Crows vs Power drafting 2004-2008

[finn]

Exactly. I don't get why Fantasia doesn't get more credit. He has drafted pretty well, just like Rendell has.

because for a long time he didn't.
but then he was better than tim johnson.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

We changed recruiters in 2005. Blair Hartley came on and has recruited remarkably well. I think we have a lot to work with. The OP forgot Rodan in 2006 and in 2005 we traded our first pick for Daniel Motlop.

2006 was a massive, massive draft for us and those 6 recruits may be permanent fixtures in our 22. 3/4 have the potential to be absolute superstars.

04 was horrible for us and hence we parted company.
ENTER BLAIR HARTLEY
05 netted us D. Motlop, Carlile and Thomas. Logan is a loyal, depth player.
06 neeted us Boak, Gray, Krakouer, Paul Stewart, Justin Westhoff and Rodan. That is a pretty massive haul.
07 got us Lobbe, M. Motlop and Salter upgraded from the rookie list. A bit too early to call but we are happy with these guys. MM is bottom aged too. Plenty of time to flourish
08 is too early to call but HH, Trengove and Broadbent are highly thought of. Our lower pick ruckmen, Redden at 18 has played seniors for WWT and Daniel Stewart will supercede our other ruckmen as he and Salter played well towards the end of last year. Dawson and Banner has tools but are longer term projects. Davenport and Meyer round it out. Another potentially devastating draft like 06.
09 gives us 8, 9 and 16. Plenty to work with to fill in gaps, needs with good, upside type players.

I don't want to comment too much on your drafts. I think you guys have done well recently and are a year or two further down the track in terms of devleopment of your squad.

 

[Hodgy]

because for a long time he didn't.
but then he was better than tim johnson.

Look it can certainly be argued that our recruiting in the last 5 years has been better than the period before but I think this is because recently it has been simply outstanding rather than it being poor before. Considering the terrible concessions we got when we entered the comp it must surely be conceded that our results have been pretty good over the years and that recruiting must have played some part in that. Players like Roo, Goody, Edwards, Stiffy, Bird, Bock, Rutten, Hentschel etc all were very solid selections. I think people like to remember a player that doesn't make it rather than the ones that do and every single club in the comp has plenty of examples of players that don't make it for whatever reason. It would be fair to say that our whole recruiting department has improved from the early days but that is to be expected as no one had much idea what they were doing at the start, while some clubs like Richmond and Freo seem to make the same mistakes now that they did 10 years ago. Overall I feel our efforts in recruiting are pretty impressive.

 

[The Crows Truth]

Shhhhh! Don't bust the bubble! Who are these hecks that you mention?!

Fact is our 2 most promising forwards on the list in Tippett and Walker were recruited by Fantasia. Add in the likes of Mackay, Vince, Porplyzia, Knights, van Berlo, Maric, Douglas, Sellar and you practically have half the side (including some of our most promising youngsters on our list).

Fantasia did a very good job for us and its one of the reasons he is a GM of footy operations at the Doggies.

Stiffy, do you agree that Fantasias recruiting was better in the Craig era relative to the Ayres era?

If so, what are the reasons for this in your view? Its been well documented some of Ayres influences in decisions in regards to recruiting/trading (Angwin over Cornes, Bode for pick 12 for starters). IMO Ayres interfered to much in the process and basically ****** things up big time on numerous occasions.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Stiffy, do you agree that Fantasias recruiting was better in the Craig era relative to the Ayres era?

I do think his drafting better since Craig took over!

If so, what are the reasons for this in your view? Its been well documented some of Ayres influences in decisions in regards to recruiting/trading (Angwin over Cornes, Bode for pick 12 for starters). IMO Ayres interfered to much in the process and basically ****** things up big time on numerous occasions.

Your opinion is not far off the truth. Jimmy was given a lot more "freedom" for want of a better word once Craig took over. There was a strong influence from Ayres when it comes to recruiting. Jimmy has even publicly stated that he enjoyed working for Craig much more because Craig placed a great deal of trust in his recruiting department than Ayres did.

