"The right image"

[Stiffy_18]

Yes, but not at the expense of the "image" as you put it, quite often there would be so little separating the talent in the first round or at your current pick for example, that its not worth taking the risk on the one with slightly more talent, if the analysis of his mental state suggests that he is a much greater risk.

Oh and I'm interested to hear a couple of other recent examples of where we've passed up on a player because of this "image". Clearly Sellar had a "great" image when we drafted him, Wonaemirri (however its spelt), we clearly weren't the only ones to pass him up, clearly we made a mistake picking up VB for his good "image", I see Petrenko as a similar situation to Melbourne picking Wona, Vince probably wasn't the perfect "image", yet we picked him early because he was just such a great talent, why is Perrie gone if we are so strung up about "image". Now I can probably go on, but perhaps I'm missing your point re "image" here Stiffy_18, so please enlighten me on other examples where we've focussed too much on "image" and I'll bow to your greater wisdom.

Why are you so defensive?! Because someone might perceive things differently to you?!

There is no question, the club has focused on the people with certain degree of maturity from its draftees. There is not a single larrikan within our lot of youngsters. Maybe Ivan but he is still someone who has a "good image".

I am taking Rioli as an example here. We overlooked him because he didn't interview well, and his skinfolds were not impressive. Fair enough....but I am questioning the merit of this, especially when your head recruiting manager comes out and says that Rioli is the best talent he has seen in years.

Surely, if that truly is the case, then we have come out and said that we overlooked Rioli because he didn't fit the right image!

I am wodering one thing though, there just doesn't appears to be embracing of genuine talent over "clean cut" footballers. VB is an outstanding young man, that happens to be a good player. We seem to be overly cautious in our approach of picking players. There is a perception that the player above all else, has to have an outstanding chatacter. I again ask the question, at 17 or 18, how many of us have had our head screwed on the right way?! I say not many. Players like Franklin, Rioli, Motlop have all had questions of work ethic and committment thrown at them from well before they were drafted. Its a stigma that seems to follow some young, VERY talented kids and I feel that we are all to cautious in our approach to those players.

Randell comes out and says that Rioli is the most talented player he has seen in a very long time, yet when he went through the entire process of rating draftees, Rioli didn't mak ehis top 10, so your claim that there is not much talent wise separating these players at certian pick, certainly doesn't hold water.

We seem to prefer robotic, hard working, overly disciplined footballers over match winners with flair. I take Scott Thompson as an example. When he first rocked up at the Crows he had some mongrel in him, he had the arrogance and flair to back himself in and try something different. Sure he made mistakes, but he also had some brilliant games. Now he just doesn't have that mongrel in him on the field. He has aggression but not the same toughness he displayed early in his career with us. Its almost like, he is too disciplined at times. He is afraid to tackle someone hard like he used to in fear of giving away a free kick. Big ****ing deal. When a player is there to be tackled, and hurt in a tackle DO IT!

We seem to have the same approach with drafting lately. All players have to have a certain image and character before we consider to draft them. I still say, a 17 or 18 year old kid, you can develop and "bring up" as a person and get them to mature, but you cannot teach talent, especially a match winning talent with flair. I look at Rendell's top 10 of the draft and I see a lot of good solid footballers with great chatacter and the "right image". I still maintain that some of the greatest ever players that this great game has ever produced have been known as trouble makers and were certainly not angels. If we are to go down the track of giving so much weight to someone's character, work ethic and maturity at 17 or 18 years of age, we are severely reducing our chances of ever picking up a true champion of the game. Look at our club history, Modra, Roo, McLeod all champions of our club but all had their fair share of off field issues or indisgressions especially early in their careers.

Its very rare that you get a Judd or a Pavlich who are absolute talents on the field and outsanding young men off it.

All I am saying is that if we are not going to go the Hawthorn way of bottoming out and building to a premiership, then we need to embrace a lot of things. If we are to drop someone's rating so badly because they don't have the "right image", then we are going no where and very fast. We are already limiting ourselves in that we want to rebuild while playing finals (and I have absolutly NO problems with that) but to then even further limit ourselves by placing non-football related criteria so hihgly on our agenda.

Luke Hodge early in his career had his fair share of immature moments and issues Today I see an abolute champion of the game, a great talent, a brilliant player with mongrel, toughness and outstanding leadership quality. If you were rating him on his maturity level back in 2001, he wouldn't be a 1st pick.

