If we are to employ Scully as a tagger , being a physically under developed 1st year player ,which of the opposition players that he is going to tag are going to be unable to break through his tackles?

I will keep it simple. If you think MFC are going for broke to win the first six games then why would they place a player who is a natural ball winner and user in a tagging role? Its incongruous. FWIW, I think MFC have more sense than to do either.

Thankyou. Just a simple turn of phrase I've not come across. And in response, if you read the post more closely, you'll see that my suggestion involved using Scully in run-with roles AFTER the first 6 rounds... and ONLY if we're 0-6 and staring down the barrell of another spoon. Not WHILE we're trying to make finals.

I suggest you focus on your own foibles Dappa than allege some on others.

Really? That's what you suggest? Well that's sweet of you RR, but with all the honesty I can muster, I couldn't give a rats what you "suggest." And if the dozens of PM's I've received about you from other posters are anything to go by, I doubt anyone else on here does either.

I have never criticised that Scully would be tagging full time. I and other posters challenged the assertion that he be tagging at all. Given what is known about Scully as Axis of Bob has pointed out, he already demonstrates all the aspects you speak of. And if he is in the middle where he plays his best football then surely he is going to come up and contest against all the superstars of the competition. There can be times where it is beneficial for a footballer to be a tagging role (teach defensive skills, work rate, etc). But Scully does not have those weaknesses. So why wouldn't you get him to develop his obvious strengths as a footballer than pidgeon hole him based on a cliched developmental role where he demonstrates all the attributes.

I think I may have taken it as read that nothing at all has been proven with Scully, aside from the style of footy he's played against other boys. This may be just a personal view, one that you don't share (which is fair enough) but I rate very little of what I see in carnivals, with teenagers. So much of it just doesn't translate. And so often we see draftees do nothing, after being so highly rated. Don't get me wrong, certain things look encouraging. Kicking skill for one, pace for another, and his hands are amazing. But we all know you only need one fault to fall back to the pack in footy. And even if he was a highly rated junior, that doesn't mean the first 22 games he's a demon will be as blisteringly good.

I'm very up-front about being glass-half-empty with new draftees. And I don't think Tom will come in and star from his first season. I've never seen that. Ever. And for that reason I think there'll be a handful of games where a run-with role might be more suitable.

I don't know, is that a better hand? We shall see

Go on, take your pick. Personally, on potential(as that's all we have) I'd take the current crop. There's far more midfield grunt and class and throw in Jurrah and you have the excitement we all love.

I'm very up-front about being glass-half-empty with new draftees. And I don't think Tom will come in and star from his first season. I've never seen that. Ever. And for that reason I think there'll be a handful of games where a run-with role might be more suitable.

There's a guy by the name of rich you may like to google and look at some hi-lights from last year.

Go on, take your pick. Personally, on potential(as that's all we have) I'd take the current crop. There's far more midfield grunt and class and throw in Jurrah and you have the excitement we all love.

well i'd take the current crop obviously, as I already know for a fact that the other group aren't/weren't good enough, my question is will history repeat, if not, why won't it?

So where would you play him rhino?

Guess!

A kid, in his 1st AFL game, you'd play in the thick of the action?

Someone who's 5-10 kgs lighter than Moloney, Jones, Sylvia, even trenny and tappy!?

Id be on the warpath if they stuck him in the centre and Sammy Mitchell and his mates pummelled him in the opener.

Give him at least a dozen games on a flank and see how he goes, he'll naturally run in and around the centre anyway, this way we wont have him diving head 1st into every pack like he obviously wants to.. (Please no 'cotton-wool' bs remarks here peoples)

Is just my opinion..

PLUG N PLAY BABY!!

Couldn't have said it better HT

Emma quaile did actually say it better.. and 1st

Tch, tch, tch HT..

And if you cant be excited about our current crop of players and see this should really be a better side than we have had for the past 10 years at least ..

More than agree..

Would have said, 'for the past 46 years' tho..

EDIT: In regards to the discussion,

i would be [censored] if i ever saw scully or trenny in a tagging role. A dour, shite role to play and a waste of time for the type of players they are looking to become.

Thankyou. Just a simple turn of phrase I've not come across. And in response, if you read the post more closely, you'll see that my suggestion involved using Scully in run-with roles AFTER the first 6 rounds... and ONLY if we're 0-6 and staring down the barrell of another spoon. Not WHILE we're trying to make finals.

Whether we are 6-0 or 0-6 should be irrelevant as to whether Scully should be doing a tagging role.

I think I may have taken it as read that nothing at all has been proven with Scully, aside from the style of footy he's played against other boys. This may be just a personal view, one that you don't share (which is fair enough) but I rate very little of what I see in carnivals, with teenagers. So much of it just doesn't translate. And so often we see draftees do nothing, after being so highly rated. Don't get me wrong, certain things look encouraging. Kicking skill for one, pace for another, and his hands are amazing. But we all know you only need one fault to fall back to the pack in footy. And even if he was a highly rated junior, that doesn't mean the first 22 games he's a demon will be as blisteringly good.

But at least you would identify his attributes at that level and understand he has a wonderful potential. He is class act with or without the ball from what he does with it down to his character and determination. He was pick #1 for a reason and has starred for two years in the junior league. Why wouldn't you set about developing those skills that set him apart as junior to make him ready to be potentially elite at AFL level Regardless of playing with boys, he with Trengove has been rated as AFL ready. It does not mean you throw him to the wolves but neither

do you blunt him as a tagger.

As for talent at the top end of the draft pool not translating their form from carnival to AFL level there has been plenty of examples. And Carnivals themselves should not be taken just on their own. I would have thought the top 12 drafted of 2007 (with the exception of Grant) have given a pretty good indication of the currency you can draw from the junior league to AFL. I think the 2008 top 10 year has been fabulous indication. Niknat, Hill, Hurley,Ziebell, Sidebottom have all readily transitioned to the AFL and were all prominent players at the junior level.

I'm very up-front about being glass-half-empty with new draftees. And I don't think Tom will come in and star from his first season. I've never seen that. Ever. And for that reason I think there'll be a handful of games where a run-with role might be more suitable.

Baliey/Connolly have recognised you need to get at least 50 games into young players to get them to their potential. If Tom does that in 50 games I'll be rapt. If it happens before then it would not be unreasonable.But no was is claiming otherwise.

Brett Deledio, Joel Selwood, Trent Cotchin (injury aside), Rhys Palmer and Daniel Rich have been stars or near stars since they started. Good attacking skillful ball winning players with good engines. And I cant think over that time that they have been put in tagging roles.....Hmmmmm.