Richmond's change of recruiting philosophy drives change of fortunes (H-Sun)

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Claw, surely you can see that he had virtually no recruiting resource for those first few years and no list management strategy either?

[the claw]

Amazing - can anyone explain why other clubs are picking up our delisted and fringe players.

Actions speak louder than words!!!

so how many are there and how well have they done.


jon - went to wce as a rookie and failed there as well.
white - has just gone to port after we rightly refused to give him more money and a longer contract.
graham - went to adelaide has he played a game has he even been retained,
morton - went to sydney and was very lucky to play in a premiership. how long did he last up there.
nahas -  has been picked up by north i feel sorry for em, but rejoice in their stupidity.
schulz - we traded  to port and he is the only real loss we have had. yet we got rid of him at the very start of hardwicks reign.

the only others  i can think of are raines polo patterson mcguane and tambling all players taken by us before jackson came and proof that we only let go mainly  putrid players in the main both before and after jackson.

just 6 players  i can think of  taken in jacksons  9 yr time  at our club has ended up on another clubs list.
yep other clubs are falling over themselves to get francis jacksons  rejects sheesh. and such high quality rejects at that

[Rampstar]

Amazing - can anyone explain why other clubs are picking up our delisted and fringe players.

Actions speak louder than words!!!

so how many are there and how well have they done.


jon - went to wce as a rookie and failed there as well.
white - has just gone to port after we rightly refused to give him more money and a longer contract.
graham - went to adelaide has he played a game has he even been retained,
morton - went to sydney and was very lucky to play in a premiership. how long did he last up there.
nahas -  has been picked up by north i feel sorry for em, but rejoice in their stupidity.
schulz - we traded  to port and he is the only real loss we have had. yet we got rid of him at the very start of hardwicks reign.

the only others  i can think of are raines polo patterson mcguane and tambling all players taken by us before jackson came and proof that we only let go mainly  putrid players in the main both before and after jackson.

just 6 players  i can think of  taken in jacksons  9 yr time  at our club has ended up on another clubs list.
yep other clubs are falling over themselves to get francis jacksons  rejects sheesh. and such high quality rejects at that

have to admit Claw has a pretty strong case here

[the claw]

bottom line is claw will always think he knows better than the recruiters.

To prove it he will name 5-6 players where the recruiters can only name one, thus having a 6 fold chance of getting it right.

you still got ya knickers in a twist because old clawsy refused to go on your silly thread. in fact i didnt see too many participate in that little bit of stupidity.
 maybe most thought just like me that they had made it patently clear who they wanted and where without going on a thread where the bloke who started it didnt have the balls to put one name up.

[Stripes]

The fact though, despite their records after being picked up, other clubs are keen to grab our 2013 discards. Almost every player that moved from our list this year was snatched up by other clubs including even Derickx  This would certainly indicate to me that other clubs see value in these players to either add to their depth (or as potential backup ups if everything goes to the poo if you prefer) or believe they can mold them into role players.

Players such as White will become a role player much the same way he was evolving into one at the Tigers. Out of all the players that exited this year I am most disappointed at losing White because he gave us a great deal of run off the HF line and was a wonderful sub at the least.

McGuane is the other that could come back to haunt us as he really does have potential as a third forward. He is strong, leads well and can smash a pack. He will never be a superstar but he is, once again, a handy depth player who can step straight in if injuries hit and can assist young forwards learning their craft in the seconds.

Nahas is another player who could be damaging in a less defensive side and if space is created for him. I think he is a good out for us but again he could be good depth as a rookie for North with their style of game and with so few elusive/fast players on their list.

I think you are missing the point Camboon is making here - the simple fact that other clubs are taking them should be seen as a positive to our list development and the strength of the squad our coaches and recruiters have put together. How they turn out elsewhere is not here or there really.

[the claw]

now lets get back to the debate without all the hisrtionics from the drama queens.

lets say we grade all of the clubs choices since jackson has been there.  lets  place em all into 3 basic categories.
1/ failures. speaks for itself
2/ passes speaks for itself
3/ 50/50  development players youngsters etc. players yet to establish themselves.

including the 05 draft to today. a time where francis jackson if not in charge of recruiting has played a significant role in recruiting every yr.
in this time we have utilised all up 91 nd picks, rookie picks, psd picks,  trades and recently free agency picks. all up 91 choices  from 05 to today. that is if ive counted correctly. forgive  me if ive missed the odd one.

being generous   and passing players i would normally fail i have by my judgement and remember it is just my opinion.

