Rate our PSD & Rookie Draft Picks

[WesternTiger]

After the 2009 drafts it is only fair that I offer an apology to Terry Wallace. For years I believed that our poor record in drafting was because of the poor criteria set by Wallace. These included a bias towards short, skinny flankers and an infatuation with players who were not considered good enough by other clubs.

It is obvious, given the drafting choices made this year, that these criteria were not set by Wallace and his coaching group but are a continuing philosophy of the list management and recruiting departments.

Bias towards short flankers
This year our recruiting has become even more focussed on these type of players with the following added to the list: Farmer (180cm), Dea (186), Taylor (189), Webberley (181), Nason (179), Hicks (176), Contin (181), Roberts (176) and O’Reilly (184).

I do not understand the purpose behind Richmond’s use of the rookie list when five of the eight places on the list are take by players shorter than 185 cm and another one is taken by Polak, who was not considered valuable enough to be kept on the main list.

I take note that the Richmond board is trying to get the former owner of the South Dragons basketball team onto the board. I can only hope that he brings a belief that athletes over 195 cm can: jump, be quick and agile, have good hands, be strong in body-on-body contests, read fast developing plays, make good decisions quickly, understand complex game plans and learn new skills at over 18 years of age.

Rejects from other clubs
After past trading/drafting for other clubs players, one would have reasonably expected Richmond to avoid these types of players and concentrate on young, untried, junior recruits. Instead we have added Farmer, Webberley and Nason to the list while keeping Polak as a rookie.

This also gives the lie to the proposition posted by some on this site that, if players aren’t drafted by any club in the National Draft then they are thus not good enough to play AFL. How then do these people explain our recruitment of players such as Webberley and Nason who were passed over previously?

If Webberley is so good as the best player from the Tasmanian competition, how do you pass on the best under-23 player from the VFL in Barlow, playing every week against AFL-listed opponents?

If Nason is so good as a player from the SANFL seconds, how do you pass on the U18 captain of NSW and All-Australian in McNeil?

If Polak is not good enough to be kept on the main list, how do you pass on the All-Australian U18 Full Forward in Panos?


Over just the last few years, as a Tigers supporter, I have suffered through the presidency of Casey and the ineptitude of the board which resulted in the waste of millions of dollars in supporter funds and the destruction of a viable football department.

Greg Miller was recruited to fix the football department and he in turn recruited Wallace and his coaching staff who made the situation much worse.

Miller then recruited Jackson to fix the playing group which has resulted in the weird recruitment choices mentioned above and a gross imbalance of the list.

Miller then recruited Cameron to fix the list structure and he has made minor changes in his first year by drafting two junior players and then made sweeping changes in the second, distorting recruitment options and the orderly operation of the Total Player Payments cap.

Amid all the internet chatter about the great players drafted to Richmond every year, I can only see the situation getting worse. Perhaps I’m just shell-shocked by the past few years at Richmond, but I really can’t see the reason for the optimism given any sort of objective analysis of our playing list.

To repeat, I am sorry for blaming recruitment decisions on you, Terry Wallace. It now becomes obvious that Miller, Jackson and Cameron were the main people behind these choices.

RT start blaming the coach again because FJ recruited the type of players Hardwick wanted.

 

[RedanTiger]

RT start blaming the coach again because FJ recruited the type of players Hardwick wanted.

Usual red herring. Process was to pick the best guys to play then look at the coach's requests as per the following quote.

"It worked out well for us in terms of priority players. Given it's a rookie draft, and a number of players have been bypassed, we look at blokes we think have got AFL traits. Our basic goal was to pick blokes we think can play AFL footy, then we try to fill the list model given to us by Damien (Hardwick, Richmond coach). We have a number of players in each particular position, but primarily we're picking blokes who've got AFL traits and we think can step up."

 

[skybeau]

Usual red herring. Process was to pick the best guys to play then look at the coach's requests as per the following quote.

