Oh Cazz do I need to keep explaining?

Minson and Co arent great but they won the hitouts last night but we won the clearances and the game!

My comments are about using all these picks to recruit them. Its called list management.

The last 10 premierships proves my point. Ottens, Jolly etc recruited on a needs basis. These were brought in after the club developed a midfield and a core group. The ruckman is generally the last piece in the puzzle.

My comments on Kruezer are from day one. I have always said I would never use a number one pick on a ruckman. In a good side you need ONE but you need depth of quality midfield runners. My opinion at the time and still stands is that Kruezer has limited room for improvement and this is a vital aspect when recruiting. This is not to say he isnt a good player.

We got Warnock with pick 24? and he had done nothing.

Hampson keeps playing key forward. What a waste. His marking is caused by "hard hands" . In bigger blokes this rarely improves no matter what. They simply dont have the touch. Its like a one touch player.

You cant tell me we wouldnt have been a better side with Jacobs in the ruck and Cotchin on ball? plus a few others for the picks of Hampson and Warnock?

There is a lot of ruckman around we could get cheap to top up our list. We should also have one as a mature aged rookie as a back up.

Simply looking at hitouts to clearances won't tell you much. You'd need to assess their rucks and midfields performance on the day as well as how they setup at stoppages and how we setup to minimise their advantage in the hitouts. Even then it's still only a one game sample size and using it draw any definitive conclusions is a stretch.

Not sure if I agree with the ruckman as the last piece idea either. It's costly and you'd need picks or players to trade, cap space available and someone of reasonable ability willing to change clubs all at the right time. Free agency could remove the need for picks to trade but even then you still need a big chunk of cap space and a decent free agent who is willing to move right when you need them. Too many variables involved to be a reliable strategy IMO.

Also the idea that ruckman are available late hasn't really been true over the past 10 years. The only quality ruckman to come off the rookie list in that timeframe that I can think of are Mumford and Jacobs. Most of the good young ruckman out there these days were picked in the first 3 rounds of the draft.

Oh I get it now................it's a hindsight kind of thing.

By the way I wouldn't ever think I saying we wouldn't be a better side with Jacobs and Cotchin. Much like I would love to say we would be a better side with Kruz in 'pre knee form' and if Hampson could hold every mark he got his hands on. Would we be a better side with Cotchin and Jacobs in the form they were showing in their first 3 years?

Funny that the Recruiter of the moment Derek Hine was tossing up between Nathan Brown and Hampson with his 1st pick and the Bombers were ready to pounce if we had gone to someone else. Still it's an opinion sport and hindsight always gets it right 100% of the time.

Regards Cazzesman

Cazz, FWIW I enjoyed the win Sat. night. With the team we had in I thought we'd struggle to beat Kyneton.
Not pretty by any stretch, but a win none the less, and that beats the bejesus out of losing.
The bonus being, winning has infuriated the Ratts haters even more.

I have always said I would never use a number one pick on a ruckman.

9 players less than 50 games
3 debutants
2 others with less than 10 games
Plus 3 blokes that have run their race

You need to pull your head in Keogh there is no way we should have beaten anyone last night

Do you reckon NicNat was worthy on being No 1?

The bonus being, winning has infuriated the Ratts haters even more.

Some of the "serious" recruitment discussions on this board are embarrassing and somehow find their way of permeating through every thread.
How many times exactly, can one cover the same ground before they've worn out that path?

Some of the "serious" recruitment discussions on this board are embarrassing and somehow find their way of permeating through every thread.
How many times exactly, can one cover the same ground before they've worn out that path?

Some of the "serious" recruitment discussions on this board are embarrassing and somehow find their way of permeating through every thread.
How many times exactly, can one cover the same ground before they've worn out that path?

:sad: Well, I just realised that my last post was a bit of a contradiction as you don't really 'push' anything when you are passive aggressive.

I don't find anything embarrassing in the recruiting discussions (if I did, I'd embarrass myself ) beyond those of the trade Russell for Goddard variety.

Things only get pushed beyond a practical level because of resistance from those with a priggish mentality.

Seems to me there are three kinds if posters.

Those looking / hoping we would change .
Those that think everything is going well.
Those that are not sure.

I think the middle group is outnumbered by the other two... meaning most people are unconvinced.

There is a reason for that.....

And its not TC alone... just listen to the chatter in the stands.

Generally don't follow posters but posts, but your posts generally scream out the same chorus that make them somewhat unmistakable.
I'm sorry if that's somewhat personal, but it may also be just a little bit factual.

There are also people that just want change for changes sake.
Chances are that some things you suggest are on the mark and that some things you suggest, aren't.
Now all you have to work out is which ones are and which ones aren't. That's not easy, because once we build up our mindset on something we just get on a roll.
The fact is that none of us will be 100% right all of the time and if we truly think that something is worthwhile pursuing, then we wouldn't be doing it here.

This being a post-match discussion though, it was hard not to be impressed by the debutantes.
Who would have picked that we'd need to play three rookied debutantes in the one match and for them all to show something?

Very impressed by those boys and actually surprised considering that Bell and Casboult have missed virtually half the year through injury.
Does pose the question as to why many players seem to be better performed at the higher level than through the VFL. Oops, wrong thread.