Carlton's drafting: 2004-2009

[jonoman89]

How do you rate Carlton's drafting since 2004?

From my perspective i see our drafting throughout each year following the same similar pattern: usually a good selection made in relation to the first round, poor decisions in the 2nd round onwards, and generally good pick ups in the rookie drafts. Trading also good.

My scores are based as follows:

9-10 = gun player and/or taken much later than they should have been in hindsight
7-8 = good quality player and/or taken around right time in the draft or a bit later
5-6 = solid player who and/or taken right time in draft
3-4 = average player and/or taken too early in the draft
1-2 = hasn't shown much yet and/or taken too early
0 = delisted

2004 draft intake:

1. Russell - relatively good selection in an otherwise poor draft. showed a lot in 2010. 7/10.
2. Hartlet - destroyed by injuries. no longer on list. 0/10
3. Blackwell - didn't do anything extrordinary. no longer on list. 0/10
4. Bryan - hack. no longer on list. 0/10
5. Betts - inspired choice. 9/10 for that one.

2005 draft intake:

1. Murphy - gun worthy of 10 in talent, but wasn't a very difficult decision for the recruiters. 9/10
2. Kennedy - good KP prospect and is showing worth. 7/10.
3. Bower - one of the best defenders in the draft. 8/10
4. Edwards - no longer on list. 0/10
5. McLaren - no longer on list. 0/10
6. Jackson - no longer on list. 0/10
7. Flint - no longer on list. 0/10

2006 draft intake:

1. Gibbs - gun, again very high score for talent. but again, not much inspired drafting taking this popular no.1 pick. 9 /10.
2. Hampson - slowly developing, could be anything. However i struggle to give him anything more than a 5 due to him showing little thus far.
3. Grigg - good player, sad to lose him. 7/10
4. Austin. injured to hell...can't say i've got much hope for him. 3/10
5. Benjamin - no longer on list. 0/10
6. Anderson - no longer on list. 0/10
7. Ackland - no longer on list. 0/10
8. Jacobs - gun....inspired pick. terrible to lose him 10/10
9. Jamison - gun...again an inspired pick. 9/10
10. Young - no longer on list. 0/10

2007 draft intake:

1. Kreuzer - gun. 9/10
2. Browne - no longer on list. 0/10
3. Armfield. good pick up, should be a player. 6/10
4. Pfieffer - no longer on list. 0/10
5. Joseph - good pick up for a rookie. 7/10
6. Hill - no longer on list. 0/10
7. Ellard - tries his guts out, could be good. 6/10
8. Shields - no longer on list. 0/10

2008 draft intake:

1. Yarran - lol @ me for wanting Rich. should be a gun. 8/10
2. Robinson - good prospect, should come on. steal at 40. 7/10
3. ROK - no longer on list. 1/10 (as we might rookie him and he could improve)
4. Tiller - no longer on list. 0/10
5. Johnson - no longer on list. -2/10 for the club even bothering with him.
6. Garlett. gun, inspired choice for a rookie. 10/10
7. Stanton - no longer on list. 0/10
8. Bentley - no longer on list. 0/10
9. Jacobs - thank god we kept onto him here. 10/10

2009 draft intake:

1. Lucas - gun, taken a bit later than i expected. 10/10 here.
2. Davies - showed good signs this year, and has showed more than anyone else taken after him. 8/10
3. Donaldson - no longer on list. 0/10
4. White - has shown good signs. good pickup. 7/10

following haven't had enough time:

1. Kerr
2. Cachia
3. Dare
4. Casboult
5. Touhy

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's clear our 1st round drafting has been pretty good. We haven't taken any absolute hack players unlike some other clubs...all of them seem to suggest they will fulfill their potential.

However, our drafting in the middle of the draft is quite lacking. I think this is Hughes and his staff's main problem. We haven't had many guns from the 2nd-6th rounds. From the amount of picks we've had i would have expected at least more good quality, best 22 players.

