We are Big and We are getting Strong but we still can't kick a football.....

Well, "big strong kids" is a bit of an oxymoron, the best you could hope for is any two of those. In any case, "big strong kids" we signed in the last 3 years:

Clark, Seller, Sheahan, Davis, McDonald, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Williams - and for strong I'd throw in Tapscott and Magner. Eventually, Cook (big is there, strong will come).

Yes i can see that. But after 5 years of biulding we should have some on the park now. Too many long term prospects for my liking.

Magner & Sellar were Neeld picks.

Not talking about them. BP drafts are my beef.

Basically, the way it seems to me, is that under the Bailey regime we drafted for ability and looked to instill the mental side of things in the players.

It would seem that this was done poorly to boot.

Under the new regime, and going by what I know of the Collingwood model, it appears to me, that the aim is to find kids with ability but there is a greater emphasis on them having the requisite confidence, hunger and attitude to succeed, as well as the body to maintain this.

Its something our more maligned players seem to lack - underdeveloped bodies and not enough of the desire and attack on the footy.

It's marginal, but I think the difference is there.

You mean like Martin and Darling, those types of players?

It beats me how in this day and age we could get it so wrong, football is football and a good player will adapt to the conditions and the game plan, but we have recruited players that are not able to do this and I can't think of any era where some of them would have been able to adapt.

You can recruit players that have the frame that will show they are capable of putting on the desired weight to get them through or you can recruit skinny kids that simply don't have the right body shape. By the time kids are 18 they should begin to show what their body shape will turn out to be like and if a kid is well below his desired height to weight ratio you have to ask the question, you'd think you would anyway.

We love to recruit spuds

We got the double banger there, small and skinny. Did I mention he can't kick over a jam tin either?

Yes i can see that. But after 5 years of biulding we should have some on the park now.

You said "3 years".

And if you go back 5 years, you're not talking about BP.

You said "3 years".

And if you go back 5 years, you're not talking about BP.

Ok. End of the 2007 season, which is into the fifth year.

The problem still remains.

Sure is. Im glad you are enjoying them.

Do you think we have recruited poorly during BP time??

I honestly think we could have recruited anyone and it would have made little/no difference. IMHO all players have talent, you wouldn't get drafted otherwise. How well you can build on that talent is what really counts.

RE BP?? re CC?? it could have been anyone so I lay no blame at the feet of either. Inversely if we where spending $18 million + per year - [censored] yeah I would be asking questions. But I would also be asking questions of our development team, our fitness people, our science people etc.

BP will do a very good job at Carlton. His new role at Carlton is very much needed at MFC.

Magner & Sellar were Neeld picks.

The day your coach makes 100% recruiting decisions you are finished. So I would question this - is this your opinion or are you just making it up?

I honestly think we could have recruited anyone and it would have made little/no difference. IMHO all players have talent, you wouldn't get drafted otherwise. How well you can build on that talent is what really counts.

RE BP?? re CC?? it could have been anyone so I lay no blame at the feet of either. Inversely if we where spending $18 million + per year - [censored] yeah I would be asking questions. But I would also be asking questions of our development team, our fitness people, our science people etc.

BP will do a very good job at Carlton. His new role at Carlton is very much needed at MFC.

So you're saying that given the right development Tambling would have been as good as Franklin and Fiora would have been as good as Pavlich?

Would you now swap Morton for Rioli or do you think we would have inhibited his natural ability?

I see the $6m man had 11 possessions for the Giants today another scorching performance.

I love you, RobbieF!

The above list doesn't take into account needs in terms of list make-up.

It also doesn't allow for future development and the potential for players to pass others.

And I question some of the "preferred options". It's an exercise in hindsight, and lacks foresight.

I only think it works if you'd today do a straight up trade, and even then it doesn't allow for future development.

- would you really prefer Yarran to Watts? Even NicNat and Hurley I have my doubts. None of them are the finished article.

Hurley was a FB with question marks on pace and going forward, plus his attack on the ball is great, but beyond that he is heavily overrated.

- Harry Taylor or Callan Ward over Grimes? You can't predict the injuries.

- Ballantyne, Zaharakis or Redden over Blease? We're yet to see the best of any of them, but Blease we've seen least of to date. Bottom-age and held back by injuries, remember.

- Ash Smith over Bennell?? Really?

- Butcher over Scully? Even Martin over Trengove?

- Bastinac over Gysberts?? Now you've gotta be joking.

