Rate our PSD & Rookie Draft Picks

[shamekha]

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.

It is pointing out that maybe Miller didn't do his homework on recommendations given to him. FJ might have watched him play and yes he was a good junior, it was up to others to make sure he would make it as an AFL player.

 

[bullus_hit]

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.

too true, when both Miller and Jackson were at the club it was Miller who copped the vitriol, now there's a vacant whipping boy post, it seems FJ has taken on the mantle. I find this even more baffling, given FJ has completly revamped the recruitment department, provided a truly national scouting operation and done away with the recruitment based on youtube highlight packages.

It would seem some will never be satisfied. :

 

[Tigers of Old]

Yep Jackson got Jon wrong but IMO Miller was still ultimately responsible for that decision.
Since FJ has taken on the key role his strike rate has been pretty good.
He'll likely make a few more howlers too (no recruiter has a perfect strike rate) but as long as he's getting most of them right I'm happy.
He's done well the past few drafts I think.

 

[RedanTiger]

Incorrect Redan. Webberley hasnt been in any system to get drafted until now. Didn't realise you could only be drafted from within the system.Somewhat like Dea before he played three games of TAC. He wasnt in any state underage teams & was having a kick at lower levels with mates until moving to Clarence last year. So not committed enough at junior level.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. So one can only draft from a high standard competition, like with Nason. Also, this is the first year he has nominated himself to be drafted. So you don't think players are told to nominate, like the unregistered player taken by Port, or McDonald only nominating for the PSD?

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. Stress all you like about current form being completely false as a selection tool. Does it, as you suggest in the previous section about Webberley, show the "traits" required. Are you seriously suggesting that B&F winner Barlow playing against AFL listed players cannot play to their standard. Oh that's right you ignore the inconvenient truth.

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.I did not rate Panos either for some reason. I only mentioned his name as a contrast to Polak. Sopmething you ignored. We will see how right we are in the future.

 

[RedanTiger]

Sorry, forgot this.

Thanks Bowdo.

 

[TOT70]

Does it matter who was responsible for the JON pick?

Who was responsible for David Spriggs, or Mitchell Thorp, or Luke Livingstone, or Luke Molan, or Andrew McDougall, Richard Cole and Barry Brookes (at two clubs each)?

Recruiters get some of their picks wrong every year and regularly stuff up early picks just as much as they do late ones. This is not the first or the last major error made with an early pick, even the Groovy Guru from Hawthorn made a gross error of judgment on Mitchell Thorp and he was working full-time on a juicy contract at the time. Stephen Wells, the current Lord of all things recruiting, is lucky to get it right with one in three. At three drafts in a row,six picks were executed before Joel Selwood, Rhys Palmer and Daniel Rich were finally taken so they could win the following year's Rising Star.

What's the agenda here? Now that Miller and Wallace have gone, do we need to find someone else to pin this mistake on again? To serve what purpose? What is the point of pursuing this one error?

What's gone is gone, move on, everybody makes mistakes.

BTW, I was present at that Draft Night so I don't have to rely on second-hand assertions. The favoured group numbered 4, JON, Varcoe, Thomas and Dempsey. Jones and Muston were strongly considered as well. Murphy, Ellis, Dowler, Kennedy or Ryder would have been taken in a heartbeat if they fell to pick 8, which Miller did not believe would happen, nor did it.

They didn't rate Hurn, expected him to go early but left him there when he didn't. They rated Clarke but they were afraid he would not be able to knuckle down and become an AFL footballer. These last two are judgment calls, and they got them wrong.

I also vividly remember that they had a group of 23, who they believed would be drafted before our second pick at 24. Guess what, 20 of them were! Hughes fell out, so did Andrew Swallow and I forget who the other one was. Regardless, they pretty much picked the first half of the draft, mostly in order.

They pulled the wrong reins on JON and Hughes, it happens. The process was fine, and Jackson has worked hard since to bring a previously non-existent recruiting department up to scratch.

 

[Leysy Days]

Didn't realise you could only be drafted from within the system.Somewhat like Dea before he played three games of TAC.

No you dont have to be, but guess what the vast vast majority of players are drafted out of the normal system of playing underage footy at the highest level or playing the highest level in there state. Because funnily enough thats where recruiters spend the majority of there time.

So one can only draft from a high standard competition, like with Nason.

