One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Francois Jackson on September 10, 2014, 08:53:00 PM
-
Right enough is enough with these clowns.
if hardwick values his job he would look long and hard at upgrading these 2 with our stuffin money that we generously pour into the club every year.
We shouldn't have to be relying on our top end talent to come from our first round picks.
These 2 were probably given a 5 yr extension on the back of Miles.
I have spent a bit of time going through the lists of hawks, cats, swans and fremantle and the reasons why they are so good is because they have players like Jack, Hannebury, Kennedy Gunston, Crowley, Sandilands, Bruest amongst others that have come from picks 20 plus.
I look at our list and shake my head that the Foley, Grigg, Newman, Edwards types are not getting pushed back to the seconds in favour of emerging talent.
Its either the fault of these clowns or the development spuds led by Tim Clarke have no idea what they are doing or a mixture of both. Good clubs dont care about top picks, they have faith in their recruiters to bring it home.
I personally have more faith in a used car salesman that these 2.
Time for a change. Hardwick needs to wake up and grow some balls before he is left without a job
-
Excellent rant. :bow
-
The list is not healthy.
-
Great rant :clapping
The other thing about relying solely on your first round picks is that it is a disaster if they don't work out, it also puts more than usual pressure on the likes of Ellis, Vickery and Conca, Ellis seems to have lifted and could be elite, Vickery who knows, Conca looks like your standard pick 40 at the moment.
-
Conca over Heppel looks worse and worse with every passing day.
-
Well said , but it won't happen.
This club just doesn't seem to understand that the number one reason for our lack of success is recruiting/list management..
So nothing will change there...
-
Conca over Heppel looks worse and worse with every passing day.
It's another Tambling over Franklin.lmao@ that
-
That 2010 draft is an absolute shocker. :lol
-
That 2010 draft is an absolute shocker. :lol
Even one or two of the apologist flogs on Big Footy are finally starting to concede Conca over Heppell might have been a mistake.....so it must really be obvious now....
-
The football department has a whole has to be reviewed. We are fortunate that in recent times are number 1 picks have been good eg Martin. However that luck cannot last for ever. We need to make our second and third round picks count. Recruiters should have been placed on notice after drafting Hampson.
-
The football department has a whole has to be reviewed. We are fortunate that in recent times are number 1 picks have been good eg Martin. However that luck cannot last for ever. We need to make our second and third round picks count. Recruiters should have been placed on notice after drafting Hampson.
Correcting for accuracy
Recruiters Blair Hartley should have been placed on notice after drafting trading for Hampson
The recruiters: Jackson, Taylor etc had no input in the decision of trading for Hampson. Whack them for drafting but not trade decisions, especially this
Hampson is a Blair Hartley special (recommendation)
But instead of putting him on notice the Club promote him :clapping
-
Correcting for accuracy
Recruiters Blair Hartley should have been placed on notice after drafting trading for Hampson
Alternatively he picked up Miles for peanuts but yeah keep focussing on the negatives.
-
The football department has a whole has to be reviewed. We are fortunate that in recent times are number 1 picks have been good eg Martin. However that luck cannot last for ever. We need to make our second and third round picks count. Recruiters should have been placed on notice after drafting Hampson.
Correcting for accuracy
Recruiters Blair Hartley should have been placed on notice after drafting trading for Hampson
The recruiters: Jackson, Taylor etc had no input in the decision of trading for Hampson. Whack them for drafting but not trade decisions, especially this
Hampson is a Blair Hartley special (recommendation)
But instead of putting him on notice the Club promote him :clapping
Apologies. Was using the term recruiters in the broadest sense. I should have said Football department. Not sure but I believe the decision to take Miles had more to do with the recommendation of Chocco than any masterstroke of Hartley.
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
-
Correcting for accuracy
Recruiters Blair Hartley should have been placed on notice after drafting trading for Hampson
Alternatively he picked up Miles for peanuts but yeah keep focussing on the negatives.
Yeah that's one resounding success - name the others....
-
What about Rutten, surely enough is enough
-
Correcting for accuracy
Recruiters Blair Hartley should have been placed on notice after drafting trading for Hampson
Alternatively he picked up Miles for peanuts but yeah keep focussing on the negatives.
Yeah that's one resounding success - name the others....
Maric's been a resounding success.
Been quite a few other reasonable choices given their cost.
No one gets them all right.
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
Serious question what do you think is the right number?
We have what full time 4 recruiters - Jackson, Taylor, Clarke and Williams plus (assuming here) a couple of part-time scouts interstate
How many more do we need, forget whether who have should go or not just talking pure numbers?
-
Enough as it takes to get it right
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
Serious question what do you think is the right number?
We have what full time 4 recruiters - Jackson, Taylor, Clarke and Williams plus (assuming here) a couple of part-time scouts interstate
How many more do we need, forget whether who have should go or not just talking pure numbers?
Not sure. All our recent drafts have been based off 3 people which I don't think is enough. A 4th may make a big difference.
Ideally I'd think having 1 in WA, 1 in SA, 2 in Vic/Tas and 1 covering the others should be the goal. Plus the scouts on top of that.
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
No mate these 2 clowns have to go as a start. 10 years is enough for FJ. At the end of the day you are judged on your performance and his has been woeful.
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
No mate these 2 clowns have to go as a start. 10 years is enough for FJ. At the end of the day you are judged on your performance and his has been woeful.
Probably. But who do we get to replace him. I think at least with Williams we have a guy that can take over as head recruiter. So that's a plus. I do hope if we were to do that, that Williams gets a bit more say in the type of player we recruit. Otherwise we will keep ending up with the same types. Slow, reasonably skilled ball winners who are good kids.
Hartley isn't too bad. Just need to take away some of his power. Too many bloody recycleds FFS
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
Serious question what do you think is the right number?
We have what full time 4 recruiters - Jackson, Taylor, Clarke and Williams plus (assuming here) a couple of part-time scouts interstate
How many more do we need, forget whether who have should go or not just talking pure numbers?
hawks had 8 in the early 00's, Im sure that's grown.. pretty sure pies have over 10 now
-
Apologies. Was using the term recruiters in the broadest sense. I should have said Football department. Not sure but I believe the decision to take Miles had more to do with the recommendation of Chocco than any masterstroke of Hartley.
I stuffing love how everything positive that comes from this club is chalked down to Chocco :lol
-
ban this idiot, fair dinkum if he fell into a barrel of t@s he d come out sucking his thumb, and we re the poor idiots that have to listen to his constant whining :wallywink :banghead :lol
-
Banning is a massive call and you leave yourself open to scrutiny.
Would h8 to be in ur shuz
plz
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
Serious question what do you think is the right number?
We have what full time 4 recruiters - Jackson, Taylor, Clarke and Williams plus (assuming here) a couple of part-time scouts interstate
How many more do we need, forget whether who have should go or not just talking pure numbers?
The right number is
... 42
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
Serious question what do you think is the right number?
We have what full time 4 recruiters - Jackson, Taylor, Clarke and Williams plus (assuming here) a couple of part-time scouts interstate
How many more do we need, forget whether who have should go or not just talking pure numbers?
The right number is
... 42
We need to find Slartibartfast first.
-
Correcting for accuracy
Recruiters Blair Hartley should have been placed on notice after drafting trading for Hampson
Alternatively he picked up Miles for peanuts but yeah keep focussing on the negatives.
Yeah that's one resounding success - name the others....
Maric's been a resounding success.
Been quite a few other reasonable choices given their cost.
No one gets them all right.
Only Maric and Miles are good trades the rest is rubbish. The cost doesn't matter, a good player is a good player and a bad player is still a bad player even if they don't cost a lot. Hartley only has 2 successes the rest are average to poor selections.
-
What a lot of rot , these two have taken a list widely regarded as worse than fitzroys to a team that knocks up finals appearances like shelling peas. Me finks that might have just a liddle to do with the players incoming ::)
-
What a lot of rot , these two have taken a list widely regarded as worse than fitzroys to a team that knocks up finals appearances like shelling peas. Me finks that might have just a liddle to do with the players incoming ::)
that's the difference between people like me and people like you. You like mediocrity and failure and you applaud it, you applaud finishing 7th and 8th in an 18 team comp. People like me view that as a failure, but good luck to you Bj if you like failure.
-
What a lot of rot , these two have taken a list widely regarded as worse than fitzroys to a team that knocks up finals appearances like shelling peas. Me finks that might have just a liddle to do with the players incoming ::)
So tell me if they've done such a great job, then why do we still have so many holes in our list; especially when you look at our list depth?
One of the problems with Hartley**** IMHO is he got certain things right when we needed to fill a specific need (eg Grigg) but the same player has now become a negative but instead of trying to upgrade on that Blair and his rating system meant said player was rewarded with a contract extension last year.