However, to be fair we started pumping a lot more resources into our recruiting network once Craig took over and James himself has said that you are only as good a recruiter as the network that you have working for you.

There is no doubt that Ayres was more dictatorial when it came to recruiting and Craig placed a lot more trust into his recruiting staff. But we also need to acknowledge that we pumped in a lot more resources into our recruiting network at the end of 2004 which certainly makes the job a fair bit easier.

 

[amer]

or perhaps you've forgetten how long ago Craig took over.

Wow....just, wow. Go ahead, present your argument, compare the drafts side by side. Please, I'm in the mood for a laugh!

 

[amer]

Really?

John Meesen, Fergus Watts, and Darren Pfeiffer all say hello. Douglas & Sellar aren't great returns for 1st round picks. all of whom were consensus picks at their draft slots or earlier.

Craig's faith in his young guys is a fairly recent thing.

that said, there are plenty of Fantas picks they are now being credited to Rendell for some strange reason.

Deary me, what were you saying about remembering when Neil Craig took over?

Champagne comedy this, one of the worst arguments ever mounted.

 

[Crow-mo]

wrong.

the deluded minority may believe the quality of ayres drafting era is comparable to craigs era (fantas time) but they would be the only ones. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=546403

ffs old son, look at the last 4-5 years - tippett, porps, vince, danger, walker, mc kay, otten and numerous friends (inc davis who may be the best of the lot according to comments a crow official made earlier this year). now try and show me another team with comparable picks that has performed as well....and people wonder why we value draft picks....unless you are still going to argue that we dont outperform other clubs in drafting in recent years.

why do you want to see another team when discussing our own development.

stay focussed.

 

[Crow-mo]

Crow-mo, I know you love arguing just for argument's sake, but you really have no leg to stand on in this one. Our recruiting the last five years has been so much better than the few years preceding it it's not even funny.

don't tell me I have no leg to stand on, when you have ignored 3 years of a 5 year reign.

 

[Crow-mo]

Exactly. I don't get why Fantasia doesn't get more credit. He has drafted pretty well, just like Rendell has.

its because people like to anoint a new messiah, as that gives them hope that tomorrow will be brighter than yesterday.

it doesn't have to be based on rational analysis or facts.

 

[Crow-mo]

because for a long time he didn't.
but then he was better than tim johnson.

did he just drop a magic pill and get better all of a sudden?

 

[Crow-mo]

Wow....just, wow. Go ahead, present your argument, compare the drafts side by side. Please, I'm in the mood for a laugh!

i have already presented it. something you haven't done yet I note.

 

[Crow-mo]

Deary me, what were you saying about remembering when Neil Craig took over?

Champagne comedy this, one of the worst arguments ever mounted.

look if you don't understand, you don't have to advertise it so loudly. it'll become obvious enough.

I'll help you.

Argument no.1
- Fantasia's drafting only became good due to Craig's development
- response: what about all the first round consensus talent that craig has had to work with, that didn't come off. they were all agreed first round talent, so its not like they didn't have ability. there was plenty of talent (acquired or recently) , that still didn't go anywhere under craig, so he's hardly the difference in all this when we have just as much ****'ed up under his reign as we have had under everyone else.

and lets not forget they were ALL consensus 1st round picks, its not like we picked dodgy talent.

as for watts, he was picked 6 months before Craig became coach, if you want to make the development angle, fine. but lets not exclude him.

- Argument no.2
- look at all these great young players we now have. Rendell is a god
- response: most of them are pre-rendell.

simples.

 

[relapse]

I still maintain that our biggest concern has always been that being a first round pick for us has turned into a poisoned chalice. We know that Fantasia did well with the middle of the draft, but where does the culpability lie for our poor record with first rounders ??

Were our first round picks solely James' call or does the coaching staff make the final call as to who we should draft with our first pick ?? The reason I say this is that we found out a few years afo after years of Fantasia being made the scapegoat that Angwin was Ayres' call and that Fantasia advised against selecting him.

