List Discussion - What should we have done?

[Slattery_20]

That's the whole point. In another time they both probably get more of a look in. The fact that we were in a position where we'd just drafted a heap of KPP's over the recent drafts was no doubt a key reason as to why they both were moved on so quickly.

Hardly. Over the last 2-3 years we've played a small handful of games with Hille/Bellchambers forward lines & Hocking/Myers as key defenders etc etc. Still couldn't even push past Neagle.

The fact that they went with ridiculous line-ups like that, rather than giving those guys game-time, in fact showed you just where they were (not) rated.

 

[Slattery_20]

If 2 out of 10 ain't that bad maybe you're answering your own questions about the accountability of recruiters TheDon35.

Exactly.
Says it all.

 

[TheDon35]

If 2 out of 10 ain't that bad maybe you're answering your own questions about the accountability of recruiters TheDon35.

I'll take those 2 out of ten any day of the week.

Again, you're just looking at it purely in numbers as if to say, we're going to end up with a list of 15. There is a far greater and more complex picture in terms of the broader list management and alot of it will come down to luck, opportunity, similar types on the list etc.

 

[TheDon35]

Exactly.
Says it all.

It's really that simple for you is it? 2 remain from 10 drafted (which included 5 rookies and 1 x pre-season & 2 ND picks after 55) and it's a poor draft?

Explain to me based on this being a poor draft who they should have taken with hindsight and why at the time they should have taken them. I'll put my hand up and say that we should have taken a rasberry over Skipworth in the preseason draft but other than that, i can't see anything that was wrong.

As said, you're arguement is based on looking at things in isolation rather than judging the bigger recruiting picture over time.

 

[Slattery_20]

Good dozen (by my count) that went after pick 55 that'd be in our 22 - Rockliff, Savage, McKenzie, Garlett, Nahas, Suckling, de Boer, Breust, Sam Jacobs, Blair, Simpkin, Broughton, Picken, Clancy Pearce...

2 stars & a couple of decent types would make it a clear-cut win. 2 stars & one other player and I'd consider it.
But as I see it, I'd easily take our 2009 effort (IMHO one potential star + 4 solid players) over our 2008 one.

And yes, before you ask, plenty of us wanted a small forward at that point... Nahas Breust Garlett Pearce... probably Blair... gah...

 

[TheDon35]

Hardly. Over the last 2-3 years we've played a small handful of games with Hille/Bellchambers forward lines & Hocking/Myers as key defenders etc etc. Still couldn't even push past Neagle.

The fact that they went with ridiculous line-ups like that, rather than giving those guys game-time, in fact showed you just where they were (not) rated.

Ok, and what's Steinbergs excuse. This of course is someone that by your estimations we shouldn't be judging as it's too early (Even though he's a year older and had the same time in the system as Still). Hurley & Ryder missed a heap of footy between them. Hille and Gumby would have been lucky to play 10 games between them. Surely based on your previous comment Steinberg gets a game if he's any good... You can't have it both ways.

 

[TheDon35]

Good dozen (by my count) that went after 55 that'd be in our 22 - Rockliff, Savage, McKenzie, Garlett, Nahas, Suckling, de Boer, Breust, Sam Jacobs, Blair, Simpkin, Broughton, Picken, Clancy Pearce...

2 stars & a couple of decent types would make it a clear-cut win. 2 stars & one other player and I'd consider it.
But as I see it, I'd easily take our 2009 effort (IMHO one potential star + 4 solid players) over our 2008 one.

Honest question,

Would you prefer our list without Hurley and Zaharakis but with Blair, Simpkin, Suckling, Rockliff?

 

[Slattery_20]

Ok, and what's Steinbergs excuse. This of course is someone that by your estimations we shouldn't be judging as it's too early (Even though he's a year older and had the same time in the system as Still). Hurley & Ryder missed a heap of footy between them. Hille and Gumby would have been lucky to play 10 games between them. Surely based on your previous comment Steinberg gets a game if he's any good... You can't have it both ways.

"Excuse"?
Whether or not he's ready is not quite the same as whether thye think he'll be ready; and nothing at all to do with Still or TSlatts.

Honest question,

Would you prefer our list without Hurley and Zaharakis but with Blair, Simpkin, Suckling, Rockliff?

Of course not, but we had pick 5 + 23 + 39 - I'd bloody well expect to get something more than best-of-the-rookies.
The question is why we couldn't get anything better than worst-of-the-rookies with picks earlier than any of them went.

 

[BrunoV]

Still is a bad example.

Still's problem was his attitude. He may also have lacked versatility (i.e. as more of a true stay at home full forward) but it was probably too early to say.

Talent was never a problem (wasn't he one of the leading TAC cup goal kickers as a 17 yo). Maybe we read his maturity incorrectly and he could have done with the additional TAC cup year.

