Analysis Derek Hine

Remove this Banner Ad

Hine in words and action was different this year. strange dissensions on the last day getting us nothing or very little
liked Hine when he is wheeling and dealing, not the one who seems to have gone through the motions
 
I've been reading this forum ....well parts of it.... for around a decade now. The thing that surprises me most has been the teflon exterior of Derek Hine. Nothing seems to stick.

I understand that he got his job in recruitment after some really horrendous recruiting decisions by the club in the early days of the AFL. When drafting started, none of the clubs were much good at it. In the 1990s, we were terrible. Other clubs improved their methods. We seemed to remain terrible.

Derek came and got the house in order. He did ok, especially with some rookie draft picks who fitted the Malthouse style well - hard at the ball and able to thump the ball down the line.

But in recent years, he seems to employed this "look at what I've found under a rock" approach.... and the other one is "yeh he was injured for the past year but he'll be a star when he recovers"

I havent got the links but I remember seeing him talk about these drafting strategies in the past.
Personally, I dont think they've worked. I also question whether he has made the transition of looking for players who have football skills, rather than picking hard nuts who can thump the ball down the line.

I recognise that he didnt have an opportunity for a couple of years as we traded high picks for a ruckman, and we've done that again with the Treloar deal and others. However, I still think that he's been targetting miracle picks rather than just getting the best footballer.

I'm not necessarily saying that he should be replaced, but I dont think he's doing such a good job, considering the money we throw at him and the autonomy that he gets at the club. I think Geoff Walsh and the coach needs to verbal him about the type of player that we need next year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

As
Markfs said:
I've been reading this forum ....well parts of it.... for around a decade now. The thing that surprises me most has been the teflon exterior of Derek Hine. Nothing seems to stick.

I understand that he got his job in recruitment after some really horrendous recruiting decisions by the club in the early days of the AFL. When drafting started, none of the clubs were much good at it. In the 1990s, we were terrible. Other clubs improved their methods. We seemed to remain terrible.

Derek came and got the house in order. He did ok, especially with some rookie draft picks who fitted the Malthouse style well - hard at the ball and able to thump the ball down the line.

But in recent years, he seems to employed this "look at what I've found under a rock" approach.... and the other one is "yeh he was injured for the past year but he'll be a star when he recovers"

I havent got the links but I remember seeing him talk about these drafting strategies in the past.
Personally, I dont think they've worked. I also question whether he has made the transition of looking for players who have football skills, rather than picking hard nuts who can thump the ball down the line.

I recognise that he didnt have an opportunity for a couple of years as we traded high picks for a ruckman, and we've done that again with the Treloar deal and others. However, I still think that he's been targetting miracle picks rather than just getting the best footballer.

I'm not necessarily saying that he should be replaced, but I dont think he's doing such a good job, considering the money we throw at him and the autonomy that he gets at the club. I think Geoff Walsh and the coach needs to verbal him about the type of player that we need next year.
Click to expand...
as mentioned its time to change this selfish attitude of these punks
Look at me look at me generation paid TOP dollar and wanting more.
Collingwood players MUST have a passion for the club !please select ALL future players with the first criteria love of the pies
Lynch petracca,Cameron wright are just the tip of the iceberg
Bet you they would give a stuff
 
Darkyprotector said:
As

as mentioned its time to change this selfish attitude of these punks
Look at me look at me generation paid TOP dollar and wanting more.
Collingwood players MUST have a passion for the club !please select ALL future players with the first criteria love of the pies
Lynch petracca,Cameron wright are just the tip of the iceberg
Bet you they would give a stuff
Click to expand...

Seedsman and Karnesis would have been first picked under this criteria. Not exactly leave every stone unturned types.
 
He has been well below par in recent times.

I struggle to think of many highly skilled players he has drafted us since Pendlebury in 2005 or Sidebottom in 2008.

He always seems to like his "contested" types or these very vanilla one paced types.

The blowtorch should start to apply to him because as it stands I don't think he is capable of identifying players of pure class and skill.
 
gene clark said:
Funny that you never see "In Hine We Trust" posted anywhere anymore.
Click to expand...

In Hine We Trust

Personally, I miss the Dekkabus.

uIiS4ws.jpg

(Credit to whoever made that a year and a half ago. It'll be forever in my hard drive.)
 
Over the last five years i think he's still doing okay. We can debate the de goey vs wright pick but de gooey no doubt said all the right things when interviewed... and will still be a decent player

Freeman and scharenberg, and even broomheads and ramsays injuries... were freak bad luck, not Hines fault.

