Idea - Two Recruiters.

[gbatman]

Ok we have drafted well when it comes to small players over recent times but we have drafted poorly when drafting tall players. When you rebuild a side you should start with talls and develop around them. I fear we haven't done this.

Anyway I was thinking, why not have two recruiters. One for smalls and one for talls.
There is a lot to look for and a lot to consider when recruiting and if we had one bloke focusing on talls and the other on smalls we might to better.

Hughes has drafted well in terms of small players, we have plenty of talented small kids but where are the talls?

I think we could benefit from having a second recruiter looking specifically at players over 192cm.

Thoughts?

 

[blue gunslinger]

I hear now Collingwood has recruiters/talent scouts full timeish in every state. My hand is up for the WA gig!

 

[gbatman]

Collingwood have recruited well considering they haven't really hit rock bottom to get good players. Hmmmm...

Recruiters are the most important people at the club. They have a bigger say over the results and success than the coaches or anyone.

We need scouts everywhere. We need tall and small specilist recruiters.

guns, if you can recruit players like you can avatar's you have my word!

 

[HBF]

You can go the Carlton way, which is to draft the best possible player when its your turn according to your rankings, or you can draft the Hawthorn way, and draft the best possible player according to your needs.

Both ways have their merits, however, I believe in the long run just getting as many talented kids on your list is the way to go. Both Geelong & West Coast have shown in recent years that you don't need a gun forward line to win flags - but their success was built on a strong midfield.

 

[gbatman]

their forward lines were underrated. Footy has changed since they won too.

 

[HBF]

their forward lines were underrated. Footy has changed since they won too.

Underrated maybe, however, neither of them had a gun up there, and basically got there on the back of quality midfields.

Taking talls is always a bit of a gamble, particularly late in the draft, so you are better off trying to get them as early as possible. Speaking of talls, WH has taken in the past 5 years - Hartlett, Kennedy, Bower, Hampson, Austin, Jamison and Kreuzer.

 

[thylacine60]

Would one of the recruiters need to be appreciably taller than the other?

 

[blue gunslinger]

Better get Harry Madden to be safe I guess

 

[Monkey King]

Both Geelong & West Coast have shown in recent years that you don't need a gun forward line to win flags - but their success was built on a strong midfield.

And both had a dominant key defender, which has long been my concern.

 

[blues4theflag]

Would one of the recruiters need to be appreciably taller than the other?

Gold, but seriously we havnt recruited for the long term, KP playes should have been our goal 4 years ago, when we picked Kennedy, so that they could be playing good footy now. We didnt have a decent ruckmen then and we still dont have one playing now, although Kruzer is playing great he is never going to win the hitouts against the top ruckmen

 

[Bluebear]

Underrated maybe, however, neither of them had a gun up there, and basically got there on the back of quality midfields.

Taking talls is always a bit of a gamble, particularly late in the draft, so you are better off trying to get them as early as possible. Speaking of talls, WH has taken in the past 5 years - Hartlett, Kennedy, Bower, Hampson, Austin, Jamison and Kreuzer.

You could add Jacobs to that list as well.

What a pack of duds.

Next Idea?

 

[Salaryman]

Would one of the recruiters need to be appreciably taller than the other?

YI

 

[Salaryman]

I"m all for two recruiters but I wouldn't structure it talls and smalls.

A good idea I heard recently is to have two independent teams running throughout the year....come up with lists individually then 'validate' them before the draft. For all you scientists out there, a 'reliability check' of the best available list if you like

 

[Salaryman]

And both had a dominant key defender, which has long been my concern.

How old is Austin again??

Aside from Kreuzer we haven't had the opportunity to go tall with the #1 picks....as HBF said, the selection of talls has been addressed with later picks.

 

[Monkey King]

How old is Austin again??

Aside from Kreuzer we haven't had the opportunity to go tall with the #1 picks....as HBF said, the selection of talls has been addressed with later picks.

We did have the opportunity; we just decided other players were more worthy. However, this was not a criticism of Carlton's draft selections, merely commenting that when people refer to Geelong and WCE as having won flags on the basis of a strong midfield, it should be also noted their defense was built around a dominant key defender. A valid point do you not agree?

Austin is still young and while I certainly hope that he, and others, can raffle this role, it is not a present reality for this team.

 

[Salaryman]

You are correct, we did, if you would prefer Gumby or Hansen over Gibbs that's fine.

Your point is valid

 

[Monkey King]

You are correct, we did, if you would prefer Gumby or Hansen over Gibbs that's fine.

Your point is valid

TBH, at the time I wouldn't have been upset had we selected Hansen, but what do I know; I thought Damien Lock was going to make the grade

 

[carlton_for_life]

I"m all for two recruiters but I wouldn't structure it talls and smalls.

A good idea I heard recently is to have two independent teams running throughout the year....come up with lists individually then 'validate' them before the draft. For all you scientists out there, a 'reliability check' of the best available list if you like

Just as long as you don't have anything to do with it.

 

[Salaryman]

Coming from the bloke who rated Schoenmakers the best pick in the draft Gold