Both have been underwhelming and I am a bit miffed that Blease only seemed to play his best footy just prior to contract negotiations last season. But both had one off debilitating injuries that has set back their natural development significantly. They are still young and callow and may benefit from strong off field leadership which they never had. I would like see them under Roos for just one more season before I make a final judgement.

So do you trade two high draft picks off for nothing or do you give them a year under their first decent coach ever? Their value isn't going to go down.

Famous last words, that second sentence Stuie.

Famous last words, that second sentence Stuie.

It couldn't get lower could it?.... could it?.... surely.....

Pity we took Blease (pick 17) instead of Shuey (pick 18) and Tapscott (pick 18) instead of Fyfe (pick 20) in their respective drafts.

Trade them by all means. But only if the value's there. Otherwise I think we need to persevere with them.

Would prefer Dayne Beames (pick 29) or maybe Daniel Hannabery (pick 30), or maybe Jack Redden (pick 25), then Blease at 17...

Also, Tapscott was pick 18, Griffths was pick 19, and Fyfe pick 20.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing

Hindsight is a beautiful thing

My point exactly.

This hindsight crap is the fodder of losers. FCS let's finally all agree on one thing, our Recruiting under Craig Cameron was poor and our Recruiting under Barry Prendergast was deplorable.

This hindsight crap is the fodder of losers. FCS let's finally all agree on one thing, our Recruiting under Craig Cameron was poor and our Recruiting under Barry Prendergast was deplorable.

Bloody oath it was.

This hindsight crap is the fodder of losers. FCS let's finally all agree on one thing, our Recruiting under Craig Cameron was poor and our Recruiting under Barry Prendergast was deplorable.

I agree 100% that our recruiting in the past is terrible and unthinkable.

Recruiting was definitely bad but the development (lack of) of the draftees was far worse than the recruiting... As it did not exist!

This hindsight crap is the fodder of losers. FCS let's finally all agree on one thing, our Recruiting under Craig Cameron was poor and our Recruiting under Barry Prendergast was deplorable.

You're right. Now you allude to something other than whining that can be done - what do we do?

I will get the DeLorean, you fetch your Flux Capacitor.

Let's do this.

Recruiting was definitely bad but the development (lack of) of the draftees was far worse than the recruiting... As it did not exist!

Totally agree. We seem to have had this notion that the kids we were drafting were ready to go and didn't need any more work, so they basically stayed the same players they were when they were drafted. We may well have picked perfectly good prospects with our top 20 picks and ruined them through our deplorable attempts at player development. The fact that so few of our high picks have succeeded points to more thna simply poor recruiting.

woohoo a drafting vs development thread... finally we talk about it, i've been waiting at least 17 minutes since a thread was turned into that

I wonder if Tapscott might be offered as part of the negotiations for Vince and Lyons? Could be an interesting move.

I wonder if Tapscott might be offered as part of the negotiations for Vince and Lyons? Could be an interesting move.

Could be a goer...would you give our 2nd rounder and Tapscott for Vince & Lyons? Bit of overs, and a third round would be unders

Edited October 13, 201311 yr by Roosy's Bruisers

Could be a goer...would you give our 2nd rounder and Tapscott for Vince & Lyons? Bit of overs, and a third round would be unders

Just mentioned this in the Lyons thread. Maybe if they upgraded our 4th round pick for their third? I don't know how they would rate those lower picks, but it could almost work. We'd be paying overs to give them Tappy and 2nd round for these two without a sweetener of some sort though.

Totally agree. We seem to have had this notion that the kids we were drafting were ready to go and didn't need any more work, so they basically stayed the same players they were when they were drafted. We may well have picked perfectly good prospects with our top 20 picks and ruined them through our deplorable attempts at player development. The fact that so few of our high picks have succeeded points to more thna simply poor recruiting.

Can someone define in detail what player development looks like? I am sure we haven't done it well but at least for the past two years our players have had elite training facilities, development coaches, altitude rooms, bike training, weights training, Dave Misson to get them fit, and on and on it goes. Now I would expect first round draft picks, properly chosen after appropriate interviews to be talented, self motivated, confident, ambitious and courageous. It should then just happen, barring injuries, but it hasn't. I just think we made some poor choices of kids who may have had talent but lacked confidence, commitment and courage in the contest. I'm thinking Morton, Gysbert, Maric, Cook and we can all have arguments as to whether you would take Watts vs Hurley, Trengove vs Martin and Cook vs say Darling that everyone else ignored.

Development can make a difference but you would expect every first round draft pick to easily play firsts at least, how well may depend on further development. Some of our early draft picks barely managed a game. That is a sad indictment on our selections, I think.

I just don't think we picked the right type, confident, aggressive types who may present some challenges but also present the possibility of greater success.

Well put Hood. So much rubbish bandied around about "development" So little given to any lack of football development potential . We seemed very adept at picking blokes who already had arrived at their zenith !!

All too easy to blame the mythical monster. Reminds me of " The Village" ...the enemy was within all along ,just as it has been with many of our players, they were just poor choices.

Some want to wait until Blease and Tappy lift before trading. If they could lift we'd probably keep them. its that they seem to have run their course at the MFc that warrants their moving on.