And before people start jumping up and down I will elaborate. By negative I mean that Grigg isn't going to get any better, he's been worked out by opposition and is a liability with his refusal to chase amongst other things. So (again) IMHO Hartley should be looking to upgrade on this not rely on it as the objective should be about constant improvement to enable the club to get better to become a contender rather than a far away challenger. He hasn't done that so IMV that's is the weakness in what he is doing
The Hampson situation is going to be what he is remembered for because that is a terrible decision that we are now stuck with for another 2 years, that shackle isn't going anywhere
***And yes I am on record as saying I don't rate him and I am not a fan***
-
That's actually more a fault of dimma in opening up opportunities for others to take that spot, there are a few that were denied a decent crack at it.
Gordon has proved to be a good selection , we have Mcbean about to come in.
The yield from our rookie list in 2014 has no peer. Miles and Thomas , senior games played.
These guys know their stuff
-
That's actually more a fault of dimma in opening up opportunities for others to take that spot, there are a few that were denied a decent crack at it.
Gordon has proved to be a good selection , we have Mcbean about to come in.
The yield from our rookie list in 2014 has no peer. Miles and Thomas , senior games played.
These guys know their stuff
quoted for the comedic value :lol
McBean was Jacksons pic from the draft. Thomas is a d grade player average at best, slow who I and many others don't rate. Gordon aint that good to be honest just filling a hole until we draft in a replacement. That doesn't leave a lot of your arguments standing Bj ... just shows how ordinary its all been.
-
I think you're all correct to an extent - willyp and ramps about Grigg being a good selection early on, but now become a negative bc we haven't upgraded again - also that we shouldn't be happy with where we are and really need to get hungry now as a club to take the next step.
BJ is also correct in that Dimma also should wear the blame with the lack of opportunities he gives young players to displace their older peers. Shane Edwards was given 8 weeks this year, Grigg & Newman haven't deserved a game for yrs, on the otherhand
Dea 2 bad games out, Arnott 1 bad game out, O'Hanlon 20 mins out.
-
I don't know why anyone even bothers trying to engage Bo in serious football discussion when he's clearly a troll.
-
Bo loves his tigers..he has a special fondness for the black and yellow whether they be snakes or tigers
-
What a lot of rot , these two have taken a list widely regarded as worse than fitzroys to a team that knocks up finals appearances like shelling peas. Me finks that might have just a liddle to do with the players incoming ::)
that's the difference between people like me and people like you. You like mediocrity and failure and you applaud it, you applaud finishing 7th and 8th in an 18 team comp. People like me view that as a failure, but good luck to you Bj if you like failure.
u wouldn't know poo ramp, I compete for a living, I don't know mediocrity or failure , im at the top of my game :clapping nice try though, teeth back in and brain into gear and reload :lol
-
What a lot of rot , these two have taken a list widely regarded as worse than fitzroys to a team that knocks up finals appearances like shelling peas. Me finks that might have just a liddle to do with the players incoming ::)
that's the difference between people like me and people like you. You like mediocrity and failure and you applaud it, you applaud finishing 7th and 8th in an 18 team comp. People like me view that as a failure, but good luck to you Bj if you like failure.
u wouldn't know poo ramp, I compete for a living, I don't know mediocrity or failure , im at the top of my game :clapping nice try though, teeth back in and brain into gear and reload :lol
Only took you 3 hours to come up with a response. You should get a job working in the Labor Party or the Unions :lol
-
The problem is that we need to actually add to our recruiters not get rid of them. I'd also look at getting the Geelong guy to take over as head recruiter.
Serious question what do you think is the right number?
We have what full time 4 recruiters - Jackson, Taylor, Clarke and Williams plus (assuming here) a couple of part-time scouts interstate
How many more do we need, forget whether who have should go or not just talking pure numbers?
On the collingwood web site they have 4 full timers and they sacked on i jan this year Noel Judkins which they may or may not have replaced. Thy have 10 coaches and 4 football analysts. I think a case could be made that analysts have input into the recruiting as do coaches but its the full timers that prob do the most heavy lifting in recruiting.
The AFL integrity dept this year cracked down on part time recruiting staff. Fron this we might see how many they really do have. I read ages ago they had 9 but how true that is I dont know.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-integrity-crackdown-spreads-to-parttime-recruiting-scouts-20140323-hvltd.html
-
That's actually more a fault of dimma in opening up opportunities for others to take that spot, there are a few that were denied a decent crack at it.
Gordon has proved to be a good selection , we have Mcbean about to come in.
The yield from our rookie list in 2014 has no peer. Miles and Thomas , senior games played.
These guys know their stuff
Agree that when it comes to Dimma and the selection group they did not give opportunities to kids that should have been given them
But and this is my point Dimma isn't the one who said Griig is worth another 3 years, that was Blair Hartley. They may have all agreed we needed another ruckman but Dimma didn't say let's get Hampson, that was Blair and his rating system. And not only did we over pay at the trade table we gave him 3 years! If that's "knowing their stuff" I'd rather have pre-schoolers making the deal using pin the tail on the donkey as their method of evaluation
I think people would be staggered at how much input good 'ole Blair has in contracts discussions with current blokes on our list and on the blokes he recommends we trade for. IMV he has far too much say and the proof is IMHO there for everyone to see in 2014
And Please don't say our rookie selections were brilliant this year. Miles is the expection, Thomas isn't someone you would want to hang your hat on and Banfield last time I checked he got de-listed this week. Ditto 2 other rookies. Don't think we can boast our "rookie list has no peer"
Blair Hartley has got a couple of things right but he has made some monumental mistakes that are going to be biting us for a few more years yet
-
That's actually more a fault of dimma in opening up opportunities for others to take that spot, there are a few that were denied a decent crack at it.
Gordon has proved to be a good selection , we have Mcbean about to come in.
The yield from our rookie list in 2014 has no peer. Miles and Thomas , senior games played.
These guys know their stuff
Agree that when it comes to Dimma and the selection group they did not give opportunities to kids that should have been given them
But and this is my point Dimma isn't the one who said Griig is worth another 3 years, that was Blair Hartley. They may have all agreed we needed another ruckman but Dimma didn't say let's get Hampson, that was Blair and his rating system. And not only did we over pay at the trade table we gave him 3 years! If that's "knowing their stuff" I'd rather have pre-schoolers making the deal using pin the tail on the donkey as their method of evaluation
I think people would be staggered at how much input good 'ole Blair has in contracts discussions with current blokes on our list and on the blokes he recommends we trade for. IMV he has far too much say and the proof is IMHO there for everyone to see in 2014
And Please don't say our rookie selections were brilliant this year. Miles is the expection, Thomas isn't someone you would want to hang your hat on and Banfield last time I checked he got de-listed this week. Ditto 2 other rookies. Don't think we can boast our "rookie list has no peer"
Blair Hartley has got a couple of things right but he has made some monumental mistakes that are going to be biting us for a few more years yet
:clapping
-
That's actually more a fault of dimma in opening up opportunities for others to take that spot, there are a few that were denied a decent crack at it.
Gordon has proved to be a good selection , we have Mcbean about to come in.
The yield from our rookie list in 2014 has no peer. Miles and Thomas , senior games played.
These guys know their stuff
Agree that when it comes to Dimma and the selection group they did not give opportunities to kids that should have been given them
But and this is my point Dimma isn't the one who said Griig is worth another 3 years, that was Blair Hartley. They may have all agreed we needed another ruckman but Dimma didn't say let's get Hampson, that was Blair and his rating system. And not only did we over pay at the trade table we gave him 3 years! If that's "knowing their stuff" I'd rather have pre-schoolers making the deal using pin the tail on the donkey as their method of evaluation
I think people would be staggered at how much input good 'ole Blair has in contracts discussions with current blokes on our list and on the blokes he recommends we trade for. IMV he has far too much say and the proof is IMHO there for everyone to see in 2014
And Please don't say our rookie selections were brilliant this year. Miles is the expection, Thomas isn't someone you would want to hang your hat on and Banfield last time I checked he got de-listed this week. Ditto 2 other rookies. Don't think we can boast our "rookie list has no peer"
Blair Hartley has got a couple of things right but he has made some monumental mistakes that are going to be biting us for a few more years yet
You can't hang a bloke on one decision, are u going to say hawthorn are idiots coz they stuffed up on dayle garlett or collingwood are idiots for Quentin lynch and the big dud from Sydney . It's gotta be a balanced view and these guys have improved our list from a very low base
-
That's actually more a fault of dimma in opening up opportunities for others to take that spot, there are a few that were denied a decent crack at it.
Gordon has proved to be a good selection , we have Mcbean about to come in.
The yield from our rookie list in 2014 has no peer. Miles and Thomas , senior games played.
