Remove this Banner Ad

Carlton's drafting: 2004-2009

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonoman89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Firstly, good post. Always appreciate people efforts, regardless of my agreement or not.

Personally, I think WH is a fairly good recuiter, and I think the rookie selections, in particular are testimont to this.

Regarding Russell, I think it's very speculative to talk about if and butts, based on Carlton's ladder position or what have you. Let's not forget that Pagan "appeared" quite impatient with him. In for a game, and then straight out. I believe you give early draft selections time to develop, given the investment you've shown in them. I believe Russell would have been afforded the same amount of time/opportunity at any other club. Regardless of my outside view, it's proven correct.

As for the view Anderson was afforded too much time, I personally disagree. He was a later pick, who showed some promise, and some attractive footy attributes, like pace etc. He also showed great courage, which can't be taught. I remember witnessing a close win at the gabba, where he stood in J. Brown's path and took the mark, which insured the win for us, in a tight game. There is no way I would have the courage to do that!
 
I think a lot of people just look and point the finger at WH over the players that have gone through our club. At the time of drafting many of his picks have been right on the money. Who wouldn't have picked the big built 196cm Harlett who had a booming pick in the 2005 draft? If my memory served me correctly he killed the 2007 NAB cup final playing as KP back on Nathan Ablett. Injuries have had a big factor on WH's picks becoming players or flops.

Also the coaching staff and the opportunities they have given to players. I remember Edwards first or second game was at the Dome in 08 (against freo if my memory serves me correct) and he was playing as a CHF. Like most young forwards he got his hands to a lot of marks but only held one or two for the day and kicked one goal. We had a win but the next week he was dropped and never returned to the seniors. Our coached were happy with Fev being the only option for attack and didn't think of the future. They thought we were too good to give games away to kids which is fine but even top teams give young KPP the opportunity to have 5 straight games in the ones to see if they are up to scratch. We must do that with Austin if his fit next season or we will never know if his up to the caper.

On the JR issue he was clearly stuffed around by Pagan who had him sitting on the bench for the majority of his first couple of games. He didn't have quality players around him or a solid game plan to follow which many new players these days to which makes them seem more capable players than he was as a kid.
 
Windhover said:
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)
Click to expand...
We'd laughing if we landed a guy half as good as JK with pick 18 this year.

Kennedy kicked 41 goals for the wooden spooner who have a very poor midfield and poor tall targets to take pressure off him.

Ironic that people question the drafting of Kennedy when we're reportedly chasing Anthony.

JK ticks more boxes than the KPF keeping Anthony out of their 22.

Why wasn't Yarran a safe selection?

Yarran's only flaws are his motor and workrate which are easier to fix or teach than the things he can do on the field.

At the same stage in their careers, JR looked lost as a defensive forward.

Yarran impacts games and finishes like few in our side can do.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Windhover said:
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).

What risk? He has more skill and ability that those three if everything clicks. And it will..

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.

Both were given enough changes to prove themselves, but didn't impress. Very glad that they are not on the list anymore. Like our slogan states: No passengers.

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

Caleb Tiller wasn't a risk. He was a late draft pick and project player and really didn't have any impact at the club. Amfield was a great selection by WH someone to give us run and drive from our backline was much needed. Robinson has ability and passion, but because of his nature and personality many clubs overlooked him at pick 40. And lastly Hampson was drafted because we had no ruckman, handy selection and much better than Jetta. He will continue to develop over time..
Click to expand...

Hello.
 
I don't believe in WH's view that it's ok to stock up on midfielders/smalls. I look at a lot of the other top 8 sides and when they draft someone I can see how that fits into the makeup of the side- with us however I'm not always so sure. We seem to have drafted so many like Joe Anderson, Steven Browne. Browne- this guy was never going to make it because he had very few attributes. Just that pick in particular we could have got Thompson (Kang), Mayne, Wood, Dalziell, Hooker, who are not guns yet but when you see them there is something to work with. I actually get bored on most draft days because we seem to get the same type of player. How about targetting a good KPP this year would be a good start.
 
jonoman89 said:
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.