 

[amer]

look if you don't understand, you don't have to advertise it so loudly. it'll become obvious enough.

I'll help you.

Argument no.1
- Fantasia's drafting only became good due to Craig's development
- response: what about all the first round consensus talent that craig has had to work with, that didn't come off. they were all agreed first round talent, so its not like they didn't have ability. there was plenty of talent (acquired or recently) , that still didn't go anywhere under craig, so he's hardly the difference in all this when we have just as much ****'ed up under his reign as we have had under everyone else.

and lets not forget they were ALL consensus 1st round picks, its not like we picked dodgy talent.

as for watts, he was picked 6 months before Craig became coach, if you want to make the development angle, fine. but lets not exclude him.

- Argument no.2
- look at all these great young players we now have. Rendell is a god
- response: most of them are pre-rendell.

simples.

In bold is why you have few to no friends on this occasion, and ironically it is you who fails to understand and chops and changes the criteria for his argument in a futile attempt to avoid the embarrassment of being completely owned by the rest of the debate team here.

I've not said Neil Craig himself is the difference, that's you talking pixies and fairies and other such fantasy. I've also not taken issue with Fantasia vs Rendell. Don't put words in my mouth, it's unwanted and sly. Show us the Ayers era recruiting vs the Craig era recruiting, boom and bust count, side by side. Watts - there's one bust in the Ayers column. Look there, I've started the ball rolling for you.

 

[amer]

In fact, such a nice guy am I that I'll lay it out for you.

AYERS ERA

Not sure if he was actually here for the '99 draft, but anyway.

1999 AFL Draft

Pick 36 - Rhett Biglands - Average
Pick 51 - Ricky O'Loughlin - BUST
Pick 65 - Justin Cicolella - BUST
Pick 67 - Robert Shirley - Average
Pick 79 - Balraj Singh - BUST
Pick 83 - Matthew Shir - BUST

2000

Pick 7 - Laurence Angwin - BUST
Pick 38 - Michael Handby - BUST
Pick 48 - Matthew Smith - BUST
Pick 53 - Hayden Skipworth - BUST
Pick 67 - Graham Johncock - BOOM

2001

Pick 12 - Brent Reilly - Average
Pick 44 - Ben Finnin - BUST
Pick 59 - Jacob Schuback - BUST

2002

Pick 32 - Luke Jericho - BUST
Pick 56 - Robert Shirley - Average (second drafting)
Pick 68 - James Begley - Average (unfair to dismiss as a bust imo)

2003

Pick 14 - Fergus Watts - BUST
Pick 31 - Joshua Krueger - BUST
Pick 58 - Ben Hudson - Tempted to call it a boom....Average

-------

CRAIG ERA

2004

Pick 8 - John Meesen - BUST
Pick 24 - Nathan van Berlo - BOOM
Pick 28 - Chad Gibson - BUST
Pick 40 - Ivan Maric - Average at this stage
Pick 56 - Chris Knights - BOOM

2005

Pick 16 - Richard Douglas - Average, though there's still time
Pick 17 - Darren Pfeiffer - BUST
Pick 32 - Bernie Vince - BOOM
Pick 48 - Alan Obst - BUST

2006

Pick 14 - James Sellar - Average
Pick 32 - Kurt Tippett - BOOM
Pick 48 - David Mackay - BOOM
Pick 64 - Nick Gill - Still listed, BUST
Pick 78 - Bryce Campbell - BUST

2007

Pick 10 - Patrick Dangerfield - BOOM
Pick 27 - Andy Otten - Leaning towards BOOM

Beyond that we can't say for sure, but let's say Walker comes through. That's another BOOM. Cook is likely.

Rookie Draft? Two booms under Ayers - Rutten, Bock. Hentschel looked a boom, awful luck for him. Doughty average.

Under Craig - Porplyzia, boom. Petrenko and Martin likely. Ricky Henderson looks promising...we can look back on this down the track, but we'll finish up at least on par I'd suggest. At least.