These guys know their stuff
Agree that when it comes to Dimma and the selection group they did not give opportunities to kids that should have been given them
But and this is my point Dimma isn't the one who said Griig is worth another 3 years, that was Blair Hartley. They may have all agreed we needed another ruckman but Dimma didn't say let's get Hampson, that was Blair and his rating system. And not only did we over pay at the trade table we gave him 3 years! If that's "knowing their stuff" I'd rather have pre-schoolers making the deal using pin the tail on the donkey as their method of evaluation
I think people would be staggered at how much input good 'ole Blair has in contracts discussions with current blokes on our list and on the blokes he recommends we trade for. IMV he has far too much say and the proof is IMHO there for everyone to see in 2014
And Please don't say our rookie selections were brilliant this year. Miles is the expection, Thomas isn't someone you would want to hang your hat on and Banfield last time I checked he got de-listed this week. Ditto 2 other rookies. Don't think we can boast our "rookie list has no peer"
Blair Hartley has got a couple of things right but he has made some monumental mistakes that are going to be biting us for a few more years yet
You can't hang a bloke on one decision, are u going to say hawthorn are idiots coz they stuffed up on dayle garlett or collingwood are idiots for Quentin lynch and the big dud from Sydney . It's gotta be a balanced view and these guys have improved our list from a very low base
They have not taken enough risks with youth (especially last year).
-
I don't know why anyone even bothers trying to engage Bo in serious football discussion when he's clearly a troll.
Lol, genius :lol
-
Hampson pick 28
Conca pick 6
Grigg, Newman contract extension,
Dea gets dropped after a bad game, game plan first half of 2014,
Chris Knights 3 yrs, Jordy McMahon 3 yrs, Tuck retirement early yet Newy??? Most on here would agree last year Tucky was better value than Newy the last 2 years.
Matt Thomas,
Sam Lonergan,
Just to name a few.
Combination of Dimma getting comfortable and FJ and Hartley getting one right and given our plight in the past the media circus praising it in 2013 yet first half of ths year the derision toward it was selling just as much candy.
Problem is given the fact we were labelled Fitzroy in 2010 the guys did their job got us competitive after that and to successive finals series but first week of finals is really as far as we can aspire to unless we catch Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney, Freo in transition in the same year as Collingwood as we have seen this year but that would not be sustained long term.
Time to upgrade the list by being more daring an not conservative the list is competitive but not in finals.Two years in a row proves this.mneed to add class and quality and omit some of those blokes aforementioned to upgrade with blokes from the drsft and proven blokes from September.
Enough of the bargain basement skata. The clock is ticking we miss this boat and stay middle of the road and in a few years we will be to where we were a few years ago, nowhere and looking up at others. Suffice to say most important trade period for the club if it needs to break into the top 4.
Need to not just look at first round, but second and third round and time to look at new recruiters.
Too many errors not enough long term sustainability.
-
Time to upgrade the list by being more daring
yep
-
You can't hang a bloke on one decision, are u going to say hawthorn are idiots coz they stuffed up on dayle garlett or collingwood are idiots for Quentin lynch and the big dud from Sydney . It's gotta be a balanced view and these guys have improved our list from a very low base
One decision? Seriously? One?
Err Nope, been more than one and I have even given examples. But the ONE that sums up Hartley's deficiencies is Hampson, it shines like the beacon that could safely bring down an A380 Airbus in heavy fog.
As I said you bring in a player to fill specific need which is fine but at some point you look to upgrade on that need when the one you bought in reaches their peak. Have we done that on some of Blair's Boys. Answer is no, we just give them contract extensions. Which BTW reeks of favouring your original choices
Yep there have been improvements to the list but at some point in time you have to take the next step, rewarding blokes like Grigg, Newman isn't an example of taking the next step IMHO.
-
We will be more daring , fj has proved he could pan for gold in dandenong ck when it comes to the rookie list . Expect to see us load up with juniors this year :shh
-
just having a quick look at this thread.
if people think we dont need to at the very least beef up our recruiting of both mature and juniors they imo are well and truly kidding themselves.
by my reckoning since jackson has been there 05 onwards and hartley 09 onwards there have been over 50 mature recruits to our club and you could almost count on one hand the ones that have been very good picks.
i laugh my head of when people say things like you have to forgive them getting the odd one wrong. that is just plain delusion. the simple fact is they have got the vast majority wrong and hang their hats on getting the odd pick right.
i ask myself why poeople defend such obvious failure in the most important area of any footy club.
we should be finding 3 or 4 very good players each yr at a minimum.
-
just having a quick look at this thread.
if people think we dont need to at the very least beef up our recruiting of both mature and juniors they imo are well and truly kidding themselves.
by my reckoning since jackson has been there 05 onwards and hartley 09 onwards there have been over 50 mature recruits to our club and you could almost count on one hand the ones that have been very good picks.
i laugh my head of when people say things like you have to forgive them getting the odd one wrong. that is just plain delusion. the simple fact is they have got the vast majority wrong and hang their hats on getting the odd pick right.
i ask myself why poeople defend such obvious failure in the most important area of any footy club.
we should be finding 3 or 4 very good players each yr at a minimum.
The clawski is back! :clapping :clapping :bow :bow :gotigers
-
Claw it doesn't matter who you bring in to fill these roles,for me anyway its about getting the processes right and setting the highest standards that these people need to aim at,and that comes from the club as a whole
-
Excellent..if claw is back I can now put on my hobnailed boots again ;D
-
When is Luke Williams taking over as the head of recruiting?
-
When is Luke Williams taking over as the head of recruiting?
He won't. He will crack the sads when we go left field and save his own career. ;D
-
just having a quick look at this thread.
if people think we dont need to at the very least beef up our recruiting of both mature and juniors they imo are well and truly kidding themselves.
by my reckoning since jackson has been there 05 onwards and hartley 09 onwards there have been over 50 mature recruits to our club and you could almost count on one hand the ones that have been very good picks.
i laugh my head of when people say things like you have to forgive them getting the odd one wrong. that is just plain delusion. the simple fact is they have got the vast majority wrong and hang their hats on getting the odd pick right.
i ask myself why poeople defend such obvious failure in the most important area of any footy club.
we should be finding 3 or 4 very good players each yr at a minimum.
The clawski is back! :clapping :clapping :bow :bow :gotigers
thank god for that
100% correct again Claw and Gig
Our whole system is up the poo
-
just having a quick look at this thread.
if people think we dont need to at the very least beef up our recruiting of both mature and juniors they imo are well and truly kidding themselves.
by my reckoning since jackson has been there 05 onwards and hartley 09 onwards there have been over 50 mature recruits to our club and you could almost count on one hand the ones that have been very good picks.
i laugh my head of when people say things like you have to forgive them getting the odd one wrong. that is just plain delusion. the simple fact is they have got the vast majority wrong and hang their hats on getting the odd pick right.
i ask myself why poeople defend such obvious failure in the most important area of any footy club.
we should be finding 3 or 4 very good players each yr at a minimum.
The clawski is back! :clapping :clapping :bow :bow :gotigers
nope not back as per say. just looking before i had to out to state titles at rowing and decided people needed all the facts in this thread.
have come home from rowing and had a bit of time so done a few more posts.
im actually quite content to just peruse the threads when i get the chance.but now and then i will post.
ive put a little bit of time into the nd and looked at mature types this yr so will probably make some comments on recruiting and list management and that will be about it.
-
When is Luke Williams taking over as the head of recruiting?
Doing his apprenticeship under one of the best in the biz :shh
-
We are in the bottom 6 clubs in terms of recruiting. That's the unfortunate reality of it.
-
We are in the bottom 6 clubs in terms of recruiting. That's the unfortunate reality of it.
Sometimes I feel the club would be better off reading all the phantom drafts around and making up their mind on those! :banghead
-
You can't hang a bloke on one decision, are u going to say hawthorn are idiots coz they stuffed up on dayle garlett or collingwood are idiots for Quentin lynch and the big dud from Sydney . It's gotta be a balanced view and these guys have improved our list from a very low base
One decision? Seriously? One?
Err Nope, been more than one and I have even given examples. But the ONE that sums up Hartley's deficiencies is Hampson, it shines like the beacon that could safely bring down an A380 Airbus in heavy fog.
As I said you bring in a player to fill specific need which is fine but at some point you look to upgrade on that need when the one you bought in reaches their peak. Have we done that on some of Blair's Boys. Answer is no, we just give them contract extensions. Which BTW reeks of favouring your original choices
Yep there have been improvements to the list but at some point in time you have to take the next step, rewarding blokes like Grigg, Newman isn't an example of taking the next step IMHO.
If you think Blair and Blair only makes decisions on who comes to our club, what they get paid and whether they get extensions to their contracts then you a sad.
Give it a rest mate, you obviously have something against him, maybe he didn't talk to you one night at one of the functions but to blame him for our list is idiotic.
FJ should be removed from the club and any record of him destroyed because he has done nothing in his time at our club. Our list is what it is because of him. If he could draft a decent player outside of the first round we wouldn't even need Blair.
It makes me sick in the guts to think that the powers to be at our club cannot see how badly this guy has been. It's in black and white when you look at our list.
Dimma playing players like Grigg tells me also that he has NFI either. But let's face it the alternatives in the twos aren't much better and guess who's fault that is.
The only standout player that has been drafted in over the last 5 years in is Dusty. And he was pick 3. Big bloody deal!!!
We have a few others that maybe will be good, B graders at best though. And all have glowing weakness IMO. To small, to soft or to slow.. But all still mostly first rounders.
