Roast Mature Age Recruiting

[Old Spice]

Really.. it doesn't work that way?? Shame. But thanks for letting all the posters who were saying it did work that way know!
We do really well with late draft and rookie picks. Filling spots on our list with known quantity b-graders or rejects serves no purpose at all if our goal is to rebuild into a premiership contender again.. it's just papering over cracks. How about a radical approach to our list spots in that we only fill them with players who are established A-graders if we trade guys in, or young draftees with the potential to develop into A-graders and can be around playing for more than 1-2 years.. Oh and guys with skills too... This approach seems to have Worked quite well for the Hawks.

FFS, do you want us to continue with the endless dross of project players who get taken late and are then delisted and never play? Farmer, Stubbs, Ugle, Rounds, Bolton etc. We've got some players capable of stepping in now like never before.

The issue here is if we can fit them all in or use them to trade up to better picks and trades.

 

[Manic Magpie]

Chad Rintoul, Shane Woewoedin, Blake Caracella, Jarrod Malloy.

Don't kid yourself mate, we've had a few and the good news is we get our speculative picks for nothing so pipe down.

The comparison is not between Buckley and Malthouse but rather Collingwood and its competition since 2011. Stop seeing every criticism of Buckley as a vote for Malthouse.

 

[Old Spice]

Stop being such an arrogant prick. If you can't be bothered to address the issue in a more considered way, then best say nothing at all. Our speculative picks cost a place on the list and everyone of them has given us nothing so far.

Stop being a willfully dumb campaigner who endlessly looks for problems.

 

[Manic Magpie]

It's really a roast about our opposition talent identification but it's something I agree we are relatively poor at.

Even as final players to fill out a list identifying opposition depth players who aren't AFL quality isn't the way to go.

We've had success getting guys who are clear clear best 22 players (Jolly and Ball as the examples). The other time we should be looking down this route is if we identify a player who has sharply improved with every season and is playing to what we identify as again best 22 quality.

If it's as depth it's a waste of time with every guy you bring onto your list needing to be someone who projects either as a best 22 player now or someone who has the scope to develop into a best 22 player. Anything short of this and you keep looking.

The one exception is depth rucks and one depth ruck is necessary but beyond that I wouldn't be senior listing anyone if they don't have scope to be best 22 player. Not even for key position players as while you need depth the depth should consist of players who are either best 22 players today or projecting to develop into best 22 players with a few years in the system.

And with our strong ability to identify most specifically junior talents through the draft this needs to be our system or otherwise we're missing a chance at quite possibly another Langdon/Seedsman with our strong strike rate not only early draft but also late/rookie draft.

Like dropping pearls before swine in some cases here Knightmare!

 

[Old Spice]

The comparison is not between Buckley and Malthouse but rather Collingwood and its competition since 2011. Stop seeing every criticism of Buckley as a vote for Malthouse.

I don't recall mentioning Malthouse fool.

 

[Manic Magpie]

I don't recall mentioning Malthouse fool.

Chad Rintoul. Morrison. Other players traded for during Malthouse's era. But you didn't mention Malthouse?!

You are very quick to resort to personal abuse. Are you incapable of conducting a rational argument?

 

[Old Spice]

Chad Rintoul. Morrison. Other players traded for during Malthouse's era. But you didn't mention Malthouse?!

You are very quick to resort to personal abuse. Are you incapable of conducting a rational argument?

Do you want me to make up players we've never bought into our side when we're discussing our mature age recruiting? Christ almighty.

On abuse, I beleiive you called me an arrogant prick before I called you a fool, fool.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Sydney post 2006
2007 12-9 7th
2008 12-9 6th
2009 8-14 12th
2010 13-9 5th
2011 12-9 7th
2012 Flag
Have a look at 2009 which parallels our 2014 although the year isn't over yet.
We still don't know what's in store at the trade table at the end of this year.

What I was going to look up in response to Manic's claim that Sydney didn't drop out of flag contention. They never bottomed out and finished in the 8 or midtable at worse, but they had a few years they didn't challenge for a flag.

 

[ClaytonM]

I think the problems we have had over the last few years are a direct result of the trading we did in 2009 and 2010. In those years we traded away our early picks to get Jolly, Ball, Krak and Ceglar. This meant that our younger aged picks Paine, Sinclair, Seedman etc were 50+ picks. If we kept trading early picks for 'quality' our list would have become really unbalanced. The last few years have been trying to redress this problem by largely getting and keeping early round picks. Hence we have had to make some low cost low reward trades in recent years which were more likely to fail.

For all the claims of great trading by the Hawks, they will hit the wall one day when Hodge, Lane, Lewis, etc age. That is not a criticism it is just a reality of the draft and trade system.

I would never criticise the trades for Jolly and Ball, but it is having an impact now which was always to be expected.

