Autopsy Recruiting Philosophy

[Damo80]

Can't agree

Then you may as well go follow another team, cos you're just going to be continually frustrated each year at draft time. That is the club's recruiting policy, like it or lump it. You can argue it in here all you like, but it's not going to change the club's views or policies!

 

[blaisee]

Can't agree, gotta go best available and weight it for risk eg. knee issues, broken legs, physical development etc.. So best available after adjusting for risk etc...

The point is JON was not high reward, he was a backman and high risk. It was just a very dud pick and our peers suggested this on draft night

sorry magic dont follow,

what does best available mean?

Does it mean the player with the highest ceiling, or the player that is more likely to reach a higher ceiling?

And how do you weight injury risk?

And on what basis do you quantify this injury risk? What info do you have to quantify the injury risk?

Cheers

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Heard that Carlton are prepared to wear at least one season of menzel being on sidelines with possibly more. As much as i would have loved menzel I think this is the right decision to make, durability is a big part of being a champion. And who can say if Menzel will be the same after another a knee which seems to be a certainty.

That was the original word at the time -

However, the club has said to have since changed it's stance, as the they have (rightly) deemed it to be medically unethical to give a kid a full knee reconstruction, when he doesn't require one.

We apparantly have worked closely with his surgeon and decided that his injuries were collision injuries and not structural, so if Menzel does break down again, he will have a proper knee-reconstruction, as opposed to LARS.

 

[Mr Magic]

Then you may as well go follow another team, cos you're just going to be continually frustrated each year at draft time. That is the club's recruiting policy, like it or lump it. You can argue it in here all you like, but it's not going to change the club's views or policies!

Dream on, If I am wrong we win a premiership, If I am right the orchestrators will get booted out of the club like TW and all others before them till we get the right people making the right decisions. They will get booted out by others not because of what I say of course but because the team simply cannot delivery a premiership and other success others and me crave for RFC.

It all comes down to performance but it looks like the Swans were doing it differently building success than Tigers atm to me anyway

 

[Mr Magic]

sorry magic dont follow,

what does best available mean?

Does it mean the player with the highest ceiling, or the player that is more likely to reach a higher ceiling?

And how do you weight injury risk?

And on what basis do you quantify this injury risk? What info do you have to quantify the injury risk?

Cheers

Well you get the best, experts, providing probability ratios for varios risks and you multiply that against the various values assessed to come up with an expected value. not rocket science. Eg. Doc says 60% chance Menzel will play 7 years out of 10 or whatever

 

[blaisee]

Well you get the best, experts, providing probability ratios for varios risks and you multiply that against the various values assessed to come up with an expected value. not rocket science. Eg. Doc says 60% chance Menzel will play 7 years out of 10 or whatever

are you saying we should have taken Menzel?

 

[Mr Magic]

are you saying we should have taken Menzel?

Maybe, maybe not . I think he is a better pick than V if you can get him playing 8 out of 10 high quality years of footy, plus the fact he plays in a more important position structurally and you can get V types later. It comes down to what the docs said.

Going forward into the future we need a few Menzel playing types thats for sure

 

[blaisee]

Maybe, maybe not . I think he is a better pick than V if you can get him playing 8 out of 10 high quality years of footy, plus the fact he plays in a more important position structurally and you can get V types later. It comes down to what the docs said.

Going forward into the future we need a few Menzel playing types thats for sure

Agree

Our doc, as well as the GWS Melbourne Port and Brisbane docs must all have agreed.

I guess even though his ceiling was higher than that of Vlas, he was considered too big a risk

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Then you may as well go follow another team, cos you're just going to be continually frustrated each year at draft time. That is the club's recruiting policy, like it or lump it. You can argue it in here all you like, but it's not going to change the club's views or policies!

But that would be a waste of his membership mon ... oh, wait

 

[Cotcho]

Who exactly Cotcho?
Vlastuin is 84kg. A good size but hardly the shape of a "big bodied" AFL player. McBean is exact opposite. McIntosh is 78kgs?!
Ellis was by no means "physically mature" when he arrived. Elton's body wasn't ready for key position AFL.
Arnot certainly was, there's one, but hasn't played a game.
Conca was scrawny and still has a lot of filling out to do. Batch was a decent size, there's 2.

Am I missing something? Don't understand where you are coming from.

Like I said earlier, they seem to be getting everything right and I have no idea who actually has more talent. Im just going off pre-draft speculation etc.