- Reid or Christensen over Gawn is way too early when we've not seen enough of Gawn and we needed a ruck. He was a great prospect. Reid's kicking is still iffy and Christensen was bloody lucky to land in a great program.

Yeah but imagine:

- Rioli/Dangerfield over Morton

- Shuey over Blease

- Martin over scully

- Nicnat over Watts

- Fyfe over Gysberts/tapscott,

Of the team that played against port on the weekend only one of the above melbourne players played.

Imagine last nights team with Rioli as our small forward, Nicnat in the ruck and Shuey, Martin and Fyfe added in the midfield.

We have missfired with our early picks too often and it has cost us a chance at a 'dynasty'.

The players selected by other teams after ours were within a couple of picks of ours, they weren't 'missed by everyone'.

At least we got Trengove.

The day your coach makes 100% recruiting decisions you are finished. So I would question this - is this your opinion or are you just making it up?

Considering your post above where you say it doesn't matter really who is recruited, i question whether you have any idea about list management!

Magner & Sellar were recruited after Neeld took the job. Not my opinion.

I honestly think we could have recruited anyone and it would have made little/no difference. IMHO all players have talent, you wouldn't get drafted otherwise. How well you can build on that talent is what really counts.

RE BP?? re CC?? it could have been anyone so I lay no blame at the feet of either. Inversely if we where spending $18 million + per year - [censored] yeah I would be asking questions. But I would also be asking questions of our development team, our fitness people, our science people etc.

BP will do a very good job at Carlton. His new role at Carlton is very much needed at MFC.

Fair call mate. I think BP was famous for speculative picks rather than common sense ones. But maybe Im on my own on that one?

Whilst I would like to blame others, I think the recruiters have majorly stuffed up. We are relying on rookies to pull us through.

Yeah but imagine:

- Rioli/Dangerfield over Morton

- Shuey over Blease

- Martin over scully

- Nicnat over Watts

- Fyfe over Gysberts/tapscott,

Of the team that played against port on the weekend only one of the above melbourne players played.

Imagine last nights team with Rioli as our small forward, Nicnat in the ruck and Shuey, Martin and Fyfe added in the midfield.

We have missfired with our early picks too often and it has cost us a chance at a 'dynasty'.

The players selected by other teams after ours were within a couple of picks of ours, they weren't 'missed by everyone'.

At least we got Trengove.

- Everyone missed Fyfe, even Freo the 1st time around

- not convinced Shuey will be better than Blease

- Nor NicNat over Watts

- Morton is injured

- Scully was consensus number 1, but even still he is irrelevant as he is gone -- wait and see what we get with the compo picks

Plus all the players are still developing.

Some have shown their hand, others have not, but you do not draft a player for the player they will be in their first 3 years.

Some are even 5-7 year propositions.

The above list doesn't take into account needs in terms of list make-up.

It also doesn't allow for future development and the potential for players to pass others.

And I question some of the "preferred options". It's an exercise in hindsight, and lacks foresight.

I only think it works if you'd today do a straight up trade, and even then it doesn't allow for future development.

- would you really prefer Yarran to Watts? Even NicNat and Hurley I have my doubts. None of them are the finished article.

Hurley was a FB with question marks on pace and going forward, plus his attack on the ball is great, but beyond that he is heavily overrated.

- Harry Taylor or Callan Ward over Grimes? You can't predict the injuries.

- Ballantyne, Zaharakis or Redden over Blease? We're yet to see the best of any of them, but Blease we've seen least of to date. Bottom-age and held back by injuries, remember.

- Ash Smith over Bennell?? Really?

- Butcher over Scully? Even Martin over Trengove?

- Bastinac over Gysberts?? Now you've gotta be joking.

- Reid or Christensen over Gawn is way too early when we've not seen enough of Gawn and we needed a ruck. He was a great prospect. Reid's kicking is still iffy and Christensen was bloody lucky to land in a great program.

You obviously missed the bit where I said its too early to tell. This is a no excuses look based on if you drafted now. It shows in my opinion that in no case with the exception of maybe Trengove have we picked the best of the bunch. However in most cases we have done ok comparative to at least half the other players taken within ten picks. I did not take into consideration Scullys departure I just dont rate him very highly and think we will in the future see as fortunate the picks we received and the money we saved.

Michael Hurley-Jack Watts. Would happily trade.

So you're saying that given the right development Tambling would have been as good as Franklin and Fiora would have been as good as Pavlich?

