No offence deeluded but sometimes your posts remind of irreverent and unfollowable Japanese commercials.

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.

We pay recruiters big money to spot the talent not listen to the touts in the Hun and on big footy. His elite kicking skills are useless if he dont get the ball. (Classic Diamond Jim Tilbrook).

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

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

"Dowler, Oakley-Nichols, Drum - they've taken all the good ones. I guess we're stuck with Nathan Jones."

There is always plenty of debate over whether drafting or development has been poorly this site. I think we can almost all agree that both have been subpar at best this millennium. I just hope that with new people in place we an get both right. I have no doubt that the roadmelbourne took the last 5 years was the right one, we just picked poorly and didn't get the best out of what we did get.

Wasn't it just a couple od seasons ago when some of our then leaders went to the board with concerns of how the younger players were being developed? I believe it was Junior, Bruce and Miller who raised the issue. Next season they are all gone. Correct me if I am wrong.

Wasn't it just a couple od seasons ago when some of our then leaders went to the board with concerns of how the younger players were being developed? I believe it was Junior, Bruce and Miller who raised the issue. Next season they are all gone. Correct me if I am wrong.

Would you listen?

Where did you get that howler?

I'll share the odd snippet of a discussion I had with CAC.

In one part he wrote, "If we had drafted Rivers at 15 and Smith at 26 in 2002 would you be raising an issue? Because if you looked at the best player drafted after 15 I would contend that it is Rivers. The opportunity cost of a failure at 15 in 2002 is fairly low. It was a poor draft." "Surely Brisbane's failure at 10 in 1997 with O'Bree was more than compensated by their selection of Black at 31 in the same draft. Later picks do compensate for early failures on occasion."

Now some supporters won't be comforted by that view as they'll expect most picks to be right, but clearly Craig's point has some merit. I'm a harsh critic of BP, but I must concede that Howe is a ripper selection in the 30's, as is Tom McDonald at 50 odd.

So I ask you, are we too tough on BP and do later picks compensate earlier picks as Craig attests ? Craig's rider is "on occasions", where he clearly means that the overall quality of the draft has to be a consideration.

I don't think BP's drafting has been as bad as many here make out. There's a lot of water to pass under the bridge.

Gysberts, Cook and Bennell might be misses but everyone makes them, even if we don't value them we could convert them to trade value and they may prosper elsewhere. I've got no problems with the Watts, Scully and Trengove picks. Blease, Strauss and Tapscott have been significantly hindered in their development and can still deliver on their rating. Later picks Howe and McDonald are very good. Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Jetta, Nicholson, and Evans can also deliver on their rating. He picked Jurrah.

There's a stampede to prematurely condemn.

So I ask you, are we too tough on BP and do later picks compensate earlier picks as Craig attests ? Craig's rider is "on occasions", where he clearly means that the overall quality of the draft has to be a consideration.

Yes and no.

The truth is in nuance.

Sylvia and McLean were not what we would expect from two top 5 picks and not what Hawthorn got a year later Franklin and Roughead with 2 and 5. Or Collingwood with Thomas and Pendlebury with 2 and 5 in 2005.

But 2003 was a dud year.

It is an awful read the first few rounds...

With that said - recruiters are paid to get the top 5 right (if talent is available) and no amount of great pick ups later in the draft is going to change my mind on that. It is too early to tell how Watts and Trengove will be judged and HWFUA has turned into 4 and 13 so that is yet to play out...

To bring this back to 2012 - Viney's short tenure will be determined by Pick 3 and 4 whether or not his son is one of those picks.

Now some supporters won't be comforted by that view as they'll expect most picks to be right, but clearly Craig's point has some merit. I'm a harsh critic of BP, but I must concede that Howe is a ripper selection in the 30's, as is Tom McDonald at 50 odd.

So I ask you, are we too tough on BP and do later picks compensate earlier picks as Craig attests ? Craig's rider is "on occasions", where he clearly means that the overall quality of the draft has to be a consideration.

Thanks for sharing. I think all clubs would have their success stories of the odd gem selected outside the top 25 or so. Where we've fallen down is using our top 20 picks. If we just look at prendergast's time, he's had picks 1, 1, 2, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 19 to work with in the space of three years, and failed to draft a superstar with that haul. That's where you are supposed to get your best players, and he made an absolute meal of it. Sure, we don't know how good some of them are going to be, but the fact that we are still wondering that about players after four years (watts, Strauss, blease) is a worry. Cook was probably the second worst pick in club history behind Molan. Gysberts has looked promising but through injury or whatever failed facets of his game has been spilled in the paper as trade bait. I don't know if it counts for or against BP, but besides Trengove and possibly Watts, all of those picks have had a fair by of injury to deal with.

