WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - JACK VINEY

[Geddy Lee 582]

Hmmn, Tiny Tim Watson was playing @ 16 Yrs.

Made his debut at 15!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Some supporters are still stuck in that era.

What, you mean the ones who continued to go to the football and support the club during the decades where we hardly won a game?

[Axis of Bob 10,266]

What, you mean the ones who continued to go to the football and support the club during the decades where we hardly won a game?

Yep. Those ones especially.

It must have been bad for them, but their experiences of that bygone era still cloud their vision.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Yep. Those ones especially.

It must have been bad for them, but their experiences of that bygone era still cloud their vision.

If you think not getting sucked in by false dawn is the same as clouded vision then you're right; but I don't think that's what you meant so therefore....

I've seen plenty of rebuilds and all have failed so I'm reluctant to break out the Bubbly at the moment; however I think that the new coach and the new attitude of the club is all positive.

For the first time in a very long time I'm confident we can be a better club and it all looks like we may finally be able to do more than just make up the numbers.

[dee-luded 2,958]

different era

Not talking era's.. he (Watson) was ready to play @ 16 yrs of age in a Tougher & more violent Time.

# 15 Yrs, I hear.

I'm suggesting that apart from the rules, Viney would go close to being ready for the Physical stuff. As close as Nicholson is now.

* I think they changed the rules because of Education & also the VFL days were not a national comp, so kids weren't too far from home.

[Demon 16 176]

Can't wait for Viney to arrive but tell me this. Does anyone see a problem with Jones, Mckenzie, Moloney and Viney all playing In the side? A little one dimensional? All of them love the hard ball but how many of those sorts can a team play In the one side.. Maybe add Gysberts also.

Grimes and even Tapscott also play slightly 'inside' roles but you can never have enough ball winners.

That said, yeh I reckon we need some outside pace - Im hoping Sumner slips to us in this draft..

[Deeoldfart 7,788]

Yep. Those ones especially.

It must have been bad for them, but their experiences of that bygone era still cloud their vision.

It's unlike you to make rash generalisations like that one AoB

[Jordie_tackles 354]

If you have an opinion that differs from the clique on here you get hammered, so I like to return the ball over the net at times. Jack Viney is a classic example of a player that some on here would say we don't need because he's as good as he will ever be, and if he wasn't already ours they would be calling him another Darling, Rich or Palmer.

I'm over the moon, he's ours and I reckon he will be a beauty.

Enjoy your fishing? Jordie Tackles; interesting name for a fisherman.

Having zero luck atm.... i literally put some bait on a hook and drop it in, if anyone knows of good salt water bait let me know... pipies dont catch

jack

And yes i understand how JV will be perceived as a "different" prospect to Darling ect, even though he isnt

I will regardless look forward to his arrival, and him being ready made will add to our more developed side in 2012

I think the reason i am happy to wait for players atm, or in the past is that we arnt in our window atm, in 2012 i will hope that we can be playing finals during 2012 not next year, so ready made players will have an instant impact on our team, where as in the past we can wait for players to "develop" probably one of our pet had phrases no RF?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Having zero luck atm.... i literally put some bait on a hook and drop it in, if anyone knows of good salt water bait let me know... pipies dont catch

jack

And yes i understand how JV will be perceived as a "different" prospect to Darling ect, even though he isnt

I will regardless look forward to his arrival, and him being ready made will add to our more developed side in 2012

I think the reason i am happy to wait for players atm, or in the past is that we arnt in our window atm, in 2012 i will hope that we can be playing finals during 2012 not next year, so ready made players will have an instant impact on our team, where as in the past we can wait for players to "develop" probably one of our pet had phrases no RF?

Not at all I have no problem with players that show a bit but are not quite ready, it's the ones that haven't shown a thing that concern me. If it's a toss up between a player that's ready to go, or a player that may put on weight, may be a good player in the future, but who's shown nothing to indicate that's true, then guess who I'd prefer?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Hi all just wondering if anyone knows the story regarding Jack Viney - what is his current agreement with the club and what does that mean for his season 2012? I s he going to play with Casey? When he is recruited is it going to be with one of the Scully compo picks or what?

Thanks in advance

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Will be our first non compensation pick next season.

Has signed a 5 year deal this year, and next then a 3 year AFL contract

I think we are looking into his ability to play for Casey next season, similar to David Swallow doing it for the GC

[daisycutter 28,629]

I am, however, waiting for all those like RR who seem to have a policy of not recruiting ready made players who will be as good as they will ever be in their first year and preferring to recruit players that have a minimum of 4 years before they produce what other kids do in their first game, to provide some comment.

Hahaha. LOL I'm with you here Robbie

Why is it that "ready-to-play" recruits are regarded as having plateaued and have no up-side?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Will be our first non compensation pick next season.

Has signed a 5 year deal this year, and next then a 3 year AFL contract

I think we are looking into his ability to play for Casey next season, similar to David Swallow doing it for the GC

thanks mate

[Axis of Bob 10,266]

Robbie and daisy, you have misunderstood.

Being ready to play does not make the player a dud, but nor does it make them a star.

As people around here love to use women as an analogy, I will try to explain it that way.

At high school there were girls that were hot, and there were many that weren't. Guys used to go for the hot girls in high school. But that's not to say that when those girls will end up being the hottest in the long run. There will be hot girls that get to 25 and look like they're 50, but there will be those that were overlooked in high school that turn out to be dead set stunners.

