Autopsy Recruiting Philosophy

[theflea]

Although I rarely agree with anything Magic says, I certainly agree that with a better functioning forward line, we would probably have made finals last year. Our mids and backs were dominant for large periods in games and we often won/broke even in I50's but our use going in, whether lack of options or no hit up forward (Miller our most effective?) cost us dearly.

Nahas and King need to playing out of their skin for our forward line to be really dangerous. JR is a star and if he gets an injury free run at it, he'll once again tear the comp apart (Norm Smith while half fit is noted... but prob didn't deserve it). Nahas kicked plenty but I felt he was better in 2011. Edwards is now a really dangerous (and more consistent) forward but we need a hit up forward or 2 plus a another high marking option (could TV/Griff please stand up and be injury free in 2013).

If this happens and our mids continue to perform (including a fit Axel) then we have the tools to make finals in 2013, and make them well (3-6).

Or maybe I've just had too many cans.... :/

we certainly need to be more scientific entering fwd 50. yes tucky im looking at you.

 

[Capitano_Cotch]

The way the game is these days, it's all about having goal-kicking midfielders.
Collingwood is a prime example, as is Sydney, who won a premiership despite having a really high quality power forward.
The addition of Knights is a fantastic get for the club, he is a genuine goal kicker who can play in the midfield.
Martin doesn't need an introduction, he will be one of the best goal kicking mids in the comp (if he isn't already).
Will look forward to Cotch hitting the score board more next season as well as Deledio.
Exciting times!

 

[nicn31]

The club is on the right track. Who cares about Grundy, he is not that good anyway. For once we are recruiting guys that can actually win the ball, not get pushed from it. I still remember going to games and watch us get smashed in the middle or around the packs by the bigger sides. We are becoming again ruthless, like the tigers of old.

 

[Dragonss]

lol see comparisons of Mcintosh and Plowman, Mcbean and Daniher

 

[3rdManUp]

The opposition game plan is to shut down Jack. They didn't even care about Miller and (later) McGuane. In fact, the more they lead into Jack, the better it was for them. I was getting really fed up with bomb it high to Riewoldt and hope that Edwards/Martin/Resting Mid picks up the crumbs.

A fit and ready TV and another good solid tall should do it. I'm excited too that we may actually have a centre half forward line this year

 

[In the Jungle]

It was disappointing that we did not take Grundy as we suffered from not having a decent ruckman until Maric arrived. If Maric is injured there is still very little depth in this area and the recruitment of McBean does not help because he is a few years away from being ready. Grundy is 14 kgs heavier and would be ready to play much sooner.

Apart from that I am not unhappy with the recruiting philosophy...

Although grundy is heavier, more aggressive & possibly ready to play (at some stage 20130)
McBean posseses, more skill, better football brain, more agile, great kick.
Mcbean will also (like all our future recruits) now train and play on Punt Road, in a stand alone Tigers reserve side (the way WE WANT). Threw in we have CHOCO to look after the developing young kids.

 

[dean33]

Couple of interesting things from yesterdays meet the draftees day. Mcbean will be given lots anf lots of time to develope... 4 years min.. so have patience.
grundy was not on our radar for pick 9, dimma had stipulated no ruckman with 1st pick.
Menzel was a close consideration however our medical reports were not if he would do a knee again but when.

 

[Dr Tigris]

There is a clear philosophy in the drafting. Relatively low risk, good attitudes, good kicking and a fair bit of ability to play through the middle. Plan to fill holes in the list over the next few years. If it works we have good run and kicking ability with a tall and a crumber. If it doesn't keep repeating process - trade, draft and develop.
I like the focus on leadership and character - it drives ongoing development. In the long run premierships are won in the head more than in the body.

 

[Calcium Man]

grundy was not on our radar for pick 9, dimma had stipulated no ruckman with 1st pick.
Menzel was a close consideration however our medical reports were not if he would do a knee again but when.

The ruckman thing makes sense. I think Grundy will be great but the value is there later in the draft.

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.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

FJ has already said No to Garlett at PSD or Rookie Draft.

Probably the right call too IMO. No doubt he has the talent to burn but going into such a crucial year where we need to make the 8, we can't afford having bad press on the back of some off field issues. The players and team need to be fully focused each week on winning the next game. While I'm happy with our current direction and culture, bringing in a potentially destabilising person such as Garlett might influence or bring down a few other players. Not worth the risk.

