MFC's Poor Drafting.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,108]

No, that is entirely the point.

You use Darling as an example. Every club, all 16, had the chance to take Darling, and didn't. We were not the only ones. If a player is drafted late, then by the very nature of that player being drafted late, there must have been something up with him to warrant all 16 clubs choosing to skip him. So to then whinge and scream about how we could have had him is just ridiculous. Anyone could have had him, but everyone passed decided to let him slide. We had the same reservations the rest of the competition had.

The only thing that can be said about drafting is that, almost always, we have picked players where the general consensus suggests they should be picked. No one questioned taking Cale Morton with pick 4 in 2007. It was a question of which of Masten and Morton WC would take with 3, and we'd take the other (given Kreuzer and Cotchin were going to be gone already). No one complained. Now, of course, we can see that Morton has not worked for us. But in 2007, that was a pick that was totally fair.

I'm happy to call drafting choices into question - when there is evidence to suggest the drafters made a choice that seemed odd at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and with hindsight we all become geniuses. And in most of our cases, if not all, there wasn't a howling at the time that we'd made a mistake, or that we'd picked someone from left field, or that we'd made an obviously dumb choice.

Moreover, we have managed to pick up Tom McDonald with pick 53. You win some, you lose some. All you can do is pick the player you think deserves to be picked with your selection, and then hope that a combination of work ethic and training gets the potential out of the boy. That's where we've failed.

I disagree with this post almost completely.

Firstly, yes Darling didn't go in the first round (and hence every club past him over) however

1) we needed a big aggressive forward, I don't think the rest of the competition except maybe 3 or 4 other teams would have rated him above the other players available at the time to fit their needs - most other clubs went with midifielders/backman/ruckmen we however took a key forward and a worse one than Darling who was well known and still available.

2) I don't care what the other clubs did or didn't do - I am concerned with what the MFC did - slitting your wrists over a player who went at 55 that we didn't pick at 12 is ridiculous however this is a different proposition - everyone knew what MFC needed at the time, everyone knew what Darling offered yet we opted for another skinny project player to complement our increasing list of skinny poject players. So saying "every other club overlooked him" is as void an argument as saying "we should have taken Dangerfield or Rioli instead of Morton"

Secondly, the fact that people may not have "howled" at the time doesn't mean they didn't disagree with the choices or that they were correct. It also doesn't mean that we are now arguing in hindsight only. I have stated here that I wanted Talia at 11 and Darling at 12 (actually I wanted Tom Lynch first but he went the pick before ours so Darling was my second wish) - I didn't howl about it at the time because I don't claim to be an expert but from what I had read and seen I thought it was a given we would take Darling if Lynch wasn't available. I assumed that the club and recruitment teams knew what they were doing and had more of an idea than I did so I didn't criticise the club over something that could have been a masterstroke - I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they knew what they were doing however evidently that was wrong and perhaps I should have "howled" about it at the time. In future I will now that I realise that I have just as much of an idea as these guys do about who we should take (particularly in the top 20).

I do agree that picking Morton was fair however I would also say that in picking players where they have been highly rated to go shows that our recruiters have a lack of imagination and when they do think outside the box (as in taking Cook over Darling) they get it wrong. Richmond took Martin at 3 when before the draft it seemed we were all talking about Scully, Trengove or Morabito. Richmond didn't just rely on consensus and took who they saw as the best player and it has worked for them so far. When we've done that we end up with a rake who clogs our list for years barely earning a run in the VFL by the end of his first contract. Now I understand big men take time so I'm willing to wait and see but Cook in particular has shown me nothing so far to show that he will reach even 50 AFL games let alone become the champion KPF we need.

[titan_uranus 24,960]

I disagree with this post almost completely.

Firstly, yes Darling didn't go in the first round (and hence every club past him over) however

1) we needed a big aggressive forward, I don't think the rest of the competition except maybe 3 or 4 other teams would have rated him above the other players available at the time to fit their needs - most other clubs went with midifielders/backman/ruckmen we however took a key forward and a worse one than Darling who was well known and still available.

