MFC's Poor Drafting.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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

You got holidays for periodically being one, so be careful....

[Brian Wilson 331]

Three points (they've been made before but I'll make em again):

1. Drafting is one thing; development quite another.

2. Our draftees from 2008 on are still too inexperienced to judge. 50 games is the minimum number to start judging. Grimes, Watts and Trengove have only just crossed the threshold.

3. You can't throw a large group of youngsters into a team and expect them to automatically improve. Our glaring lack of quality 25yo + players will slow devleopment.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

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

I would start by not referring to individual selections. 'Oh, look, we took Morton at 4, but Rioli went at 11, so therefore Morton at 4 was a mistake' does not work for me.

I think our 2007-2011 drafting was unfortunately forced upon us by our 2002-2006 drafting, where under ND we looked for bigger bodies and athletes at the expense of skill (e.g. Bate, Jones, Dunn). As such, we spend a lot of 2007-2011 picking quicker, lighter players with skill (e.g. Morton, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts). At the time, each one of those players was hard to fault for being picked at that point, so the recruiters did, in my view, as good a job as could be expected.

In my view, the problem is threefold. One, the Bailey era was a disaster for player development. For whatever reason, our players have not come on like their debut years may have suggested. Two, the game has changed, in my view, right at the wrong time for us. We drafted players which would help us play like Geelong, but now we have to play like Collingwood, which is tough for some of these players. Three, these players were talented for their youth, but were injected into a shite team. You try playing your best when your team stinks.

I also think there's a fair argument to offset early-pick players who don't come on with late-pick players who surprise, and we've managed to find a few rookies/late picks who have done well. It cuts both ways.

So I guess to answer your question: I don't have a problem with our recruiting. I have an enormous problem with our coaches.

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.

That line about Morton is utter tripe. He was not a 'punt', as you put it. He was a legitimate top 4 pick.

It is not a cop out to blame development. In fact, I'd say it's a cop out to blame recruiting.

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.

Agree.

I'm not saying BP is a genius, and a lot of the players he picked may not end up being any good. But I don't blame that on him, unless someone shows me evidence that when he picked them, they weren't expected to go there, there was no basis for picking them there, and there was a reasonable alternative.

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).

Agree with this too.

I wonder if Steele Sidebottom would be as good as he is now if he'd been drafted to us.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Instead of trying to cut and dice this up or down Im happy to observe it holistically...We stuffed it for quite a while. How do I know this, I just look at where we are and compare.

For all our high picks , in fact for all our picks we reaaly have little to write home about

I dont think for may years our development's been much chop. Its taken a hell of a long while for some guys to come on. We seem to have more than our fair share of lemons . Some think thats harsh but I dont see this as a neighborhood footy club, its business. The business is to win. We dont and we havent in any meaningful way for a hell of a long time.

So for me its a combinational effect. We havent had enough of hte right types and havent had the right facilites and direction to realise the abilites of those we brought to the club.

Hopefully this is to change.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I would start by not referring to individual selections. 'Oh, look, we took Morton at 4, but Rioli went at 11, so therefore Morton at 4 was a mistake' does not work for me.

Nor does it work for anyone else. Nobody is critical of Morton because we missed on Rioli. People are critical of Morton because of Morton's performance.

I also think there's a fair argument to offset early-pick players who don't come on with late-pick players who surprise, and we've managed to find a few rookies/late picks who have done well. It cuts both ways.

So I guess to answer your question: I don't have a problem with our recruiting. I have an enormous problem with our coaches.

So if late pick players can come on as footballers why dont some of our early pick players come on? Our development at MFC might not be good but it aint totally absent as you have pointed out.

That line about Morton is utter tripe. He was not a 'punt', as you put it. He was a legitimate top 4 pick.

It is not a cop out to blame development. In fact, I'd say it's a cop out to blame recruiting.

Wrong. Here are the pick #4's from 2005 to 2008. I have given the 2009 onward pick#4s the benefit of youth.

2005 - Josh Kennedy. - Enough said

2006 - Mathew Leuenberger - Even allowing for the fact he is ruckman he still produces more than Morton

2007 - Morton

2008 - Hamish Hartnett - Won Port's B&F in 2011 after missing most of 2010 with injury. Yeah I know its Port but how close is Morton to the Bluey?

