If CAC is rated so highly, then why are we predicted to be so bad again?

[robbo24 66]

Title says it all.

[45HG 1,549]

your avatar says it all

[robbo24 66]

well its a fair question isn't it?

He has been in charge of building our list for so many years, but we've never been in a force, and we still don't look like threatening for the flag for years to come.

[Cactus 2]

your avatar says it all

whats his avatar got to do with it??

i think others think we will do badly because:

- New Coach

- Dont believe our injuries were that bad last year

- Rate Jones as our only good young player

- Neitz, Bruce, White, Green, McDonald all past it

- No Full or Centre Half Back

- Lack of polished Midfielder

These are all outsiders thoughts that i have picked up talking to mates.

On CAC, i guess only time will tell if he really has built a good list. He has a very good reputation with picking up smokies late in the draft and in rookie drafts but Molan at 9 was iffy, and Sylvia and 3 is proving to be iffy so far.

[godees 863]

I don't think anyone suggests CAC is the best recruiter in the AFL but he is top 5 IMO. And yes not every pick has become a great player but there isn't a recuiter in the AFL who hasn't made some howlers like molan, rogers etc. There is no doubting that CAC is a very capable recruiter and who knows what we will get with whoever we hire to replace him - that is why so many of us are disappointed to lose him.

His biggest failure is probably his inability to draft a champion but I'm not sure there is a better recruiter with late picks (bruce, whelan, McDonald, Robbo, davey, bartram etc)

Two reasons why CAC shouldn't be blamed for us being "predicted to be so bad again?"

1. Draft penalties and good results (i.e. top 8 finishes) have reduced the number of early draft picks that he has had to work with and there is a definite hole in the list (and these players would be coming into their prime) where the draft penalties were.

2. There is more to building a team and success than drafting - trading, retaining players, injuries, coaching, development etc all contribute a great deal.

And finally who believes the so called experts anyway?! How many of them tipped geelong, port, collingwood and the roos to finish top 4 - I'm betting none. The 'experts' are judging the ability of our list on 2007 where (as we all know) we were hit with one of the worse runs with injury I've ever seen, and when the injured players returned many of them were unable to return to full fitness. With a decent run with injuries we will surprise a lot of people. And looking forward I think CAC has brought together the nucleus of what can be a very successful team with our group of under 23s. We will see...

[beelzebub 23,380]

CAC didnt select the team, didnt put them on the pitch !! he supplied the material.. some incompetence resulted in some gerry built teams !! not that the ingredients were necessarily incorrect.. just used to poor effect at times.

and thats CAC's fault ...why ??????

CAC wasnt perfect..who is. He didnt get it right al lthe time...who does.. but once he got them it wass the job of others !!

[Mondê 525]

CAC did his job very well. For mine, 2001 pick 9 Luke Molan wasn't so much CAC's blunder but Molan's cruel run with injuries inability to adapt to the highest level of football. Could CAC predict this when he recruited an exciting young talent who at the time was seen as one of the best KPP in the draft? Definitely not. The recruiters can only do so much.

[Cactus 2]

CAC wasnt perfect..who is. He didnt get it right al lthe time...who does.. but once he got them it wass the job of others !!

Some of the blame must fall on CAC's shoulders though...

CAC cant just say here are 7 new players, they are your problem now, i have done my job.

I think CAC has been very good for us, but he has made mistakes and people need to stop making excuses for him. Just like if the coach, a player or a board member makes a mistake, they own up to it.

[beelzebub 23,380]

CAC cant just say here are 7 new players, they are your problem now, i have done my job.

As a recruiter..that was EXACTLY his job.. was he also supposed to cok th etoast and make teas ??

[Demon16 69]

Title says it all.

the bookies comments were along the lines of "melbourne were poor at the end of last year and can't see much improvement yet richmond have gained cotchin and mcmahon". how about regaining the services of about 10 injured players?

don't believe everything you read, mike sheahan rated us the best victorian side at the start of the '07 season, now after one injury ravaged season we are the worst side in comp. give me a break.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Everyone's said it all...

If it weren't for CAC (and ND), who's to say we'd have made the finals at all in the last 5 years?

[old55 23,625]

"predicted"?

[Waltham33 475]

Possibly because CAC didn't do defence! (outside of Riv)

[Cactus 2]

As a recruiter..that was EXACTLY his job.. was he also supposed to cok th etoast and make teas ??

then why are we paying a person so much to do this.

I'll do it for free, pick a bunch of players based on others opinions, have no responsibility and hang round the club for a year, sounds like a good deal...

He needs to be a part of their support team and nuture them into league players... He has the ultimate say on which player to pick up, so if they turn into duds, it has to be partly his fault.

