THE BIG ISSUE

[Bill James]

Can't believe how much you guys cherry pick. You are happy to look at the good players those clubs have picked and ignore their duds and with the tiges you focus on the duds and ignore the good players.

If you look at RFC drafting over the last 10 years its actually been ok, particularly late in the draft. Our main problem has been giving up draft picks for Houlihans, Hudsons, Flemmings, Blumfields etc. It is extremely hard to pick good kids when you don't use the pick.

 

[Spirit of Jack]

Can't believe how much you guys cherry pick. You are happy to look at the good players those clubs have picked and ignore their duds and with the tiges you focus on the duds and ignore the good players.

If you look at RFC drafting over the last 10 years its actually been ok, particularly late in the draft. Our main problem has been giving up draft picks for Houlihans, Hudsons, Flemmings, Blumfields etc. It is extremely hard to pick good kids when you don't use the pick.

You'd prefer to carry on with the existing recruiting budget Buffalo Bill?

 

[Al Bundy]

But sometimes I think that stat hides the more embarrassing one of three in the last 70 years!

Thanks for that stat, will add some more salt to a wound for my friends !!! :hihi

 

[purepoweryouth]

would be as good if they had been at Richmond for the past three or for years?

Yeah,why not? A good kid is a good kid.

Deledio,Raines Foley don't seem to have had much trouble developing into decent players.

So you think our development of juniors is as good as WCE?

I don't doubt that Deledio, Raines and Foley are developing into decent players, but I am confident they would be even better at WCE.

I agree that our recruitment of the correct raw talent is the most important piece in the puzzle, but my point is, compared to the top clubs, our development of juniors is not as good.

 

[Bill James]

Can't believe how much you guys cherry pick. You are happy to look at the good players those clubs have picked and ignore their duds and with the tiges you focus on the duds and ignore the good players.

If you look at RFC drafting over the last 10 years its actually been ok, particularly late in the draft. Our main problem has been giving up draft picks for Houlihans, Hudsons, Flemmings, Blumfields etc. It is extremely hard to pick good kids when you don't use the pick.

You'd prefer to carry on with the existing recruiting budget Buffalo Bill?

No, but the supporting arguments on our poor talent spotting leave a bit to be desired.

From 1995 to 2003 we finished in the bottom half of the ladder 7 times but somehow managed the following

We used only 8 draft picks in the top 35 on kids.
We traded up 8 draft picks in the top 35 for experienced players ( K. Johnson is the only one left)
We used up 12 late draft picks on recycled players. (There are none left)

Of the late picks we used on kids 50% have played AFL football which is better than average. Mind you they had to play because all our trades and recycled hacks were gone.

My point is: to the extent that we have drafted kids its been ok, we just haven't drafted enough to actually know if we are any good.

Sorry I have to go now and stick pins in my Frawley doll and then have a little weep.

 

[Rockster]

As reported in todays Age;

Collingwood also spent $787,000 on recruiting, a staggering $643,000 more than Richmond (which did not count football director Greg Miller in its recruiting budget)

and i say a great deal of good spending all that money has done collingwood , what have they won lately ?
i thought so just as much as we have .

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

I would like to think that the RFC has learnt from its previous mistakes and will not spend big $$ in the recruitment department until such time it can afford to pay for those costs rather than borrow it.

Here's an idea - instead of trading for big money players like Nathan Brown & Kane Johnson we should of been putting that money into the recruiting department. A simple analogy - we keep paying for big fish rather than paying to learn how to fish.

. "Give a man a fish , he`ll eat for a day .... teach him how to fish and eat forever" ..... Speech

Sage words Maverick

 

[nwonash]

I also believe richmond should increase the funding in the recruiting department.

Look at the interestate clubs whom dedicate money into recruiting, they have more full time scouts than the Victorian based clubs and have a reaped the rewards.

Collingwood may have upped their budget last year in the recruitment department, but I'd like to see over the past 5 years which clubs have invested most in recruiting. I think for memory Richmond had one full time recruiting officer, compared to about 5 or 6 from the Adelaide and Perth clubs. Thats the main reason why the interstate clubs are dominating the AFL and leaving the Victorian clubs for dead. Its their recruitment department that has made the difference and done their homework covering players in all states and leagues.

Richmond has looked for quick fixes by recycling too many rejects as pointed out by Billy James, rather than going out and finding the next superstar who would be a long time player. Clubs just dont like good players go, they do what it takes to club them and let the below par ones go.

The club is heading in the right direction money wise, I cant see why they cant starting increasing the money allocated to the recruiting area. If the club was to recruit the right players, success on the field would follow, this would lead to more memeberships, higher attentences, more sponsorship and the money will continue to flow in.

 

[Tigerdog]

Never trust a beggar.

 

[Tony Braxton-Hicks]

Can't believe how much you guys cherry pick. You are happy to look at the good players those clubs have picked and ignore their duds and with the tiges you focus on the duds and ignore the good players.

If you look at RFC drafting over the last 10 years its actually been ok, particularly late in the draft. Our main problem has been giving up draft picks for Houlihans, Hudsons, Flemmings, Blumfields etc. It is extremely hard to pick good kids when you don't use the pick.

I wonder how much of that was due to a lack of faith in our recruiting department. Do the names Lounder and Fiora ring any bells?

 

[jb03]

No, but the supporting arguments on our poor talent spotting leave a bit to be desired.

From 1995 to 2003 we finished in the bottom half of the ladder 7 times but somehow managed the following

We used only 8 draft picks in the top 35 on kids.
We traded up 8 draft picks in the top 35 for experienced players ( K. Johnson is the only one left)
We used up 12 late draft picks on recycled players. (There are none left)

Of the late picks we used on kids 50% have played AFL football which is better than average. Mind you they had to play because all our trades and recycled hacks were gone.

My point is: to the extent that we have drafted kids its been ok, we just haven't drafted enough to actually know if we are any good.

Sorry I have to go now and stick pins in my Frawley doll and then have a little weep.

Interesting Bill. Would have thought Nathan Brown should still be counted though. Suffice to say recruiting recycled players is a big no no. Exceptions may be Brown types who aren't exactly recycled though you obviously have to give a bit to get those.

 

[tigersforever06]

Why do we spend so little money on recruiting

Without knowing this years figure, Last year we spent $140,000

How the hell is that enough money to recruit poperly

Surely for a club which turnsover $20 million, we can beef that up.

 

[Anduril]

Gary said this afternoon that those figures were about 15 months old and we are spending more now.

 

[tigersforever06]

Phantom should be on the pay-roll with the amount of scouting he does :hihi