why bag Lyon's recruiting /drafting???

[saintsRrising]

I read in various strings that the knives our out for Lyon for his drafting with accussations of topping-up, poor list mangement etc etc.

Now one can debate the merits or not of his gameplan and match day coaching etc...

But to be overly negative about his overall drafting and trading record I personally find to be quite remarkable.


IMO Lyon is doing a fantastic job in list management for both now...as well as in providing for future years.

.The Lost Years

2005
19 swapped for Watts - nepotism rule
33 Gilbert
49 Rix
63 Raymond
71 Sweeney

PSD = Nil

Rookies
Corr
Pfitzner


2004
17 McQualter
33 Ackland
49 McGough
63 Gwilt

PSD = Nil

Rookies
Mullins
McDonnell

Two WHOLE years for one AFL level player in Gilbert of the quality required to play in a good team….and one possible in Gwilt.

Let me repeat two whole years for one AFL level player!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FM as Gordon Ramsay would say!!

Where were the kids for our future here???

What we have here was two dismal years of shocking performance in terms of overseeing and managing our list.

The coach at that time was in charge and made his calls. The results are there for all to see... the calls were bad.

Interesting too that the person who said he saw "the signs" of Harvey's decline last year....back in 2004 could not see the signs to make good provision for the looming loss of Frankie, Powell, Thommo and Banger...


Lyon’s first two years.

2007
8 McEvoy
26 swapped for Schneider and Dempster
42 Steven
57 – Gehrig – redrafted
70 Eljay Connors

Plus King and Charlie for no real trade cost.



PSD = Nil
Rookies
Chivers
Miles
McQualter
Kahan Haretuku (NSW Scholoraship)


2006
9 Armitage
27 Howard
43 swapped for Birrs and M Gardiner
59 Allen
74 Ferguson (redrafted)

PSD= M Clarke (10 games)

Rookies
Jones – elevated
Van Reehan
Eddy
Geary - elevated
Attard (20 games and would have been elevated if not injured)


So in the following two years we have:
*AFL level players in Schneider, King, M Gardiner and Armitage
*as a minimum good depth players in Charlie and Dempster.
*very likely to succeed AFL level players in Steven, Allen, Geary and McEvoy
*certainly several other possibles…..Attard etc


Now even allowing for lower draft picks being available in 2006 and 2007 that is a HUGE difference.


In one period of two years there is an IMPROVEMENT of a list. In the previous two years there was a impairment of the list…which once a few players retired meant that we have been caught short.



So after two years of a black hole where our list was being driven in the ground we now look at the next two and for my money you see a period of drafting and trading that has:
* done it's best to not address glaring weaknesses
* make provision for retiring players
* that has a number of very good kids who will come on line in several years.

The comparison is stark...but yet people want to bag Lyon for what he has done with the list?????

IMO with respect to our list we all should be all extremely grateful for RL turning around what had become a very poor situation.


There are to many on this forum that have golden halo over 2004, the Streak and our list....and imagine it was still there when Lyon took over.

The gross mis-management of our list over 2004 and 2005 is the major reason why other clubs have gone passed us. The AFL is a fiercely competitive competition.....and yet just when we had a very good list we went into free fall over two seasons where our list did not even tread water....it was put into decline with poor drading and poor selections.

In my assessment Lyon has done his best to improve our list.
While one can argue about individual picks (ie Howard..or Rioli vs McEvoy) the overall result has been very good. Indeed in 2007 I would say we did the best of any club in the competition when you examine players obtained for what cost.



So discuss all you like about how good or bad a coach Lyon is.....but in terms of list management by any objective measure his performance should be rated in the positive....and for mine as extremely postive.....and certainly not as a negative.


Also please remember that Leigh Matthews said that the first duty of a coach is to assemble a good list.

[rodgerfox]

So are you defending it because it's good, or because you think it's better than GT's?

[saintsRrising]

So are you defending it because it's good, or because you think it's better than GT's?

It is both.

GT in his latter years had lost the plot.

However ignoring GT...the decisions made by RL on trading and drafting have on the whole been good.

No one gets every call right. But overall his results have been good.

[Eastern]

Let's not forget that its only been the last few years that we have had John Peake on board in our recruiting Dept. Prior to that it was John Beveridge basically on his own.

Bevo is/has been known throughout the AFL as one of, if not the best in the business. The problem being that we couldn't afford the support network that was required to fully utilise his skills.

John Peake is known as the brains behind the building of the current Geelong list before he came to us.

We now have the brains and the resources in our recruiting Dept. We should expect results from this, but it takes a bit of time !!

[rodgerfox]

So are you defending it because it's good, or because you think it's better than GT's?

It is both.

GT in his latter years had lost the plot.