Morton is disappointing against any of the other legitimate pick 4s of his recent vintage. Both Brisbane and Port Adelaid are financially poor clubs with similar developmental constraints of MFC.

If you are comparing Morton to Tambling (2004 pick #4) then they are both legitimate ....duds.

There has been issues with both development and recruiting. To justify just development by wrongly asserting the argument is just recruiting is plain dumb.

If the development was so bad at MFC relative to other Clubs why havent Adam Maric, Simon Buckley, Brock McLean, Kyle Cheney, and Chris Johnson gone on to be better footballers at other clubs with better development arrangements?...Hmmm.

BBBP still has time to recover face for 2008-2011. I think the 2000 to 2007 period with Cameron had few successes and too many fails which is the paramount reason which have such an ordinary senior list

[old dee 23,872]

Cannot find much to disagree with in the above RR

Good assessment.

[beelzebub 23,383]

I like the way soem seem to want to suggest ......hey its all ok really , over all. The occasional late pick that over achieves v the high picks who crashed.

This quite frankly is crap. Any overs we get from late picks are simply bonus, they ought not be compensation for any lack of success higher in the order. Those high picks should return higher gains..But we havent really had a fair return on these picks over the years and no amount of occasional joy from the lower ranks ought to be seem as some sort of rebalance.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Nor does it work for anyone else. Nobody is critical of Morton because we missed on Rioli. People are critical of Morton because of Morton's performance.

Don't be stupid RR, you know as well as I do that people continually say 'we stuffed pick X up, check out all the players that came after him'. Not saying that's what you do, but it happens, and happens far too frequently.

So if late pick players can come on as footballers why dont some of our early pick players come on? Our development at MFC might not be good but it aint totally absent as you have pointed out.

Because, when you have a mediocre club development squad, there's really nothing to separate the good from the bad.

Wrong. Here are the pick #4's from 2005 to 2008. I have given the 2009 onward pick#4s the benefit of youth.

2005 - Josh Kennedy. - Enough said

2006 - Mathew Leuenberger - Even allowing for the fact he is ruckman he still produces more than Morton

2007 - Morton

2008 - Hamish Hartnett - Won Port's B&F in 2011 after missing most of 2010 with injury. Yeah I know its Port but how close is Morton to the Bluey?

Morton is disappointing against any of the other legitimate pick 4s of his recent vintage. Both Brisbane and Port Adelaid are financially poor clubs with similar developmental constraints of MFC.

If you are comparing Morton to Tambling (2004 pick #4) then they are both legitimate ....duds.

This is hilariously stupid for a couple of reasons:

1) When, at all, did I make any reference whatsoever to other pick 4s?

2) How, at all, do other pick 4s have any meaning in this debate? You can't compare players across drafts, that serves little purpose given each draft is different (we all rate 2001 as a super draft and 2003, for example, as a dud. So you can't draw comparisons across the two, or across any other drafts).

You said we took a 'punt' on Morton at 4. I said that was incorrect, because Morton was highly regarded and was deemed by experts to be a top 4 pick. You have nothing to suggest otherwise. So stop trying.

There has been issues with both development and recruiting. To justify just development by wrongly asserting the argument is just recruiting is plain dumb.

If the development was so bad at MFC relative to other Clubs why havent Adam Maric, Simon Buckley, Brock McLean, Kyle Cheney, and Chris Johnson gone on to be better footballers at other clubs with better development arrangements?...Hmmm.

Because they're no good. I'm not saying they're not. What I'm saying is that it's far too simple to just say 'Player X is crap, therefore we stuffed up in picking him'. Until people can show me the evidence from the year of drafting that says the player shouldn't have been taken then (i.e. information that was available at the time), then I won't just jump on the drafting team.

Our drafters have made mistakes, yes. But I don't like how people say 'player X is crap, we made a mistake taking him, especially given who came after'. There's so much more to it, and IMO, the majority of the blame in our circumstances lies with DB and his coaches.