On exposed form there is no real contest. One boom pick under Ayers, quite a few under Craig. Too early to say with the rookie drafts. Whoever we have to thank for the improvement, whatever processes, I'm just happy it has turned around.

 

[cmndstab]

look if you don't understand, you don't have to advertise it so loudly. it'll become obvious enough.

I'll help you.

Argument no.1
- Fantasia's drafting only became good due to Craig's development
- response: what about all the first round consensus talent that craig has had to work with, that didn't come off. they were all agreed first round talent, so its not like they didn't have ability. there was plenty of talent (acquired or recently) , that still didn't go anywhere under craig, so he's hardly the difference in all this when we have just as much ****'ed up under his reign as we have had under everyone else.

and lets not forget they were ALL consensus 1st round picks, its not like we picked dodgy talent.

as for watts, he was picked 6 months before Craig became coach, if you want to make the development angle, fine. but lets not exclude him.

- Argument no.2
- look at all these great young players we now have. Rendell is a god
- response: most of them are pre-rendell.

simples.

The argument is not one of development. The argument is of the system that was in place when the player was drafted, that's why the Fergus Watts example you gave is utterly wrong and serves to discredit your point rather than give it legs.

You're telling me I'm ignoring three years of a five year reign, which three years are these?

I'm not talking about what we do with the first round. There have been first round flops under both Craig and Ayers. It's what came after the first round that has been undeniably better under the Craig regime. The only thing that even keeps it remotely close is the 2001 rookie draft. Other than that little patch of beauty our drafting pre-Craig and post-Craig is absolutely chalk and cheese.

 

[amer]

The argument is not one of development. The argument is of the system that was in place when the player was drafted, that's why the Fergus Watts example you gave is utterly wrong and serves to discredit your point rather than give it legs.

You're telling me I'm ignoring three years of a five year reign, which three years are these?

I'm not talking about what we do with the first round. There have been first round flops under both Craig and Ayers. It's what came after the first round that has been undeniably better under the Craig regime. The only thing that even keeps it remotely close is the 2001 rookie draft. Other than that little patch of beauty our drafting pre-Craig and post-Craig is absolutely chalk and cheese.

No doubt mate! And if Petrenko and Martin join Porplyzia as rookie successes (with Henderson looking good also), the scales could well tip in our favour there too.

 

[Crow-mo]

In bold is why you have few to no friends on this occasion, and ironically it is you who fails to understand and chops and changes the criteria for his argument in a futile attempt to avoid the embarrassment of being completely owned by the rest of the debate team here.

whose argument?

good grief. owned?

you don't even know what you're arguing about.

I've not said Neil Craig himself is the difference, that's you talking pixies and fairies and other such fantasy. I've also not taken issue with Fantasia vs Rendell. Don't put words in my mouth, it's unwanted and sly.

why am I talking pixies and fairies with what YOU said, when it was YOU who is critiquing my position?

FFS. I am not putting words in your mouth, in fact I am not doing anything with your position. you don't have one.

don't quote me, throw in your 2 pennies and then pretend I am misrepresenting your position. you're arguing with me, not vice versa.

read the thread, and STFU.

 

[Crow-mo]

The argument is not one of development. The argument is of the system that was in place when the player was drafted, that's why the Fergus Watts example you gave is utterly wrong and serves to discredit your point rather than give it legs.

OK, tell me how the system changed in the 6 months Watts spent under ayres, versus the 18 months he spent under Craig.

please.

watts was a 2003 pick, Craig became coach in mid 2004. that's 6 months only under the old regime.

if something changed in that time. what?

Meesen was a 2004 pick what changed?
Douglas & Pfeiffer were 2005 picks what changed?
Sellar was a 2006 Pick what changed?

the point clearly expressed, was that fantasia's drafting got better when craig arrived - that is plainly a question of development. call if drafting if you want.

take your pick. but craig has been there for the busts and the booms, so its clearly not just down to him.

if you want engage with the point, fair enough. but stop circling around it and thinking you don't have to engage in order to argue it.

