Trout and Friends draft picks since 2013

[parkeysainter]

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/td- ... ?year=2013

When you analyse each draft since 2013, then I believe you can give each year a tick except for 2014, but those top 3 picks from that year in Paddy, Dmac and Goddard might yet be very good players. Plus we got Sinclair as a rookie that year.

Some are critical of Trout and Friends, but when you honestly analyse each draft since 2013 it actually makes for pretty good viewing. Plenty of these kids are actually going well already and looking the goods for future years. Honest assessment.

[St Chris]

The way some people talk about Trout, it's as if EVERY OTHER CLUB grabs a superstar with EVERY PICK.

You could look through every single draft and find mistakes, drafting is such an imperfect science that every club gets it wrong from time to time.

[parkeysainter]

The way some people talk about Trout, it's as if EVERY OTHER CLUB grabs a superstar with EVERY PICK.

You could look through every single draft and find mistakes, drafting is such an imperfect science that every club gets it wrong from time to time.

Very true. I don't understand the hate for Trout at all and who he picks. No club is perfect at drafting. Saints probably have just as good a draft as anyone most years. I think our last 2 drafts were rippers already.

[dragit]

Let's get serious, 2014 was a train wreck... paddy is one contest away from retiring, Mckenzie and Goddard are odds on to be delisted.

Trout was made recruitment manager in 2011
2011 was pretty good
2012 was a disaster

Overall it's not a bad track record... paddy looking like the big blue that could cost trouts job. The list balance has been a bit off with so many hbf's and ruckman traded in with good picks when we are desperate for mids with pace.

[Saintmatt]

Let's get serious, 2014 was a train wreck... paddy is one contest away from retiring, Mckenzie and Goddard are odds on to be delisted.

Trout was made recruitment manager in 2011
2011 was pretty good
2012 was a disaster

Overall it's not a bad track record... paddy looking like the big blue that could cost trouts job. The list balance has been a bit off with so many hbf's and ruckman traded in with good picks when we are desperate for mids with pace.

To be fair - Paddy's concussion issues aren't Trout's domain nor responsibility. That's like making Melbourne's recruiter's responsible for Brayshaw's concussion issues (who is also one bad knock away from retirement despite his excellent form). The diabetes/lack of fitness thing is though. It's only that Petracca looks ok so far (no world beater mind you) that makes the pick look average. Similarly Goddard - was developing ok but then ruptured his Achilles + serious heat stroke. McKenzie - yes, has had concussion episodes but has always been a below average kick so, not a great pick anway.

2012 is horrendous though. Just completely horrible. And that's definitely on Trout's watch. Tom Lee, Nathan Wright, Spencer White, Josh Saunders, Brodie Murdoch, Lewis Pierce. And Hickey. You just can't get your head around how poor that group is. This is where the problem really lies. By now - the above group should all be 23/24yo with 50-120 games into them forming a solid core around which to build. Instead, we have ... largely donuts. This is the draft that we're constantly back-filling for.

[freely]

I actually think it was the selection of Lonie over Daniels that looked worst for Trout - it was such an obvious toss-up and made us just look as if we didn't have the ticker. Especially when we saw Daniels front and centre in a premiership team one year later. Compounded the sense that we didn't know what we were doing with McCartin and Billings.

[chico2001]

Hit the nail on the head there saintmatt and you might have even missed a couple of average picks as well. Recruiting dept are actually paid to pick the best and they have support staff to assist around the country....

Take away the excuses and what have you got left?

[CURLY]

I actually think it was the selection of Lonie over Daniels that looked worst for Trout - it was such an obvious toss-up and made us just look as if we didn't have the ticker. Especially when we saw Daniels front and centre in a premiership team one year later. Compounded the sense that we didn't know what we were doing with McCartin and Billings.

Daniels was in the right place right time. Now he is very average.

[chico2001]

Daniels is probably a shade better than Lonie and plays in a stronger side but there doesnt seem to be any real notable differences between the two ability wise..

[SMS]

i think Lonie will end up better than daniels.

it was the right pick. 167cm?? thats midget territory.

picks arent that bad absolute media BEAT UP.

carlisle and gresham for pick 5 is phenomenol.
Rice, White looking good.

