As has already been said. You are the one missing the point. I presume you are basin this 'rating' off BF phantoms and journalists... Fact is, they know very little other than some inside tips on who may go where or who speaks to who, but they would never know where recruiters rate players.

Always found the term 'slider' stupid for this very reason. They only slide when compared to BF hype. But at the end of the day they are drafted exactly where recruiters rate them. If Atley (to take your example) was so highly rated, he would have been taken earlier. But he wasn't. I feel many people latched onto his Judd comparisons too literally.

I reckon Cook would have been available at pick 33. Regardless, if we were to have taken Atley @ 12 and Cook @ 33, everyone on these boards would be celebrating another BP drafting coup. The fact that we took Cook at 12 when we had the chance to take Atley instead says something. It's funny, coz back in '06 when we drafted Frawley at 12 and then Petterd at 30ish it had a similar feel to now. There's a reason why we took Cook at 12, and it will come out in due course. It would of been nice if the Atley@12 and Cook@33 came to fruition though.

Sure i'm a little underwhelmed, but what's not to say that can't Cook become our star KPF (excluding Jurrah of course).

Edited November 18, 201014 yr by Demon Disciple

They are all tall and will therefore, almost be definition, take longer to develop. If 2013 is our target year, then this was the last draft we could recruit tall and reasonably expect them to be ready by 2013 (which I take as our target year). 2011 draft we can go for "best available" and take small or midsized (including one J Viney), and they can be ready by 2013. 2012 we should be in the position of looking to trade to fix any problems resulting from players not developing as we hoped or from serious injuries. Any picks left over from than should go on a "best available" again.

I can think of much worse positions to be in.

Wouldn't be surprised if in getting Howe, who is a more mobile forward with elite endurance, we're hoping to be able to push some of the guys who have been occupying our forward line out of sheer necessity to the half back line. I'm thinking Bennell especially, who has the skills to become a serious attacking weapon out of defense, perhaps even Tapscott. That then releases Grimes into the midfield where he truly belongs. Everybody wins!

BP:

"We had a slant towards talls, but we ... just thought that the players we picked were pretty much the best available at those particular picks. Troy Davis has got a body that could quickly step up to playing in the AFL and so has Tom McDonald, so while the talls can quite often take a longer period of time, these guys - at least three of them - we'd expect to step up quickly.

"We acknowledged that tall forwards were an area that we needed to bolster in our list, but we were able to get what we were after at the opportunities that presented. Like every club ... we're very happy."

As has already been said. You are the one missing the point. I presume you are basin this 'rating' off BF phantoms and journalists... Fact is, they know very little other than some inside tips on who may go where or who speaks to who, but they would never know where recruiters rate players.

Always found the term 'slider' stupid for this very reason. They only slide when compared to BF hype. But at the end of the day they are drafted exactly where recruiters rate them. If Atley (to take your example) was so highly rated, he would have been taken earlier. But he wasn't. I feel many people latched onto his Judd comparisons too literally.

Haven't been to BF. Don't read it. Yep, read the Herald-Sun, Age, AFL websites and what was said, like you and most other people. Don't for one minute profess to be a recruiter or possess higher knowledge than any FD. When you assume (well i'm sure a learned scholar such as yourself would know how that saying plays out)......

Simple fact is that everyone kept bleating about best available and taking mediums / mids over what some may call a risk in filling our need for more talls. We didn't go down that path. If there was a tall and a mid who were even pegging, i'm tipping that because of our needs, BP went for the tall. That is my point. Period.

I don't know if you are revealing your age but you are definitely revealing your character...

You would not have the foggiest idea about the character of myself or (probably) anyone else on this forum. In fact i would go as far to say that if it wasn't for people like me in this world then you would not be able to enjoy the life that i'm sure you do.

And perhaps if you are so thin skinned then perhaps you also need a teaspoon of cement........

Edited November 18, 201014 yr by Grandson of a gun

This is what I was after, at least 3 talls but we got 4 new ones.

This is not unlike essendon did with their drafting previously. Recently they got Myers first round which some may say is a failure but went talls the next few picks, with the very next one being Pears who was taken second round. a nice get out of there investment in talls.

