Francis Jackson and the recruiters

[Ramps]

Wasnt Ben Griffiths the other kid that turned up to Punt Road with Trent Cotchin as a AIS kid?

[Stripes]

MT - I agree we should have held onto our draft picks but I think we are being a bit harsh on Hislop and Thomson too. Hislop is 20 so has only been in the system for a minimum of years and is still developing and Thomson is 22 and hasn't been given a chance yet. I thought his attack on the ball was excellent during the preseason games. Both of these players need to be afforded the same luxury as our other young players - time to develop as players and more importantly, into the team.

Afterall it has only been 7 rounds. Perhaps we are being a bit impatient with these new players given our current predicament.

Stripes

[mightytiges]

MT - I agree we should have held onto our draft picks but I think we are being a bit harsh on Hislop and Thomson too. Hislop is 20 so has only been in the system for a minimum of years and is still developing and Thomson is 22 and hasn't been given a chance yet. I thought his attack on the ball was excellent during the preseason games. Both of these players need to be afforded the same luxury as our other young players - time to develop as players and more importantly, into the team.

Afterall it has only been 7 rounds. Perhaps we are being a bit impatient with these new players given our current predicament.

Stripes

Hislop may have some upside as he's only 20 (I don't see it myself  ) but a 22 year old midfielder should walk into our side especially at the moment if he is any good. This is Thomson's 5th year in the system. We lack mids with good footskills yet we go out and trade our 3rd round pick away for another dodgy kick  ???. The question that needs to be asked is did/do we believe Hislop and Thomson will be part of our next premiership side? I would say no as they couldn't get a game at their former clubs and were only brought in as depth players. So why recruit them! It's a waste of draft picks and just further clogs our list with more dead wood that needs to be cleared.

[bojangles17]

MT - I agree we should have held onto our draft picks but I think we are being a bit harsh on Hislop and Thomson too. Hislop is 20 so has only been in the system for a minimum of years and is still developing and Thomson is 22 and hasn't been given a chance yet. I thought his attack on the ball was excellent during the preseason games. Both of these players need to be afforded the same luxury as our other young players - time to develop as players and more importantly, into the team.

Afterall it has only been 7 rounds. Perhaps we are being a bit impatient with these new players given our current predicament.

Stripes

Hislop may have some upside as he's only 20 (I don't see it myself  ) but a 22 year old midfielder should walk into our side especially at the moment if he is any good. This is Thomson's 5th year in the system. We lack mids with good footskills yet we go out and trade our 3rd round pick away for another dodgy kick  ???. The question that needs to be asked is did/do we believe Hislop and Thomson will be part of our next premiership side? I would say no as they couldn't get a game at their former clubs and were only brought in as depth players. So why recruit them! It's a waste of draft picks and just further clogs our list with more dead wood that needs to be cleared.

Id argue that Hislop prob has a greater prospect of being a senior player than most 45+ in the draft...He was an ok selection, if you consider we needed to add bigger bodied harder inside Mids...cuz and cogs being avaialble has hindered his chances...we'll see more of him

[Jackstar is back]

Would never ever have gone for JON or Patterson, Patterson was hopeless for Northern Knights.

He was B&F for the Northern Knights in 2004 and CHF in the TAC Team of the year, even captained the TAC side.

Not saying he was the right pick, however not many players from that draft after pick 7 are any good.

he averaged 7 possesions a game in the 4 games he was tagged, give me a break will you. Wouldnt give rats behind what B & F he won

Either his team mates were rubbish (plus most of the TAC that year), or perhaps there was more you didn't see, he best form was in the 2nd half of the year
As I said, I'm not saying he was the right pick, but its not like he was a left field selection, he had pretty decent credentials for a junior tall

Looking at the rest of the draft that year, it's not like there's many players outperforming him, not even close

In fact, care to name who you thought we should have picked that year? Looking at the 2004 draft in hindsight, after pick 7 if you take out Father Son picks and Richmond players then there would be 13 guys that I'd even consider having on the list, that's out of over 70 selections that year.

