What a ridiculous statement. I started this thread to seek out a discussion. I imagine every club is different due to the personnel they have.

And IF I was coach I would want the ultimate say in who gets drafted BUT coaches tenure is notoriously short so a club can't rely solely on a coach otherwise you could end up with a new coach coming in and throwing out the previous recruits. But he has to have a key say as his is the most accountable position of all. BP on the other hand can walk and say syonara and we are left holding the baby

So who is it then the Coach or the Recruiter?

BP could indeed say syonara but what would his job prospects be if he stuffed up and how would he feel if his career went down the tubes bacause he was continually overruled by the coach who made wrong decisions?

That's what's called a compromised position.

Recruiters spend years looking at players that may be available to them in the draft and then they have to decide who is best suited to their club. Coaches spend most of their time looking at their existing players and have enough on their mind as is is; I doubt you'd see too many coaches sitting through Country and Interstate games during the year spotting talent. If they're not guided by their recruiters, they either have no faith in them, or they're idiots.

That's simply not true - he was opposition analyst for us before he became head recruiter, now he has gone back to that role with the Blues.

I don't think BP would have left if was satisfied in his role - .... But there's no telling what made him unsatisfied ...

That's a big jump between those two statements ....

In any case, of course he could have left if he was satisfied with his role. An opportunity suddenly presents itself: greener pastures, change of scenery, a new challenge, more money? I've read posts from Carlton supporters saying that they deliberately head-hunted BP.

Just so much conjecture masquerading as fact around here these days.

Are you trying to get into a 'development is important' argument because I believe that. In fact, you have 'rubbished' a few posts of mine stating that...

The point I am making here is that the talent is at the pointy end of the Nat Draft and it should be the primary concern of the recruiters to get right the names they call first.

No- no - no - Let me give you some articles worth reading -

http://tensport.com.au/news/theroar/AFL-Is-footy-department-spending-an-unfair-modern-trend.htm

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/collingwood-top-the-list-of-afl-spenders-on-their-way-to-premiership-north-melbourne-do-it-cheap/story-e6frf3e3-1226049597339

http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/16/is-footy-department-spending-an-unfair-modern-trend/

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120603/default.aspx

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=110049

Hope you enjoy the reading -

That's a big jump between those two statements ....

In any case, of course he could have left if he was satisfied with his role. An opportunity suddenly presents itself: greener pastures, change of scenery, a new challenge, more money? I've read posts from Carlton supporters saying that they deliberately head-hunted BP.

Just so much conjecture masquerading as fact around here these days.

The Carlton supporters are a 100% right they "head-hunted" him for a reason - he was perfect for the "new age role" they had in mind. BP's skill set was perfect -

Yeah I think you should your definition of star or a-grade player appears very loose.

So no Swan? No Mitchell? No Sandilands? No Goodes? No Jonathan Brown? No Matty Boyd?

No Nasher said he was an exception to the rule. I was merely asking the question was he?

It is - I began including any good player really, because it's not just about stars.

Most good players come from top 30 picks.

There are flukes outside of that who become stars, but they're the exception, not the rule.

And the term "stars" for me is more inclusive than yours, by the looks of it.

Of your list Sandilands is a ruckman, and therefore for me does not count.

Goodes was a special case where there was a limit on

And they're ALL players aged 28+.

Since then, drafting has improved to a much finer science.

Players on the verge of stardom: Fyfe, Cotchin, Kreuzer, Deledio, Griffen, Josh Kennedy (WC) are all high picks too.

So who is it then the Coach or the Recruiter?

BP could indeed say syonara but what would his job prospects be if he stuffed up and how would he feel if his career went down the tubes bacause he was continually overruled by the coach who made wrong decisions?

That's what's called a compromised position.

Recruiters spend years looking at players that may be available to them in the draft and then they have to decide who is best suited to their club. Coaches spend most of their time looking at their existing players and have enough on their mind as is is; I doubt you'd see too many coaches sitting through Country and Interstate games during the year spotting talent. If they're not guided by their recruiters, they either have no faith in them, or they're idiots.

Just to make it really clear for you I think it is neither. It's group think.