Grundy is a star. Kennedy was unlucky to play when the sub rule was in, and was competing with Blair- Buck's favourite son.

Sier is looking to be a bust but Crocker and Phillips are decent given their draft positions... likewise Wills, maynard and Smith. Mclarty will be a find at pick 30. Daicos and Brown were must haves that we didn't pay much for and Schade like Smith, Dwyer, Williams, Langdon before him... is a cheap pick up that serviceably performs a role.

Mayne, Wells and Aish are queries but i wonder who wanted those players... which ones Hine was responsible for and not Bucks or Gubby.

However Greenwood, Howe, Varcoe, Crisp, White and Adams are trades that have performed well to varying degrees.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Markfs said:
I've been reading this forum ....well parts of it.... for around a decade now. The thing that surprises me most has been the teflon exterior of Derek Hine. Nothing seems to stick.

I understand that he got his job in recruitment after some really horrendous recruiting decisions by the club in the early days of the AFL. When drafting started, none of the clubs were much good at it. In the 1990s, we were terrible. Other clubs improved their methods. We seemed to remain terrible.

Derek came and got the house in order. He did ok, especially with some rookie draft picks who fitted the Malthouse style well - hard at the ball and able to thump the ball down the line.

But in recent years, he seems to employed this "look at what I've found under a rock" approach.... and the other one is "yeh he was injured for the past year but he'll be a star when he recovers"

I havent got the links but I remember seeing him talk about these drafting strategies in the past.
Personally, I dont think they've worked. I also question whether he has made the transition of looking for players who have football skills, rather than picking hard nuts who can thump the ball down the line.

I recognise that he didnt have an opportunity for a couple of years as we traded high picks for a ruckman, and we've done that again with the Treloar deal and others. However, I still think that he's been targetting miracle picks rather than just getting the best footballer.

I'm not necessarily saying that he should be replaced, but I dont think he's doing such a good job, considering the money we throw at him and the autonomy that he gets at the club. I think Geoff Walsh and the coach needs to verbal him about the type of player that we need next year.
Click to expand...

Its worth a discussion, however it is a notoriously hard thing to measure, but essentially that is what needs to be done to prove your argument. I think if you lined him up against all the other recruiters over a number of years he would be right up there.

Lining them up is tricky as each recruiter has a completely different playing field each year. Some are blessed with high picks and some have precious little to work with. I have seen some people lately pointing at Melbourne as a wonderful example of recruiting but really they have been horrible given all the high picks and chances they have had to build a team.

His "fails" relative to others are quite reasonable, especially on the higher picks - although you will hear everyone scream Freeman for the next 10 years. I think the first job of a recruiter is to nail the high picks as that is who the team will eventually be built around in years down the track (think Sidebottom, Pendles, Reid).

After that we need to look at mid rounders. This is an area where I think he struggled a little and reached a bit far at times, but if he picks a Beams every now & then, then it may be worth it. I think an error made lately in this area is picking what he sees as most potential rather than picking a player on a needs basis - but that may be me being conservative.

His late rounders & rookies have been exceptional at times and I can't fault him there.

The other area he has been very good at is trading into and out of drafts. He judges the overall talent pool well so he has been able to make the most of this at times. I have it on fairly good authority that he was very set on Bontempelli early (as he was with Pendles) and we traded into that draft as best we could securing #6, he was not actually rated that highly by many and a good chance to slide. Sadly the Dogs were smart enough to snap him up in what was a surprise at the time. So what could have been a fantastic draft ended up feeling like a fail, but it illustrates that he knows his stuff.

I do agree the style of player - i.e lack of foot skills - is a big concern. It is where the game has headed and we do not have enough good users - a lot of our mid aged/older players fit in this category. However, some of this is symptomatic of too many late picks. The skill level drops away quickly the later the pick so if you do not accumulate higher picks your skill level will suffer. However, I think it did not receive a priority in the checklist of whether we pick a guy or not.

For instance Collingwood traditionally would prefer a tough poor skilled guy to a skilled soft guy. This is the wrong thinking as skills are hard to come by and toughness can be as simple as an attitude adjustment. I think WHE is a case in point, he is a touch soft in the contest for a player his age, however his skills are invaluable to us and it shows a lot when he is using the ball at much higher quality than his teammates - that is the modern game.
 
whiskeytown said:
Over the last five years i think he's still doing okay. We can debate the de goey vs wright pick but de gooey no doubt said all the right things when interviewed... and will still be a decent player

Freeman and scharenberg, and even broomheads and ramsays injuries... were freak bad luck, not Hines fault.