He was not a "dud", he was someone Hird could cut based on attitude and contract status unlike Reimers (who was contracted).

 

[Slattery_20]

Talent was never a problem (wasn't he one of the leading TAC cup goal kickers as a 17 yo). Maybe we read his maturity incorrectly and he could have done with the additional TAC cup year.

He was not a "dud", he was someone Hird could cut based on attitude and contract status unlike Reimers (who was contracted).

Or maybe he was "that kid" who was 3 x bigger than everyone else at a certain age group, but not actually much chop against opponents his size?

I doubt he would've been drafted at 18.

 

[TheDon35]

"Excuse"?
Of course not, but we had pick 5 + 23 + 39 - I'd bloody well expect to get something more than best-of-the-rookies.
The question is why we couldn't get anything better than worst-of-the-rookies with picks earlier than any of them went.

If you want to include 39 well as far as recruiting goes, that probably makes the draft look better.

Hurley, Zaharakis, Prismall - 21 yo who'd pretty much established himself in the best 22 of the best side ever, i'll take that every day of the week. He did his knee so it's bad luck. simple as that.

Could easily have been Yarran, Suban, Motlop, Cornelius and Savage running around in red and black. Yes they all play and have strengths but I'll take Hurls Zaka and Prismall over that lot any day.

Roll players are a dime a dozen. Genuine quality isn't.

2009 - great result.

 

[BrunoV]

Good dozen (by my count) that went after pick 55 that'd be in our 22 - Rockliff, Savage, McKenzie, Garlett, Nahas, Suckling, de Boer, Breust, Sam Jacobs, Blair, Simpkin, Broughton, Picken, Clancy Pearce...

2 stars & a couple of decent types would make it a clear-cut win. 2 stars & one other player and I'd consider it.
But as I see it, I'd easily take our 2009 effort (IMHO one potential star + 4 solid players) over our 2008 one.

And yes, before you ask, plenty of us wanted a small forward at that point... Nahas Breust Garlett Pearce... probably Blair... gah...

It is one of the few time you can be revisionist about it too Those guys are almost exclusively rookies or preseason draftees.

2 years later all of our draftees have been cleared out by a new coaching panel which gave a large number of (potentially undeserving) players a fresh start.

It is not like we are waiting for Klemke, Carroll and German to get over injuries now, or that Bock is still being given time to develop. These guys were jettisoned almost immediately. You could not be more certain that these players weren't rated.

This is not like the situation where Gumby and Myers have been struck down by injury or like we are waiting for Melksham to develop physically which has seen other players have stronger early careers. It is very different.

It is in this context you have to question the judgement of the recruiters. Pleasingly it was a once off, which is fair enough. Sometimes shit happens.

 

[yaco55]

I am happy with 2008 - You can't overlook getting quality players at 5 and 23 - Probably A Graders - Trading 39 for prismall was the fail in the draft - Picked wisely at 39 and there were good players available.

 

[Slattery_20]

It is one of the few time you can be revisionist about it too Those guys are almost exclusively rookies of preseason draftees.

2 years later all of our draftees have been cleared out by a new coaching panel which gave a large number of (potentially undeserving) players a fresh start.

It is not like we are waiting for Klemke, Carroll and German to get over injuries now, or that Bock is still being given time to develop. These guys were jettisoned almost immediately. You could not be more certain that these players weren't rated.

This is not like the situation where Gumby and Myers have been struck down by injury or like we are waiting for Melksham to develop physically which has seen other players have stronger early careers. It is very different.

It is in this context you have to question the judgement of the recruiters. Pleasingly it was a once off, which is fair enough. Sometimes shit happens.

Seems there was a decisive shift directly before that rookie draft, & directly after as well.

Went exclusively for U18 kids with good size, good trainers, good characters... can they play, meh. I have heard the 'good character' bit was passed down from on high; this was while the club were still dealing with a few "problem children" and they felt it was important they didn't get any more.

The year after, they started hitting the mature age guys - hard.

 

[TheDon35]

I am happy with 2008 - You can't overlook getting quality players at 5 and 23 - Probably A Graders - Trading 39 for prismall was the fail in the draft - Picked wisely at 39 and there were good players available.

I'll take 7 years of Prismall playing the footy he was playing at Geelong prior to his injury for pick 39. Easy to go back now and say there were options after him. The recruitment reality is that the odds of picking up a player at around pick 40 are probably 1 in 3 - 4. What they were getting at the time with Prismall was a bloke who'd demonstrated that at 21, he was good enough for Geelong's best side. That's good enough for me.

Take a look at pick 38 over the last little while (pick 39 has 3 father sons so not a good representation).

2011: Jordan Kelly
2010: Mitchell Hallahan
2009: Sam Reid
2008: Matthew Broadbent
2007: Myke Cooke
2006: James Hawksley
2005: F/S - Travis Tuck
2004: Damien McCormack

Out of that you get one potential gun in Reid. Half a player in Broadbent. One that it's too early for and the rest no good. Given what he'd shown at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, there was nothing wrong with the Prismall trade.

