Funnily enough, pre-draft Cook played a few VFL matches against men as the 23rd man, and reportedly acquitted himself quite well.

Well then unfortunately we got a dud and my theory doesn't hold up. I blame Neeld.

Unfortunately, as much as it pains me to say, Watts over Naitanui was a HOWLER.

I've been watching Naitanui a lot recently, he's a genuine star. His ruck work is something to behold and the way he can take games by the scruff of the neck, it unbelievable. I've never seen anything like the things he does. And he actually does it consistently. His development at only 22 of whatever is crazy.

Watts may become a very good player. he may become average. the jury is still out.

But even at the time, most clubs would have taken Naitanui.

We went for needs (KPF) and you NEVER should do that with a number 1 pick (even though I know Watts was considered a top 3 prospect, Naitanui was a clear number 1). And now it looks like Watts isn't even a KPF... depressing

...and when NicNat "did a Thompson" and headed back west, as he allegedly kept saying pre-draft, would we be all saying "what a great decision that was"???

"But with the large combo we get a free 1.25 litre bottle of Coke."

Some solid entries but Robot Devil you're the winner!

D32 given your insight in past have you got the same insight into this draft. Especially do you still follow U18 closely?

I cant recall your comments on the Viney question mahbe you can add your thought on that as well.

Nothing wrong with an "armchair expert" opinion and it may be rejected due to circumstances outside the chair

but I do think the comments you made re other picks show a good bit of footy knowledge. Im happy to read more.

Sorry for the delay with this, been tied up at work...

Jack Viney is a top 10 pick.

The issue with him is that he isn't big and isn't fast, which means that in usual circumstances you wouldn't pick him in the top 5.

His intangibles are incredible.

He shows guts, leadership, bravery, defensive pressure, and toughness. These things aren't measured at a draft camp so you won't hear about him very much during testing... But trust me when I see that Jack Viney is easily the toughest Under 18's player I have ever witnessed. Which is a pretty big deal considering the amount of kids that comes through the system each year.

I'll tell you one thing about Viney that is rarely mentioned, his kicking over 20-40 mtrs is absolutely elite, barely ever misses a target by foot... It is quite incredible that someone of his size who plays the game the way he does would also have an elite kick but he does, it is simply a perfect action for someone at his stage of development.

Naturally, we want to snag Viney in the 2nd round, so hopefully no one bids on him (for the record I don't believe anyone will risk it)... But with that being said, I would still pick Viney at 3 if we had to and not feel bad about it because we will still have pick 4 and a mid round pick.

Jack Viney will forge out a 200 game career (if there are no injuries) and will most likely been in the leadership group very quickly... So to me, that is well worth the investment of the number 3 pick.

Picking Viney in my opinion is a sure thing, no hoping he comes on like alot of other high draft picks... He is a guy who will come in and give us his all at a high level for his entire career.

He isn't a project, he isn't a freak athlete, he isn't a great endurance runner or any of that stuff you hear about skinny 17 year old draftees... Jack Viney is a footballer... So is Sam Mitchell, so is Joel Selwood, so is Dane Swan.

Some solid entries but Robot Devil you're the winner!

Thanks! I look forward to calling out the names of some up and comers at this years draft.

2. The rebuild of 2000 to 2004 is solely the result of the squealing curly headed rat Gutnick. Stuffed us for years with our two years of missing first round picks. Don't get the love for him here. Nearly killed us. Combine that with our GF appearance in 2000 AND the new football deal of $780m when Freo was throwing huge money at Woewodin and the Wiz and we were in a giant hole. We didn't trade well but circumstances were difficult at that time.

Context......hmmmm.

Racism? Oh that's really nice.

Secondly, Gutnick wasn't great, but his money saved the club. There's really no denying that. We should have played by the rules in the 90s. Exploit them, yes, but not cheat. We paid the price. Blame Craig Cameron and BP's recruitment. I still find it staggering that Richmond rated CC so highly. Though he has done a slightly better job at Richmond.

Blame Craig Cameron and BP's recruitment. I still find it staggering that Richmond rated CC so highly. Though he has done a slightly better job at Richmond.

Cameron hasn't been the recruiting manager at Richmond, he's the football/list manager.

