funds in the recruiting area makes it very hard for CAC. He would not be supplied with the same level of reports as his counterparts in the wealthier clubs. Because of this the wealthier clubs in general have better strike rates with bottom picks and rookies becuae they mine deeper.

All the same recruiting boils down to PROBABILITIES. You just hope you get it right.

Also as with any game of probabilities there are the lucky and unlucky streaks. The bombers recruiting lately in general has been crap. They had a great run for a while. Same as Carlton - their luck has not been to good. Their only saving grace has been No. 1 picks. I note when Carlton lost picks they went for recyled. We went for kids with low picks - Bruce, Whelan etc.

Our only downer which will hopefully change soon is that we have had heaps of good players but no Supers in the mould of Hird, Buckley, Voss etc.

We are due for a change of luck in the Supers area and that is exactly why CAC wanted two first rounders. These days the probability is that they will come with these picks.

Overall CAC has done a great job. OK, not much luck in the supers area but enough quality to play off in a lot of final series which helps $$$, retention of sponsors and members.

Change of coach and a few risks are being taken in that some of our depth has been dropped off and we are going to try some kids. Better than playing safe and treading water.

Good luck CAC.

[Jarka 767]

jarka. imo that is a terrible, self serving assesment. we could have picked up buckley, hird, voss and g. ablett in a draft and you would have claimed it a fail because it didnt get any KPP...

deanox, you're taking my post out of context. Old55 challenged me to find more than a handfull of decent KPP's taken after our picks, which I've obviously proven to add to my argument that our drafting of KPP's has been poor over the last 10 years. 13 attempts with 1 success and 2 possibles, do you honestly think that is acceptable? Also my assessment was based on KPP's, not midfielders. I've already stated in that post you replied to that CAC's record with mids is very good, perhaps you missed that comment?

1997 is a pass. do you consider TJ a failure? he played 160 games for the club and has been a good (if inconsistant) player, who we eventually traded (after getitng 10 years out of him) for pick 14. Ottens, Coad (sic) and Cornes and were inbetween our 1st and 2nd draft picks. we couldnt have got any of them, and we didnt even use the 1st pick on KPP, so that was a stupid suggestion. Yes we couldve used 22, 39, 50, 66 or 77 on N Thompson, but no other clubs picked him up before pick 82 either, he was obviously a real smokey, and not expected to make it. you have highlighted no one who we could reasonably expected the recruiting staff to take at any of the early piks. longmuir played 85 odd games, brown played heaps, and rigoni played his fair few. considering you havnt highlighted any other reasonable players we could have got, i would brand 1997 a success (3 good players out of 6).

Once again you've misunderstood my analysis. The debate with old was regarding KPP's, we took 1 in Ottens and it didn't work out. Fail. For my reasons why I consider TJ to be a failure read Hannabal's views on him, his descriptions are far better than mine. (Remember Old challenged me to find decent KPP's after our picks)

I was going to respond to each comment but it's clear you've misunderstood the purpose of my post, reread the post I was responding to.

jarka, i agree our drafting of quality talls has not seen us pick up a pavlich, a fevola, a lloyd or a hall just yet. but your analysis suggests that our chances of picking one of those sorts of players up have been limited at best. ottens or cornes instead of johnstone, fevola (38) instead of lamb, a decision that 15 other clubs chose to leave him as well...hunter instead of wheatly perhaps. anyone in the 20901 where we had all sorts of prbs (as discussed above).

your grading does not necessarily reflect your research, but having it reflects the case you wish to argue. i give him 7 passes out of 9 seasons, with 1998 and 2001 the fails, and in 2001 he may well have been instructed to take certain players...

With drafting KPP's we've had 13 attempts resulting with 1 success and 2 possibles. Are you happy with this record?

[grazman 7,436]

I don't think it's fair to use Hird, Buckley or Voss as comparison's either. Each has very good claim to be the best player their club has ever produced. If CAC recruited anyone of similar ability outside of first pick in the draft, he'd hang up the boots and look at himself in the mirror all day and marvel at his insight.

[mo64 5,874]

Once again you've misunderstood my analysis. The debate with old was regarding KPP's, we took 1 in Ottens and it didn't work out. Fail. For my reasons why I consider TJ to be a failure read Hannabal's views on him, his descriptions are far better than mine. (Remember Old challenged me to find decent KPP's after our picks)

Jarka, the reason why you're constantly 'misunderstood' is due to your flawed analysis of drafting. Unless you were in a position of authority within MFC (and I seriously doubt it), you would not be aware as to whether CAC was briefed by the coaching panel prior to each draft. He may have chosen Molan and Lamb on the basis of best KP backman, upon on a coaching request.

Choosing TJ ahead of Ottens was logical given that we traded pick 2 for White.

Also the trading of trade picks for existing players is not the jurisdiction of the recruiting manager. Recruiting managers watch little AFL football, hence wouldn't be in a position to appraise the worth of someone like Byron Pickett.

If you believe that CAC is a failure, why don't you show us the record of the best recruitment managers in your eyes? I'm sure it would be littered with your definition of 'Fail'!!!!

