20/20 Hine-Sight

[The Royal Sampler]

Just having a look at our picks in the Hine years (2004-6) and noticing a few trends.

2006

National Draft

Ben Reid (Bushrangers)
Nathan Brown (Rebels)
Chris Dawes (Dragons)
Brad Dick (East Fremantle)
Tyson Goldsack (Power)

Rookie Draft

Sharrod Wellingham (Perth)
Brent MacAffer (Power)
Martin Clarke

2005

National Draft

Dale Thomas (Power)
Scott Pendlebury (Power)
Danny Stanley (Falcons)
Ryan Cook (Stingrays)
Anthony (Knights)

Pre-Season Draft

Sam Iles (Tassie Mariners)

Rookie Draft

Alan Toovey (Claremont)
Daniel Nicholls (Stingrays)
Shannon Cox (South Adelaide)

2004

National Draft

Chris Egan (Bushrangers)
Sean Rusling (West Adelaide)
Travis Cloke (Eastern)
Adam Iacobucci (Cannons)

Rookie Draft

Ben Davies (Jets)
Harry O'Brien (... WA)

So here are the trends I'm noticing...

a) Hine doesn't like drafting outside of Victoria. Rusling, Iles and Dick are the only three non-Victorian players given a senior list spot in three years.
b) When Hine does go for a non-Victorian, they get picked up in the Rookie draft. O'Brien, Toovey, Cox, Wellingham and Clarke (obviously) were added to the rookie list.
c) As a general rule, Hine is huge on having upside in his draftees. Reid was the youngest kid in the 2006 draft, Dawes was coming back from an ACL, Brad Dick is a toothpick, and Goldsack was a first-year for the Power as an overage player. We all know the X-factor that Dale Thomas possesses, but Pendlebury had played for a year after crossing from AIS basketball, and Danny Stanley and Ryan Cook were very bottom aged.

I'm beginning to wonder if Hine fears the go-home factor, or whether it's due to the fact that until now, we haven't had a full-time recruiter in WA. Of our three non-Vic players given a senior spot at draft time, I know for instance that Brad Dick is a mad Collingwood supporter, which might alleviate the go-home factor in Hine's mind.

At draft time, if you wanted to second-guess Derek Hine, you'd have to be looking for mostly players who are bottom-aged, Victorian, who are thought to have upside and X-factor, and possibly even recent converts from another code. Then expect him to gamble with rookie selections on kids from WA.

Thoughts.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I know for instance that Brad Dick is a mad Collingwood supporter, .

I'd imagine its not hard to guess who his favorite player is!!!!

 

[Magnum]

Interesting... the go-home factor I've never thought about.

 

[Soups]

Very interesting Sampler and a good read. I have said it before but if you look at that whole list there are only about 2 inside mids aswell, so he likes the flashy players that like to run and carry the ball.

 

[Parallel Andy]

I agree completely.
Another point is that Goldsack, Pendles and Dale all played together in the under 18's. Mates would want to continue playing together.
We have a history of drafting Collingwood supporters which is not surprising seen as 1 in 10 people who follow the game follow Collingwood.

 

[MarkT]

I hope he is taking the best player available at each pick regardless of where they are from. Players leave crap clubs and generally don’t leave good clubs. Just take the best player and then trade to fill gaps. Trade, hmm, what’s that?

 

[MarkT]

Ok the scorecard:

2004: Poor draft. Cloke is a gun but f/s. Rusling might be quality but is taking his time and has flaws. Injuries haven’t helped. The rest have given virtually nothing except O’Brien who was a good get as a rookie.

2005: Best draft for a while but with 2 & 5 that SHOULD be a given. The rest have shown nothing much apart from fleeting glimpses from Cox. Cook had a good debut but fell away. They all still have time on their side but Stanley and Anthony have to make this draft very very good for us next season. Fingers crossed.

2006: Too early to call but could be our best draft since we snaffled Francis and Russel which lead to a flag. Reid looks a good prospect but his kicking isn’t good enough. Dawes has shown enough in his brief season to generate plenty of excitement. Goldsack has been great for a first year player taken late. Great get by Hine. Clarke has been exciting and has loads of potential. Brown is yet to show much but early days. If he can make it then this will a very important draft in out future.

2007: A vital draft. We need to find 3 quality players which is no mean feat when you play finals.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Ok the scorecard:

2004: Poor draft. Cloke is a gun but f/s. Rusling might be quality but is taking his time and has flaws. Injuries haven’t helped. The rest have given virtually nothing except O’Brien who was a good get as a rookie..

Bit harsh there. You've underestimated Rusling and O'Brien, and unfairly written off Egan completely when he's been out all year with injury. And of course, theres Ben Davies who despite the constant barrage of criticsim he gets, continues to dominate in the VFL. Its hardly a successful draft yet, but way to early to be calling "poor" .

On top of that, Cloke of course was not a normal "f-s" as we had to go to great lengths to get him, lengths that other clubs have not had to go to before.