Sier is looking to be a bust but Crocker and Phillips are decent given their draft positions... likewise Wills, maynard and Smith. Mclarty will be a find at pick 30. Daicos and Brown were must haves that we didn't pay much for and Schade like Smith, Dwyer, Williams, Langdon before him... is a cheap pick up that serviceably performs a role.

Mayne, Wells and Aish are queries but i wonder who wanted those players... which ones Hine was responsible for and not Bucks or Gubby.
Click to expand...

a fair assessment.... but of all the players mentioned only one, Schade is capable of playing down the spine...that is what is wrong..
 
Markfs said:
I've been reading this forum ....well parts of it.... for around a decade now. The thing that surprises me most has been the teflon exterior of Derek Hine. Nothing seems to stick.

I understand that he got his job in recruitment after some really horrendous recruiting decisions by the club in the early days of the AFL. When drafting started, none of the clubs were much good at it. In the 1990s, we were terrible. Other clubs improved their methods. We seemed to remain terrible.

Derek came and got the house in order. He did ok, especially with some rookie draft picks who fitted the Malthouse style well - hard at the ball and able to thump the ball down the line.

But in recent years, he seems to employed this "look at what I've found under a rock" approach.... and the other one is "yeh he was injured for the past year but he'll be a star when he recovers"

I havent got the links but I remember seeing him talk about these drafting strategies in the past.
Personally, I dont think they've worked. I also question whether he has made the transition of looking for players who have football skills, rather than picking hard nuts who can thump the ball down the line.

I recognise that he didnt have an opportunity for a couple of years as we traded high picks for a ruckman, and we've done that again with the Treloar deal and others. However, I still think that he's been targetting miracle picks rather than just getting the best footballer.

I'm not necessarily saying that he should be replaced, but I dont think he's doing such a good job, considering the money we throw at him and the autonomy that he gets at the club. I think Geoff Walsh and the coach needs to verbal him about the type of player that we need next year.
Click to expand...

You make some good points but I am still not sure how much influence the coach has in the final picks.

I can understand relying on Hine for young untried recruits and understand if you don't have a pick in the first round, you would really have to do your homework and rely on Hine? My biggest bugbear has been our recruiting of established players from other clubs. Surely the coach has had a say and would know of that players strengths and weaknesses. So maybe not all Hine's fault?
In these cases, who would have the final say?

Would love to know the inner workings of list management and recruitment.
 
Maggie5 said:
You make some good points but I am still not sure how much influence the coach has in the final picks.

I can understand relying on Hine for young untried recruits and understand if you don't have a pick in the first round, you would really have to do your homework and rely on Hine? My biggest bugbear has been our recruiting of established players from other clubs. Surely the coach has had a say and would know of that players strengths and weaknesses. So maybe not all Hine's fault?
In these cases, who would have the final say?

Would love to know the inner workings of list management and recruitment.
Click to expand...
Have heard Hine say in previous interviews that they have monthly list management meetings involving himself, Buckley and others so clearly the coach should be on the same page as the recruiters
 
Maggie5 said:
You make some good points but I am still not sure how much influence the coach has in the final picks.

I can understand relying on Hine for young untried recruits and understand if you don't have a pick in the first round, you would really have to do your homework and rely on Hine? My biggest bugbear has been our recruiting of established players from other clubs. Surely the coach has had a say and would know of that players strengths and weaknesses. So maybe not all Hine's fault?
In these cases, who would have the final say?

Would love to know the inner workings of list management and recruitment.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying that it is ALL hine's fault. It just that he seems to escape any criticism.....

As far as the established players are concerned, buckley would have a large say in it.... and the media people who point to jordan russell and quentin lynch never talk about them basically costing us nothing except for the games that could have gone into younger players.... and the coach made the point that he wanted some experience in the mix...you can only play so many young players..

as for howe and varcoe, they did cost us draft picks and they've gone pretty good as far as i can tell.

wells and mayne have cost salary cap money but no draft picks. will we have salary cap problems in the future because we have contracts with these guys? dunno....
 
4#Didak#4 said:
Its worth a discussion, however it is a notoriously hard thing to measure, but essentially that is what needs to be done to prove your argument. I think if you lined him up against all the other recruiters over a number of years he would be right up there.

Lining them up is tricky as each recruiter has a completely different playing field each year. Some are blessed with high picks and some have precious little to work with. I have seen some people lately pointing at Melbourne as a wonderful example of recruiting but really they have been horrible given all the high picks and chances they have had to build a team.