    2005 draft intake:
    1. Murphy - gun worthy of 10 in talent, but wasn't a very difficult decision for the recruiters. 9/10 (Number 1 picks should be self evident in this day and age)
    2. Kennedy - good KP prospect and is showing worth. 7/10.(Lucky to be a 5 at this stage)
    3. Bower - one of the best defenders in the draft. 8/10 (8 is a very high ranking)
    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. (Again first pick in the draft should be a gun)
    2. Jacobs - gun....inspired pick. terrible to lose him 10/10 (Really? A 10?)
    3. Jamison - gun...again an inspired pick. 9/10 (More like a 7-8)
    2007 draft intake:
    1. Kreuzer - gun. 9/10(Same as above)
    2. Armfield. good pick up, should be a player. 6/10
    3. Pfieffer - no longer on list. 0/10
    4. Joseph - good pick up for a rookie. 7/10 (As good as Grigg and Russell? Nope)
    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 (He is striving to be a 5 at this stage)
    3. Garlett. gun, inspired choice for a rookie. 10/10(Easy to get a 10 on this list)

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

    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. (Wasn't Brock McLean a first round pick?)



    Our rookie drafting howeverhas been very, very good.
Click to expand...


  1. Where can I get what you are smoking?
 
Well, I think we almost never draft players based on what they'd be like with a few years under their belt and what they could mean for us in the future. A lot of that has do do with trading away our mid-ranged picks but not all of it. Even when it's youngsters we're talking about, when we do have mid-ranged picks to utilise, we take a 'stock' attitude or are too reactionary. There's little room for youngsters with raw talent to grow into roles.

We need to add an instinctive side to our meticulousness. I see recruiting as being about creating opportunity. I can't help but think the CFC sees it as being about fixing a problem. :confused:
 
blueant said:
I think a lot of people just look and point the finger at WH over the players that have gone through our club. At the time of drafting many of his picks have been right on the money. Who wouldn't have picked the big built 196cm Harlett who had a booming pick in the 2005 draft? If my memory served me correctly he killed the 2007 NAB cup final playing as KP back on Nathan Ablett. Injuries have had a big factor on WH's picks becoming players or flops.

Also the coaching staff and the opportunities they have given to players. I remember Edwards first or second game was at the Dome in 08 (against freo if my memory serves me correct) and he was playing as a CHF. Like most young forwards he got his hands to a lot of marks but only held one or two for the day and kicked one goal. We had a win but the next week he was dropped and never returned to the seniors. Our coached were happy with Fev being the only option for attack and didn't think of the future. They thought we were too good to give games away to kids which is fine but even top teams give young KPP the opportunity to have 5 straight games in the ones to see if they are up to scratch. We must do that with Austin if his fit next season or we will never know if his up to the caper.

On the JR issue he was clearly stuffed around by Pagan who had him sitting on the bench for the majority of his first couple of games. He didn't have quality players around him or a solid game plan to follow which many new players these days to which makes them seem more capable players than he was as a kid.
Click to expand...

I agree with your call that injuries have played a big part in many of our recruiting failures and that can be said of all clubs. It is a luck factor in many cases. You can only lay the blame on the recruiter or perhaps more correctly the medical staff if there were known issues.

Hawthorn took a few punts on injured youngsters and lost, yet Geelong risked Selwood and that went well.

To me there are so many varied success stories that I don't think that there is any magic formula that pins down the process to picking a top player especially past the first round. All the hard work of a recruiter can be ruined by bad luck injury wise or a poor choice of judgement off-field etc etc.

A Fev dominated forwardline was never going to be conducive to the development of a young tall forward unfortunately.
 
Matt72 said:
Where can I get what you are smoking?
Click to expand...

As i have stated numerous times, the player rankings is not purely for skill. In fact for many of them it is not a very good indicator of their ability at all.

My out of ten score is purely for how good a selection they were at their respective pick. Robinson was a good get for a pick 40, as was Jacobs and Jamison for rookies. So they get very high scores.
 
BlueGibbs2011 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that there is a lot of merit to your argument that opportunity has been afforded to a number of players that may not have been given a go at other clubs. The trading away of second round draft picks has helped that process. So many outside our club look at our number one draft picks and presume we have more first rounders on our list than any other clubs which hasn't been the case, thus again more opportunities to later picks.

I think directives from up high have also hurt Hughes. Pagan wanted speed so a few of our picks were picked on that basis, but unfortunately we came into an era where skills and decision making were just as important and we at the time just did not have the skills coaches available to work effectively on many of those skill flaws that some players came to us with.

