At the crossroads

[TheMcManusNose]

2010 was a total disaster draft for us. Whilst we can say that Pitt was unfortunate there is no way that you can justify 2 (3 with Pitt) out of 11 being on our list still as anything but poor.
2011 still looks possitive. Sutty gets regular games, Sheridan, Crozier and Neale will fit into the team going forward (wont be stars but serviceable) Spurr and Dawson were the diamonds in this batch. 2 A/B grade players and 3 C/B graders is a possitive.
2012 is the most perplexing. I honestly believe that we got our strategy wrong here.
2013 no time to evaluate

I take issue with your assessment.

Judging the performance of recruiters based on the 2010 draft is a case of hindsight judgment and failing to take other considerations into equation. I am not sure where you got the number 11 from either: 8 ND Picks (3 selections, 1 pass, 4 rookie upgrades), 1 PSD pick (1 selection), 4 RD picks (4 selections), unless you're counting rookie upgrades.

The simple fact is that Pitt's condition was utterly unforseeable. Michie and Mellington both asked to go home (trade and delisting respectively), which is utterly out of recruiter's control. So the only issue I can really see is the rookie draft, which is a crapshoot at the best of times - but still produced a serviceable but ultimately superseded player in Lower.

2012 should also be no time to evaluate, although I disagree with your assessment of our strategy - I won't try and convince you there, it really is too early 2 years on for everyone except high 1st rounders and the occasional freak.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I followed your and SA's comments on recruitment with interest.

I had always assumed that Fyfe was recruited by Bond and the currant draft committee but it turns out that he was in the last year of the previous guy. This has given me a much more critical opinion about the performance of the currant crop. Which leaves me witht eh following comments.

2010 was a total disaster draft for us. Whilst we can say that Pitt was unfortunate there is no way that you can justify 2 (3 with Pitt) out of 11 being on our list still as anything but poor.
2011 still looks possitive. Sutty gets regular games, Sheridan, Crozier and Neale will fit into the team going forward (wont be stars but serviceable) Spurr and Dawson were the diamonds in this batch. 2 A/B grade players and 3 C/B graders is a possitive.
2012 is the most perplexing. I honestly believe that we got our strategy wrong here.
2013 no time to evaluate

But if we look at the 2012 draft in more detail my thoughts are;
We got conned by the Josh Simpson stay at home factor. Don't get me wrong I think he is tallent and assuming he can adjust to AFL we be really good for us. The problem is that we needed tall talent and until JS told everyone he had a kid we had no chance of getting him so our strategy was IMHO take the best tall with round 1 and then go for quality mids as they are available.
What i think happened was that in the end JS was too juicy a temptation. But taking him meant waiting another 19 picks for a tall and the ones we wanted were gone (i remember watching the one on my list disappear in the 20's) so we took the best available (Smith) and then as we still weren't sure took talls in the PSD and rookie draft.
We finally got to execute the plan of 2012 in 2013 but the talls don't seem to be of the same quality as in 2012. JS might be great for us but we butchered a whole draft plan for him and waited an extra season for a low draft order KP. I'm not sure we won. Even if he is great I still wont be sure unless we life a cup.

Generally i am of the opinion that most clubs take the best KP in the top 1-3 draft spots. Most other spots to about 12/14 are the pick of the mids. This means that after pick 15 you are left with good talls and a whole bunch of mids nobody is sure about. After all Fyfe wasn't a round 1 pick. Sutty our best from 2011 draft was taken at 71. Most people just don't know how they are going to turn out.
My thoughts are; late round 1 picks should be the best KP available and then you can take mids for the rest of the draft. If your draft position is lower you almost certainly take a mid and hope that your next pick is low enough for a KP before they are all gone then back to mids (our plan in 2009).

To be fair though I have to say that strategy is one thing and identifying talent is another. I think that on the second point the current bunch are more consistent.

2011 was a great year - Spurr, Sheridan, Crozier, Sutcliffe and Neale all look good, with Dawson being the cherry on top.
2012 still looks good. Simpson could be anything, Smith has lots of potential and Duffy when fit is a top player. Adding Danyle Pearce has helped as well.

2013 is too early to call, but Apeness looks something special.

Let's not forget that we have come from a long way back with our list in shocking shape in 2007 which is why we are missing those 26-30 year old players.

2010 is a tough one to judge. We drated 8 players not 11, 4 rookies which is always pot luck although Ruffles looked good but did his knee twice. Lower helped out for 2-3 years which is what we needed and pitt, mellington and michie all showed something but for different reasons didn't make it.

I still don't believe anthony was a bad pick, if you consider him along with Dawson sometimes you have to take the risk and if it pays off 50% of the time you have done well.

