Our recruiting

[stuckinhill]

For mine, anybody that questions any club employee from 'day dot' has to be driving an agenda. So you were anti-Hughes before he had even made a decision, yet it is those that argued with you that were full of self importance and looking to set themselves up as recruiters?

How many years are we going to do this dance? Have the other Carlton forums tired of it again, and it is back to our turn again?

You brought up the day dot, I replied to it quickly in haste. The anti Hughes before he made a decision is just not true. Look at the forums. Most of the criticism occured from 08 onwards, when it was clear Hughes' selectiosn from 04-05 were not up to the task.

The dance is done now. Hughes no longer has the fianl say. The question is not how many years are we going to do this dance, but how many years have we been set back?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The latest article today (Carlton founders out of its depth) does not just cite the Mathieson article FYI. It also notes that Hughes had the final say stripped away from him (which is clearly significant). So you might not rate Mathieson, but are you also going to question whoever made the call to make sure Hughes never had the final say at draft day again (a mighty fine thing too I might add!)

Sheesh, revisionist much?

The official word is that Hughes has stepped down to an assistant recruiter role while Rogers have moved into the head recruiter role. Your slant is that somebody made the decision so that Hughes never had the final say again, but where is the evidence this was the reason? It is a side effect of the decision but not necessarily the catalyst for the decision.

Hughes and Rogers seem a solid team. Rogers was looking for a head recruiter job. Maybe Hughes was looking to take a back seat, maybe he is winding down. Maybe it was partly his idea in order to keep Rogers on board.

Naturally you are going to take the most negative position possible. If you do not have a source for this, then that position proves your agenda. All that needs to be said really.

 

[stuckinhill]

Sheesh, revisionist much?

The official word is that Hughes has stepped down to an assistant recruiter role while Rogers have moved into the head recruiter role. Your slant is that somebody made the decision so that Hughes never had the final say again, but where is the evidence this was the reason? It is a side effect of the decision but not necessarily the catalyst for the decision.

Hughes and Rogers seem a solid team. Rogers was looking for a head recruiter job. Maybe Hughes was looking to take a back seat, maybe he is winding down. Maybe it was partly his idea in order to keep Rogers on board.

Naturally you are going to take the most negative position possible. If you do not have a source for this, then that position proves your agenda. All that needs to be said really.

"Hughes, the chief recruiter since 2004 and the man who chose Marc Murphy, Bryce Gibbs and Matthew Kreuzer with successive No.1s, lost his clout.
No matter how you spin it, losing the "final say" is a significant shift."
Keep spinning.
I just want what is best for the club. So does Bruce Mathieson. Fortunately he's in a position to deliver it and he will ensure that our recruiting department is examined head to toe to make sure it is the best in the land. That's all I ever wanted, what is best for the Carlton football club.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...out-of-its-depth/story-e6frepgf-1226416152346

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

"Hughes, the chief recruiter since 2004 and the man who chose Marc Murphy, Bryce Gibbs and Matthew Kreuzer with successive No.1s, lost his clout.
No matter how you spin it, losing the "final say" is a significant shift."
Keep spinning.
I just want what is best for the club. So does Bruce Mathieson. Fortunately he's in a position to deliver it and he will ensure that our recruiting department is examined head to toe to make sure it is the best in the land. That's all I ever wanted, what is best for the Carlton football club.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...out-of-its-depth/story-e6frepgf-1226416152346

As I said MCB, how long are we going to keep doing this dance? You are now holding up a Mark Stevens article as being representative of what went on behind the scenes, because you so much want to believe the worst. It's almost high treason that you choose to think the worst of your club and the way they do business and show up when the media are jumping on the bandwagon as they are want to do.

It's years man ... go peddle your wares elsewhere. The ego tripping is too much to bear.

 

[Tanks_Alot]

At the time we recruited Warnock, Kreuzer had spent his first season on our list shouldering a significant amount of our ruckwork (not ideal for a first year player, particularly a first year ruckman), Hammer was still very much a project player & Jacobs was delisted & then re-rookied, having yet to suggest that he was going to be an AFL player (& he was only 20 years of age). The view then was that Kreuzer was going to be a quality player & both Hammer & Jacobs were very much unknown quantities. We needed a ruckman to assist Kreuzer or else we were going to 'kill' him before he had reached his peak years.

Not buying this, there were more areas we needed build on than the ruck department at the time. What was the guarantee that Warnock was going to be the man? He didn't even play the year we drafted him and we did fine in 2009 even made the finals for the first time since 01. Oh and btw Kreuzer wasn't killed in 09 without Warnock...

Project players only get better through experience and IINM Port were offering pick 9 for Hammer and we didn't take it. So we must've had some faith in Hammer, why not stick with Kruze and Hammer and have Jacobs develop in the meantime? There was absolutely no real need to get Warnock, especially with the contract and picks we gave for him.

Also, I don't see you making a case for McLean. Is that your way of finally admitting the club did something wrong? HOw you can come to an agreement to give away your top pick for a guy that struggles to keep up with the pace of the game before trade week even starts baffles me.