Arnott was taken it seems mostly due to his size and i'm not sure of what other options we had available. Ellis was taken in preference to Kavanah, mostly to do with his ability to play in 2012 I believe because Kavs a twig? Vlastuin was definitely taken because of his size, you can see that in his highlight tapes most of the good stuff he does is due to his physicality. His disposal from what I can see doesnt seem all that flash. I would have taken a chance on Menzel personally but I suppose that's an all together different issue. So just those guys really. Hopefully they will be the best picks. I would just take the most talented guy every time, put them in the gym and fill for need via FA and trade. If we have legitimately done that then I have absolutely no problem.

 

[Damo80]

Dream on, If I am wrong we win a premiership, If I am right the orchestrators will get booted out of the club like TW and all others before them till we get the right people making the right decisions.

Unfortunately, there is no "Sliding Doors" type arrangement allowing us to sit back and review how things might have been different if we had done things your way. We could do things "right" and still fall short of premiership glory, or we could get a few "wrong" along the way, but still get that premiership we all want... it's not clear cut like you make it out to be. Ultimately the club's recruiting policy is what it is, the club's choices have been made (for this year's draft), the results will be what they will be, and there's absolutely no merit in looking back in 10 years time saying "if we had've taken Grundy/Menzel/Garlett we would've won that premiership". None.

 

[theflea]

Like I said earlier, they seem to be getting everything right and I have no idea who actually has more talent. Im just going off pre-draft speculation etc.

Arnott was taken it seems mostly due to his size and i'm not sure of what other options we had available. Ellis was taken in preference to Kavanah, mostly to do with his ability to play in 2012 I believe because Kavs a twig? Vlastuin was definitely taken because of his size, you can see that in his highlight tapes most of the good stuff he does is due to his physicality. His disposal from what I can see doesnt seem all that flash. I would have taken a chance on Menzel personally but I suppose that's an all together different issue. So just those guys really. Hopefully they will be the best picks. I would just take the most talented guy every time, put them in the gym and fill for need via FA and trade. If we have legitimately done that then I have absolutely no problem.

imo if you believe we only took players bc of their starting few years and not bc of what they can provide for 10 years then you have rocks in your head. they were chosen bc they thought they were simply better players.

 

[Cotcho]

imo if you believe we only took players bc of their starting few years and not bc of what they can provide for 10 years then you have rocks in your head. they were chosen bc they thought they were simply better players.

Don't be rude, I said I'm not sure if that's what we did or not.

The fact that no other clubs even mentioned Vlastuin for example and we were the only ones who were ever going to take him should ring alarm bells. The fact that we may have rated him higher than others to compliment our other mids, to come in and make an immediate impact, because he is a leader, beacause he is tough at all the ball does not in any way mean that he is a "better player" as you say...on the contrary. Like I said....I'm not saying he wasn't the best, but it's a question worth asking.

 

[theflea]

Don't be rude, I said I'm not sure if that's what we did or not.

The fact that no other clubs even mentioned Vlastuin for example and we were the only ones who were ever going to take him should ring alarm bells. The fact that we may have rated him higher than others to compliment our other mids, to come in and make an immediate impact, because he is a leader, beacause he is tough at all the ball does not in any way mean that he is a "better player" as you say...on the contrary. Like I said....I'm not saying he wasn't the best, but it's a question worth asking.

firstly mate, thats not being rude saying you have rocks in your head.i can be a lot worse but if you have read my posts i mostly try to be assertive in my views but never aggressive. im sorry if you took it this way.

on your other point, how do you know what other clubs were thinking in relation to vlas? do you have their priority lists to compare? surely you aren't just going on BF and media phantoms to form this view? you are perfectly allowed to question things but then again so am i. i am only expressing my view, and that is the club dont just take the short term view, they take the whole view,short,long and all in between. these threads are discussion points and we all will parry and thrust depending on which side of a debate you lie. i dont take to heart an opposing view on a topic.

 

[MightyTiger]

firstly mate, thats not being rude saying you have rocks in your head.i can be a lot worse but if you have read my posts i mostly try to be assertive in my views but never aggressive. im sorry if you took it this way.

on your other point, how do you know what other clubs were thinking in relation to vlas? do you have their priority lists to compare? surely you aren't just going on BF and media phantoms to form this view? you are perfectly allowed to question things but then again so am i. i am only expressing my view, and that is the club dont just take the short term view, they take the whole view,short,long and all in between. these threads are discussion points and we all will parry and thrust depending on which side of a debate you lie. i dont take to heart an opposing view on a topic.