The key to drafting is to pick the player that will be the best in the long term. At the moment Cook and Darling are both in the equivalent of high school. Darling is the hot girl at the moment, but will he plateau while Cook turns out to be the belle of the ball? That's what recruiters are paid to predict.

Darling is a strong boy, even at AFL level. Cook is not strong, even at VFL level. But as he matures he is going to get bigger and stronger. At some point in the future Darling and Cook will probably be as strong as each other. Then ask yourself, would Cook be better than Darling if he was built like Darling?

As for Viney, he is strong. He's ready to play (given some decent preseason running) AFL now. He should make an immediate impact. But that's irrelevant to how good a player he'll be. He may well be a hot girl at school who is still just as hot throughout life.

When they become hot isn't important - what's important is the final product.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Bob, Ian Holloway would be proud.

[daisycutter 28,629]

Robbie and daisy, you have misunderstood.

Being ready to play does not make the player a dud, but nor does it make them a star.

As people around here love to use women as an analogy, I will try to explain it that way.

At high school there were girls that were hot, and there were many that weren't. Guys used to go for the hot girls in high school. But that's not to say that when those girls will end up being the hottest in the long run. There will be hot girls that get to 25 and look like they're 50, but there will be those that were overlooked in high school that turn out to be dead set stunners.

The key to drafting is to pick the player that will be the best in the long term. At the moment Cook and Darling are both in the equivalent of high school. Darling is the hot girl at the moment, but will he plateau while Cook turns out to be the belle of the ball? That's what recruiters are paid to predict.

Darling is a strong boy, even at AFL level. Cook is not strong, even at VFL level. But as he matures he is going to get bigger and stronger. At some point in the future Darling and Cook will probably be as strong as each other. Then ask yourself, would Cook be better than Darling if he was built like Darling?

As for Viney, he is strong. He's ready to play (given some decent preseason running) AFL now. He should make an immediate impact. But that's irrelevant to how good a player he'll be. He may well be a hot girl at school who is still just as hot throughout life.

When they become hot isn't important - what's important is the final product.

With all respect Bob I think you misunderstood

No-one (well me that is) is saying ready-to-play players are going to be stars, It's just that too many posters are prepared to predict that they have little up-side. This is what is stupid.

For the rest of your post. no argument, but then you are just telling us how to suck eggs B)

[Axis of Bob 10,266]

Often they do have little upside. The hot girl ain't getting much hotter!

That doesn't mean that they won't be hot.

Summary:

Upside = improvement

Little upside =/= player is a dud

[Axis of Bob 10,266]

QV: I should have called it "gentleman's terms"!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Often they do have little upside. The hot girl ain't getting much hotter!

That doesn't mean that they won't be hot.

Summary:

Upside = improvement

Little upside =/= player is a dud

Bob you have a player who will give you maybe 10 years of service, some more some less, agreed?

If you have a choice between a player that is already good and will hit the ground running and one that has potential but may take four or five years to reach it, which one do you choose? If it is between two players that both have potential then you take the one that will best suit your future needs; both are a risk. If it's on talent you take the player that you know will play well over the one who may play well providing all the other factors align. Then there's the replacement factor, we've just replaced the potential with a new boy who apparently knows how to play now and who does have am appetite for the contest, so what do we do with our developer; trade him to GC for Caddy.

So here's the thing, your ready made player will in all probability give you your full 10 years of good service whereas your potential will maybe give you 6 or 7 years of good service and that's if he actually lives up to his potential. There is no guarantee that he will fill out there is no guarantee that he will have the appetite for the contest there is no guarantee that he will actually be any good.

So we have our hotie who is a real stunner and we have the other girl with the glasses and the braces who is ordinary but may eventually turn out to be better than the hotie. Tell you what Bob let me know how she turns out won't you, that sort of [censored] usually only turns out in fairy tales and Hollywood movies and I'm off with the stunner.

I'll have my Judd you can have Molan.

[Lutz 76]

So simple for you, isn't it RobbieF?

But your arguments are all skewed beyond reality.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

So simple for you, isn't it RobbieF?

But your arguments are all skewed beyond reality.

I guess even the most simple things are hard for you to comprehend, pity really.

You know what I'd like you to do one day; actually come out and refute my argument instead of just going the cheap shot from the boundary.

Btw the way life is simple I'm sure you'd know that.

[Lutz 76]

No cheap shot.

Just no point trying to reason with someone that won't listen to it, so I don't bother.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

No cheap shot.

Just no point trying to reason with someone that won't listen to it, so I don't bother.

That's usually the retort of someone that's got nothing to say, you didn't disappoint me.

[Axis of Bob 10,266]

Want to know the funny thing, Robbie? Molan was a strong bodied, ready made player. And the comparison with Judd is not even close. Make the comparison between Molan and Hale. Hale was the development player while Molan was the ready made player.

Simplistic comparisons do nothing for your argument.

10 years of pretty good versus 6 years of very good? It depends how good 'pretty good' is and and how good 'very good' is.

It also depends on when you are going for a premiership. For instance, if you were rebuilding from the bottom then you won't be looking to win a premiership in the next 5 years. So you don't care about what a player does before then - hence you would take the development player who you project will be a better overall player. However, if you are right in your premiership window then you would probably draft a player that can help you more quickly, even if the ceiling of their talent isn't as high.

As always, Robbie, things are never as simple as they appear.

Also, are you saying that you want to trade Cook because we landed Clark? Really?

You may be off with the girl who peaked at high school, but I'm off with a stunner for the rest of my life. That's OK, because you'll always have the memories.

[Jonesy!!! 27]

back on bloody topic, you guys are useless