Yes, he's nailed Howe and McDonald, but there were plenty of later picks that haven't come on, and the addition of these two hasn't compensated for his performance drafting inside the top 20. As much as CC's idea sounds fair, we have to demand more. Other clubs are nailing their top picks and finding the odd gem.

"Surely Brisbane's failure at 10 in 1997 with O'Bree was more than compensated by their selection of Black at 31 in the same draft. Later picks do compensate for early failures on occasion."

Yet O'Bree thrived at Collingwood...doe this tell us that he was not a failed high draft pick, but a player hampered by development at one club and aided by it at another?

Thanks for sharing. I think all clubs would have their success stories of the odd gem selected outside the top 25 or so. Where we've fallen down is using our top 20 picks. If we just look at prendergast's time, he's had picks 1, 1, 2, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 19 to work with in the space of three years, and failed to draft a superstar with that haul. That's where you are supposed to get your best players, and he made an absolute meal of it. Sure, we don't know how good some of them are going to be, but the fact that we are still wondering that about players after four years (watts, Strauss, blease) is a worry. Cook was probably the second worst pick in club history behind Molan. Gysberts has looked promising but through injury or whatever failed facets of his game has been spilled in the paper as trade bait. I don't know if it counts for or against BP, but besides Trengove and possibly Watts, all of those picks have had a fair by of injury to deal with.

Yes, he's nailed Howe and McDonald, but there were plenty of later picks that haven't come on, and the addition of these two hasn't compensated for his performance drafting inside the top 20. As much as CC's idea sounds fair, we have to demand more. Other clubs are nailing their top picks and finding the odd gem.

That's pretty much how I see it. I reckon you're right on the money.

What I'd give for a star. Here's a few more paragraphs from CAC, where he succinctly sums up the importance of stars:

"My post was not really a justification of our drafting; ultimately I don't need to do that in a public forum. It was more to show that some assumptions about the value of first round selections, especially those outside the top 10, are erroneous. Only a little more than 1 in 2 play 50 or more games."

"It was also to emphasise your point that finding a star is more important than having the numbers right. Adelaide have the second worst record of all clubs in the National Draft between 1997 and 2003. Not just overall but also in top 10 and first round selections. They survive and play finals based on a handful of residual stars. Stars that came to them through odd means. Zone selections and in the case of Goodwin a pre season draft."

"Anyway I'm sure we will continue to debate the merits of our talent identification compared to the rest of the competition. And if your boy Jones live up to expectations our first round figures will be above the competition average."

I wanted to draft Jones prior to the ND and briefly had a conversation with CAC about it. I reckon I've been Jones harshest critic, but that's the way I roll. He's been great this year and has made the jump to A grade. But it's only an A grade year. Unless you're A grade for at least two years you're not an A grader in my eyes. He needs to back up from now on.

I also wanted Watts, but am terribly disappointed. But that's another story ...

I also wanted Watts, but am terribly disappointed. But that's another story ...

Don't be. We will develop him and he will become a great.

Don't be. We will develop him and he will become a great.

Until he plays with courage in the air he'll never be "great", or even a quality key forward, which is why he was drafted.

What I'd give for a star. Here's a few more paragraphs from CAC, where he succinctly sums up the importance of stars:

"My post was not really a justification of our drafting; ultimately I don't need to do that in a public forum. It was more to show that some assumptions about the value of first round selections, especially those outside the top 10, are erroneous. Only a little more than 1 in 2 play 50 or more games."

"It was also to emphasise your point that finding a star is more important than having the numbers right. Adelaide have the second worst record of all clubs in the National Draft between 1997 and 2003. Not just overall but also in top 10 and first round selections. They survive and play finals based on a handful of residual stars. Stars that came to them through odd means. Zone selections and in the case of Goodwin a pre season draft."

"Anyway I'm sure we will continue to debate the merits of our talent identification compared to the rest of the competition. And if your boy Jones live up to expectations our first round figures will be above the competition average."

I wanted to draft Jones prior to the ND and briefly had a conversation with CAC about it. I reckon I've been Jones harshest critic, but that's the way I roll. He's been great this year and has made the jump to A grade. But it's only an A grade year. Unless you're A grade for at least two years you're not an A grader in my eyes. He needs to back up from now on.

I also wanted Watts, but am terribly disappointed. But that's another story ...

I'd be interested to know if the 1 in 2 players from the first round to play 50 games stat is from the draft's inception or a more recent time sample. Because that figure surprises me, and I'd expect that we continue to see an upturn in first round picks having longer and more 'successful' careers.