The most important job at any footy club is the recruiting manager. If he cannot get decent players into the club then the other departments don't stand a chance. Spend whatever you like on a coach or development but like the old saying goes 'you cannot make strawberry jam out of pig sh:7'
And unfortunately for us long suffering tiger idiots we get the pig sh;7 to watch every week.
Can anyone name me one player that wasn't drafted in the first round of the National Draft that is a regular in the side that you would class as a B grader or better since FJ has been at the club?
I cannot and that's pretty damming IMO.
One last thing WP, if you think Frawley can't be talked into coming to Tigerland than you must not think much of our organization.. Offer him 100k more a year over five years (so 600k a year) with maybe some incentives and the job would be done.
This list isn't getting fixed through the draft with what we have in charge, may have to be bold like our song says and buy our way up the ladder. :lol I can only dream.
-
If you think Blair and Blair only makes decisions on who comes to our club, what they get paid and whether they get extensions to their contracts then you a sad.
I never, ever said that. But when it comes to trades and FA then Blair is the man. He rates 'em, he recommends the. He also has a say on players coming out of contract
Give it a rest mate, you obviously have something against him, maybe he didn't talk to you one night at one of the functions but to blame him for our list is idiotic.
Have not hidden the fact i don't like him (for valid reasons BTW) and I don't rate him. Just because I won't publicly say why doesn't mean my reasons aren't valid
I don't blame him entirely for our list and the holes in it.
But I do blame him for Hampson and the contract extensions for certain players because he has had a massive say in those.
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
FJ should be removed from the club and any record of him destroyed because he has done nothing in his time at our club. Our list is what it is because of him. If he could draft a decent player outside of the first round we wouldn't even need Blair.
It makes me sick in the guts to think that the powers to be at our club cannot see how badly this guy has been. It's in black and white when you look at our list.
Dimma playing players like Grigg tells me also that he has NFI either. But let's face it the alternatives in the twos aren't much better and guess who's fault that is.
The only standout player that has been drafted in over the last 5 years in is Dusty. And he was pick 3. Big bloody deal!!!
We have a few others that maybe will be good, B graders at best though. And all have glowing weakness IMO. To small, to soft or to slow.. But all still mostly first rounders.
The most important job at any footy club is the recruiting manager. If he cannot get decent players into the club then the other departments don't stand a chance. Spend whatever you like on a coach or development but like the old saying goes 'you cannot make strawberry jam out of pig sh:7'
And unfortunately for us long suffering tiger idiots we get the pig sh;7 to watch every week.
Can anyone name me one player that wasn't drafted in the first round of the National Draft that is a regular in the side that you would class as a B grader or better since FJ has been at the club?
I cannot and that's pretty damming IMO.
Fair assessement there. Though I don't agree in full with your comment about kids in the VFL. How were ever supposed to find out if they were any good if they weren't given an opportunity. End of the day after delistings we are now never going to know.
One last thing WP, if you think Frawley can't be talked into coming to Tigerland than you must not think much of our organization.. Offer him 100k more a year over five years (so 600k a year) with maybe some incentives and the job would be done.
Disagree $600k a year wont get him to the RFC, $800k will and IMHO he isn't worth that. He wants Geelong and the only reason Freo has a small chance is that they will offer him his $800k a season
-
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
His parents
-
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
His parents
Removed as it offended
-
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
His parents
:lol
Classy ? NOT, considering Hammers dad died during the year
-
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
His parents
:lol
Classy ? NOT, considering Hammers dad died during the year
Delicate little soul aren't you
-
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
His parents
:lol
Classy ? NOT, considering Hammers dad died during the year
Delicate little soul aren't you
hahahah first time Ive been called that
-
If you think Blair and Blair only makes decisions on who comes to our club, what they get paid and whether they get extensions to their contracts then you a sad.
I never, ever said that. But when it comes to trades and FA then Blair is the man. He rates 'em, he recommends the. He also has a say on players coming out of contract
Give it a rest mate, you obviously have something against him, maybe he didn't talk to you one night at one of the functions but to blame him for our list is idiotic.
Have not hidden the fact i don't like him (for valid reasons BTW) and I don't rate him. Just because I won't publicly say why doesn't mean my reasons aren't valid
I don't blame him entirely for our list and the holes in it.
But I do blame him for Hampson and the contract extensions for certain players because he has had a massive say in those.
If youdont' blame Blair for Hampson who do you blame????
FJ should be removed from the club and any record of him destroyed because he has done nothing in his time at our club. Our list is what it is because of him. If he could draft a decent player outside of the first round we wouldn't even need Blair.
It makes me sick in the guts to think that the powers to be at our club cannot see how badly this guy has been. It's in black and white when you look at our list.
Dimma playing players like Grigg tells me also that he has NFI either. But let's face it the alternatives in the twos aren't much better and guess who's fault that is.
The only standout player that has been drafted in over the last 5 years in is Dusty. And he was pick 3. Big bloody deal!!!
We have a few others that maybe will be good, B graders at best though. And all have glowing weakness IMO. To small, to soft or to slow.. But all still mostly first rounders.
The most important job at any footy club is the recruiting manager. If he cannot get decent players into the club then the other departments don't stand a chance. Spend whatever you like on a coach or development but like the old saying goes 'you cannot make strawberry jam out of pig sh:7'
And unfortunately for us long suffering tiger idiots we get the pig sh;7 to watch every week.
Can anyone name me one player that wasn't drafted in the first round of the National Draft that is a regular in the side that you would class as a B grader or better since FJ has been at the club?
I cannot and that's pretty damming IMO.
Fair assessement there. Though I don't agree in full with your comment about kids in the VFL. How were ever supposed to find out if they were any good if they weren't given an opportunity. End of the day after delistings we are now never going to know.
One last thing WP, if you think Frawley can't be talked into coming to Tigerland than you must not think much of our organization.. Offer him 100k more a year over five years (so 600k a year) with maybe some incentives and the job would be done.
Disagree $600k a year wont get him to the RFC, $800k will and IMHO he isn't worth that. He wants Geelong and the only reason Freo has a small chance is that they will offer him his $800k a season
I heard the other day from a decent source that he was going for 500k. (I saw him in Bali a couple of days ago, I should have asked :shh)
Do you think Geelong would undo all the work they have done over the years in preaching club before money if they want to play in a successful side by paying Chip overs at your inflated figure of 800k? Geelong are not stupid and neither are you. It is no way near 800k.
One last thing one Hartly, no doubt he would have had a fair bit to do with the Hampson trade, but at an organization this size many others would have to sign off in it.
Maric, Grigg, Houli and Chaplin all have Hartly's fingerprints all over them but all have played the roll they were recruited for, and that's getting us competitive again after being totally hopeless. The players that should be replacing them should be coming from the draft and that's were this club has been let down. Hartly has done a very good job IMO.
In terms of contract extensions, doesn't that fall mostly onto Dan Richardson? Why are you blaming Hartly for that?
Do you think in Grigg's last contract talks Hardwick would have had a massive say?
We need to rid ourselves of FJ ASAP. I have been saying it for a few years now. It will take 3,4,5 years to clean up his mess. There may be 3 players in our reserves that I think are any good that may be able to replace a few of these others that need replacing. Not a huge list by any stretch.
-
In terms of contract extensions, doesn't that fall mostly onto Dan Richardson? Why are you blaming Hartly for that?
Do you think in Grigg's last contract talks Hardwick would have had a massive say?
Can tell you that Hartley is very much involved in contract extensions, IMHO too involved. It's should be Richardson's responsibility but Hartley is involved. That's all I will say
No doubt Hardwick would have had a say in Grigg in that he would have said he wants to keep him but Blair under his rating system would have had a massive say in the length and the terms
And again will go on record as saying I don't like him and don't rate him ;D
-
In recent years we have gone out and recruited role players, not stars but players we needed to fill a specific role in our team structure. Some have gone on to become more than that and some less. Hampson is the only outright bust for mine. He was a good tap ruckman, which is what he was brought into the side for, but the rest of his game is so below standard that he is a liability. Maric on the other hand exceeded expectations when he was brought in the side for the same reasons. His overall game and leadership makes him the most important player in our team atm.
I think Hartley has had more hits than misses and is a big reasons why we find ourselves playing finals over the past couple of years.
-
In recent years we have gone out and recruited role players, not stars but players we needed to fill a specific role in our team structure. Some have gone on to become more than that and some less. Hampson is the only outright bust for mine. He was a good tap ruckman, which is what he was brought into the side for, but the rest of his game is so below standard that he is a liability. Maric on the other hand exceeded expectations when he was brought in the side for the same reasons. His overall game and leadership makes him the most important player in our team atm.
I think Hartley has had more hits than misses and is a big reasons why we find ourselves playing finals over the past couple of years.
Chris Knights Higgins, Banfield, Edwards, Thomas, Grigg, say hello
-
In recent years we have gone out and recruited role players, not stars but players we needed to fill a specific role in our team structure. Some have gone on to become more than that and some less. Hampson is the only outright bust for mine. He was a good tap ruckman, which is what he was brought into the side for, but the rest of his game is so below standard that he is a liability. Maric on the other hand exceeded expectations when he was brought in the side for the same reasons. His overall game and leadership makes him the most important player in our team atm.