A simple rule change by the AFL can make a recruit who seemed a sure thing a season or so ago look like a dud choice. Some of those changes could not be forseen, although admittedly some had been flagged for some time. Recruiters must sweat every year as to what rule changes the AFL bring in and what impact that will have on the effectiveness of previous draft choices.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

drusswaylander said:
Just a minor point, I'm not sure the success or otherwise of Jammo can be put down to Hughes, wasn't Crossica the driving force there?
Click to expand...

Crossisca, as the story goes, approached Hughes recommended that he recruit Jamison.

However, the recruitment wasn't done at the request of Crossisca. Hughes would have known about Jamo - who he is, what sort of player, his strenghts & weaknesses etc. - and he would have had the final call.

I'm sure that Crossisca recommending Jamo was not the first time a coach has mentioned a specific younger player to the recruiting staff, and I'm sure it hasn't been the last time, either. In fact, it probably happens each and every year, to a certain degree.

The recruitment of Jamo gets attributed to WH without a doubt. He had the final call on Jamo and whether or not to recruit him, so just as easily as he said yes, so too could he have said no.

Crossisca may well have, and certainly did have an influence in the recruitment of Jamo, but to attribute the recruitment of him to anyone other than WH himself, is incorrect.
 
Azul said:
:o I believe TRD was referring to 13 game WB veteran 'Clint' Easton Wood.
Click to expand...

Indeed he was, my mistake.

Easton Wood is nothing special. An OK young player, nothing more, nothing less.

I certainly am not losing any sleep about missing out on recruiting him, nor would I consider berating WH for preferring to select Browne over him.
 
Jeremias said:
Crossisca, as the story goes, approached Hughes recommended that he recruit Jamison.

However, the recruitment wasn't done at the request of Crossisca. Hughes would have known about Jamo - who he is, what sort of player, his strenghts & weaknesses etc. - and he would have had the final call.

I'm sure that Crossisca recommending Jamo was not the first time a coach has mentioned a specific younger player to the recruiting staff, and I'm sure it hasn't been the last time, either. In fact, it probably happens each and every year, to a certain degree.

The recruitment of Jamo gets attributed to WH without a doubt. He had the final call on Jamo and whether or not to recruit him, so just as easily as he said yes, so too could he have said no.

Crossisca may well have, and certainly did have an influence in the recruitment of Jamo, but to attribute the recruitment of him to anyone other than WH himself, is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Ratten any part of, that process?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Jeremias said:
Crossisca, as the story goes, approached Hughes recommended that he recruit Jamison.

However, the recruitment wasn't done at the request of Crossisca. Hughes would have known about Jamo - who he is, what sort of player, his strenghts & weaknesses etc. - and he would have had the final call.

I'm sure that Crossisca recommending Jamo was not the first time a coach has mentioned a specific younger player to the recruiting staff, and I'm sure it hasn't been the last time, either. In fact, it probably happens each and every year, to a certain degree.

The recruitment of Jamo gets attributed to WH without a doubt. He had the final call on Jamo and whether or not to recruit him, so just as easily as he said yes, so too could he have said no.

Crossisca may well have, and certainly did have an influence in the recruitment of Jamo, but to attribute the recruitment of him to anyone other than WH himself, is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Although then it gets down to another point in recruiting debates. Head recruiters may have final says on a recruitment decision, but how much are they relying on those below them who may have more intimate knowledge of certain players and or watched them more?

I'm sure Crossisca would have known Jammo's instructions on matchday, the niggles he played with and would have passed them on to WH for example.
 
Jeremias said:
Indeed he was, my mistake.

Easton Wood is nothing special. An OK young player, nothing more, nothing less.

I certainly am not losing any sleep about missing out on recruiting him, nor would I consider berating WH for preferring to select Browne over him.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were guns, I said they have some upside whereas I couldn't see the wisdom of picking Browne as a 2nd rounder, or any other round for that matter. It's about time we got our drafting right or we'll stay middle of the road.
 
The Real Deal said:
I didn't say they were guns, I said they have some upside whereas I couldn't see the wisdom of picking Browne as a 2nd rounder, or any other round for that matter. It's about time we got our drafting right or we'll stay middle of the road.
Click to expand...

Nah Browne didn't workout, but he did show a bit of promise as junior, but in the end others just went past him.

Did he work enough on his weaknesses?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom