Matt Rendell = Genius

[cmndstab]

Dayne beams at 29

Nuff said

Citing later picks that are great players is always a flawed argument. By that measure there are 50+ bad selections every year. Early in the draft it makes sense to focus on who you missed out on. By the time you get out into the 20s, you really just need to see whether your player worked out, not whether another player worked out even better.

I mean, if you look at 2008, Sloane is a better player than Davis, but it doesn't make Davis at 10 a bad selection.

So what?

That's the job of the underlings to make recommendations, that's easy.

What's tough is making the call.

Lynch was a top12 pick, everyone knew who he was. deciding to pull the trigger, that's another story.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Rendell was actually the guy who makes the call when it comes down to trades, right? At least, not by the time Lynch was picked up. Wasn't that decision made by the list manager?

Rendell's advice would have been integral to the decision-making process of course.

 

[Bob Neil]

As good as Rendell was at picking up young talent (Danger/Sloane/Smith/Talia/Kerridge are his big wins IMO), two areas in which we have failed under him (at least compared to other teams and even us in previous eras) is in picking up mature aged players and "different" talent.

We have a raft of Basketball players we are trying to develop into Rucks/KPP on our Rookie list. Does anyone here think any will play an AFL game?? Meanwhile Geelong pick up Blicavs and North grab Majak Daw, Sydney grabbed Pyke. I guess we could suggest Jenkins, but Essendon grabbed him from the NBL. Not to mention the success other teams have had pilfering Norwood for mature aged players over the years. Right in front of us.

With the advent of the two new teams these avenues of recruitment are what make the better teams better. We have failed (bar Henderson) in these areas under Rendell.

Rendell got shafted, I agree, but he aint the be all and end all of Recruitment.

Bit rich to say we haven't had a success with one of our 'lateral hires'. Henderson has played about the same number of games as Pyke (47 to 53) and has probably contributed more over the journey (Pyke stepped up in the GF which is obviously a big tick). Whilst Blicavs and Daw have played less than 10 games between them.

So we have had a success equivalent to or greater than those other clubs.

 

[AFC979810]

Bit rich to say we haven't had a success with one of our 'lateral hires'. Henderson has played about the same number of games as Pyke (47 to 53) and has probably contributed more over the journey (Pyke stepped up in the GF which is obviously a big tick). Whilst Blicavs and Daw have played less than 10 games between them.

So we have had a success equivalent to or greater than those other clubs.

Also could count Tex as a 'lateral hire' since he came from the NSW Scholarship Program.

 

[Sanders]

My point is that be is great at picking the youth, with Ogilvie by his side, but during his tenure our recruiting was not that great in the more creative avenues of recruitment. Despite trying to do this with Dowdell etc.

Blicavs has been great for Geelong. As has Pyke at the Swans.

Meh.

The future of this club will not be hurt by missing crabs like that bunch of nothing players

 

[Sanders]

Citing later picks that are great players is always a flawed argument.

Yeah nah. He wasn't a later pick, he was the next pick.

Smack was a dud pick, and a champ went next.

Take 2001 its no good comparing Reilly with Swan who went 40 places later, but NDS? They must have been side by side in our thinking

 

[Mattrox]

Let's be honest. Rendell wouldn't know a dickhead from a great bloke if you get my drift

Neil Craig. ......

 

[cmndstab]

Yeah nah. He wasn't a later pick, he was the next pick.

Smack was a dud pick, and a champ went next.

Take 2001 its no good comparing Reilly with Swan who went 40 places later, but NDS? They must have been side by side in our thinking

At least Dal Santo and Reilly are comparable players (in terms of position played), but it's very clear we went in with a focus on recruiting talls in the 2008 draft (and the 2009 draft for that matter), I think Sloane was the only non-tall we picked up in both national drafts.

Given that we proceeded to lose several key talls, it was probably the right decision! Seriously though I'd love to have Beams on the list now rather than McKernan.

 

[amer]

Citing later picks that are great players is always a flawed argument. By that measure there are 50+ bad selections every year. Early in the draft it makes sense to focus on who you missed out on. By the time you get out into the 20s, you really just need to see whether your player worked out, not whether another player worked out even better.

I mean, if you look at 2008, Sloane is a better player than Davis, but it doesn't make Davis at 10 a bad selection.



I may be wrong, but I don't think Rendell was actually the guy who makes the call when it comes down to trades, right? At least, not by the time Lynch was picked up. Wasn't that decision made by the list manager?

Rendell's advice would have been integral to the decision-making process of course.

Stabby, you are a genius. We need to IGNORE draft results to move forward as a club. I can't for the life of me see how we haven't picked this up earlier.

Let's arbitrarily ignore most of the draft, and how the more successful clubs approach it, because only half a list of players is best 22 at any one time. Let's just not draft the other half. Let's not gather as much information as we can, let's gather none!

 

[cmndstab]

Stabby, you are a genius. We need to IGNORE draft results to move forward as a club. I can't for the life of me see how we haven't picked this up earlier.

Let's arbitrarily ignore most of the draft, and how the more successful clubs approach it, because only half a list of players is best 22 at any one time. Let's just not draft the other half. Let's not gather as much information as we can, let's gather none!

You certainly have the market cornered on completely missing the point around these parts.