 

[manpurple]

2011 was a great year - Spurr, Sheridan, Crozier, Sutcliffe and Neale all look good, with Dawson being the cherry on top.
2012 still looks good. Simpson could be anything, Smith has lots of potential and Duffy when fit is a top player. Adding Danyle Pearce has helped as well.

2013 is too early to call, but Apeness looks something special.

Let's not forget that we have come from a long way back with our list in shocking shape in 2007 which is why we are missing those 26-30 year old players.

2010 is a tough one to judge. We drated 8 players not 11, 4 rookies which is always pot luck although Ruffles looked good but did his knee twice. Lower helped out for 2-3 years which is what we needed and pitt, mellington and michie all showed something but for different reasons didn't make it.

I still don't believe anthony was a bad pick, if you consider him along with Dawson sometimes you have to take the risk and if it pays off 50% of the time you have done well.

I agree with you. I think by and large we have done much better with our PSD and mature age rookie picks that most others and it is definitely a highlight for our recruiters

I agree with you on all you say about 2011-2013, especially 2011 which at this stage looks to be one of our best years for a long time.

But we are a no excuses club and by National Draft (3), PSD (1), Rookies (4), Trades (3) we took 11 players. Of these we have 2 left on our list. I am willing to give a half mark for Pitt (who I thought had potential). I will give a half mark for players playing for other teams (though Mitchie is only getting occasional games) so score 3. Or 27% success. That is poor.
2009 - 4 with us from 9 (44% success)
2008 - 6 with us still 1 with another from 14 (47% success)
2007 - 2 with us still 1 with another from 10 (25% success) another poor year.
Before that we are getting into retirement territory.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I agree with you. I think by and large we have done much better with our PSD and mature age rookie picks that most others and it is definitely a highlight for our recruiters

I agree with you on all you say about 2011-2013, especially 2011 which at this stage looks to be one of our best years for a long time.

But we are a no excuses club and by National Draft (3), PSD (1), Rookies (4), Trades (3) we took 11 players. Of these we have 2 left on our list. I am willing to give a half mark for Pitt (who I thought had potential). I will give a half mark for players playing for other teams (though Mitchie is only getting occasional games) so score 3. Or 27% success. That is poor.
2009 - 4 with us from 9 (44% success)
2008 - 6 with us still 1 with another from 14 (47% success)
2007 - 2 with us still 1 with another from 10 (25% success) another poor year.
Before that we are getting into retirement territory.

Rookies are pretty much bonus picks, I do not think you should count them as misses. Also you should consider the impact they had at the club. I would consider Adam McPhee a success even though he is not still on our list.

2007 - 3 from 6 (50%)
2008 - 5 from 8 + 3 rookies = 8 from 8 and 100%.
2009 - 3 from 7 + 2 rookies = 5 from 8 and some percentage. (I am count McPhee as a success as he added experience and depth to our side. )

2010 - 2 from 7 - our worse year by far.
2011 - 4 from 5 + 1 rookie = 100%

Perhaps I am being an optimist.

 

[Bender571]

What i think happened was that in the end JS was too juicy a temptation. But taking him meant waiting another 19 picks for a tall and the ones we wanted were gone (i remember watching the one on my list disappear in the 20's) so we took the best available (Smith) and then as we still weren't sure took talls in the PSD and rookie draft.

How do you know we didn't want Smith, Emma Quayle had him going at pick 23, so it's not like he was left overs. Who went between Simpson and Smith that we wanted and how have they played since?

 

[E Shed]

How do you know we didn't want Smith, Emma Quayle had him going at pick 23, so it's not like he was left overs. Who went between Simpson and Smith that we wanted and how have they played since?

Brody Grundy is probably the one who got away but we have so many rucks on the list already. He's a beauty though.
Haven't seen enough of Shaw and Paparone who were the other realistic options for us here.

 

[manpurple]

Rookies are pretty much bonus picks, I do not think you should count them as misses. Also you should consider the impact they had at the club. I would consider Adam McPhee a success even though he is not still on our list.

I'll agree with you on McPhee.

But if ignore the rookie list you need to ignore all those that came from there and were promoted. No I just think that's an excuse. But then I can live a 50% success rate for recruiting. In footy not everyone fits and comes up to the mark.

I think though that by any measure we can agree that 2010 was poor. Which was my original point. And 2007 wasn't much better.

 

[manpurple]

How do you know we didn't want Smith, Emma Quayle had him going at pick 23, so it's not like he was left overs. Who went between Simpson and Smith that we wanted and how have they played since?

Your right I don't. I just know we need a KPF more than a KPB and there were others that fitted the bill.