2) I don't care what the other clubs did or didn't do - I am concerned with what the MFC did - slitting your wrists over a player who went at 55 that we didn't pick at 12 is ridiculous however this is a different proposition - everyone knew what MFC needed at the time, everyone knew what Darling offered yet we opted for another skinny project player to complement our increasing list of skinny poject players. So saying "every other club overlooked him" is as void an argument as saying "we should have taken Dangerfield or Rioli instead of Morton"

Secondly, the fact that people may not have "howled" at the time doesn't mean they didn't disagree with the choices or that they were correct. It also doesn't mean that we are now arguing in hindsight only. I have stated here that I wanted Talia at 11 and Darling at 12 (actually I wanted Tom Lynch first but he went the pick before ours so Darling was my second wish) - I didn't howl about it at the time because I don't claim to be an expert but from what I had read and seen I thought it was a given we would take Darling if Lynch wasn't available. I assumed that the club and recruitment teams knew what they were doing and had more of an idea than I did so I didn't criticise the club over something that could have been a masterstroke - I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they knew what they were doing however evidently that was wrong and perhaps I should have "howled" about it at the time. In future I will now that I realise that I have just as much of an idea as these guys do about who we should take (particularly in the top 20).

I understand what you're saying. I've been looking forward to having a real discussion about this.

I'm not sure it's really much chop to be saying 'well I thought we should have taken Talia, therefore there was authority to suggest we shouldn't have taken Cook', although I see your point. I think what's more important is that when we took Cook, we noted that he had talent in a tiny frame, and that he was a long term prospect for playing a KPF role, whereas Darling was possibly considered a ready-made KPF but who may have had less upside (not to mention the extraneous circumstances surrounding him). At that time, there weren't many MFC fans who would have gone against the long-term development idea, so Cook fitted into that mould at the time.

Then, with hindsight, we can see that Darling has improved probably more than we thought he might, and Cook hasn't yet played a game.

I still think there's a lot of hindsight involved with reviewing these decisions, and I still think that at the time we picked Cook, we had reason. This is also just one pick, and there really aren't any more which suggest that the recruiters have made mistakes.

I do agree that picking Morton was fair however I would also say that in picking players where they have been highly rated to go shows that our recruiters have a lack of imagination and when they do think outside the box (as in taking Cook over Darling) they get it wrong. Richmond took Martin at 3 when before the draft it seemed we were all talking about Scully, Trengove or Morabito. Richmond didn't just rely on consensus and took who they saw as the best player and it has worked for them so far. When we've done that we end up with a rake who clogs our list for years barely earning a run in the VFL by the end of his first contract. Now I understand big men take time so I'm willing to wait and see but Cook in particular has shown me nothing so far to show that he will reach even 50 AFL games let alone become the champion KPF we need.

According to this, recruiters are really in a jamb. Either you pick the player the evidence suggests is the safe, sure fire pick, and you are 'unimaginative' or you try something else, which necessarily involves risk, and either you're a genius (which hasn't happened to us because we haven't been picking players well out of their range) or you're a fail because they didn't work.

I also would ask you to consider the effect slotting Darling into West Coast's side has had, as opposed to coming into ours. West Coast played a preliminary final last year, largely on the back of others, not Darling. I think playing in a successful side makes it easier to look good than playing for a dud.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Well I'm pleased to see that you apportion part of the blame on the recruiters; the fact that we have the worst list in the competition would probably lend some weight to that.

We have recruited appallingly and the Cook/Darling comparison is just the icing on the cake; the cake itself is our list. I guess that decision was what they call the straw that broke the Camel's back.

There you go, thats what I was trying to get out.

Edited August 19, 2012 by dee-luded

[Dr. Gonzo 24,108]

Apparently also breaches of every other club's code.

It's not like we overlooked him and he was snapped up a pick later. He went a full round later, after the rest of the competition also decided that he wasn't worth their first round picks.

He was more than just a delinquent. There were question marks over whether he could be a serious AFL player and whether he'd have the right attitude. Yes, so far he's proven everyone wrong. But that's the point. Everyone. Not just MFC.

What do you mean by delinquent? What exactly is it that he supposedly did which was so bad and worse than any other normal teenage kid?

I'll take the "delinquent" with a bit of mongrel about him over the clean-cut professional (Scully) every day of the week.

I've already addressed why your argument "everyone else passed on him so our recruiters can't be held to account" is ridiculous. It is as bad as saying "so-and-so went pick 55 yet we picked a dud at pick 12 so our recruiters messed up".

Edited August 19, 2012 by Dr. Gonzo

[Dr. Gonzo 24,108]

According to this, recruiters are really in a jamb. Either you pick the player the evidence suggests is the safe, sure fire pick, and you are 'unimaginative' or you try something else, which necessarily involves risk, and either you're a genius (which hasn't happened to us because we haven't been picking players well out of their range) or you're a fail because they didn't work.

I also would ask you to consider the effect slotting Darling into West Coast's side has had, as opposed to coming into ours. West Coast played a preliminary final last year, largely on the back of others, not Darling. I think playing in a successful side makes it easier to look good than playing for a dud.

Recruiters are in a jamb and it is the nature of being in an industry based on speculation - you are only as good as the players you punt on make you look. Of course there are some factors involved including exposure at junior level, comparison to other players, experience in watching junior footy etc which can assist you to make the right choice. But at the end of the day a recruiter is judged years after his job is done based on the output of those he has banked on.

Of course there are other mitigating factors including what happens once the player gets to the club (development, outside factors, injuries etc) however for the most part supporters expect that high draft picks are going to produce the goods based on the very nature of elite sportsmen being for the most part their own developmental motivators. This may need reassessing by supporters (and perhaps recruiters as well) as we have a different system to the US where players aren't taken straight out of high school and have a chance to develop and compete against mature bodied athletes. They are also developed through the college system so by the time they turn pro they have the tools to continue their own development to a certain extent despite what happens when they get to the club. Here it is different where development does play a key part after drafting, perhaps more important as the players natural talent. Development is not the be-all though as clubs that generally develop players very well have their own share of stinkers on the board as well (Hawthorn for instance had Muston & Dowler). So putting guys like Morton or Cook into better development programs might not mean a thing at the end of the day.

There are several factors as to why we are such a rubbish team at the moment including development/FD investment, recruiting, keeping senior players on too long in Danihers years and not turning over the list/developing new players forcing us to mass cull these senior players at the end of their careers leaving no leaders to aid the new generations development etc- but I think supporters have every right to look at our returns since 2007 in the draft and question why with such consistent high draft picks (almost enough to make an entire team) we are still where we are. I still think things can turn around quickly and I'm glad to see Neeld take a much more proactive approach to trading than any of his predecessors in my time - however if we fail to trade in some more "senior" players I think we will struggle for a couple of years yet and won't really be a good, let alone great, team until Jones, Trengove, Grimes, Frawley etc are all our senior players (so 27-28 yo) which is another 5 years away. I think/hope Neeld understands this which is why he is going hard at the trade table because if he waits for that to happen he will have a very short coaching career. He will not make the same mistakes Bailey did and if he goes down he will go down swinging.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

I think there is one other reason why we may have not chosen Darling. He's about the same height as Dunn and Bate which means he's not really big enough to be a KPF. If we were looking for a third tall to complement two monster KPFs already in the team, he may have been ideal. But I don't think he's the right size to be the first or second KPF.

[bing181 9,189]

I think there is one other reason why we may have not chosen Darling. He's about the same height as Dunn and Bate which means he's not really big enough to be a KPF. If we were looking for a third tall to complement two monster KPFs already in the team, he may have been ideal. But I don't think he's the right size to be the first or second KPF.

Much too sensible. Lord forbid that in reality we didn't take Darling because he wasn't what we were after.

This site, fair dinkum. I don't now how some of you get through the day.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,108]

I think there is one other reason why we may have not chosen Darling. He's about the same height as Dunn and Bate which means he's not really big enough to be a KPF. If we were looking for a third tall to complement two monster KPFs already in the team, he may have been ideal. But I don't think he's the right size to be the first or second KPF.

He's also the same height as Dunstall and Lloyd.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

He's also the same height as Dunstall and Lloyd.