When they are above under 18 level then normally yes. There are exceptions. But Tassie having a statewide comp certainly helped Webberley's chances. There would have been more question marks of his ability to step up if he was playing in a lesser comp dont you think?

Stress all you like about current form being completely false as a selection tool. Does it, as you suggest in the previous section about Webberley, show the "traits" required. Are you seriously suggesting that B&F winner Barlow playing against AFL listed players cannot play to their standard. Oh that's right you ignore the inconvenient truth.

Leysy's ingoring nothing. One thing to remember is that a lot of the AFL listed players that play at that level are kids as well.
On Barlow, havent seen enough to comment, he might have the right traits he might not. Our recruiters obviously thought in comparison to Webberley he didnt. VFL level can definately provide players though. i.e Nahas.

Its horses for courses.

Alister Neville was a VFL star who won the league B & F. He was never a legitimate chance at the big time. Heck Frankston have minimal ex-AFL players but have always been very competitive with mainly local players .

I did not rate Panos either for some reason. I only mentioned his name as a contrast to Polak. Sopmething you ignored. We will see how right we are in the future.

Panos went at what 47 in the rookie. So we would have had to take him at 38. So really you are comparing him to Roberts.

 

[RedanTiger]

OK Leysy, I'm just about done on the subject. We obviously won't agree totally.

As I posted previously I can understand and agree with virtually all the picks taken in terms of player type till Webberley. Don't understand why we would take a back pocket there or why we took all the smalls and kept Polak in the Rookie.

In terms of the actual players picked, the recruiters are the full-time, professional experts and I will wait to see if they are right. Based on past draft picks I will always have some doubts, even though the polling shows posters think they've done a great job as usual.

On Barlow, havent seen enough to comment, he might have the right traits he might not. Our recruiters obviously thought in comparison to Webberley he didnt. VFL level can definately provide players though. i.e Nahas.

Its horses for courses.

You may have misunderstood about Barlow. He only came second in the VFL B&F (Liston). He won the Fothergill-Round medal.

Barlow also follows after Nahas as the Fothergill-Round medallist from this year.

 

[Leysy Days]

Fair enough mate.

 

[IanG]

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.

I for one wasn't talking about Jackson's role in choosing JON. I acknowledge he put forward JON as a pick, I also acknowledge that he was a part time volunteer at the time working off severely deficient information something you refuse to acknowledge in your quest to talk everything about the club down. I originally was talking about your assumption in your previous post that Wallace didn't ask for an outside mid and your inference that he had no role at all in recruiting. We didn't have a List Mgr at the time, the make up of the list would have been determined by Wallace and Miller not by a part time volunteer. However I do note in the above post that you admit you were wrong and now in fact say that Wallace may have asked for a mid.

 

[Leysy Days]

Does it matter who was responsible for the JON pick?

Who was responsible for David Spriggs, or Mitchell Thorp, or Luke Livingstone, or Luke Molan, or Andrew McDougall, Richard Cole and Barry Brookes (at two clubs each)?

Recruiters get some of their picks wrong every year and regularly stuff up early picks just as much as they do late ones. This is not the first or the last major error made with an early pick, even the Groovy Guru from Hawthorn made a gross error of judgment on Mitchell Thorp and he was working full-time on a juicy contract at the time. Stephen Wells, the current Lord of all things recruiting, is lucky to get it right with one in three. At three drafts in a row,six picks were executed before Joel Selwood, Rhys Palmer and Daniel Rich were finally taken so they could win the following year's Rising Star.

What's the agenda here? Now that Miller and Wallace have gone, do we need to find someone else to pin this mistake on again? To serve what purpose? What is the point of pursuing this one error?

What's gone is gone, move on, everybody makes mistakes.

BTW, I was present at that Draft Night so I don't have to rely on second-hand assertions. The favoured group numbered 4, JON, Varcoe, Thomas and Dempsey. Jones and Muston were strongly considered as well. Murphy, Ellis, Dowler, Kennedy or Ryder would have been taken in a heartbeat if they fell to pick 8, which Miller did not believe would happen, nor did it.

They didn't rate Hurn, expected him to go early but left him there when he didn't. They rated Clarke but they were afraid he would not be able to knuckle down and become an AFL footballer. These last two are judgment calls, and they got them wrong.

