Surely the needs of the MFC FD as informed by our current playing list and game plan define what is the "best available".

But they're both the same price, so you would obviously take the BMW.

If you really needed the ute the you could take the BMW now, then sell it. With that value you could buy your ute and still have enough left over to buy a Commodore.

Ute + Commodore > Ute.

Swish ! Nothing but net.

Take Best Available Talent in the draft....Otherwise you trade for needs...simple formula!

I think with Melb's courting of Hale we have seen the FD start to be more focused on filling holes in an almost complete line up rather than staying with the best available. Looking at Collingwood last year with Jolly and Ball teams get more specific in their needs as they close in on the top four and flag. I'd suggest like many that we would be looking at our forward line needs with pick 12, and the days of "best available" are behind us or at least more nuanced.

As Old55 intimated - you're arguing to draft a certain way becasue of trading practices.

Massive difference.

I'm not clear on the differences between the trade and draft aside from them being different mechanisms by which the FD can bring new players to the club. If the FD says we need a tall forward in trade period and doesn't land a big forward, do we no longer have that need in the draft period?

I'm not clear on the differences between the trade and draft aside from them being different mechanisms by which the FD can bring new players to the club. If the FD says we need a tall forward in trade period and doesn't land a big forward, do we no longer have that need in the draft period?

The difference is that in the trade period we wanted a "ready-to-play" Fwd/Ruck.

The draft will be mainly for 18YOs who in the main won't be ready to play for 1-2 years

Of course there will be some mature age players in the draft who might fit the original draft requirements and these will be looked at obviously but probably late in the drafting process (or even at the rookie draft)

The difference is that in the trade period we wanted a "ready-to-play" Fwd/Ruck.

The draft will be mainly for 18YOs who in the main won't be ready to play for 1-2 years

Of course there will be some mature age players in the draft who might fit the original draft requirements and these will be looked at obviously but probably late in the drafting process (or even at the rookie draft)

^This.

Please understand this, people.

Jack Fitpatrick and Max Gawn would love for you to get it.

Agree that the trade is for players capable of hitting the ground and filling an immediate need. But would suggest that the FD is using models of the evolution of their list over the next 5 years, projecting anticipated player development (including Gawn and Fitzpatrick) identifying where future needs are and drafting accordingly, to need rather then hoping that "Best Available" delivers them their ideal team. I.e. to Rpfc's point the FD's 3 year needs may not be a tall forward/ruck, but it will be somewhere else in the list for 2013+, still needs based...

^This.

Please understand this, people.

Jack Fitpatrick and Max Gawn would love for you to get it.

In regards what?

You'll never get a black and white answer on this question

Like a lot of things . . . it all depends . . . on lotsa things

However, the fall back position if in doubt is to always (well, nearly always) go best-available

As you get lower and lower in the draft the question becomes less important as the players become more and more speculative

Why would you select a NQR big man over a clearly superior other prospect. I'll tell you why, you're a dill. We don't need to do the recruiting for Casey.

But they're both the same price, so you would obviously take the BMW.

If you really needed the ute the you could take the BMW now, then sell it. With that value you could buy your ute and still have enough left over to buy a Commodore.

Ute + Commodore > Ute.

But then you still have to pay the rego on a useless Commodore which defeats the purpose :lol:

In regards what?

That drafting for needs does not mean that those needs will be immediately filled.

We need a tall FF/ruck.

Who are some saying could hold it down in 2011?

Gawn and Fitzpatrick.

They are not ready.

They were not drafted to fill a need in 2011, but 2014.

Drafting for needs works with kids that come on quickly - mids.

Drafting for needs with tall players means you have to look 3+ years down the track at least.

Happy to admit i appear to be one of only a few who feel that the days of best available are over however i'm just keen on hearing why people think its the better option.

I agreed with the policy of years gone by, however we are no longer a 'rebuilding' club. We have most pieces in place now we just need development and certain areas fixed. Thats why i think we now need to draft for needs. I really hope if Lynch and Smedts are both on the board at 12 we choose Lynch even though Smedts is probably the 'better' player.

Who knows, the FD know what they are doing but its my 2 cents

I still don't understand everyone's obsession with us recruiting a KPF. Here is why: A) We have Jack Watts who will develop into this position. (Hopefully Fitzpatrick) B) We also have Jurrah. (who doesnt play like a KPF but will kick plenty of goals) C) Look at Geelongs list when they won both their flags. Great backline, Elite Midfield and Good Forwardline. Only half decent KPF Mooney! D) Look at Collingwoods team that won the flag this year. Good-Great Backline, Elite Midfield. Good forwardline. Only Good to Great KPF Cloke. We don't need two big giant KPF's. They will just make us slower and less mobile in the forward line. Its all about building from the backline and having an Elite midfield. We should be recruting gun midfielders with our top couple of picks!

Would the FD be looking at what we'll lose between now and 2013 (i.e. Green, Bruce, ...) and looking at where we may have risks (i.e. Morton (hope he has a great 2011)) and how we recruit to cover these losses and possible risks? So while Gawn and Fitz ( and others) are coming on, whats leaving that we still need?

Why would you select a NQR big man over a clearly superior other prospect. I'll tell you why, you're a dill. We don't need to do the recruiting for Casey.