"It worked out well for us in terms of priority players. Given it's a rookie draft, and a number of players have been bypassed, we look at blokes we think have got AFL traits. Our basic goal was to pick blokes we think can play AFL footy, then we try to fill the list model given to us by Damien (Hardwick, Richmond coach). We have a number of players in each particular position, but primarily we're picking blokes who've got AFL traits and we think can step up."

To me, that quote reads as Francis Jackson and his crew selected the players they believed had AFL traits, then drafted according to the wants of Damien Hardwick. Essentially, on draft day they had a pool of players who met the standards required, then they drafted the kids according to Hardwick's model.

You want to talk down our recruiters, that's fine, it's a free country. But don't think for a second that Hardwick (and Wallace, for that matter) had no influence over who we drafted. They may not have recommended individual players, but they would certainly have had a say in what type of player was drafted.

 

[RedanTiger]

Fair enough Skybeau, my opinion differs as stated, although I would say that the pool can be as broad or restrictive as you like. Within that pool there must be some kind of ranking as to the degree or value of the "AFL traits". For example, does Dea have better or more of the "traits" than Taylor or Webberley or even Barlow as mentioned in my original post.

 

[The_General]

It's been well documented that Wallace wanted an outside midfielder who was quick in 2005, and we went out to find one - and got JON.

The coaching staff *clearly* have some influence as to the types of players they think the list needs for their gameplan. Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen has their head in the sand.

 

[TOT70]

When it all goes pear-shaped, the coach is the one who will get it in the neck. The recruiters, officials, even the Board may soon follow, but they may also survive. What is obvious is that the coach has no chance of holding his job, unless he brings success.

Of course, each coach will demand certain types of players. He has no choice but to align his livelihood with the 22 guys that he puts out on the field each week. To expect him to allow faceless officials to select those players without his input is naive.

At the better -run clubs like WC, all of these people tend to be on the same page anyway. They have stable administrations so they are able to implement a shared vision over a lengthy period of time.

At clubs like RFC, the dominant model is that of the "fresh start." We try something for a while, we like it at first and embrace it with all our might, then it hits a few snags along the road, it loses us and the inevitable happens.

So we start again, just like we are doing now. Out with the old, in with the new and we set on a course where we will not repeat the most recent set of mistakes, we will boldly make some new ones.

One day we will appoint a coach, set a course of action in place and stick to it. If the results don't come, then get the players that we think we need and keep everyone focussed. Until then, each new coach will bring his ideas and we'll keep having fresh starts.

 

[RedanTiger]

I can well imagine the conversation by Hardwick going along these lines.

"Well I want the best player obviously with the first pick and imagine that will be the one leftover from Scully, Trangove and Martin.
Next I want two strong- marking, big, mobile forwards who can go back if necessary.
I want a Heath Shaw type attacking back flank and a tallish Steve Johnson type forward flank.
I also want a goal-kicking rover in the Brent Harvey mould and another tall key defender would be nice."

Then it gets weird.

"For my list model I also want a Johncock type small defender to go with King, Edwards, Newman, Tambling and Farmer.
On the rookie list we need two Sam Mitchell type smalls, a small forward like Nahas, Morton and Gilligan, a tall third forward to replace Putt and we might as well keep Polak"

I can understand and agree with the first section which gave us Martin, Griffiths, Astbury, Dea, Taylor and Nason as player types even if I don't agree with the actual order or players but the second is seriously strange.

BTW where is that flogging-a-dead-horse emoticon?
;D

 

[bowden4president]

BTW where is that flogging-a-dead-horse emoticon?
;D

 

[Rfc4Ever]

Voting locked.

Interesting results...time will tell.

 

[the claw]

It's been well documented that Wallace wanted an outside midfielder who was quick in 2005, and we went out to find one - and got JON.