[Whispering_Jack 30,239]

A recruiting officer can only pick players on the basis of the selections he's landed with over the years. CAC's work was affected by two huge salary cap penalties in the early part of this decade which had a severe effect on the club not only in the years when the penalties applied but also in so far as trading was concerned over the ensuing years. Further, with the team finishing in the top half more often than not, he didn't have the benefit of too many early draft selections of the kind that St. Kilda, Fremantle, Richmond and more lately Carlton have been blessed with or the abundance of father/sons that Geelong managed to snaffle up in time.

Then there's the fact that once a player gets to the club, the recruiting officer has no influence on his development, injuries and other factors that might affect a player's life and the way his career unfolds.

Further, given that so many of our players are in the developing phase (Under 23) we should be ignoring the predictions of the pundits at this stage of the season and looking at the realities of what actually happens with our list over the next four to five years. I still have a lot of faith in our younger group of players - even more so with the added emphasis this year on player development.

In short, I think you've asked the wrong question, Robbo24.

[Guest fatty]

A recruiting officer can only pick players on the basis of the selections he's landed with over the years. CAC's work was affected by two huge salary cap penalties in the early part of this decade which had a severe effect on the club not only in the years when the penalties applied but also in so far as trading was concerned over the ensuing years. .

Craig Cameron is neither here nor there. He’s not a recruiting genius and people should not make him out to be. Cameron Bruce, Nathan Brown, Peter Walsh, Troy Broadbridge, Daniel Ward are very average players. Matthew Whelan would have been picked up in the 60’s if we hadn’t done so beforehand. The amount of ordinary players we have makes me wonder whether CAC was't working for the Tiges all along.

I don’t deny CAC his trade and good luck to him. But he’s not a scientist. The first 30 picks in the draft pick themselves. To think we got Morton, Grimes, Marric for a steal is just ridiculous. We don’t have a premiership and the administration, recruiting staff and football department must be held responsible for the club’s lack of achievement.

He may have been stifled by salary-cap penalties and lack of options but his return on investment is still very low.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Craig Cameron is neither here nor there. He’s not a recruiting genius and people should not make him out to be. Cameron Bruce, Nathan Brown, Peter Walsh, Troy Broadbridge, Daniel Ward are very average players. Matthew Whelan would have been picked up in the 60’s if we hadn’t done so beforehand. The amount of ordinary players we have makes me wonder whether CAC was't working for the Tiges all along.

I don’t deny CAC his trade and good luck to him. But he’s not a scientist. The first 30 picks in the draft pick themselves. To think we got Morton, Grimes, Marric for a steal is just ridiculous. We don’t have a premiership and the administration, recruiting staff and football department must be held responsible for the club’s lack of achievement.

He may have been stifled by salary-cap penalties and lack of options but his return on investment is still very low.

There's always one...

CAC's return on late picks is what sets him apart. You neglect to mention his highlights, but seem to delight in mentioning his failures... Just because he selected Brown, Walsh, Ward et al doesn't make him responsible. Average players were held onto way longer than they should have been, but that wasn't his call...

Calling Bruce an average player hurts your credibility. The guy is generally regarded as a strong footballer, and was SENSATIONAL value for the pick we took him at. He's won plenty of games all on his own.

And taking a cheap-shot at Broady is gonna make you popular. The guy was a good defender. Was probably never going to be a McLeod or Chris Johnson, but was going to be ok nonetheless.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions... But I guess you can't stop people from looking at the glass half full. Most of the league rates CAC, along with Bruce and many of his other picks... And while I don't usually prescribe to popular opinion, in this case there's plenty of reasonable evidence to suggest that, basically, you're ill-informed...

CAC is a good recruiter. The first 30 picks DO NOT pick themselves, particularly in a weak draft year. Perhaps recruiting is not, as you say, a science... but there are many intangibles that a recruiter can pick up on only with experience.

And once again, while the administration and footy department are responsible, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that recruiting was NOT one of our weaknesses...

[occo 2]

Craig Cameron is neither here nor there. He’s not a recruiting genius and people should not make him out to be. Cameron Bruce, Nathan Brown, Peter Walsh, Troy Broadbridge, Daniel Ward are very average players. Matthew Whelan would have been picked up in the 60’s if we hadn’t done so beforehand. The amount of ordinary players we have makes me wonder whether CAC was't working for the Tiges all along.

I don’t deny CAC his trade and good luck to him. But he’s not a scientist. The first 30 picks in the draft pick themselves. To think we got Morton, Grimes, Marric for a steal is just ridiculous. We don’t have a premiership and the administration, recruiting staff and football department must be held responsible for the club’s lack of achievement.