No- no - no - Let me give you some articles worth reading -

http://tensport.com....odern-trend.htm

http://www.foxsports...3-1226049597339

http://www.theroar.c...r-modern-trend/

http://www.afl.com.a...03/default.aspx

http://www.afl.com.a...x?newsid=110049

Hope you enjoy the reading -

FCS, I have said that development is important, and before you swaggered into Demonland we have had the argument.

The best teams right now have married great recruitment from 2000 to 2005 and enhanced player development.

Stop trying to turn this thread into a thread you would like it to be, go and find the one who have carpet bombed with Ben-Hur.

I am saying that the most talented players are found at the pointy end of the draft and that it is effing important for a recruiter to get them right, and IN A COMPLETELY SEPERATE ARGUMENT for the club to then spend the money to develop them properly.

That's a big jump between those two statements ....

In any case, of course he could have left if he was satisfied with his role. An opportunity suddenly presents itself: greener pastures, change of scenery, a new challenge, more money? I've read posts from Carlton supporters saying that they deliberately head-hunted BP.

Just so much conjecture masquerading as fact around here these days.

The 1st sentence of the post was simply to point out that stevethemanjordan was talking crap in between insulting people.

The 2nd part was my conjecture - that BP wouldn't have left if he was satisfied with his job, particularly when it's incomplete (see Scully picks) - there's a number of reasons with he may have been unsatisfied though.

You'll note that the paragraph starts with "I don't think". Can I make it any clearer to you that I'm not presenting it as fact? When I'm presenting a fact I'll say some like "I know for a fact that BP didn't leave because Mark Neeld forced him out" but I didn't say that did I?

Here's a beauty for all you "know-it-all's".

Read this;

http://www.theage.co...1117-17xqp.html

This is a link to Emma Quayle's 2010 Phantom Draft. As a massive % of posters on here juice up every time Emma opens her mouth regarding draft picks, she too would've passed on Darling at our pick. In fact, she didn't even have Darling in her Top 25. Yet, there was a thread on here recently trying to create interest in someone like Emma becomming our head recruiter. did the Eagles pull the wool over her eyes too?

It's not a case of having 2 bob each way RF, it's about how the roles are, and how they work with each other. You are incorrect in what you are saying, and I think you need to admit it.

Answer: Yes she did. Read this ... http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/jacks-not-every-clubs-darling-20101116-17vwe.html

Emma got sucked into the WC sting as well.

Is it ? I would suggest that none of Tapscott, Gysberts, Strauss, Blease, Fitzpatrick, Gawn ( yes I know he's injured), Cook, Jetta ( yes again), Bennell have yet shown enough to suggest they will make it. I would offer the suggestion that they are, collectively, one dimensional selections which might provide a clue as to why they went to Magner & Crouch in the pre-seasn Rookie draft.

Ticks to Trengove, Watts ( both obvious choices I would suggest ), Howe, Martin

Question marks on Bail, McDonald. was Morton one of his ?

Maric already gone.

Average performance with the picks we have had

Wow this is the issue I have with this kind of talk

Blease has played 6 games (after suffering a horrific leg injury just prior to being drafted). Could we give the kid a few games and preseasons before predicting whether he's "got it" at AFL level?

Tapscott, injury after injury - 16 games

Gysberts, injury after injury - 18 games

Bail - injury after injury - 21 games

Cook hasn't played...injured. Gawn looked pretty good for a young man mountain in his 4 games.

Fitzpatrick....1 game

Bennell I'll give you, looks a potential bust. 50 odd games in and he's still showing little progression (no good under pressure, shouldn't be playing back line). Jetta's shown a little, always injured.

We cannot yet judge BP.

what's killing us in the Cameron years

We have an absolute DEARTH of experienced 25 - 29 year olds

THIS is killing us

Is it no coincidence that Geelong SLAUGHTERED the 2001 draft and look at where they are now?

One side refused to take the word of a simpleton, the other refused to take rumours as facts.

Not quite how I'd put it Rp but let's not go there.

