3 first round picks....

[Teflon]

aside from this so called attitude problem the concern I have with Armitage is his running ability - his tank appears morris minorish......after 3 yrs Id've hoped to see him busting a gut with the clubs best runners - he doesnt appear to be.

[bergholt]

maybe we are doing a slow and steady development like montagna, mqualter, fisher and blake?

yep. montagna especially is a good comparison for armo.

montagna:

season 1: 1 game
season 2: 12 games
season 3: 9 games
season 4: 8 games
season 5: 22 games
season 6: 21 games
season 7: 25 games
season 8: 12/12 games

joey played a few games in his first four seasons without ever really establishing himself in the side. the penny dropped at the end of his fourth season and he became a good solid player in the ones. and then, at the start of his eighth season, the penny dropped again, and he became second favourite for the brownlow...

but it took time.

armitage:

season 1: 3 games
season 2: 13 games
season 3: 0/12 games

so armo's got until the end of next year, which would be his fourth season, i reckon. at that point at least we'll be able to see which direction he's heading in, and make a call on him. but making a decision any earlier would seem to be a waste.

[Hurricane]

Lets look at our drafting since 2006

David Armitage pick 9 - Looks like he may be a decent in and under type. Battling away in the reserves. Jury still out but doesn't look like he will ever be a great player, hasn't really developed at all since drafting. Still not a great fitness and can't even run out VFL games.

Brad Howard pick 27 - one that continues to gobsmack me. You can't just pick an AFL player with a second round pick because their quick. Shocking skills and no footy smarts. Players like Bachar Houli, Kyle Reimers, David Mackay went well after him who are all quick and are good footballers.

Jarryd Allen pick 57 - Injurys have hampered him so would be a bit harsh to comment.

Mathew Ferguson pick 74 - Simply was never going to make the cut and could've probably got Brad Howard here.



2005

Fergus Watts pick 17 - Traded to get the CEO's son to the club. I'd say this has been discussed enough and not the recruiters fault.

Sam Gilbert pick 33 - Great pick! Really came along well.

Michael Rix pick 49 - This one really baffles me. Decided to draft a mature age ruckman who blind freddy could tell was a great VFL player, not quite good enough for AFL player. With quality players like Lonergan, Patful, Stokes, going after him.

Phillip Raymond pick 63 - delisted.

Justin Sweeney pick 71 - delisted.

2004

Andrew McQualter pick 17 - Took a long time to develop and was delisted and then picked up and has developed into a GOP. Players who look to be great like NVB and Brent Prismall went well after him. Dissapointing.

Cain Ackland pick 33 - Laughable. Ivan Maric a capable mobile young ruckman went after him.

Mark McGough pick 49 -

James Gwilt pick 63 - Has developed into an average player who has been on the cusp of our side this year. Good pick from pick 63.

2003

Raphael Clarke pick 8 - This one screams of trying to get the brother to the team. Has been just OK since we drafted him. Fair enough it was a weak draft but our first round draft picks seem to have a similar tone.

Sam Fisher pick 55 - The best of the lot in terms of value for pick.

Craig Callaghan Pick 65 - lol




Really how do you rate that as good drafting JB.

Only GUN to come out of that lot has been Sam Fisher and Sam Gilbert.

Please before telling me to think before making dumb comments have a look at the cold hard facts our drafting has been very ordinary.[/b]

Hindsight is just a wonderful thing isnt it

I wish our recruiters had the same crystal ball everyone else apparently does it would save us from picking s*** players

BANG BANG

[starsign]

aside from this so called attitude problem the concern I have with Armitage is his running ability - his tank appears morris minorish......after 3 yrs Id've hoped to see him busting a gut with the clubs best runners - he doesnt appear to be.

not sure about the "attitude" problem but there has definitely been some issues with Armo that still remain to be addressed

He was getting a fair run on and off in the AFL for a while until these issues seemed to became a major hurdle. Since then he has been laboring in the VFL this season, while there has been some, but only slender opportunity for promotion

He may possibly get a run for Bally if need be in the near future, and the window of opportunity is still there ....but it won't be forever!!!

Work it out for yourself ....but the bottom line is the ball is in Armos court IMHO

[fingers]

Mark McGough pick 49 -

He will be fine - he has to be. I have his signed jumper from the Robert Harvey record breaking game!!!

[DWOODROW]

not a matter of using hindsight just a matter of seeing that our picks have not been good. no point sugar coating it.

well we definitely didn't do well recruiting you Muppett.

[DWOODROW]

How amazing. As most of you are obviously ex AFL Players and recruiters your opinions mean the world to.......... yourselves. After speaking with Armo and people in the KNOW, Dave is doing fine by credited reports. I seem to remember Dave being injured at the start of the year and who else hasn't come into the senior side. Oh maguire, he must be about readt to be drafted, dropped, traded as well. He has only had years to get ready to come back in but alas he hasn't this year because as we all know Ross doesn;t like to change a winning team, unless you are Raph Clarke. But by all reports he doesn't have long left either.
Thankyou for everyones accurate and truthful OPINIONS and look forward to who else is being put out the back door. Great work.

[santazzi]

Despite reading a lot about Armo on this forum, my understanding of where he is at has not really improved.

I have two querries:

1. There is a lot of mention about his endurance. Is this because he does not put the effort or is it simpley genetics? If the former what are the coaches doing about it and if the later well what can be done?

2. there is also a lot of mention about "attitude" and "issuse" Armo is supposed to have. Can some one please list them or are they just to awful to print in this forum?

[DWOODROW]

Despite reading a lot about Armo on this forum, my understanding of where he is at has not really improved.

I have two querries:

1. There is a lot of mention about his endurance. Is this because he does not put the effort or is it simpley genetics? If the former what are the coaches doing about it and if the later well what can be done?

2. there is also a lot of mention about "attitude" and "issuse" Armo is supposed to have. Can some one please list them or are they just to awful to print in this forum?

Firstly the only people saying he has any issues are the people on this forum. Secondly in 3 days when something else or someone else isn't doing something right or one of the bottom six players arn't performing in the ones they will be on the chopping block. I find it fascinating that so many people have so many opinions without actaually knowing anything factual about someone.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The Saints recruiting record since starting to climb out of the basement in '03 doesn't look especially flash. It could easily be worse, but it's not hard to take a hindsight view and spot better options.

The variable is, and will remain development.

It's much easier to develop an AFL player when you've got a spot available for a kid to break into a make their own. Conversely, being able to develop those players in the absence of that spot is how one avoids the up and down inherent to drafting.

IMO, it's no coincidence that the Saints and Cats are currently the 2 most complete and deep lists in the AFL. They announced their presence back in '04, with a strong group of kids coming through, and in the intervening 5 years have essentially turned over the portion of the lists not included in that quality core.

Both are now at the stage the Lions and Port were at in '02-'03. There are guys not getting a chance who will perform well at other clubs. Prismall will be a good player for Essendon much as Gram (acquired fro the Lions) is a good player at St Kilda. If the Saints can't get Armo in, he'll become a good player for someone - and if he does, a Geary or McQualter will become a good player for someone else.

The kicker is that without going back to the bottom, the players like Reiwoldt are very ard to replace. But what players like Montagna demonstrate is that good, patient development can pay real dividend. A player doesn't peak at 21 - look at Leon Davis, having a career year at 28.

Anyone expecting a Joel Selwood or Daniel Rich is likely to be disappointed regardless of who they support - these guys don't come along all too often regardless of draft position (look at how many people are writing of Watts after 2 games, or have been riding Hawkins for not being ready made - both will be AFL stars). Expecting a Reimers in a St Kilda side is unlikely too - there just aren't the spots available for experimenting with.

For a St Kilda or Geelong, it's identifying the Harry Taylors (mature pick, able to step in early and handle themselves, and contribute), or the Jarryn Geary's (spent a year on the rookie list, a year on the main list before having a moderately exiting season where he cracks the lineup and looks like a player). It's important to continue developing and find the longer term players if they're to avoid ending up in the Essendon slow descent to rebuild model in 5 years.

Recruiting is important fgor all clubs. What the Saints need to do though is not concentrate on recruiting and first rounders, it's on their development program delivering results to make sure that in 5 years, they're in a position to still be challengine as their '01 draftees will all be over 30... and Hawthorn should be where St Kilda and Geelong are now.

[Spinner]

The Saints recruiting record since starting to climb out of the basement in '03 doesn't look especially flash. It could easily be worse, but it's not hard to take a hindsight view and spot better options.

The variable is, and will remain development.

It's much easier to develop an AFL player when you've got a spot available for a kid to break into a make their own. Conversely, being able to develop those players in the absence of that spot is how one avoids the up and down inherent to drafting.