Would you now swap Morton for Rioli or do you think we would have inhibited his natural ability?

What I would swap is the amount of money each team spends inside their football department. Top picks are not a guarantee to success the only improve your probability. In todays football environment - I would follow the Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast, Hawthorn, Carlton model where first I would invest - top quality well funded football department allow players & attract players to reach their full potential. But there is a definite lag period.

Supporters superficially over focus on high draft picks and dont look to develop your COMPLETE list. Most punters dont understand the "science" of modern day football. They take the simple approach blame the players, blame the head of your drafting team.

Tambling never had a chance. Tigers in the last few years are spending millions off-field. I hope & prey it does not transfer towards on-field success but I fear it might.

What I would swap is the amount of money each team spends inside their football department. Top picks are not a guarantee to success the only improve your probability. In todays football environment - I would follow the Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast, Hawthorn, Carlton model where first I would invest - top quality well funded football department allow players & attract players to reach their full potential. But there is a definite lag period.

Supporters superficially over focus on high draft picks and dont look to develop your COMPLETE list. Most punters dont understand the "science" of modern day football. They take the simple approach blame the players, blame the head of your drafting team.

Tambling never had a chance. Tigers in the last few years are spending millions off-field. I hope & prey it does not transfer towards on-field success but I fear it might.

excellent Dr. A topic we can agree on. Tanking for early picks did not help us.

Thankfully the footy dept will continue to grow. But we have a long road.

The call from the more intelligent supporter is to come back in 10 years.

Geelong is the classic example. Remember how their list was built?

http://afl.com.au/ne...80/default.aspx

In the fifth year after Ablett, Bartel, Kelly and Steve Johnson arrived at the club and in the seventh year after Mooney was traded for and Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright were drafted Geelong finished 10th and Thompson almost lost his job. I don't need to remind anyone here what happened to Geelong in 2007 - 2011. How was Ablett rated after 3 years? Were Bartel, Kelly and Steve Johnson certain to emerge as superstars? Was Mooney considered a great trade option? The 1999 crew (Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright) were entering their peak. At the end of 2006 did many anticipate they'd become multiple premiership and All-Australian players?

I'm not suggesting that Blease, Strauss, Watts, Grimes, Trengove, Tapscott, Bennell, McKenzie, Bail, Gawn and Morton will necessarily go on to match the Geelong players I've mentioned above but clearly coming back "in a few years" is still too soon.

Yes people forget the call for Thomspons head after the dreadful 2006 - people also forget how the Cats went in 2004 and 2005 as well. If we're judging ourselves by those standards we should have made the Prelim last year.

Considering your post above where you say it doesn't matter really who is recruited, i question whether you have any idea about list management!

Magner & Sellar were recruited after Neeld took the job. Not my opinion.

Magner & Seller where not Neelds picks. They where selected by our drafting team. Massive difference. Are you smoking weed?

Magner & Seller where not Neelds picks. They where selected by our drafting team. Massive difference. Are you smoking weed?

A drafting team who were now answerable to Mark Neeld as Head Coach.

No weed mate, got any spare?

Yes people forget the call for Thomspons head after the dreadful 2006 - people also forget how the Cats went in 2004 and 2005 as well. If we're judging ourselves by those standards we should have made the Prelim last year.

Three of the best recruits Geelong ever got where a blokes called Frank Costa & Brian Cook - funny thing is neither played in any of their recent premierships. Neil Balme was a stroke of luck - oh and he never got any kicks either.

A drafting team who were now answerable to Mark Neeld as Head Coach.

No weed mate, got any spare?

Wrong - do you really know what is happening in our club? Our recruiting team is answerable to head of our football department. Mark Neeld is our coach.

Yes people forget the call for Thomspons head after the dreadful 2006 - people also forget how the Cats went in 2004 and 2005 as well. If we're judging ourselves by those standards we should have made the Prelim last year.

I'm not comparing teams, I'm comparing rates of player development. My reference to Thompson was merely to suggest that a coach lives and dies by player performance and sometimes a club is rewarded if they show patience with the vision of the coach who has committed to a re-build as Thompson did.

Wrong - do you really know what is happening in our club? Our recruiting team is answerable to head of our football department. Mark Neeld is our coach.

Neeld will have told them what the list is lacking i have no doubt. Why else would mature bodies be picked at that draft.

The coach is the first to get knifed. We all know that. You don't think Neeld and our FD Head did not have long nights with a whiteboard and coffee before the draft?