With our pick number two in the draft the club and Barry Prendergast have stated they will take the best available talent, "next best" behind Tom Scully (assuming pick one). Isnt this kind of an obvious statement. Isnt that the whole idea, to pick the best player that would mould into your club.

Does this mean that club will be eyeing the second best next player and from what I have seen (although limited) this sounds like Jack Trengrove. Does "the next best" mean that it cancels out players like Rohan and Butcher who are talented but need developement and are a risk not knowing how bad/mediocre/good/fantastic they can be.

The "next best" sounds like a already talented player who doesnt need development (excluding physical) but has shown the kicking, handballing, ball-winning ability along with the smarts of an already made player. Tom Scully, Jack Trenrove, Lucas Kane, Ben Cunnington ect.

I hope I made some sense and where on the same page...

Someone have a crack?

This probably wont help you.lol

The answer is in fact the question...l.e define best, what is best.... what is the criteria ? Only the club actually knows this...we're all just guessing

I believe "best available" will mean we get Scully and Trengove... IMHO it is not worth getting Butcher, because we already have Watts and Jurrah is coming along nicely....

I'm thinking they have no idea at the moment.

the next best means we would go for another midfielder (trengove).. if the midfielder is rated the next best thing in the draft! instead of filling a need such as our forward line, ruck, etc (like Butcher, vardy) if the best available in these categories isnt rated as highly as the mid (trengove)

I'm thinking they have no idea at the moment.

bet you they do..

but why would they telegraph what they know and are doing to all and sundry ??

they are participant to a very difficult game called "keepings off ' !! MFC ( and rest ) will soon have trade week and the drafts to contend with. Quite a few teams immediate future and fortunes will ride upon the success or failure this year. There is no requisite to tell anyone what they are doing. Would you ?

Edited September 4, 200916 yr by belzebub59

Here's my attempt at an answer:

The term "next best" would mean the player that the MFC believe is the 2nd best player in the draft irrelevant of what position they play.This is largely a subjective opinion.

My interpretation of this is: If Melbourne believe the 2nd best player in the draft is a midfielder that they will draft that player(regardless of how many mid fielders are already "in stock") or if the MFC believe Jack Trengove is the 2nd best player in the draft ,they will draft him over say Butcher even though there may be greater need for a KPP.

That's the best I can come up with.

The term best avaliable means that our drafting applies only to our own team.

Therefore the "best available" will be the player that best fits our team's future needs.

The coaching staff, FD, etc. will examine our list meticulously to determine whether the best player for our situation would be a mid, or a KPF, or even a ruckman.

I have faith that they will get it right.

I believe the reason the let Robbo go was to open the forward line for the like of John Butcher, Therefore I believe draft day Barry Prendergast will read out number one TOM SCULLY number two JOHN BUTCHER.

'Best available' means that they will pick the player who they believe will become the best player, irrespective of player type or stage of development.

It is just a coincidence that Scully & Trengove apper the most 'AFL ready' of the top prospects. Last year it was the opposite with bottom aged Watts going 1 & and an extremely raw Natanui going at 2, while the 'AFL ready' Rich fell to 7.

An example of the opposite approach to 'best available' may be Carlton picking Kruezer ahead of Cotchin because they had Gibbs, Murphy and a shortage of talls or the Cats picking mature age Harry Taylor with their 1st round pick because they wanted somebody who could slot right into a key defensive post.

It gets messy though when you have a handful of guys who are hard to split, in this case obviously team balance will come into it.

By saying they will choose the best available it means they will take a less talented player above the best available because we need to fill a void....its like the football department say the coach has their full support....you just know hes going to be fired the next day....

The term best avaliable means that our drafting applies only to our own team.

Therefore the "best available" will be the player that best fits our team's future needs.

The coaching staff, FD, etc. will examine our list meticulously to determine whether the best player for our situation would be a mid, or a KPF, or even a ruckman.

I have faith that they will get it right.

disagree. that would be 'we picked the player that best met our needs'. best available would mean 'the person in the draft who will be the best player regardless of position, development or club needs.'

disagree. that would be 'we picked the player that best met our needs'. best available would mean 'the person in the draft who will be the best player regardless of position, development or club needs.'

Precisely

'Best available' means that they will pick the player who they believe will become the best player, irrespective of player type or stage of development.

It is just a coincidence that Scully & Trengove apper the most 'AFL ready' of the top prospects. Last year it was the opposite with bottom aged Watts going 1 & and an extremely raw Natanui going at 2, while the 'AFL ready' Rich fell to 7.

An example of the opposite approach to 'best available' may be Carlton picking Kruezer ahead of Cotchin because they had Gibbs, Murphy and a shortage of talls or the Cats picking mature age Harry Taylor with their 1st round pick because they wanted somebody who could slot right into a key defensive post.

It gets messy though when you have a handful of guys who are hard to split, in this case obviously team balance will come into it.

Kreuzer was also seen as being quite unique, being a ruckman with the mobility of a rover. I

The 'point of difference' factor could be one that sways the decision. I think Morabito comes into the frame because he offers something different to what's on the playing list and is considered to be a top3 selection.

disagree. that would be 'we picked the player that best met our needs'. best available would mean 'the person in the draft who will be the best player regardless of position, development or club needs.'

Agree to disagree....

you can look at it either way. The best available player from Melbuorne's view, or the best available player from a neutral onlooker's view - they're both valid.

disagree. that would be 'we picked the player that best met our needs'. best available would mean 'the person in the draft who will be the best player regardless of position, development or club needs.'

Yes, indeed.

Grimes!!!!!!

Agree to disagree....

you can look at it either way. The best available player from Melbuorne's view, or the best available player from a neutral onlooker's view - they're both valid.

unfortunately we dont agree to disagree, what you've said is incorrect. when recruiters say "we will eb taking the best available" they are indicating that they will not be drafting on position etc" when the recruiters say "we drafted lots of mids with leg speed because thats an area our list is lacking" then they are drafting for their clubs needs.

use the molan example. he was not the best available (which is an unqualified statment). he was the "best available toughnut backman" which is what the coaching staff felt we needed.

watts was "the best available" according to the recruiters and thus they drafted him, not afl ready rich, quality defenders like hurley or x factor player like natanui...

i would like to see scully drafted at pick 2

lol

not have to take the pressure of being a number 1 pick