Our rookie drafting howeverhas been very, very good.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

How do you rate Carlton's drafting since 2004?

From my perspective i see our drafting throughout each year following the same similar pattern: usually a good selection made in relation to the first round, poor decisions in the 2nd round onwards, and generally good pick ups in the rookie drafts. Trading also good.

My scores are based as follows:

9-10 = gun player and/or taken much later than they should have been in hindsight
7-8 = good quality player and/or taken around right time in the draft or a bit later
5-6 = solid player who and/or taken right time in draft
3-4 = average player and/or taken too early in the draft
1-2 = hasn't shown much yet and/or taken too early
0 = delisted

2004 draft intake:

1. Russell - relatively good selection in an otherwise poor draft. showed a lot in 2010. 7/10.
2. Hartlet - destroyed by injuries. no longer on list. 0/10
3. Blackwell - didn't do anything extrordinary. no longer on list. 0/10
4. Bryan - hack. no longer on list. 0/10
5. Betts - inspired choice. 9/10 for that one.

2005 draft intake:

1. Murphy - gun worthy of 10 in talent, but wasn't a very difficult decision for the recruiters. 9/10
2. Kennedy - good KP prospect and is showing worth. 7/10.
3. Bower - one of the best defenders in the draft. 8/10
4. Edwards - no longer on list. 0/10
5. McLaren - no longer on list. 0/10
6. Jackson - no longer on list. 0/10
7. Flint - no longer on list. 0/10

2006 draft intake:

1. Gibbs - gun, again very high score for talent. but again, not much inspired drafting taking this popular no.1 pick. 9 /10.
2. Hampson - slowly developing, could be anything. However i struggle to give him anything more than a 5 due to him showing little thus far.
3. Grigg - good player, sad to lose him. 7/10
4. Austin. injured to hell...can't say i've got much hope for him. 3/10
5. Benjamin - no longer on list. 0/10
6. Anderson - no longer on list. 0/10
7. Ackland - no longer on list. 0/10
8. Jacobs - gun....inspired pick. terrible to lose him 10/10
9. Jamison - gun...again an inspired pick. 9/10
10. Young - no longer on list. 0/10

2007 draft intake:

1. Kreuzer - gun. 9/10
2. Browne - no longer on list. 0/10
3. Armfield. good pick up, should be a player. 6/10
4. Pfieffer - no longer on list. 0/10
5. Joseph - good pick up for a rookie. 7/10
6. Hill - no longer on list. 0/10
7. Ellard - tries his guts out, could be good. 6/10
8. Shields - no longer on list. 0/10

2008 draft intake:

1. Yarran - lol @ me for wanting Rich. should be a gun. 8/10
2. Robinson - good prospect, should come on. steal at 40. 7/10
3. ROK - no longer on list. 1/10 (as we might rookie him and he could improve)
4. Tiller - no longer on list. 0/10
5. Johnson - no longer on list. -2/10 for the club even bothering with him.
6. Garlett. gun, inspired choice for a rookie. 10/10
7. Stanton - no longer on list. 0/10
8. Bentley - no longer on list. 0/10
9. Jacobs - thank god we kept onto him here. 10/10

2009 draft intake:

1. Lucas - gun, taken a bit later than i expected. 10/10 here.
2. Davies - showed good signs this year, and has showed more than anyone else taken after him. 8/10
3. Donaldson - no longer on list. 0/10
4. White - has shown good signs. good pickup. 7/10

following haven't had enough time:

1. Kerr
2. Cachia
3. Dare
4. Casboult
5. Touhy

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's clear our 1st round drafting has been pretty good. We haven't taken any absolute hack players unlike some other clubs...all of them seem to suggest they will fulfill their potential.

However, our drafting in the middle of the draft is quite lacking. I think this is Hughes and his staff's main problem. We haven't had many guns from the 2nd-6th rounds. From the amount of picks we've had i would have expected at least more good quality, best 22 players.

Our rookie drafting howeverhas been very, very good.

Someone had to start this thread lol.