I like the way soem seem to want to suggest ......hey its all ok really , over all. The occasional late pick that over achieves v the high picks who crashed.

This quite frankly is crap. Any overs we get from late picks are simply bonus, they ought not be compensation for any lack of success higher in the order. Those high picks should return higher gains..But we havent really had a fair return on these picks over the years and no amount of occasional joy from the lower ranks ought to be seem as some sort of rebalance.

Who said that? All I said was that whilst you can end up with a player picked early who doesn't end up being any good, you can similarly pick a player late who ends up being great. Point is, sometimes players look the goods in their youth but just don't work at AFL level, and some are vice versa.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Don't be stupid RR, you know as well as I do that people continually say 'we stuffed pick X up, check out all the players that came after him'. Not saying that's what you do, but it happens, and happens far too frequently.

People may have said it but its quite naive to pot everyone who is critical of the Morton as pick 4. I like many others are critical of the Morton pick because of Morton. The fact that better players followed him makes the selection even more galling.

Because, when you have a mediocre club development squad, there's really nothing to separate the good from the bad.

Junior, Beamer, Davey, Jamar and Jurrah all came off the rookie list and became either club captain, Club B&F, All Australian. Your blanket attitude to development is ignorant. It is an issue but its not a whitewash

Because they're no good. I'm not saying they're not. What I'm saying is that it's far too simple to just say 'Player X is crap, therefore we stuffed up in picking him'. Until people can show me the evidence from the year of drafting that says the player shouldn't have been taken then (i.e. information that was available at the time), then I won't just jump on the drafting team.

Our drafters have made mistakes, yes. But I don't like how people say 'player X is crap, we made a mistake taking him, especially given who came after'. There's so much more to it, and IMO, the majority of the blame in our circumstances lies with DB and his coaches.

When you analyse a player like Morton and you assess his performance, identifying his strengths and his weaknesses over a five year period you can make a valid determination of the player. Many of those traits have been evident all the way through ihis career. I cant believe they were not seen/noticed at a junior level. I can only think our "recruiting experts" read the Hun footy draft lift and went with the herd and selected him at 4. I noticed you have not commented on Maric and I understand why.

Its amazing you admit our drafters have made mistakes. Heaven knows what criteria you used. And if there is so much more to it, its laughable that you shovel the blame to a select few like Bailey.

All I said was that whilst you can end up with a player picked early who doesn't end up being any good, you can similarly pick a player late who ends up being great. Point is, sometimes players look the goods in their youth but just don't work at AFL level, and some are vice versa.

And you pay recruiters big money to get it right and get them early. Given we have had a gaping problem in the midfield, its lamentable that Scully aside, we have recruited so few definitive midfielders.

[beelzebub 23,383]

for mine two words summarise our recruiting/drafting and subsequent development:

MASSIVE UNDERACHIEVEMENT

No other club in recent times ( prior tothe noobs) had such chances and picks at their disposal.

We fluffed it .....big time. Imho we set out and got exactly who we thought we needed and in the main got it very wrong. Its been incompetency by design. We targeted the wrong players, the wrong types that is. Our vision of what would make a competitive team was fundamentally flawed.

Yes , i agree even withhte best of intentions you wont get it right 100%, but we ve got it wrong nearly 100%, ok an exageration but our strike rate is way below 25% and thats attrocius when you consider even blind luck ought to get you 50%..random hit or miss

What this tells me is those that were at the helm and charged with formulating a construct by which to create a competitve team simply had it wrong . ( ill be kind here and say wrong, some might suggest nfi !!)

I seriously think even with the best of crystal balls you may only get 50-66% of selections through to becoming a defined success. Theyre will always be those that just dont fire, or were at their peak with no further room to grow. It will happen.

But to be where we are now at back end of 2012 with a cupboard somewhat bereft of real AFL grade talent having had multiple opportunities to acquire and amass some is beyond lamentable its scandalous. Inept.

For mine I am thankful the new regime dont rate the old one's as much chop. Im glad theyve identified the gaping holes and are making moves to fill them. I dont care if that upsets some folks idea of a cozy applecart.