I think Hartley has had more hits than misses and is a big reasons why we find ourselves playing finals over the past couple of years.
Chris Knights Higgins, Banfield, Edwards, Thomas, Grigg, say hello
:huh
-
Chris Knights Higgins, Banfield, Edwards, Thomas, Grigg, say hello
I'm not sure who Higgins is or why is is so keen to say hello but he obviously must be a very friendly fellow. ;D
Knights was not a bust. He was the victim of injury. He may still have something to offer next year but regardless, I don't think its fair to suggest that his recruitment was a flop based on poor luck.
Banfield and Thomas are Rookies. They are reserve players. The fact that Thomas was elevated would suggest that he is a handy role player too.
A. Edwards is no world beater but again, he is a handy backup. I doubt whether he will still be around next year but he was never brought in as part of our future. He was there as insurance and to assist in educating/strengthening our new VFL team.
Grigg has dropped away this year but again - he is a role player. He was brought into the team to give us outside run. With the game changing this year and our team typically losing the contested ball count in the first half of the year, he went missing but he wasn't alone there. Ellis looked poor early too for the same reason, they weren't getting feed the ball. While I admire players who win their own ball more than those who don't ie Miles, Cotch, Maric, Rance etc, we can't have a team of inside players. We need players who can give us that outside run. Granted that Grigg has been down on form this year but I would not suggest that his recruitment was a bust by any stretch of the imagination. He has done his job and done it well to this point of his career with us.
-
Stripes please your kidding right??
Higgins was an injury prone bloke at Adelaide and we spent what 2/300k on him for what? You don't think that's a bust?? gee whiz
Edwards lock up or whatever you want to call him is an even bigger flop. I like how he has strengthened the VFL team. Again 150-200k wasted money and should never have been recruited in the first place. Back up for who?? His spot should be youngsters who can be part of winning a GF not finishing 6-10th. perhaps if we fast tracked Bean instead of this dud then maybe he would already have 25-50 games under his belt like Joey D and Brown.
Banfield and the other guy who you suggested were rookies well that should be reserved for rookie's we can develop not d graders no one wants.
Grigg. Out of the names i mentioned is the one il give some credit to, because he hasn't been all that bad, but the facts are he is a nothing player now that is costing us 300k a year
Maric is a win
Houli is also a win, just.
-
Stripes please your kidding right??
Higgins was an injury prone bloke at Adelaide and we spent what 2/300k on him for what? You don't think that's a bust?? gee whiz
Edwards lock up or whatever you want to call him is an even bigger flop. I like how he has strengthened the VFL team. Again 150-200k wasted money and should never have been recruited in the first place. Back up for who?? His spot should be youngsters who can be part of winning a GF not finishing 6-10th. perhaps if we fast tracked Bean instead of this dud then maybe he would already have 25-50 games under his belt like Joey D and Brown.
Banfield and the other guy who you suggested were rookies well that should be reserved for rookie's we can develop not d graders no one wants.
Grigg. Out of the names i mentioned is the one il give some credit to, because he hasn't been all that bad, but the facts are he is a nothing player now that is costing us 300k a year
Maric is a win
Houli is also a win, just.
Sorry Angus, but I have no idea who this Higgins from Adelaide is???????
-
Sorry
I use the Higgins from Buldogs as his nickname as they are similar players but in reality the buldogs version has not been nearly as bad as Knights as been for us
-
Maric, Houli and Grigg are all wins because they were players who had shown potential but hadn't had the opportunity at AFL level to play a major role.
Knights is a proven quality player who was worth the risk. Hasn't worked but worth a shot.
Edwards, Thomas, Hampson, Banfield were proven ordinary players and surprise surprise, were still ordinary.
It's not rocket science to see where we go wrong.
-
Houli and Grigg debatable
-
Houli definitely a win. Grigg borderline.
-
Maric, Houli and Grigg are all wins because they were players who had shown potential but hadn't had the opportunity at AFL level to play a major role.
Knights is a proven quality player who was worth the risk. Hasn't worked but worth a shot.
Edwards, Thomas, Hampson, Banfield were proven ordinary players and surprise surprise, were still ordinary.
It's not rocket science to see where we go wrong.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. :thumbsup
Edwards, Thomas, Hampson and Banfield were brought in for insurance/depth. They were not project players. The only exception here is probably Hampson who I feel Blair stuffed up trading for. This is a time when stats lie. Hampson is a great tap ruckman who can compete against the taller, leaping rucks but he does nothing else. He doesn't win his own ball, he doesn't bullock/shepherd/create space around stoppages, he doesn't link up play, he doesn't create goals and he doesn't pressure. He just taps to advantage which even in itself is a useless stat as his tap work is too predictable and rarely results in a clearance. We spent too much for him as well so I agree that the Hampson trade was a clear fail.
The rest though have achieved their intended purpose or exceeded it imo
-
Houli definitely a win. Grigg borderline.
HA !
-
Houli definitely a win. Grigg borderline.
HA !
Grigg's no star but he's played 81 games for us so far. Andy Collins went onto play 11 for the Blues over 3 years..
Yeah it is laughable alright.
-
Houli definitely a win. Grigg borderline.
HA !
Grigg's no star but he's played 81 games for us so far. Andy Collins went onto play 11 for the Blues over 3 years..
Yeah it is laughable alright.
But what about that one good game he played against the swans about five years ago
-
Houli definitely a win. Grigg borderline.
HA !
Grigg's no star but he's played 81 games for us so far. Andy Collins went onto play 11 for the Blues over 3 years..
Yeah it is laughable alright.
But what about that one good game he played against the swans about five years ago
One more than Grigg.
-
I agree that a critique of the recruiting of RFC is something that needs to happen both here and within the RFC,for decisions like the Hampson recruitment has proven to be really bad.I myself didn't realise how bad he was.
However it also needs to be pointed out that when we were at our worst and needed to recruit the absolute guns of the under 18s we were faced with a compromised draft ,so we probably had no choice but to go down this path of recycled players to a degree.
-
U can't frame a bloke on one trade, is the PA recruiter still being pilloried for a top 10 selection on john butcher ::) c'mon
-
I agree that a critique of the recruiting of RFC is something that needs to happen both here and within the RFC,for decisions like the Hampson recruitment has proven to be really bad.I myself didn't realise how bad he was.
However it also needs to be pointed out that when we were at our worst and needed to recruit the absolute guns of the under 18s we were faced with a compromised draft ,so we probably had no choice but to go down this path of recycled players to a degree.
Sorry gig you are wrong with that comment. We had a choice to select heppell which everyone thought we would after Polak went to the Lions, but ooh no FJ pulls Conca out which we probably could have got with our second pick he is that average.
Interesting to read back on Conca were scratching their heads when he was selected. We could have had Prestia as well FFS.
Luke Parker, Puopolo, Jack Darling all say hello from that draft also.. I could pull out a heap more that were selected during these tough times you speak of but the facts are FJ is cheating our club by receiving a wage. The best clubs don't need top 10 picks, they find the gems all by themselves.
2011. Brad Hill 33, Gunston 29, and Breust FFS from the rookie draft and yet people like our great coach still think our recruiting maestro FJ and development areas are fine. Replace leppa? No no need we are all set for a top 4 berth.
Clearly the hawks and swans are the best at identifying and developing talent so offer their staff a 100% increase in salary to make the switch.
Id love someone to ask our coach the question of how he rates FJ's performance post first round. WP if you go please ask him a question about FJ, because clearly he rates him.
-
I think some people are a bit confused!
Mentioning any player just because he is from another club is not what the original conversation was about. It was about Blair Hartly and whether the people he brought to the club had been ok for us which in term means he had done his job.
Not just players from other clubs that were delisted and we picked them up. Massive, massive difference. Names like Gordon, Petterd, Thompson and Banfield were drafted and were pick by the club but IMO picked by FJ and his crew. I'm sure others had a say too but they are not Hartly's picks.
Hartly's job is to monitor players from other sides through the year that maybe are not being used as he thinks they can and get them to the club. IMO you cannot lump them all into the same category..
Aaron Edwards was drafted at pick 1000 odd, not really anything to do with Hartly. It was a temp fix while others developed. Not sure how many games he played this year but I know it wasn't many. Griff got opportunities after a few years learning the game.. So IMO 'the club' got it right.. Who the stuff knows what we paid him and who really cares????
Hartly's men
Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA. Didn't cost us a pick and again who really cares what he gets paid. I think anyone with half a brain can tell he can play the game at a pretty reasonable level.. If he stays fit next year and it's a big if, he is in our best 22 IMO. It was a gamble but our chips are still on the table.. So not a loss yet.