 

[MarkT]

Bit harsh there. You've underestimated Rusling and O'Brien, and unfairly written off Egan completely when he's been out all year with injury. And of course, theres Ben Davies who despite the constant barrage of criticsim he gets, continues to dominate in the VFL. Its hardly a successful draft yet, but way to early to be calling "poor" .

On top of that, Cloke of course was not a normal "f-s" as we had to go to great lengths to get him, lengths that other clubs have not had to go to before.

Subjective but I don’t rate Davies. I would seek a trade or delist him. I have long been a Rusling fan but he looks a bit straight line and mark and kick only to be a top liner on top of which he can’t kick to top line AFL standard. I actually think Reid and Dawes will force his out. Egan has done SFA. He lacks poise and doesn’t appear to have a great attitude. IMO it was a poor decision to downgrade pick 7 for 10 and take a dud from WCE. It is a shame he did his knee this year because he would have had all he opportunity in the world to prove himself. Next year will be vital. I really rate O’Brien. Probably didn’t emphasis that in my post.

The point about Cloke is that he wasn’t an astute talent spot. He was highly rated from about 12 years old. We’ve been hearing about him long before Hine was at Collingwood. At round 3 it was a no brainer.

Of all the players we have drafted under Hine the one I hope really makes it is Egan. He is what we need most apart from a ruckman. He has pace and the s called x factor that so many pies fans speak about but which we see little of from him.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Subjective but I don’t rate Davies. I would seek a trade or delist him. .

If Davies has trade value, that in itself makes recruiting him a success. Any rookie who either succeeds or end up having some trade value is a bonus.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The point about Cloke is that he wasn’t an astute talent spot. He was highly rated from about 12 years old. We’ve been hearing about him long before Hine was at Collingwood. At round 3 it was a no brainer..

Fair enough. We had to be strategic in prising him away from Richmond, and picking up his brothers was arguably part of that package. But that has nothing to do with Hine.

 

[shawthing09]

He does seem to like flairy skillfull players and KPP players, but i wonder if this is because we lacked flair and KPP and great KPP are harder to find and take longer to develop. There is also the arguement that he drafts to the strength of the draft. His drafting thus far has been unbelivable IMO and maybe the lack of targeting an inside player last year could be due to Clarke and Wellingham both been huge contested ball winners? maybe he gambled on that i dare not assume. All i know is this is the year where he could go from hero to villian if he ignore our glarring weakness's this year, or drafts duds then his previous good work goes under the microscope a lot more

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He does seem to like flairy skillfull players and KPP players, but i wonder if this is because we lacked flair and KPP and great KPP are harder to find and take longer to develop. There is also the arguement that he drafts to the strength of the draft.

No doubting that. Taking three kpp's with the first three picks really showed that he was interested in the best available, rather than picking players on the basis of what position they played.

 

[MarkT]

If Davies has trade value, that in itself makes recruiting him a success. Any rookie who either succeeds or end up having some trade value is a bonus.

I can’t see anyone giving anything up for him. No harm in trying though. We could keep him for depth or we could open the list spot. Either way it isn’t going to be what makes us or breaks us in 2008.

He does seem to like flairy skillfull players and KPP players,

Happy with that bias. Particlarly comparred to the MM directed one we had early this decade that cost us so dearly.

His drafting thus far has been unbelivable IMO

Disagree. He has been a lot better than our poor base but he has been better with earlier picks than we had in recent years preceding him. I am not complaining about him but he gets typical Collingwood praise for something around adequacy.

All i know is this is the year where he could go from hero to villian if he ignore our glarring weakness's this year, or drafts duds then his previous good work goes under the microscope a lot more

Agree. I’m not so fussed whether he drafts to our weaknesses because you can only draft what is available and I’d rather get a quality player in a position we already have covered than an ordinary player in one we don’t. This where you need astute trading which has been a weakness since Gubby left us all those years ago.

 

[Medstar]

His record would look a lot better if he had of kept pick 7 in 04 and drafted jordan lewis and not chris egan.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

He has been a lot better than our poor base but he has been better with earlier picks than we had in recent years preceding him.

This is such a ridiculous call - Hine has done significantly better with the rookie draft than Judkins did between 2001 and 2003 in the national draft.

He's done better because he's doing a better job at drafting than the guy who preceded him, not because he's had better picks.

I see your point about poor base, but you can't suggest that he isn't doing better, even with later picks.

 

[shawthing09]

. Disagree. He has been a lot better than our poor base but he has been better with earlier picks than we had in recent years preceding him. I am not complaining about him but he gets typical Collingwood praise for something around adequacy.

Curious as to which clubs you think have drafted/ are drafting better then us????? You could argue Hawthorn but they are also a bit ahead and more stable in there development as they had the two or three years of bottoming out in a row

 

[Medstar]

This is such a ridiculous call - Hine has done significantly better with the rookie draft than Judkins did between 2001 and 2003 in the national draft.

He's done better because he's doing a better job at drafting than the guy who preceded him, not because he's had better picks.

I see your point about poor base, but you can't suggest that he isn't doing better, even with later picks.

I agree, we are doing a lot better than the days of shack,billy,king,roach, mad dog lokan etc.