Not only that but if we are trying to build a strong off field culture, we can't afford to make exceptions to the rule where a player might be worth the risk because they could potentially be a huge coup. Maybe once the culture has been created and in place for a few years and we don't have other concerns with existing players (i.e Martin's behaviour) we can afford to take a chance but for now, best we take the safe road IMO.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

As RP said the last 2 drafts have seen a distinct change of direction in our recruiting, no longer are we going after the flashy high risk high reward types. Instead we seem to be much more interested in obtaining players who are going to produce week after week, rather than flash in and out of games and often go missing for 3-4 weeks at a time. Those types don't win games off their own boots often enough to get you into finals and they definitely can't be relied on to win you games in high pressured finals if we did happen to make it.

What we need and are now starting to get is players who can be relied on to perform when the heat is on. Now whether that is the hard at it inside types or the hard running outside types who finish off the work, it doesn't matter the fact is that if they all perform week after week it will go along way towards us making finals in 2013.

Great post RT. Fully agree with you here.

I like the club's drafting approach at going for the 'solid citizen' rather than the flashy, high risk, high reward option. IMO, we are better off building a solid foundation of players with strong character, determination and qualities. This ensures we know the player is likely to develop and push himself to improve. Further to that, in the pressure games and moments we will play in the future, sometimes you need to have the reliable grunts who get the job done.

Once we have that base of players (which I think we aren't far from already), we can then target/recruit/trade for the players with the x factor, silky skills, game breaking pace etc.

Terry Wallace tried to build a team of flashy flankers but when the game got gritty, we normally got walloped. I think Hardwick is going the right way with getting as many warriors as he can and then adding the missing pieces through trading/FA/future drafts.

Look at Sydney, their team is largely made up non flashy types but moreso players with character and heart who push and will themselves into every contest when the game is in the balance, even when they are down. They then add a few x factor players who bring the flash, speed and polish that make them such a great side - a perfect combination of flair and fight.

 

[Disco_Roach]

Great post RT. Fully agree with you here.

I like the club's drafting approach at going for the 'solid citizen' rather than the flashy, high risk, high reward option. IMO, we are better off building a solid foundation of players with strong character, determination and qualities. This ensures we know the player is likely to develop and push himself to improve. Further to that, in the pressure games and moments we will play in the future, sometimes you need to have the reliable grunts who get the job done.

Once we have that base of players (which I think we aren't far from already), we can then target/recruit/trade for the players with the x factor, silky skills, game breaking pace etc.

Terry Wallace tried to build a team of flashy flankers but when the game got gritty, we normally got walloped. I think Hardwick is going the right way with getting as many warriors as he can and then adding the missing pieces through trading/FA/future drafts.

Look at Sydney, their team is largely made up non flashy types but moreso players with character and heart who push and will themselves into every contest when the game is in the balance, even when they are down. They then add a few x factor players who bring the flash, speed and polish that make them such a great side - a perfect combination of flair and fight.

Not sure Sydney are a good example to follow, actually a poor one given our recruiting with early picks of late follows are different philosophy than there's.

When Sydney get a chance at an early pick they generally go for the exciting X-Factor type & leave the grunt players to be got by trades, late picks etc.

Outside Mitchell who was a no-brainer F/S selection there past 4 early picks are - Rohan, Jetta, Towers & Lamb.

All flashy types that they hoped could turn matches. Some have worked brilliantly, some not so & some its too early to tell,

But there's no way we would have taken most, & probably none of those if we had those picks as we have taken polar opposite players with our early selections.

Different tact completely, where we do follow them is by targetting undervalued players at other clubs to fill holes not early drafting.

Hopefully by bypassing these rare game changing players with our early picks isnt the difference between winning a GF down the track.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Not sure Sydney are a good example to follow, actually a poor one given our recruiting with early picks of late follows are different philosophy than there's.

When Sydney get a chance at an early pick they generally go for the exciting X-Factor type & leave the grunt players to be got by trades, late picks etc.

Outside Mitchell who was a no-brainer F/S selection there past 4 early picks are - Rohan, Jetta, Towers & Lamb.

All flashy types that they hoped could turn matches. Some have worked brilliantly, some not so & some its too early to tell,

But there's no way we would have taken most, & probably none of those if we had those picks as we have taken polar opposite players with our early selections.

Different tact completely, where we do follow them is by targetting undervalued players at other clubs to fill holes not early drafting.

Hopefully by bypassing these rare game changing players with our early picks isnt the difference between winning a GF down the track.