Chaplin, had a really good year last year, started the year slowly this year but played some pretty good footy in the second half of the season. No one can deny that even if they think he is a he has flaws as long as he plays a roll. Again FA that cost us nothing in terms or players or draft picks. Free hit really. If he is getting paid to much, and no one knows really other than him and the club, big deal! As soon as others stand up and demand more with their actions than maybe he will have to take a pay cut but until then he deserves his spot on our list and in our best 22. Massive tick to Hartly for getting him across, when you take EVERYTHING into account.
Houli, didn't pay much for him and has played some pretty good footy for the club.. Like most of Hartly's guys does need upgrading but you would hope that come by way of a kid in the draft. Wouldn't be getting paid big dollars but has played a roll at his time at the club. Massive tick all things considered.
Grigg, say what you like about him and I admit I don't rate him either much but what we paid and what we gave, we have won. He needs replacing but someone has to take his place. The kids at our club coming through at the moment in his type of roll are just not ready or simply no good. Cold hard fact I'm afraid. I hope I don't see him ever again in a Tigers jumper but IMO he has been a tick over what we had.
Maric, surely nothing needs to be said?? Bloody star and cost us not much. Massive tick to Hartly here.
Hampson, I think most agreed we paid to much, but in this business you are going to get a few wrong when you have a crack. Not sure the club has to close the doors over this mistake. FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some. Massive cross but IMO that's the only real cross from Hartly to date.
It would make it a lot easier if the kids at the club were any good to be able to fase these guys out. But they are not and we haven't had much come through of recent times. Miles is a jet and I hope Lennon can come through too but I really only think a couple of other will make it who are not getting games now. Dea and McBean and that's really it IMO.
-
I think some people are a bit confused!
Mentioning any player just because he is from another club is not what the original conversation was about. It was about Blair Hartly and whether the people he brought to the club had been ok for us which in term means he had done his job.
Not just players from other clubs that were delisted and we picked them up. Massive, massive difference. Names like Gordon, Petterd, Thompson and Banfield were drafted and were pick by the club but IMO picked by FJ and his crew. I'm sure others had a say too but they are not Hartly's picks.
Hartly's job is to monitor players from other sides through the year that maybe are not being used as he thinks they can and get them to the club. IMO you cannot lump them all into the same category..
Aaron Edwards was drafted at pick 1000 odd, not really anything to do with Hartly. It was a temp fix while others developed. Not sure how many games he played this year but I know it wasn't many. Griff got opportunities after a few years learning the game.. So IMO 'the club' got it right.. Who the stuff knows what we paid him and who really cares????
Hartly's men
Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA. Didn't cost us a pick and again who really cares what he gets paid. I think anyone with half a brain can tell he can play the game at a pretty reasonable level.. If he stays fit next year and it's a big if, he is in our best 22 IMO. It was a gamble but our chips are still on the table.. So not a loss yet.
Chaplin, had a really good year last year, started the year slowly this year but played some pretty good footy in the second half of the season. No one can deny that even if they think he is a he has flaws as long as he plays a roll. Again FA that cost us nothing in terms or players or draft picks. Free hit really. If he is getting paid to much, and no one knows really other than him and the club, big deal! As soon as others stand up and demand more with their actions than maybe he will have to take a pay cut but until then he deserves his spot on our list and in our best 22. Massive tick to Hartly for getting him across, when you take EVERYTHING into account.
Houli, didn't pay much for him and has played some pretty good footy for the club.. Like most of Hartly's guys does need upgrading but you would hope that come by way of a kid in the draft. Wouldn't be getting paid big dollars but has played a roll at his time at the club. Massive tick all things considered.
Grigg, say what you like about him and I admit I don't rate him either much but what we paid and what we gave, we have won. He needs replacing but someone has to take his place. The kids at our club coming through at the moment in his type of roll are just not ready or simply no good. Cold hard fact I'm afraid. I hope I don't see him ever again in a Tigers jumper but IMO he has been a tick over what we had.
Maric, surely nothing needs to be said?? Bloody star and cost us not much. Massive tick to Hartly here.
Hampson, I think most agreed we paid to much, but in this business you are going to get a few wrong when you have a crack. Not sure the club has to close the doors over this mistake. FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some. Massive cross but IMO that's the only real cross from Hartly to date.
It would make it a lot easier if the kids at the club were any good to be able to fase these guys out. But they are not and we haven't had much come through of recent times. Miles is a jet and I hope Lennon can come through too but I really only think a couple of other will make it who are not getting games now. Dea and McBean and that's really it IMO.
:clapping Best post and most well reasoned post on this thread to date. Well said.
I don't think any club get s100% of their decisions correct, ever and same with drafting it is always easier in hindsight. Much easier to be negative after ds and think you know it all.
-
Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA.
To cut the confusion lets refer to him as Kniggins
-
I think some people are a bit confused!
Mentioning any player just because he is from another club is not what the original conversation was about. It was about Blair Hartly and whether the people he brought to the club had been ok for us which in term means he had done his job.
Not just players from other clubs that were delisted and we picked them up. Massive, massive difference. Names like Gordon, Petterd, Thompson and Banfield were drafted and were pick by the club but IMO picked by FJ and his crew. I'm sure others had a say too but they are not Hartly's picks.
Hartly's job is to monitor players from other sides through the year that maybe are not being used as he thinks they can and get them to the club. IMO you cannot lump them all into the same category..
Aaron Edwards was drafted at pick 1000 odd, not really anything to do with Hartly. It was a temp fix while others developed. Not sure how many games he played this year but I know it wasn't many. Griff got opportunities after a few years learning the game.. So IMO 'the club' got it right.. Who the stuff knows what we paid him and who really cares????
Hartly's men
Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA. Didn't cost us a pick and again who really cares what he gets paid. I think anyone with half a brain can tell he can play the game at a pretty reasonable level.. If he stays fit next year and it's a big if, he is in our best 22 IMO. It was a gamble but our chips are still on the table.. So not a loss yet.
Chaplin, had a really good year last year, started the year slowly this year but played some pretty good footy in the second half of the season. No one can deny that even if they think he is a he has flaws as long as he plays a roll. Again FA that cost us nothing in terms or players or draft picks. Free hit really. If he is getting paid to much, and no one knows really other than him and the club, big deal! As soon as others stand up and demand more with their actions than maybe he will have to take a pay cut but until then he deserves his spot on our list and in our best 22. Massive tick to Hartly for getting him across, when you take EVERYTHING into account.
Houli, didn't pay much for him and has played some pretty good footy for the club.. Like most of Hartly's guys does need upgrading but you would hope that come by way of a kid in the draft. Wouldn't be getting paid big dollars but has played a roll at his time at the club. Massive tick all things considered.
Grigg, say what you like about him and I admit I don't rate him either much but what we paid and what we gave, we have won. He needs replacing but someone has to take his place. The kids at our club coming through at the moment in his type of roll are just not ready or simply no good. Cold hard fact I'm afraid. I hope I don't see him ever again in a Tigers jumper but IMO he has been a tick over what we had.
Maric, surely nothing needs to be said?? Bloody star and cost us not much. Massive tick to Hartly here.
Hampson, I think most agreed we paid to much, but in this business you are going to get a few wrong when you have a crack. Not sure the club has to close the doors over this mistake. FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some. Massive cross but IMO that's the only real cross from Hartly to date.
It would make it a lot easier if the kids at the club were any good to be able to fase these guys out. But they are not and we haven't had much come through of recent times. Miles is a jet and I hope Lennon can come through too but I really only think a couple of other will make it who are not getting games now. Dea and McBean and that's really it IMO.
:clapping Best post and most well reasoned post on this thread to date. Well said.
I don't think any club get s100% of their decisions correct, ever and same with drafting it is always easier in hindsight. Much easier to be negative after ds and think you know it all.
Shawry, your post is a MASSIVE misrepresentation of what BT has written.
You congratulate him on the post which criticises FJ's drafting of Gordon, Petterd, Thompson, Banfield and Edwards in the first paragraph.
BT's post then goes on to list all the players that he thinks Hartley is responsible for and rates them.
He only gives Hartley a fail on the Hampson trade and his final point is that Hartley's job - to fill holes in the list - is made even more difficult by the failure to get better replacement players from the DRAFT.
"FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some."
-
I think some people are a bit confused!
Mentioning any player just because he is from another club is not what the original conversation was about. It was about Blair Hartly and whether the people he brought to the club had been ok for us which in term means he had done his job.
Not just players from other clubs that were delisted and we picked them up. Massive, massive difference. Names like Gordon, Petterd, Thompson and Banfield were drafted and were pick by the club but IMO picked by FJ and his crew. I'm sure others had a say too but they are not Hartly's picks.
Hartly's job is to monitor players from other sides through the year that maybe are not being used as he thinks they can and get them to the club. IMO you cannot lump them all into the same category..
Aaron Edwards was drafted at pick 1000 odd, not really anything to do with Hartly. It was a temp fix while others developed. Not sure how many games he played this year but I know it wasn't many. Griff got opportunities after a few years learning the game.. So IMO 'the club' got it right.. Who the stuff knows what we paid him and who really cares????