To any one who still seriously thinks our recruiting /drafting/develoment hasnbt been all that bad ( given whatever >>>> insert whatever excuse you wish ) then please explain the sh!t we now find ourselves in.....again.!!

Proof of the pudding is in the eating they say.. The evidence is before us, we're crap. It didnt just happen , we got theie by design. That means its someone(s) fault.

What Ilike to think is that if we got to be rubbish by design then we can become good by design too. Just a better design, together with some hard work and hard calls.

Go Dees

[Guest KingDingAling]

It is still possible that all the kids we have drafted turn it around.

Although, I don't hold much hope for Morton or Strauss.

I think Todd Viney is the perfect bloke for recruiting, other than having Jack coming through.

Wines and Viney would be beasts in our side.

They would both be walk up starts in our midfield tommorow.

We have a great backline and I'd keep Rivers.

Our forward line with Clark in it, looks a lot stronger, we need Jurrah back though and Davey crumbing the pocket.

Watts CHF, lead up forward, ala Rooey.

Blease will be killing the wing.

We need a midfield still, that way we can send Grimes back and still rotate him on the ball.

Send Trenners/Tapscott foward and rotate them on the ball.

I agree our recruiting has been poor, but I do still hold hope that some kids will come good.

Look at Blease, he has been in the system since 2009 and has only just starting showing signs.

Tapscott is next, then hopefully Gysberts and Cook and things all the sudden are looking up.

Edited August 16, 2012 by KingDingAling

[beelzebub 23,383]

Lets not kid ourselves.. We have an OK defence all thigs considered but there are still only 3 teams with over 2000 points kicked against.

Frawley's had an Ok/average year., when on the deck, but its below par for him. His own fault..lol.. he set the bar high a little whiles back. We need him to regain teh AA form

Tommy Mac is coming on OK, but hes not there. We might not get Barty back, big loss. Rivers is having an ok year but he still only afford the 3rd man in defence and we.

Sellars is settling in but needs to step up a bit if we are to be seriously miserly in defence. Joel's handy but not irreplacable.

I do agree however our backline isnt the main concern....just about everywhere else is in one form or another. Theres no eveness across the field.

Theres a lot of clutching at straws , together with , if's but's annd maybe's when many are discussing our list.

Thats simply oughtnt be the case. We should have clear cut winners in many positions, We lack many.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Lets not kid ourselves.. We have an OK defence all thigs considered but there are still only 3 teams with over 2000 points kicked against.

Frawley's had an Ok/average year., when on the deck, but its below par for him. His own fault..lol.. he set the bar high a little whiles back. We need him to regain teh AA form

Tommy Mac is coming on OK, but hes not there. We might not get Barty back, big loss. Rivers is having an ok year but he still only afford the 3rd man in defence and we.

...

I do agree however our backline isnt the main concern....just about everywhere else is in one form or another. Theres no eveness across the field.

I agree lets not kid ourselves. Its a really dubious statistic to just look at the points against and say the defence has not done its job.

It must be a loving hell down there when the midfield is so 3rd world. I'd rather compare some inside 50s stats of opposition teams against MFC and their scoring.

I seem to recall that Freo had just 60 inside 50s against MFC and other Clubs have had outrageous forward entry stats. No defence can deal with that.

FWIW, I think Frawley has had the raw straw on this. He is better than you want to paint him and has done a number of really good stopping jobs on the best opposition forward notwithstanding the onslaught.

If we had a near competitive midfield we get somewhere near a defence that does not feel and play like their being shelled in the trenches.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Newsflash. Defences are there to defend. Its that simple really. That they have theif work cut out for them due to inadequacies everywhere else doesnt change their manifesto....which is to defend.

Strangely enough a realist will look at the scoreboard as that determines out omes; you know that funny thing called winning or losing, the whole reason the game is played !!

[jnrmac 20,185]

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.

Not me...

I brought up Gutnick in reference to our drafting and the AFL sanctions. Gutnick as far as I am concerned was not a genuine supporter of our club and sought much more from his position of president. He's certainly not the first to do it but he did a lot of damage to our club.

The problem when you talk about factions though is that when there are disgruntled people around that can cause real damage to a club (as opposed to an old fool like me on a forum) is that you get the tanking debate re-igniting etc. Opinion here is not likely to stoke the fires I would have thought.