His "fails" relative to others are quite reasonable, especially on the higher picks - although you will hear everyone scream Freeman for the next 10 years. I think the first job of a recruiter is to nail the high picks as that is who the team will eventually be built around in years down the track (think Sidebottom, Pendles, Reid).

After that we need to look at mid rounders. This is an area where I think he struggled a little and reached a bit far at times, but if he picks a Beams every now & then, then it may be worth it. I think an error made lately in this area is picking what he sees as most potential rather than picking a player on a needs basis - but that may be me being conservative.

His late rounders & rookies have been exceptional at times and I can't fault him there.

The other area he has been very good at is trading into and out of drafts. He judges the overall talent pool well so he has been able to make the most of this at times. I have it on fairly good authority that he was very set on Bontempelli early (as he was with Pendles) and we traded into that draft as best we could securing #6, he was not actually rated that highly by many and a good chance to slide. Sadly the Dogs were smart enough to snap him up in what was a surprise at the time. So what could have been a fantastic draft ended up feeling like a fail, but it illustrates that he knows his stuff.

I do agree the style of player - i.e lack of foot skills - is a big concern. It is where the game has headed and we do not have enough good users - a lot of our mid aged/older players fit in this category. However, some of this is symptomatic of too many late picks. The skill level drops away quickly the later the pick so if you do not accumulate higher picks your skill level will suffer. However, I think it did not receive a priority in the checklist of whether we pick a guy or not.

For instance Collingwood traditionally would prefer a tough poor skilled guy to a skilled soft guy. This is the wrong thinking as skills are hard to come by and toughness can be as simple as an attitude adjustment. I think WHE is a case in point, he is a touch soft in the contest for a player his age, however his skills are invaluable to us and it shows a lot when he is using the ball at much higher quality than his teammates - that is the modern game.
Click to expand...

i was nodding a lot at your comments. as i said, i wouldnt sack him but he needs tweaking.... I think he's been less impressive in recent years with the focus on skills, when compared to the early years when he could get the players malthouse was looking for
 
Darkyprotector said:
As

as mentioned its time to change this selfish attitude of these punks
Look at me look at me generation paid TOP dollar and wanting more.
Collingwood players MUST have a passion for the club !please select ALL future players with the first criteria love of the pies
Lynch petracca,Cameron wright are just the tip of the iceberg
Bet you they would give a stuff
Click to expand...
You really should check out the "I need to vent" thread.
 
Markfs said:
I've been reading this forum ....well parts of it.... for around a decade now. The thing that surprises me most has been the teflon exterior of Derek Hine. Nothing seems to stick.

I understand that he got his job in recruitment after some really horrendous recruiting decisions by the club in the early days of the AFL. When drafting started, none of the clubs were much good at it. In the 1990s, we were terrible. Other clubs improved their methods. We seemed to remain terrible.

Derek came and got the house in order. He did ok, especially with some rookie draft picks who fitted the Malthouse style well - hard at the ball and able to thump the ball down the line.

But in recent years, he seems to employed this "look at what I've found under a rock" approach.... and the other one is "yeh he was injured for the past year but he'll be a star when he recovers"

I havent got the links but I remember seeing him talk about these drafting strategies in the past.
Personally, I dont think they've worked. I also question whether he has made the transition of looking for players who have football skills, rather than picking hard nuts who can thump the ball down the line.

I recognise that he didnt have an opportunity for a couple of years as we traded high picks for a ruckman, and we've done that again with the Treloar deal and others. However, I still think that he's been targetting miracle picks rather than just getting the best footballer.

I'm not necessarily saying that he should be replaced, but I dont think he's doing such a good job, considering the money we throw at him and the autonomy that he gets at the club. I think Geoff Walsh and the coach needs to verbal him about the type of player that we need next year.
Click to expand...
Derrick Hine worked wonderfully with MM and
Horrendous with Bucks.
It's time that Dekka found a new role in the club.
My mail.(can't release my source) is that he was put under pressure to perform for the club last year.(and for the first time)
 
Markfs said:
i was nodding a lot at your comments. as i said, i wouldnt sack him but he needs tweaking.... I think he's been less impressive in recent years with the focus on skills, when compared to the early years when he could get the players malthouse was looking for
Click to expand...

Kudos to you Markfs.......you are a master fisherman...........you just keep reeling them in! :thumbsu:

Funny-Fishing-Pictures-13.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top