I have watched Jack play and train quite a few times.....this analogy will suit...."a Bulldozer who can kick", why must we always look at the glass half empty.....he would be a top draft pick anyway.....but then we will probably end up comparing him with anybody who was drafted in the last 10 years who puts a few good games together that we should have picked...here are a few examples of where me may have got it right

Hurley - always picking up little soft tissue injuries

Rich - has not progressed as everybody thought he would, does not dominate

Darling - let's see how he goes without Kennedy, must be good to be behind Kennedy, Lynch and Cox as the choice to kick to

NicNat - lovely highlight reel, but Kreuzer any day if we could have got him, does not do enough around the ground and personally don't think he ever will

Jack Viney will be a great player for MFC, same as Jack Watts, Jack Trengove and Jack Grimes and Jack Fitzpatrick, five Jacks in a hand will beat anything....

And on his younger brother to quote Todd when I asked him "Jack is the [censored], Max is a ball player"

Edited May 3, 201213 yr by satyricon

It's a bit like ripping a joey out of it's mothers pouch and fighting over who gets to keep him.

My main concern is that the MFC will take him with a higher draft pick then they need to. the team should draft to what they need, not just for the sake of him being a F/S.

We already have alot of in and under mid fielders (Jones, Moloney, Sylvia, Mckenzie ect)

We need quick mids with pace. I wonder how many people would be talking about targeting Viney if he wasn't a F/s prospect. My guess is that there wouldn't even be a thread for him.

Lets not let the 2 weakest clubs dictate terms to us ffs. How weak are we?

FFS! It's the rules.

I know we all don't want to give GWS a leg up or let them "dictate terms" but it is the rules.

And we would do the same to a club in the same boat.

We are not weak on this issue, and we can explore options with these two terms that will benefit us even further, and I mean 'even furhter' as Jack Viney is exactly what we require and you will all be personally hand wringing next year for criticising the club over their preparation of Viney and their refusal to play a poker game with his career.

For all those questioning why we have committed to Jack, the benefits are 1) He has completed an AFL pre-season with out being on an AFL list 2) He gets to play for Casey and 3) we get a player that would have been drafted in the top 10 so matter were we finish we get him 4) He will start preseason at the start of pre-season 2012, slightly modified until after exams and not wait until Draft day.

Can someone explain to me why we have telegraphed our desire to draft Jack to all and sundry so clearly?

Seems to me that we may have been better off just playing it cool and trying to pick him up at with a later pick.

By getting all barred up about a 17 year old kid are we not at risk of missing out on the best possible player in this year's supposed super draft?

There is no doubt GWS will bid for him now as it's a free hit at getting us to use our first pick on him when if we played it a bit smarter we could have bluffed them into not bidding and picked him up with a second rounder.

Please explain?

What seems to have been missed here is that he is already contracted to us till 2015 according to this article and from memory this occurred when he was originally declared as ours a year or so ago as a father-son nomination to thwart any attempt from Adelaide to trump us.

Therefore any thoughts of smoke screening our intentions are a waste of time with the benefit that we have been able to integrate him into the club early. We are not going to throw that away now by breaking his contract and causing all sorts of internal angst.

i wonder if his two years already count under free agency rules?

We need quick mids with pace. I wonder how many people would be talking about targeting Viney if he wasn't a F/s prospect. My guess is that there wouldn't even be a thread for him.

Firstly, I haven't seen many quick mids without pace.

Secondly, Viney is exactly the sort of player we would be after. Exactly. We are after ball winning midfielders - guys who get first hands on the footy at stoppages and win contested ball. We have a game that relies a lot on our stoppage work and contested footy. Viney is the best player in the draft at this, from all accounts, and we are guaranteed to be able to get him.

We need to be able to get our hands on the footy. We have outside runners from previous drafting needed. Now we are looking for class ball winners. Or, to be honest, any class genuine midfielder.

GWS and GC are not stupid. Many on here are wanting us to call bluffs and play poker. As stated above he is contacted,so he is coming to us at whatever the draft pick he gets through to. Imagine that we break that contract and don't choose him and he turns out to be a gun mid. People on here would have a field day about the wrong doing at the draft again.

GWS and GC are not stupid. Many on here are wanting us to call bluffs and play poker. As stated above he is contacted,so he is coming to us at whatever the draft pick he gets through to. Imagine that we break that contract and don't choose him and he turns out to be a gun mid. People on here would have a field day about the wrong doing at the draft again.

They would also have a field day if we have the chance to take Lachie Whitfield or Stringer but instead we take Viney because of the F/S and he turns out to have injuries half his season like half our other players while Whitfield and Stringer go on to be superstars.

i wonder if his two years already count under free agency rules?

I'd think not. I assume it's from the time that a player is drafted.

GWS and GC are not stupid. Many on here are wanting us to call bluffs and play poker. As stated above he is contacted,so he is coming to us at whatever the draft pick he gets through to. Imagine that we break that contract and don't choose him and he turns out to be a gun mid. People on here would have a field day about the wrong doing at the draft again.

So if a Patton or O'Meara type became available, would we want to take Viney instead ?

So if a Patton or O'Meara type became available, would we want to take Viney instead ?

You're assuming Viney himself isn't a "Patton or O'Meara type", whatever you mean by that.

And I think it's evident that the footy dept can see that he is clearly that type, so there is no risk.

It's been mentioned by others, but even if he is slightly behind on talent, the opportunity to put 2 years development into him before he even gets on the list, is enough benefit to outweigh any potential talent shortfall.

So if a Patton or O'Meara type became available, would we want to take Viney instead ?

Both players you mention have already been drafted So a non issue. We have commited to Viney and have a contract in place. He would go top ten anyway and will have had gained lots by training with MFC for 2 preseasons before he plays.