Coincidentally I was reading a private message today he sent me some 5-6 years ago when discussing our drafting. A couple of his points are interesting reading all these years later, although I didn't completely agree with them. In the main it's generic without discussing individuals, but it may not be appropriate to share as it was private. Although I'm not sure how long one is sensitive in these matters. He still has friends here, so they can let me know, or I'll send them a copy first. If you read this Fan, send me a pm.

many will say, look at the other clubs that also passed on these players, but that is not the point. The point is that we have had professionals in one of the most important positions in a football club and one would have to say overall, when looking at our recent drafting history, that we have failed miserably.

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.

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.

It is actually not a matter of saying the selections you made were ok by general concensus at the time, but rather to examine those selections, comparing them with the picks we had and what other clubs ended up with.

In other words from the picks we had, have we drafted well. Have we drafted any champions? Have we drafted as many good players,as other clubs with worse picks have ended up with. On any analysis you would have to conclude that we have drafted poorly and worse than most clubs.

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.

thats exactly what Ive been saying for years. Simpletons like to pretend that we 'picked the wrong blokes' wanting to tar and feather CC/BP, because that explanation is simpler, and it helps you to move forward, because you can say 'hey let's get a better recruiter and this crap will stop happening', unfortunately that is not the case. When a player gets drafted to the MFC he goes into an environment that has second rate facilities, staff and equipment. The culture of the club is largely one of mockery and apathy, playing to small crowds and constantly subjected to attacks from the media. There is no culture of success and there are no champions around the place showing them how its done. That's why your garden variety first round draft pick inevitably becomes an ordinary-at-best player, while at the big clubs he would be star. If you could wave a magic wand and swap Morton for Dangerfield I would wager you'd find Dangerfield playing in our magoos with Morton starring in Adelaide.

you need analyse no further than McLean/Morton/Sylvia. Pick 3,4 and 5, none of them surprise selections, all failures. What are the odds we picked 3 duds like that vs its the clubs development at fault for not bringing them to their potential?

I'll ask you this - why did Cale Morton get nearly 100 disposals in a 3 week period in his first season, as well as play solid roles in key positions at either end of the ground, and now could stake a claim for the worst player in the comp? What about McLean who looked a certain champion? What happened? Why does nobody ever take the step to the next level at this club?

thats exactly what Ive been saying for years. Simpletons like to pretend that we 'picked the wrong blokes' wanting to tar and feather CC/BP, because that explanation is simpler, and it helps you to move forward, because you can say 'hey let's get a better recruiter and this crap will stop happening', unfortunately that is not the case. When a player gets drafted to the MFC he goes into an environment that has second rate facilities, staff and equipment. The culture of the club is largely one of mockery and apathy, playing to small crowds and constantly subjected to attacks from the media. There is no culture of success and there are no champions around the place showing them how its done. That's why your garden variety first round draft pick inevitably becomes an ordinary-at-best player, while at the big clubs he would be star. If you could wave a magic wand and swap Morton for Dangerfield I would wager you'd find Dangerfield playing in our magoos with Morton starring in Adelaide.

you need analyse no further than McLean/Morton/Sylvia. Pick 3,4 and 5, none of them surprise selections, all failures. What are the odds we picked 3 duds like that vs its the clubs development at fault for not bringing them to their potential?

I'll ask you this - why did Cale Morton get nearly 100 disposals in a 3 week period in his first season, as well as play solid roles in key positions at either end of the ground, and now could stake a claim for the worst player in the comp? What about McLean who looked a certain champion? What happened? Why does nobody ever take the step to the next level at this club?

So to use your logic there are no bad selections only poor development. You put all our failures down to being at Melbourne instead of Pies or Hawks etc. Wonder why head recruiters earn so much then and are so highly sought and protected?

Additionally, if we don't see it your way, we are simpletons.

Keep in mind when Neeld came on voard he to a point respected some who were entrenched. Whilst he made it known where he thought the holes were he ( I take it ) left it mainly to those in tehfd/recruiting to call it on draft day. Yes Neeld was very active in getting Clark but I read it only passingly a hand in any absolutes int e nominees last draft.

This will not happen this year. His stamp will be all over selections. Neeld a 'teacher' . He has intuition as to who can be taught. Will be very interesting to see the picks this year.

I dont think many of the sins of the past will be repeated this year

It is actually not a matter of saying the selections you made were ok by general concensus at the time, but rather to examine those selections, comparing them with the picks we had and what other clubs ended up with.

In other words from the picks we had, have we drafted well. Have we drafted any champions? Have we drafted as many good players,as other clubs with worse picks have ended up with. On any analysis you would have to conclude that we have drafted poorly and worse than most clubs.

