nutbean

Apparently either did all those in the know including our recruiting department or he wouldn't have gone number 3. Every knock I read on Wines was his disposal and frankly I am not seeing that either. It shows the gulf between TAC and AFL and they can have as many recruiters and experts as they like watching all the under 18 games I still maintain that it is a lottery.

Waite would be my most disliked player at Carlton purely because of his ability to waste his talent.

I did a comparison but unfortunately the second player I put didnt have any stats..... Please correct the following errors no player matches 'A potato' Select up to four players at a time to add to the comparison. Enter the players' full name eg. 'Brent Harvey'. Season: All20142013201220112010200920082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992199119901989198819871986198519841983198219811980 Player Name 1: Player Name 2: Player Name 3: Player Name 4: Clear Selection Player Totals Player MT K Avg H Avg D Avg M Avg HO Avg T Avg FF FA G Avg B SC Rat Avg Michael Newton 28 220 7.9 70 2.5 290 10.4 119 4.3 36 1.3 66 2.4 40 27 35 1.3 31 241 1657 59.2 Totals 28 220 7.9 70 2.5 290 10.4 119 4.2 36 1.3 66 2.4 40 27 35 1.2 31 241 1657 59.2

Blistering pace ( like Blease) is great but you only require good leg speed which the likes of Watts and Salem have but more importantly you need speed in ball movement. Geelong, Hawks and Swans ( save Lewis Jetta) don't have exceptional legs speed but they have all exceptional ball movement speed. Carlton have some really good pace in Yarran and Gartlett ( and Betts until last year) and you sometimes see it rip at team apart....for 5 minutes.. Carlton seriously lack smart ball movement.

Jeremy Howe Next. Edit - and Howe spent time in the midfield

We certainly needed both. It could be argued that as bad as midfield was - we actually had more grunt than class. Jones, Trengove ( I say grunt as his leg speed is so suspect) and an incoming Viney ( although I have little expectation of first year player - and that includes Toumpas). We had zero class midfielders. I love Jones and he is becoming more adept at getting free but how many times do you see him get the ball in heavy traffic and get wrapped up ? What we want is someone for him to get the ball to quickly who is creative - Toumpas is meant to be that type of footballer. I hope to see Dom Tyson being the best of both worlds ( from the little I have seen of him) - he can get the ball in close but has the composure and evasive skills to get the ball or himself out of congestion I will repeat myself - i will always go for the better player first. The better player at the time of the draft.

Always made sense to me at the time. We needed midfielders - we needed in and under midfielders, we need outside/spreading midfielders. Toumpas was always rated higher than Wines. I will even be as bold to suggest that Toumpas made more sense - whilst we were certainly lacking grunt we were lacking "class" even more.

Simply - because prevailing wisdom is you pick the BEST player available - if there is little difference between two players available at your pick then you pick to need. Cook was taken well before his rating but was picked for a need - we needed a CHF. We wanted running half backs - we picked Strauss. We needed clearance specialist - we picked Gysberts. All picked well above their rating These are the very reasons why you care about what talent experts think. ( the only exception is when you start to look at picks in the 30's onwards - I am not adverse to taking a punt with later draft selections)

Hannibal - I need clarification "If Toumpas was available and we went for Wines I'd be astonished. " Why would you be astonished ?

I compare Cook to a very awkward Fitzy ( for his first few seasons) and I suspect the reason that Fitzy is still on the list and playing this weekend is because a club is prepared to take a risk and persevere with raw, untapped talent if the attitude and desire to succeed is evident. I suspect that Cooks attitude and determination to succeed just wasn't there.

Thats because in everything I read from numerous scribes and talent watchers - Toumpas was rated higher than Wines. Someone suggested that recruiters are meant to have foresight. I suggest that the last 5 - 8 drafts be looked at and see how many players were not selected where the experts suggested they would get picked. (two come to mind - Aish and Rich). Many were hot to trot on Wines because nobody thought that Toumpas would still be available at our pick. Two days before the draft when it was rumoured that Toumpas would fall to our pick it was suggested by a few of "conspiracy" of letting us get Toumpas as part of the whole Hogan pick deal.

Other than Jones and maybe Garland - somebody had to finish in the other places in our best fairest. Jones and Terlich were "consistent" and played some good football. Inspired draft choices ? Not yet. As to the others - we were happy with what Gysberts showed to. I am not saying that these were bad recruitments - I am suggesting keeping your powder dry until they actually start showing something over 20-30 games.