They would be 13. Bate 14. Monfries 21. Murphy 23. Rusling 24. Van Berlo 32. Prismall 37. Le Cras 40. Maric 45. Sherman 53. Taylor 56. Knights 58. Moran & 62. Egan

A few maybes even in that bunch and a couple who have terrible injury runs as well. We didn't miss out on that much, they are the best of a bad bunch.

You are missing the point.
Its about weaknesses in the players game. he could have had 20 possesions in the last 5 games , although 18 of the 20 could of been clnagers

[Infamy]

Would never ever have gone for JON or Patterson, Patterson was hopeless for Northern Knights.

He was B&F for the Northern Knights in 2004 and CHF in the TAC Team of the year, even captained the TAC side.

Not saying he was the right pick, however not many players from that draft after pick 7 are any good.

he averaged 7 possesions a game in the 4 games he was tagged, give me a break will you. Wouldnt give rats behind what B & F he won

Either his team mates were rubbish (plus most of the TAC that year), or perhaps there was more you didn't see, he best form was in the 2nd half of the year
As I said, I'm not saying he was the right pick, but its not like he was a left field selection, he had pretty decent credentials for a junior tall

Looking at the rest of the draft that year, it's not like there's many players outperforming him, not even close

In fact, care to name who you thought we should have picked that year? Looking at the 2004 draft in hindsight, after pick 7 if you take out Father Son picks and Richmond players then there would be 13 guys that I'd even consider having on the list, that's out of over 70 selections that year.

They would be 13. Bate 14. Monfries 21. Murphy 23. Rusling 24. Van Berlo 32. Prismall 37. Le Cras 40. Maric 45. Sherman 53. Taylor 56. Knights 58. Moran & 62. Egan

A few maybes even in that bunch and a couple who have terrible injury runs as well. We didn't miss out on that much, they are the best of a bad bunch.

You are mising the point.
Its about weaknesses in the players game. he good have had 20 possesions in the last 5 games , although 18 of the 20 could of been clnagers

I'm not missing the point at all, I know exactly what you are saying, however my points still stand, there haven't been many better than Patto taken in that draft and he still won the Knights B&F when you said he was crap. He wouldn't have won the B&F if he had 18 clangers out of 20 disposals in his last 5 games.

[Jackstar is back]

pointless arguing about it.
T. Cloke at 35 ( father and son ) was a steal.

Will say this, Dean Polo was outsanding in his last year with Gippsland.  .
One of the best players was the guy who Swans rookies, but was a small nuggety player, forget his name. Dont know what happened to him, wasnt picked up due to his height and body shape, could really play. Bailey ????

[Jackstar is back]

Infamy, all i will say that the only reason they picked him was they wanted a ruckman... On pure ability and skill , he didnt rate, FACT.
He is terrible below the knees
There were probably 100 players well ahead of him

[blaisee]

Infamy, all i will say that the only reason they picked him was they wanted a ruckman... On pure ability and skill , he didnt rate, FACT.
He is terrible below the knees
There were probably 100 players well ahead of him

I am not in the business of backing up Jack, but on this occassion he is right.

They took Patto because they wanted a mobile ruckman and he is was the best available, arted him above Wood on that basis and rightly so.

[Jackstar is back]

Thanks Blaisee

[peggles]

Wasnt Ben Griffiths the other kid that turned up to Punt Road with Trent Cotchin as a AIS kid?

he did train with us as an AIS kid.  but it wasn't the cotchin year.  cotchin came with addam maric.  ben griffiths came last year with sam blease.

anyone know who came to punt road this year?