[Jarka 767]

Jarka, the reason why you're constantly 'misunderstood' is due to your flawed analysis of drafting. Unless you were in a position of authority within MFC (and I seriously doubt it), you would not be aware as to whether CAC was briefed by the coaching panel prior to each draft. He may have chosen Molan and Lamb on the basis of best KP backman, upon on a coaching request.

Choosing TJ ahead of Ottens was logical given that we traded pick 2 for White.

Also the trading of trade picks for existing players is not the jurisdiction of the recruiting manager. Recruiting managers watch little AFL football, hence wouldn't be in a position to appraise the worth of someone like Byron Pickett.

If you believe that CAC is a failure, why don't you show us the record of the best recruitment managers in your eyes? I'm sure it would be littered with your definition of 'Fail'!!!!

hmmm, not sure how to respond to this. I've already stated that CAC's record of drafting mid's is very good, it's KPP's that I'm concerned about. Also, once again that post was a response to Old's comment that there have been no decent KPP's available after our picks, which is complete bollocks.

A challenge for you, show me evidence that our recruiting of KPP's has been good over the last 10 years.

[deanox 9,927]

deanox, you're taking my post out of context. Old55 challenged me to find more than a handfull of decent KPP's taken after our picks, which I've obviously proven to add to my argument that our drafting of KPP's has been poor over the last 10 years. 13 attempts with 1 success and 2 possibles, do you honestly think that is acceptable? Also my assessment was based on KPP's, not midfielders. I've already stated in that post you replied to that CAC's record with mids is very good, perhaps you missed that comment?

Once again you've misunderstood my analysis. The debate with old was regarding KPP's, we took 1 in Ottens and it didn't work out. Fail. For my reasons why I consider TJ to be a failure read Hannabal's views on him, his descriptions are far better than mine. (Remember Old challenged me to find decent KPP's after our picks)

I was going to respond to each comment but it's clear you've misunderstood the purpose of my post, reread the post I was responding to.

With drafting KPP's we've had 13 attempts resulting with 1 success and 2 possibles. Are you happy with this record?

jarka, ive reread the posts and i see what you are talking about. im just not sure it is fair to make conclusions on how good a recruiter CAC is based on 'how well he drafted talls'. remember, most people here advocate taking the best available player, whether it is a tall or a small. we havnt done particularly well with KPP players when drafting, but of the 13, 9 have been top 30 picks (longmuir, lamb molan rogers smith rivers bate dunn frawley) and i think rivers is a success and the jury is still out on three. it could be 4 from 9. and we know the circumstances around molan already...

top 20 picks and you have 6 (lamb molan smith bate dunn frawley) of which 3 of 6 could be excellent...(and again the molan circumstances and the smith horror run with injuries). the fact that we havnt pulled a smokey tall in the later stages of the draft is what worries me, not the possible 50% strike rate in the earlier picks. but then again have we? miller, ferguson and newton were all later picks. miller is still on the list and has shown much promise. maybe he will be a dud, but he will be a dud who has played 100 games when he goes. ferguson just got delisted. he showed much potential in the early days and perhaps it was his physical development that hampered him rather than his skills or attitude. and newton could be anything at this stage as a speculative later pick.

ok so his efforts with KPP's havnt yielded a riewoldt, a franklin, a tom hawkins, a lynch or a hall, but to say they have been a 'failure' is probably a little bit harsh. to comment that CAC is not a good recruiter based on this is absurd. his efforts with shorts and mids has been outstanding, and i dont think his drafting of talls is necessarily as bad as has been made out by some posters.

[deanox 9,927]

A challenge for you, show me evidence that our recruiting of KPP's has been good over the last 10 years.

:D im liking all these homework challenges. at least we're getting back to the good old days of solid debate and discussion instead of the petty crap. this is a really good thread, i hope it stays this way.

[mo64 5,874]

B.Fevola

C.Cornes

M.Egan

B.Rutten

Well I'll challenge you on your 'we could have had' spine.

B. Fevola - drafted in what 1999?. Can only play FF, during which time we've had Neitz, or Robbo as back-up.

C. Cornes - How many years has he played CHF? Currently an old fashioned utility, not a KPP.

M. Egan - So you're rating him ahead of Rivers based on 1 season, in which Rivers was out injured. Prior to this year,

Scarlett and Harley were the Cats FB and CHB.

B.Rutten - 1st game was as a FF. 3 goals with 1st 3 kicks. Selected as a rookie, hence every club got it wrong with him.

[Pepe Dee Pew 0]

I don't think it's fair to use Hird, Buckley or Voss as comparison's either. Each has very good claim to be the best player their club has ever produced. If CAC recruited anyone of similar ability outside of first pick in the draft, he'd hang up the boots and look at himself in the mirror all day and marvel at his insight.

That's the whole point. Just why we wanted Judd so badly. Its the Supers who can make the difference when the going is tough and produce outstanding performances in finals.

There is an element of luck when recruiting. CAC has a good idea a player will be good but just how good???? That's the luck because the AFL is cruel when it comes to evening out players abilities. WCE picked Judd up at 3. He was overlooked at 1 & 2 by expert recruiting staff. The MFC's turn will come.

CAC's recruited very well IMO and it is only a matter of time before we get one or two out and out guns - who knows they may well be on the list developing now.