WE havent had many of the midrange (2nd/3rd rounders) picks in the draft, that is why to some degree we havent many players from this range in our best 22. WE gave up 2nd round picks for the Judd and Warnock deals, and since 2004, we have given 4-5+ third round picks for mature players. So it doesnt surprise me that our best 22 players come from high picks, trades and rookies.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

Pretty much agree with much of your assessment, but the question is WHY are the mid-range picks poor?

1st round picks these days are a gimme 90% of the time. As the Geelong team have shown, it's the mid-range picks where real depth is built. Is WH and his team doing enough due diligence in this area? He obviously is with rookies (or he's been very lucky).

It's a question I've pondered for a while.

 

[jonoman89]

It just seems like having a solid best 22 player from the 2nd-5th rounds is an exception to the rule.

2006 i think is the best illustration of our drafting. Nailed the early and rookie picks, but our mid-range picks were almost all failures.

And yes i do realise we have actively traded many of our later picks for players like Warnock...but i still think our coversion rate from picks 15-80 aren't quite up to scratch.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

It just seems like having a solid best 22 player from the 2nd-5th rounds is an exception to the rule.

2006 i think is the best illustration of our drafting. Nailed the early and rookie picks, but our mid-range picks were almost all failures.

And yes i do realise we have actively traded many of our later picks for players like Warnock...but i still think our coversion rate from picks 15-80 aren't quite up to scratch.

2nd-3rd round picks we have given up from 2004-2009 trades are:
20
24
27
52
52
56
57
67
72

Picks we have gained in this time from trades:
46
69

I think you are being too hard on judging 2nd/3rd rounders. We really haven't had that many second round picks most years.

If you want to judge second rounders first, we have only had 3 picks in 6 years for Bower, Hartlett and Austin. Bower is a gun pick. Hartlett is a howler. Austin is still on the list but underwhleming. Hardly an indictment on recruiting. Only 3 picks for WHs...it explains a lot of your mid range picks not being in our best 22.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

who was Hill?

 

[Sublime]

who was Hill?

From memory i think his name was Lachlan?? Hill. Was definitely a rookie draft pick, so either mustn't have been any good or suffered plenty of injuries.

 

[BlueVision]

who was Hill?

Lachie Hill -

Former Tassie boy who had pace to burn C4 but was always going to be up against it to make the big time - big heart though.

 

[Sin City]

Lachie Hill -

Former Tassie boy who had pace to burn C4 but was always going to be up against it to make the big time - big heart though.

He was definitely Victorian mate, not Tasmanian. Played for Oakleigh Chargers and Vic Metro. That's Scotch College in Melbourne, not Launceston

 

[Kramer1]

This is really just a reflection of who you think has potential yeah?

Lucas has only played a handful of games, and whilst promising the soft tissue injuries count against. Guys like Bastinac, Fyfe and Duncan have shown as much if not more.

Davies gets 8 on the back of a few scratchy games when Stratton, and a fw others taken after him have shown a bit more.

Yarran hasn't sone anything to elevate him to 'gun' status, whatever that may be. Still very much a work in progress.

Johsnon gets -2 when even ROK who never troubled the scorer gets a point.

Pretty arbitrary ranking, but its quiet and there's not a lot of action on the board so who am I to argue...go nuts.

 

[Jabba73]

You would hope that 90% of first round players are good. Most 2nd round players have shown something so a strike rate of 66% success is probably about right.

3rd round+ picks are mostly speculation that the players will come good given time in the AFL system. You can never be certain how guys will go once they fill out/bulk up and the reality of the day to day grind hits their bodies.

Work on the rookies by our club has been sensational. These are usually guys that don't stand out at age level but show enough to suggest they have what it takes if given time and direction. Very happy with our performance in this part of the draft. Our success rate is exceptionally high in recent years.

 

[blueboy15]

Jonoman,

Great analysis, extremely methodical and insightful.
Law is guiding you well.