However ignoring GT...the decisions made by RL on trading and drafting have on the whole been good.

No one gets every call right. But overall his results have been good.

But people are bagging our list right now.

Lyon has had 2 years, and has brought 8 recycled players in and has had 2 drafts.

That's 50% of a football team that he has introduced. Yet our list is described by most on here as slow, lacking skill, injury prone and impotent.

It's also a list that went from winning 14 games two years a in a row, to missing the finals.

Has the recruiting really been good?

The proof surely is in the pudding. 16 wins, 14 wins and 14 wins - followed by 11 wins.


I'd prefer the ladder to look good than to keep you and your stats happy.


GT's gone. Move on.

[gooner]

Very good post. Thanks saintsRrising.
Wholeheartedly agree with the apraisal. There is a gap in our list of a couple of years due to this (although that would have been assuaged had McQualter become the player he was thought to be.)

[rodgerfox]

Very good post. Thanks saintsRrising.
Wholeheartedly agree with the apraisal. There is a gap in our list of a couple of years due to this (although that would have been assuaged had McQualter become the player he was thought to be.)

Do you mean 'list', or 'best 22'?

[gooner]

Very good post. Thanks saintsRrising.
Wholeheartedly agree with the apraisal. There is a gap in our list of a couple of years due to this (although that would have been assuaged had McQualter become the player he was thought to be.)

Do you mean 'list', or 'best 22'?

I mean best 22 but even in sides like Geelong and Hawthorn there would be one or two players of this age pushing for their best 22.

[saintsRrising]

Lyon has had 2 years, and has brought 8 recycled players in and has had 2 drafts.

That's 50% of a football team that he has introduced. Yet
.

He has also brought in that same period:

Armo
Allen
Steven
Geary
McEvoy

All of whom will most likely play many games for the Saints.

While seeking to cover flaws immediately he has also made selections for our long term.


The two years prior GT accomplished NEITHER!!!


By either process RL will in this two year period of aqusitions produce many many more games than GT did with his aquistions in the proceeding period.

our list is described by most on here as slow, lacking skill, injury prone .

Yes that was the legacy that GT left....

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Without agreeing with it, I would assume the criticism is because we've recently had on here a number of people saying that the reason we're not better off is poor recruiting and the use of mature age recruits. I would suspect that this is leading to some questioning of current recruits as well... only time will tell if we've truly done well or badly in the last couple of years, an people in general seem to be in a negative mood at present.

I think Lyon has recruited fine, and I like his mature age recruits - even Birss who I'm not a big fan of has shown enough to suspect he'll get enough games to be an acceptable return on a 3rd round draft pick. It's far too premature to judge ANY of his draftees, and without addressing Lyon it's a positive we're now using the rookie list which is good for the club in general.

I suspect it's symptomatic of our collective obsession with list strength as opposed to team play (as some have recently worded it, team of champions vs. champion team). Sometimes you turn over senior players, sometimes you turn over younger ones you don't feel are worth persisting with. I suppose patience is difficult when the team isn't performing up to expectations, and there isn't a cupboard full of options there in order for people to demand that we change path quickly and blood kids.

[saintsRrising]

It's also a list that went from winning 14 games two years a in a row, to missing the finals.

.

Yes the previous coaches poor list management really bit us on the bum has it not.

GT was like a person who gained a huge inheritance...had lots of riches and so looked like a millionarre.

But he failed to invest and so spent more than he was earning.....with the result that we started going backwards.


RL is now restoring capital value in our list with sound short and long term investments....comapred to the previous run of Ostrich Farms and dotcom like investments in talent that passed for trading and recruiting.

[meher baba]

sRr - this is the silliest post you have ever made.

First of all, the 2006 draftees were selected before Lyon got to the club.

Secondly, Armitage and perhaps McEvoy look like good prospects, but please note that they were top ten draft picks and we didn't have any such draft picks in 2004 and 2005.

Thirdly, look at the 2004 and 2005 drafts and please list for me all the wonderful players we could have had instead of Watts, Rix, Raymond, Sweeney, McQualter (who still might make it), Gwilt (ditto), Ackland and McGough. You'll find that it was fairly slim pickings below the top dozen or so picks in both those years.

Fourthly, who says McEvoy, Steven, Connors, Allen or Howard are going to be any good?

Fifthly, which potential rookies were available in 2004 and 2005 of the calibre and experience of Attard?

Finally, Lyon was personally responsible for the decision to delist TS 40 in order to give Walls's mate M Clarke enough dough to finish the extensions on his house or whatever. Given the current bemoaning at the club about the lack of speed and foot skills in our list, this could turn out to be a far worse decision than Watts, Brooks or anyone else.