IMO, it's no coincidence that the Saints and Cats are currently the 2 most complete and deep lists in the AFL. They announced their presence back in '04, with a strong group of kids coming through, and in the intervening 5 years have essentially turned over the portion of the lists not included in that quality core.

Both are now at the stage the Lions and Port were at in '02-'03. There are guys not getting a chance who will perform well at other clubs. Prismall will be a good player for Essendon much as Gram (acquired fro the Lions) is a good player at St Kilda. If the Saints can't get Armo in, he'll become a good player for someone - and if he does, a Geary or McQualter will become a good player for someone else.

The kicker is that without going back to the bottom, the players like Reiwoldt are very ard to replace. But what players like Montagna demonstrate is that good, patient development can pay real dividend. A player doesn't peak at 21 - look at Leon Davis, having a career year at 28.

Anyone expecting a Joel Selwood or Daniel Rich is likely to be disappointed regardless of who they support - these guys don't come along all too often regardless of draft position (look at how many people are writing of Watts after 2 games, or have been riding Hawkins for not being ready made - both will be AFL stars). Expecting a Reimers in a St Kilda side is unlikely too - there just aren't the spots available for experimenting with.

For a St Kilda or Geelong, it's identifying the Harry Taylors (mature pick, able to step in early and handle themselves, and contribute), or the Jarryn Geary's (spent a year on the rookie list, a year on the main list before having a moderately exiting season where he cracks the lineup and looks like a player). It's important to continue developing and find the longer term players if they're to avoid ending up in the Essendon slow descent to rebuild model in 5 years.

Recruiting is important fgor all clubs. What the Saints need to do though is not concentrate on recruiting and first rounders, it's on their development program delivering results to make sure that in 5 years, they're in a position to still be challengine as their '01 draftees will all be over 30... and Hawthorn should be where St Kilda and Geelong are now.

It took shuffling about 2 pages of ordinary posting to finally come across some intellectual thoughts.

You cannot compare the development of a player from a team at the bottom of the ladder, to one that wins the first 12 games of the season and makes it impossible to crack into.

From reports Armo is playing well and showing signs in the reserves - players can only develop so much in that standard of footy....they need to grow in a competition far greater than their current level of ability.

Surely having talented individuals playing in the reserves because the senior team in rock hard to crack into isnt a reason to turf them....surely we are in a good position and one in which we will definitely reap the benefits of 4 or 5 years down the track.

[plugger66]

The Saints recruiting record since starting to climb out of the basement in '03 doesn't look especially flash. It could easily be worse, but it's not hard to take a hindsight view and spot better options.

The variable is, and will remain development.

It's much easier to develop an AFL player when you've got a spot available for a kid to break into a make their own. Conversely, being able to develop those players in the absence of that spot is how one avoids the up and down inherent to drafting.

IMO, it's no coincidence that the Saints and Cats are currently the 2 most complete and deep lists in the AFL. They announced their presence back in '04, with a strong group of kids coming through, and in the intervening 5 years have essentially turned over the portion of the lists not included in that quality core.

Both are now at the stage the Lions and Port were at in '02-'03. There are guys not getting a chance who will perform well at other clubs. Prismall will be a good player for Essendon much as Gram (acquired fro the Lions) is a good player at St Kilda. If the Saints can't get Armo in, he'll become a good player for someone - and if he does, a Geary or McQualter will become a good player for someone else.

The kicker is that without going back to the bottom, the players like Reiwoldt are very ard to replace. But what players like Montagna demonstrate is that good, patient development can pay real dividend. A player doesn't peak at 21 - look at Leon Davis, having a career year at 28.

Anyone expecting a Joel Selwood or Daniel Rich is likely to be disappointed regardless of who they support - these guys don't come along all too often regardless of draft position (look at how many people are writing of Watts after 2 games, or have been riding Hawkins for not being ready made - both will be AFL stars). Expecting a Reimers in a St Kilda side is unlikely too - there just aren't the spots available for experimenting with.

For a St Kilda or Geelong, it's identifying the Harry Taylors (mature pick, able to step in early and handle themselves, and contribute), or the Jarryn Geary's (spent a year on the rookie list, a year on the main list before having a moderately exiting season where he cracks the lineup and looks like a player). It's important to continue developing and find the longer term players if they're to avoid ending up in the Essendon slow descent to rebuild model in 5 years.

