MFC's Poor Drafting.

[old dee 23,872]

But, the real but unanswerable question is this. If Talia had been picked instead of Gysberts would he have had his talent, strength and fitness developed as well at Melbourne as has happened at Adelaide?

Please believe me I am not having a go at you.

But I am so tied of this we do not Develop the players we pick.

Lets all get over it we made poor selections.

It is IMO that simple.

Our poor development have not stopped Grimes Tom Mac or Blease inspite of a terrible injury from developing.

No the problem is it is hard to pull up your socks when you don't have any on.

WE JUST PICKED POORLY

[sylvinator 96]

Please believe me I am not having a go at you.

But I am so tied of this we do not Develop the players we pick.

Lets all get over it we made poor selections.

It is IMO that simple.

Our poor development have not stopped Grimes Tom Mac or Blease inspite of a terrible injury from developing.

No the problem is it is hard to pull up your socks when you don't have any on.

WE JUST PICKED POORLY

I agree that we've drafted VERY poorly, but it would be totally ignorant to think development doesn't play a pivotal role.

If anyone doesn't think that Gysberts wouldn't be better developed at Geelong or Adelaide they are kidding themselves. Look at the Geelong kids. Do you honestly think every pick just happens to appear amazing.

No, there are two big factors at play.

1. It is far easier for a skinny kid to play well and develop strongly when he has 12 champion big-bodied senior players protecting him, so that he plays a small role in the team and has good role models.

2. These clubs develop their players better than we do. That's why we haven't developed one champion in the last 40 years (except maybe Flower who I never saw play). It's why Scott Thompson becomes a star at Adelaide and why Sylvia becomes only a very good player, just like a long line of players that should have been champions- Yze, White, Woewoden, Green, Bruce etc.

[old dee 23,872]

I agree that we've drafted VERY poorly, but it would be totally ignorant to think development doesn't play a pivotal role.

If anyone doesn't think that Gysberts wouldn't be better developed at Geelong or Adelaide they are kidding themselves. Look at the Geelong kids. Do you honestly think every pick just happens to appear amazing.

No, there are two big factors at play.

1. It is far easier for a skinny kid to play well and develop strongly when he has 12 champion big-bodied senior players protecting him, so that he plays a small role in the team and has good role models.

2. These clubs develop their players better than we do. That's why we haven't developed one champion in the last 40 years (except maybe Flower who I never saw play). It's why Scott Thompson becomes a star at Adelaide and why Sylvia becomes only a very good player, just like a long line of players that should have been champions- Yze, White, Woewoden, Green, Bruce etc.

I agree with most of what you say

Just don't trott out the lack of development to excuse every poor pick.

Some of them are just not good enough

Edited September 5, 2012 by old dee

[jnrmac 20,186]

I was agreeing with you Jnr.

Ok my bad. Misread.

Cheers

[titan_uranus 25,043]

I reckon that is a poor excuse Jnr, it is wheeled out to defend a poor decision.

A bit like " we failed to develop him " that is used to excuse every poor draft selection.

Why can't we just admit we made a poor decision.

Drafting is not a exact science.

Your last sentence ruins your entire argument.

But, the real but unanswerable question is this. If Talia had been picked instead of Gysberts would he have had his talent, strength and fitness developed as well at Melbourne as has happened at Adelaide?

Agreed.

The thing with Cook is he was always fragile. I seem to remember he was in tears at a training session. I recall my son alerting me to the fact at a Casey game that he had pulled out of the contest a few times. I then concentrated on this aspect and yes he would see the opponent coming and forget about the ball. It happened often. Neeld would have hated it. Lovett obviously didn't like it. He was also very skinny and never changed.

I don't want to hear any more about poor development. He was a bad selection, end of story.

Unfortunately for Prendergast and us, he made a lot of them.

What do you say to La Dee-vina Comedia's argument above?

I'm happy to say that picking Cook clearly has turned out to be an awful result, and that part of the blame has to rest with the drafters for that. But I disagree with the idea that he was soft and therefore there was nothing the coaches could do.

What makes a good coach good? Surely part of it is the ability to make men out of boys, to turn average players into good ones, and to lead. Bailey didn't offer this.