 

[jo172]

Spot on.

While I'm yet to buy the book, I was concerned to read excerpts of Emma Quayle's 'The Draft' from another thread. Apparently we ruled Rioli out after his interview because of "his poor testing and the possible psycholgical pressure of moving states".

Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Rioli played every game for the year's eventual premiers and finished second in the rising star. He would have been a walk-up start into our best 22 and plays a position we desperately need to fill. But we put a line through his name because we're worried he might get a little homesick?

Yeah, it's great we got Dangerfield at pick 10. But if he'd gone by our pick, according to Rendell's rankings we would have selected Lobbe ahead of Rioli.

**** me some people are never happy.

Go and check out the whinging in threads about John Griffin and David Mackay wanting to go home due to alleged homesickness (which turned out to be bs).

People sooking all over the place as to why the Crows would recruit such mentally weak people who would get homesick.

 

[Drummond]

I am taking Rioli as an example here. We overlooked him because he didn't interview well, and his skinfolds were not impressive. Fair enough....but I am questioning the merit of this, especially when your head recruiting manager comes out and says that Rioli is the best talent he has seen in years.

Surely, if that truly is the case, then we have come out and said that we overlooked Rioli because he didn't fit the right image!

Randell comes out and says that Rioli is the most talented player he has seen in a very long time, yet when he went through the entire process of rating draftees, Rioli didn't mak ehis top 10, so your claim that there is not much talent wise separating these players at certian pick, certainly doesn't hold water.

All I am saying is that if we are not going to go the Hawthorn way of bottoming out and building to a premiership, then we need to embrace a lot of things. If we are to drop someone's rating so badly because they don't have the "right image", then we are going no where and very fast. We are already limiting ourselves in that we want to rebuild while playing finals (and I have absolutly NO problems with that) but to then even further limit ourselves by placing non-football related criteria so hihgly on our agenda.

All I can say is wow Stiffy. We’ve certainly had our fair share of arguments over the years, but that is an absolutely outstanding post.

You’ve hit the nail on the head in the part I’ve bolded. “One of the most talented kids I’ve ever seen”, those were Rendell’s exact words when describing Rioli. And yet as you pointed out, he didn’t even make his top 10. That says that we place a massive emphasis on what these youngsters are like OFF the field rather than what they’re capable of doing on it. And FWIW, this may be of interest you to about Rioli’s thought process before the draft:

“He’s (Rioli) been wondering whether Adelaide will draft him, and would rather play for a Melbourne team. But if the Crows draft him, that’s fine. He’ll go, and be grateful for the chance. This is what he has been waiting for, this is what he was born for”.

I think the drafting of Myke Cook last year was one example of us taking someone who wasn't a model citizen. Bassett: "I rang him the day after he was drafted and asked him if he was excited. "Aww yeah, it's all right, just in Byron Bay at the moment," he said. I said I was looking forward to training with him on Monday and for him to be ready to go. "Na mate, I can't train, my knee's f....".

 

[Mismatched]

Stiffy mate, I can see what you're saying and I agree, but I just think you're making too big a deal out of it, now unless your were on the interviewing panel or whatever, he apparently made an extremely bad impression on our recruiting staff and as such, was pretty much labelled as "do not draft", the label which Fanta apparently put on Angwin. Now I found it funny that Rioli wasn't in the top 10, but for him to do this, he must have been bad and we weren't the only club to pass on him either, I'm sure other clubs felt the same, otherwise "the best talent in the draft" would have gone much higher than pick 11, also reading on the D&T board there were questions there about his ability to make it at AFL level, Rendell/Craig and co weren't the only ones.

We decided it was too risky and last years draft was too big to make a mistake on, hence we looked elsewhere. As for me being wrong about how Rendell didn't rate Rioli in the top 10, that could just as easily show how close they all are mate, if one thing, which is footy related, is not right, others quickly over take you, simple as that. Recruiting is not about just one aspect, its about the whole package and you have to include various different aspects and for all the analysing etc that they do, its still an inexact science and in the end we decided Rioli was too great a risk and you can be assured that a lot of time and thought was put into it.

Hawthorn could afford to take this risk, because they'd pretty much done the bulk of their drafting, they're team was in place and hence Rioli could just be some icing on the cake, they didn't have to take him out of his comfort zone in melbourne and if he failed, it wasn't such a big deal.