I'd be interested to know if the 1 in 2 players from the first round to play 50 games stat is from the draft's inception or a more recent time sample. Because that figure surprises me, and I'd expect that we continue to see an upturn in first round picks having longer and more 'successful' careers.

All I can tell you is that I think this correspondence was in 2006.

I'll share the odd snippet of a discussion I had with CAC.

In one part he wrote, "If we had drafted Rivers at 15 and Smith at 26 in 2002 would you be raising an issue? Because if you looked at the best player drafted after 15 I would contend that it is Rivers. The opportunity cost of a failure at 15 in 2002 is fairly low. It was a poor draft." "Surely Brisbane's failure at 10 in 1997 with O'Bree was more than compensated by their selection of Black at 31 in the same draft. Later picks do compensate for early failures on occasion."

Now some supporters won't be comforted by that view as they'll expect most picks to be right, but clearly Craig's point has some merit. I'm a harsh critic of BP, but I must concede that Howe is a ripper selection in the 30's, as is Tom McDonald at 50 odd.

So I ask you, are we too tough on BP and do later picks compensate earlier picks as Craig attests ? Craig's rider is "on occasions", where he clearly means that the overall quality of the draft has to be a consideration.

??? Your defending CAC & eND, & the rest of them??? How can you?

You've plucked one year out of they're terms at the club. When they where gone we've hadf to clear out the whole club 7 rebiuild it with Emotional pain & peoples hard earned dollars.

And you dare to try to defend all from that Era of the 2000's...

You have got to be Joking.

^^^^^^

Can someone tell me WTF this clown is talking about ?

I didn't see it as defending

I thought it was interesting to understand different aspects of the draft process and understand other ways to evaluate it

It was just a little snapshot into a specific area

no need for the umbrage

^^^^^^

Can someone tell me WTF this clown is talking about ?

I think the word 'clown' is not used nearly enough.

I'm paraphrasing, but it seems plenty of posters have determined that because none of the players drafted by Melbourne in the last decade have become stars, its a statistical certainty that the fault must lie in recruitment. Why isn't the same credence given to the argument that all those players have been developed and coached at Melbourne and therefore it's a statistical certainty that the flaw is in development and coaching?

For what it's worth, in a system which has been designed to level the playing field in recruitment (draft, salary cap) but not in coaching and development, I believe most kids drafted have similar amounts of ability when drafted but some clubs just develop them better (Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney) than others (Melbourne, Fremantle, Western Bulldogs, Richmond).

I'm paraphrasing, but it seems plenty of posters have determined that because none of the players drafted by Melbourne in the last decade have become stars, its a statistical certainty that the fault must lie in recruitment. Why isn't the same credence given to the argument that all those players have been developed and coached at Melbourne and therefore it's a statistical certainty that the flaw is in development and coaching?

For what it's worth, in a system which has been designed to level the playing field in recruitment (draft, salary cap) but not in coaching and development, I believe most kids drafted have similar amounts of ability when drafted but some clubs just develop them better (Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney) than others (Melbourne, Fremantle, Western Bulldogs, Richmond).

It's both & it's to the culture of the club. We always go Squeaky clean choirboys first option.

3 to 5 years should provide fair indication of the potential or actual worthiness of a draft pick.

Exactly. And not only 3-5 years, but 3-5 playing years, not a year out with injury, followed by another year basically in rehab. Amongst Gysberts, Cook, Tapscott, Jurrah, Spencer, Jetta, Evans, Taggert (the forgotten man), some of them have yet to complete even one solid run of pre-season and season, yet alone 3-5.

I think we have all gotten ahead of ourselves (I'm one of these people) thinking that we would have acouple

years at the bottom and rocket to the top.

In hindsight I think about how major an overhaul we've had at the club and how quickly we went from the Yze,White

Neitz and Co. era to a number of retirements and being left with youth or $*it.

We've got a HUGE number of young players the only club having more being GWS and GC and we will be getting

even more at the end of this year. The FD always spoke of sustained success and that's what they were going for.

We will get there but it's going to be slower than we thought. By the time Watts is 25 we will have almost half our list

between the ages of 22-25. That is a lot and I think it will set us up for years of deep finals runs and maybe that

premiership we all want. But unfortunately it's taking longer than we thought.

It's both & it's to the culture of the club. We always go Squeaky clean choirboys first option.

McLean and Sylvia

Neither squeaky clean, each picked exactly where 16 clubs expected them to be picked

I think the word 'clown' is not used nearly enough.

I used to get a holiday for using it, so be careful...