Sorry if I confused you DR but I actually meant Sydney are a good example (not so much from the recruiting philosophy - though think there are some similarities especially re trading for mature agers) but in the composition of their team. Lots of hard at it players sprinkled with a few flashy types (interestingly, most are the names you mentioned as early draft picks).

Our benefit is that we have had access to early picks so can afford to build a team around these guys and supplement them with players that meet our recruiting philosophy. In a way, I kind of see Dimma's desired gameplan being based around a hybrid of Sydney's hardness (not too dissimilar to how he played) and Hawthorn's possession style. I think our recruiting seems to support this by targetting players that can kick well and are tough and go hard when it's their turn to go.

 

[Riskingheadandshin]

Not sure Sydney are a good example to follow, actually a poor one given our recruiting with early picks of late follows are different philosophy than there's.

When Sydney get a chance at an early pick they generally go for the exciting X-Factor type & leave the grunt players to be got by trades, late picks etc.

Outside Mitchell who was a no-brainer F/S selection there past 4 early picks are - Rohan, Jetta, Towers & Lamb.

All flashy types that they hoped could turn matches. Some have worked brilliantly, some not so & some its too early to tell,

But there's no way we would have taken most, & probably none of those if we had those picks as we have taken polar opposite players with our early selections.

Different tact completely, where we do follow them is by targetting undervalued players at other clubs to fill holes not early drafting.

Hopefully by bypassing these rare game changing players with our early picks isnt the difference between winning a GF down the track.

Longmire has brought in some attacking players to compliment the inside, contested players. The key is they have the grunt men already from the Roos days. Very good structure in that squad now.
I think in 2-3 years when our contested players are established we can get the flash.. (I hope!!)

 

[Mr Magic]

Longmire has brought in some attacking players to compliment the inside, contested players. The key is they have the grunt men already from the Roos days. Very good structure in that squad now.
I think in 2-3 years when our contested players are established we can get the flash.. (I hope!!)

I hope that is not what they are trying to do because they were lucky to win the Swans and they have the salary advantage to have a very strong average list with just a few stars and pull it off plus state advantage to get into the GF in the first place

 

[Riskingheadandshin]

I hope that is not what they are trying to do because they were lucky to win the Swans and they have the salary advantage to have a very strong average list with just a few stars and pull it off plus state advantage to get into the GF in the first place

So what should Richmond do?
I didn't understand the rest.

 

[Mr Magic]

So what should Richmond do?
I didn't understand the rest.

Well you have to go best available including high risk high return(value). eg. Chase your Morton's risk but value, Garletts same again, Rohans(X factor even though Roos didn't know what position he would play).
Note the value pick-ups for Swans, Parker etc... They went for quality at the top end of the draft pool, and remember they were offering up draft picks to get the Martin Pick.

Value rucks, value backs, everything value.

The point is they started with Goodes and had O'Laughlin and Hall and Okeefe before their lastest run and started with a weak midfield-except Goodes.

So you can have a weakish midfield and start going outside then develop/recruit coming back inside to top up with inside mids towards the end of your build, Hannerbery, Jack, Kennedy etc..

 

[blaisee]

The recruiting Philosophy has clearly changed in the last couple of years. It is not a recruiting philosophy per se, but a list management philosophy.

We are in an enviable position where we have probably have 4 absolute superstars in Deledio Martin Jack and Cotchin, most clubs dont have that many, hence it has been a clear strategy to recruit solid footballers that have the following skillsets to compliment our existing stars. This has clearly been the plan, especially for our first round draft picks.

1. They must be of outstanding character
2. They must have very good disposal
3. They must be tough and single minded in their attack on the ball.
4. They must have leadership
5. They must be solidly built

Conca Ellis and now Vlastuin, all tick the above boxes. At times players with a higher ceiling have been overlooked ( Menzel Garlett), but that has been a deliberate strategy. Surounding our stars with solid 150-200 gamers has been the decision, on the belief that playing the percentages will ultimately get us to where we want to go.

Not saying it is right or wrong, but the days of the Jarrod Oakleigh Nicholls high risk, high reward 1st round draft picks seem a thing of the past at this stage of the journey

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

Well you have to go best available including high risk high return(value). eg. Chase your Morton's risk but value, Garletts same again, Rohans(X factor even though Roos didn't know what position he would play).
Not the value pick-ups for Swans, Parker etc... They went for quality and the top end of the draft pool, remember they were offering up draft picks to get the Martin Pick.

Value rucks, value backs everything value.

The point is they started with Goodes and had O'Laughlin and Hall and Okeefe before there lastest run and started with a weak midfield-except Goodes.