I also vividly remember that they had a group of 23, who they believed would be drafted before our second pick at 24. Guess what, 20 of them were! Hughes fell out, so did Andrew Swallow and I forget who the other one was. Regardless, they pretty much picked the first half of the draft, mostly in order.

They pulled the wrong reins on JON and Hughes, it happens. The process was fine, and Jackson has worked hard since to bring a previously non-existent recruiting department up to scratch.

Solid posting as always TOT. Leysy has to disagree with the highlighted though.

Millers faults in recruiting was in fact his lack of process when selecting players. He thought he was too smart for the caper & could select guys on gut feel. His lack of process & inability to ensure players ticked certain boxes were his failure.

JON for example had way too many fundmental flaws in his game to be taken so high. Recruiting process should determine that players taken anywhere near pick 8 should have at a minimum very good kicking skills & a natural feel for the game. On Hughes he was the polar opposite his lack of agility meant he was always up against it. He would slide further than he did in that draft in todays climate.

 

[the claw]

It is pointing out that maybe Miller didn't do his homework on recommendations given to him. FJ might have watched him play and yes he was a good junior, it was up to others to make sure he would make it as an AFL player.

still passing the buck. jon was not millers he was jacksons choice. but yes as head of recruiting it was down to miller to veto jon at 8.unfortunately miller liked jon as well he was this wizz bang x factor excitement machine who would not last to our next pick because wce were keen on him or so some will have us think.

 

[TOT70]

Solid posting as always TOT. Leysy has to disagree with the highlighted though.

Millers faults in recruiting was in fact his lack of process when selecting players. He thought he was too smart for the caper & could select guys on gut feel. His lack of process & inability to ensure players ticked certain boxes were his failure.

JON for example had way too many fundmental flaws in his game to be taken so high. Recruiting process should determine that players taken anywhere near pick 8 should have at a minimum very good kicking skills & a natural feel for the game. On Hughes he was the polar opposite his lack of agility meant he was always up against it. He would slide further than he did in that draft in todays climate.

I can see what you are saying and I agree, esp with the Miller comments. Ego played a big part in his process, which is exactly what you are saying. That’s why he was always looking to land the “high profile” trade of each year.

What I was getting at with that comment is that there was clearly enough process to correctly identify nearly all of the early picks that year, virtually in order. They did the same at the 2006 draft, again in 2007 and yet again in 2008. At each of the four Draft Nights, a pattern of names would be plastered on a board and left there for the whole night. Naturally, it wasn’t hard to memorise the names and how they fit into the pattern. I was staggered each year as to how closely the actual Draft would unfold. This is probably more an insight into how Jackson works, than how Miller works.

Getting back to JON, if I remember correctly, he carved it up at Draft Camp with amazing results on both the speed and agility tests. Anyone who has watched him play will wonder how, as he very rarely displayed either trait in a game, always looking like he was trotting around at three-quarter pace and displaying no evasiveness whatsoever. That year, Jackson was still working as a teacher so he wouldn’t have seen too many games due to other commitments. JON didn’t play too many games anyway, due to injury or whatever. He was the classic “potential” pick- as it turned out, a trap for unwary players.

 

[Leysy Days]

I can see what you are saying and I agree, esp with the Miller comments. Ego played a big part in his process, which is exactly what you are saying. That’s why he was always looking to land the “high profile” trade of each year.

What I was getting at with that comment is that there was clearly enough process to correctly identify nearly all of the early picks that year, virtually in order. They did the same at the 2006 draft, again in 2007 and yet again in 2008. At each of the four Draft Nights, a pattern of names would be plastered on a board and left there for the whole night. Naturally, it wasn’t hard to memorise the names and how they fit into the pattern. I was staggered each year as to how closely the actual Draft would unfold. This is probably more an insight into how Jackson works, than how Miller works.

Getting back to JON, if I remember correctly, he carved it up at Draft Camp with amazing results on both the speed and agility tests. Anyone who has watched him play will wonder how, as he very rarely displayed either trait in a game, always looking like he was trotting around at three-quarter pace and displaying no evasiveness whatsoever. That year, Jackson was still working as a teacher so he wouldn’t have seen too many games due to other commitments. JON didn’t play too many games anyway, due to injury or whatever. He was the classic “potential” pick- as it turned out, a trap for unwary players.