 

[Old Spice]

What I was going to look up in response to Manic's claim that Sydney didn't drop out of flag contention. They never bottomed out and finished in the 8 or midtable at worse, but they had a few years they didn't challenge for a flag.

Just add 10% and you're there.

 

[The Don]

We gave up a pick in the 70's for Leigh Brown and that was a smart bit of recruiting trading pick 72 for Russell what did we achieve?

This is such a flawed argument. You are judging purely on the result not the rational behind the thinking. If anything Leigh Brown's success shows the upside is recycling opposition duds in a low cost high reward nature. Clearly given the speculative nature of these low cost opposition players you are going to have more busts than booms

 

[regpies]

Who cares, these players cost us basically nothing. If we had given up 1st or 2nd picks for recycled players and failed then it's a big deal. The last couple drafts haven't been great, why keep a spot on the list for pick 70 when you can try to recycle an experienced player for a specific role.

Lynch was always a stop gap measure while Grundy and Witts developed because Dawes couldn't play ruck.

The Morrison trade was the worst, if I remember right we gave up pick 7 for pick 10 and a 3rd round pick.

Hawks got Jordan Lewis at pick 7, we got Chris Egan at 10. Massive fail

We traded the 3rd round pick to eagles for Morrison. Eagles drafted Mark Lecras with the pick. Oh dear

 

[Knightmare]

Leigh Brown wasn't a dud for North Melbourne and he was in 1999 drafted by Freo at pick 5.

From 2002-2007 for North Melbourne he played 21+ games every season, then in 2008 he went out of favour and played just the 9. He was an established player. Not a high level established player but a reasonable enough player who was capable at AFL level back and forward.

His success with Collingwood was due to role and as a limited role player he proved a success.

With our list as currently constructed our issue today is we lack those elite and high level players to be premiership relevant. We have lots of the 18-22 type players as Leigh Brown was as a guy who can fill a hole without necessarily being a difference maker to the outcome and it's more of these difference makers we need with not as much top end difference makers as we had in 2010 and 2011.
And with this understanding recycled players are highly unlikely to be of usefulness in our situation unless it's as a depth ruckman which is probably that one and only depth need requiring filling with depth otherwise not one of our problems.

 

[Seedsfan]

This is such a flawed argument. You are judging purely on the result not the rational behind the thinking. If anything Leigh Brown's success shows the upside is recycling opposition duds in a low cost high reward nature. Clearly given the speculative nature of these low cost opposition players you are going to have more busts than booms

Read my other posts

 

[The Don]

For mine this is the most important thing, we did it very well and were a very good side as a result but recently we have been very poor. We use to do it so well, guys like Jolly, Ball, Krak, Taz, Leigh Brown. Sure back then we had a few that missed like Anthony Corrie and Cam Wood. But recently we have just picked up guys like Russell, Lynch, Armstrong, White and Young. White and Young have been alright but that is it.

You look at a side like the Hawks and they have always topped up when they need to they got Guys like Lake and McEvoy you could say they are just delaying the inevitable but it has also kept them in contention when they still have guys like Hodge, Mitchell and Burgoyne.

What has gone wrong down at the Pies? ?hy can we no longer identify experienced players that can come in and improve our side?

After reading all your posts as requested you are analysing the situation incorrectly. There is nothing wrong with our talent identification. I have no doubt that we would have identified lake, mcevoy gunston bourgogne etc as talented players. The question is were we prepared to give up high level draft picks to secure them. Clearly we were for ball jolly and krak when we were in premiership contention. Since then we have had a clear shift to bringing in high end youth and padding them out with senior depth players to help get through the compromised drafts. One thing to remember is Russell was on our list for 1 year and played senior games to protect the kids. If we had used that pick on a kid we would have been required to give them a 2 year contract and it is unlikely they would have been able to play a game last year. Langdon being the exception to the rule. I have no doubt that once our young kids develop a little more we will look to bring in high end talent and give up the required picks. When reviewing the success of recycled players you need to allow for the cost given and well as their input.

 

[doodles98]

After reading all your posts as requested you are analysing the situation incorrectly. There is nothing wrong with our talent identification. I have no doubt that we would have identified lake, mcevoy gunston bourgogne etc as talented players. The question is were we prepared to give up high level draft picks to secure them. Clearly we were for ball jolly and krak when we were in premiership contention. Since then we have had a clear shift to bringing in high end youth and padding them out with senior depth players to help get through the compromised drafts. One thing to remember is Russell was on our list for 1 year and played senior games to protect the kids. If we had used that pick on a kid we would have been required to give them a 2 year contract and it is unlikely they would have been able to play a game last year. Langdon being the exception to the rule. I have no doubt that once our young kids develop a little more we will look to bring in high end talent and give up the required picks. When reviewing the success of recycled players you need to allow for the cost given and well as their input.