Now I agree that there is to a certain extent a preference for "model" citizens at the crows, I just don't think its as big an issue as its been made out to be in this thread, Walker had a mullet and is apparently very arrogant out on the field, hardly a "model" footballer, nor are Cook by the sounds, nor Kite I'd say, bloke spends more time touching his hair, maybe the Jericho comparisons from his TAC cup days were just that he was worrying about a hair being put out of place.

Also, you're not happy about Thompson losing some of his flair and unpredictability, to become a more solid, allround footballer who has less brain fades, but its alright for Hodgy to do this?

FWIW, this whole fuss about us not picking Rioli over "image" although this is completely the wrong word, more so psychological profiling issues and whether or not he was going to succeed in the "Adelaide" environment, not the Hawthorn one, it really had nothing to do with "image" as such, just us believing he was too big a risk, but anyways, what this shows us is that Rendell can spot talent.

 

[ManInTheArena]

“He’s (Rioli) been wondering whether Adelaide will draft him, and would rather play for a Melbourne team. But if the Crows draft him, that’s fine. He’ll go, and be grateful for the chance. This is what he has been waiting for, this is what he was born for”.

I had no idea that's all Rioli said, by the way the AFC put it I would of thought he said "F*&% off i'm never coming to Adelaide". There must have been more to it for him to fail psychological profiling... surely

 

[crowsup]

All I can say is wow Stiffy. We’ve certainly had our fair share of arguments over the years, but that is an absolutely outstanding post.

You’ve hit the nail on the head in the part I’ve bolded. “One of the most talented kids I’ve ever seen”, those were Rendell’s exact words when describing Rioli. And yet as you pointed out, he didn’t even make his top 10. That says that we place a massive emphasis on what these youngsters are like OFF the field rather than what they’re capable of doing on it. And FWIW, this may be of interest you to about Rioli’s thought process before the draft:



I think the drafting of Myke Cook last year was one example of us taking someone who wasn't a model citizen. Bassett: "I rang him the day after he was drafted and asked him if he was excited. "Aww yeah, it's all right, just in Byron Bay at the moment," he said. I said I was looking forward to training with him on Monday and for him to be ready to go. "Na mate, I can't train, my knee's f....".

Don't you guys think you are taking this wingeing a bit too far? You are even contradicting yourselves. You say that the AFC is concerned with image and going home factor when, if that were the case, the AFC would have recruited Ebert instead of Dangerfield.
I think that there is a bit more to it than what you think is the determining factor the AFC uses for drafting players. Querying the decisions is one thing but to outright dismiss every decision Willi-nilly is a bit too much.
The AFC has been chastised by you and a few others, for their 1st picks in the last 4-5 years. I had a quick look and found that of the 3 picks immediately after the AFC's, there's been only one name worth mentioning. The rest were as bad or worse than the ones we picked.
So, if our recruiters were very bad, many other clubs must have shit recruiters. In this recruiting caper, I'm with Crow-mo. Recruiting is as much luck as good judgment.

 

[Drummond]

Don't you guys think you are taking this wingeing a bit too far? You are even contradicting yourselves. You say that the AFC is concerned with image and going home factor when, if that were the case, the AFC would have recruited Ebert instead of Dangerfield.
I think that there is a bit more to it than what you think is the determining factor the AFC uses for drafting players. Querying the decisions is one thing but to outright dismiss every decision Willi-nilly is a bit too much.
The AFC has been chastised by you and a few others, for their 1st picks in the last 4-5 years. I had a quick look and found that of the 3 picks immediately after the AFC's, there's been only one name worth mentioning. The rest were as bad or worse than the ones we picked.
So, if our recruiters were very bad, many other clubs must have shit recruiters. In this recruiting caper, I'm with Crow-mo. Recruiting is as much luck as good judgment.

Who said anything about go home factor? We drafted 7 insterstate players last year, I don't believe anyone said anything about the go home factor...

 

[Mismatched]

Who said anything about go home factor? We drafted 7 insterstate players last year, I don't believe anyone said anything about the go home factor...

Thing is, is that was one of the major reasons we didn't get Rioli and yet his has been the name being bandied around here.

