Yawn...you are persistent Rhino aern't you. Like a summer fly...

WTF am i hiding behind?? Why does every discussion with you have to be a melodrama??

Irksome person you are.

Yawn...you are persistent Rhino aern't you. Like a summer fly...

WTF am i hiding behind?? Why does every discussion with you have to be a melodrama??

Irksome person you are.

You make it your melodrama like this^ carry on nonsense when you've been nailed. Time and again it happens WYL. And each time you've try and turn it on Rhino. You even tried it on AoB recently. Own up when being held to account instead of [censored] footing around and denying what you have factually stated. It's not good form. If you owned up to half the stuff you're held to account for, this forum would improve somewhat !

You seem to engage in a lot of inductive reasoning, old55. Clearly there will be instances either way. If you disagree with the general point I am making, just say so. I am not putting myself forward as any particular luminary on AFL recruitment - I am merely making an observation, which may ultimately be entirely incorrect. Time will tell.

But please don't engage in some anti-intellectual form of reasoning to demonstrate your point. It's too annoying to counter, and I don't propose to do so.

I support the postion that it's too early to judge Cook and I supplied examples of A Grade KPPs taken before pick 10 who took 4 years to deliver, e.g Reid, J.Kennedy.

You assert the hypothesis that "most tall, long term development-type players (such as Cook) are perhaps better being picked slightly later in the draft." then I imagine you've probably got some examples to support this hypothesis. I simply asked you to provide some - I don't know any A grade KPPs that fit this assertion but maybe you do.

A-grade KPPs are picked almost exclusively early in the draft - the latest it gets is 2nd round.

I support the postion that it's too early to judge Cook and I supplied examples of A Grade KPPs taken before pick 10 who took 4 years to deliver, e.g Reid, J.Kennedy.

You assert the hypothesis that "most tall, long term development-type players (such as Cook) are perhaps better being picked slightly later in the draft." then I imagine you've probably got some examples to support this hypothesis. I simply asked you to provide some - I don't know any A grade KPPs that fit this assertion but maybe you do.

A-grade KPPs are picked almost exclusively early in the draft - the latest it gets is 2nd round.

Let's hope like buggery Cook is A-grade then. He's got a hell of a long way to go if he's struggling for a gig at Casey, skinny body or no.

For every Reid there's a Beau Dowler, probably more than a few truth be told.

Cook was a luxury punt at a time when our group needed something altogether different. That something was Jack Darling.

Lyon knew it. Neeld knew it. And now Barry P. knows it.

Even though a list continually evolves, it seems to me that we no longer have the luxury of spending years developing players and a structure. We need to be competitive now, and our drafting needs to reflect that. In this context, given the needs of the MFC at the time (ie, in desperate need of a full forward) Darling to my mind was a better bet than Cook AT PICK 12.

This is not to suggest that Cook will not, in time, become a very good player. The fact that he was the under 18 AA CHF indicates that he was a very good prospect. That so called 'experts' were surprised we picked him at 12 also suggests to me there were some question marks over whether he would ultimately become an elite forward, unlike say Hurley, Watts, Riewoldt, Franklin and Roughhead. If not this, it perhaps indicates he was not as 'ready made' as certain other elite young tall prospects. In fact, I seem to recall most experts predicted he would go somewhere around 20 -25.

But here's the rub. We don't need to draft kids exclusively.

Old55, you seem to suggest that virtually all A grade KPPs are picked early in the national draft. I agree with you - hard to argue otherwise. HOWEVER, not all clubs spend first round picks recruiting such players. Some examples include: Leigh Brown (Collingwood - pick 73, 2008), Chris Tarrant (Collingwood - pick 44, 2010), Podsiadly (Geelong - pick 58, rookie draft 2010). Also some good forwards do actually get picked up late in the national draft (eg, Taylor Walker - pick 75, Bradshaw - pick 56). That said, I agree with the point you are making here.

Now onto the other issue.

Some have said, rather conveniently in my view, that Darling is a "mid sized" forward and therefore he didn't fall into our needs category at the time, principally because we had so many "mid sized" forwards.

Some observations:

1. We picked another of our "mid sized" forwards in the same draft (Jeremy Howe), and we hadn't secured him at the time we passed on Darling. Conveniently though, this argument doesn't seem to be put forward in relation to Cook now that we have Mitch Clark.

2. Because Darling is only 191 cms, some seem to say he wouldn't be capable of playing out of the goal square. Interesting that, given that the following full forwards have won Coleman Medals: Neitz (191cm), Fevola (191cm), Modra (188cm), and Lloyd (192cm). Hurley (192cm) will probably win one too in due course.

Darling IMO would've been capable of playing full forward for us - perhaps not this year, but certainly in the next couple of years. I think he's a very different player to Howe too - we could've had both in our forward line.