Hartly's men
Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA. Didn't cost us a pick and again who really cares what he gets paid. I think anyone with half a brain can tell he can play the game at a pretty reasonable level.. If he stays fit next year and it's a big if, he is in our best 22 IMO. It was a gamble but our chips are still on the table.. So not a loss yet.
Chaplin, had a really good year last year, started the year slowly this year but played some pretty good footy in the second half of the season. No one can deny that even if they think he is a he has flaws as long as he plays a roll. Again FA that cost us nothing in terms or players or draft picks. Free hit really. If he is getting paid to much, and no one knows really other than him and the club, big deal! As soon as others stand up and demand more with their actions than maybe he will have to take a pay cut but until then he deserves his spot on our list and in our best 22. Massive tick to Hartly for getting him across, when you take EVERYTHING into account.
Houli, didn't pay much for him and has played some pretty good footy for the club.. Like most of Hartly's guys does need upgrading but you would hope that come by way of a kid in the draft. Wouldn't be getting paid big dollars but has played a roll at his time at the club. Massive tick all things considered.
Grigg, say what you like about him and I admit I don't rate him either much but what we paid and what we gave, we have won. He needs replacing but someone has to take his place. The kids at our club coming through at the moment in his type of roll are just not ready or simply no good. Cold hard fact I'm afraid. I hope I don't see him ever again in a Tigers jumper but IMO he has been a tick over what we had.
Maric, surely nothing needs to be said?? Bloody star and cost us not much. Massive tick to Hartly here.
Hampson, I think most agreed we paid to much, but in this business you are going to get a few wrong when you have a crack. Not sure the club has to close the doors over this mistake. FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some. Massive cross but IMO that's the only real cross from Hartly to date.
It would make it a lot easier if the kids at the club were any good to be able to fase these guys out. But they are not and we haven't had much come through of recent times. Miles is a jet and I hope Lennon can come through too but I really only think a couple of other will make it who are not getting games now. Dea and McBean and that's really it IMO.
:clapping Best post and most well reasoned post on this thread to date. Well said.
I don't think any club get s100% of their decisions correct, ever and same with drafting it is always easier in hindsight. Much easier to be negative after ds and think you know it all.
Shawry, your post is a MASSIVE misrepresentation of what BT has written.
You congratulate him on the post which criticises FJ's drafting of Gordon, Petterd, Thompson, Banfield and Edwards in the first paragraph.
BT's post then goes on to list all the players that he thinks Hartley is responsible for and rates them.
He only gives Hartley a fail on the Hampson trade and his final point is that Hartley's job - to fill holes in the list - is made even more difficult by the failure to get better replacement players from the DRAFT.
"FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some."
Fair call Redan. Cannot argue with that. Definitely don't agree with him re Jackson and his choices and agree with your call on my post. Apologies and I do definitely take it back for that aspect. Just get sick of all the negative nellies who are draft experts in hindsight. Much easier behind a keyboard not being in the position to make the decisions with the pressure that goes with that and having the benefit of hindsight to make them feel bravado about having another crack at the club to make them feel better.
-
let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.
hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.
we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.
50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.
i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.
-
let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.
hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.
we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.
50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.
i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.
:bow :bow :bow
spot on again. :thumbsup
-
let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.
hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.
we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.
50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.
i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.
Hope you remember our mutual fight over the 2009 draft on another site, Claw.
I have been critical of Jackson's drafting from 2005 onwards. long before Hartley came on board.
I have been having to find old posts on that other site to rebut the catch-all excuse of hindsight so this is current for me here as well.
I have to agree that Hartley, whom I originally thought was doing a good job, seems to have lost the plot since he has been given a lot more clout.
I agree with you Claw in that a properly functioning recruiting department should have input from all members to reach decisions and they are mutually responsible.
I also agree they must do better and the results so far are inexcusable.
The intriguing one is Luke Williams (who I personally believe will replace Jackson after this draft) who by all reports resigned from Carlton because he was over-ruled in a drafting decision.
It's the sort of strength and integrity I'd like all our recruiters to have. If your bosses can't convince you their way is better then you should go.
If you're hired to recruit the best players and get over-ruled then you should resign as your superiors are stopping you from doing your job.
-
Just to clear things up
For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.
The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.
Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information - show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.
Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.
-
Just to clear things up
For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.
The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.
Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information - show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.
Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.
tony_m, I was at that forum and heard all of that, you are correct but as you said it was a few years back now.
Things have changed in the footy department, Hartley has been promoted (just look at his title) and now has more clout than he did back then. That's what Dan Richardson said when he spoke at a pre-match function I was at earlier in the season
-
Just to clear things up
For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.
The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.
Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information - show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.
Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.
tony_m, I was at that forum and heard all of that, you are correct but as you said it was a few years back now.
Things have changed in the footy department, Hartley has been promoted (just look at his title) and now has more clout than he did back then. That's what Dan Richardson said when he spoke at a pre-match function I was at earlier in the season
No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"
-
No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"
Not suggesting that but I believe that his views carry more influence when it comes to trades, our uncontracted players and free agency. Dan Richardson said as much at the previously mentioned pre-match.
-
No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"
Not suggesting that but I believe that his views carry more influence when it comes to trades, our uncontracted players and free agency. Dan Richardson said as much at the previously mentioned pre-match.
Hopefully not too much now after the hammer trade ;D
-
No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"
Not suggesting that but I believe that his views carry more influence when it comes to trades, our uncontracted players and free agency. Dan Richardson said as much at the previously mentioned pre-match.
Hopefully not too much now after the hammer trade ;D
Should half half of his pay retracted for that
-
let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.
hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.
we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.
50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.
i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.
Hope you remember our mutual fight over the 2009 draft on another site, Claw.
I have been critical of Jackson's drafting from 2005 onwards. long before Hartley came on board.
I have been having to find old posts on that other site to rebut the catch-all excuse of hindsight so this is current for me here as well.
I have to agree that Hartley, whom I originally thought was doing a good job, seems to have lost the plot since he has been given a lot more clout.
I agree with you Claw in that a properly functioning recruiting department should have input from all members to reach decisions and they are mutually responsible.
I also agree they must do better and the results so far are inexcusable.
The intriguing one is Luke Williams (who I personally believe will replace Jackson after this draft) who by all reports resigned from Carlton because he was over-ruled in a drafting decision.
It's the sort of strength and integrity I'd like all our recruiters to have. If your bosses can't convince you their way is better then you should go.
If you're hired to recruit the best players and get over-ruled then you should resign as your superiors are stopping you from doing your job.
fight redan. lets say we had a strenuous debate. one of hundreds of debates ive had on this issue and unfortunatly i cant say i remember our encounter.
as for hindsight and it being applied to what i say i too find people coming up with gee claw all good in hindsight.this did bug me not anymore, i know i put it out there most of the time way before things come to pass. the only person i have to satisfy in this is myself so it doesnt bother me anymore people can think what they like.
me i have long had some pretty simple criteria that i stick to when assesing any player young or old, sml or big, short or tall,, i religiously apply those criteria and in the main they have served me very well. i do hope the club has a similar way to assess players,
strengths, weaknesses, type, athletic ability, size, height, performance, nous are the main things i look at. they are all linked together.
list management well i get tired of having to constantly criticise em in this area but until they actually address the list properly and compile it with enough structure, quality, experience, and pright player types im forced to continue to criticise em. WE ARE FOREVER HEDGING OUR BETS WITH TYPES.
I will again say we draft a kid whith pick 20 say whos a flanker and we hope in time we can turn him into a mid. why not just draft the proven mid that is also available.
imo the club have got lost with things like actual numbers ie if they are say tall they are lumped into one or two basic categories, and not enough attention is paid to type of player and actual role.
example being
kpfs/tall fwds - riewoldt, vickery, griffiths, mcbean, elton, look at that and you say yeah its okay maybe one short. the reality is theres just one proven kpf in riewoldt. elton id call a genuine kpf, that is a bloke whos sole role is to hold down a key fwd post. the rest well they play fwd badly imo but they are asked to play elsewhere in fact they are ruck/fwds and we have too many of em.
it hits you in the face what types of tall fwds is needed.
heres a hypothetical, imagine we had numerous picks and added to our list.
pat mccartin 194cm/95kg kid who will play as a stay at home kpf and be very good in the role, none of this can ruck a bit and play fwd a bit, but not great at either rubbish, an actual fwd who we can project fwd with confidence to become a very good genuine kpf. and tom lamb a 192 85 junior who could play in the midfield but he has pace super athletic and is versatile. a sort of gunston size and type. another who could play this role is tyler kietel 194/86 thing is i recken kietel will become a kpf in time. imagine we bolstered over say a two three yr period our fwd list structure with these three.
it would in time go
ff/ #### - mccartin 195/100 - griffiths 100/102 2nd ruck.
hf/ lamb 192/90 - riewoldt 195/95- #####.
remember its a hypothetical to show the sort of depth and type we need to show depth the magoos would go
FF/ #### - kietel 194/94 - mcbean 200/100
hf/ #### - elton 197/100 - third tall athletic type to be drafted.
elton 197/100 - kietel 194/94 - rookie list a genuine tall fwd as well who ???? another in the lamb mold.. now this sort of scenario has all types of GENUINE PERMANENT tall fwds on our list. it has quality and it is genuine depth. this is the sort of thing as far as list structure in the fwd half goes is what id like to see us attempt.