He may have been stifled by salary-cap penalties and lack of options but his return on investment is still very low.

Brown was taken at pick 66 something

Bruce was 64

Broady was a rookie

Ward was a rookie

Walsh was a rookie

You have no credibility saying this. Ward and Walsh were fantastic footballers for rookie players. I cant say that about broady tho as i only watched him in 8 games but he seemed to be good for a rookie too. Noone will ever know how troy would have turned out to be so taking shots at him is stupid. Bruce was a steal at 64 and has won us many games. He recently won us the game against sydney last year when rivers pass was deemed to be 50. Thats 1 example. Brown has been super as well at 66.

I am not one who thinks CAC was the god, the best recruiter out there. I do believe he made many mistakes like in 2001. Luke molan 1 diaster, Craige Ellis, Armstrong, Rogers and miller. I very much dout if any of these players will make it. The purchasing of Pickett was a let down and holland was a waste of picks.

2001 was an ordinary year, everyone knows that but i think CAC has generally done an OK job. Nothing outstanding at the same time but his investment was much better than low

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

.....

I am not one who thinks CAC was the god, the best recruiter out there. I do believe he made many mistakes like in 2001. Luke molan 1 diaster, Craige Ellis, Armstrong, Rogers and miller. I very much dout if any of these players will make it. The purchasing of Pickett was a let down and holland was a waste of picks.

2001 was an ordinary year, everyone knows that but i think CAC has generally done an OK job. Nothing outstanding at the same time but his investment was much better than low

Occo you have put up a fine rebuttal to rather flaky argument.

However, while I am not great fan of Brad Miller, he was pick 55 in the 2001 draft and has played 90+ games. Admittedly some have not been as good as others. But hell, if you can get that many games out of a 4th round pick then its hard to call that an error. There are many at pick 5 that dont play more than 10 games.

You are right about Pickett. The strategy was right but the player did not deliver. Who set the strategy? ......The Coach.

The same could be said for Holland. We needed a player that could be a KPP with immediate impact. He has been serviceable. As far as a waste of a pick. Which KPP would we have gone for with pick 20 that would have done better? As far as I am concerned the 2003 draft has not delivered at the top, middle, bottom ends. I struggle to see how Holland could be a waste of a pick when no KPP taken after pick 20 in that year has delivered anything.

[Slartibartfast 17,336]

Brown was taken at pick 66 something

Bruce was 64

Broady was a rookie

Ward was a rookie

Walsh was a rookie

You have no credibility saying this. Ward and Walsh were fantastic footballers for rookie players. I cant say that about broady tho as i only watched him in 8 games but he seemed to be good for a rookie too. Noone will ever know how troy would have turned out to be so taking shots at him is stupid. Bruce was a steal at 64 and has won us many games. He recently won us the game against sydney last year when rivers pass was deemed to be 50. Thats 1 example. Brown has been super as well at 66.

I am not one who thinks CAC was the god, the best recruiter out there. I do believe he made many mistakes like in 2001. Luke molan 1 diaster, Craige Ellis, Armstrong, Rogers and miller. I very much dout if any of these players will make it. The purchasing of Pickett was a let down and holland was a waste of picks.

2001 was an ordinary year, everyone knows that but i think CAC has generally done an OK job. Nothing outstanding at the same time but his investment was much better than low

An excellent post occo, but I will take you up on one point. CAC was not solely responsible for trading (Ellis, Holland and Pickett from your examples). These would have been done with his input but the decision would have been Danihers.

The failure of this discussion, as with previous discussions on CAC, is that it is absolute where it needs to be comparative. All recruiters will have their failures, that goes with the territory. What is important is to see that you have less failures than other clubs. In this regard I suspect CAC is top shelf.

Melbourne has failed to produce a "star" for a long time. But this is not solely CAC's fault. There are very few "stars" in the AFL, at least in the sense most of us mean. To get them you need the opportunity, something WJ has discussed. You then need the environment in which to develop them.

And finally I think there is a lot of merit in the argument that the recruiters job is easier (not easy) with early picks. I don't think it was hard to pick Morton with 4 or Grimes with 14. What is hard is to get value with later picks. CAC has been exceptional at this level which is why I think he is one of the best in the business and will be sorely missed by our club.

[old55 23,625]

The failure of this discussion, as with previous discussions on CAC, is that it is absolute where it needs to be comparative. All recruiters will have their failures, that goes with the territory. What is important is to see that you have less failures than other clubs. In this regard I suspect CAC is top shelf.