So you can have a midfield and start going outside then develop/recruit coming back inside to top up with inside mids towards the end of your build, Hannerbery, Jack, Kennedy etc..

S

THIS SIMPLY HAS TO BE POST OF THE YEAR. IT DESERVES IT'S OWN THREAD. WELL ARTICULATED MAGIC. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

 

[theflea]

Not sure Sydney are a good example to follow, actually a poor one given our recruiting with early picks of late follows are different philosophy than there's.

When Sydney get a chance at an early pick they generally go for the exciting X-Factor type & leave the grunt players to be got by trades, late picks etc.

Outside Mitchell who was a no-brainer F/S selection there past 4 early picks are - Rohan, Jetta, Towers & Lamb.

All flashy types that they hoped could turn matches. Some have worked brilliantly, some not so & some its too early to tell,

But there's no way we would have taken most, & probably none of those if we had those picks as we have taken polar opposite players with our early selections.

Different tact completely, where we do follow them is by targetting undervalued players at other clubs to fill holes not early drafting.

Hopefully by bypassing these rare game changing players with our early picks isnt the difference between winning a GF down the track.

most clubs list build is not in the same development as ours so imo you can never compare clubs directly.

 

[Cotcho]

Love the recruiting work over the last couple of years. My only criticism however is that we seem to be going after tough, big bodied guys who seem to have physical maturity. That's all well and good and a bonus but I would still put preference on football talent. As long as we arent overlooking talent for bigger guys then im very happy. If we are however picking guys who do well in U18's because they have hit the gym a couple of years earlier than the other kids then I think that is a very big mistake because 3 years later all of the draftees have been in the gym for years and have levelled out in that regard... but you cant really work on talent.

 

[theflea]

Love the recruiting work over the last couple of years. My only criticism however is that we seem to be going after tough, big bodied guys who seem to have physical maturity. That's all well and good and a bonus but I would still put preference on football talent. As long as we arent overlooking talent for bigger guys then im very happy. If we are however picking guys who do well in U18's because they have hit the gym a couple of years earlier than the other kids then I think that is a very big mistake because 3 years later all of the draftees have been in the gym for years and have levelled out in that regard... but you cant really work on talent.

i really dont think that is set in concrete. i dont even think it is a pre-requisite, it just has fallen that way. remember they watch these guys for 3+ years and would see the development of the boys talent and size wise.

 

[Mr Magic]

The recruiting Philosophy has clearly changed in the last couple of years. It is not a recruiting philosophy per se, but a list management philosophy.

We are in an enviable position where we have probably have 4 absolute superstars in Deledio Martin Jack and Cotchin, most clubs dont have that many, hence it has been a clear strategy to recruit solid footballers that have the following skillsets to compliment our existing stars. This has clearly been the plan, especially for our first round draft picks.

1. They must be of outstanding character
2. They must have very good disposal
3. They must be tough and single minded in their attack on the ball.
4. They must have leadership
5. They must be solidly built

Conca Ellis and now Vlastuin, all tick the above boxes. At times players with a higher ceiling have been overlooked ( Menzel Garlett), but that has been a deliberate strategy. Surounding our stars with solid 150-200 gamers has been the decision, on the belief that playing the percentages will ultimately get us to where we want to go.

Not saying it is right or wrong, but the days of the Jarrod Oakleigh Nicholls high risk, high reward 1st round draft picks seem a thing of the past at this stage of the journey

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

 

[Riskingheadandshin]

Love the recruiting work over the last couple of years. My only criticism however is that we seem to be going after tough, big bodied guys who seem to have physical maturity. That's all well and good and a bonus but I would still put preference on football talent. As long as we arent overlooking talent for bigger guys then im very happy. If we are however picking guys who do well in U18's because they have hit the gym a couple of years earlier than the other kids then I think that is a very big mistake because 3 years later all of the draftees have been in the gym for years and have levelled out in that regard... but you cant really work on talent.

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.

 

[LeatherPoison]

Love the recruiting work over the last couple of years. My only criticism however is that we seem to be going after tough, big bodied guys who seem to have physical maturity. That's all well and good and a bonus but I would still put preference on football talent. As long as we arent overlooking talent for bigger guys then im very happy. If we are however picking guys who do well in U18's because they have hit the gym a couple of years earlier than the other kids then I think that is a very big mistake because 3 years later all of the draftees have been in the gym for years and have levelled out in that regard... but you cant really work on talent.

Liam McBean says Hi