In addition, did Cook enter a club with role-models? Those kind of leaders who drag the under-performers with them? Nick Riewoldt, Jonathan Brown, Matthew Pavlich, Chris Judd, etc.? No. He entered a club with no one, on-field or off, to spark anything in him.

Melbourne got it wrong taking Cook (mainly in hindsight, but whatever). What is more of an issue is that no one at Melbourne was able to get anything out of a kid who has the talent, but needed nurturing.

If you don't agree with that, you have very little respect for what Mick Malthouse, Paul Roos, and Kevin Sheedy are fantastic at.

I agree that we've drafted VERY poorly, but it would be totally ignorant to think development doesn't play a pivotal role.

If anyone doesn't think that Gysberts wouldn't be better developed at Geelong or Adelaide they are kidding themselves. Look at the Geelong kids. Do you honestly think every pick just happens to appear amazing.

No, there are two big factors at play.

1. It is far easier for a skinny kid to play well and develop strongly when he has 12 champion big-bodied senior players protecting him, so that he plays a small role in the team and has good role models.

2. These clubs develop their players better than we do. That's why we haven't developed one champion in the last 40 years (except maybe Flower who I never saw play). It's why Scott Thompson becomes a star at Adelaide and why Sylvia becomes only a very good player, just like a long line of players that should have been champions- Yze, White, Woewoden, Green, Bruce etc.

Agree too.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Melbourne got it wrong taking Cook (mainly in hindsight, but whatever). What is more of an issue is that no one at Melbourne was able to get anything out of a kid who has the talent, but needed nurturing.

If you don't agree with that, you have very little respect for what Mick Malthouse, Paul Roos, and Kevin Sheedy are fantastic at.

Wow. Titan...you reckon we drafted badly here. Get out of it!!

Its unproven that Cook was has the talent for AFL. Just because you were taken in the first round does not mean you have talent.

At the moment there is a powerful argument to say that we drafted badly. However if Cook goes to another club and makes a respectable 100+ AFL game career then the development argument gets some justification.

And your comments about Malthouse, Roos and Sheedy in no way validate your comments about nurturing talent. There are times when recruiters get it wrong and even a master coach cant correct the faults.

Malthouse

2001 Richard Cole (pick 11)

2004 Chris Egan (pick 10), Sean Rusling (pick 23)

2007 Cameron Wood (pick 14)

Sheedy

2007 David Meyers (6)

2003 Kepler Bradley (6)

2002 Jason Laycock (10)

Roos (trade alot of his early picks)

2003 Josh Willoughby (16)

2007 Patrick Vezpremi (11)

Some times you pick a dud and the evidence to date would suggest that Cook is a poor first round pick

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Wow. Titan...you reckon we drafted badly here. Get out of it!!

Its unproven that Cook was has the talent for AFL. Just because you were taken in the first round does not mean you have talent.

At the moment there is a powerful argument to say that we drafted badly. However if Cook goes to another club and makes a respectable 100+ AFL game career then the development argument gets some justification.

At the time he was drafted, the evidence suggested he'd make a good AFL player. That's what I said. The evidence now clearly goes against that, but that's not my point.

When we picked Cook, his football warranted first-round selection. Did it warrant selection over other players? Arguably not. But it warranted selection nonetheless. He then came to the club and failed. So part of the blame goes to the recruiters for picking a player who couldn't make it at Melbourne. But part, and I argue much more, of the blame goes to our coaching and development structure/team, for taking a player whose talent as a kid was there, but who wasn't able to convert it.

And your comments about Malthouse, Roos and Sheedy in no way validate your comments about nurturing talent. There are times when recruiters get it wrong and even a master coach cant correct the faults.

Malthouse

2001 Richard Cole (pick 11)

2004 Chris Egan (pick 10), Sean Rusling (pick 23)

2007 Cameron Wood (pick 14)

Sheedy

2007 David Meyers (6)

2003 Kepler Bradley (6)

2002 Jason Laycock (10)

Roos (trade alot of his early picks)

2003 Josh Willoughby (16)

2007 Patrick Vezpremi (11)

Some times you pick a dud and the evidence to date would suggest that Cook is a poor first round pick

Sometimes you do pick a dud, correct.

Picking out one or two players here and there to suggest that my point was without base is ridiculous. My point was that what makes a good coach is their ability to develop players. Nowhere did I say that every player under Malthouse/Sheedy/Roos has been a star. Nowhere did I say that failures make a coach crap.

