Dennis Cometti sticks the boot in

[old dee 22,980]

I have heard a number of commentators ( x players ) and x coaches make similar comments to DC's

On top of that is our wonderful performances over the last 4 years.

I can find little to disagree with in the majority of cases.

The simple facts are we have gone no where in the last four years, our higher draft picks have turned into average players so far.

I find that with a large number of Dees supporters it is a case of shoot the messenger.

We have a poor team simple as that

[Guest Dr Who]

You have an overly emotional way of posting (!!! ??), but I'll press on.

Every footy supporter knows that player development and a club's football department spend is crucial. Why do you waste so much time stating the bleeding obvious ? It's just as important that you get your draft picks right so that the enormous investment that is put into these players will yield the best return. Draft the kids with the best talent and spend heavily in developing them.

You even acknowledge that our draft picks this year are like gold, so clearly you understand the importance of getting them right. If you think that massive dollars spent on every top 20 pick will yield fantastic returns you're delusional. As in any field of work some people are better than others and it's no different with recruiters. Picking the right players will always be as important as the dollars spent at developing them.

Your premise that it's purely player development that is important and not the players recruited shows a complete lack of understanding of recruiting as well as talent identification..

You are so much living in a different era - plus you constantly & continually miss the point.

Picking the "right" player - easy after the event which is 100% what you criticism is based on.

ALL players that get drafted have talent - a process you clearly dont understand. You would not get drafted if you didn't.

I'm, sorry but nearly all what you say is over generalised simplistic out-dated fluff - you never provide alternatives just simply "we got it wrong".

it is you who clearly fails to understand modern day AFL football.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You are so much living in a different era - plus you constantly & continually miss the point.

Picking the "right" player - easy after the event which is 100% what you criticism is based on.

ALL players that get drafted have talent - a process you clearly dont understand. You would not get drafted if you didn't.

I'm, sorry but nearly all what you say is over generalised simplistic out-dated fluff - you never provide alternatives just simply "we got it wrong".

it is you who clearly fails to understand modern day AFL football.

You make sweeping comments, such as you don't understand modern footy, etc, but here's a simple request. Quote exactly what I've said with which you disagree. And I'm referring to specific sentences.

Thanks.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[Guest Dr Who]

Ok - here you go then i will quote your exact words and reapeat what I said

Your Words "Most professionals in footy clubs consider the head recruiter as the most important person at the club."

Old hat thinking - yes I would been agreeing with you 4-5 years ago - However, TODAY its clear the key people are your fitness/recovery, your development/coaches, your science people.

Now I will extent if for you - NOW in modern football recruiting "the recruiter" will sit done with the developmental team and say 'here are the plus's and negatives for kid X" can you work with that - Yes or No .... it blows your whole argument away, its modern day reality its a collective team decisions. Some you will win some you will lose.

You cant blame "recruiting" its in the hands of the development team. The AFL had recognised this. Development costs $$$$$.

Then you mention players - hypothetically "if we have recruited player X" your implying all would be different. There is not a shred of evidence to prove that. Its all "in your opinion".

Your Words - But equally, anyone that doesn't understand the importance of talent identificiation and the value of early draft picks has little idea about footy.

Early draft picks are only any good if you have the $$$$$$ to develop them. Its not the draft pick by its self in isolation that counts. Its tooooooo simplstic - its old had think.

​All research clearly shows - give high draft picks(1-20ish) to poor developing clubs vs lower draft pick(20ish+) to quality developing clubs. The development side win every time.

However give high drafts picks (1-20) to good developing clubs BINGO - the A-graders start to appear - "deep pockets theory"

You also use the words "Every" & "ALL" on a few occasions - I'm sorry but that not correct. It should read "Old hat thinkers" - the game has moved forward.

Your words - Why do you think our two compensation picks in this year's superdraft are like gold ?

Draft equalisation is a myth - its football department spend equalisation that WILL make the difference. Even the AFL has recognised that.

Plus you also cite example where club x took player y - the implication was the 'talent identification was so obvious" - yet the example you quote where in fact not even their first choices.

Players normally sit in a generally excepted drafting range by all drafters - some you win some you lose. Phantom drafting is huge inside AFL clubs, player ratings - but its about balance some you punt that some might fall to your next pick some you wont - but you may punt on player x - but team y gets in first. [censored] happens - but the never meant you did not identify his TALENT.