And Pavlich and Fevola.

[old dee 23,660]

I think there is one other reason why we may have not chosen Darling. He's about the same height as Dunn and Bate which means he's not really big enough to be a KPF. If we were looking for a third tall to complement two monster KPFs already in the team, he may have been ideal. But I don't think he's the right size to be the first or second KPF.

Another 3 goals yesterday what a bum

[Range Rover 1,935]

lol @ these posters trying to think through reasons why we shouldn't have drafted Jack Darling.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,108]

And Pavlich and Fevola.

And Neitz.

[beelzebub 23,306]

I'll put this here a its just as appropriate to the originating drafting.

It occurs to me in watcing the various threads around as to who to keep and who not to and why, or why not to etc : that one off the biggest reasons we are such a crap team is that we gve too many players fa too long to "show us what they've got " Whether they be recalcitrant or peripheral in nature the whole notion of giving players 7-8 years to come on is plainly absurd.

It also occrus to me that the very idea that some are still around with "potential" is because we did stufff up so much drafting and that development seems distant after thought.

Hopefully this all stops with the current FD. Hopefully they can identify actual football players and not lazy or developmentallly challenged pretenders

[hardtack 10,500]

lol @ these posters trying to think through reasons why we shouldn't have drafted Jack Darling.

No need to think up reasons as to why really... under Bailey we didn't draft him, so unless you have a time machine handy, no-one is going back to rectify that oversight/poor piece of judgement. All we can do is hope that Neeld and his team of recruiters will atone by being very aggressive in the trade period and make the best of FA, and that they will pick wisely in the draft; and by all accounts, that is exactly what they are planning to do.

Fretting over the fact we didn't pick up Darling is a fruitless (and pointless) pastime.

[jnrmac 20,040]

A player told me recently that he thought we recruited poorly last year and cited Magner and Couch as examples. He said it's all very well to have contested footy but we need speedy outside mids because we already have Jones, Jordie, and Moloney.

I asked two other recently drafted players whether the Club as a matter of practice asks them or other teammates whether they know of any players that the Club should keep an eye on(TAC, suburban leagues etc). I only asked them this because I would have thought that with 40+ players on the list with some recently playing TAC Cup they may well provide some knowledge or insight into possible future draftees.

The answer was: No they haven't asked us.

I'm not saying that the Club hasn't already got all bases covered when it comes to recruiting, but you just never know what a player knows or has heard.

Then the player doesn't know Melbourne that well then because Moloney has no defensive skills, Jordie can't kick and does no damage altho he can negate an influential player. Jones is really the only decent one.

We need mids who can win a ball and play both ways.

[old dee 23,660]

No need to think up reasons as to why really... under Bailey we didn't draft him, so unless you have a time machine handy, no-one is going back to rectify that oversight/poor piece of judgement. All we can do is hope that Neeld and his team of recruiters will atone by being very aggressive in the trade period and make the best of FA, and that they will pick wisely in the draft; and by all accounts, that is exactly what they are planning to do.

Fretting over the fact we didn't pick up Darling is a fruitless (and pointless) pastime.

You are correct hardtack but I will go to the grave regretting it.

Just like every Tigers supporter will never get over taking Tambling instead of Franklin.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

I admit I know nothing compared to the recruiters, but if I was the MFC recruiter we would have an AA CHB, Talia, on our list.

Just like we drafted a U18 AA CHF???

[Grimes Times 1,278]

To put things into perspective, below is a comment on Melbourne’s draftees made by an opposition club recruiter after draft day each year. Going by this some good picks, some bad at the time, some wrong opinions at the time some correct. Some too early to tell.

Pick 36. I was actually a fan of Taggert. I thought he would make a great rookie. Good size, good speed and a great kick. He just never worked hard enough. Some nice cameos at times throughout the year but I always wanted him to do more and he rarely did. 1/4 here and 1/4 there. I think Curran or Lockyer was a better pick for you guys.

Pick 52. Big, big fan of Josh. I had him at 29. Kind of kid you would go to war with. Gives his all every minute of every game. Good pick at 52.