 

[Drummond]

Oh and for what its worth, why did we bother recruiting Taylor Walker if we've got a big image problem, Bernie Vince ain't perfect, Porplyzia isn't the fittest bloke out there, look at the hair on the likes of Kite, Cook and Moran, look what Scotty Thompson did at the beginning of the year, Simon Goodwin the beginning of last year, oh and are we still complaining about the recruitment of Dangerfield, granted he didn't play 22 games with us this year, but IMO, has the ability to become a much more important player than Rioli and is a potential future captain. Oh and we made such a bad call recruiting VB, why on earth do we just recruit these athletes, I mean what can he do other than run all day, its not as if he finds much of the ball, has shocking disposal, weak as piss, no wait!!!
Okay, thats enough, I'll climb down from my soap box now.

Some of these examples are pretty poor.

Walker? He had a mullet and likes to celebrate a goal, if that’s going to stop us from drafting one of the best key forwards of his age group then so help me. Vince? There were never any doubts over his character and in 3 years he hasn’t put a foot wrong other than stay out for 15 minutes too long. Porplyzia not fit, so that’s a reason…for him not to fit in at our club? Okay. Hairstyles? Goodness me. Thompson, Goodwin experienced players, very important players, who were involved in indiscretions. You think we had to cut them for you to be proven right that we don't have a problem with players who have “questionable traits”?

We decided it was too risky and last years draft was too big to make a mistake on, hence we looked elsewhere. As for me being wrong about how Rendell didn't rate Rioli in the top 10, that could just as easily show how close they all are mate, if one thing, which is footy related, is not right, others quickly over take you, simple as that. Recruiting is not about just one aspect, its about the whole package and you have to include various different aspects and for all the analysing etc that they do, its still an inexact science and in the end we decided Rioli was too great a risk and you can be assured that a lot of time and thought was put into it.

We had Scott Selwood at #8 for crying out loud. You cannot tell me that the two are even close when it comes to talent. Selwood was claimed at pick 22. Everything I've read seems to indicate that he is very much a solid player but without any exceptional traits and he won’t ever be a star. And yet we had him at 8, over Rioli who was described as one of the most talented players Rendell had seen.

 

[crowsup]

Who said anything about go home factor? We drafted 7 insterstate players last year, I don't believe anyone said anything about the go home factor...

If you read most of the posts re Rioli, you will see that most posters believed that we didn't pick Rioli because he would not last more than 2 seasons. It is only in the last few posts in this thread that his 'character' has come into questioning.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Also, you're not happy about Thompson losing some of his flair and unpredictability, to become a more solid, allround footballer who has less brain fades, but its alright for Hodgy to do this?

Ah but you are ignoring one VERY important thing in all this. Thompson was reigned in and as a result he has lost the mongrel and a great degree of toughness that he possessed. Hodge on the other hand still has a lot of mongrel in him. He still has that presence and he still hurts blokes every chance he gets. He tackles them with intent to hurt, he crashed a pack with intent to split it. He goes into a congested pack with the aim of bowling everyone over and getting the hard ball.

Thompson became "allround" footballer at the expense of other aspects of is game. He is no where near the tackler he was, he is no where near the mongrel that he was. And to be honest, I still prefer the Thompson of 2005 than I do Thompson of today, brain fades, 50's and all.

That to me is the concern. Thompson was compared in his toughness to Roo when he first came to the club. Who in their right mind would compare him to Roo in terms of toughness and mongrel?! No one! He has softened up in the last couple of years and I got no doubt that it has been coached out of him. Mattner is another example. Pound for pound best tackler in the competition in 2005. This is the same bloke that broke Crawford's arm and popped Harvey's shoulder in a tackle. The same bloke who averaged over 5 tackles per game in 2005. Since 2005 onwards, his tackle averages continued to decline year in year out.

Look, I am not for thuggery and going out picking blokes off, but what I am for is tough uncompromising football. When you have a chance to hurt your opponent fairly FFS, DO IT!

On Rioli and why he was overlooked by 11 clubs, I think its a pretty longish bow to draw to suggest other clubs felt like we did. That completely ignores the fact that majority of clubs draft for need. As an example, Carlton and St. Kilda badly needed ruckmen and 2 happen to be there. WB are notorious for targeting players for certain picks and knowing full well that no one else will get them. There was even a VERY interesting article on this last year in the Age after the draft.

I haven't questioned Rendell's ability to spot talent. However, I am questioning club's weighting of certain criteria in evaluating a player. Sure, "right image" is important but I don't think its AS important as we seem to think. I still think talent is something that cannot be taught....maturity, work ethic, character and right image can be instilled.