I think its a lil harsh though to judge Hughes on many of the so called middle band selections as majority of the time they were highly rated youngsters with an acknowledged flaw or two, and were picked on potential. Just as some of the later picks have flourished - its a trade off between risk and reward. I like how hughes usually takes a stab at a risky third round pick each year, gives us fans something to b excited about.

This year though pick 41 - Andreoli please

 

[Kramer1]

You would hope that 90% of first round players are good. Most 2nd round players have shown something so a strike rate of 66% success is probably about right.

3rd round+ picks are mostly speculation that the players will come good given time in the AFL system. You can never be certain how guys will go once they fill out/bulk up and the reality of the day to day grind hits their bodies.

I think the failure rate is a little higher. Just had a quick scan over the first 20 players picked from 04-08. Over that five year period 20% have been abject failures (IE delisted or not played a game to date and not looking likely).

About 30% remain works in progress, and the remaining 50% are solid and/or proven players.

Take Hawthorn and Richmond out of calculations and things start to look better mind you...

 

[Silvagnis]

Don't know why Browne or others who have played a game gets a zero, yet O'keeffe gets a one. Other clubs would have drafted Browne, Benjamin, etc, if we hadn't picked them. The Pies picked up Bryan to fill a gap, so he was a solid section for a club that needed a ruck.

Jacobs deserves a ten?

I wouldn't want to lose Hampson for the return of picks 33 and 67.

Kreuzer and Jacobs were the only ruckman who had a full pre-season for 2010.

Jacobs might be the better or pure footballer, but Hampson has more talent and ability that we will benefit from with the new substitute rule.

Hughes hasn't had a second round pick to work with in the last three drafts.

 

[blues4flag]

Don't know why Browne or others who have played a game gets a zero, yet O'keeffe gets a one. Other clubs would have drafted Browne, Benjamin, etc, if we hadn't picked them. The Pies picked up Bryan to fill a gap, so he was a solid section for a club that needed a ruck.

Yep. Browne and Anderson are not zeros. Perhaps 2s or 3s but they provided something. Might have been regulars had they been drafted to Carlton circa 2004. And how Robinson is a 7 while Armfield got a 6 is beyond me.

 

[Jabba73]

I think the failure rate is a little higher. Just had a quick scan over the first 20 players picked from 04-08. Over that five year period 20% have been abject failures (IE delisted or not played a game to date and not looking likely).

About 30% remain works in progress, and the remaining 50% are solid and/or proven players.

Take Hawthorn and Richmond out of calculations and things start to look better mind you...

Yep, works in so many situations

 

[jonoman89]

As i've stated...the numerical score each player got doesn't represent just their quality as a player. It also includes how good a pick they were.....AKA whether we got a late gem or an early dud.

 

[Mister Carlton]

Lachie Hill -

Former Tassie boy who had pace to burn C4 but was always going to be up against it to make the big time - big heart though.

Athlete. Not a footballer.

 

[Malifice]

1st round picks these days are a gimme 90% of the time.

Tell that to the Hawks.

Shocking recent record in the first round.

 

[Jeremias]

^^ But aren't we told a fair bit that we should target recruiters with a good record like Pelchen?



Our recruiting is fine. That has been covered and shown ad nauseum in plenty of threads on here.

Only reactionary morons and hindsight geniuses think they have a leg to stand on when arguing otherwise.

Recruiting is not an exact science. And it's hardly WH's fault that some idiots think otherwise.

You win some, you lose some. Nothing sums up recruiting more than that simple phrase. Every club has early picks that work out, and that don't. So too, does every club have examples of mid range and later picks that don't work out, and some that develop better than initially expected.

I'd love us to have had access to more 2nd round picks - but I'm not complaining about the recruitment of Henderson and Warnock who are both exciting players and should play a huge part in our future.

We hear so often from the idiots that criticise WH and his recruiting without thinking about it, that he can't recruit outside the first round.

Yet I dare say we'd be up there in terms of successes off the rookie draft in recent years.