Pick 54. Sellars Hasn't fired a shot since being drafted. Great kid but no intensity and needs a heart transplant. Not sure he has the attitude and/or desire to succeed in the AFL. Might be a late bloomer but couldn't get a kick in stampede in the SANFL in 2011.

At the end of the 2010 season after Jai had played as a bottom age (17yr old) at the Falcons I would have signed him on the spot. He had a great year and I thought he might get picked up by the Gold Coast Suns. He got an invite to the 2010 Draft Camp but struggled to impress.

This year he had more down than good. I had really high hopes he would dominate but instead he beat up on the weak teams and got pantsed by the better ones.

His biggest problem was his complete lack of intensity. He marks well, kicks nicely off either foot and moves like an onballer but he often looks afraid of his shadow. At times I wanted to go out to the huddle and slap him around the face and tell him to grow some balls. He frustrated the hell out of me.

As the season went on he seemed to get softer and softer. I saw 1 game where he kicked 5 goals and dominated a very weak Bendigo but the next week he had about 3 touches playing at CHF vs a top 4 team.

So I guess that is why he fell so far. Unless he finds some anger he will get smashed in the VFL.

12. Cook - Ripper kid. Very polite and well spoken. Has a nice country feel to his manner. Ex AIS lad so he can play. Hampered with injuries most of last year and for some of this so since his AIS days he has been playing catchup. Lovely mark and nice kick. He has suffered from some migraines this year and it is thought that is because he gets very nervous before a game.

The longer the season went the more I tended to drop off him simply because he was having any impact in games I thought he should have been dominating. He not ovferly intense and not overly aggressive. Bit like Jack Watts in that way. Can play and if he reaches his potential was worth 12 but I have a few question marks on his mental toughness.

Howe - Never seen play.

Davis - I like Troy. Thought he would have made a good late pick or rookie. Deceptively quick for his size. Great intensity and makes his opponent earn every possession. Kicks the ball well. Always runs hard and straight. Will need time but should be good.

McDonald - I am so-so on Tom. Thought more of a rookie. Bit unco and ungainly at times and needs some think music when making decisions. Not overly footy smart and can often get were the ball isn't. Flashes in and out of games. I would have thought Litherland, Alex Johnson, Ledger, McInnes and Delaney were better options, who all came after him.

Trengove and Scully are wonderful players. Easily the standouts from all concerned.

My personal opinon is that Lucas is far more accomplished player than Gysberts and your guys should have taken him. He is quicker, more agile and has a far greater running capacity. Both are about the same height. Gysberts probably stronger overhead but Lucas is no slouch as a marking player. Gysberts is neat and tidy and I had him rated at 22 but he struggles defensively. Lucas is a gut runner with some zip whereas Gysberts tends to be 1 paced.

Teams seem to let him get on his own abit and he can sneak forward to kick a goal. He is good in close tending to feed the ball out of congestion by hand. I just worry about his running ability to work back and forth at speed.

Tapscott at 18 was a good get. I had him at 17. Brilliant kick. Strong hands. Needs to up his workrate to get his hands on it more often but if he gets it anywhere around 50 he is a good chance of kicking a goal. Like most kids needs to work on his defensive game. Strong body. Good pick at 18.

Big Max was the pick of the ruckman so another good get. 208cm (?) is one big lad and he might still be growing. Up until he did his knee he was showing plenty. Very raw but he is competitive and plays with good vigor. Should be good in about 3 or 4 years.

Fitzpatrick???????? Not a fan. He has very good speed and agility for his size but his foot skills are shocking and he is lazy. His marking is hit and miss.

He is getting over Chronic Fatigue as a 15yr old but he has been playing on that for the past 3 years. I haven't spoke to him but my bosses went to Sth Africa with him as part of the AIS U18 tour a few years back and they said he was the biggest whinger and complainer they had every heard. They also said he is one of the most arrogant kids they have ever met. They wouldn't have drafted him with 100 picks.