 

[James23]

Just had to correct a few peoples comments regarding Rendell and Rioli. Rendell suggested Rioli was probably one of the most talented INDIGENOUS players he had ever seen, not the most talented he had seen.

He's an extremely talented Aboriginal kid - probably as talented as I've ever seen - but he's also an interesting one.

Rendell has also gone on record stating that he looks for 6 traits in a player:

1. Talent
2. Athletic ability
3. Speed OR endurance
4. Power
5. Character
6. Competitiveness

Rioli only ticked the first 4 boxes, with character and competitiveness in question.

 

[Drummond]

If you read most of the posts re Rioli, you will see that most posters believed that we didn't pick Rioli because he would not last more than 2 seasons. It is only in the last few posts in this thread that his 'character' has come into questioning.

Ok well that is nonsense. I might have worried about the go home factor a few years ago but certainly not any more. Players who PLAY very rarely go home, at least not immediately. Rioli certainly would have played for us this year and probably every week. I mean we played Jacky (in a similar position to Rioli) and he was miles off being AFL ready. If you play, and are part of a successful side, chances are you’ll stay. No doubt Rioli comes across as one who might suffer from homesickness shortly after he is drafted, but given he is that talented and fits a position we have a glaring need for, the punt could have been taken.

And lets just say he played at the AFC 2 for years, showed everyone his talents, and did want to go home, I'd say there would have been a number of Victorian sides lining up to get him.

 

[crowsup]

Ok well that is nonsense. I might have worried about the go home factor a few years ago but certainly not any more. Players who PLAY very rarely go home, at least not immediately. Rioli certainly would have played for us this year and probably every week. I mean we played Jacky (in a similar position to Rioli) and he was miles off being AFL ready. If you play, and are part of a successful side, chances are you’ll stay. No doubt Rioli comes across as one who might suffer from homesickness shortly after he is drafted, but given he is that talented and fits a position we have a glaring need for, the punt could have been taken.

And lets just say he played at the AFC 2 for years, showed everyone his talents, and did want to go home, I'd say there would have been a number of Victorian sides lining up to get him.

That is the point I'm making. If the going home factor was one of the main criteria, Ebert would have been picked before Dangerfield.
Now, I'm not necessarily stating that the Dangerfield choice is the correct one. That is still to be seen. What I'm saying is that the AFC should not be accused of taking the easy way out all the time or that it is too conservative.
Re the hi-lite section of your post. What you say is good in theory and, sometimes, in practice. But, assuming that were to happen, don't you think you would have been pissed off for losing 2 years of development we could have invested in a Dangerfield or Ebert or anyone else we would have picked? That is even if we would get a 1st round pick for Rioli.

 

[Drummond]

That is the point I'm making. If the going home factor was one of the main criteria, Ebert would have been picked before Dangerfield.
Now, I'm not necessarily stating that the Dangerfield choice is the correct one. That is still to be seen. What I'm saying is that the AFC should not be accused of taking the easy way out all the time or that it is too conservative.
Re the hi-lite section of your post. What you say is good in theory and, sometimes, in practice. But, assuming that were to happen, don't you think you would have been pissed off for losing 2 years of development we could have invested in a Dangerfield or Ebert or anyone else we would have picked? That is even if we would get a 1st round pick for Rioli.

Of course I'd be angry, but then again he might not have left. Yes I'm playing both sides but on one hand we draft him, he fits a need, he decides to stay. On the other hand we draft him, he leaves, and we get adequate compensation. And we got a first round pick for Watts who had played 5 AFL games.

 

[crowsup]

Of course I'd be angry, but then again he might not have left. Yes I'm playing both sides but on one hand we draft him, he fits a need, he decides to stay. On the other hand we draft him, he leaves, and we get adequate compensation. And we got a first round pick for Watts who had played 5 AFL games.

There is a few 'ifs' in that.
I don't know if you know it but there is a saying that goes,- If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle'. I don't believe that a forced trade is ever a fair compensation.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I haven't questioned Rendell's ability to spot talent. However, I am questioning club's weighting of certain criteria in evaluating a player. Sure, "right image" is important but I don't think its AS important as we seem to think. I still think talent is something that cannot be taught....maturity, work ethic, character and right image can be instilled.

I'm sure we're not the only club placing a high emphasis on character (ie Swans no ********s policy) which means that players like Franklin can slip to number four and Rioli to number eleven because clubs are scared to be left with egg on their face.