Paddy, Hugh are the two that if come
good weve done very well.

lets just see in 2020 who comes on. got a feeling a few will go boom. Media are such small minded wankers

[SMS]

i think Lonie will end up better than daniels.

it was the right pick. 167cm?? thats midget territory.

picks arent that bad absolute media BEAT UP.

carlisle and gresham for pick 5 is phenomenol.
Rice, White looking good.

Paddy, Hugh are the two that if come
good weve done very well.

lets just see in 2020 who comes on. got a feeling a few
will go boom. Media are such small minded wankers

having said that to pick McCartin over Petracca and Billings over Bontempelli is sackable.
they had the inside word on both those situations and chose to choose wel to do nice boys. the very thing ironically melbourne used to do.

[lefty]

Billings was better than Bont last year imo.

[mad saint guy]

Daniels is probably a shade better than Lonie and plays in a stronger side but there doesnt seem to be any real notable differences between the two ability wise..

Daniel is miles ahead in skills, composure, decision making and ability to win the footy. If we were going to take a punt on a midget in that draft it should have been the one who would have gone top 3 if he was 10cm taller

[parkeysainter]

Ticket 1. Vote Trout stays!

[SydneySainter]

Let’s face the facts. There is something clearly wrong at St Kilda FC.

In a year where the club was convinced we’d make amends for a stagnant 2017 and play finals this year, we’re now in the running for the spoon and the rebuild is almost a bust. We’ve taken an almighty step backwards this year and Richo seems at a loss as to what to do about it.

Despite this, Richo still has his supporters, excusing this plight as the fault of the quality of players he has to choose from.

Yet here’s a thread now saying that Trout has actually done an okay job and he should stay. If that’s the case, does that mean that we actually have a good list that is poorly coached?

It’s one or the other. If we’re a good list that’s poorly developed, under-skilled and low on confidence, then that’s Richo’s department. But if it’s a vanilla list that cant match the majority of other teams, then that’s Trout’s department.

Both are paid very handsomely to do their jobs and it’s about time we had some accountability.

If it’s not Trout and not Richo, then what’s going on at St Kilda FC?

[vacuous space]

... does that mean that we actually have a good list that is poorly coached?

I think we're so poorly coached that it's really hard to tell exactly how good the list is. We've been complaining for years now about the way this team moves the ball. In particular, the long bombs moving forward have been highlighted countless times on this forum and elsewhere. We also give up huge chunks of ground moving backwards under no pressure on ineffective switches. I think it was Mav last week that got a free kick up on the wing, turned around and kicked it backwards 30m. We're also dead last in the league in K:H ratio and, unlike other handball happy teams, we look lost and confused rather than quick and precise as move up the field.

Development was supposed to be Richo's strong suit. That was supposed to be why we hired an assistant who didn't really have a long history of success behind him. Our development, like our ball movement, has been slow and frustrating. A times it appears our coaching group is getting in the way of our young players. Acres, in particular, looks like a star, but we give him zero time in the middle in favour of ordinary grunts like Dunstan and Steele. Hinkley moved Wingard - a player Richo has compared Billings to in the past - into the centre to get him going after a very quiet week last week. Richo sends Billings to Sandy. Clark looked pretty good playing midfield last week, and Coffield put up huge numbers in the middle for Sandy, but you know that both will be used in inconsequential outside roles since Richo and friends have their Dunstan back this week.

Think about what would have happened if we'd drafted differently. Would Petracca have turned into a star under Richo? The Bont? Beveridge has allowed his young players opportunities that ours just haven't had. How good do you think Billings would be if he were a Bulldog? McCartin at Melbourne? It doesn't matter what Trout does as long as this coaching group is in place. They will find a way to get in the way of young players. Can't kick for goal? Permanent forward. Losing the clearances? No change in the middle. Win the clearances? Dunstan's back! Good form in the VFL? Carry-over emergency. At this point, all I want to see is what this group of young players can do with a vaguely competent group of coaches.

[Con Gorozidis]

LOL
Parkeysaint.
LOL.

[Con Gorozidis]

The way some people talk about Trout, it's as if EVERY OTHER CLUB grabs a superstar with EVERY PICK.

You could look through every single draft and find mistakes, drafting is such an imperfect science that every club gets it wrong from time to time.

LOL
Seriously. Are you joking?
Have you actually ever taken notice of the other teams?
The Eagles played in a GF in 2015 and 3 years later are on the top of the ladder. How do you think they have drafted?