WH is doing a fine job. Those that expect every single pick to work out are delusional idiots that just don't understand recruiting, and that certainly can't be blamed on Hughes.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Agree with most of that J.

I'm always looking for a fair analysis and rank WH (just based on picks) as a fair recruiter. Most recruiters are in the same boat TBH.

Slightly improving WHs recruiting is that we have come off such a low list base meaning some of the later picks (rookie picks) he has made have gotten games but wouldn't in another side. Carrots because of his kicking would not have got game time at Geelong at all but walked into our 22.

Slightly more controversial are Russell and Jamison. Russell early was a basket case and in a top 4 side potentially delisted. Given we had such a poor list he has been able to develop slowly into the good player he is now. Russell also survived because we had zero quality HBFer except Scotland during this time. If he was in a stronger squad, his confidence may not have developed. Ditto for Jamison...no competition at all sees him a rookie player playing full back finally developing into a ok FB...at another club, doubt it.

It inflates WHs success to some degree. I suppose this could be a cup half empty view and the cup half full view is that he saw the talent and just knew they would hit their straps slower than the typical draftee.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

For the fanboys on here, not knocking WHs...think he is very much middle of the road in terms of recruiting which is fine...hits and misses like everyone else.

 

[Sin City]

Our recruiting is fine. That has been covered and shown ad nauseum in plenty of threads on here.

Only reactionary morons and hindsight geniuses think they have a leg to stand on when arguing otherwise.

I had to laugh at someone on another forum saying there were doubts over Hughes because he only has a 50% or thereabouts strike rate. I thought 46 blokes on an AFL list and 22 of them in your team it's gonna be hard for any team not to appear to be around the 50% mark. I guess any excuse to knock him though.

 

[shangston]

I have been waiting for a thread like this for a long time. Yes, our drafting outside the 1st rd has a lot to be desired. But, I don`t think this is the problem. The problem is how long players such as Edwards, Hartlett, Anderson and Co got to prove themselves. Yes, this was during the dark days but it does`nt excuse us hanging on to LIST CLOGGERS for much too long which has in turn killed our depth.
It`s amazing how our 2nd-6th rd have been so bad and WH kills it in the rookie draft. Personally I believe our picks from last yr draft will be in our best 22 very soon. Namely Cachia, Dare, Casboult and Tuohy. These guys showed great things last yr for Bullants and I expect them to progress for senior action next yr. Bring on 2011!!!!

 

[Jeremias]

Agree with most of that J.

I'm always looking for a fair analysis and rank WH (just based on picks) as a fair recruiter. Most recruiters are in the same boat TBH.

In all honesty, they all are roughly around the same mark.

No recruiter gets every selection correct. In fact, no recruiter ever gets anywhere close to that.

Ask them that question and I'm sure they'd agree with you. Why? Because as I said before, it's not an exact science.

I'm not claiming WH is an outstanding recruiter. Never have, and never will. However, I have said in the past, that the criticism directed towards him from all over the place, is completely and utterly ridiculous.

He's a very decent recruiter and has shown this over a number of years. And as such, I believe he deserves my support, and the support of others, until such time where we can categorically state that he is no good at what he does.

And I really doubt that that time will come.

The article after last years draft that speculated that he had to front the board after picking Lucas, Davies and Kerr, was probably the worst article I've ever seen written.

It may as well have been written by someone on BigFooty who had his head stuck too far up his arse to realise that the job of a recruiter is to pick the players he believes will be the best for their football club throughout their careers, rather than who is tallest.

I bet WH wouldn't be losing any sleep over his selections, nor should he.

Slightly improving WHs recruiting is that we have come off such a low list base meaning some of the later picks (rookie picks) he has made have gotten games but wouldn't in another side. Carrots because of his kicking would not have got game time at Geelong at all but walked into our 22.

You are right that a weaker team may have had an impact.

Yet who are we to say categorically that even in a stronger team the players wouldn't have developed?

I tend to think that it's more the development processes and structures in place within a footy club that are more involved in getting players ready to play in the AFL.