I should also add - most of the "talent" pool is pretty well exposed these days thanks to the TAC cup, quality professional junior football AFL run system, draft camps, physical & mental testing etc The formula is maturing. Its very hard "to keep secrets" in AFL football these days - hence the use of social media to "spread little white mis-truths" - hello Mr Darling.

Hope this helps you - hope you at least read it this time - but I fear it wont. Your choice.

Have a great Easter

Edited April 6, 2012 by Dr Who

[Hannibal 5,814]

Ok - here you go then i will quote your exact words and reapeat what I said

Your Words "Most professionals in footy clubs consider the head recruiter as the most important person at the club."

Old hat thinking - yes I would been agreeing with you 4-5 years ago - However, TODAY its clear the key people are your fitness/recover, your development/coaches, your science people.

Now I will extent if for you - NOW in modern football recruiting "the recruiter" will sit done with the developmental team and say 'here are the plus's and negatives for kid X" can you work with that - Yes or No .... it blows your whole argument away, its modern day reality its a collective team decisions. Some you will win some you will lose.

You cant blame "recruiting" its in the hands of the development team. The AFL had recognised this. Development costs $$$$$.

Then you mention players - hypothetically "if we have recruited player X" your implying all would be different. There is not a shred of evidence to prove that. Its all "in your opinion".

Your Words - But equally, anyone that doesn't understand the importance of talent identificiation and the value of early draft picks has little idea about footy.

Early draft picks are only any good if you have the $$$$$$ to develop them. Its not the draft pick by its self in isolation that counts. Its tooooooo simplstic - its old had think.

​All research clearly shows - give high draft picks to poor developing clubs vs lower draft pick to quality developing clubs. The development side win every time.

You also use the words "Every" & "ALL" on a few occasions - I'm sorry but that not correct. It should read "Old hat thinkers" - the game has moved forward.

Your words - Why do you think our two compensation picks in this year's superdraft are like gold ?

Draft equalisation is a myth - its football department spend equalisation that WILL make the difference. Even the AFL has recognised that.

Plus you also cite example where club x took player y - the implication was the 'talent identification was so obvious" - yet the example you quote where in fact not even their first choices.

Players normally sit in a generally excepted drafting range by all drafters - some you win some you lose. Phantom drafting is huge inside AFL clubs, player ratings - but its about balance some you punt that might fall to your next pick some you wont - but you may punt on player x - but team y gets in first. [censored] happens - but the never meant you did not identify his TALENT.

Hope this help you - but I fear it wont.

Your fears are well founded.

The 3 most important people at a footy club are the head recruiter, the coach and the head of sports science. I'd agree that they're all virtually equally important, although some would profile them slightly differently. To glibly say, as you did in post 12 of this thread, "Anyone that say (sic) it is recruiting has rocks in his head" is a nonsense. .

Then you stumble about talking about dollars and development. It's already been argued by myself that development is critically important. Why do you assume I don't agree with this basic tenet even though I clearly state I do ? Do you think that if you say it often enough there's an inference that I don't ? I have to assume that's the case, otherwise you have extreme comprehension issues. Hang on ...

Your little lecture about talent is cute, but shallow. Of course all recruiters recognise a players "talent", but it's the good ones that identify how that talent will translate to AFL level. Some recruiters talk themselves out of a player because they concentrate too much on their limitations and not enough on a player's strengths. Craig Cameron told me years ago that he made a mistake not drafting Simon Black. He knew how good Black was and watched him rack up numerous 30+ possession games, but he convinced himself that Black had pace issues that would hinder him at AFL level. Other recruiters obviously had the same concerns (and they do talk) and Black was subsequently picked in the 30's and the rest is history. Cameron told me that he won't second guess himself in the future, but more go with his gut feeling. You seem to think that all recruiters are the same and that it's purely dollars spent that make the difference. I clearly disagree. While every single recruiter makes mistakes the best shine and are rightly lauded by their contemporaries. Your dismissiveness of the art of recruiting is telling and doesn't serve you well. Yes, yes, I know that you'll state that you're talking about today and not years ago. Recruiting is still very much an art, which is evidenced by us trying to lure Collingwood's assistant recruiter away much to the displeasure of Eddie Maguire. Why would we be doing that if it wasn't so important ? I'll let others form their own conclusions.