I think at pick #50 James Craig from SA or Josh Donaldson from WA would have been a better option

Watts did very, very well at DC. Don't get me wrong he has some talent but he also currently plays alot like the basketballer he is. He's not a big fan of the physical contact he gets and will get at AFL. He will need 3 good pre-seasons before you start to see the best of him. He needs to quickly develop some real aggression in him to worry the better defenders. At the moment he is easily worried off the ball but obviously some size and strength will help that but he has to get angry on the bad men of the AFL will destroy him.

Blease - 17 yr old. Very quick, lovely mover, likes to run and carry. Decent kick and gets some good distance. Can get down on himself if beaten. Needs alot of size and strength. He should light up the 'G' flying down the wing ala Robbie Flower. We had him at 15.

Strauss- I love this kid. One of the best kicks in the TAC. Deceptively quick. Moves within himself but hard to tackle. Great balance and footy smarts. Should be a talented onballer or HBF who sets up play. Alot like Heath Scotland. We had him at 24.

Bennell and Bail I have never seen play and I know nothing about them.

Jetta is a small forward/goal sneak. Interested pick really. He's okay but not super quick for his height. I'm not sure he has enough speed and tricks for h is size. Might struggle at 1st. He was outside our 60 and not really under consideration.

I was a fan of Frawley but not at 15. I had him at 34 and my boss at 24. I rated him but his kicking worried us both. He is okay when he has time to steady but in the AFL we were worried he wouldn't have that time. He can play short or tall with his pace. I would have taken Sellar and Mitch Brown before him as a tall. He has more pace but I think the other two would give more versatility.

Pettard at 30. I'm not a fan of Pettard and had him at 44. My boss liked him and had him at 22. So going by his judgment and you have done well to get him at 30 I think he is slow and lacks penetration with his kicking. Our main concern was he fumbles alot under pressure. He has a few tickets on himself which should get knocked out fairly quickly.

Garland at 46 was a good get. I was hoping he would make it through to us. I had him at 30 and the boss at 37. He a nice mover, lovely kick and footy smart. Once he puts on some size he will be exciting to watch. My only worry would be his commitment. He's a very introverted kid who had to be talked into playing for Tassie in the Under 18 Champs. Once he played he made plenty sit up and take notice.

Weetra at 62 I know nothing about him. I have never seen him play but the SA recruiter was gob smacked when his name was called. He didn't rate him at all.

[titan_uranus 24,960]

What do you mean by delinquent? What exactly is it that he supposedly did which was so bad and worse than any other normal teenage kid?

I'll take the "delinquent" with a bit of mongrel about him over the clean-cut professional (Scully) every day of the week.

I've already addressed why your argument "everyone else passed on him so our recruiters can't be held to account" is ridiculous. It is as bad as saying "so-and-so went pick 55 yet we picked a dud at pick 12 so our recruiters messed up".

Of course you would. Mongrel solves everything.

If delinquent was the wrong word, I think it was clear what I was referring to: the drinking, the thuggishness, and the being expelled from school. I was worried I was making all this up from a dream or something, but it's all here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/jacks-not-every-clubs-darling-20101116-17vwe.html

That kind of attitude was questioned by drafters. That's all I was saying.

And my argument is not 'everyone else passed on him so our recruiters can't be held to account'. My argument is that it's rich to call our recruiters out for the Darling non-pick when it's not like he was taken straight away because he was so sought after and clearly a top player, he went a whole round later, whereby other clubs also chose not to take him. If he was as good and as clearly-cut a top player as some people say he was, then he wouldn't have slipped that far. KPFs don't grow on trees.

Recruiters are in a jamb and it is the nature of being in an industry based on speculation - you are only as good as the players you punt on make you look. Of course there are some factors involved including exposure at junior level, comparison to other players, experience in watching junior footy etc which can assist you to make the right choice. But at the end of the day a recruiter is judged years after his job is done based on the output of those he has banked on.

Of course there are other mitigating factors including what happens once the player gets to the club (development, outside factors, injuries etc) however for the most part supporters expect that high draft picks are going to produce the goods based on the very nature of elite sportsmen being for the most part their own developmental motivators. This may need reassessing by supporters (and perhaps recruiters as well) as we have a different system to the US where players aren't taken straight out of high school and have a chance to develop and compete against mature bodied athletes. They are also developed through the college system so by the time they turn pro they have the tools to continue their own development to a certain extent despite what happens when they get to the club. Here it is different where development does play a key part after drafting, perhaps more important as the players natural talent. Development is not the be-all though as clubs that generally develop players very well have their own share of stinkers on the board as well (Hawthorn for instance had Muston & Dowler). So putting guys like Morton or Cook into better development programs might not mean a thing at the end of the day.