The coaching staff *clearly* have some influence as to the types of players they think the list needs for their gameplan. Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen has their head in the sand.

ah my head is in the sand then.
what a laugh blaming wallace for jon how naieve to think even wallace wanted such a deficient player like jon at 8. he may well have had a skillful outside mid on his shopping list but at 8 na even wallace was smart enough to know we had to go best available.

wallace has repeatedly said he had little to do with recruiting he has stated he certainly had no say on where players were taken. yep he would state a type he would like but ya know a well structured well built list wants for no particular type that is the domain of the list manager.

funny we took a outside mid with good skills at pick 40 in casserly. i saw a bit of jon and he played primarily of hb. its known both miller and jackson were wrapped in jon and miller in fact bowed to jacksons judgement on that pick. francis jackson put his hand up on the jon pick miller while enthusiastic prefered varcoe. i have no doubt they took who they thought was best available.

it seems to me hardwick has no say on type of player drafted he has come to the club saying we can only draft players with a particular skillset if players dont meet that skillset they dont get drafted.its setting out a particular rating system just like they did at hawthorn its based on strength and weakness and is based along pelchens scale im sure.
its something ive wanted us to do for yrs.

my only compaint with it atm is it can make you ignore list needs/structure. sometimes with late picks rookie picks you have to target list needs and take a punt the skillset can be improved upon. this should never be done with picks in the first 3 rnds imo.

 

[IanG]

ah my head is in the sand then.
what a laugh blaming wallace for jon how naieve to think even wallace wanted such a deficient player like jon at 8. he may well have had a skillful outside mid on his shopping list but at 8 na even wallace was smart enough to know we had to go best available.

And your evidence for this is?

 

[Leysy Days]

Rejects from other clubs
After past trading/drafting for other clubs players, one would have reasonably expected Richmond to avoid these types of players and concentrate on young, untried, junior recruits. Instead we have added Farmer, Webberley and Nason to the list while keeping Polak as a rookie.

This also gives the lie to the proposition posted by some on this site that, if players aren’t drafted by any club in the National Draft then they are thus not good enough to play AFL. How then do these people explain our recruitment of players such as Webberley and Nason who were passed over previously?

Incorrect Redan. Webberley hasnt been in any system to get drafted until now. He wasnt in any state underage teams & was having a kick at lower levels with mates until moving to Clarence last year. Additionally the statewide league only started in Tas this year, which meant that until now the standard wasn't high enough for players to be drafted directly out of. Also, this is the first year he has nominated himself to be drafted.

Different boats for different goats.

If Webberley is so good as the best player from the Tasmanian competition, how do you pass on the best under-23 player from the VFL in Barlow, playing every week against AFL-listed opponents?

If Nason is so good as a player from the SANFL seconds, how do you pass on the U18 captain of NSW and All-Australian in McNeil?

If Polak is not good enough to be kept on the main list, how do you pass on the All-Australian U18 Full Forward in Panos?

Because the recruiters obviously decided that the players they passed on didnt have the capabilities to play at AFL level. Looking simply at a players current output like you have is a completely false way to look at recruiting guys to play at the level above. Leysy cant stress that enough.

Half of the TAC under 18 Best & fairest winners didnt get drafted. is it luck. No. They just dont have the tools to take there game up to the level required. Panos was rated by the average forum expert who were crying out for his name to be taken at 35 & then for every pick thereafter (where we went Astbury). Leysy said before then he would not get drafted. Unfortunately for guys like him & Temel they just dont have the skillset for AFL football.

 

[bullus_hit]

And your evidence for this is?

Heresay and innuendo - nothing more, nothing less. Claw has his own version of events and will not concede that anyone else may have information to the contrary.

 

[the claw]

Different boats for different goats.

hmm agree. as stated i hadnt seen anything of webberley until after he was drafted. looking at what i can get my hands on he looks like a decent pick. still at 21 it makes it harder to judge upside.

Because the recruiters obviously decided that the players they passed on didnt have the capabilities to play at AFL level. Looking simply at a players current output like you have is a completely false way to look at recruiting guys to play at the level above. Leysy cant stress that enough.

dont agree with this at all. just because we passed does not automatically mean players dont have the capabilities to play afl. the fact so many kids were taken after webberley and in the rookie drafts says a lot of clubs think players do indeed have the capability to become good afl players. the fact they were taken so late does say they have more deficiency than those taken earlier

and a players current output while it is not the be all end all it does give indication of a players potential output.
take meyer. fit all the skill criteria but he was never a big ball winner or accumulator of possesions imo this flowed over into his afl career. should you risk pick 12 on a bloke who may use it well but may not get enough of the ball to be really damaging.