My only beef with Wilson's reporting is she takes about 10% fact and then pads it out with 90% of assumption, innuendo's and opinion but masquerades the whole 100% as fact. I read her and enjoy what she writes but I bear in mind her modus operandi.

With respect - I again point to jumping the gun. The only names you have mentioned that have provided anything is Terlich and Matt Jones - they have been serviceable but hardly a case to call the recruiters inspired. The rest are just selections who have not proven the recruiters case either way.

Succession plans are a wonderful thing - unless of course they don't work. It is a far cry from being a well credentialled assistant to being a senior coach as Neeld, Watters and others have found out. You would hope that the coach and board would monitor the progress of the successor and make a well reasoned and dispassionate decision close to handover on whether after two years of an apprenticeship he is the right person to hand the reins over to or alternatively the club needs to abandon the succession plan. I have seen this path followed in business - succession plan in place - the successor and the business decide down the track that the successor is not the right move for the business. The decision to be made is obvious - however sometimes paths are followed to the bitter end even when it is known that the path isn't right direction. I am not convinced that Nathan Buckley was not a mistake that Collingwood felt they just had to move forward with.

Trent Reznor - Genius - that is all

Very small part - Judd was a lock for number one like Scully was right up until the time of shoulder problems. As an aside - look at the honor board at East Sandringham - he was getting club championships down there when he still in his mothers womb

I think the leap from TAC to Seniors AFL is huge and underestimated when selecting talent. The apparent lack of physicality doesn't manifest itself until these boys hit the big time. I'm reminded of Col Sylvia whose TAC report card looks more like a rap sheet - he had the big body from day one and was described as a "tackling machine" who bullied everyone in the TAC - brought that to the main game too rarely.

wow

I think Judd has fallen away quite quickly and I am an unabashed Hodge lover but over the course of the journey there is no comparison between Judd and Hodge. That is no disrespect to Hodge - that is just putting Judd in his rightful place. Ball should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the other two ( however Ball has been a bit like the Ox post knee ops - he never had the body that let him shine). The reason Judd went no 3 was solely because of his suspect shoulders.

We could be making the same argument on Freeman and Sheed over Salem - both bigger bodied footballers. We picked Salem because he was considered slightly in front. Without the benefit of hindsight does anyone on here want to make the early call on why Salem over the other two. It will be much easier to condemn the recruiters once we have seen them for a season or two. Make the call now !

Do you ? Do you really ? Sydney 2009 - first two picks Rohan and Jetta - hardly what you call in an under type footballers. Same draft - Geelong picked up Daniel Menzel with their first pick ? Interestingly - Rohan and Menzel went around about where they were expected to be taken - the BEST picks at the selection. Yet they both missed ( like all others) on big bodied Nat Fyfe at no 20. You seriously have no idea who they would have taken.

Whats your call on Josh Kelly ? Went number two but is perceived to be more outside than hard bodied, strong over the footy type. Would you have taken him at number two and if not who would have you taken ? Also like to hear your thoughts on Salem who was also perceived as more outside - would you have taken him at nine and if not who would you have opted for.

That's why you are not a recruiter and that's why you hear over and over again from anyone with knowledge say - rule one - you recruit the best player in the draft - need is a secondary consideration. It isn't an exact science but that's exactly what recruiter are trying to make it - by attending every game they can, by assessing so many different areas of strengths and weaknesses at draft camps and doing psychological work-ups on the players. So what you and others are saying is - don't pick the highest rated player available, pick for need , say like - Cook ? ( The All Australian TAC CHF) - unless of course he turns out to be a dud and then you should pick the highest rated player. You can't have it both ways. I am not silly enough to spout that Toumpas will be better than Wines but I won't lambast recruiters for taking an option that seemed logical and sensible at the time ( as opposed to recruiting Cook, Strauss and Gysberts). Edit - on need - both Toumpas and Wines were midfielders - which was our need. I do recognise though that they are entirely different sort of midfielders.

I understand that Wines is showing acres more than Toumpas. If Wines continues his current trajectory no-one from that draft will be as good as him. Is it a mistake ? Only in hindsight. Mindnumbingly awful decision ? - only looking at it now not at draft time. No brainer decision at the time ? - it may be now but not at the time of the draft. So we all want to disregard what all major recruiters and experts knew at the time. Toumpas was rated in the top 3 - Wines wasn't. As I have said before we punted on the likes of Gysberts and Cook - picks that we taken well before where they rated - they were absolute punts and absolute failures - the recruiters need to get kicked for those selections. But it is nothing more than hindsight to slap recruiters for picking players sensibly acccording to their ratings.