And, as an aside, people here (quite rightly) absolutely love Howe because we know we got a little bewdy - not just right now, but well into the future too. I reckon the same joy would've been extended to Darling had we picked him.

That said, we didn't - it's all hypothetical. Cook's a Demon, and I will now fall into line.

Let's hope like buggery Cook is A-grade then. He's got a hell of a long way to go if he's struggling for a gig at Casey, skinny body or no.

For every Reid there's a Beau Dowler, probably more than a few truth be told.

Cook was a luxury punt at a time when our group needed something altogether different. That something was Jack Darling.

Lyon knew it. Neeld knew it. And now Barry P. knows it.

Apparently Gold Coast didn't know it either - they had 8 picks before Darling was selected and didn't take him with any of them - they picked Sam Day and Tom Lynch instead of Darling.

Apparently Carlton didn't know either they picked Matthew Watson.

Were they "luxury punts" too?

For every Darling there's an Angwin.

Give him time, he could still be an Angwin...

Let's hope like buggery Cook is A-grade then. He's got a hell of a long way to go if he's struggling for a gig at Casey, skinny body or no.

For every Reid there's a Beau Dowler, probably more than a few truth be told.

Cook was a luxury punt at a time when our group needed something altogether different. That something was Jack Darling.

Lyon knew it. Neeld knew it. And now Barry P. knows it.

When the hell did this become the accepted truth?

Half the season impressing in the Casey 1s, then a form slump, then surgery for an injury that he would have been trying to play through.

FCS...

And the last line is self-indulgent carp.

FFS look at the season he just had!!! we missed a Golden Opportunity....it is plainly obvious...stop being so conservative...this clubs biggest fault.

Jack Darling has not put a foot wrong since being drafted....the fears clubs had were unfounded. FACT.

i agree wih you on this.. darling will be a star! should have taken a punt. cook as not showed anything to me to scream of just bing a good ordinary player.

I cant believe the people saying that Cook should be given time, using Ben Reid & Dawesas an exaple to a KPP who took some time to make it big.

The glaring difference IMO in this instance is that those fellas were trying to break into a very good collingwood side at the time, so the fact they didnt paly much footy early in their careers was probably due to not being better than some pretty good senior players (presti for Reid etc) rather than taking a long time to develop?

Facepalm...

Lyon knew it. Neeld knew it. And now Barry P. knows it.

Wild speculation. lf you have any evidence, be great for you to share it with us.

The idea that BP is gone because he didn't draft Darling is just absurd.

Wild speculation. lf you have any evidence, be great for you to share it with us.

The idea that BP is gone because he didn't draft Darling is just absurd.

Opposition analyst at Carlton is a clear step down from head of recruiting at Melbourne. Ergo, there must be reason/s why he's gone. Is the Darling/Cook question the only one? Of course not, but it's clearly a lightning rod topic judging by the interest here!

Edited January 25, 201213 yr by Range Rover

Opposition analyst at Carlton is a clear step down from head of recruiting at Melbourne. Ergo, there must be reason/s why he's gone. Is the Darling/Cook question the only one? Of course not, but it's clearly a lightning rod topic judging by the interest shown by posters in this thread.

??? That's all you've got? In your perception, opposition analyst is a step down from head of recruiting, and from that you've jumped to the conclusions that (i) he must have been pushed and (ii) it was because he chose Darling over Cook.

If he wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach.

As for the rest, surely you're not suggesting that because a subject has a few posters on an internet forum, the professionals in the Football Department are going to be taking note and acting accordingly? Is there any evidence anywhere (except in fertile minds) that anyone in the FD could give two hoots about Darling and whether we drafted him or not? For all you know, Neeld and co. could be over the moon that we have the AA under-18 CHF waiting in the wings as a long-term prospect.

??? That's all you've got? In your perception, opposition analyst is a step down from head of recruiting, and from that you've jumped to the conclusions that a) he must have been pushed and B) it was because he chose Darling over Cook.

If he wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach.

As for the rest, surely you're not suggesting that because a subject has a few posters on an internet forum, the professionals in the Football Department are going to be taking note and acting accordingly? Is there any evidence anywhere (except in fertile minds) that anyone in the FD could give two hoots about Darling and whether we drafted him or not? For all you know, Neeld and co. could be over the moon that we have the AA under-18 CHF waiting in the wings as a long-term prospect.

You're comparing Nathan Buckley to Barry Prendergast to support your argument? Puhhlease! Who's really the one reaching?

And ... of course there's no "evidence". Just a few very curious dots that go ... + ... + ... = BP out-the-door.

We should have taken Darling no question. We needed, more than anything else a big bodied forward who could provide a contest. Darling met that need. But that call was not BP's alone. His role was to select according to a template provided by the coach and FD. He chose Cook to meet the criteria of that template.

