Toast Reasons I have nominated Charlie Cameron as the best thing to happen to the crows last year include.

[Vooligan]

Give the kid a chance. Let's wait until we see him play some footy before we say he's good/bad.

Apparently he was spending time with Eddie Betts at Henley Beach tonight - atleast the kid knows where to pick a good mentor!

 

[ManInTheArena]

But if the positives we've been hearing continue, can the AFC bring themselves to allow him to jump the Wright, Petrenko, Porplyzia queue?

I haven't heard any more positives about Cameron than any other player. He's cheeky, yay.

At the end of the day he's a rookie pick in a shallow draft and I'm not any more than 30-50% (being generous) confident he'll make it, ever, let alone in his first year. If he's banging down the door and they keep playing established average players then I'll be the first to have a crack. However that "if" is far from reality which is why I'm not sure why it's even being discussed.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I haven't heard any more positives about Cameron than any other player. He's cheeky, yay.

At the end of the day he's a rookie pick in a shallow draft and I'm not any more than 30-50% (being generous) confident he'll make it, ever, let alone in his first year. If he's banging down the door and they keep playing established average players then I'll be the first to have a crack. However that "if" is far from reality which is why I'm not sure why it's even being discussed.

You see Hemi, this is the difference between recruiters who have to picture a player 3-4 years down the track in senior company, and the average supporter who demands to see b4 they believe.

Why were we lauding the skills of Rendell? ......because he could spot horseflesh and project out
Wells from Geelong is also in a league of his own in that regard ........Neil Kerley one of the best i had ever seen as well in that area

No the point of this thread is based on what we have seen at a junior level ...that some of his traits and actions on the field suggests we have recruited a very talented young man.

Feel free to disagree as it's posters opinions and this baord is about posting thoughts & opinions

 

[Vader]

You see Hemi, this is the difference between recruiters who have to picture a player 3-4 years down the track in senior company, and the average supporter who demands to see b4 they believe.

Why were we lauding the skills of Rendell? ......because he could spot horseflesh and project out
Wells from Geelong is also in a league of his own in that regard ........Neil Kerley one of the best i had ever seen as well in that area

No the point of this thread is based on what we have seen at a junior level ...that some of his traits and actions on the field suggests we have recruited a very talented young man.

Feel free to disagree as it's posters opinions and this baord is about posting thoughts & opinions

True to a point... What you fail to mention is that the recruiters are watching these players closely for several years before they get drafted. Our first exposure to most of them is on draft day. I don't think it's unfair for us to take a while to make an informed opinion about them, just the same as the recruiters take their time observing them pre-draft before reaching their own conclusions.

As for Rendell... his greatest successes were in the early rounds of the draft, where our drafting had been an abysmal failure under the Ayres/Fantasia combination. He restored our 1st & 2nd round "hit rate" to what it should have been in the first place, no more, no less. He was just made to look like a genius when compared to the stunning incompetence of his predecessor (and yes, Fantasia had his hands tied to a certain extent by Ayres).

 

[Macca Pakka]

It's very early admittedly.

What we saw last year though is that we're slow and boring.

I can't remember our last punt on a player. A Jake Neade type selection.

Carl, I get where you are coming from wrt CEY but I think you are being a bit selective in telling the story. IMO there were two young untried players that showed glimpses during our preseason games - CEY and Laird. Neither dominated, but both showed a little something.

Although CEY didn't get an opportunity Laird got one early in the season which he took with both hands. I suppose you could argue that unlike CEY, Laird had consistent good form in the SANFL during 2012, therefore ticking a box. However that could be countered by saying that CEY was on the senior list and so was more likely to play in the seniors rather than the rookie listed Laird. With Smith's injury there was also an opening in CEY's position - box ticked.

While historically it could be argued that the AFC 22 has been much like the Aus Test Team, hard to get into, harder to get out of, I don't think you're telling the complete story of last preseason.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

He restored our 1st & 2nd round "hit rate" to what it should have been in the first place, no more, no less. He was just made to look like a genius when compared to the stunning incompetence of his predecessor (and yes, Fantasia had his hands tied to a certain extent by Ayres).

