Because I don't want us to throw more high-daft pick gold away.

The stuff-ups must be acknowledged ... but as you can see, there's still a hell of a lot of denial among the faithful.

Picks 3 and 4 this year must be used on best available. No exceptions.

I don't think 9 pages of your preaching is going to change the draft strategy of our club RR.

Confucius or Cheersquad Boy ... which is it?

If you aren't already, you should become a lawyer with arguments like these.

Sorry , but statements like "rarely gets into space" and "struggles to take a mark" is absolute head in the sand stuff. These might have been valid criticisms 12 months ago.

Natanui has developed at a great rate of knots this season, both in terms of his skills by hand and foot, hit outs to advantage, but moreso by the non-quantifiable elements of his game - i.e. his understanding of the game. We're talking about a guy that has pretty much won games off his own back this season. That doesn't happen because his skills are abysmal. There is absolutely no question who is at present a more valuable asset between him and Watts. Only the most one-eyed supporter would dispute that it is Natanui. That being said, the question of whether he would've developed as well at Melbourne (under Russian for instance) as he has at West Coast is a valid one.

I like Watts and his skills will make him more than serviceable, but I'm not sure how much longer we'll have to wait for him to find some sort of fire in the belly. Even just a spark. The kid has NO desire for a contest, which becomes an issue wherever you are on the field. Can it be instilled in him ? I'm not sure.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by P_Man

For all the stats lovers and those who think Watts stands on the outside and doesn't get his hands dirty, contested possessions for him this season 109, other 'defenders' Rivers 109, Frawely 82, Garland 95, J Macdonald 109, young Tommy Mc showing the way on 120,,,there you go RR you opened the door..

This poll is just a worthless exercise in masochism.

or if you batting for the other side of the poll, a worthless exercise in delusion

Because I don't want us to throw more high-daft pick gold away.

The stuff-ups must be acknowledged ... but as you can see, there's still a hell of a lot of denial among the faithful.

Picks 3 and 4 this year must be used on best available. No exceptions.

No reply

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by Rassilon

hey children, any chance this pizzing competition can come to an end?

Because I don't want us to throw more high-daft pick gold away.

The stuff-ups must be acknowledged ... but as you can see, there's still a hell of a lot of denial among the faithful.

Picks 3 and 4 this year must be used on best available. No exceptions.

That is the conclusion to your masochism?

To acknowledge a pick was a failure? And To Not Do It Again?

Helpful.

Especially helpful when said failure is still at the club and said people in charge of failure are not...

At least Jack (Larry) can pull the chicks ....

hey children, any chance this pizzing competition can come to an end?

I was once in a pizzing competition but I was found to have rorted the pizz salary cap so I lost my top two pizz draft picks for the next pizz season

That is the conclusion to your masochism?

To acknowledge a pick was a failure? And To Not Do It Again?

Helpful.

Especially helpful when said failure is still at the club and said people in charge of failure are not...

So what are you saying. There's a statute of limitations on analysing the past?

I was once in a pizzing competition but I was found to have rorted the pizz salary cap so I lost my top two pizz draft picks for the next pizz season

yeah well i made it out the top window once but i had to hang on a long time to build up the pressure

but seriously this thread has gone way beyond having any interest left

yeah well i made it out the top window once but i had to hang on a long time to build up the pressure

but seriously this thread has gone way beyond having any interest left

I thought the apathy thread had a lot more going for it.

Because I don't want us to throw more high-daft pick gold away.The stuff-ups must be acknowledged ... but as you can see, there's still a hell of a lot of denial among the faithful.

Picks 3 and 4 this year must be used on best available. No exceptions.

Ok so finally the questions is answered as to why you stated this poll. The obvious follow up question is how does making a case that we were wrong to pick up Watts not Natanui help MFC ensure picks 3 and 4 are used on the 'best available' players, with 'no exceptions' and that we don't throw away 'high-daft pick gold'(sic)?

Are you thinking that the club plans not to pick up the best available talent at picks 3 and 4? Is there a player in the draft you are fearing we will select instead of another player? If so who?