New coach new recruiting staff. The whole thing handled well with BP's dignity preserved and Neeld able to appoint his own man. All part of the change process.

You're comparing Nathan Buckley to Barry Prendergast ...

No I'm not.

i agree wih you on this.. darling will be a star! should have taken a punt. cook as not showed anything to me to scream of just bing a good ordinary player.

I don't think Darling will be a star, or rather, I don't think he'll be what most here are talking him up to be.

He played for a very well structured side last year and had an ample supply from a top 4 quality midfield.

And if you tuned into any Casey games early last year, you'd know Cook's well worth persisting with and is an extremely exciting prospect.

No I'm not.

"If he (Barry Prendergast) wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach."

Ahhh, yes ... you are.

"If he (Barry Prendergast) wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach."

Ahhh, yes ... you are.

The above is a point about the relative merits of various coaching positions and where opposition analyst might fit on that scale. There is no comparison there between BP and Buckley.

#tedious

We should have taken Darling no question. We needed, more than anything else a big bodied forward who could provide a contest. Darling met that need. But that call was not BP's alone. His role was to select according to a template provided by the coach and FD. He chose Cook to meet the criteria of that template.

New coach new recruiting staff. The whole thing handled well with BP's dignity preserved and Neeld able to appoint his own man. All part of the change process.

Right or wrong, and only time i.e. a few years will tell, WE took Cook > Darling: WE, not BP himself. Of course he was following a grand (or maybe not so grand) plan. As you put it, following the template presumably put out by the then FD.

And we have a new coach with a wide new broom: presumably wants to set up a whole new FD in his own image, which includes recruiting manager.

Did BP jump or was he pushed? We may never know the full story. I suspect a bit of both.

No surprise here. You just had to read between the lines of his interviews during draft time to see he may not have had as much control as previously.

My source who knows Neelds extremely well and has a strong AFL background believes players make coaches - most of us do - but that Neeld comes fom this angle as well.

My guess is that he wants oversight over the type of players he wants when maybe Barry had more autonomy previously.

Either way, If Neeld is happy, I'm happy.

And best wishes to Barry

Darling looks like he'll be a very good player but remember he was playing as 4th tall behind Kennedy, Lynch, Naitanui/Cox and therefore on the 4th tall defender. Inking him in as "the pea" is "a reach".

We've been looking for a long target for quite a while (Hale) and hopefully in Clark we've met that need. Clark, Watts, Jurrah, Howe, Sylvia, Davey that's a pretty formidable forward 6, and we have McDonald, Cook, Williams, Sheahan, Petterd, Green and Dunn also on the list. I'm not missing Jack Darling. If I could go back to that draft with the benefit of hindsight I'd be looking for a midfielder, not another forward.

Maybe we should be arguing the merits of having chosen Atley instead..?

At that stage we weren't fortunate enough to know we'd get Clark though.

If Clark wasn't at the club, I've no doubt we'd be pin ing our tall forward hopes on Martin, McDonald, Watts and Sellar, while hoping Cook comes along pretty bloody quickly.

I think some of Lucas Cook's detractors are being overly and unfairly critical of him and Barry Prendergast for drafting him ahead of Jack Darling.

Firstly, they are two different types and although both are forwards they fit different requirements at their respective clubs. As Old55 pointed out above, Darling was usually the third or fourth tall in the Eagles' attack. He had the mature body, was ready to go as a player rarely pitted against the opposition's best defenders and he prospered as a result.

Rightly or wrongly, Darling was not considered an appropriate top 20 selection by many clubs. Not just Melbourne, but most of the other AFL clubs had the opportunity to take him.

Cook was always going to take longer to develop but in his under 18 year, he was All Australian CHF. The club knew he wouldn't be a ready made player.

He impressed in his brief time on the ground in the first NAB games in February, and while he wasn't outstanding at Casey, he did show promise in the first half of the season including the day he kicked four goals at CHF against Collingwood VFL. He was patchy in other games but there were enough brief cameos from him to suggest that he had the skills to develop into an important player for the club when he matures and develops physically to his capacity.

Late in the season, after a couple of poor games, he was dropped to the reserves and subsequently we learned that he had undergone hip surgery.

I don't believe the club has ever divulged whether there was a direct connection between the drop off in form and the injury, but my guess is that there was one.

We don't even know the nature of the injury and, given that he was reported on a couple of occasions in pre season training as showing signs of distress, I wonder how long he carried the ailment before it was diagnosed and on the flip side, how much his recovery has been held back because of the problem.

In any event, one doesn't know whether the hip issue (whatever it is/was) was evident when the draft took place and I don't believe the fact we took him should be taken as a black mark against BP's recruiting record.

As for the player, he's the type you need to allow a few year's development before you know exactly how good he's going to be.