[dee-luded 2,959]

McLean and Sylvia

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

That was the draft after our club investigation had identified we had too many introverted conservative types, & lacked leaders. we went after these boys but didn't have any strong culture to surround them or support them in a professional environment.

And still not to this day, but are now building it.

We have gone back into our shell after this experiment, instead of continuing along that path.

[rpfc 28,769]

Not me...

I brought up Gutnick in reference to our drafting and the AFL sanctions. Gutnick as far as I am concerned was not a genuine supporter of our club and sought much more from his position of president. He's certainly not the first to do it but he did a lot of damage to our club.

The problem when you talk about factions though is that when there are disgruntled people around that can cause real damage to a club (as opposed to an old fool like me on a forum) is that you get the tanking debate re-igniting etc. Opinion here is not likely to stoke the fires I would have thought.

No offence, but I didn't say this because you might be able start anything.

I simply wanted to point out that it isn't healthy for a club with a supporter base as small as ours to hold grudges against fellow Demons.

Whether it is tanking, former boards, the merger, etc. we need to move on.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

It is still possible that all the kids we have drafted turn it around.

Although, I don't hold much hope for Morton or Strauss.

I think Todd Viney is the perfect bloke for recruiting, other than having Jack coming through...

Why?

[titan_uranus 25,043]

People may have said it but its quite naive to pot everyone who is critical of the Morton as pick 4. I like many others are critical of the Morton pick because of Morton. The fact that better players followed him makes the selection even more galling.

It happens far too often though.

Junior, Beamer, Davey, Jamar and Jurrah all came off the rookie list and became either club captain, Club B&F, All Australian. Your blanket attitude to development is ignorant. It is an issue but its not a whitewash When you analyse a player like Morton and you assess his performance, identifying his strengths and his weaknesses over a five year period you can make a valid determination of the player. Many of those traits have been evident all the way through ihis career. I cant believe they were not seen/noticed at a junior level. I can only think our "recruiting experts" read the Hun footy draft lift and went with the herd and selected him at 4. I noticed you have not commented on Maric and I understand why.

You actually think our drafters did no work, and based it on the HUN? Now that's ridiculous.

And I'm happy to discuss Maric. Maric was regarded as a quality kick, and was drafted at 21, which is early, but not so early as to call into question every part of the process. Obviously he was neither a quality kick, nor decent in any facet, but in 2007 I know for a fact, from speaking to people my age who were at PEGS with him, that he was dominating his games as a kid and was a clear AFL candidate. Then he came to us, and went nowhere.

Its amazing you admit our drafters have made mistakes. Heaven knows what criteria you used. And if there is so much more to it, its laughable that you shovel the blame to a select few like Bailey. And you pay recruiters big money to get it right and get them early. Given we have had a gaping problem in the midfield, its lamentable that Scully aside, we have recruited so few definitive midfielders.

No, what I'm saying is that it's incorrect and unfair to blame our current position solely, or even mostly, on our drafting. Obviously it's also incorrect to absolve them of all blame, but the way I see it, most if not all our picks can be justified as being sensible at the time.

For mine, the majority of the blame rests with Bailey and his team. Second-rate coaching and player development is, in my mind, the biggest issue.

[bing181 9,328]

So if late pick players can come on as footballers why dont some of our early pick players come on?

That sir, is the million dollar question that all clubs ask. Some players develop, other don't, some rise to the challenge, others don't, for some the penny drops, for others not, and some (more than some ...) take time time time.

The draft is a kind of rating of the best 18 year olds. It can look very different a year earlier, and certainly a year later (just look at which picks win the Rising Star). As for what happens 5 years down the track ... anything can happen and often does.

Not excusing the recruitment guys, but you make informed choices ... and then cross your fingers.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It happens far too often though.

Not as often as you make out.

You actually think our drafters did no work, and based it on the HUN? Now that's ridiculous.

Not at all. But you keep justifying selections on what the "experts" think. The only experts are the 18 club recruiters. I have said ad nauseam that our recruiters get paid big money to get it right. What ever their intelligence sources and information they have got alot wrong.