[Infamy]

Infamy, all i will say that the only reason they picked him was they wanted a ruckman... On pure ability and skill , he didnt rate, FACT.
He is terrible below the knees
There were probably 100 players well ahead of him

I ask you to name 10 of them from the same draft

[mightytiges]

MT - I agree we should have held onto our draft picks but I think we are being a bit harsh on Hislop and Thomson too. Hislop is 20 so has only been in the system for a minimum of years and is still developing and Thomson is 22 and hasn't been given a chance yet. I thought his attack on the ball was excellent during the preseason games. Both of these players need to be afforded the same luxury as our other young players - time to develop as players and more importantly, into the team.

Afterall it has only been 7 rounds. Perhaps we are being a bit impatient with these new players given our current predicament.

Stripes

Hislop may have some upside as he's only 20 (I don't see it myself  ) but a 22 year old midfielder should walk into our side especially at the moment if he is any good. This is Thomson's 5th year in the system. We lack mids with good footskills yet we go out and trade our 3rd round pick away for another dodgy kick  ???. The question that needs to be asked is did/do we believe Hislop and Thomson will be part of our next premiership side? I would say no as they couldn't get a game at their former clubs and were only brought in as depth players. So why recruit them! It's a waste of draft picks and just further clogs our list with more dead wood that needs to be cleared.

Id argue that Hislop prob has a greater prospect of being a senior player than most 45+ in the draft...He was an ok selection, if you consider we needed to add bigger bodied harder inside Mids...cuz and cogs being avaialble has hindered his chances...we'll see more of him

True the probability is lower for 45+ picks (Hislop was pick 58) but there are still diamonds to be found in the rough in every draft. There's quite a number top grade AFL players running around who slipped down late in their draft or missed out altogether and were rookied. I guess it depends whether you back your recruiting staff to find them. We've actually done okay with our late picks and rookies when we've gone for kids rather than back-ups - Moore, Foley, Gus, White, Thursty, Collins, Tuck. Connors was pick 58 in 2006. It's been the early picks we've struggled in finding guns. I probably could handle the Hislop trade if we hadn't traded for Thomson as well and we had picked up 5-6 kids in each previous National draft to turnover the list fully. However recruiting both of them was simply taking a short-cut which rarely works anyway so you might as well take the chance on a kid who has some upside.

[mightytiges]

anyone know who came to punt road this year?

Rhys Mott from Ulverstone, Tasmania. A small midfielder.

Maverick Weller who is also from Tassie (Burnie Dockers).

[mightytiges]

Which kids should we aim for Jack in the upcoming November draft?


.

Well smarty , I dont know as I dont do the tapes for the RFC anymore.

Will tell you this.
I vetted all TAC tapes from 2004-2006 and one thing is for certain.
Would never ever have gone for JON or Patterson, Patterson was hopeless for Northern Knights.
I might also say this, its not as easy as going to a game and watching a player.
Before you go and watch someone, you watch the tapes and pick a player who has effective kicks and disposals, irelevant of the quantity.
Then if a player has in successive weeks a high percentage of effective disposals, he is tagged and a "' scout "" will  go and watch him.
Once these players were in our system, Greg Miller and then Wallace would go and watch.
If you want the format that the players are graded on, I will send it to you.

For what its worth, I think that Plough disregarded the format and went on gut feeling on alot of selections

Hmmm very interesting. Thanks for that. Always felt we relied on watching tapes too much and got our main impressions from them because of lack of resources (lack of scouts on the ground). The wrong way around IMO as tapes can make someone look better than they are and nothing beats initially judging a kid playing live at the ground but each to their own. It's all very well to have effective disposals stats wise but I like to see how their footy brain works knowing the options available around them with the ball and without (running to the right spots etc) and see if they can excute real effective disposals that are team orientated and damaging. Cousins for instance isn't the best purest kick in the game but he always does the right thing by foot. So see who is a natural footballer and then use data analysis to sort the wheat from the chaff. JON was picked because of the apparent X-factor and athleticism. Too bad that doesn't mean you can kick and play footy  . As for scouts, Hawthorn would have 4 at each game at different points of the ground writing individual reports to compare. We obviously just had the one so there was no calibration.