 

[iamcorky]

Yeh McKernan should be off dropped. One of the most overrated players in the team. We need to refocus on developing our midfielders.

 

[Skippy231]

Yeh McKernan should be off dropped. One of the most overrated players in the team. We need to refocus on developing our midfielders.

How could he be overrated? by most of the comments on Big Footy everyone seems to agree that he is pretty average (but who knows if he will wake up one day and cash in on his talent) . So refocus on developing a midfielder who can back up Jacobs in the ruck? It has to be like for like, at the moment Jenkins is playing better with Mckernan in the side so why change?

 

[amer]

You certainly have the market cornered on completely missing the point around these parts.

Meaningless statement in response, high grade stuff.

We need to examine all available information, sport and planet wide, within the bounds of our condition obviously, to improve our drafting across the scale. Saying "don't look at other clubs' better selections" is a baseless, pointless statement that goes against the very fabric of free thinking. I'm not trying to insult you here. I'm pointing out your insult of rationalism, and decision making, as a process.

This very pseudo think you have come up with here is the cornerstone of repeated dumb decision making and failure from humans the world over, every day. "Let's just decide, because yeah"

 

[amer]

Like, meaning is a human thing. From what we understand.

When we say x players played >= 100 games, that is what we have. Any further statement made, in the vein of "don't focus on others who made it because of this" is to become very human. Very dumb.

Get it right. All available info.

 

[cmndstab]

Let's see if we can break through the fog here.

I definitely agree that the club should be analysing its draft performance, and the performance of all other operations of their club, both objectively, and also in comparison to other clubs. I never indicated otherwise.

What I disagree with is the idea that a selection is inherently poor if a later pick turned out to be better. Would St. Kilda have preferred to get Dane Swan rather than Nick Dal Santo back in 2001 with pick 13? I suspect they probably would have, yes, but that doesn't make Dal Santo's selection poor. So it is too simplistic to simply conclude a selection is poor if a later one turns out to be superior.

In essence, I was talking about one component of how the club should go about analysing their performance, not whether they should do it at all. All of the junk you've written about not analysing half the draft, just staying out of the later parts of the draft altogether, not comparing ourself to other clubs, etc relates to the latter question, a debate I never entered into.

So I'm sure you can understand that your utter misrepresentation of my post made it seem as though you had completely missed the point of it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The other thing is that a player's ultimate quality and AFL output is not preordained.

What happens to them from 18-21yo plays a massive role. Coached well, AFL opportunities, surrounded by quality role models VS coached poorly, limited AFL opportunities, surrounded by rabble... makes a huge difference.

 

[amer]

Let's see if we can break through the fog here.

I definitely agree that the club should be analysing its draft performance, and the performance of all other operations of their club, both objectively, and also in comparison to other clubs. I never indicated otherwise.

What I disagree with is the idea that a selection is inherently poor if a later pick turned out to be better. Would St. Kilda have preferred to get Dane Swan rather than Nick Dal Santo back in 2001 with pick 13? I suspect they probably would have, yes, but that doesn't make Dal Santo's selection poor. So it is too simplistic to simply conclude a selection is poor if a later one turns out to be superior.

In essence, I was talking about one component of how the club should go about analysing their performance, not whether they should do it at all. All of the junk you've written about not analysing half the draft, just staying out of the later parts of the draft altogether, not comparing ourself to other clubs, etc relates to the latter question, a debate I never entered into.

So I'm sure you can understand that your utter misrepresentation of my post made it seem as though you had completely missed the point of it.

You talk as if I missed any point at any stage. I'm aware of all components you're speaking of, I took the piss with that post. Of course, no one would suggest we ignore half the draft or a similarly large chunk of info in analysing performance. Your methodology plainly wouldn't be wise though, because the information inherently means something. If a player selected later is more successful, we have a player selected later who is more successful. By nature that holds relevant info, be it of the nature Krill spoke of in his post, otherwise to do with the drafting process, or incidental, or importantly, unidentified nature. The first mistake we'll make as humans is assuming we have a grasp on anything. Always open to strip back to your fundamentals and question those, because they are always dubiously placed, probably for all time as we can comprehend it.

Probably not wise to consume our resources extracting every drop of intelligence we can from an isolated boom, but It's all relevant because of what it is.

 

[headache1]

The other thing is that a player's ultimate quality and AFL output is not preordained.

What happens to them from 18-21yo plays a massive role. Coached well, AFL opportunities, surrounded by quality role models VS coached poorly, limited AFL opportunities, surrounded by rabble... makes a huge difference.

Yep. You can't tell me that Geelong just keep striking gold deep in the draft year after year. A lot of it has to come down to how they develop their players, and the environment in which they do it.

 

[1990crow]

I have no problem with McKernan playing in the team with Walker out. Jenkins, McKernan and Lynch is better than Lynch and Jenkins. It will also allow us to get another ten plus games into him upping his trade value so we can have a decent pick in this years draft.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Absolutely.

We've seen McKernan clunk some decent grabs in AFL company. There is something there.

We've also seen a lot of crap. A decent spell of games will allow us once and for all to determine whether he will make it as an AFL player.

Seem to remember him playing a good game in the ruck vs St Kilda once too. Was it last season?