Just as an exercise lets say Viney goes second round and Whitfield goes at 1. RR, who do you believe we should pick at numbers 3 and 4? I assume, given your grave concern we won't pick the best players at 3 and 4 you have a position on who the best players are at those numbers and who we should be selecting.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by binman

I thought the apathy thread had a lot more going for it.

yeah but who cares?

I thought the apathy thread had a lot more going for it.

Reminds me of a great bit of graffiti i saw the other day. Fight apathy - or don't

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by binman

Reminds me of a great bit of graffiti i saw the other day.

Does not compute.

Ok so finally the questions is answered as to why you stated this poll. The obvious follow up question is how does making a case that we were wrong to pick up Watts not Natanui help MFC ensure picks 3 and 4 are used on the 'best available' players, with 'no exceptions' and that we don't throw away 'high-daft pick gold'(sic)?

Are you thinking that the club plans not to pick up the best available talent at picks 3 and 4? Is there a player in the draft you are fearing we will select instead of another player? If so who?

Just as an exercise lets say Viney goes second round and Whitfield goes at 1. RR, who do you believe we should pick at numbers 3 and 4? I assume, given your grave concern we won't pick the best players at 3 and 4 you have a position on who the best players are at those numbers and who we should be selecting.

The poll has proved controversial and appears to have split 'Landers almost 5/50. From that perspective it was well worth doing.

The narrative of the poll is that a lot of supporters are worried. Worried because they are acutely aware of how much rides on getting those first few picks right at the pointy end of the draft. Of getting a Franklin instead of a Tambling. A Pavlich instead of a Fiora. And yes, a Naitanui instead of a Watts. Worried because we have botched things up at the draft table now for far too long. And quite frankly, getting it wrong again may consign the MFC to the doldrums forever.

I'm not going to say who I think we should take at picks 3 and 4 but I am aware that the recruiting fraternity have labelled this upcoming draft a "superdraft" with some seriously elite talent available in the first few picks.

We should not select Jack Viney with one of those picks if we believe we will be missing out on a better player if we do. I couldn't care less if his old man was a club champion.

Best available. No exceptions.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by Range Rover

The stats don't lie Stu. People aren't happy.

Of course they lie. It's a self-selecting group of respondees for starters. About the only actual stats here are that only 6% of Demonlanders can muster the interest to even vote in your poll, and within that, around 2% have selected your "we got it wrong".

In other words, there's no interest and you're not even winning the "we got it wrong" argument, no matter how much you try and spin it.

Of course they lie. It's a self-selecting group of respondees for starters. About the only actual stats here are that only 6% of Demonlanders can muster the interest to even vote in your poll, and within that, around 2% have selected your "we got it wrong".

In other words, there's no interest and you're not even winning the "we got it wrong" argument, no matter how much you try and spin it.

You can try to put a brave face on it all you like, fact is not many have gone into bat for Watts in the poll. We're talking about player from our own club here. Yet more voted for Naitanui.

I'm not sure why there's an obsession for Naitanui. There's at least a dozen players from that draft I'd now rather have than Watts.

You can try to put a brave face on it all you like, fact is not many have gone into bat for Watts in the poll. We're talking about player from our own club here. Yet more voted for Naitanui.

You're trying to prove we got it wrong.

The vote is 91-62 AGAINST your point Range Rover...

Give up mate.

I'm not sure why there's an obsession for Naitanui. There's at least a dozen players from that draft I'd now rather have than Watts.

Which players? After doing a quick read of the draft, the players I would consider or choose over Watts would be Hill, Sidebottom, Shuey, Zaharakis, Beams, Robinson (mature pick up so would never have been top 10 anyway), Hartlett and Yarran. On the fence with Hurley.

In 2007 we took Cale at 4 and Tom Mac at 66!

Hawks got Cyril at 12.

Did we get it right?

Ummmm.....

Do we ever?

In 2007 we took Cale at 4 and Tom Mac at 66!

Hawks got Cyril at 12.

Did we get it right?

Ummmm.....

Do we ever?

That was Tom McNamara though, played about 2 games.

yeah well i made it out the top window once but i had to hang on a long time to build up the pressure

but seriously this thread has gone way beyond having any interest left

We need to have a poll on whether or not this thread has any interest left.