There's a reason that first round draft picks have a much higher success rate and it's not just dollars, it's because those players have superior talent. No-one is suggesting that dollars and development isn't important, no-one is suggesting that players won't succeed that are picked up late in the national draft, PSD, or rookie draft. No-one is suggesting that all players in the draft aren't talented to a degree, but what they are suggesting is that some recruiters and clubs recruit better than others and it's not just the development programs of those clubs - not withstanding the importance of that component.

I suspect you won't add anything fruitful, but I look forward to your hysterical ravings and $$$$, !!!!, ???? in due course.

Cheers.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

If it was an error not to draft Darling then you would have chosen Darling instead of Cook. Please let me know why , why do you rate darling over cook.

Everyone does.

And to put it in simple terms, what pick do you think every other club in the competition would now trade for: (a) Darling; and (B) Cook?

Cop a tip - Darling would attract a much higher pick than Cook. Let the market tell you whether Darling's been a good pick.

Also, this is not hindsight - everyone on this site was shocked when we didn't pick him at 12. Hardly anyone of us (and the AFL world generally) knew Cook was even in the mix at that pick.

[dpositive 1,558]

It aint all $$$$

Research has always shown that it is not only money that motivates and results in action. While I agree that a structured football department may cost more $ than the club has previously outlayed it is not the only factor.

Development is indeed a dark art, predicting a gamble.

Getting it right is usually some sort of compromise and an amount of luck.

While we all say you make your own luck there are often things outside your control that will effect an outcome it is how you manage those variables that will lead to success.

Using the cards in your hand is as important as waiting for the next.

With sound human relations management the club will progress and I say it again it aint all about the money!

[Sdemon53 15]

The truth is that we as a club have not been ruthless in our desire to be successful.

You could not get better than Norm Smith and Jim Cardwell. Along with a board in the 1950's that supported them.

If we go from 2001 we have had boards that was not up to the job until Jym Stynes and his board came along. However the damage had been done which Dennis Cometti has pointed out in the draft selections.

However the change has happened with the 2011 draft. We have Mitch Clark, Rory Taggert, James Sellar, Tom Couch, James Magner and Leigh Williams. All these players selected are solid players. With Clark, Sellar, Couch and Magner having some sort of effect in the pre-season.

The other factor we have to remember is that in 2003 there was dirty big Xmas bells ringing when we finished 14th. Daniher offered his resignation if my memory is correct. Paul Gardner and the board would not accept it. Pity we did not have a board that wanted success and took the resignation and then the attitude that Hawthorn did. In 2003/2004 we had some players with currency that we could have traded and maybe got some of the top drafts that would have given us a better chance.

One factor here we all have to understand is that who ever is managing the recruitment of players is also influenced by the coaching staff, mainly the senior coach. So we must remember there is many aspects in selecting a player. What we need is the correct formula for selection which gives us the players that is needed to field a side that can more than hold its own against all other sides in the AFL. Result being a premeirship.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,078]

There is always an element of luck in picking players. Until Cotchin and Dustin Martin everyone was saying how terrible Richmond's recruiting has been.

Personally, I think out midfield has never recovered from losing Scotty Thompson.

Morton - clear stand out for pick 4 - had had a huge carnival, huge upside and although a West Australian - no fear his father had already told the Eagles where and how they could stick their jumper up their rear ends. Morton reminds me of a young Goddard - Hello David. Time, time time.

He looks to me like another Travis Johnstone - 'potential' and 'talent' mean sweat FA if they never develop into hard working players. Melbourne has been great at holding on to some pretty ordinary players - Brad Miller was a fine example (his break out game was 'just around the corner' but it never came.) Whereas I always thought that Ferguson was shown the door too early.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,078]

The other factor we have to remember is that in 2003 there was dirty big Xmas bells ringing when we finished 14th. Daniher offered his resignation if my memory is correct. Paul Gardner and the board would not accept it. Pity we did not have a board that wanted success and took the resignation and then the attitude that Hawthorn did. In 2003/2004 we had some players with currency that we could have traded and maybe got some of the top drafts that would have given us a better chance.

Sums it up perfectly.

[Guest Dr Who]

Your fears are well founded.

The 3 most important people at a footy club are the head recruiter, the coach and the head of sports science. I'd agree that they're all virtually equally important, although some would profile them slightly differently. To glibly say, as you did in post 12 of this thread, "Anyone that say (sic) it is recruiting has rocks in his head" is a nonsense. .