You've managed to pick only a handful of fails anyway, against years and years of successful player development. But that's not my point. My main point is that those coaches were able to take and nurture talent. Bailey wasn't. And that has a greater role to play (in addition to our total lack of on-field leadership) than our decision to pick him in the first place.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

I'm pretty sure that a family of baboons would have yielded similar drafting results if they slung some poo in miscellaneous directions and picked the players who got hit. Because only the slow, soft, lazy ones wouldn't get out of the way in the first place.

FML!

[Redleg 41,432]

What do you say to La Dee-vina Comedia's argument above?

Well of course we will never know how well Talia would have developed at Melbourne, so it can't be answered. What I can say in relation to the Cook selection though, is that several other club's recruiters were stunned we chose him. Why would that be? Perhaps because they thought he was nowhere near a first round selection or an AFL footballer at all, for that matter.

I agree development plays a part, but accept that if you select someone that is not up to it, great development might still not get him there. It can help of course but you need the raw material to work with.

Sorry to use Darling as an example but how much development went into him over the first preseason, that led him to play first game and nearly every game since. He belonged from day one. He was a good selection. Of course you don't have to play early to be a good selection, but you have to show something. Not one person I have spoken to or comment I have read suggests that Cook is a good footballer. What I saw when I watched him, worried me and clearly others. I think the evidence at the moment says that at pick 12 he is a disaster. As a rookie pick that wouldn't be the case. So lets accept that this pick was a failure by BP. Unfortunately he had too many of them.

Just finally on development, you can't have the same club developing McDonald, Blease, Howe, Jones etc and say for guys who fail that it is only because of a lack of development. Some fail simply because they aren't good enough.

Obviously not every selection will have a great AFL career, but when you have several high picks you should get a fair few of them right.

Recruiters aren't judged on one pick but many and IMO BP was a failure.

Anyway, we move onto drafts and trades of 2012 and hope for some success.

[jnrmac 20,186]

Wow. Titan...you reckon we drafted badly here. Get out of it!!

Its unproven that Cook was has the talent for AFL. Just because you were taken in the first round does not mean you have talent.

That line is insane. Of course they have talent. It's application, sweat, perseverance, desire and hunger that they are more likely lacking.

Remember most gun juniors don't have to work too hard. To say they don't have talent ruins your otherwise sound arguments..

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Wow. Lucas Cook really hurts. At least Luke Molan at pick 9 was cruelled by injury. I know Cook has had some injuries but to see Cook languishing in the Casey 2's is a real indictment.

Boy it makes Darling look like a howler (and yes I know EVERY club overlooked him).

Ben Hur wrote this and CAC confirmed it years ago. Molan was a dud pick. CAC got it wrong.

This from CAC to me some 6 years ago (I've already posted most snippets):

"Later picks do compensate for early failures on occasion.

Miller doesn't compensate for our selection of Molan at 9 in 2001. It was a stellar draft and we blew it. We have been hanged for it publically and that's fair enough."

Even Craig acknowledges we stuffed up, so my advice to you is to accept it was a poor pick. Clearly recruiters aren't going to get every pick right, but it hurts when you stuff up top 20 picks, let alone top 10. Let's hope that Blease, Tapscott, Strauss and Gysberts can repay the faith the club has shown. They need to, because when you look at who we've missed we're coming from a long way back.

Supporters can wax on about development and to an extent there's validity in those comments, but in the main we simply haven't drafted well. The constant excuses by some for our inept recent selections need to stop. We need to get the next ones right and hope there's a star, or two on the horizon. If we do our fortunes will change far quicker than many realise. If we don't it will be a long haul.

[Guest Rassilon]

Just finally on development, you can't have the same club developing McDonald, Blease, Howe, Jones etc and say for guys who fail that it is only because of a lack of development. Some fail simply because they aren't good enough.

You might be missing a few key off-field factors.

a/ Your ability to handle the current "Gameplan"

b/ Your ability to handle increased work loads of AFL (pre-season period is vital.)

c/ Your ability to recover

d/ The game changes very quickly these days. Some players adapt quicker than others. ( Think Brock McLean - Gysberts or Simon Buckley)

Coaching, Fitness and Conditioning, Recovery, Sports Science are very important - in short some call it development. (* Importantly all is not lost we are getting better)

"Best available" is a very misleading term, they might easily be the "best available" talent but can we develop them into the best AFL footballers. The answer is obvious NO.