What should the 1st and 2nd round hit rate be?

2007 1st round (pick 10): Dangerfield - hit
2nd round (27): Otten - hit
2nd round (30): Jacky - miss

2008 1st round (10): Davis - hit
2nd round (28): McKernan - jury out, leaning towards miss

2009 1st round (13): Talia - hit
2nd round (29): Gunston - hit

2010 1st round (14): Smith - hit

2011 end of 1st round priority (27): Kerridge - jury out, leaning towards hit
2nd round (41): Grigg - leaning very strongly towards hit
2nd round (46): Joyce - miss

He absolutely without question hit on every first rounder he had, despite the fact that they were all those mediocre mid-late first rounders which are traditionally no guarantees. Also, there are hits and then there are hits, and in Dangerfield we got a player who will very likely win a Brownlow in his career, and Talia is already one of the very best KPDs in the league.

He ran at better than 50% for second rounders, and it is probably harsh to include Joyce in that - pick 46 would be a mid 3rd rounder in a normal year. Again there are one or two big hits in that lot, Gunston could very well have a Norm Smith medal to his name and Grigg looks like he could be anything.

This is also without giving him the credit for Crouch. Even though trading for Crouch was probably a list management decision, rather than recruiting, you would think that our head recruiter would have had a significant say in that - we gave up A LOT for Crouch (even though the blow was softened by an unexpectedly excellent 2012 downgrading our compensation pick) and must have rated him very highly.

While I agree Rendell was made to look better by the incompetence of what came before him, I think to say he did no more than bring the hit rate on early picks to what it should have been probably undersells what he achieved, unless someone can convince me otherwise. In fact, for our team to be as competitive as it has despite our awful drafting of the pre-Rendell years is largely a credit to Rendell, IMO.

 

[Vader]

What is acceptable? I'd suggest that 90% of first round draftees should go on to play 100+ games. At least 50% of the second rounders should do likewise.

I'm happy to accept that the odds on anyone selected at 50+ is around 10-15%, which is roughly where Rendell was batting. Lots of his later draftees (particularly rookie draftees) made it to the 20-40 bracket, very few of them look like going on to play 100+.

Not sure how we should judge Rendell's recruitment of Gunston either. Yes, Gunston has turned out to be a good player - and would clearly be a "hit" if that were the only criteria. However, Gunston was always considered to be a flight risk and his while the manner of his departure was childish and immature, the fact that he left in the first place was less than surprising. There is a reasonable case to be made that Rendell should not have chosen him, given the extreme flight risk involved.

** Other than that, I agree with your player assessments.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

What is acceptable? I'd suggest that 90% of first round draftees should go on to play 100+ games. At least 50% of the second rounders should do likewise.

Those numbers seem high to me, but I have no evidence for that so I won't argue. Does anyone have the league averages?

Not sure how we should judge Rendell's recruitment of Gunston either. Yes, Gunston has turned out to be a good player - and would clearly be a "hit" if that were the only criteria. However, Gunston was always considered to be a flight risk and his while the manner of his departure was childish and immature, the fact that he left in the first place was less than surprising. There is a reasonable case to be made that Rendell should not have chosen him, given the extreme flight risk involved.

This is a fair point, but was there really any evidence he was a flight risk? My memory (albeit vague) is that there was no hint he might leave until after he was gone. I also wonder how much of it really was inherent and should've been picked up on pre-draft, and how much might have been based on $ and the potential of on-field success. Our prospects were bleak in October 2011.

But I do accept the premise that you have to assess the quality of the Gunston and Davis picks in light of what happened after.

Anyway, back on topic. Is it just a coincidence that Cameron's first name is "Charlie", or is that a realistic expectation for 2014?

 

[Vader]

Those numbers seem high to me, but I have no evidence for that so I won't argue. Does anyone have the league averages?