Too true old son. Especially Miller in trade week. Reckon he had that week highlighted in lime green in his calender years out. ;D

 

[shamekha]

still passing the buck. jon was not millers he was jacksons choice. but yes as head of recruiting it was down to miller to veto jon at 8.unfortunately miller liked jon as well he was this wizz bang x factor excitement machine who would not last to our next pick because wce were keen on him or so some will have us think.

Its not passing the buck its stating a fact. Miller was the top honcho and is ultimately responsible.
Now i know JON was a player you said wasn't up to scratch from the beginning but you were all for Hughes and Patto and they both haven't worked out either.

Look 2005 wasn't a vintage year for any team. Get over it.

Since that diaster FJ after becoming full time has recruited quite well IMO

 

[the claw]

Its not passing the buck its stating a fact. Miller was the top honcho and is ultimately responsible.
Now i know JON was a player you said wasn't up to scratch from the beginning but you were all for Hughes and Patto and they both haven't worked out either.

Look 2005 wasn't a vintage year for any team. Get over it.

Since that diaster FJ after becoming full time has recruited quite well IMO

mate im well over it just setting the record straight when people try to exonerate jackson from blame he was just as culpable as miller over jon. the simple gact is miller bowed to jackson on the jon pick because jackson had seen more than miller.

as for jacksons picks since 05 being good well lets just say im not so sure about that.

and yep i was all for hughes we needed kpps. patto again we went tall but i didnt want him at that pick i was okay with them taking him because we needed talls. cam wood was my choice at 16. and gibson at 20 both talls and both will probably be failures though i havent totally written of wood yet.

reading my notes on pattison i was hopeful he would become an old fashioned crash bash chf i stuck by him for two yrs even though it was obvious after a short period he was probably not going to make it.

 

[Juffaricho]

I was feeling all good about the new young faces in the club and the direction the club has taken in recruiting youth then I go and read this on the Richmond website.

The Tigers have recruited 14 players since the end of the 2009 season.....

Richmond’s previous highest number of new players in one recruiting period was 13, at the end of 2003 - Nathan Brown (traded by Western Bulldogs), Alex Gilmour (national draft), Tom Roach (father-son rule), Daniel Jackson (national draft), Shane Morrison (national draft), Brent Hartigan (national draft), Shane Tuck (national draft), Andrew Raines (national draft), Simon Fletcher (national draft), Kyle Archibald (national draft), Kelvin Moore (rookie draft), Matthew Shir (rookie draft) and Adam Pickering (rookie draft).

So to clarify, In 2003 we brought in 12 young'uns (plus Nathan Brown). We knew Browny was ready made so I'll match him up with Martin who is ready made. The rest from both years were lottery picks (pick and hope).

And out of all those other 12 guys in 2003 we got Daniel Jackson :, Tucky :-\ and Kelvin Moore :-X . THAT'S IT!

Oh crap.....

I hope those of you penciling in 8-10 of this year's draft picks in your "team of the future" go and have some stiff eggnog.

 

[Tango]

RT your first post was a good post IMO but its a waste of time trying to debate and argue against the tide of rose coloured glass wearing supporters on here spruiking our recruiting as having done a splendid job, we have taken a lot of risks based on footskills

It seems its ok to speculate and take risks on small players from outside the traditional U18 pathway but its not ok to take similar risks to address list structure or need and take some genuine size

how people on here can confidently argue that player A has a better chance than player B when you get to the bottom of the bucket amazes me
but i guess these guys are so good at selecting and identifying talent that their opinion is worth more than someone elses

and the argument that every other team overlooked player X and Y - thats crap coz last time i looked every player we took after about 70 odd had been overlooked by everyone up to that point

 

[Disco08]

I'm still not sure what you're so upset about Tango. You wanted players who project as key position types. Of the 8 new players added to our main list, 4 of them are exactly that - Griffiths, Astbury, Taylor and Grimes.

I would have liked one more tall in the rookie picks (Thompson ahead of Hicks would have been the go IMO), but one pick really is splitting hairs isn't it?

 

[johnson2richo2003]

and the argument that every other team overlooked player X and Y - thats crap coz last time i looked every player we took after about 70 odd had been overlooked by everyone up to that point

Considering the ratio of Mid/Flanker types to KP in the draft is about 10 to 1 the odds shorten even further as you get deeper into the draft,While the chance of getting a good Mid/Flanker deep in the draft does drop,Not as nearly as bad as a KP.