Dees to meet AFL Commission today - the latest from Caro.

[Carrot Top 947]

It should be obvious to everyone who is watching our games that we need MIDS and more MIDS.

MIDS,MIDS,MIDS

Stars, stars, stars.

Yes we need mids. But we should never pass up a potential champ. Ever.

I'd walk away if we took a Tambling instead of a Buddy this year. It would be the last straw.

[DemonOX 8,791]

Stars, stars, stars.

Yes we need mids. But we should never pass up a potential champ. Ever.

I'd walk away if we took a Tambling instead of a Buddy this year. It would be the last straw.

Based on our previous history u might want to start walking CT!!! Edited June 15, 2013 by DemonOX

[dee-luded 2,959]

That's fine. Then no one ever gets a PP again. I can live with that.

A mini draft for us would be ok. Extra money in the salary cap would help. A ban on other clubs taking our players this year would help. First dibs on all players previously in drafts but not taken for this year would help.First dibs on mature aged players would help.

There are plenty of ways to help without PP's.

One thing I can guarantee is that the other clubs at the very least, want us to be competitive, so that it doesn't affect them in the hip pocket.

Ive been thinking the same thing over the last couple of hours,,, that a mini draft pick may be helpful to get a mature elite player, but we still need to find a real gun.. we need more than one pick to fix whats been recruited over the last 5 years.

or its going to take a while...

[PJ_12345 1,098]

It should be obvious to everyone who is watching our games that we need MIDS and more MIDS.

MIDS,MIDS,MIDS

Preferably a taller mid... Dunn height

[Soidee 1,496]

Stars, stars, stars.

Yes we need mids. But we should never pass up a potential champ. Ever.

I'd walk away if we took a Tambling instead of a Buddy this year. It would be the last straw.

We need a Mundy type but better still just get Mundy.

[mog 58]

Bzz, wrong answer.

In that period St.Kilda received 5 and we've received 7 in the last 10 years.

Our 1 pick used on Scully was effectively traded for pick 4 (and 14) last year so it's not really fair to count it as 2 picks.

This would make us equal with carlton with 6 top 5 picks ''earned'', though 1 less top ten pick then carlton

This doesn't realy change any point you were making, that we've received a heap of early picks with very little return on investment.

Edited June 15, 2013 by mog

[Carrot Top 947]

We need a Mundy type but better still just get Mundy.

But that's it. You don't draft looking for a seventeen year old Mundy. You throw the kitchen sink and whatever else you have to get an established Mundy. Trade out the extra guns you picked up because you happened to draft 3 gun CHB's in a row,

[Young Dee 1,303]

Step 1- Get about $3 Million from the AFL

Step 2- Get a massive broom and sweep out the club from the Board right down to the Player list.

Step 3- Hire Mark Williams, Leigh Matthews or Gary Ayres as coach.

And get Ratten as midfield coach (whatever it costs)

[Hannibal 5,814]

Our 1 pick used on Scully was effectively traded for pick 4 (and 14) last year so it's not really fair to count it as 2 picks.

This would make us equal with carlton with 6 top 5 picks ''earned'', though 1 less top ten pick then carlton

This doesn't realy change any point you were making, that we've received a heap of early picks with very little return on investment.

I'm not.

2003: Sylvia pick 3

2003: McLean pick 5

2007: Morton pick 4

2008: Watts pick 1

2009: Scully pick 1

2009: Trengove pick 2

2012: Toumpas pick 4

That's 7 top 5 picks in the last 10 years.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[deanox 9,914]

Every one of those top 5 picks were the correct selection based on the knowledge of the time.

That the players haven't developed well is a different question. We've made lots of mistakes with first round picks but not with the top 5 picks.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Every one of those top 5 picks were the correct selection based on the knowledge of the time.

That the players haven't developed well is a different question. We've made lots of mistakes with first round picks but not with the top 5 picks.

That has nothing to do with the point being made. Although it beggars belief how bad we could be given that statistic.

The point being made is that we've had a leg up at the draft that is virtually unprecedented outside of the expansion clubs - although Carlton is right up there.

[deanox 9,914]

Ben I asked earlier, can you or anyone else provide stats for average number of games played per draft pick bracket (ie 1-5, 5-10, 10-20)?

I'm not disputing your point but I'd like to understand how much of a difference top 5 pick is compared to top 10 or top 20 etc.

Top 5 is convenient because from memory we haven't had to many picks in the 6-10 group. Also,given that we have been down the bottom for 7 years, it makes sense that we'd have more top 5 picks than other clubs who have risen and fallen, which is why i think "first round" is better analysis of how much of a leg up we've had.

Also I think it's worth noting that to get extra first round picks we've had to give up players (except the PPs), which means net gain is probably "equal" apart from the PPs, of which there has been a few.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Ben I asked earlier, can you or anyone else provide stats for average number of games played per draft pick bracket (ie 1-5, 5-10, 10-20)?

How about you do it.

This site makes it easy. They have games played next to the player and draft pick number. Here's the page:

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts

[deanox 9,914]

How about you do it.

This site makes it easy. They have gameus played next to the player and draft pick number. Here's the page:

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts

Cheers, I might do it later, but I'm sure I've seen days tables with that info in it somewhere else so I'll try and find it first.

But given that you haven't done this analysis, or seen such data, how do you identify that top 5 picks are three most relevant for your comparison? Why not top 6 picks? Or top 9 picks? First round picks?

Apart from gut feel (that top 5 is better), there may be no reason why any analysis of number of top 5 picks is relevant to this discussion, any more than a number of other brackets.

[chookrat 4,247]

Re the recruitment v development argument our problems have been:

1. Picking the wrong players in the context of our list. E.g. recruiting the most talented players without adequate consideration of the player's heart, work ethic and character.

2. Letting go of players with qualities the group was lacking, e.g. James MacDonald should have been retained for his leadership and character regardless of how many games he would be fit to play.

[Pennant St Dee 13,173]

Re the recruitment v development argument our problems have been:

1. Picking the wrong players in the context of our list. E.g. recruiting the most talented players without adequate consideration of the player's heart, work ethic and character.

2. Letting go of players with qualities the group was lacking, e.g. James MacDonald should have been retained for his leadership and character regardless of how many games he would be fit to play.

Pretty much it in a nutshell, this is the main source of our current predicament!

[Carrot Top 947]

Re the recruitment v development argument our problems have been:

1. Picking the wrong players in the context of our list. E.g. recruiting the most talented players without adequate consideration of the player's heart, work ethic and character.

2. Letting go of players with qualities the group was lacking, e.g. James MacDonald should have been retained for his leadership and character regardless of how many games he would be fit to play.

Don't see that at all. Martin would have been in the red and blue rather than Scully if that was the case. We were all jerking off about what a hard working, sober lad Tom was and never even spoke to Martin. We also picked Watts over NicNat over NicNat being not 100% about a move east. I still think it was the right call and Watts was mismanaged, but we didn't recruit based on pure talent or NicNat would be ours.

If anything it's been the other way around. We pick them on damn near every other reason than 'can this kid find ball and use ball?'

Too much [censored] over egging of the pudding has killed us. Pick the best you can find, and then build a team around them. Until we figure that out (and I think we did this year with Toumpas over Wines) we have no hope as a club.