I haven't seen any recent figures - the study which I do remember is now well over a decade old, and the science of drafting has improved a lot since then.

Going back to the mid-2000s (giving the players time to reach 100 games)...
2007
1st round - 5 of the first 17 have played 100+, 3 more have played 80+ and are well on their way, only 2 are no longer on an AFL list.
2nd round - only 2 have played 100+, 2 more should get there eventually (Otten & Whitecross), 9 are no longer on an AFL list.

2006
1st round - 5 have played 100+, 5 more at 80+, 2 more 70+ and likely to get there, 3 no longer on AFL lists.
2nd round - 3 at 100+, 3 more at 80+, 8 are no longer on AFL lists.

2005
1st round - 11 have played 100+, 3 at 80+, 5 no longer in the system
2nd round - 3 at 100+, 1 at 80+, 9 no longer in the system

2004
1st round - 10 played 100+ (of which 2 are no longer in the system), 1 is at 80+ and may get there eventually (Tom Williams), 8 are gone without reaching 100+.
2nd round - 3 at 100+ (VB the best of them at 182), the other 13 are all long gone.

2003
1st round - 9 played 100+, the other 9 are no longer in the system
2nd round - 3 at 100+, the other 12 are no longer in the system

Looking at those figures, my original estimates do appear a bit high. I'd say roughly 60% of all first round selections go on to play 100+ (rising to 80%+ for the top-5). The figures for the 2nd round are around 20%. Any selections you get right in the 3rd and subsequent rounds are an absolute bonus.

This is a fair point, but was there really any evidence he was a flight risk? My memory (albeit vague) is that there was no hint he might leave until after he was gone. I also wonder how much of it really was inherent and should've been picked up on pre-draft, and how much might have been based on $ and the potential of on-field success. Our prospects were bleak in October 2011.

But I do accept the premise that you have to assess the quality of the Gunston and Davis picks in light of what happened after.

From memory, didn't Gunston have family ties to one of the Victorian based clubs? Maybe Essendon? From memory his situation was similar to that of Fungus Watts, many years before.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

From memory, didn't Gunston have family ties to one of the Victorian based clubs? Maybe Essendon? From memory his situation was similar to that of Fungus Watts, many years before.

Sure did. Didn't the story go that Watts' dad actually tried to talk him into staying at the Crows?

 

[Vader]

Sure did. Didn't the story go that Watts' dad actually tried to talk him into staying at the Crows?

Going to St Kilda certainly didn't make a whole lot of sense, given that they had Riewoldt, Kosi and (possibly) Gehrig all ahead of him at the time. Of all the clubs he could have chosen...

 

[Mr_Moogle]

What is acceptable? I'd suggest that 90% of first round draftees should go on to play 100+ games. At least 50% of the second rounders should do likewise.

I'm happy to accept that the odds on anyone selected at 50+ is around 10-15%, which is roughly where Rendell was batting. Lots of his later draftees (particularly rookie draftees) made it to the 20-40 bracket, very few of them look like going on to play 100+.

Not sure how we should judge Rendell's recruitment of Gunston either. Yes, Gunston has turned out to be a good player - and would clearly be a "hit" if that were the only criteria. However, Gunston was always considered to be a flight risk and his while the manner of his departure was childish and immature, the fact that he left in the first place was less than surprising. There is a reasonable case to be made that Rendell should not have chosen him, given the extreme flight risk involved.

** Other than that, I agree with your player assessments.

This is a good point which doesn't get brought up often enough. Rendell is a good recruiter but he's not some kind of football messiah. Part of his job is to avoid picking players who are a flight risk and likely to run home to mother.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

This is a good point which doesn't get brought up often enough. Rendell is a good recruiter but he's not some kind of football messiah. Part of his job is to avoid picking players who are a flight risk and likely to run home to mother.

I just had a look back at this draft... It is a roll call of spuds. After Gunston, the only decent player is Allen Christensen.

