Picks 31, 33 & 42. Any ideas?

[tigs2011]

Thurlow will go top 60 at least. Has spoken to several clubs

Can play. Not sure we are the best fit for him though.

[torch]

9
Nick Vlastuin
Richmond
Northern Knights
32
Nick Graham
Richmond
Gippsland Power
34
Matthew Dick
Richmond
Calder Cannons
43
Louis Herbert
Richmond
North Ballarat Rebels
74
Tim Sumner
Richmond
Woodville West Torrens
92
Brandon Jack
Richmond
Pennant Hills
110
Nathan Wright
Richmond
Dandenong Stingrays
128
Leigh Kitchin
Richmond
Frankston

That's the Mock Draft on afl.com.au now!

[Dubstep Dookie]

Eight selections? It's very mock indeed

[one-eyed]

The AFL draft machine mock draft now has.

32. Nick Graham
34. Nathan Hrovat
43. Matthew Dick

http://draftmachine.afl.com.au/

A lot of people would be happy if the draft went like that.

[Loui Tufga]

The AFL draft machine mock draft now has.

32. Nick Graham
34. Nathan Hrovat
43. Matthew Dick

http://draftmachine.afl.com.au/

A lot of people would be happy if the draft went like that.

They would be 3 good gets with those picks I would like to see us pick up McBean with 43 if he's still available.....

[torch]

Just don't want Richmond selecting under 180cm players!

Continue drafting big bodied players!

[mightytiges]

Just don't want Richmond selecting under 180cm players!

Continue drafting big bodied players!

I agree as I believe we need to add more midsize-to-tall midfielders. We'll eventually need to replace Tucky and of course we want someone much better to replace Jacko.

In saying that though a sub-180cm player would be still be okay on the proviso they had sublime/elite skills, pace and footy brains (a la Cyril Rioli). The problem in the past is we haven't found anyone meeting even close to that criteria and of those sub-180cm players we have drafted, most haven't weighed much more than a wet teatowel in any case.

[The Machine]

Thurlow will go top 60 at least. Has spoken to several clubs

Can play. Not sure we are the best fit for him though.

I would take him with pick 32 or 34.

[one-eyed]

Tim O'Brien expected to be a top 20-25 selection now so that will push others down the draft order and into the second round.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150930/default.aspx

[gerkin greg]

cameron said best available when asked the question.

He also left open the option of going for type with any one of these 2nd round picks but the final decision on that would be left to Francis Jackson.

hmm francis jacksons  picks after the first rnd  leave a lot to be desired.
post is the latest 2nd rnd pick of his to be cut.

while i think both cameron and jackson have improved recruiting and list management to a degree they have both had more than 5 yrs and if i had to asses their performances over all id struggle to give either a pass mark.
we can always do better and imo we need to do better in these areas. im looking for a little more than adequacey at best  in these areas.

Given that when FJ took over the role in 2006 the RFC had zero data and zero metrics I don't believe that you can judge FJ for another 5 years or so.  If anything the past 6 years are only building the baseline from which you can start making the correct choices.  Much of what Hartley and FJ have done in the past few years is purely defining the measurements, coding points, key stats, KPIs that need to be measured and determine a player's position.  In a recent interview FJ discussed tracking kids for 3 and 4 years before drafting them. 

Well that means any picks before 2010 don't have enough qualitative data, within the RFC, to have been properly evaluated.  The depth and level of the science involved nowadays is quite staggering.

So the fault is not with CC and FJ but with the legacy they inherited that was so poor.  If anything CC should get credit for identifying the issue and building the right structure and team to a) collect all the relevant data, b) build the correct IP (and it would appear that the RFC has some solid IP - Maric, Houli and Grigg say hello) and c) utilise the data and IP to make better draft choices.

Four years of research prior to drafting plus 3 years of being in an AFL system before you can be judged would indicate 7 years minimum before you can fully judge a recruiting team.  Given that when FJ walked in he found a few envelopes with scrawls on the back.  the sum total of the RFC's data and IP in 2005. 

Oooh and some videos of JON.

If they didn't have enough quantitive data then Cameron should have brought in an experienced recruiter with the data above FJ immediately.

[HKTiger]

Clubs own the IP.  Pretty hard to take data that you're not allowed to take.  Remember the DH PC/presentation fiasco at Essendon.

You can bring the residual knowledge and the practises but the data would be off limits.

[gerkin greg]

Clubs own the IP.  Pretty hard to take data that you're not allowed to take.  Remember the DH PC/presentation fiasco at Essendon.

You can bring the residual knowledge and the practises but the data would be off limits.

Pretty hard to take the data? 

Any recruiter worth their salt always has their own data running parallel to the work they do at a club so they don't have to start from scratch every time they move clubs.

Either way, just the residual knowledge and the practises, and the proven track record would have been of immediate benefit to the club and expidited our list management decisions. Cameron has persisted with an inexperienced and unproven recruiter. Or does Cameron consider himself the experienced proven guy bringing his systems from Melbourne? I hope not.

Fact is there is not a single proven employee in the entire list management/recruiting department. Bit of a fail even if we eventually get where we want to go.

[HKTiger]

Hartley not proven ???

[Owl]

HK, HK, HK, triple question marks?  Get with the times man, use 

[gerkin greg]

Hartley not proven ???

Not even close

Good to see you keeping up the 100% RFC ball sucking record since internet forums were invented