This is the perfect example of why hindsight ruins arguments.

You cannot state that our recruiters made a mistake in 2007/8/9/10/11 by examining the impact our coaching staff, players, funds, facilities and anything else that has impacted on the player, by looking backwards.

What happens if a player comes and breaks his leg on day 1? Fail of the recruiters? Obviously not. Point being, recruiters don't control what happens post-draft. They obviously make their choices with a view to how that player will respond to the AFL life, but in the end, that is a tough call to make. That's why every club passed on Darling: he ended up being picked late, and has so far played well, but all recruiters were concerned about his lifestyle and ability to be an AFL player, as opposed to a football player.

It's far too easy to just say 'Morton sucks, therefore we made a mistake in recruiting him', when the real problem lies in the terrible coaching staff who attempted to develop him from 2008-2011.

This is the perfect example of why hindsight ruins arguments.

You cannot state that our recruiters made a mistake in 2007/8/9/10/11 by examining the impact our coaching staff, players, funds, facilities and anything else that has impacted on the player, by looking backwards.

What happens if a player comes and breaks his leg on day 1? Fail of the recruiters? Obviously not. Point being, recruiters don't control what happens post-draft. They obviously make their choices with a view to how that player will respond to the AFL life, but in the end, that is a tough call to make. That's why every club passed on Darling: he ended up being picked late, and has so far played well, but all recruiters were concerned about his lifestyle and ability to be an AFL player, as opposed to a football player.

It's far too easy to just say 'Morton sucks, therefore we made a mistake in recruiting him', when the real problem lies in the terrible coaching staff who attempted to develop him from 2008-2011.

I understand your point. How would you evaluate our drafting over the last 7-8 years then?

Hindsight IS the tool of evaluation. It offer a time point at which you can see an event take place and then give it context as and how it eventually affected things right up to the point of actual view( i.e hindsight)

So we can quite readily deduce that despite anyones best intentions and efforts we really dont have a lot to show for those 7-8 years. For if we did we wouldnt be in this groundhog day of a situation whereby we starea build in the face, yet again.

...and when NicNat "did a Thompson" and headed back west, as he allegedly kept saying pre-draft, would we be all saying "what a great decision that was"???

On that basis we should keep away from draft players from interstate.

Racism? Oh that's really nice.

Secondly, Gutnick wasn't great, but his money saved the club. There's really no denying that. We should have played by the rules in the 90s. Exploit them, yes, but not cheat. We paid the price. Blame Craig Cameron and BP's recruitment. I still find it staggering that Richmond rated CC so highly. Though he has done a slightly better job at Richmond.

His money did not save the Club. Gutnick also almost brought down the Club with his antics. There is no doubt we should not have breach the salary cap. But Gutnick used that matter for his own benefit. This is in stark contrast to Gutnicks behaviour in the corporate world. And Cameron is not the recruitment manager at Richmond.

This is the perfect example of why hindsight ruins arguments.

You cannot state that our recruiters made a mistake in 2007/8/9/10/11 by examining the impact our coaching staff, players, funds, facilities and anything else that has impacted on the player, by looking backwards.

What happens if a player comes and breaks his leg on day 1? Fail of the recruiters? Obviously not. Point being, recruiters don't control what happens post-draft. They obviously make their choices with a view to how that player will respond to the AFL life, but in the end, that is a tough call to make. That's why every club passed on Darling: he ended up being picked late, and has so far played well, but all recruiters were concerned about his lifestyle and ability to be an AFL player, as opposed to a football player.

It's far too easy to just say 'Morton sucks, therefore we made a mistake in recruiting him', when the real problem lies in the terrible coaching staff who attempted to develop him from 2008-2011.

It does not. 3 to 5 years should provide fair indication of the potential or actual worthiness of a draft pick. Its a cop out to blame development. There is inherent risk in the recruitment of all players and recruiters get paid big bucks to spot the talent.They are paid to get it right. And the good ones do. We have not had that luxury. There was a "punt" on Morton who under at least 2 coaches in 5 years has shown himself deficient at AFL. Its not a good sign at the end of 5 years for pick #4. Its terrible when you see what went after him in the draft. Cameron's last draft was not a good one. He also took Maric at pick 20 and now at 2 clubs I am stuffed what was seen in Maric to waste pick 20.

Why does everyone conveniently forget that although Darling had an impressive 2009 season, his 2010 U/18 season was abysmal..?

Had shown potential, but was in poor form.