What we are after is one tall to come good, most likely a forward given the higher picks to compliment our existing talls. if 2 of these become established players then BP will be a genius. it's just very hard to develop tall players at the elite level.

There is certainly some talent there. Cook ticks a lot of boxes for the modern day footballer.

Personally would have liked Darling but if we went for one tall and then smalls I think our chances of success would be slim.

we did the right thing...in theory.

This is what I was after, at least 3 talls but we got 4 new ones.

This is not unlike essendon did with their drafting previously. Recently they got Myers first round which some may say is a failure but went talls the next few picks, with the very next one being Pears who was taken second round. a nice get out of there investment in talls.

What we are after is one tall to come good, most likely a forward given the higher picks to compliment our existing talls. if 2 of these become established players then BP will be a genius. it's just very hard to develop tall players at the elite level.

There is certainly some talent there. Cook ticks a lot of boxes for the modern day footballer.

Personally would have liked Darling but if we went for one tall and then smalls I think our chances of success would be slim.

we did the right thing...in theory.

Good summation Bay Riffen. And re Darling, yeah he had some good qualities but he isn't overly big and he had/has some issues that clearly teams were concerned about. He may be a great player, he may not, but when Lynch went i reckon they did the right thing.

Haven't been to BF. Don't read it. Yep, read the Herald-Sun, Age, AFL websites and what was said, like you and most other people. Don't for one minute profess to be a recruiter or possess higher knowledge than any FD. When you assume (well i'm sure a learned scholar such as yourself would know how that saying plays out)......

Simple fact is that everyone kept bleating about best available and taking mediums / mids over what some may call a risk in filling our need for more talls. We didn't go down that path. If there was a tall and a mid who were even pegging, i'm tipping that because of our needs, BP went for the tall. That is my point. Period.

So my presumption was accurate. Your opinion was based off journalists.

I'm struggling to find anything in your response that comes close to responding to my criticism. My issue was with your explicit assertion that Atley was the better rated draftee. You have now confirmed that this assertion is based on journalists. I stand by my initial comments. The only "simple fact" that is relevant is that Atley was not rated higher by the people that matter. Recruiters may tailor picks to their needs, but that is just another factor in their ratings.

...

PS: i think we can trade next year prior to the National draft... I think from memory that If we trade our early pick for a player, we can still nominate our father sun with the next best available Pick.

Incorrect.

For a start, Viney won't be eligible to be drafted F/S until the year after next.

And secondly, F/S nominations must be made before trade week, meaning we can't trade our early pick so that we use a late pick on the kid.

Incorrect.

For a start, Viney won't be eligible to be drafted F/S until the year after next.

Viney is eligible next year, it was in the Herald Sun last Saturday.

2012 to my knowledge.

I wouldn't trust the Hun.

So my presumption was accurate. Your opinion was based off journalists.

I'm struggling to find anything in your response that comes close to responding to my criticism. My issue was with your explicit assertion that Atley was the better rated draftee. You have now confirmed that this assertion is based on journalists. I stand by my initial comments. The only "simple fact" that is relevant is that Atley was not rated higher by the people that matter. Recruiters may tailor picks to their needs, but that is just another factor in their ratings.

Spot on Stylus.

Simple fact is that everyone kept bleating about best available and taking mediums / mids over what some may call a risk in filling our need for more talls. We didn't go down that path. If there was a tall and a mid who were even pegging, i'm tipping that because of our needs, BP went for the tall. That is my point. Period.

Its not a fact but your misperception.

Your point does not indicate we went for needs over best available.

Viney is eligible next year, it was in the Herald Sun last Saturday.

He turns 18 in 2012 (Apr) and is eligible for normal draft then

GWS (only) can nominate some 17YOs (Jan-Apr birthdates) in 2011

To avoid this Viney can PRE-nominate as MFC F/S in 2011, but he doesn't actually get drafted till 2012

This make sense?

So my presumption was accurate. Your opinion was based off journalists.

I'm struggling to find anything in your response that comes close to responding to my criticism. My issue was with your explicit assertion that Atley was the better rated draftee. You have now confirmed that this assertion is based on journalists. I stand by my initial comments. The only "simple fact" that is relevant is that Atley was not rated higher by the people that matter. Recruiters may tailor picks to their needs, but that is just another factor in their ratings.