Brody Grundy is probably the one who got away but we have so many rucks on the list already. He's a beauty though.
Haven't seen enough of Shaw and Paparone who were the other realistic options for us here.

These two were high on my list and perhaps I will be wrong but both went to teams who have more than one decent KPF so I still have hopes. Perhaps O'Brian (though I can't remember if he was on my list)
But also Grundy and Stewart would have meant that we didn't need to take Hannath in the PSD. To me, taking someone in the PSD that was there in the main draft means that you have looked at what you got and decided that you missed something.

 

[E Shed]

Your right I don't. I just know we need a KPF more than a KPB and there were others that fitted the bill.

These two were high on my list and perhaps I will be wrong but both went to teams who have more than one decent KPF so I still have hopes. Perhaps O'Brian (though I can't remember if he was on my list)
But also Grundy and Stewart would have meant that we didn't need to take Hannath in the PSD. To me, taking someone in the PSD that was there in the main draft means that you have looked at what you got and decided that you missed something.

Good point. Or they may have just thought he was a bargain. But Grundy is in another league.
Still, Simpson might be too.

 

[Westerberg]

At the crossroads could be a positive.We could do a Robert Johnson and do a pact with the Devil and sell our souls for the next 5 premierships

Already tried it, went down to the local crossroads, drew a pentagram in my own blood and the bastard didn't show. Figures - he's probably an Eagles supporter.

 

[Nothing]

I'll agree with you on McPhee.

But if ignore the rookie list you need to ignore all those that came from there and were promoted. No I just think that's an excuse. But then I can live a 50% success rate for recruiting. In footy not everyone fits and comes up to the mark.

I think though that by any measure we can agree that 2010 was poor. Which was my original point. And 2007 wasn't much better.

On average every club will use 3-5 regular draft picks 2-3 rookie draft picks and maybe gaine 1-2 player via PSD/Free agency/trading. So on average a turnover in the range of 6-10 players. If 4 players are a success each year you have 40 AFL quality successes after 10 years of recruiting. At this stage Peel will when the next inifinity flags. Of course, Freo will do alright too because we will have 18 AFL players not playing every week.

Or you could lower your expectations to a 25-30% success rate (which is historically very good) and after 10 years of this recruiting you'd end up with 30 AFL players and be in with a real shot at the flag. Which is the situation that Hawks, Cats and Freo found ourselves in.

 

[Bender571]

Brody Grundy is probably the one who got away but we have so many rucks on the list already. He's a beauty though.
Haven't seen enough of Shaw and Paparone who were the other realistic options for us here.

Not worth us using our first pick on a ruck. He would've been stuck in the WAFL for too long, before probably being offered a tempting contact as first ruck somewhere else. Hannath was perfect in that he cost nothing, offered decent back up and isn't likely to be poached.

Your right I don't. I just know we need a KPF more than a KPB and there were others that fitted the bill.

We need a second KPF who can help Pav now, none of those draftees would've been a significant upgrade on Bradley or Taberner atm. The 2012 talls would've been about finding replacements, and we needed a replacement for MacPharlin more than Pav.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

I think though that by any measure we can agree that 2010 was poor. Which was my original point. And 2007 wasn't much better.

Yeah I wouldn't disagree with calling it a poor outcome for the club. I would disagree with judging our recruiting as such based on it.

 

[pokerspiv]

It was a poor outcome, but more because of bad luck than bad judgement. Both Ruffles and Pitt looked good.

 

[Arcassius]

One of my favourite moments with Pitt was watching him calmly sidestep a player running at him, and make him look like a goose in his first game. His delivery off either foot in training was something to see - would have been a matter of time before that translated to the faster AFL game environment, just a pity he will never get that chance, and that supporters were happy to write him off so early.

 

[estibador]

While I don't disagree with your general premise about the recruiters (and I thought at the time and maintain that the 2010 off season is a disaster), I think it's still too early to write off the 2011 crop. They're not getting enough consistency in the games at the top level because the team has been just about settled for 18 months. However cracks are appearing and I think Sheridan & Crozier deserve a longer run at it in the seniors.

Most players aren't playing consistent footy until their third-fourth year, and that's after they've had around 50 games experience. Sheridan and Crozier have both shown signs of elite talent in my view, at least more than players who are presently getting games and underperforming.

Agree with this. Some people seem to be under the impression that Geelong keeps drafting these kids who slot straight in the team, without realising most of them have spent 3 or 4 years in the reserves bulking up and learning their craft before we even see them.

Let's look at Geelong's 2011 crop compared to ours:

Joe Hamling
Shane Kersten
Jordan Murdoch
Lincoln McCartney
Orren Stephenson
Jed Bews
Cam Eardley
Jackson Sherringham
Mark Biclavs

87 games between them compared to 218 games from our crop of 2011, so that draft is looking pretty decent for us so far.