 

[the claw]

Heresay and innuendo - nothing more, nothing less. Claw has his own version of events and will not concede that anyone else may have information to the contrary.

not at all the fact this has been done several times on this site means im not going over it all again if you and ian wish to live with your head up the cyber who am i to stop you.

the fact that someones opinion i trust and know was at the 2005 draft, this someone who has nearly always been proven right actually asked both jackson and miller about jon and got the answer from jackson who was quite pleased with himself that jon was indeed his pick.
its also been said several times miller was so keen on varcoe he went over to the geelong table at the end of that draft and openly quizzed them on him. i have no reason to doubt this persons version why doesnt someone quizz fj on this point im sure hes big enough to admit a mistake when hes made one.

and on wallace while a spin doctor he has repeatedly stated that he had little input into who was actually picked. yep he might ask em for a mid but who that mid was was up to the recruiters. this has been one constant with terry wallace right thru not just the latter yrs of his reign.

it really is easy to lay the blame on someone who is not there to defend himself. it really is easy to ignore what he has constantly said on that matter because you dont like what it may mean.

 

[shamekha]

Jackson to take on full-time Tiger role
Jackson to take on full-time Tiger role
10:55:06 AM Fri 24 February, 2006
Tony Greenberg
richmondfc.com.au

Former Richmond and Swans defender Francis Jackson has been appointed the Tigers’ full-time Recruiting Manager.

Jackson, 51, has spent the past 12 months assisting Richmond’s recruiting department on a part-time basis.

Richmond’s Director of Football Greg Miller explained that Jackson had made such an impression in 2005, the Club was keen to secure his permanent services.

‘The Club’s Board made a strategic decision in 2005 to go without a separate football recruiting division. I took on the role and received great support from a volunteer recruiting team, which Francis Jackson was part of,” he said.

“It was a great exercise for Francis to see how Richmond operated and to work closely with Terry Wallace and myself during the year.

“This gave Francis the confidence that he could now undertake a full-time role, and it gave Terry the confidence that he was a very astute football judge.”

Jackson played six senior games for Richmond from 1973-74, before being part of the famous trade deal for Swans’ star John Pitura in 1975. He went on to play 100 games for the Swans and earn a reputation as a tough, reliable backman.

“My relationship with Francis goes back to when he transferred over from Richmond to South Melbourne in ’75. I was one of the first blokes to meet him and we finished up becoming very good friends,” Miller said.

“An interesting part of Francis’ football career was in 1979 when he had a knee operation early on and missed the whole season. He was held in such high regard as an astute football person that Ian Stewart (the Swans’ senior coach at the time) immediately installed him as the club’s under 19s coach for the season.

“Francis had a further coaching stint with Sandringham in the VFA in 1987, and throughout my time in footy, he’s always been a good ally in the recruiting stakes.

“He worked very closely with me at the Kangaroos and, more recently, with Neville Stibbard at the Kangaroos.

“When I arrived at Richmond, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to bring him across straight away, but given the opportunity of a full-time role, we decided to get him across 12 months early (in 2005), to see how he liked the Tigers again – and how the Tigers liked him.

“And, it’s been an excellent relationship so far. He was instrumental with our draft choices last year and he now heads up the recruiting department.”

Jackson will officially start duties at Punt Road on April 1 after finishing the first school term of 2006 at Brighton Grammar, where he’s been heavily involved for many years as sports master and coach of their first-18 football team.

http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp...ticleid=247509

Well i for one am not blaming a part time recruiter for the 2005 draft. But since becoming fulltime FJ has done quite well.

 

[the claw]

Jackson to take on full-time Tiger role
Jackson to take on full-time Tiger role
10:55:06 AM Fri 24 February, 2006
Tony Greenberg
richmondfc.com.au

Former Richmond and Swans defender Francis Jackson has been appointed the Tigers’ full-time Recruiting Manager.