51 failures. that is 51 players you can categorically say have failed. this is not hard to do.in fact its staggering at how poor so many have been.
20 passes. that is players who have proved themselves over a decent period of time and managed to play good consistent footy. as i said ive included some who dont fit the bill to save arguments.
20 what i call 50/50 players. which includes all of this yrs recruits  and 99% of all kids taken going back to 2009 - 2010.  again ive been generous here some im reasonably sure wont make it but will give them more time.

this is my take on  our recruiting trading  record  from 05 to now.  little wonder i dont rate what jackson has done.
how any one who actually does this exercise for themselves can argue we should not be doing better is beyond belief.

for those who insist we only judge jackson on recent yrs do it for yourselves from 09 to now. there will be a disproportinate number  who fall into the 50/50 category.
 to be fair to all parties all trade/draft yrs need time to prove or disprove themselves.

for me  09 to now
all up 55 picks in the nd, rookie draft, psd draft, trades and free agency if ive counted right.
24 failures.
11 passes.
20 50/50

[big tone]

now lets get back to the debate without all the hisrtionics from the drama queens.

lets say we grade all of the clubs choices since jackson has been there.  lets  place em all into 3 basic categories.
1/ failures. speaks for itself
2/ passes speaks for itself
3/ 50/50  development players youngsters etc. players yet to establish themselves.

including the 05 draft to today. a time where francis jackson if not in charge of recruiting has played a significant role in recruiting every yr.
in this time we have utilised all up 91 nd picks, rookie picks, psd picks,  trades and recently free agency picks. all up 91 choices  from 05 to today. that is if ive counted correctly. forgive  me if ive missed the odd one.

being generous   and passing players i would normally fail i have by my judgement and remember it is just my opinion.

51 failures. that is 51 players you can categorically say have failed. this is not hard to do.in fact its staggering at how poor so many have been.
20 passes. that is players who have proved themselves over a decent period of time and managed to play good consistent footy. as i said ive included some who dont fit the bill to save arguments.
20 what i call 50/50 players. which includes all of this yrs recruits  and 99% of all kids taken going back to 2009 - 2010.  again ive been generous here some im reasonably sure wont make it but will give them more time.

this is my take on  our recruiting trading  record  from 05 to now.  little wonder i dont rate what jackson has done.
how any one who actually does this exercise for themselves can argue we should not be doing better is beyond belief.

for those who insist we only judge jackson on recent yrs do it for yourselves from 09 to now. there will be a disproportinate number  who fall into the 50/50 category.
 to be fair to all parties all trade/draft yrs need time to prove or disprove themselves.

for me  09 to now
all up 55 picks in the nd, rookie draft, psd draft, trades and free agency if ive counted right.
24 failures.
11 passes.
20 50/50

I'm with you on this Claw, I don't rate FJ at all. Never have. If you take out our first pick in those years (which has been mostly top 10 picks and some very early top 10 picks, which almost anyone with half a brain could get right, even with a months notice before the draft just watching Youtube, listening to other recruiters and the draft combine you would be able to pick a good kid 9 out of ten times)
And then more recently take out the FA/trades (Grigg, Houli, Chaplin, Maric) which I would give Hartly more credit for, then those numbers you came up with look a lot worse.
FJ drafting outside of the first round has been a disgrace to put it nicely!
Just my opinion of course.

[yandb]

Claw your list is very compelling but how's about comparing FJ to another recruiter from another club who has a similar tenure.

[Gigantor]

the club itself has for many years bemoaned the lack of funds it needed to put into recruiting and development,maybe the fault is there rather than poor individuals who were /are around and had to cope with what was a skeleton crew.
Recently that has changed,and we are starting to see the results now

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Claw your list is very compelling but how's about comparing FJ to another recruiter from another club who has a similar tenure.

Or breaking it down into 2 or 3 year clusters so we can gauge a trend of improvement? In addition to this why not add Blair Hartleys recruitment on mature aged rookies and then we could really assess improvement.
Otherwise, we could just look at the players who played more than 15 games this year and see how many have been at the club for more than 5 years to identify the source of on field improvement.
Either way, it's a much more balanced way to assess recruiting and list management that your one dimensional, cynical analysis.

[Smokey]

the club itself has for many years bemoaned the lack of funds it needed to put into recruiting and development,maybe the fault is there rather than poor individuals who were /are around and had to cope with what was a skeleton crew.
Recently that has changed,and we are starting to see the results now

   That's the salient point G.  Jackson can make recommendations about who to recruit and draft but to blame him wholly for the failure of the club to develop a significant number of top picks over the first few years of his tenure is unfair.  Blame must be apportioned fairly and FJ is not 100% responsible.  He made many more recommendations apart from those chosen and he had a reasonable expectation (falsely in hindsight) that the club was capable of developing those drafted.  Praise where praise is due and blame where is blame due.

[Penelope]

bottom line is claw will always think he knows better than the recruiters.

To prove it he will name 5-6 players where the recruiters can only name one, thus having a 6 fold chance of getting it right.

you still got ya knickers in a twist because old clawsy refused to go on your silly thread. in fact i didnt see too many participate in that little bit of stupidity.
 maybe most thought just like me that they had made it patently clear who they wanted and where without going on a thread where the bloke who started it didnt have the balls to put one name up.

why would i put i name up? i never claimed that i have any real idea about the youngsters playing around the country, let alone more than those paid to do so.