Who's the dill?

We will be selecting a big guy. No doubt. Will he be NQR? Hardly and who has suggested otherwise?

But then you still have to pay the rego on a useless Commodore which defeats the purpose :lol:

Not to mention the obscene repairs & maintenance costs. Bit like a Luke Molan draft choice a commodore. Looks great, can drive ok, but prone to break down and cost you a packet!

That drafting for needs does not mean that those needs will be immediately filled.

We need a tall FF/ruck.

Who are some saying could hold it down in 2011?

Gawn and Fitzpatrick.

They are not ready.

They were not drafted to fill a need in 2011, but 2014.

Drafting for needs works with kids that come on quickly - mids.

Drafting for needs with tall players means you have to look 3+ years down the track at least.

Got ya!

I still don't understand everyone's obsession with us recruiting a KPF. Here is why: A) We have Jack Watts who will develop into this position. (Hopefully Fitzpatrick) B) We also have Jurrah. (who doesnt play like a KPF but will kick plenty of goals) C) Look at Geelongs list when they won both their flags. Great backline, Elite Midfield and Good Forwardline. Only half decent KPF Mooney! D) Look at Collingwoods team that won the flag this year. Good-Great Backline, Elite Midfield. Good forwardline. Only Good to Great KPF Cloke. We don't need two big giant KPF's. They will just make us slower and less mobile in the forward line. Its all about building from the backline and having an Elite midfield. We should be recruting gun midfielders with our top couple of picks!

It isn't so much the KPF but the need to have a suitable back-up for Jamar that has an alternative primary role so we can play an extra runner.

And I don't want Jurrah or Watts at the top of the square forming the pack - I would prefer Watts on a lead and Jurrah hitting the top of the pack.

But you still need that long target.

We will be selecting a big guy. No doubt. Will he be NQR? Hardly and who has suggested otherwise?

If Day, Lynch & Darling are gone and we select one with pick 12, then we will be dills.

why we need a KPF....often the ball goes into the forward line and all players are covered....in that instance larger KPF are the target...this is when melb has broken down...we haven't had a KPF since neitz.

man...neitz would be perfect for us right about now!

But they're both the same price, so you would obviously take the BMW.

If you really needed the ute the you could take the BMW now, then sell it. With that value you could buy your ute and still have enough left over to buy a Commodore.

Ute + Commodore > Ute.

Difference here though is that a more accurate comparison is be between two BMWs, one with GPS and one without. The difference in quality between all players the FD is seriously considering for pick 12 will be minimal and I gravely doubt they will pick an inferior player if something obviously better is available. However I strongly believe that clubs form their respective views as to "best available" with an eye for what their specific needs are. Either way, it's likely we'll get a quality player with our first pick.

I think Prendergast has explained his position on best available pretty clearly.

They rate all players in the draft, based on everything (skill, character, how they'd fit in the team etc)

If at pick 12, there is one player clearly superior to the other, they will pick the superior player.

If at pick 12, there are 2 players Prenders rates equally highly, then he will tend towards the one that fulfils the greatest need.

It is a qualified best available.

If Day, Lynch & Darling are gone and we select one with pick 12, then we will be dills.

Yes, well a fair bit to happen to end up in that dill pickle.

Difference here though is that a more accurate comparison is be between two BMWs, one with GPS and one without. The difference in quality between all players the FD is seriously considering for pick 12 will be minimal and I gravely doubt they will pick an inferior player if something obviously better is available. However I strongly believe that clubs form their respective views as to "best available" with an eye for what their specific needs are. Either way, it's likely we'll get a quality player with our first pick.

Id still go with the ute analogy...but ill define better..were talking very good 4 x 4 with some bells and whistles..able to really do a job well... not your garden vaiety mallo rubbish.( and as a tradies vehicle they are ) so pricing is very similar ( surprsingly) well maybe 5-10 only depending on specs..but I digress.

One is very role orientated..the other is a go all over sporty machine..two different beasts... Just as KPF and a Midfielder are.

The earlier post alluding to Predergasts qualification ( or the posters take on it ) all but summises my viewpoint...as its more likely than not that at pick 12 there will be many of a similar standard...but differing ilks !! so youd tend to purpose..surely

I still don't understand everyone's obsession with us recruiting a KPF. Here is why: A) We have Jack Watts who will develop into this position. (Hopefully Fitzpatrick) B) We also have Jurrah. (who doesnt play like a KPF but will kick plenty of goals) C) Look at Geelongs list when they won both their flags. Great backline, Elite Midfield and Good Forwardline. Only half decent KPF Mooney! D) Look at Collingwoods team that won the flag this year. Good-Great Backline, Elite Midfield. Good forwardline. Only Good to Great KPF Cloke. We don't need two big giant KPF's. They will just make us slower and less mobile in the forward line. Its all about building from the backline and having an Elite midfield. We should be recruting gun midfielders with our top couple of picks!

To win flags we'll need another big forward/ruck.

Yes, well a fair bit to happen to end up in that dill pickle.

Mind you, Gorringe or Lycett could be acceptable as ruck/forwards and I wouldn't be unhappy with McCarthy.