I am saying that the most talented players are found at the pointy end of the draft and that it is effing important for a recruiter to get them right

This is absolutely correct, in fact the whole drafting system is based on this very premise. All the money in the world won't change a spud into a decent player, though of course a lack of (well spent) money may mean decent players turn into spuds.

I think we can ll agree that there has been poor player development over at least the last 10 years at Melbourne, which in large part is due the lack of financial resources in the FD. However its very important to note that money aint everything. For one thing it has to be used wisely to be of use. Also there has been examples of clubs in the same time period (last 10 years) who have had similar FD spends but have been much better at developing players IMO. Bulldogs, Sydney Swans and North come to mind. You could probably include Richmond, at least in the last 2 years.

Club culture also plays a key role in the development of players. For example what Melbourne fan would not love to have a bit of the Shinboner fighting spirit North are renowned for. Players coming to that club are immersed in that culture and develop accordingly. I shudder to think what young players have been immersed in at the dees since Northey left. Love him or hate him but Scully, if rumors are true, made it clear that something was wrong with the culture at Melbourne. And Neeld will try to develop a better, stronger one.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by binman

Answer: Yes she did. Read this ... http://www.theage.co...1116-17vwe.html

Emma got sucked into the WC sting as well.

When you think about it though, with Moloney and Sylvia on the list, is it any wonder we were risk averse to a bloke with rumours of drinking issues and a list of extracurricular incidents..?

I don't see why career advancement or just greener pastures is any less plausible a reason. As I said, I don't know, and neither do you or Rangey, so I get agitated when you present your speculation as if it's fact. That's how false rumours start and it makes me grumpy.

The other thing that makes me grumpy is your implication is that you're a thinker and I'm not, but no doubt you went for that effect on purpose, so I'll just ignore you on that one.

That's a big jump between those two statements ....

In any case, of course he could have left if he was satisfied with his role. An opportunity suddenly presents itself: greener pastures, change of scenery, a new challenge, more money? I've read posts from Carlton supporters saying that they deliberately head-hunted BP.

Just so much conjecture masquerading as fact around here these days.

"Greener pastures". There's the rub.

Fact: Head of recruitment at Melbourne to opposition analyst at Carlton.

Fact: Story fluffed out in the Hun that he's pursuing a "coaching career" at Carlton when he's doing no such thing.

What's so hard to understand?

I'm not having a personal go at BP but yes ... shock horror ... people do get the flick from their jobs from time to time!

Not quite how I'd put it Rp but let's not go there.

A million cynical monkeys and a million typewriters later ...

You're going to spend Tom's $6M dining out on the fact that you called it early - I reckon you've only got about $31 left.

When you think about it though, with Moloney and Sylvia on the list, is it any wonder we were risk averse to a bloke with rumours of drinking issues and a list of extracurricular incidents..?

The whole place has been risk averse for 50 years. It's ingrained!

It's why recruiters like Prendergast and Cameron so often preferred the safe option, the long-term prospect with 'upside', the boy with good manners, over the diamond in the rough or the plug-in-and-play type.

IMO they were as much a victim of Melbourne's soft culture as their own failings as recruiters.

The whole place has been risk averse for 50 years. It's ingrained!

It's why recruiters like Prendergast and Cameron so often preferred the safe option, the long-term prospect with 'upside', the boy with good manners, over the diamond in the rough or the plug-in-and-play type.

IMO they were as much a victim of Melbourne's soft culture as their own failings as recruiters.

Agree RR we have enough nice boys to start our own Tabernacle Choir

God deliver us a fit narsty pricks who just want to win at all costs in the next draft

Agree RR we have enough nice boys to start our own Tabernacle Choir

God deliver us a fit narsty pricks who just want to win at all costs in the next draft

A million cynical monkeys and a million typewriters later ...

You're going to spend Tom's $6M dining out on the fact that you called it early - I reckon you've only got about $31 left.

lol Old ... I'd ask that you please refer to this event by it's rightful name - The Greatest Victory In The History Of Demonland (TGVITHODL).

The 2nd part was my conjecture - that BP wouldn't have left if he was satisfied with his job, particularly when it's incomplete (see Scully picks) - there's a number of reasons with he may have been unsatisfied though.