[bozza1980]

He has also brought in that same period:

Armo
Allen
Steven
Geary
McEvoy

All of whom will most likely play many games for the Saints.

This what the club thought when they traded for 20-21 year old players in Watts, Ackland and McGough.

Sure in hindsight these were mistakes, just like recycling Brent Guerra who has become a good player at Hawthorn.

As an exercise it is probably a little early to say that our draft picks of the last few years are definitely better than the draft picks of the season's previously.

At the moment the only reason why they can be placed in the "better" column is because there is still hope. This exercise cannot be accurately assessed for another few years and these players do play many games for St Kilda.

[saintsRrising]

sRr - this is the silliest post you have ever made.

First of all, the 2006 draftees were selected before Lyon got to the club.

.

??????

My understanding is that RL took control half way through trade week.
He took Milne off the trade table..and rubber stamped the Birrs trade which was already in motion...and the obtained Gardiner late in the week.

The main draft is of course well after trade week.

So I cannot agree with you statement...I guess I must just be silly..

[rodgerfox]

Lyon has had 2 years, and has brought 8 recycled players in and has had 2 drafts.

That's 50% of a football team that he has introduced. Yet
.

He has also brought in that same period:

Armo
Allen
Steven
Geary
McEvoy

All of whom will most likely play many games for the Saints.

While seeking to cover flaws immediately he has also made selections for our long term.

Hang on. What flaws have been addressed?

Name one? Rucks? How did we go in the ruck on Saurday night??

Speed? Examples of where our speed was on Saturday night?

Injury prone players?

By either process RL will in this two year period of aqusitions produce many many more games than GT did with his aquistions in the proceeding period.

our list is described by most on here as slow, lacking skill, injury prone .

Yes that was the legacy that GT left....

Legacy? We were described as slow, lacking skill and injury pronce after Saturday night. That's 3 days ago. Since he came on board, Lyon has recruited 9 players, and not traded any of 'GT's legacy'. Any legacy that GT left, woud be well gone by now if Lyon wanted it gone.




So, in a nutshell you'd prefer we get a handfull of games out of players, and finish outside of the 8, then not blood average players and finish top 4?

"All of whom will most likely play many games for the Saints."

Ahh, so most likely is a good thing? You're happy for us to miss the 8, as long as most likely we're recruiting average players who may play some footy?

Guerra was 20 and had a great 2004. Most likely he was a good pick up. Ackland was 21 and had an outstanding 2005. Most likely he was a good pickup.
Watts and Brooks were highish draft picks, most likely they were going to great assets. Broken bones and ACLs often put an end to 'most likelys' though. Funny that.

[vacuous space]

Why are we even talking about RL's draft record? He doesn't watch junior footy, he doesn't go to draft camp, doesn't interview players. He was brought in to coach the senior side. We have other people in charge of recruiting. We've changed our philosophy at the trade table since RL came aboard, but our drafting looks pretty much the same.

As for the people we've brought in, King and Schneider are quality players. Armo looks like he's going to be good. The jury is still out on everyone else.

It should be noted though that the 03-05 drafts were pretty lean on quality players. The 06 draft was loaded. The Howard pick isn't looking too good right now, and trading our third pick for in injury prone problem ruckman and a depth midfielder hasn't paid off particularly well so far.

[saintsRrising]

sRr - this is the silliest post you have ever made.

Secondly, Armitage and perhaps McEvoy look like good prospects, but please note that they were top ten draft picks and we didn't have any such draft picks in 2004 and 2005..

err cough cough..

in the OP I stated

Now even allowing for lower draft picks being available in 2006 and 2007 that is a HUGE difference. ..

Thirdly, look at the 2004 and 2005 drafts and please list for me all the wonderful players we could have had instead of Watts, Rix, Raymond, Sweeney, McQualter (who still might make it), Gwilt (ditto), Ackland and McGough. You'll find that it was fairly slim pickings below the top dozen or so picks in both those years..

Do you seriously believe that getting one and only one call in Gilbert right (and maybe Gwilt) was ok...and that no other club actually gained anyone in this period beyound the first round?????


Each year does vary ...true....but this two year period did see players available...and we TRADED....but traded for duds.

If you trade...you have to judged by your trades.


Wind backa few years when Waldron was about...our trading went well. In the latter years with GT alone in charge = dismal.

Fifthly, which potential rookies were available in 2004 and 2005 of the calibre and experience of Attard? .

Clinton Young, Danyle Pearce, Hertier Obrien, Will Thusfield, Ryan Crowley, Aaron Edwards, Josh Drummond, Scott Harding, Steven Armstrong, Matthew Priddis, Stephen Gilham, Cameron Howat, Cheynee Stiller, Ben McGlynn and this is only the games that have racked up 20+ games.

There are many more such as Keran Jack that look likely prospects..