Most experts had Vlas high up in there rankings anyway, it's not like we reached on him. People are just mad because we passed up on a over hyped HFF (Menzel) and another overhyped player in Grundy. Get over it people, we are still recruiting the meat and potatoes type players, we can't afford to go flashy and pick periphery players, I think people are forgetting we recruited a HFF/Mid in Knights who we got for free, we also took McBean. Not sure what all the sooking is about tbh, just more knowitall experts.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Vlas fitted what we need (inside mid and leadership), was ranked as about our pick, the two guys that 'slid' past were menzel and Grundy. Menzel's knee is screwed. That is a such a major issue. There is a strong possiblity he will never play to his ability, or he will have a very disrupted career. I just wouldn't gamble like that when you can get quality with that pick. The club obviously felt the same, along with a few other clubs as mentioned.
Grundy I was keen on because a dominant ruck is so important. But so many teams passed on him that it makes me feel the pros see things differently to the amateur draft watchers. There is something here that seems a bit strange. Either he will be good and Collingwood will be very lucky (I hate thinking that) or we will see why so many clubs missed him. Sometimes these gusy slide and you find out why over the next few years.
In both cases our tactics were not unusual. That we pick solid players early that will be good is excellent policy to me. To some extent depth of talent is more important than level of talent. If we can get a largish group of tough talented players we will do very well. Picking more risky, but higher potential, players can leave you with holes in the squad and poor depth. Minimising risk whilst trying to get good returns, I can live with that.

 

[Mr Magic]

Unfortunately, there is no "Sliding Doors" type arrangement allowing us to sit back and review how things might have been different if we had done things your way. We could do things "right" and still fall short of premiership glory, or we could get a few "wrong" along the way, but still get that premiership we all want... it's not clear cut like you make it out to be. Ultimately the club's recruiting policy is what it is, the club's choices have been made (for this year's draft), the results will be what they will be, and there's absolutely no merit in looking back in 10 years time saying "if we had've taken Grundy/Menzel/Garlett we would've won that premiership". None.

BS that is project management without a review process.

Can't learn from mistakes??? more arrogance...

 

[Mr Magic]

Don't be rude, I said I'm not sure if that's what we did or not.

The fact that no other clubs even mentioned Vlastuin for example and we were the only ones who were ever going to take him should ring alarm bells. The fact that we may have rated him higher than others to compliment our other mids, to come in and make an immediate impact, because he is a leader, beacause he is tough at all the ball does not in any way mean that he is a "better player" as you say...on the contrary. Like I said....I'm not saying he wasn't the best, but it's a question worth asking.

Hmmmm how does recruiting benchmark itself to industry standards???

 

[Damo80]

BS that is project management without a review process.

Can't learn from mistakes??? more arrogance...

Where did I say "without a review process"?

Of course you review. It's one thing to sit here with the benefit of hindsight and say we should've taken Pav over Fiora, Buddy over Tambling etc, and deduce that we would've been a better side along the way. But your assertion that "if we win a premiership, I was wrong/if we don't win a premiership, I was right" is delusional, and what I was referring to when I said we don't have that luxury of reviewing. What if we win that premiership either way? What if we fall short either way? Have you seen the movie "Sliding Doors", and/or are you familiar with the concept - in this case, where we're comparing Mr Magic's reality, with actual reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_Doors

 

[Mr Magic]

Where did I say "without a review process"?

Of course you review. It's one thing to sit here with the benefit of hindsight and say we should've taken Pav over Fiora, Buddy over Tambling etc, and deduce that we would've been a better side along the way. But your assertion that "if we win a premiership, I was wrong/if we don't win a premiership, I was right" is delusional, and what I was referring to when I said we don't have that luxury of reviewing. What if we win that premiership either way? What if we fall short either way? Have you seen the movie "Sliding Doors", and/or are you familiar with the concept - in this case, where we're comparing Mr Magic's reality, with actual reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_Doors

You brought the sliding doors concept up. Sliding doors is a movie... now who is living in reality?????

The fact is RFC and whatever club picks up Grundy or whoever are not that dissimilar so comparisons can be made whether you like it or not and will be made. No point it using a sliding doors concept as an excuse.

Fact is you said"there's absolutelyno merit in looking back in 10 years time saying "if we had've taken Grundy/Menzel/Garlett we would've won that premiership". None." which more or less negates reviews and comparisons no matter how you want to frame your spin. Comparisons and judgements will be made by others not including me whether you like it or not and independent scrutiny is good to ensure everybody gets the most out of things otherwise lets drop our pick and shovels and bow down before Mao RFC power brokers and worship their feet.