Rendell could have picked one of the gun local lads who was available at that pick like Bollenhagen, Sumner, Craig (oh wait...), Nason or O'Brien. It's annoying that Gunston left but our list is in far better shape for having drafted him (which netted us Kerridge, Jenkins and Grigg in the end) than if we'd picked pretty much anyone else.

 

[Sanders]

What is acceptable? I'd suggest that 90% of first round draftees should go on to play 100+ games. At least 50% of the second rounders should do likewise.

You might suggest it...

Its not true though, and it doesn't take account of the difference between 100 Reilly games & 100 Danger games

 

[Sanders]

This is a good point which doesn't get brought up often enough. Rendell is a good recruiter but he's not some kind of football messiah. Part of his job is to avoid picking players who are a flight risk and likely to run home to mother.

Absolutely not.

How the heck is he meant to do that? Tea leaves?

 

[jenny61_99]

Positive noises emanating out of training about this guy. Look forward to seeing him in action. Some question marks over his kicking, I understand?

I'm not going to waste my time now saying he should/shouldn't be in the side in round 1 because I have no idea, but VBs injury means that everyone is a chance... Just cannot wait for Feb 16.

Looks to me (from the snippets) like he kicks to position so the player can run on to it. We should see more of it!

 

[Glenno23]

Absolutely not.

How the heck is he meant to do that? Tea leaves?

Its like a job interview. The interviewer needs to ask GOOD questions. Ones that will get the answers he's looking for

Its not 100%, weed out the insecure ones, but it'll go a long way to determining a potential flight risk

 

[Sanders]

Its like a job interview. The interviewer needs to ask GOOD questions. Ones that will get the answers he's looking for

Its not 100%, weed out the insecure ones, but it'll go a long way to determining a potential flight risk

And job interviews work well do they?

 

[Glenno23]

And job interviews work well do they?

They do if you ask the right questions

You need questions that evoke behavioural responses.

 

[Sanders]

They do if you ask the right questions

You need questions that evoke behavioural responses.

I'm not sure I agree that's quite right

Interviews identify people better at interviewing in my experience, and aren't great predictors of what you're going to get.

The idea of blaming Rendell for the club's inability to retain a player 2 years on is one of the more peculiar criticisms I've come across

Our problem with Gunston was that we put him in a position where it was in his best interest to leave us & go to Hawthorn. Rendell can't control that.

It was up to the club to create a better environment for retention.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

They do if you ask the right questions

You need questions that evoke behavioural responses.

IMO, they are about seeing how easy a potential recruit (employee) can come up with a pressure answer and not rely on a rehearsed scenarios or situations. The question is supported to see how they can handle pressure it in a spilt second, without having time to think about it.

So yeah, I agree it has some part about evoking a behavioural response.

 

[Glenno23]

I'm not sure I agree that's quite right

Interviews identify people better at interviewing in my experience, and aren't great predictors of what you're going to get.

The idea of blaming Rendell for the club's inability to retain a player 2 years on is one of the more peculiar criticisms I've come across

Our problem with Gunston was that we put him in a position where it was in his best interest to leave us & go to Hawthorn. Rendell can't control that.

It was up to the club to create a better environment for retention.

Oh, i don't blame Rendell for seeing some of our recruits walk. But there is an element in picking the right character and interviewing correctly when it was Rendell's chance too

You'd be looking for answers that show loyalty, strong mateship, ability to develop relationships etc

 

[Sanders]

Oh, i don't blame Rendell for seeing some of our recruits walk. But there is an element in picking the right character and interviewing correctly when it was Rendell's chance too

I fundamentally disagree in every way imaginable that Gunston leaving us had anything whatsoever to do with his "character"

You'd be looking for answers that show loyalty, strong mateship, ability to develop relationships etc

And of course their answers would be 100% indicative of their true feelings and not interview rehearsed patter

 

[Deaneus!]

Does he have a nickname yet?

Can i suggest, Doritos?

 

[Vooligan]

Does he have a nickname yet?

Can i suggest, Doritos?

Where does that come from?