Then you stumble about talking about dollars and development. It's already been argued by myself that development is critically important. Why do you assume I don't agree with this basic tenet even though I clearly state I do ? Do you think that if you say it often enough there's an inference that I don't ? I have to assume that's the case, otherwise you have extreme comprehension issues. Hang on ...

Your little lecture about talent is cute, but shallow. Of course all recruiters recognise a players "talent", but it's the good ones that identify how that talent will translate to AFL level. Some recruiters talk themselves out of a player because they concentrate too much on their limitations and not enough on a player's strengths. Craig Cameron told me years ago that he made a mistake not drafting Simon Black. He knew how good Black was and watched him rack up numerous 30+ possession games, but he convinced himself that Black had pace issues that would hinder him at AFL level. Other recruiters obviously had the same concerns (and they do talk) and Black was subsequently picked in the 30's and the rest is history. Cameron told me that he won't second guess himself in the future, but more go with his gut feeling. You seem to think that all recruiters are the same and that it's purely dollars spent that make the difference. I clearly disagree. While every single recruiter makes mistakes the best shine and are rightly lauded by their contemporaries. Your dismissiveness of the art of recruiting is telling and doesn't serve you well. Yes, yes, I know that you'll state that you're talking about today and not years ago. Recruiting is still very much an art, which is evidenced by us trying to lure Collingwood's assistant recruiter away much to the displeasure of Eddie Maguire. Why would we be doing that if it wasn't so important ? I'll let others form their own conclusions.

There's a reason that first round draft picks have a much higher success rate and it's not just dollars, it's because those players have superior talent. No-one is suggesting that dollars and development isn't important, no-one is suggesting that players won't succeed that are picked up late in the national draft, PSD, or rookie draft. No-one is suggesting that all players in the draft aren't talented to a degree, but what they are suggesting is that some recruiters and clubs recruit better than others and it's not just the development programs of those clubs - not withstanding the importance of that component.

I suspect you won't add anything fruitful, but I look forward to your hysterical ravings and $$$$, !!!!, ???? in due course.

Cheers.

This is opinionated rubbish, absolute rubbish. by a person who clearly does not follow junior football. Its all "old hat" opinions - big on opinion - low in facts.

You never, never reply to my points - I can only assume thats because you lack the ability to argue the facts.

You clearly dont read what you write - you clearly dont read what others write - as you have already confessed.

No big deal to me. Yes, I do get frustrated with "old hate" thinkers like you because your "TYPE" of thinking is our very problem.

But again no big deal - I also enjoy learning from quality developing clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast & Geelong - I'm not that "one-eyed" to say we cant learn from others - hence our desire to import their knowledge.

[Guest Dr Who]

Your fears are well founded.

The 3 most important people at a footy club are the head recruiter, the coach and the head of sports science.

This comment is so laughably in modern day football.

Yeah the Coach is sooooo important, you can bring a "first year" coach in and he can win a premiership. hahahaha - its your "coaching/development" TEAM. If the structures are good around him he is only a cog in the wheel. Yes an important cog - but not irreplaceable in MODERN day football.

Head recruiter - more rubbish, its a TEAM your living in another era - football has moved forward.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Dr Who

[Return to Glory 7,787]

Let's not stray too far from the point.......Commetti is a [censored] and increasingly unfunny.

[old dee 22,980]

Let's not stray too far from the point.......Commetti is a [censored] and increasingly unfunny.

Sorry RTG but he is not.

What is it that you do not understand about the MFC team of 2012?

It is everything that Commetti has said.

The proof is in the results of 2011 and now 2012.

We are a very poor team.

What is it that Commetti has said that you find incorrect?

[Return to Glory 7,787]

When you say he's not, I guess you mean funny. I think his routine as a commentator is increasingly tired and contrived. I put him in the same category as the Coodabeens with Greg Champion flogging his 20th version of The Lion Sleeps Tonight with associated word changes.

1,'And the recruiting has been shocking.' - way too early to say as Geelong's development will support

2, Bland - when young teams get a pasting they do go into their shells but that's not bland, that's overawed and, again, is a process of development

3, Football has moved on from the 50's and 60's. As Garry Lyon said to Commetti, 'it's irrelevant' in relation to the now

4, We won more games in 2011 than 2010. We have had 2 rounds so far.