Here's a post from CAC himself on Demonology from a couple of years ago:

Hannabal,

I agree with you that we have made some howling errors at the draft table. It's not something that we are guilty of alone. Check Brisbane's first round selections since 1998. West Coast, a team recently rightly lauded for their recruiting have taken Jaxon Crabb, Callum Chambers, Brandon Hill, Travis Gaspar, David Haynes and Andrew McDougall as first round selections since 1997.

Adelaide, second on the ladder,took Lance Picioane and Laurence Angwin. I won't go through the other teams, draft selections are a matter of public record.

We need to be better with our earlier selections. No doubt. One thing I am positive about with recruiting is longevity and experience make you better. Minimises our errors because we learn.

When asked my biggest error in recruiting I always answer talking myself out of Simon Black. Saw him play the first game of the year for East Fremantle colts. Loved him. Had the ball 35 times. Proceeded to watch him too much and punchholes in him. I will never do that again.

The other major lesson is not to draft for type early in the draft. Physical and emotional floggings, a 'la the 2000 GF, can lead to some poor recruiting decisions.

Retention of players is also an issue. A discussion for another time.

As I said recruiting is a matter of public record. Everyone can and is entitled to make their own decisions on how we've gone. My one request is that it is done in the context of how other teams have fared. Even the most lauded recruiters make huge blunders.

My parting thought on this topic is that I believe that the MFC's list is in better shape now than when I walked into the place in February 1997.

[mo64 5,875]

Melbourne has failed to produce a "star" for a long time. But this is not solely CAC's fault. There are very few "stars" in the AFL, at least in the sense most of us mean. To get them you need the opportunity, something WJ has discussed. You then need the environment in which to develop them.

I can't think of a genuine 'star' that we've blatently overlooked during CAC's tenure. With the exception of Dean Cox and maybe Daniel Kerr, I doubt that CAC had the opportunity to draft any of the current top 15 players in the AFL.

Off the top of my head, this would be my top 15, excluding the recent retirees:

J. Brown - Father/son

C. Judd - Early pick

D. Cox - Rookie from WA colts. Project player who became a star

G. Ablett - Father/son

N. Reiwoldt - Early pick

M. Pavlich - Early pick

C. Cornes - Early pick

M. Scarlett - Father/son

B. Hall - Pre-dates CAC, then traded.

B. Harvey - Pre-dates CAC

B. Johnson - Pre-dates CAC

J. Bartell - Early pick

D. Kerr - Draft pick no. 17? unsure of which draft.

S. Burgoyne - Early pick

A. McLeod / B. Cousins - Pre-date CAC

I'm sure I've missed someone, but I really struggled to find 15 genuine stars.

Oops, after reading Old's post, I did miss Simon Black, as CAC did.

[Guest fatty]

I’m not taking pot-shots at anyone. I’m presenting an argument that the number of mediocre players that have been on our list is not the result of misguided recruiting but due to the fact that we took what was available at the time.

In all sports, results speak for themselves and we don’t have a good record in that regard. As they would readily admit, the MFC is responsible and CAC concedes it himself in Old55’s post above.

I appreciate the hard work that CAC has done. However, the platitudes that tend to be handed out, in my opinion, are unwarranted.

[Guest MFC4Life]

I’m not taking pot-shots at anyone. I’m presenting an argument that the number of mediocre players that have been on our list is not the result of misguided recruiting but due to the fact that we took what was available at the time.

In all sports, results speak for themselves and we don’t have a good record in that regard. As they would readily admit, the MFC is responsible and CAC concedes it himself in Old55’s post above.

I appreciate the hard work that CAC has done. However, the platitudes that tend to be handed out, in my opinion, are unwarranted.

So by your logic, praise should not be given to a head recruiter if that team has not won a premiership during their tenure at the football club.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I appreciate the hard work that CAC has done. However, the platitudes that tend to be handed out, in my opinion, are unwarranted.

I'm not sure an enormous amount of platitudes HAVE been handed out.

As I said above, I think it's remarkable that this club, in the state it's in in the footballing world, getting squeezed out of EVERYTHING by the bigger clubs, was able to make the finals AT ALL in the last 10 years. CAC had a knack for selecting good ordinary players with late picks. The kind that make a list full of stars look like a premiership side...

For example, had he been at the Saints, and had they crashed and burned for the three years they did, he probably still would have picked up Roo, Kosi, probably Ball (maybe Judd ) and then he would have surrounded them with all the low picks we have... Many Saints people, and fans, say that it's not the stars at St. Kilda that are the problem, it's the last 6 selected in their 22.

Ultimately, I'll concede CAC wasn't the BEST recruiter in the land, if you'll concede he was still very, very good. And one thing I won't compromise on is the fact that having learned and honed his craft, he's going to do his best work in the next 10 years or so.