Just had another quick glance at this 2011 MFC draft preview ... http://www.melbournefc.com.au/tabid/7415/default.aspx?newsid=126415

Prendergast's answers to Matt Burgan's final few questions are quite interesting. The language he uses is diplomatic, but I'm not detecting a lot of harmony there.

One side refused to take the word of a simpleton, the other refused to take rumours as facts. It may be an effing internet forum, stmj. But it isn't your effing internet forum. People you don't know are responsible for what is posted here. Nasher is not jumping down your throat, he is just saying that you shouldn't try to attach malicious intent when you present your 'thoughts' as 'facts.'

You're a hilarious human being RP. How much of a spin do you want to put on it thanks to hindsight....

The simpletons seem to be the one's on forums who want to take anything and everything the MFC say as gospel. Are you guys heavily religious?

Where's my malicious intent!?

Where have my 'thoughts' been presented as 'facts'!? Enlighten me?!

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by stevethemanjordan

The whole place has been risk averse for 50 years. It's ingrained!

It's why recruiters like Prendergast and Cameron so often preferred the safe option, the long-term prospect with 'upside', the boy with good manners, over the diamond in the rough or the plug-in-and-play type.

IMO they were as much a victim of Melbourne's soft culture as their own failings as recruiters.

Then how did Moloney, Sylvia, Trav Johnstone, Schwarz et al all get on the list..?

Agree RR we have enough nice boys to start our own Tabernacle Choir

A guy who allegedly [censored] on a bar, another who drives his car into a car yard while under the influence of something or other, another who's just been suspended for being out drinking while in rehab, another who was suspended because he couldn't be bothered attending a meeting, both our captains suspended by the AFL for illegal (and dangerous) tackles, and to top it all, a guy up on a jailable charge for attacking someone with a machete.

Not sure what kinds of choirs you hang with, but if this is your definition of "nice boys" ...

FCS, I have said that development is important, and before you swaggered into Demonland we have had the argument.

The best teams right now have married great recruitment from 2000 to 2005 and enhanced player development.

Stop trying to turn this thread into a thread you would like it to be, go and find the one who have carpet bombed with Ben-Hur.

I am saying that the most talented players are found at the pointy end of the draft and that it is effing important for a recruiter to get them right, and IN A COMPLETELY SEPERATE ARGUMENT for the club to then spend the money to develop them properly.

ahhhh - you obviously missed a few ittle gems hidden in some of the articles - but yes we do agree in the importance of development.

Lets take our dominant team of the last 2 years

After all, this is a club who've turned a long list of rookie-listed players into seasoned AFL stars, such as captain Nick Maxwell along with five others from their 2010 Grand Final team including All-Australian defender Harry O'Brien.We also shouldn't forget Dane Swan, arguably their best player, went at pick 58 in 2001.

Now I wonder if the facts point to its how you are selecting your WHOLE list that counts!!!

"I am saying that the most talented players are found at the pointy end of the draft and that it is effing important for a recruiter to get them right"

Lets also look at two players vital to their performance Brown & Jolly - both recruited by Collingwood at the "pointy end" of the draft where they? Trade table my friend - trade table.

I'm saying you can find quality players anywhere in the draft system if you are spending the money to develop YOUR WHOLE list. (massive difference)

Now lets see what Jimmy asked for - "Melbourne president Jim Stynes raised the issue during the week when he suggested a minimum expenditure level be introduced to allow his club to catch up to powerhouses such as Collingwood."

But if your argument is correct why did Jimmy not ask for more picks at the pointy end of the draft? Thats where the most talented players are!!!! (according to you)

But wait what did he ask for? A cap on spending! Why because that effects their WHOLE list.

Now lets look what the AFL actually did - they removed the priority pick system. why? This does not support your argument again.

Instead they started to offer the lesser clubs more money to develop their WHOLE list.

Edit sorry wrote the wrong player

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Dr Who

Then how did Moloney, Sylvia, Trav Johnstone, Schwarz et al all get on the list..?

There are exceptions to most rules Jose.

That we can only pluck a few names spanning two decades is more the point.