We throw around examples like Angwin, Watts and Pfeiffer as examples of failed selections... but how much of it is that we drafted the wrong person and how much of the poor result is due to our treatment of them, the environment we have created, the coaching they have received etc. Fevola could just as easily have been another talented player lost to the system.

Rendell has also gone on record stating that he looks for 6 traits in a player:

1. Talent
2. Athletic ability
3. Speed OR endurance
4. Power
5. Character
6. Competitiveness

Rioli only ticked the first 4 boxes, with character and competitiveness in question.

Porplyzia - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
D. Jarman - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
Modra - Character? Hmmm. Competitiveness? .... Delist.

 

[Crow-mo]

I am getting just so sick and tired of this right image bullshit that seems to be going on at AFC lately.

Lets look at some of the greatest players that have played this game, Carey, Ablett, Modra, Lockett, Cousins, Matthews, Brereton, Diesel and I am sure there are MANY more that escape me ATM

None of those players were angels. Hell they were all dare devils but they were BRILLIANT footballers that teams built their team around. Of course in the perfect world you would want a gun footballer that has the right image and is quiet as a church mouse when it comes to his behaviour. But seriously, sometimes I question whether or not we would ever have gone for McLeod if the current hierarchy was in place back in 1994 or 1995?! I would be taking an educated guess and say that we wouldn't have picked him up for the same reason Neesham (sp?) made an ass out of himself. McLeod didn't exactly have the right image back them.

Are we limiting our selves far too much here. While its great to present the right image, we also need some characters in the game. Every player I mentioned was a "character" in one way or another and they dared to do something against the team rules on the field, they dared to show some flair and take stupid risks but thats what made them great.

So enough of this, right image bullshit and pick the players that can actually play. We are not building a church choir, we building a ****ing football team that has to win a premiership.

yup.

 

[Drummond]

I'm sure we're not the only club placing a high emphasis on character (ie Swans no ********s policy) which means that players like Franklin can slip to number four and Rioli to number eleven because clubs are scared to be left with egg on their face.

We throw around examples like Angwin, Watts and Pfeiffer as examples of failed selections... but how much of it is that we drafted the wrong person and how much of the poor result is due to our treatment of them, the environment we have created, the coaching they have received etc. Fevola could just as easily have been another talented player lost to the system.


Porplyzia - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
D. Jarman - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
Modra - Character? Hmmm. Competitiveness? .... Delist.

QUALITY!

 

[Mismatched]

I'm sure we're not the only club placing a high emphasis on character (ie Swans no ********s policy) which means that players like Franklin can slip to number four and Rioli to number eleven because clubs are scared to be left with egg on their face.

We throw around examples like Angwin, Watts and Pfeiffer as examples of failed selections... but how much of it is that we drafted the wrong person and how much of the poor result is due to our treatment of them, the environment we have created, the coaching they have received etc. Fevola could just as easily have been another talented player lost to the system.

This is the big thing, players deemed to be high risk like Rioli and Franklin(he was pick 5 btw) quite often slip, its quite likely to happen again this year with Natanui and Yarran, both seen to have outstanding potential, but for some reason or another, they probably won't go as high as they could otherwise. Clubs will always look to minimise risk to a certain extent, we saw Rioli as a large risk and as such rightly or wrongly made a decision to delist.

Porplyzia - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
D. Jarman - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
Modra - Character? Hmmm. Competitiveness? .... Delist.

Yeah I think James_23 has simplified it a little with the ticking of boxes, but I'm sure you get the drift.

Some of these examples are pretty poor.

Walker? He had a mullet and likes to celebrate a goal, if that’s going to stop us from drafting one of the best key forwards of his age group then so help me. Vince? There were never any doubts over his character and in 3 years he hasn’t put a foot wrong other than stay out for 15 minutes too long. Porplyzia not fit, so that’s a reason…for him not to fit in at our club? Okay. Hairstyles? Goodness me. Thompson, Goodwin experienced players, very important players, who were involved in indiscretions. You think we had to cut them for you to be proven right that we don't have a problem with players who have “questionable traits”?