And I'm happy to discuss Maric. Maric was regarded as a quality kick, and was drafted at 21, which is early, but not so early as to call into question every part of the process. Obviously he was neither a quality kick, nor decent in any facet, but in 2007 I know for a fact, from speaking to people my age who were at PEGS with him, that he was dominating his games as a kid and was a clear AFL candidate. Then he came to us, and went nowhere.

I cringe when someones main atribute is that he is a quality kick. Should try out for the NFL. Maric has showed stuff all from the time he started at MFC. He was ordinary in the VFL and worse in the AFL. He was not a quality kick and there was no other aspect of his game that stood out. And I dont think assessment of grammar school boys about schoolboy football provides any validation of a player. Dime a dozen. He may have been an AFL candidate but he was not a pick 21. He has gone to Richmond and done nothing. We fvcked his pick up also no matter how you try to gloss it.

No, what I'm saying is that it's incorrect and unfair to blame our current position solely, or even mostly, on our drafting. Obviously it's also incorrect to absolve them of all blame, but the way I see it, most if not all our picks can be justified as being sensible at the time.

For mine, the majority of the blame rests with Bailey and his team. Second-rate coaching and player development is, in my mind, the biggest issue.

I certainly have been blaming it all on recruiting but I have given clear examples where the judgement has been flawed. And it pre dates Bailey. Your efforts to scapegoat Bailey and his team for errors that arent theirs is disingeneous at best.

[Guest José Mourinho]

That sir, is the million dollar question that all clubs ask. Some players develop, other don't, some rise to the challenge, others don't, for some the penny drops, for others not, and some (more than some ...) take time time time.

The draft is a kind of rating of the best 18 year olds. It can look very different a year earlier, and certainly a year later (just look at which picks win the Rising Star). As for what happens 5 years down the track ... anything can happen and often does.

Not excusing the recruitment guys, but you make informed choices ... and then cross your fingers.

What happened to Kane Tenace and Mark Blake at Geelong?

Lewis Johnstone and Patrick Veszpremi at Sydney?

It happens at all clubs.

The better ones just have a much higher strike rate.

In my mind, that is a combination of recruiting, development and culture.

What percentage of influence each of these factors has is anyone's guess and far too hard to truly measure.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We are where we because we have a poor playing list and the fact that we are going to delist up to ten players at year's end confirms this. We have recruited poorly and we've compounded this problem by holding on to these poor quality recruits hoping like hell they'll come good.

Bate and Dunn should have gone 3 years ago and if the club is serious they should cut their losses and get rid of Cook, Bennell, Joel Mac, Petterd and Morton as a start, they couldn't do worse with first year recruits.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

I cringe when someones main atribute is that he is a quality kick. Should try out for the NFL. Maric has showed stuff all from the time he started at MFC. He was ordinary in the VFL and worse in the AFL. He was not a quality kick and there was no other aspect of his game that stood out. And I dont think assessment of grammar school boys about schoolboy football provides any validation of a player. Dime a dozen. He may have been an AFL candidate but he was not a pick 21. He has gone to Richmond and done nothing. We fvcked his pick up also no matter how you try to gloss it.

I'm not trying to validate him - heck, I thought he was as rank a player as anyone else. What I'm saying is that in 2007 his performances in the lead up to the draft suggested he was going to be good. In that regard, his school performances stood for something, unlike you seem to suggest.

In my mind, that is a combination of recruiting, development and culture.

What percentage of influence each of these factors has is anyone's guess and far too hard to truly measure.

I think that's fair, and I think my argument would thus be that the 'development' and 'culture' percentages would well outweigh the 'recruiting' percentage.

[Guest KingDingAling]

Why?

Because his son gives him inside knowledge and would know nearly every kid in the draft.

Jacks played for SA and Vic.

He is also a Caulfield Grammar lad, so he has seen first hand all the best talent.

He's trained with, grown up with and played against all the best talent in the upcoming draft.

Todd Viney has the luxury of being able to defer to his son and bounce off him in regards to his opinions on players.

Its very underestimated.

I can tell with great accuracy who are my strongest opponents when I clash with them, Jack would know who his competitors are.