Jackson, 51, has spent the past 12 months assisting Richmond’s recruiting department on a part-time basis.

Richmond’s Director of Football Greg Miller explained that Jackson had made such an impression in 2005, the Club was keen to secure his permanent services.

‘The Club’s Board made a strategic decision in 2005 to go without a separate football recruiting division. I took on the role and received great support from a volunteer recruiting team, which Francis Jackson was part of,” he said.

“It was a great exercise for Francis to see how Richmond operated and to work closely with Terry Wallace and myself during the year.

“This gave Francis the confidence that he could now undertake a full-time role, and it gave Terry the confidence that he was a very astute football judge.”

Jackson played six senior games for Richmond from 1973-74, before being part of the famous trade deal for Swans’ star John Pitura in 1975. He went on to play 100 games for the Swans and earn a reputation as a tough, reliable backman.

“My relationship with Francis goes back to when he transferred over from Richmond to South Melbourne in ’75. I was one of the first blokes to meet him and we finished up becoming very good friends,” Miller said.

“An interesting part of Francis’ football career was in 1979 when he had a knee operation early on and missed the whole season. He was held in such high regard as an astute football person that Ian Stewart (the Swans’ senior coach at the time) immediately installed him as the club’s under 19s coach for the season.

“Francis had a further coaching stint with Sandringham in the VFA in 1987, and throughout my time in footy, he’s always been a good ally in the recruiting stakes.

“He worked very closely with me at the Kangaroos and, more recently, with Neville Stibbard at the Kangaroos.

“When I arrived at Richmond, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to bring him across straight away, but given the opportunity of a full-time role, we decided to get him across 12 months early (in 2005), to see how he liked the Tigers again – and how the Tigers liked him.

“And, it’s been an excellent relationship so far. He was instrumental with our draft choices last year and he now heads up the recruiting department.”

Jackson will officially start duties at Punt Road on April 1 after finishing the first school term of 2006 at Brighton Grammar, where he’s been heavily involved for many years as sports master and coach of their first-18 football team.

http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp...ticleid=247509

Well i for one am not blaming a part time recruiter for the 2005 draft. But since becoming fulltime FJ has done quite well.

lol jackson has been involved in recruiting for how many yrs he was experienced enough to recommend wetake jon at 8part time or not he obviously saw enough of jon to give that recommendation. he was bought in to assist recruiting yet his assistance obviously failed in 05. who is responsible for jon sheesh its not the bloke who put his hand up and claimed him as his pick. then who? oh i know lets blame terry we blame him for all else from boot studding to fitness from recruiting to list management never mind we payed others to do those jobs.

 

[bullus_hit]

and on wallace while a spin doctor he has repeatedly stated that he had little input into who was actually picked. yep he might ask em for a mid but who that mid was was up to the recruiters. this has been one constant with terry wallace right thru not just the latter yrs of his reign.

This here sums up the point everyone is trying to make, Terry asked for a mid (with pace and kicking skills :-X) and JON and Varcoe were the ones to make the shortlist. Varcoe would been our choice but was overlooked based on medical advice.

Nobody's arguing that Jackson didn't have any input but to suggest that this was his sole decision is simply incorrect.

 

[Baloo]

Some seem to be forgetting that Terry was the master of the "Not my fault" method of revisionist history. For some here to blindingly believe Wallace's version of events just to lay extra blame on existing RFC staff is ridiculous.

But it tends to prove that for some, they will use whatever version they choose just to lay the boots in the RFC. It puts all their posting into perspective.

 

[TigerForce]

Some seem to be forgetting that Terry was the master of the "Not my fault" method of revisionist history. For some here to blindingly believe Wallace's version of events just to lay extra blame on existing RFC staff is ridiculous.

But it tends to prove that for some, they will use whatever version they choose just to lay the boots in the RFC. It puts all their posting into perspective.

A few lessons of 'Management' would help.