Hey I'm just saying that they're not as "perfect" as we'd perhaps like to think or do think and I can assure you we hear very little of what really goes on behind the scenes with these blokes. Oh and by the way, Vince was as lazy as they came, it took a good kick up the arse from Goodwin to get him where he is today, after 2 years of going no where. All I'm saying is this whole image bit is a bit of a beat up and no issue. Yes I think at times we aim to be a little perfect, when we're clearly not, you just need to ask Rucci. As for the hair shit, thats more to the OP who thought we didn't like a player because of his hair and the talent scout said something about not liking his image.

We had Scott Selwood at #8 for crying out loud. You cannot tell me that the two are even close when it comes to talent. Selwood was claimed at pick 22. Everything I've read seems to indicate that he is very much a solid player but without any exceptional traits and he won’t ever be a star. And yet we had him at 8, over Rioli who was described as one of the most talented players Rendell had seen.

Whats talent though? Its only one piece of a very complex puzzle which some may classify differently to others, surely if we think a bloke is unlikely to make it with us or isn't likely to stay, that should count for something? no? Why does every club bother with the NAB draft camp then, why do they all do psych testing and interviews if we are just going to ignore it and draft a bloke on "talent" alone. Which is what it seems like you and Stiffy are asking. By the sounds Rendell had a tough time saying no to Rioli, his talent was that good, but in the end he decided it wasn't worth the risk with our first pick and hence he fell dramatically, maybe he was number 11(we know Otten was 12), maybe he was 13 and Palmer 11.

Meh I'm sick of arguing this stupid round about point.

 

[Mego Red]

God, this is a ridiculously boring thread. Talk about trying to find something to argue about in the off season.

Rendell drafted Dangerfield before Rioli. Who cares - I STILL think this is the right decision. None of us truly know if Emma Quayle is accurate about the rest of his ratings - and who cares, as it is completely theoretical.

Rioli had a lot of question marks against him last year. Talent wasn't one of them. But he would have been a very high risk pick for us at ten.

And can SOMEONE please give me an example of a team that wins because of raw talent and not because of disciplined team structure? SOMEONE?

 

[coast2coast]

And can SOMEONE please give me an example of a team that wins because of raw talent and not because of disciplined team structure? SOMEONE?

 

[Crow-mo]

Some of these examples are pretty poor.

Walker? He had a mullet and likes to celebrate a goal, if that’s going to stop us from drafting one of the best key forwards of his age group then so help me. Vince? There were never any doubts over his character and in 3 years he hasn’t put a foot wrong other than stay out for 15 minutes too long. Porplyzia not fit, so that’s a reason…for him not to fit in at our club? Okay. Hairstyles? Goodness me. Thompson, Goodwin experienced players, very important players, who were involved in indiscretions. You think we had to cut them for you to be proven right that we don't have a problem with players who have “questionable traits”?

bang. drummond you've been in gun like form recently

We had Scott Selwood at #8 for crying out loud. You cannot tell me that the two are even close when it comes to talent. Selwood was claimed at pick 22. Everything I've read seems to indicate that he is very much a solid player but without any exceptional traits and he won’t ever be a star. And yet we had him at 8, over Rioli who was described as one of the most talented players Rendell had seen.

exactly right.

 

[Crow-mo]

If you read most of the posts re Rioli, you will see that most posters believed that we didn't pick Rioli because he would not last more than 2 seasons. It is only in the last few posts in this thread that his 'character' has come into questioning.

most posters believe the earth is flat, and the moon landing was faked...

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm sure we're not the only club placing a high emphasis on character (ie Swans no ********s policy) which means that players like Franklin can slip to number four and Rioli to number eleven because clubs are scared to be left with egg on their face.

sorry Carl but no. you've mixed 2 different issues up.

character didn't cause Franklin to slide per se. it was the feeling he was a loose cannon, who didn't apply himself to footy, and as such he would not make it. it had nothing to do with the fact he would make it, and might be a bad character egg.

We throw around examples like Angwin, Watts and Pfeiffer as examples of failed selections... but how much of it is that we drafted the wrong person and how much of the poor result is due to our treatment of them, the environment we have created, the coaching they have received etc. Fevola could just as easily have been another talented player lost to the system.

a separate and highly pertinent point.

I've made much comment on our "one size fits all" policy of player treatment. something that is only now starting to appear as if it maybe changing.

Porplyzia - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
D. Jarman - Athletic ability? No. Speed OR endurance? No. Delist.
Modra - Character? Hmmm. Competitiveness? .... Delist.

indeed, though you left out everyone's favourite SO bookie Simon Goodwin