Recruiters take the pick, but how they develop from there on in has very little to do with the recruiters.

This is why I laugh when someone suggests we should target Derek Hine who is a 'much better recruiter' than Hughes.

That's as big a fallacy on these boards as Bower is a bad kick of the football, and that we don't need any more midfielders.

Shits me no end.

Hughes may well be, and most probably is very close to Hine as a recruiter. What seems to set them apart are the developmental programs and processes in place, as well as the coaching, at their respective clubs that makes the gap between the two look far wider than it really is.

Yet the hindsight recruiters and the morons we get on this board seem all too happy to place the blame firmly on the shoulder of Hughes. When in reality, it has very little, to nothing, to do with Hughes and his recruiting.

Slightly more controversial are Russell and Jamison. Russell early was a basket case and in a top 4 side potentially delisted. Given we had such a poor list he has been able to develop slowly into the good player he is now. Russell also survived because we had zero quality HBFer except Scotland during this time. If he was in a stronger squad, his confidence may not have developed. Ditto for Jamison...no competition at all sees him a rookie player playing full back finally developing into a ok FB...at another club, doubt it.

I don't agree with this.

Russell was an early draft pick. If he wasn't taken by us, it's not as if he would have slipped a hell of a long way.

He wasn't an early basket case. He was a kid that was struggling to find his feet, despite the obvious talent. Why is that a unique situation to him? Many kids, from EVERY team, struggle to adjust to the speed and the demands of AFL football. That's not a new phenomena, and we see examples of it in each and every draft.

That doesn't mean they are basket cases, nor does it mean the recruiter was wrong to select them in the first place. Players adjust at different times, and that certainly can't be blamed on WH and the recruiting staff. Some are able to step up and contribute to the senior team from the get go, some take longer. Daniel Rich is an example of someone that has been able to contribute from day 1 in year 1. Russell took a bit longer. Does that mean Russell was a basket case or a bad pick? Absolutely not.

JR may not have been given the amount of opportunities that he was afforded early on, had he been in a better team. But then again - he may have found it easier to adapt to the rigours of AFL football in a team where he had better players around him.

Who knows.

Who are we to say that Jamison rising to senior football as well as he has, is more a result of having no competition around him rather than him showing his ability from an early stage?

If Jamo wasn't there, someone else would be. It's not as if he would've been the ONLY option. Limited we may have been. Forced? Doubtful.

Hughes' job is to identify talent and pick the best of it. How they develop from that point onwards has very little to do with Hughes.

Yet every single year we get morons flooding these boards saying we didn't pick a talent. And every single year they are proved wrong.

For the fanboys on here, not knocking WHs...think he is very much middle of the road in terms of recruiting which is fine...hits and misses like everyone else.

Correct.

I've been a long time supporter of Hughes and will continue to do so.

Does that mean I think he's a brilliant recruiter?

Absolutely not.

What it means is I've got enough perspective and sense to realise that every recruiter gets decisions right, and every recruiter gets decisions wrong.

 

[Windhover]

A most interesting thread where posts are moderate and reasoned. In relation to the ratings I would quibble with those given to Kennedy, Yarran and White. In the case of Kennedy and Yarran there are obviously better or safer draft picks taken later. Ryder and Clarke (among the talls) were taken after Kennedy and are obviously ahead of him. Kennedy is just a player (admittedly for the key position). Likewise Yarran (who still could be anything and oozes class) has not yet shown enough to demonstrate he was worth the risk (or that he is in our best 22) when there were so many safe choices taken after him (like Rich, Ziebell or Sidebottom).

Further although I understand the basis for rating Browne and Anderson "0" this is a bit unfair. I very much liked what I saw with each of them and although they each had weaknesses (Browne a bit slow - Anderson a bit sloppy but improving steadily, if slowly) I would even have been happy to keep each of them on the list for another year.

That said I do like the fact that Hughes will take a few risks, like Caleb Tiller, Amfield, Robinson and Hampson.