I tell you what I do understand about the Dees of 2012; they will finish this season as men with a genuine appetite for the contest. So yeah, he's a bit of a [censored] imo

[old dee 22,980]

When you say he's not, I guess you mean funny. I think his routine as a commentator is increasingly tired and contrived. I put him in the same category as the Coodabeens with Greg Champion flogging his 20th version of The Lion Sleeps Tonight with associated word changes.

1,'And the recruiting has been shocking.' - way too early to say as Geelong's development will support

2, Bland - when young teams get a pasting they do go into their shells but that's not bland, that's overawed and, again, is a process of development

3, Football has moved on from the 50's and 60's. As Garry Lyon said to Commetti, 'it's irrelevant' in relation to the now

4, We won more games in 2011 than 2010. We have had 2 rounds so far.

I tell you what I do understand about the Dees of 2012; they will finish this season as men with a genuine appetite for the contest. So yeah, he's a bit of a [censored] imo

Well all I can say is dream on it beats reality all the time.

[Return to Glory 7,787]

Happy to dream on old dee and 'like a cork in the ocean' you'll keep bobbing up with 'centimetre perfect' replies

[old dee 22,980]

Happy to dream on old dee and 'like a cork in the ocean' you'll keep bobbing up with 'centimetre perfect' replies

I have been dreaming for way to long RtG.

But as I said it beats reality

[Guest Dr Who]

I have been dreaming for way to long RtG.

But as I said it beats reality

I would suggest it not "reality" more just your opinion trying to be passed off as "reality".

The facts point elsewhere - but if you and others clearly dont know the facts - DC comments are shallow, simplistic, outdated and cheap - but as I said elsewhere nothing I dont expect from some MFC "supporters." Because they are not really "supporters" they are keyboard hero critics - & far from "supporters".

[Hannibal 5,814]

This comment is so laughably in modern day football. Yeah the Coach is sooooo important, you can bring a "first year" coach in and he can win a premiership. hahahaha - its your "coaching/development" TEAM.

Head recruiter - more rubbish, its a TEAM your living in another era - football has moved forward.

So, according to you, the head coach isn't overly important, even though he sets the tone of the club, and the head recruiter certainly isn't. And you keep referencing "modern football" ?

The shallowness of your thinking is truly mind boggling.

Congratulations.

[daisycutter 28,681]

I would suggest it not "reality" more just your opinion trying to be passed off as "reality".

The facts point elsewhere - but if you and others clearly dont know the facts - DC comments are shallow, simplistic, outdated and cheap - but as I said elsewhere nothing I dont expect from some MFC "supporters." Because they are not really "supporters" they are keyboard hero critics - & far from "supporters".

hahaha, at least you give me a good laugh everyday Dr?

btw why don't you stand for the board as Demonland's Supporters' Representative? We'll all vote for you.

your slogan could be "modern members for modern football"

posters might be able to come up with some more slogans

Go for it Dr?. You're our best bet, the rest of us are too inartikukayte

[hardtack 10,129]

"modern members for modern football"

Is that an anatomical reference?

[old dee 22,980]

Is that an anatomical reference?

my third smile for today!

[Hannibal 5,814]

hahaha, at least you give me a good laugh everyday Dr?

btw why don't you stand for the board as Demonland's Supporters' Representative? We'll all vote for you.

your slogan could be "modern members for modern football"

posters might be able to come up with some more slogans

Go for it Dr?. You're our best bet, the rest of us are too inartikukayte

I heard Carey on Triple M over the weekend and he was adamant that they would not have won a flag without Pagan as coach. He said Pagan was instrumental in harnessing the talent and providing the direction the club needed. I've also heard Brad Scott say that Matthews was pivotal to their success and changed the entire club the moment he walked in the door.

Of course, according to our good Doctor, those premierships of 10-15 years ago are anachronistic, they're almost from another lifetime and certainly don't represent "modern football", where it's only about development and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Guest Dr Who]

So, according to you, the head coach isn't overly important, even though he sets the tone of the club, and the head recruiter certainly isn't. And you keep referencing "modern football" ?

The shallowness of your thinking is truly mind boggling.

Congratulations.

Shallowness is what your argument is based all around.

Re head coach read what I said "If the structures are good around him he is only a cog in the wheel. Yes an important cog - but not irreplaceable in MODERN day football."

So its you who should be congratulated for continually missing the point. Doesnt matter how many ways we point it out to you - you are "thinking" in another era.

But carry on. I'm surprised you dont argue the world is flat - same argument different era.