Of the four or so people who constantly critisised the decisions, two had the balls to put it on the line.

I dont give a stuff about whether you post or not, but by not you have shown youself up. you had a chance to go against the recruiters under similar circumstances, but as i said, you would much prefer to name a list of blokes thus vastly increasing your chances of getting one right, as you do every other year.

so in the future when you start saying how you prefered player X at pick Y, it will be meaningless tripe.

[RedanTiger]

Jackson can make recommendations about who to recruit and draft but to blame him wholly for the failure of the club to develop a significant number of top picks over the first few years of his tenure is unfair.  Blame must be apportioned fairly and FJ is not 100% responsible.  He made many more recommendations apart from those chosen and he had a reasonable expectation (falsely in hindsight) that the club was capable of developing those drafted.  Praise where praise is due and blame where is blame due.

Building a straw man and then knocking it down.
Nobody is blaming Jackson for "the failure of the club to develop  a significant number of top picks".
Posters correctly blame him for poor RECRUITING, particularly in "the first few years of his tenure". 

[the claw]

bottom line is claw will always think he knows better than the recruiters.

To prove it he will name 5-6 players where the recruiters can only name one, thus having a 6 fold chance of getting it right.

you still got ya knickers in a twist because old clawsy refused to go on your silly thread. in fact i didnt see too many participate in that little bit of stupidity.
 maybe most thought just like me that they had made it patently clear who they wanted and where without going on a thread where the bloke who started it didnt have the balls to put one name up.

why would i put i name up? i never claimed that i have any real idea about the youngsters playing around the country, let alone more than those paid to do so.

Of the four or so people who constantly critisised the decisions, two had the balls to put it on the line.

I dont give a stuff about whether you post or not, but by not you have shown youself up. you had a chance to go against the recruiters under similar circumstances, but as i said, you would much prefer to name a list of blokes thus vastly increasing your chances of getting one right, as you do every other year.

so in the future when you start saying how you prefered player X at pick Y, it will be meaningless tripe.

so you do still have ya knickers in a knot .  and yes you had no balls. yes you do give a stuff because i refused to  post on  that silly silly thread why the reply if not true why not just ignore the post.
cmon  just be honest just once. that thread  was aimed at me or at the least started because of me. and i refused to bite. what was it i said at the time, ah yes.
 why would i contribute to a thread started by a poster i dislike and have little time for. some one who is totally disingenuous. but hey lets do an al and just ignore what dont suit eh.

anyway   get over it  its not worth  all the angst son. theres more to a footy forum than trying to point score over other posters.  you know you can actually have an opinion on footy topics and put it out there.  now theres a novel idea  for you.
so two critical people put a name up on your golden thread, i have to ask  was there even 4 people in total  who made a comment. just shows what most people thought of it.


you know al im real comfortable with what ive posted and said. i dont have to prove a thing. i couldnt  care less what you think. thats the difference between us.im happy to put it out there regardless.
 
its funny watching you, claw refused to go on your thread, so that somehow  means he never passed comment on who he  wanted out side of your gutless and pathetic little thread.thats typical of you.
oh boo hoo,   if he didnt say it on MY THREAD., HE COULDNT HAVE SAID IT AT ALL lol .  cmon you have to do better than that old chum.. are you really that pathetic that you cant acknowledge i put it out there on other threads.

you only need look al and you will find.  but seeing as you are incapable of looking outside of your own threads    this is the last time i will say it, and  just for you big balls on the line  al.

 scharenburg was the player i wanted most. so scharenberg is my player of choice pre draft. because scharenburg was gone at our pick blake acres became my choice as he  was the player i liked the most who was still available. .  now these words must be on numerous threads al you could have looked up for yourself. in fact iknow you have read them elsewhere.

so may i suggest  you quote these words put em aside and you can bring em up when i get em wrong. i can just see ya now with a mad look on ya face, hand on the old codger  feverishly bringing up  my words. hallelujah eh al. claw got one wrong. yep pathetic sums you up.
you know i think you try and compensate for your failings a tad much al. its called little dick syndrome i think.

again i ask as i did back then,  why would i even contribute  to a thread started by a poster who i dislike and have little time for. you knew this then but still whine like a baby because big bad claw refused to go on your thread.
go away al and grow up just a little eh. it gets monotonous dealing with such disingenuous ##@##* s   every other post.

[Smokey]

Nobody is blaming Jackson for "the failure of the club to develop  a significant number of top picks".
Posters correctly blame him for poor RECRUITING, particularly in "the first few years of his tenure".

And if you don't see the important connection between the 2 then the conversation becomes quite moot.