The argument is kinda much more simple and straight forward than your analysis...in a nutshell... our mature age recruiting has sucked in recent years.. Period.. end of story.. Very few football commentators would argue otherwise and no-one is interested in your excuses as to why. Compared to clubs like Sydney and Hawthorn our trading/mature age recruiting is a joke. Our late drafting and rookie selection on the other hand has been good.

 

[Trojan Pies]

I know White cost us some 2nd round picks, but we wanted Langdon anyway and we got him later. So we lost nothing there. Marsh was also a good get late. So it didn't cost us that much.

Hine expected to only use two picks in last years drafts. There was no "plan" or expectation that he would be available so landing Langdon can be put down to a bit of luck rather than good planning or thinking he would slide.

 

[Trojan Pies]

Who cares, these players cost us basically nothing. If we had given up 1st or 2nd picks for recycled players and failed then it's a big deal. The last couple drafts haven't been great, why keep a spot on the list for pick 70 when you can try to recycle an experienced player for a specific role.

Lynch was always a stop gap measure while Grundy and Witts developed because Dawes couldn't play ruck.

The Morrison trade was the worst, if I remember right we gave up pick 7 for pick 10 and a 3rd round pick.

Hawks got Jordan Lewis at pick 7, we got Chris Egan at 10. Massive fail

We traded the 3rd round pick to eagles for Morrison. Eagles drafted Mark Lecras with the pick. Oh dear

Wow. Who was head of recruiting / coach then?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

For mine this is the most important thing, we did it very well and were a very good side as a result but recently we have been very poor. We use to do it so well, guys like Jolly, Ball, Krak, Taz, Leigh Brown. Sure back then we had a few that missed like Anthony Corrie and Cam Wood. But recently we have just picked up guys like Russell, Lynch, Armstrong, White and Young. White and Young have been alright but that is it.

Armstrong about to debut so early call on him. I maintain he was insurance against a Marley jail sentence.

Lynch was always a short term backup option. Russell was a fail but cost us nothing.

 

[Manic Magpie]

Wow. Who was head of recruiting / coach then?

The issue is not about Buckley and Malthouse, who have both presided over some poor trading. It's about us compared with other clubs in the competition.

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

For mine this is the most important thing, we did it very well and were a very good side as a result but recently we have been very poor. We use to do it so well, guys like Jolly, Ball, Krak, Taz, Leigh Brown. Sure back then we had a few that missed like Anthony Corrie and Cam Wood. But recently we have just picked up guys like Russell, Lynch, Armstrong, White and Young. White and Young have been alright but that is it.
What has gone wrong down at the Pies?

You can add Marty Clarke to the list after his return

 

[Kilmo]

Mature age recruits: Sam Dwyer, Kyle Martin, Jack Frost, Adam Oxley

Chris Tarrant, Andrew Krakouer

even Tom Langdon technically

 

[doodles98]

Mature age recruits: Sam Dwyer, Kyle Martin, Jack Frost, Adam Oxley

Chris Tarrant, Andrew Krakouer

even Tom Langdon technically

Nice work finding a "point of difference" in your red herring post. Except Langdon was a draftee, and all the guys you mention at the top were late picks or rookies.... We are clearly NOT critiquing our draft picks or rookies here. We are looking at the guys we have traded in or recyled from other clubs and GIVEN UP spots/ draft selections for. Who cares if a draftee is 18 or 20??

 

[Kilmo]

Nice work finding a "point of difference" in your red herring post. Except Langdon was a draftee, and all the guys you mention at the top were late picks or rookies.... We are clearly NOT critiquing our draft picks or rookies here. We are looking at the guys we have traded in or recyled from other clubs and GIVEN UP spots/ draft selections for. Who cares if a draftee is 18 or 20??

Still mature age recruiting my friend. Perhaps you should be more specific and roast "Mature Age Recruiting (Rookie and National Draft Excepted)" because for some reason if we get them through the draft it is okay, such as how we got Luke Ball. But then you need to add a caveat of (Darren Jolly, Leigh Brown, Chris Tarrant, Andrew Krakouer, etc., Excepted) because they all either won us a premiership or nearly won us a premiership. So then really you are adding caveats until it's just a venting Roast thread on the Q-Stick and Clinton Young. Get a grip you guys.

 

[mattys123]

Let's face it, no one outside of the premiership contending teams really goes after free agents or mature trades too aggressively, and sorry to say we are not premiership contenders at the moment, thus we've been picking up the "trash", the stuff the contenders do not want.

If we improve next year and make the finals I can see us going into the free agency and trade period in an aggressive manner with an eye to the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

No need throwing away draft picks or big money for players who are only going to be at the club for 2-3 seasons at the moment, because by the time they are cooked we will just be coming good.

In an ideal world the likes of Armstrong, Young and White would be depth, but at the moment they are getting senior games due to injury and young players not being ready yet.

I don't see our recent mature aged recruiting as a failure, I see it as what it is, complimentary to our mini rebuild.