Who knows if he is better than Whitfield or Stratton that is the fun of the draft

All I know is that he is a very good midfielder with grunt and skills.

You cannot pick them all.

Edited May 3, 201213 yr by Bossdog

They would also have a field day if we have the chance to take Lachie Whitfield or Stringer but instead we take Viney because of the F/S and he turns out to have injuries half his season like half our other players while Whitfield and Stringer go on to be superstars.

That's crap Any player can do a knee or other serious injury. Not just MFC players. and what happens if the two you mention do not cut it?? and we have passed on a gun who we have already put 2 years into??

That's crap Any player can do a knee or other serious injury. Not just MFC players. and what happens if the two you mention do not cut it?? and we have passed on a gun who we have already put 2 years into??

you just said the same thing again that i just replied to. i was just stating the other potential outcome to what u said, then u said the original outcome again pretty much.

as i have said earlier, i would much prefer a Viney(pick 20s), dustin martin(pick 3), and a Trent cotchin(pick 4) rather then just a Viney (pick 3) and a Cotchin (Pick 4)

If no doubt is put into the heads of GWS then we will end up with the 2nd result and lose out on a Dustin Martin.

you just said the same thing again that i just replied to. i was just stating the other potential outcome to what u said, then u said the original outcome again pretty much.

as i have said earlier, i would much prefer a Viney(pick 20s), dustin martin(pick 3), and a Trent cotchin(pick 4) rather then just a Viney (pick 3) and a Cotchin (Pick 4)

If no doubt is put into the heads of GWS then we will end up with the 2nd result and lose out on a Dustin Martin.

People should just accept that we're using our first round pick on Viney. No matter what number that is.

If you look at it like that, then you can see that the lower we finish, we get the advantage that our compensation pick after our first round pick improves.

So if we finished top 8, yes, we'd be getting viney for pick 13ish (a steal), BUT, our compensation picks would be 12 and 14.

Whereas if we finish bottom 3, then we'd get viney, but our compensation picks will be pick 4 and 12.

you just said the same thing again that i just replied to. i was just stating the other potential outcome to what u said, then u said the original outcome again pretty much.

as i have said earlier, i would much prefer a Viney(pick 20s), dustin martin(pick 3), and a Trent cotchin(pick 4) rather then just a Viney (pick 3) and a Cotchin (Pick 4)

If no doubt is put into the heads of GWS then we will end up with the 2nd result and lose out on a Dustin Martin.

I understand what you are saying but What doubt would GWS have when he is a contrated Player and we have stated that we will draft Him????

I understand what you are saying but What doubt would GWS have when he is a contrated Player and we have stated that we will draft Him????

of course there would be clauses in the contract to get out of it if we needed to. the MFC arnt fools. Do you even know the details of the contract? no one here seems to know the specifics of it yet everyone keeps saying 'he is contracted', hell, he may be contracted as a cleaner for all we know.

What have we contracted him for? coz obviously its not to be on our list as his not allowed to be on it yet nor have we drafted him yet.

and are we paying him at the moment? and if so is that part of the salary cap?

If you were in GWS and GC seat would u take the risk for one 2nd round draft pick higher?

What would you call it when 2 Clubs place a bid for a player they have no desire to pick up?

What would you call it if we take a top-10 player with a pick in the top 10?

Like quite a few posts on this thread, yours is riddled with assumptions. Firstly that GWS or GC wouldn't want Viney with their first pick, secondly that only GWS and GC will finish below us this year, and thirdly, that all clubs will keep their first picks and not trade them. We Just Don't Know.

If Viney does play for Casey on Saturday, someone should camp by the pie-stand to see if Big Phil Scully drops past for his customary half-dozen.

i was just stating the other potential outcome

It's not a potential outcome. Viney, first pick Melbourne. It's already done. Get used to it. And enjoy it.

It's not a potential outcome. Viney, first pick Melbourne. It's already done. Get used to it. And enjoy it.

Obviously you didnt read the outcome, coz the outcome i stated was that we do take Viney with our first pick....

of course there would be clauses in the contract to get out of it if we needed to. the MFC arnt fools. Do you even know the details of the contract? no one here seems to know the specifics of it yet everyone keeps saying 'he is contracted', hell, he may be contracted as a cleaner for all we know.

What have we contracted him for? coz obviously its not to be on our list as his not allowed to be on it yet nor have we drafted him yet.

and are we paying him at the moment? and if so is that part of the salary cap?

If you were in GWS and GC seat would u take the risk for one 2nd round draft pick higher?

This arguement is a non issue. MFC has informed the AFL that we will claim JV under the F/S rule, we have beem closely involved with him since he was 14. His family has moved to Melbourne and his father is heavly involved with the MFC. I can,t see us breaking a contract for an outstanding junior player against a speculative draft pick what ever the number.

He is ours. Thats it.

This arguement is a non issue. MFC has informed the AFL that we will claim JV under the F/S rule, we have beem closely involved with him since he was 14. His family has moved to Melbourne and his father is heavly involved with the MFC. I can,t see us breaking a contract for an outstanding junior player against a speculative draft pick what ever the number.

He is ours. Thats it.

I never said we wouldnt take him, i said there would be no harm in raising doubt about it.

u really cant see any potential benefits of raising doubts about us taking him?

I never said we wouldnt take him, i said there would be no harm in raising doubt about it.

u really cant see any potential benefits of raising doubts about us taking him?

Look. I would love to get him with a 2nd round pick but it's just not going to happen. From what I've seen he is worthy of a 1st round pick and that's where we will get him. I don't think GC and GWS are going to give us a free kick by not nominating him.

Edited May 3, 201213 yr by Bossdog