The poor drafting is all based on hindsight - there is not a recruiter in the land that would not admit to mistakes. However, quality development can compensate for some of those mistakes. When you are going well those mistakes are glossed over, when you are going badly all hell breaks lose in places like this.

Again look at the Nic Nat argument some who names shall remain silent- wont address the real issue. The off-field issues. Because the dont know them.

Look at the McLean - Gyberts deal - what looked like a master-stroke 2 years ago. Does it look so good today? Yet on here nearly ever man was crowing how well we done. Things change very quickly in AFL football. Buckley - we could not get the best out of him, yet Collingwood fit him into a premiership side.

A massive part of recruiting is picking the future - if anyone here has the magic crystal ball please feel free to send to the club. However, reality is there are no crystal balls there are no quick fixes.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Rassilon

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Your last sentence ruins your entire argument.

Agreed.

What do you say to La Dee-vina Comedia's argument above?

I'm happy to say that picking Cook clearly has turned out to be an awful result, and that part of the blame has to rest with the drafters for that. But I disagree with the idea that he was soft and therefore there was nothing the coaches could do.

What makes a good coach good? Surely part of it is the ability to make men out of boys, to turn average players into good ones, and to lead. Bailey didn't offer this.

In addition, did Cook enter a club with role-models? Those kind of leaders who drag the under-performers with them? Nick Riewoldt, Jonathan Brown, Matthew Pavlich, Chris Judd, etc.? No. He entered a club with no one, on-field or off, to spark anything in him.

Melbourne got it wrong taking Cook (mainly in hindsight, but whatever). What is more of an issue is that no one at Melbourne was able to get anything out of a kid who has the talent, but needed nurturing.

If you don't agree with that, you have very little respect for what Mick Malthouse, Paul Roos, and Kevin Sheedy are fantastic at.

Agree too.

I don't think the club agrees with that, in fact I'm sure they don't.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

At the time he was drafted, the evidence suggested he'd make a good AFL player. That's what I said. The evidence now clearly goes against that, but that's not my point.

When we picked Cook, his football warranted first-round selection. Did it warrant selection over other players? Arguably not. But it warranted selection nonetheless. He then came to the club and failed. So part of the blame goes to the recruiters for picking a player who couldn't make it at Melbourne. But part, and I argue much more, of the blame goes to our coaching and development structure/team, for taking a player whose talent as a kid was there, but who wasn't able to convert it.

Its not evidence...just opinion. All he may have have his potential to make an AFL footballer. There are a number of factors to go into that. He may have been worthy of drafting but not a first round pick. Possibly a late second and possibly third round pick. And hey a number of those players dont make it.

Having "talent" as a kid and not being able to convert it is unfortunately a common occurrence in the AFL. And its got a lot to do with the individual not the structure.

Sometimes you do pick a dud, correct.

Picking out one or two players here and there to suggest that my point was without base is ridiculous. My point was that what makes a good coach is their ability to develop players. Nowhere did I say that every player under Malthouse/Sheedy/Roos has been a star. Nowhere did I say that failures make a coach crap.

You've managed to pick only a handful of fails anyway, against years and years of successful player development. But that's not my point. My main point is that those coaches were able to take and nurture talent. Bailey wasn't. And that has a greater role to play (in addition to our total lack of on-field leadership) than our decision to pick him in the first place.

I was not questioning the calibre of the coaches. Each have been top shelf coaches. No argument.

If you go back to post #308, you will see what I quoted from you. There is no evidence to suggest that the other coaches mentioned would have done better than MFC with Cook given examples I gave. And the examples I gave were flawed draft choices that Sir Alex Ferguson could not have improved. And Cook is one of those. As I said if he goes elsehwere and makes a name for himself then its a tick for the development argument. However at this juncture, the concern is the selection of Cook.

And thoughout this discussion your argument has been driven by your opinion not on any hard evidence.

That line is insane. Of course they have talent. It's application, sweat, perseverance, desire and hunger that they are more likely lacking.

Remember most gun juniors don't have to work too hard. To say they don't have talent ruins your otherwise sound arguments..