Finally, Lyon was personally responsible for the decision to delist TS 40 in order to give Walls's mate M Clarke enough dough to finish the extensions on his house or whatever. Given the current bemoaning at the club about the lack of speed and foot skills in our list, this could turn out to be a far worse decision than Watts, Brooks or anyone else.

40 was not good enough.

[Red]

SaintsRrising people are just giving their opinions.

The fact will be drawn out in the future, however supporters are concerned

that with the number of quality players we do have we won't win the

premiership by recycling players.

In 2004 Port win the flag and then rebuild and played off again in 2007.

Some on this site including myself believe that would have being the better

way to go. Only time will tell, but if we don't win a flag it will have being

unsuccessful. Maybe you define success as making the 8.

[saintsRrising]

Ahh, so most likely is a good thing? You're happy for us to miss the 8, as long as most likely we're recruiting average players who may play some footy?

.

Why would I be happy to miss the 8??

I am ceratinly not happy that our list was allowed to deteriorate so much.

Was GT incompetent?
Was he unlucky?

The bottom line is that he did not produce the goods and the club was in decline when he departed.

BW, GT and RB are all gone.

It is time to start a new era.

This string was on lista mangement and from I can see from when RL has arrived that we hav done more than ok in this reard.

Do I expect that RL has a magic wand and can instantly make up for the lack of footskills and pace and other flaws that we had? No I do not.

[rodgerfox]

Only time will tell, but if we don't win a flag it will have being

unsuccessful. Maybe you define success as making the 8.

It appears as though SrS defines success as getting a handful of games into average footballers, rather than playing finals.

[congorozides]

good post and accurate.

very very scary when u look back at what came out of thos 2005, 2006 draft years. terrible results.
lyon inherited a lot of duds.

[rodgerfox]

good post and accurate.

very very scary when u look back at what came out of thos 2005, 2006 draft years. terrible results.
lyon inherited a lot of duds.

And what's been done in the 2 years since he's been in charge?

How many durable, highly skilled, quick players have we added to our list?

[spert]

It's all about the balance of youth, experience, skills etc etc. you don't build a side on any one thing. Generally when a team gets the balance right, it wins -thats why Geelong is doing so well, a good spread of talent, youth, experience and strength right across the field, not just one or two stars who need to fire all the time for success.
I don't care about what ex-coaches may have done or not done. It's 2008 and I feel Lyon is trying to achieve that team balance, but the mix has yet to settle. I am interested to see how Lyon handles the forward line now Roo is gone for a while, which may be a blessing, as it will take the focus off directing play through Roo and may tempt our goal-shy midfielders to move deeper into the forward line.
Just a reminder ..we are in the eight at the moment.

[saintsRrising]

SaintsRrising people are just giving their opinions.

The fact will be drawn out in the future, however supporters are concerned

that with the number of quality players we do have we won't win the

premiership by recycling players. .

1/ I am comparing here on what RL and GT did...rather than what I would do

Those that have read my posts in the past would know that I am personally an advocate of drafting youth rather than trading pics away.((when GT first started frittering away our picks I posted that the Hawks were following our approach...but we had abandoneded it)))

However even given that, King for nothing when you don't have rucks is a good deal.

2/ with RL..he has effectively traded away a pick 43 anda pick 26...so we would only have the two extra kids. He has however decided to maximise the number of rookies (we could have more seniors and less rookies, but nominated less verterans to achieve more rookies)

In 2004 Port win the flag and then rebuild and played off again in 2007.

Some on this site including myself believe that would have being the better

way to go. Only time will tell, but if we don't win a flag it will have being

unsuccessful. .

Interesting you should mention that.....at the start of last season (and I think it was actually pre-season) I posted on PA on their approach as an example of what I would do in terms of fixing our list and that PA would quickly rebuild...and that theyhad begun this process not long after their flag by being ruthless about who was required to take them to their next flag.

Many on this forum including RogerFox scorned by views...but I note that PA played off in the GF.

Maybe you define success as making the 8.

No.

[rodgerfox]

Many on this forum including RogerFox scorned by views...but I note that PA played off in the GF.

Lying again??

I tipped Port to be top 4 last year. Not because of the Guru Williams and his magical player development like you did - but because they are a very good football side. They finished on top for 3 straight years then won a flag. Were good again in 05 and had a horrific run with injury in 06 yet were still quite competitive.

I tipped them to be a contender simply because they had the Cornes', the Burgoyne's, Tredrea, Wakelin, Lade, Brogan, Motlop and Wilson making up their core.

Once they got these guys fit again, it was natural they would come good.

I tipped them to be a contender for the obvious correct reason, not the typical bulls*** you waffle on about.


This is why people call you a liar SrR.