Of course drafting by hindsight is always much easier than on 'spec', but then I don't have to tell you that because you'd realise that we got lucky with someone like Betts in the PSD, when all clubs overlooked him in the ND. As for being wary of players who have slipped in the draft, it happens all the time, sometimes it works out e.g. Robinson, sometimes it might not.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hindsight draft anybody can do that. What I meant was there was a plethora of decent players selected after Lucas that we should've gone with. It's becoming more and more obvious why the guy slipped, his attitude sucks. He's developing slower than a KPP, he could do with an Ellard or McLean's work ethic. It's a shame we failed to identify this issue unlike the other clubs that over looked him. I only threw Jetta and Fyfe out as a possibility of who we could've got had we used that pick more wisely, but honestly, I would prefer Tapscott, Pittard or Menzel too. Dogs made a very strange choice with Howard wasn't he tipped to go in 2nd or 3rd round?

Anyway, I didn't want to turn this into a "we should've used this pick for this guy instead of that guy" thing, my main criticism was directed towards the decision making to poach players that we really didn't need using our early draft picks.

 

[JG38]

What if Davies, Rowe and Casboult were regulars this year or had some games would our recruitment still come under the microscope?

 

[Kramer1]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/carlton-flounders-out-of-its-depth/story-fn7si05c-1226416152346?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: HeraldSunAfl (Herald Sun | AFL)

Says it all really. Plenty of big red crosses there.

Gibbs and Kreuzer been serviceable but underwhelming all things considered in their careers so far, but for mine it's the mid/late first round - early second-round picks where the damage has been done.
Russell
Bower
Hampson
Grigg
Lucas (Hearing some very concerning reports from VFL level)

You would expect some serious quality from top 20 picks. None have delivered anything like what could have been reasonably expected.

Shame that two of the bigger success stories of the recent drafting history, Kennedy and Jacobs, are no longer at the club.

The 2006 draft was a disgrace in hindsight given the picks they had.

Easy to slap some big red crosses around...harder to suggest who we should have taken. Gibbs has shown many times over that he is worthy of a number one pick...if he doesn't live up to the standards consistently the problem is with development not selection. And judgement of Kreuzer is premature, particularly given his injury.

Who would you have reasonably expected us to take in place of Russel. Again he has shown the ability to put a string of very high quality football together...selection issue or development issue?

How is Grigg even close to a bust? Hindsight shows it to be an inspired choice given there wasn't a better mid taken after him in the draft (obviously excluding Kennedy taken as a F/S).

Similar arguments could be mounted for Hampson, Bower and even Austin. They have shown themselves to be AFL level footballers at times, so not necessarily bad picks, but none have really come on. Again is this a selection or a development issue.

The guys taken in the 2003/4/5/6 drafts walked into a basket case of a club ranking amongst the lowest in terms of football department spending. Impossible to say what effect this has had on their plane of development. All I know is Hughes' job finished once he called their name out, yet he seems to wear all of the blame for players not living up to their potential.

 

[Silvagnis]

There's no rubbish in my sentiments at all. If you could do the draft again, Sidey would be picked over Yarran in the blink of an eye.

Paddywhackers, you can keep your plodder who couldn't catch Yarran.

Yarran highlights

 

[Sector 7G]

Paddywhackers, you can keep your plodder who couldn't catch Yarran.

Yarran highlights

Who would win a 100m sprint Brock McLean or Steele Sidebottom? It would be a close one.

 

[JG38]

We have a few players around the 100 game area that didn't come on as drafted through weak drafts. If you analyse the year they were drafted not many players in top 10 let alone 12-30 made it. So in that respect we did really well to get the most out of them. Having said that, the list probably requires a broom, now.

 

[The_Wookie]

Ironically, Austin has been upgraded from Rookie status with the Bulldogs on the back of some consistent play and Sauce is vying for All Australian this year with the Crows. Makes you wonder sometimes....

 

[mikeythemoocow]

Ironically, Austin has been upgraded from Rookie status with the Bulldogs on the back of some consistent play and Sauce is vying for All Australian this year with the Crows. Makes you wonder sometimes....

Big Sauce was let go for much the same reason that We should look at trading out Warnock. Sauce, Warnock and Kruezer all really need to be played as #1 ruck. This wasn't so critical, but coinciding with the trading of Sauce, the sub rule was introduced and has changed the way, for most clubs, ruckmen are used. While some clubs, West Coast etc, are able to play two rucks a lot have moved to one ruckman, with a forward/ruck who pinch hits in the ruck. Warnock and Sauce would not be able to play this second ruck role to Kruezer. I think the club made the right call with Sauce.

It would be disappointing to see Austin go on to become a very good key back, if it just down to our inability to develope him. This isn't necessarily the case, IIRC Austin struggled with injures, and sometime players need a fresh start, but if we started to see trend develope it would be very disappointing.

 

[JG38]

You have to consider the flipside with Laidler, Carrots, Scotland, Henderson and potentially Collins.