Was he tanking to get to the eagles?

Who knows, but if he was, is he the type we wanted at our club?

Then there was the fight, getting kicked out of school, the head injury issues, not being fit to test at draft camp, a bit of a Fev mentality...

I'm not sure that Cook exactly helps in this department, but it's still worth remembering that we are trying to forge a strong culture.

I'd say the eagles had already spent years after their "West Coke" days effectively rectifying their own culture.

Why does everyone conveniently forget that although Darling had an impressive 2009 season, his 2010 U/18 season was abysmal..?

Had shown potential, but was in poor form.

Was he tanking to get to the eagles?

Who knows, but if he was, is he the type we wanted at our club?

Then there was the fight, getting kicked out of school, the head injury issues, not being fit to test at draft camp, a bit of a Fev mentality...

I'm not sure that Cook exactly helps in this department, but it's still worth remembering that we are trying to forge a strong culture.

I'd say the eagles had already spent years after their "West Coke" days effectively rectifying their own culture.

The only type of player I want at the Dees is one that can earn his spot every week and kick goals as a forward.

The rest does not come into my view.

I do not care if he kicks his dog, does not stand up for ladies on the train, yells at the boot studder, does not wear clean undies or smokes weed on his holidays.

He does not seem to be hurting the Eagles progression to a GF at the moment.

I Just want a footballer to take us up the ladder.

Racism? Oh that's really nice.

Secondly, Gutnick wasn't great, but his money saved the club. There's really no denying that. We should have played by the rules in the 90s. Exploit them, yes, but not cheat. We paid the price. Blame Craig Cameron and BP's recruitment. I still find it staggering that Richmond rated CC so highly. Though he has done a slightly better job at Richmond.

Racism?? How is that racist you politically correct moron. Get off your high and might horse. And if you are referring to being Jewish I could tell you its not a race its a religion that happens to think they are the 'chosen people'. Can't get any more racist than that.

Gutnick was a disgrace. Stepped into the club solely for his own purpose and benefit. Did not put all of his money that he pledged. Refused to pay $300k to the club when they desperately needed it. And caused us no end of angst for two drafts. As well we had at least 4 players suffer the ignominy of tax audits which are not pleasant.

Your type make me sick. If you want to hear some real stories about Gutnick I could give them to you first-hand. I would hazard a guess to say you have never had to deal with him in business. I hold an extremely low opinion of him if you haven't gathered..

He also took Maric at pick 20 and now at 2 clubs I am stuffed what was seen in Maric to waste pick 20.

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't Maric touted as a definite first-round pick with 'elite' kicking skills pre-draft?

Our problem was not being aware to his emo ways.

Racism?? How is that racist you politically correct moron. Get off your high and might horse. And if you are referring to being Jewish I could tell you its not a race its a religion that happens to think they are the 'chosen people'. Can't get any more racist than that.

Gutnick was a disgrace. Stepped into the club solely for his own purpose and benefit. Did not put all of his money that he pledged. Refused to pay $300k to the club when they desperately needed it. And caused us no end of angst for two drafts. As well we had at least 4 players suffer the ignominy of tax audits which are not pleasant.

Your type make me sick. If you want to hear some real stories about Gutnick I could give them to you first-hand. I would hazard a guess to say you have never had to deal with him in business. I hold an extremely low opinion of him if you haven't gathered..

Jnrmac - were you the poster that had a go at RobbieF (I think) for saying the club is 'factionalised'?

And here you are still bitter about Gutnick all these years later. He's a Demon that, like every board member ever, tried to do what was best for his club.

Our club cannot afford to hold grudges - we don't have enough supporters.

We need everyone.

Move on.

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't Maric touted as a definite first-round pick with 'elite' kicking skills pre-draft?

Drafting boys based on what they'll be in 5 years is a gamble. Living at home and playing footy for fun with your mates at 17 is very different to having to organize your life and compete against grown bodies that'll do anything to beat you.

I find this talk about young potential draftees by most supporters (elite skills, natural leader, future 200 gamer) is the root of the problem. We are feeding the beast. It's obvious that a lot of the players on our list are suffering from thinking they succeeded too soon and as a result they don't go on. Let's all remember this come October when a new round of kids come to the club.

"Dean, it says here we WERE allowed to bring in our cheat sheet with the names of players we've seen this year."

'pantaloons', What would it say here??????

http://www.google.co...:86&tx=43&ty=55

???????????

Say no more.