Tell me where I said "if we win a premiership, I was wrong/if we don't win a premiership, I was right". I never did so who is delusional???

What I did say is if we win a premiership I was wrong. If I am right some will get booted out of the club by others. So to elaborate if I am inferring our strategy selecting players overemphasising inside mids early and leadership purported by some on BF is our strategy ignoring absolute best available and IMO this strategy is wrong I am saying if I think RFC recruiting strategy might be off kilter then in a highly competitive comp we will not be able to make up that error and we will not win a premiership. If we win a premiership I am wrong because the strategy must have been okay not to inhibit our premiership prospects obviously as we like to think this is our goal.If however this strategy is flawed then over time it should be a sufficient deterrent to stop us winning a premiership and therefore the proponents of such a strategy which probably be replaced because most want to win a premiership and the status quo would not be getting it done exclusive of what I say.

 

[theflea]

You brought the sliding doors concept up. Sliding doors is a movie... now who is living in reality?????

The fact is RFC and whatever club picks up Grundy or whoever are not that dissimilar so comparisons can be made whether you like it or not and will be made. No point it using a sliding doors concept as an excuse.

Fact is you said"there's absolutelyno merit in looking back in 10 years time saying "if we had've taken Grundy/Menzel/Garlett we would've won that premiership". None." which more or less negates reviews and comparisons no matter how you want to frame your spin. Comparisons and judgements will be made by others not including me whether you like it or not and independent scrutiny is good to ensure everybody gets the most out of things otherwise lets drop our pick and shovels and bow down before Mao RFC power brokers and worship their feet.

Tell me where I said "if we win a premiership, I was wrong/if we don't win a premiership, I was right". I never did so who is delusional???

What I did say is if we win a premiership I was wrong. If I am right some will get booted out of the club by others. So to elaborate if I am inferring our strategy selecting players overemphasising inside mids early and leadership purported by some on BF is our strategy ignoring absolute best available and IMO this strategy is wrong I am saying if I think RFC recruiting strategy might be off kilter then in a highly competitive comp we will not be able to make up that error and we will not win a premiership. If we win a premiership I am wrong because the strategy must have been okay not to inhibit our premiership prospects obviously as we like to think this is our goal.If however this strategy is flawed then over time it should be a sufficient deterrent to stop us winning a premiership and therefore the proponents of such a strategy which probably be replaced because most want to win a premiership and the status quo would not be getting it done exclusive of what I say.

imo there is so many intanglibles to winning a flag that you could select the best players via commitee and still not win.

 

[Riskingheadandshin]

imo there is so many intanglibles to winning a flag that you could select the best players via commitee and still not win.

Very good point flea.

 

[Damo80]

Fact is you said"there's absolutelyno merit in looking back in 10 years time saying "if we had've taken Grundy/Menzel/Garlett we would've won that premiership". None." which more or less negates reviews and comparisons no matter how you want to frame your spin.

I stand by what I said, and the fact that it doesn't me we don't review. Of course our recruiting strategies should be constantly reviewed, but it's just not possible to say if we don't win a premiership, it's because we took Vlastuin over player X.

Question for you Mr Magic, when you determine "best available", do you think any other factors should be taken into account other than sheer talent?

 

[mhill]

The club whom we seem to most closely resemble in player type is Hawthorn. The have a number of big bodied, skilful yet not overly quick players on their list.

The whole best player available argument gets flawed from pick 4 or 5. It is so hard to distinguish an absolute stand out player - it has to come down to a preference for a set criteria or specific need.
Ours is bigger bodied and midfield.
Our picks in recent years have had more size on them than the previous 10 years. JON, Fiora, Edwards were all tiny in size and never put on any weight. While McBean is also skinny, he is tall. It is rare to see a KPP or Ruck with meat on the bones - they grow up and then out.

 

[Mr Magic]

The club whom we seem to most closely resemble in player type is Hawthorn. The have a number of big bodied, skilful yet not overly quick players on their list.

The whole best player available argument gets flawed from pick 4 or 5. It is so hard to distinguish an absolute stand out player - it has to come down to a preference for a set criteria or specific need.
Ours is bigger bodied and midfield.
Our picks in recent years have had more size on them than the previous 10 years. JON, Fiora, Edwards were all tiny in size and never put on any weight. While McBean is also skinny, he is tall. It is rare to see a KPP or Ruck with meat on the bones - they grow up and then out.

True except for a few things, we lack their forward talent, IMO Hawthorn actually lack a few stars/quality particularly on the outside. In retrospect you could argue they were lucky against Geelong so their approach cold be fine tuned to