You said it yourself. Recruiters tailor picks to their needs. BP said that we had a "talls slant". How can you not see that?

So by your assertion we should never read or research anything and just fly by the seat of our pants.

I will recant with Atley, poor example and i will accept that.

I'll put it to you this way then:

If Heppell was available at pick 12 would BP still have gone for Cook- i think he would have based on our NEEDS.

Its not a fact but your misperception.

Your point does not indicate we went for needs over best available.

MFC Website- Barry Prendergast:

"We acknowledged that tall forwards were an area that we needed to bolster in our list, but we were able to get what we were after at the opportunities that presented. Like every club…we're very happy."

BP identifies this need. Drafts 3 tall forwards and a tall defender. Doesnt bother with anyone under 190cm in the draft because he knows we have a greater NEED for talls. Where's the misconception Rhino?

You would not have the foggiest idea about the character of myself or (probably) anyone else on this forum. In fact i would go as far to say that if it wasn't for people like me in this world then you would not be able to enjoy the life that i'm sure you do.

That's a HUGE call! You're obviously not a lawyer like I am!!

I reckon Cook would have been available at pick 33.

Obviously BP didn't think Cook would last until #33.

Cook was the AA Under-18 CHF, ahead of Lynch. Why do you think Lynch would go at #11 but Cook would last until #33? Even a lot of Big Footy draftheads had him Top 20.

We rated Cook higher than Smith, Smedts, Atley, Jacobs, Tape etc and I very pleased we did - happily he coincided with a type we need. There can be all sorts of reasons for this - Atley said in in his Age profile he needs to work on his kicking ...

It's hard to see Howe is a "needs" pick when we've got Jurrah and similarly with Davis when Warnock can't get a game. We just picked the best player.

It's interesting that we have 19 of 39 players 192+ - how many do we need?

MDT

We rated Cook higher than Smith, Smedts, Atley, Jacobs, Tape etc and I very pleased we did - happily he coincided with a type we need. There can be all sorts of reasons for this - Atley said in in his Age profile he needs to work on his kicking ...

And Cook was one of 11 players at the Draft Combine that scored 5/5 in the kicking test.

Gee some people by spin. It wouldn't matter what the club said they'd back the club's version of events with no questions asked.

It's obvious that our selections were more needs based. We also obviously rated who we picked.

We'll know if we got it right in 3-5 years.

Bp judging by his comparison of Howe to Robbo limes the idea of him(Howe) playing out of a pocket. Jurrah is best left with space. I don't se them competing for spot .

Gee some people by spin. It wouldn't matter what the club said they'd back the club's version of events with no questions asked.

It's obvious that our selections were more needs based. We also obviously rated who we picked.

We'll know if we got it right in 3-5 years.

Yep the club was after talls.

That what we needed. BP suggested the planets lined up. We were able to prettymuch get the guys they'd penciled in.

Those weren't consolation selections they were our choices .

Gee some people by spin. It wouldn't matter what the club said they'd back the club's version of events with no questions asked.

It's obvious that our selections were more needs based. We also obviously rated who we picked.

We'll know if we got it right in 3-5 years.

This is such a silly fight, even by demonland standards. BP said that we skewed towards talls. You can safely assume that he thought Cook was the best tall available. If we rated Cook an 8/10 and there was a midfielder also rathed 8/10, it's clear Cook would have been our preference. The interesting balance is if Cook was say a 7/10 and a midfielder was a 9/10. Then what do you do? No-one knows the answer to that.

Gee some people by spin. It wouldn't matter what the club said they'd back the club's version of events with no questions asked.

It's obvious that our selections were more needs based. We also obviously rated who we picked.

We'll know if we got it right in 3-5 years.

Well it's like Sylvinator said pre-draft - we had a leaning towards talls and if we rated 2 players similarly then we'd take the tall at 12 and that's what both Bailey and Prendergast said we did. You're not seriously suggesting we took Cook while we rated some mid higher are you?

Please explain how Howe and Davis are needs based when we've got Jurrah and Warnock? And how McDonald is needs based when we just picked 2 marking forwards?