 

[manpurple]

It was a poor outcome, but more because of bad luck than bad judgement. Both Ruffles and Pitt looked good.

One of my favourite moments with Pitt was watching him calmly sidestep a player running at him, and make him look like a goose in his first game. His delivery off either foot in training was something to see - would have been a matter of time before that translated to the faster AFL game environment, just a pity he will never get that chance, and that supporters were happy to write him off so early.

I never quite saw what some seem to have with Ruffles but agree with both points here about Pitt. I also think that his heart condition contributed to his inability to get the fitness we want for an AFL player. So given that situation I think he performed better than we realised.

 

[manpurple]

On average every club will use 3-5 regular draft picks 2-3 rookie draft picks and maybe gaine 1-2 player via PSD/Free agency/trading. So on average a turnover in the range of 6-10 players. If 4 players are a success each year you have 40 AFL quality successes after 10 years of recruiting. At this stage Peel will when the next inifinity flags. Of course, Freo will do alright too because we will have 18 AFL players not playing every week.

Or you could lower your expectations to a 25-30% success rate (which is historically very good) and after 10 years of this recruiting you'd end up with 30 AFL players and be in with a real shot at the flag. Which is the situation that Hawks, Cats and Freo found ourselves in.

Maybe but much of that historical success rate stuff is based on numbers that were common before teams got serious about recruitment. Lets be honest AFL has become much more professional in since Freo was new on the block. But the biggest avenue's of advance is the off field stuff. In particular recruitment and sports science.
I guess that if you assume that in terms of age vs numbers of players there will be attrition every year that players get older. And whilst there are some mature age recruits across a team of 44-46 most of the time the scenario you suggest does not allow for anyone to come up short after year 1. Starting 11 players and only seeing 2/3 make the grade to me just speaks of a level of professionalism that is lacking. IMHO it would also produce a team lacking in depth and experience. I would rather turn over a lesser number of players and have more of them make the grade.

 

[manpurple]

Not worth us using our first pick on a ruck. He would've been stuck in the WAFL for too long, before probably being offered a tempting contact as first ruck somewhere else. Hannath was perfect in that he cost nothing, offered decent back up and isn't likely to be poached.

Grundy is playing better this year than Taberner who we took in the same draft.

We need a second KPF who can help Pav now, none of those draftees would've been a significant upgrade on Bradley or Taberner atm. The 2012 talls would've been about finding replacements, and we needed a replacement for MacPharlin more than Pav.

And do you think that Smith is going to make the grade. TBH, I haven't seen a lot of him but what I have does not convince me that he will replace McPharlin. Maybe an emergency in for Dawson starting in a few years but I don't think that he is going to fill McPharlin's shoes. That's why I am not adverse to getting Frawley in the off season. More generally though we have, as someone else pointed out, 3 KPD's and a serviceable spare in Silvagni. But as we are all aware the cupboard is bare when there is no Pav in the forward line.

 

[pokerspiv]

Alex Pearce is more likely to replace McPharlin than Tanner Smith imo.

 

[E Shed]

Grundy is playing better this year than Taberner who we took in the same draft.
.

that would have meant forgoing Simpson. Grundy went before Taberner.

Alex Pearce is more likely to replace McPharlin than Tanner Smith imo.

Agree. Looks a likely type. bloody good size!

 

[couldhavebeen]

So with all the discussion who is to get the chop from the list of current players .
I suggest that Menegola ,Wood and Gumbelton are in the firing line at the moment .
The next are skating on thin ice Kepler ,Sylvia and Hannath ( depending on whether Sandi plays on).

 

[Fred Ziffel]

So with all the discussion who is to get the chop from the list of current players .
I suggest that Menengola ,Wood and Gumbelton are in the firing line at the moment .
The next are skating on thin ice Kepler ,Sylvia and Hannath ( depending on Sandi plays on).

I think Kep and Menegola will be gone. Gumbleton will be given every chance for another year extension.
The others, Sylvia, Hannath and Wood all retained.

 

[couldhavebeen]

I think Kep and Menegola will be gone. Gumbleton will be given every chance for another year extension.
The others, Sylvia, Hannath and Wood all retained.

If Pav retires Kepler will be given an extra couple of years IMHO as we have no one else at the moment .

 

[Fred Ziffel]

If Pav retires Kepler will be given an extra couple of years IMHO as we have no one else at the moment .

The way Pav is playing now he will probably go another 2 years in which time Apeness, Pearce and Taberner will have pushed up.
If Pav extends even for one more year, this season, I think that will be enough for Kep to retire.