Crows Rookie Selections discussion thread

[James23]

Its an interesting call isnt it. So if by chance those 5 players were picked before Adelaides first rookie pick, they'd have passed all their live rookie picks? I cant imagine the confusion on here if that happened!

As I said after the main draft, hes got a lot of balls saying all this stuff in the public domain. Hes either gonna look a genius or an arrogant twat who had no clue. Many dont, but hes willing to put his balls on the line and stand by his opinion.

Quite the contrast for Ports recruiting manager.. I still remember the interview on 5AA before the draft cornsey was firing up over his one word answers "typical arrogant chauvinistic Victorian you are, you give us NOTHING!.... Matty Rendell on the other hand"

 

[albyplus]

Matthew is certainly very transparent

 

[Hondo]

When have we ever upgraded 100% of our rookies? Most are culled within a couple of years. And that's of players they rated at the time.

So to pick someone they don't rate just for the sake of it puts the chances of upgrading at NIL IMO.

If there's no-one else they are interested in then so what? Don't read stuff into things that aren't there, talking about messages to the wider football community. How much do you think the wider football community cares about this? Bugger all.

Forget about it I reckon, is this the biggest issue in our lives right now?

 

[Crow-mo]

As I said after the main draft, hes got a lot of balls saying all this stuff in the public domain. Hes either gonna look a genius or an arrogant twat who had no clue. Many dont, but hes willing to put his balls on the line and stand by his opinion.

and that's my point, we keep acting like we're smarter than everyone else - so we better be right.

no one here really knows what the state of play is, I don't and neither does anyone else - on the face of it at least. however we can infer something from the surrounding environment and similarly qualified experts.

which is this:
1. we have made the statement publicly to all and everyone that there is no way, no how that these remaining guys will ever amount to anything. 100%.
2. very little about the emperical history of the draft suggests that 100% certainly is a predictable state
3. we made this determination, not at the end of the rookie draft, but surprisingly early in the process still right in the thick of it all.
4. Other recruiting teams, including some with very good recent draft records, do believe that there was a number of players with the potential to eventually be contributing professional footballers.

so in essence, we said 100% no chance whilst other clubs said (by the action) that they certainly saw potential in at least 20 other young players.

our certainly is either unique insight or debauched conceit.

 

[Crow-mo]

When have we ever upgraded 100% of our rookies? Most are culled within a couple of years. And that's of players they rated at the time.

So to pick someone they don't rate just for the sake of it puts the chances of upgrading at NIL IMO.

If there's no-one else they are interested in then so what? Don't read stuff into things that aren't there, talking about messages to the wider football community. How much do you think the wider football community cares about this? Bugger all.

Forget about it I reckon, is this the biggest issue in our lives right now?

you do realise there is a difference between things you can't understand and things that are not there?

just a thought

 

[Drummond]

The only argument I can think of that would be acceptable (I don't necessarily agree with it but I could applaud the club for making it at least) would be if they did it for the culture of the club.

At the moment, someone like Chris Schmidt or Ricky Henderson, or even Martin and Moss being retained, can look at their spot on the list and say "Well, the Crows think I deserve to be here."

The club has shown that they would rather have nobody at all than have someone they don't feel has earnt their position and that has to give the fringe players some encouragement.


If it was a conscious decision from the club to achieve that goal, then while I would probably prefer an extra rookie I applaud them for making calls on what sort of club they want to run and sticking to their guns.

If it was just a monetary decision made because they figured nobody else would be any good so it would just be a waste of money then I'm disappointed in the club.

And how would the pick 41 player ever know he didn't earn his place on the list? If they picked him this wouldn't ever come up...

 

[cmndstab]

And how would the pick 41 player ever know he didn't earn his place on the list? If they picked him this wouldn't ever come up...

I'm referring to the other players on the list.

Someone like Martin can now see that if the club didn't think he was worth it, they'd rather have his spot empty than keep him on.

 

[Drummond]

I'm referring to the other players on the list.

Someone like Martin can now see that if the club didn't think he was worth it, they'd rather have his spot empty than keep him on.

That's nice, is this primary school football?

Again, cannot comprehend that there wasn't a single player in the entire country worth rookie listing with pick 41. What we're saying is everyone taken beyond this point is an absolute dud and wasn't worth the time and effort. That's a big call, a big call. And as Macca said, if all the players we were interested in had gone with the first 7 or so picks, does that mean we would have passed with 10, 26, 41 ect? If so, oh dear.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

what suprises me is the fact the Crows were prepared to take a risk with a bloke who doesnt even play footy, but then was not prepared to take a risk for someone who has decent form and reputation playing footy. Especially when you consider the draft limitation coming in, if it doesnt work, who cares?

 

[Stephen2]

Don't forget the possibility that our recruiters were woefully unready for the draft and simply hadn't looked at any other players enough to make a judgement.

Either outcome is bad:
1) We think we're better than everyone else - let's hope this is the option, and that it's true...
2) We were not entirely ready for a draft - much worse!

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Don't forget the possibility that our recruiters were woefully unready for the draft and simply hadn't looked at any other players enough to make a judgement.

Either outcome is bad:
1) We think we're better than everyone else - let's hope this is the option, and that it's true...
2) We were not entirely ready for a draft - much worse!

Well Rendell did prewarn the higher powers before the draft that they might not use all their rookie picks, so obviously they had a hitlist of 5 players and were only able to manage 2.

 

[jo172]

Well Rendell did prewarn the higher powers before the draft that they might not use all their rookie picks, so obviously they had a hitlist of 5 players and were only able to manage 2.

I'm just surprised that Rendell had apparently the same opinions on players as other recruiters.

Usually if there's 5 players he wants and only three picks odds are two people are going undrafted!

 

[SydCrow]

Rendell had 20 (or was it 30?) on his draft list. Imagine if they had all gone before our second pick!