camelboy wrote:
I wonder if Pagan recruited only kids from the draft, all at the high numbers that they would have been, you know the part of the draft were most club pass on their picks ... anyway, let's assume Denis did take a purely a youth approach in 2002-03 on draft day what would people be saying when half of them were playing in the twos with no sign of an AFL future and the other half were getting pulled apart every week by guys taller, stronger and fitter than them?
I'm not saying the recycled route was the best or only option, but I do think that under circumstances Pagan's philosophy was spot on. Let's face it you never actually know how any recruit is going to perform for the club until they actually get out on the field.
So yeah, if Pagan went solely with youth there is a chance they could have performed consistently at AFL level, but as mentioned I think Pagan's philosophy of a mixture of mature recycled players and kids was the right way to go. Martyn and Harford aside all of our recycled players would have been under 25 at the time of recruiting. We had no right to expect us to be picking up 10 year + players either way with the picks/selections we had. So let's judge Pagan's recruiting from when he has actually been able to embrace the draft to its fullest potential, ie 2004 and onwards.
What Pagan has done since 2004 I'm happy with Camel, no problems there. Mikey has shown the benefits of the years since.
What annoys me is I don't like hearing statements like 'IF we picked kids with picks 70+ we had 5% chance of them playing 50 games' when the same odds or even slimer odds apply to recycled players playing 50 games.
To me there is more upside to a rookie than someone who has been delisted by another club or traded for a high pick. Longmuir and Chambers have again proved that theory correct.