There are several factors as to why we are such a rubbish team at the moment including development/FD investment, recruiting, keeping senior players on too long in Danihers years and not turning over the list/developing new players forcing us to mass cull these senior players at the end of their careers leaving no leaders to aid the new generations development etc- but I think supporters have every right to look at our returns since 2007 in the draft and question why with such consistent high draft picks (almost enough to make an entire team) we are still where we are. I still think things can turn around quickly and I'm glad to see Neeld take a much more proactive approach to trading than any of his predecessors in my time - however if we fail to trade in some more "senior" players I think we will struggle for a couple of years yet and won't really be a good, let alone great, team until Jones, Trengove, Grimes, Frawley etc are all our senior players (so 27-28 yo) which is another 5 years away. I think/hope Neeld understands this which is why he is going hard at the trade table because if he waits for that to happen he will have a very short coaching career. He will not make the same mistakes Bailey did and if he goes down he will go down swinging.

You actually touch on an interesting topic in there - the age at which we draft our players. It's just assumed that we take 18 year olds and that's that, but as you note, other sports like NFL take their players a bit more mature. We've already seen over the last few years clubs getting all left-field and taking mature-aged recruits. Gives a bit of merit to the argument for raising the minimum age. It's never going to be done, of course, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless.

[jurrahcane 70]

Then the player doesn't know Melbourne that well then because Moloney has no defensive skills, Jordie can't kick and does no damage altho he can negate an influential player. Jones is really the only decent one.

We need mids who can win a ball and play both ways.

IQ of a sub-primate. Again stating the obvious and nothing concrete "once again" here. Name names if you dare. Put yourself on the line. This post adds NIL value.

"We need mids who can win a ball and play both ways". Oh, and we need forwards who will mark the ball and kick goals. Oh , and ruckman that will tap the ball down to their teams advantage. Oh, and backs that defend and rebound the ball outsude 50. Get over yourself.

Edited August 20, 2012 by jurrahcane

[3Dee 1,153]

Stuff Cloke, get Goddard!

[Redleg 40,769]

Just like we drafted a U18 AA CHF???

There was no U18 in front of my pick. That's AA in the AFL.

[Carlos Danger 380]

2003 gives it a nudge

2001 has no contenders for worst MFC drafting effort...

9. MFC: Luke Molan

13. Nick Dal Santo

16. Rick Ladson

17. James Kelly

19. Jason Gram

21. Matt Maguire

22. Mark Seaby

24. Steve Johnson

25. MFC: Steven Armstrong

26. MFC: Aaron Rogers

29. Lewis Roberts-Thompson

32. Campbell Brown

33. David Rodan

36. Sam Mitchell

37. Leigh Montagna

47. Andrew Welsh

55. MFC: Brad Miller

56. Paul Medhurst

58. Dane Swan

60. Adam Schneider

71. Brian Lake

[beelzebub 23,306]

I cant even recall Rodgers

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

2001 has no contenders for worst MFC drafting effort...

9. MFC: Luke Molan

13. Nick Dal Santo

16. Rick Ladson

17. James Kelly

19. Jason Gram

21. Matt Maguire

22. Mark Seaby

24. Steve Johnson

25. MFC: Steven Armstrong

26. MFC: Aaron Rogers

29. Lewis Roberts-Thompson

32. Campbell Brown

33. David Rodan

36. Sam Mitchell

37. Leigh Montagna

47. Andrew Welsh

55. MFC: Brad Miller

56. Paul Medhurst

58. Dane Swan

60. Adam Schneider

71. Brian Lake

Why would you bold Brad Miller?. At pick 55 he was a great get in a poor draft for us. And its a long straw to claim at that end of the draft that it was obvious we should have got any of thoselisted below him.