Think about it you have defined talent far too narrowly. Its the recruiters role to idetify not only those that can kick and can mark but also to meet with and understand the character behind the person. Thats the talent

We all know that its a hard grind to be good in AFL and its not just about kicking marking and handballing.

Recruiters are paid big money to identify players that have the atributes to make it in AFL.

The debacle that is Cook as a first round pick would suggest that there were some signficant flaws that should have been identified and better evaluated in the pre draft stage.

And for the record here is a couple of examples of players who should have been identified early as flawed players but werent.

2004 - Richard Tambling (pick 4 - Richmond) - Lack of size

2005 - Oakley Nicholls (pick 8 - Richmond) - Outside player who was very outside

2006 - Mitchell Thorp (pick 6- Hawthorn) - Character issues

[jnrmac 20,186]

Think about it you have defined talent far too narrowly. Its the recruiters role to idetify not only those that can kick and can mark but also to meet with and understand the character behind the person. Thats the talent

We all know that its a hard grind to be good in AFL and its not just about kicking marking and handballing.

Recruiters are paid big money to identify players that have the atributes to make it in AFL.

The debacle that is Cook as a first round pick would suggest that there were some signficant flaws that should have been identified and better evaluated in the pre draft stage.

No. You think about it. You define talent too broadly. Let me help you.

tal•ent^*ˈtæl ənt(n.)

• 
  a special, often creative natural ability or aptitude:
  
• 
  a person or persons with special ability, esp. in a particular field:
  And BTW our players don't seem to be able to kick, mark and handball too well!
  

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

I'm not sure nominating Tom Mc, Blease, Howe and Jones as examples of excellent development is a strong argument. None of them has yet reached star status (I was going to write 'superstar' but I'd be happy if they could just make 'star' status - I accept Jones is moving in that direction). Perhaps they never will and may never have done so at another club. But is it more likely that Melbourne has been unable to draft just one bona fide superstar in the last 20 years or that we've been unable to develop one?

And did I read somewhere on here that 9 clubs have supposedly expressed interest in Cook? If that statement is correct (and feel free to shoot me down if it's not), what do they see that we don't?

[Redleg 41,432]

And did I read somewhere on here that 9 clubs have supposedly expressed interest in Cook? If that statement is correct (and feel free to shoot me down if it's not), what do they see that we don't?

Hopefully it's more of a case that they don't see what we see.

Let me say as a postscript that Cook and LJ leaving are 2 huge disappointments for me. I hoped Cook could show something and LJ would be back thrilling us.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Redleg

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

No. You think about it. You define talent too broadly. Let me help you.

tal•ent^*ˈtæl ənt(n.)

• 
  a special, often creative natural ability or aptitude:
  
• 
  a person or persons with special ability, esp. in a particular field:
  And BTW our players don't seem to be able to kick, mark and handball too well!
  

An aptitude includes the attitudal characteristics to perform at a particular level.

Dont knock yourself out.

And I agree on your last point. Include Cook in that?

[hardtack 10,627]

Hopefully it's more of a case that they don't see what we see.

Let me say as a postscript that Cook and LJ leaving are 2 huge disappointments for me. I hoped Cook could show something and LJ would be back thrilling us.

Well, I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to Cook leaving... it would have been nice to see him given a go, but now I look forward to seeing what the next step will be with Williams. I also get the feeling that once Watts has served his apprenticeship in the back line for another season, I expect he will be moved forward again.

[old dee 23,872]

I'm not sure nominating Tom Mc, Blease, Howe and Jones as examples of excellent development is a strong argument. None of them has yet reached star status (I was going to write 'superstar' but I'd be happy if they could just make 'star' status - I accept Jones is moving in that direction). Perhaps they never will and may never have done so at another club. But is it more likely that Melbourne has been unable to draft just one bona fide superstar in the last 20 years or that we've been unable to develop one?

And did I read somewhere on here that 9 clubs have supposedly expressed interest in Cook? If that statement is correct (and feel free to shoot me down if it's not), what do they see that we don't?

There has been one item in yesterdays Hun I think.

If you go to the first post on the Cook thread you will find it.

Nothing from the MFC!