Only if he had of kept pick 7 and got lewis..

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

At draft time, if you wanted to second-guess Derek Hine, you'd have to be looking for mostly players who are bottom-aged, Victorian, who are thought to have upside and X-factor, and possibly even recent converts from another code. Then expect him to gamble with rookie selections on kids from WA.

Thoughts.

I think that there are 4 reasons he has drafted the players he has:

1) We NEEDED players with upside and x-factor, given that our midfield consisted of Burns, Licuria, O'Bree, Holland and co. We needed pace and flair from 2004 until now, and so it's not surprising to see him drafting that way.

2) We needed a high success rate with these picks, possibly at the expense of some theoretical potential, so although he wanted to draft players with good physical attributes, he also wanted to draft players he was much more sure about. Hence why he's drafted more significantly out of Victoria, because naturally he's seen more of these players, and can be more certain of their type. This explains why only Sean Rusling and Brad Dick have been drafted based on their interstate form alone. The rest were PSD and RD picks that train with the team before being drafted, giving Hine and the coaching staff a much better view of their abilities.

3) He has only been here for three drafts, so his pattern isn't really complete. This year will be interesting, because the glaring needs this year are completely different to what they were when he took over. Going in to the 2004 draft, we still had Josh Fraser, Guy Richards, Cameron Cloke, David Fanning, Brent Hall, Tristen Walker - While those guys proved to pretty much suck, they could play in the ruck, so we were hardly going to draft any more ruckmen. Likewise with inside midfielders - They were so far off the agenda that we wouldn't have considered them. However, now they are the two glaring needs, so it will be interesting to see if Hine addresses these needs and shows us a different side to his drafting.

4) He was drafting to the strength of the pool - Last year was very rich with KP talent, and so he accordingly went for it. He confessed that he didn't think that the ruckmen in last year's draft were anything to write home about, and so it is understandable why he went with the KP players, and now we have turned an area that was just beginning to become a need into a position of strength. Also factoring into that decision, I am convinced, was the fact that this year's draft is so rich with both inside mids and ruckmen.

 

[Us3]

the question is, if we end up getting 2 inside mids and 2 outside mids in this years draft because the 5 best ruckmen are snatched before we even get a pick, are we going to crucify him?

who is in charge of trading? hine and MM or just the coaching panel?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Only if he had of kept pick 7 and got lewis..

This is the silliest thing that continues to be mentioned on this board.

No other recruiter, other than the Hawthorn guy, would have drafted Jordan Lewis at #7 - He was rated much lower than that. Granted, it was an extremely good call on his part, but if Hine had kept #7 and drafted a fat-arsed wombat when we were crying out for some pace and x-factor, there would have been people at the AGM calling for his head, and one of them would have been me.

Jordan Lewis is a quality young midfielder, but there are players like him in the draft every year. Nathan Jones was much the same the year after, and last year guys like Hislop and Armitage are much in the same vein.

Even this year, guys like Ebert, Grimes, Selwood and to a lesser extent Greenwood could all prove to be similar sorts of prospects to Jordan Lewis. He might be good, but he's not unique.

I have no issue with going for a talent like Egan, who still has time on his side and is still a reasonable chance of making it, because whenever you choose to go looking for a guy of that time, they are available.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

the question is, if we end up getting 2 inside mids and 2 outside mids in this years draft because the 5 best ruckmen are snatched before we even get a pick, are we going to crucify him?

Well, A) that's ridiculously unlikely to pan out in that fashion, B) you never know which players Hine might rate, and how highly, and C) there are literally at least a dozen or so draftable ruckmen available in the draft this year, and not every team will want a ruckman.

 

[Medstar]

This is the silliest thing that continues to be mentioned on this board.

No other recruiter, other than the Hawthorn guy, would have drafted Jordan Lewis at #7 - He was rated much lower than that. Granted, it was an extremely good call on his part, but if Hine had kept #7 and drafted a fat-arsed wombat when we were crying out for some pace and x-factor, there would have been people at the AGM calling for his head, and one of them would have been me.

Jordan Lewis is a quality young midfielder, but there are players like him in the draft every year. Nathan Jones was much the same the year after, and last year guys like Hislop and Armitage are much in the same vein.

Even this year, guys like Ebert, Grimes, Selwood and to a lesser extent Greenwood could all prove to be similar sorts of prospects to Jordan Lewis. He might be good, but he's not unique.

I have no issue with going for a talent like Egan, who still has time on his side and is still a reasonable chance of making it, because whenever you choose to go looking for a guy of that time, they are available.

I disagree with all this.

Face the facts, we made a blue in taking egan.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I disagree with all this.

Face the facts, we made a blue in taking egan.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Fact is, even if Egan wasn't the right player to take, we were NEVER going to draft Jordan Lewis. Lament not drafting Matthew Bate, or someone else that we may have been potentially interested in, but Jordan Lewis was never on the cards.

 

[Medstar]

I dont think you remember what the situation was in 04.

Lewis was rated highly by a lot of people and for you to say he was a fat arsed wombat, turn it up.

If you saw him play you could tell he was going to be better than egan by a mile.