Recruiting is important fgor all clubs. What the Saints need to do though is not concentrate on recruiting and first rounders, it's on their development program delivering results to make sure that in 5 years, they're in a position to still be challengine as their '01 draftees will all be over 30... and Hawthorn should be where St Kilda and Geelong are now.

It took shuffling about 2 pages of ordinary posting to finally come across some intellectual thoughts.

You cannot compare the development of a player from a team at the bottom of the ladder, to one that wins the first 12 games of the season and makes it impossible to crack into.

From reports Armo is playing well and showing signs in the reserves - players can only develop so much in that standard of footy....they need to grow in a competition far greater than their current level of ability.

Surely having talented individuals playing in the reserves because the senior team in rock hard to crack into isnt a reason to turf them....surely we are in a good position and one in which we will definitely reap the benefits of 4 or 5 years down the track.

Why do we have to turf them. Maybe a player may want to leave because they cannot get chances at our club. It cannot just be one way. Players dont love the club like supporters and if they think they deserve a game but arent getting one then they will take steps to try and play elsewhere.

[Spinner]

The Saints recruiting record since starting to climb out of the basement in '03 doesn't look especially flash. It could easily be worse, but it's not hard to take a hindsight view and spot better options.

The variable is, and will remain development.

It's much easier to develop an AFL player when you've got a spot available for a kid to break into a make their own. Conversely, being able to develop those players in the absence of that spot is how one avoids the up and down inherent to drafting.

IMO, it's no coincidence that the Saints and Cats are currently the 2 most complete and deep lists in the AFL. They announced their presence back in '04, with a strong group of kids coming through, and in the intervening 5 years have essentially turned over the portion of the lists not included in that quality core.

Both are now at the stage the Lions and Port were at in '02-'03. There are guys not getting a chance who will perform well at other clubs. Prismall will be a good player for Essendon much as Gram (acquired fro the Lions) is a good player at St Kilda. If the Saints can't get Armo in, he'll become a good player for someone - and if he does, a Geary or McQualter will become a good player for someone else.

The kicker is that without going back to the bottom, the players like Reiwoldt are very ard to replace. But what players like Montagna demonstrate is that good, patient development can pay real dividend. A player doesn't peak at 21 - look at Leon Davis, having a career year at 28.

Anyone expecting a Joel Selwood or Daniel Rich is likely to be disappointed regardless of who they support - these guys don't come along all too often regardless of draft position (look at how many people are writing of Watts after 2 games, or have been riding Hawkins for not being ready made - both will be AFL stars). Expecting a Reimers in a St Kilda side is unlikely too - there just aren't the spots available for experimenting with.

For a St Kilda or Geelong, it's identifying the Harry Taylors (mature pick, able to step in early and handle themselves, and contribute), or the Jarryn Geary's (spent a year on the rookie list, a year on the main list before having a moderately exiting season where he cracks the lineup and looks like a player). It's important to continue developing and find the longer term players if they're to avoid ending up in the Essendon slow descent to rebuild model in 5 years.

Recruiting is important fgor all clubs. What the Saints need to do though is not concentrate on recruiting and first rounders, it's on their development program delivering results to make sure that in 5 years, they're in a position to still be challengine as their '01 draftees will all be over 30... and Hawthorn should be where St Kilda and Geelong are now.

It took shuffling about 2 pages of ordinary posting to finally come across some intellectual thoughts.

You cannot compare the development of a player from a team at the bottom of the ladder, to one that wins the first 12 games of the season and makes it impossible to crack into.

From reports Armo is playing well and showing signs in the reserves - players can only develop so much in that standard of footy....they need to grow in a competition far greater than their current level of ability.

Surely having talented individuals playing in the reserves because the senior team in rock hard to crack into isnt a reason to turf them....surely we are in a good position and one in which we will definitely reap the benefits of 4 or 5 years down the track.

Why do we have to turf them. Maybe a player may want to leave because they cannot get chances at our club. It cannot just be one way. Players dont love the club like supporters and if they think they deserve a game but arent getting one then they will take steps to try and play elsewhere.

I posted that we shouldn't turf them, trade them, get rid of them because they havn't 'developed' in our minds.

If they want out because of lack of opportunities, well then that's a different kettle of fish - and probably something that needs to be managed carefully during times of success.

[Armoooo]

Drafting is only one piece of the puzzle. Development is just as important, if not more so.

So perhaps it's not the recruiting, could the development have had something to do with it?

[DWOODROW]

Well he broke his collar bone on the weekend so he is out again injured. Maybe he can have a break and come back better.