You're telling me I'm ignoring three years of a five year reign, which three years are these?

the ones that aren't the last 2 years.

I'm not talking about what we do with the first round. There have been first round flops under both Craig and Ayers.

funnily enough I am though. which becomes relevant, when you want to argue what *I* am saying.

if you want to dispute what I am saying, you need to focus on what it is that I am saying. not what you think you have an answer too.

and seeing as I am disputing someone else's contention, then you need to argue that it is craig who is responsible for the so called improvement in drafting - and don't think for a second you can stick your head in the sand and ignore the 1st round picks.

It's what came after the first round that has been undeniably better under the Craig regime. The only thing that even keeps it remotely close is the 2001 rookie draft. Other than that little patch of beauty our drafting pre-Craig and post-Craig is absolutely chalk and cheese.

why is it relevant to pick and choose which picks?

all craig has to do with drafting is development. when you claim credit for developing some, and ignoring the lack of development in others then that is not a serious argument.

- hey our systems have gotten better, look what we did with the no.56 pick
- what about the no.8 pick
- you don't understand, no.56!!!

which is how inane this line of logic is. Craig has made the drafting of Chris Knights better, but has had no impact on the drafting of Meesen. WTF?

and anyone who thinks Watts isn't relevant is missing a very simple point.

 

[Crow-mo]

No doubt mate! And if Petrenko and Martin join Porplyzia as rookie successes (with Henderson looking good also), the scales could well tip in our favour there too.

Bock, Mattner & Rutten say hi.

 

[Crow-mo]

In fact, such a nice guy am I that I'll lay it out for you.

AYERS ERA

Not sure if he was actually here for the '99 draft, but anyway.

1999 AFL Draft

Pick 36 - Rhett Biglands - Average
Pick 51 - Ricky O'Loughlin - BUST
Pick 65 - Justin Cicolella - BUST
Pick 67 - Robert Shirley - Average
Pick 79 - Balraj Singh - BUST
Pick 83 - Matthew Shir - BUST

2000

Pick 7 - Laurence Angwin - BUST
Pick 38 - Michael Handby - BUST
Pick 48 - Matthew Smith - BUST
Pick 53 - Hayden Skipworth - BUST
Pick 67 - Graham Johncock - BOOM

2001

Pick 12 - Brent Reilly - Average
Pick 44 - Ben Finnin - BUST
Pick 59 - Jacob Schuback - BUST

2002

Pick 32 - Luke Jericho - BUST
Pick 56 - Robert Shirley - Average (second drafting)
Pick 68 - James Begley - Average (unfair to dismiss as a bust imo)

2003

Pick 14 - Fergus Watts - BUST
Pick 31 - Joshua Krueger - BUST
Pick 58 - Ben Hudson - Tempted to call it a boom....Average

-------

CRAIG ERA

2004

Pick 8 - John Meesen - BUST
Pick 24 - Nathan van Berlo - BOOM
Pick 28 - Chad Gibson - BUST
Pick 40 - Ivan Maric - Average at this stage
Pick 56 - Chris Knights - BOOM

2005

Pick 16 - Richard Douglas - Average, though there's still time
Pick 17 - Darren Pfeiffer - BUST
Pick 32 - Bernie Vince - BOOM
Pick 48 - Alan Obst - BUST

2006

Pick 14 - James Sellar - Average
Pick 32 - Kurt Tippett - BOOM
Pick 48 - David Mackay - BOOM
Pick 64 - Nick Gill - Still listed, BUST
Pick 78 - Bryce Campbell - BUST

2007

Pick 10 - Patrick Dangerfield - BOOM
Pick 27 - Andy Otten - Leaning towards BOOM

Beyond that we can't say for sure, but let's say Walker comes through. That's another BOOM. Cook is likely.

Rookie Draft? Two booms under Ayers - Rutten, Bock. Hentschel looked a boom, awful luck for him. Doughty average.