Hope that helps

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Well of course we will never know how well Talia would have developed at Melbourne, so it can't be answered. What I can say in relation to the Cook selection though, is that several other club's recruiters were stunned we chose him. Why would that be? Perhaps because they thought he was nowhere near a first round selection or an AFL footballer at all, for that matter. I agree development plays a part, but accept that if you select someone that is not up to it, great development might still not get him there. It can help of course but you need the raw material to work with. Sorry to use Darling as an example but how much development went into him over the first preseason, that led him to play first game and nearly every game since. He belonged from day one. He was a good selection. Of course you don't have to play early to be a good selection, but you have to show something. Not one person I have spoken to or comment I have read suggests that Cook is a good footballer. What I saw when I watched him, worried me and clearly others. I think the evidence at the moment says that at pick 12 he is a disaster. As a rookie pick that wouldn't be the case. So lets accept that this pick was a failure by BP. Unfortunately he had too many of them. Just finally on development, you can't have the same club developing McDonald, Blease, Howe, Jones etc and say for guys who fail that it is only because of a lack of development. Some fail simply because they aren't good enough. Obviously not every selection will have a great AFL career, but when you have several high picks you should get a fair few of them right. Recruiters aren't judged on one pick but many and IMO BP was a failure. Anyway, we move onto drafts and trades of 2012 and hope for some success.

Darling plays for West Coast. He gets to watch and learn from Cox, Kerr, Embley, LeCras, Kennedy, Glass and Waters. Not one Melbourne player has the leadership that any of them provides.

Darling also has Worsfold. And a more highly-paid team.

Many other factors have made Darling a better player now than he would have been if he went to a club like us.

Also, your argument about McDonald, Howe etc. is a little strange. You're trying to say that, since we've managed to develop them, it follows that every player who fails is a failed draft pick, because we're able to develop players. Everyone is different. In the case of Cook, we weren't able to provide him with what was required to make him an AFL player. Poor leadership, poor coaching, etc..

I don't think the club agrees with that, in fact I'm sure they don't.

The way I wrote that made it sound like I thought he's not soft. I'm pretty sure he is. What I meant was that I disagree with the notion that, because he is inherently soft, there's nothing the coaches could do. I disagree with that argument.

Its not evidence...just opinion. All he may have have his potential to make an AFL footballer. There are a number of factors to go into that. He may have been worthy of drafting but not a first round pick. Possibly a late second and possibly third round pick.

Do you have any 'evidence' of this (that he wasn't worthy of being a first round pick)? And by that I mean evidence that was available in 2010?

From this: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/105263/default.aspx, and before you rant and rave, it says that Cook was a 'monty' to be picked first round until his form dipped in the second half of the year. The point being he displayed the ability to be a top player.

Also important: you as yet have provided no evidence to suggest he was no chance to be a first round pick.

There is no evidence to suggest that the other coaches mentioned would have done better than MFC with Cook given examples I gave. And the examples I gave were flawed draft choices that Sir Alex Ferguson could not have improved. And Cook is one of those. As I said if he goes elsehwere and makes a name for himself then its a tick for the development argument. However at this juncture, the concern is the selection of Cook. And thoughout this discussion your argument has been driven by your opinion not on any hard evidence.

Of course there is no evidence, he hasn't actually been developed by anyone else! What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

What is fair to say on the 'evidence' (which you are so keen on) is that certain coaches have better track records of developing players than others. I cited coaches like Malthouse, Roos and Sheedy as coaches who have taken players who didn't seem like much and turned them into better players. All you did was cite some examples of failed players to say that coaches aren't always able to do this. That's my point. Bailey wasn't able to do with with Cook. He wasn't able to do it with many players, which is my broad point.

You see it as flawed draft choices. I see it more as a bad system, of coaching, development, and leadership, which has failed to take a player with talent and make an AFL player of him.

Your 'evidence' about Cook is all hindsight. Hardly fair.

I've said it from the outset that this is my opinion. At any rate, I don't think you have any more evidence than I have.

Edited September 6, 2012 by titan_uranus

[dee-luded 2,959]

Thrilled that Barry Prendergast knew more than every Demonlander, who predicted we would take Talia with the pick 11 we got from Carlton for Brock. WJ and I nearly fainted when we went to a function on draft night and Chris Connolly told us we would not take Talia, but instead would take Gysberts. Talia has won the rising star and looks an AA and star for 10 years. Gysberts is being spoken of as being traded.

How much was he paid for being our head recruiter?