 

[Slattery_20]

Different years is different, though. We couldn't have picked Reid in 2008, he's irrelevant.

Prismall's year - totally unadulterated fact, here:

39 Motlop
40 Robinson
41 Banfield
42 Banner
43 Anthony
44 Sloane
45 Blight
46 Rounds
47 Rhys Stanley
48 Nick Heyne
49 Taylor Hunt

It's no exaggeration at all, to say that there was a pretty good chance of getting a pretty good player with that pick.

And knowing the depth of the draft, & judging players against what's available, is in fact a key part of the recruiting game. No excuse at all.

 

[TheDon35]

Based on that you're a 50% chance of getting a decent player which historically is far beyond the norm for that range in a draft.

Jesus, would I prefer Sloan??? But that's hindsight. No doubt what the club were looking to do with the Prismall trade was to get one of those good enough role players that you'd mentioned previously. No problem with the trade.

 

[TheDon35]

Sloane and maybe Robinson are the only one's from that list that have proven to offer more than what Prismall had already shown at the time he was taken.

Add to that that he'd already served a three year apprenticeship in the best regime in the comp and it's hard to argue against. Even given that years results were above average for that stage of the draft.

 

[yaco55]

Sloane and maybe Robinson are the only one's from that list that have proven to offer more than what Prismall had already shown at the time he was taken.

Add to that that he'd already served a three year apprenticeship in the best regime in the comp and it's hard to argue against. Even given that years results were above average for that stage of the draft.

Problem then and now was that Prismall wasn't much good - Said it AT THE time - I'm not suggesting that we over-paid in drafting terms but he was far from a perfect fit. It's like the advent of FA - Weird and wonderful players are thrown forward - No thought given to their suitability for EFC - Because they are free !

 

[Slattery_20]

Sloane and maybe Robinson are the only one's from that list that have proven to offer more than what Prismall had already shown at the time he was taken.

That's some pretty tortuous logic IMHO.
There were players available, that have proven to be better than the guy we got in the 3-4 years since. So I don't know how you could call that pick a success.

 

[TheDon35]

That's some pretty tortuous logic IMHO.
There were players available, that have proven to be better than the guy we got in the 3-4 years since. So I don't know how you could call that pick a success.

Going around in circles.

The logic behind the trade was absolutely spot on. There's very little argueing against it. They would have known that better players would go after pick 39. What they don't know at the time is who those players are going to be. They also know based on history that your less than a 50% chance of hitting at pick 39. Historical fact.

Of course it hasn't been a success given that he's done his knee. That has very little to do with the logic and merrit behind the selection though.

Trading down for Williams in the 2009 draft was a much bigger risk IMO.

 

[TheDon35]

Problem then and now was that Prismall wasn't much good - Said it AT THE time - I'm not suggesting that we over-paid in drafting terms but he was far from a perfect fit. It's like the advent of FA - Weird and wonderful players are thrown forward - No thought given to their suitability for EFC - Because they are free !

That's a matter of opinion. He was good enough to at that point be a regular in arguably the best side ever and at 21, you'd suggest had improvement in him.

We weren't trading pick 2, we were trading pick 39 so it's pretty difficult to jag Chris judd with that pick.

 

[BrunoV]

I don't know how you could say that Prismall wasn't worth pick 39 at the time.

No doubt that there were better players taken after that pick but it is not like we had the chance to choose between taking Prismall and the available draftees.

 

[TheDon35]

I don't know how you could say that Prismall wasn't worth pick 39 at the time.

No doubt that there were better players taken after that pick but it is not like we had the chance to choose between taking Prismall and the available draftees.

Because at the time the recruiters should have been able to get the crystal ball out and recognise that in and amongst the rubbish taken after pick 39, they could have landed Sloan.

 

[TheDon35]

That's some pretty tortuous logic IMHO.
There were players available, that have proven to be better than the guy we got in the 3-4 years since. So I don't know how you could call that pick a success.

Talk about tortuous logic... Based on yours:

David Myers wasn't a success - Rioli and Dangerfield taken after him
Pears wasn't a success - Reid taken after him
Daniher wasn't a success - Mayne, Hooker, Armfield taken after
Melksham certainly wasn't a success - Talia, Menzel, Fyfe, Bastinac, Reid, Christensen, taken after him.
Trading Williams wasn't a success given that we missed Menzel and Fyfe
Collyer wasn't a success given the players taken after him
Long wasn't a success
Zaharakis wasn't a success given that Beams was taken after him
Steinberg, Ross, Davis certainly weren't success's given there were 2 years on there's far better players than them that were taken after them.

In fact based on that logic we've probably only had 2 or 3 success's over the past 5 years. It's nonsensical.