6 tall fwds covering all types,
2 ruck/fwds
3/4 ruckmen
on mcbean and vickery.
well mcbean to be developed as a ruckman and vickery becomes a very tradeable commodity.
so our ruck stocks would go
1st ruck - maric, mcbean junior development, hampson needs to be delisted, need another junior and replace hampson with a 22 24 yo development type.
2nd ruck or ruck/fwd - griffiths WILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE. mcbean can do this role as well while developing AS A RUCKMAN could be he never becomes a 1st ruckman.
anyway way off tangent here got carried away again. but that gives an idea on what id like to see us do as far as just one area of the list goes.
-
Just to clear things up
For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.
The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.
Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information - show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.
Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.
Yeah that's pretty well how I understand it to work TM, TW talks of a similar method, as u rightly put it though, tis subjective in the eyes of those who set the ratings
-
let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.
hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.
we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.
50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.
i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.
I'm not sure exactly how it works outside of the fact we have a numbers based rating system. What concerns me is that Hampson's score was similar to the juniors available around that pick. That to me suggests something is wrong with the system.
Is it Hartley overrating established players? Is it Jackson underrating juniors? Is there not enough emphasis on scope for improvement? I don't know, but something is broken as the system is designed to avoid howler trades like the McMahon one. But it clearly is flawed.
-
let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.
hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.
we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.
50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.
i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.
I'm not sure exactly how it works outside of the fact we have a numbers based rating system. What concerns me is that Hampson's score was similar to the juniors available around that pick. That to me suggests something is wrong with the system.
Is it Hartley overrating established players? Is it Jackson underrating juniors? Is there not enough emphasis on scope for improvement? I don't know, but something is broken as the system is designed to avoid howler trades like the McMahon one. But it clearly is flawed.
quite clearly with hampson they just didnt watch enough of him or pay enough attention to both his performance records and assess his weaknesses. ffs we had a 7 yr sample and still got it wrong.
stuff the numbers system its the blokes on the ground actually watching them play who they need to listen to.
wtf was jackson doing it was pick 28 and if my boss was trying to take it off me to use on such an obvious deficient player id be howlingman id give my right arm to have a pick 28 in any draft and id back myself in to pick a pretty decent player most yrs.
the silly thing about hampson was we had many other options and paths to go down if we werent in such a god damned huryy to get the deal done.
me i think last yr will be bust i dont rate lennon we wasted our second pick and used our last two picks on nothing but top up players with little ceiling left. of course i argued pretty hard about this last yr and i see nothing to say i still should not be going crook.
-
Yea but u rated tom lee though claw :lol :ROTFL
-
Yea but u rated tom lee though claw :lol :ROTFL
i still do bo. give it time injuries do tend to stop players showing a thing would nt you agree. i reckon he will be alright. id be prepared to do 10 tom lees as rookies and fail with 7 or 8 of them. if i found a very good player with two or three.
i dont clain to get em all right but i reckon i get a good percentage more right than jackson has ever done.but hey thats easy to say i think most people would. ;)
oh by the way the difference is i wanted to rookie tom lee and see how he turned out.you know use the rookie list for what its meant for imo. its a big difference to getting conned out of pick 28 for what and still is a very obvious dud wouldnt you say.
every time you bring this up you make me look good. ffs stkilda gave up pick 12 for a bloke i wanted to rookie the yr before.well worth takingh the punt as a rookie.
can you bring this up again in a few weeks so we can do this again, its great to look good.
-
Yea but u rated tom lee though claw :lol :ROTFL
i still do bo. give it time injuries do tend to stop players showing a thing would nt you agree. i reckon he will be alright. id be prepared to do 10 tom lees as rookies and fail with 7 or 8 of them. if i found a very good player with two or three.
i dont clain to get em all right but i reckon i get a good percentage more right than jackson has ever done.but hey thats easy to say i think most people would. ;)
oh by the way the difference is i wanted to rookie tom lee and see how he turned out.you know use the rookie list for what its meant for imo. its a big difference to getting conned out of pick 28 for what and still is a very obvious dud wouldnt you say.
every time you bring this up you make me look good. ffs stkilda gave up pick 12 for a bloke i wanted to rookie the yr before.well worth takingh the punt as a rookie.
can you bring this up again in a few weeks so we can do this again, its great to look good.
I think you had more idea than St. Kilda. From what I have seen of him when not injured, he isn't a first or second round pick.
St.Kilda are even worse than as us at the draft table. Their list is sh(7 IMO.
A couple of good kids but on the whole they are really average. Some tough times ahead.
-
Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right ::) :o :rollin
-
yep he is ina bit of strife the kid
-
list management well i get tired of having to constantly criticise em in this area but until they actually address the list properly and compile it with enough structure, quality, experience, and pright player types im forced to continue to criticise em. WE ARE FOREVER HEDGING OUR BETS WITH TYPES.
I will again say we draft a kid whith pick 20 say whos a flanker and we hope in time we can turn him into a mid. why not just draft the proven mid that is also available.
Agreed it's a key failure.
Only have to look at last year.
We draft Lennon as a HF and say we want to run him through the midfield in time.
We switch players from forward to back and into the ruck - see Griffith.
Then you look at Hawthorn's recruiting/trades.
Just looking at the trades.
They want a ruckman who can kick goals - Hale - perfect for the job and as described
They want a mid that can add structure and skills off HB so they spend to get Burgoyne - perfect for the job.
They have Roughy and, at the time Franklin, but want a third tall forward - Gunston - perfect and as described.
Same with recruiting. They want an outide mid with run and goal kicking ability - Smith. Perfect.
They want a hard little bugger to play forward so they get Puopolo with a late pick. Perfect.
Meanwhile we go for Maric - big strong ruckman as described and required -perfect.
But then we get Houli as a wingman and have him as a rebounding defender.
We get Grigg as an outside midfielder and now he's an inside midfielder.
We get Chaplin as the strong key defender to play on the monsters and he is what he's always been, a third tall interceptor.
Maybe we don't know what we want.
Maybe our recruiters can't judge what a player does best.
Part of the problem is as you say, we hedge our bets and then have to patch holes, requiring more picks and more of the same.
Edit: read the Lennon thread after posting. Bojangles :banghead
-
Maybe our recruiters can't judge what a player does best.
There it is right there RT -
I think they do know what they want I'll give them that, just don't think the employees skillset matches up to the theory atm
-
hathorns list contains the following.
1st rounders - birchal, hodge,lewis, roughhead, rioli, schoenmakers, smith. they have had their share of misses here.
2nd rounders - garlett,hallahan, hartung, hill, kelly, obrien, shiels, whitecross.
3rd rounders - grimley, litherland, mitchell, sicily, stratton, woodward.
4th rounders - brand, lowden, puopolo,
5th rounders - duryea.
rookies - ceglar, langford, sewell, bruest, suckling.
trades - anderson for gilham 27,63, burgoyne 9, 16. cheney 53, gibson 25, 41. gunston 24, 46, 64. hale 27, 71. lake 21, 43. mcevoy for savage, 18. sphanger 64.
f/a = simpkin.
they certainly have not relied on the first round alone.
their team is made up of players from all areas,
in all rounds of the nd they have had their misses but they have found more than their fair share of decent players. unlike us imo. when one considers where thier picks fall they have done well.
they have just 1 f/a im not sold on him.
they have found a shedload of talent in the rookie draft unlike us.
finally when they have traded its been astute and mainly for good quality. they have been prepared to trade out of the first rnd to get what they need. and they hav
they can afford to have the odd howler, garlett, here and there because they are effectively utilising all areas available to em. they have had poor drafts as well their 06 was a write of almost. but most yrs if one area fails they have made up for it in another.
-
Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right ::) :o :rollin
Glad we did our due diligence.
-
Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right ::) :o :rollin
In fairness they blew a 2nd rounder on him while we blew one on Hampson. We'd be doing cartwheels if Hampson got locked up and taken off our list. :whistle
-
Lol , true :thumbsup
-
Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right ::) :o :rollin
In fairness they blew a 2nd rounder on him while we blew one on Hampson. We'd be doing cartwheels if Hampson got locked up and taken off our list. :whistle
lol they took a punt on a bloke with shedloads of talent but was a risk with attitude problems.
we took a bloke with no talent and no attitude problems.
id say they gave themselves the better chance of finding a decent player.
due diligence i doubt it. we have been bitten that many times by players with attitude problems we would not have even looked at garlett.
personally i would have given him a chance i saw the work he did to get a second chance, alas the turnaround didnt last. second rounder nope hawks were too keen. but we had pick what last yr 50 i would have been okay with useing that knowing the risk. the reward if he could turn the attitude around was enormous.
me i think its a shame when such talented players waste the opportunity but hey some are not cut out for afl.