I know it is easy to have hindsight but most of us had foresight on this occasion. Now we hear about Gysberts deficiencies as the reason he may go.

I won't mention Cook/Darling as other have.

Why were other clubs shocked at some of our selections?

It just makes you sick, thinking about it.

>>> Here is a Demonland thread where we start talking about Daniel Talia, & our draft directions, balance between Mids & Talls etc.

http://demonland.com..._+daniel +talia

#Edit: sorry wrong thread, here it is >

Edited September 6, 2012 by dee-luded

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Darling plays for West Coast. He gets to watch and learn from Cox, Kerr, Embley, LeCras, Kennedy, Glass and Waters. Not one Melbourne player has the leadership that any of them provides.

Darling also has Worsfold. And a more highly-paid team.

Many other factors have made Darling a better player now than he would have been if he went to a club like us.

Also, your argument about McDonald, Howe etc. is a little strange. You're trying to say that, since we've managed to develop them, it follows that every player who fails is a failed draft pick, because we're able to develop players. Everyone is different. In the case of Cook, we weren't able to provide him with what was required to make him an AFL player. Poor leadership, poor coaching, etc..

The way I wrote that made it sound like I thought he's not soft. I'm pretty sure he is. What I meant was that I disagree with the notion that, because he is inherently soft, there's nothing the coaches could do. I disagree with that argument.

Do you have any 'evidence' of this (that he wasn't worthy of being a first round pick)? And by that I mean evidence that was available in 2010?

From this: http://www.afl.com.a...63/default.aspx, and before you rant and rave, it says that Cook was a 'monty' to be picked first round until his form dipped in the second half of the year. The point being he displayed the ability to be a top player.

Also important: you as yet have provided no evidence to suggest he was no chance to be a first round pick.

Of course there is no evidence, he hasn't actually been developed by anyone else! What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

What is fair to say on the 'evidence' (which you are so keen on) is that certain coaches have better track records of developing players than others. I cited coaches like Malthouse, Roos and Sheedy as coaches who have taken players who didn't seem like much and turned them into better players. All you did was cite some examples of failed players to say that coaches aren't always able to do this. That's my point. Bailey wasn't able to do with with Cook. He wasn't able to do it with many players, which is my broad point.

You see it as flawed draft choices. I see it more as a bad system, of coaching, development, and leadership, which has failed to take a player with talent and make an AFL player of him.

Your 'evidence' about Cook is all hindsight. Hardly fair.

I've said it from the outset that this is my opinion. At any rate, I don't think you have any more evidence than I have.

We've all played football and we've all been put under physical pressure by our opponent; there are differing types of pressure such as the whack behind the ear just as the game is about to start, or the threat that if you go near the ball "I'll knock your head off".

If word gets round that you can be put of by a verbal threat, you have a very limited life as a footballer.

Recruiters need to know how players will respond to pressure, if they get that wrong they are failing in their duties. It is no good having a kid with all the skills in the World if he is timid.

[Grimseyisgod 378]

Imagine if we had lost the "Kreuzer Cup", we would have gotten Cotchin, instead we got Cale Morton. Crap happens.

We have drafted some awful players such as Cale Morton, Jamie Bennell is pathetic, cannot stand Bate, Gysberts hasnt turned out as well as hoped (although he is a ball magnet with a lot of talent, Jordie just isn't getting the job done, we should trade him while he is still worth currency).

As much as I love Watts, if you offered me Watts or Nicnat or Jack Redden I would take either.

It would be a pity if Melbourne dont end up real winners in this years draft as it is supposed to be a good one.

With potential there like Viney as F/S, Nathan Hvorat, Josh Walker and so on.

This years draft could set us up for a potential premiership along the track! lets just be hopefull and if we participate properly in the Free Agency and trade week we could seriously return to being a powerhouse club that Melbourne was known for in the earlier years of the clubs establishment.

go dees!

[dee-luded 2,959]

Well, here we go.

Lets see now, if Our recruiting team has learned anything at all from the poor past rebuilding Team of,, Professor Montgomery Weirdo & Count Kook?

Lets see if we've been watching, 'T V', or will we get K O'd?

The last few years we've bowed, scraped, scavenged, & developed, 4 not much more than a Milton the Monster.

Can we C some more Crunt out there? please...