Under Craig - Porplyzia, boom. Petrenko and Martin likely. Ricky Henderson looks promising...we can look back on this down the track, but we'll finish up at least on par I'd suggest. At least.

On exposed form there is no real contest. One boom pick under Ayers, quite a few under Craig. Too early to say with the rookie drafts. Whoever we have to thank for the improvement, whatever processes, I'm just happy it has turned around.

few things:
1. this has nothing to do with the point I am questioning - how does this show that Craig has impacted drafting?
2. you make no weighting for draft number
3. you make no mention of draft quality
4. all that you show is that craig has been relatively constant - so how is he the variable in james fantasia's drafting record?

but lets consider a few things, you obviously aren't aware of.

1999 - we traded picks for Clarke & Welsh. huge wins
2000 - shitty draft. fantasia wanted Kornes. but still picked Johncock
2001 - Reilly not terrible, but ultimately disappointing. though Matter, Bock & Rutten go ok.
2002 - worst draft in a decade.
2003 - arguably worse than 2002. this matters, even if you think it doesn't.
2004 - the craig era on.

the only vague argument put forward that Craig is making Fantasia's draft record look good, is the recent success with some of the latter picks - which would be fine, if it didn't ignore the 1st round picks.

if Craig's intervention has had a big impact, why has it not impacted the high cost, high talent first round picks under his charge too?

why?

because the theory is unstable and incorrect. that's why.

 

[cmndstab]

Rather than go through the whole tedium of quoting your post and addressing it piece by piece only to have the same thing done to my post, I'll just say it directly. Feel free to disagree with me if you like but do me a favour and leave the high school debate team junk about dissecting every sentence behind. It gets tiring very quickly.

I believe (though I'm not 100% certain) that under Craig, the recruiting staff has been given A) better resources, B) clearer direction and C) more power in the decision-making process of who to draft than in Ayers reign. While the first round draft picks haven't improved dramatically (Dangerfield aside), the remainder of the picks have, and I'm attributing this to Craig enabling his recruiting staff to better do their job.

Wats being in the system under Craigy for longer than he was under Ayers has absolutely zero bearing on anything I'm talking about whatsoever. You keep bringing this point up again and again but I'm not even trying to talk about it. I'm not talking about how Craig has developed youth as opposed to how Ayers did. I'm talking about what happens on draft day and only what happens on draft day.

What I'm trying to say is that, if Craig had been in charge, I think there is a very good chance that Watts would not have been our first round selection at the end of the 03 season. I think that even though the recruiting manager didn't change when Craig took over, plenty of other things did that have overall improved us for the better. If you compare the quality of the draftees in the last five years to the five years before that I think that will be made extremely clear. We picked up an average of one decent player a year in the ND from 99-03. One player per year! At that rate players would retire before we'd managed to field a full squad of decent players. It's a bit early to make calls on the 07 and 08 class yet but we're averaging over 2 players a year in the new regime, even if Douglas doesn't make it.


If your position is that the drafting didn't improve but rather player management and development did making Fantasia and Rendell look better than they did/would have under the old regime, fine. I can see the merit in that argument. But I believe that it's a bit of both.

 

[Crow-mo]

OK, seems like we have a few people who want argue with me - but are struggling to keep focus on what it is they disagree with.

which I am sure has nothing to do with the fact its my saturday morning, and their saturday night.

So lets get this back on track.

My argument remains that Fantasia has been unfairly maligned.

1. Can anyone make a coherent argument that Craig has made him look good, without ignoring large tracts of those pesky inconvenient facts?

2. if Craig has made Fantasia look good, is he also making Rendell look good?

 

[Crow-mo]

You keep bringing this point up again and again but I'm not even trying to talk about it.

but as you are disagreeing with me, I don't care what else you're trying talk about.

its not relevant, unless you're making an independent argument of what I am saying - at which point, that has nothing to do with me.

if you want disagree with me, you have to focus on what I am saying. and you are not obligated to disagree with me.

if you want to take a position independent of that, fine.