Roos is only ever going to be able to work with players who have it in them to improve. That 'z' factor, the desire, that ambition but has to also have ability, AFL level ability is only latent. So many players get through the process of kiddy ball on various elements only to be hit by the brick wall of their own limitations.

Someone suggested taking note of Buying low , selling high. Well heres another one...the write-off !!

Can someone define in detail what player development looks like? I am sure we haven't done it well but at least for the past two years our players have had elite training facilities, development coaches, altitude rooms, bike training, weights training, Dave Misson to get them fit, and on and on it goes. Now I would expect first round draft picks, properly chosen after appropriate interviews to be talented, self motivated, confident, ambitious and courageous. It should then just happen, barring injuries, but it hasn't. I just think we made some poor choices of kids who may have had talent but lacked confidence, commitment and courage in the contest. I'm thinking Morton, Gysbert, Maric, Cook and we can all have arguments as to whether you would take Watts vs Hurley, Trengove vs Martin and Cook vs say Darling that everyone else ignored.

Development can make a difference but you would expect every first round draft pick to easily play firsts at least, how well may depend on further development. Some of our early draft picks barely managed a game. That is a sad indictment on our selections, I think.

I just don't think we picked the right type, confident, aggressive types who may present some challenges but also present the possibility of greater success.

Spot on

The only thing I want to add to this debate is the constant change in coaches and philosophy of how the MFC is to play (free flowing outside or defensive etc etc Neeld v Bailey)

the MFCs constant swapping hasn't helped recruiting or development and hasn't done us any favours for 2014 or onwards either.. we need stability and then I think we'll see real improvement

Can someone define in detail what player development looks like? I am sure we haven't done it well but at least for the past two years our players have had elite training facilities, development coaches, altitude rooms, bike training, weights training, Dave Misson to get them fit, and on and on it goes. Now I would expect first round draft picks, properly chosen after appropriate interviews to be talented, self motivated, confident, ambitious and courageous. It should then just happen, barring injuries, but it hasn't. I just think we made some poor choices of kids who may have had talent but lacked confidence, commitment and courage in the contest. I'm thinking Morton, Gysbert, Maric, Cook and we can all have arguments as to whether you would take Watts vs Hurley, Trengove vs Martin and Cook vs say Darling that everyone else ignored.

Development can make a difference but you would expect every first round draft pick to easily play firsts at least, how well may depend on further development. Some of our early draft picks barely managed a game. That is a sad indictment on our selections, I think.

I just don't think we picked the right type, confident, aggressive types who may present some challenges but also present the possibility of greater success.

In the age old Demonland drafting vs development debate, I've started to lean more towards the drafting camp. I just don't think we've drafted that well, plain and simple.

That said, on the development side, so often we hear about the important role of senior players in aiding development. Whatever the shortcomings of the coaches or financing of staff and facilities, I believe, or at least strongly suspect, it is the lack of guidance from quality senior players that has played a significant role in the lack of development we have seen. They have either left, been moved on, or weren't that great to begin with. It is no myth. In a lot of respects, the senior players ARE the club.

The problem now is finding a way to break the circuit and kicking off a new generation, one that is good enough to lead the club on its own terms, with the likes of Jones and Grimes playing the role referred to above. It is for this reason that players like Viney, Hogan and to a degree Toumpas, are so vital. They seem capable of doing just that. Elite players with elite mindsets who don't need to be told, they just do.

Edited October 14, 201311 yr by P-man

Can someone define in detail what player development looks like? I am sure we haven't done it well but at least for the past two years our players have had elite training facilities, development coaches, altitude rooms, bike training, weights training, Dave Misson to get them fit, and on and on it goes. Now I would expect first round draft picks, properly chosen after appropriate interviews to be talented, self motivated, confident, ambitious and courageous. It should then just happen, barring injuries, but it hasn't. I just think we made some poor choices of kids who may have had talent but lacked confidence, commitment and courage in the contest. I'm thinking Morton, Gysbert, Maric, Cook and we can all have arguments as to whether you would take Watts vs Hurley, Trengove vs Martin and Cook vs say Darling that everyone else ignored.

Development can make a difference but you would expect every first round draft pick to easily play firsts at least, how well may depend on further development. Some of our early draft picks barely managed a game. That is a sad indictment on our selections, I think.

I just don't think we picked the right type, confident, aggressive types who may present some challenges but also present the possibility of greater success.

I'm one of those who is in the 'development' more than the 'drafting' camp.

Holistically, I see development as referring to providing draftees with the ability to get the best out of themselves. IMO, the MFC has not provided this for a decade.

Specifically, I think this includes having good leaders at the club, having strong training programs (a lot has been said about how we trained under Bailey with a view to playing downhill skiing uncontested football, and not matching it with the clubs who started playing stronger contested football), having optimal facilities (this has changed in the last few years, but we were at the Junction Oval until 2010 (correct me if I'm wrong on the dates, I can't remember), having clear plans, and a preparedness to get our hands dirty and work hard consistently (rather than expect that the talent we brought into the club would get us there on its own).

There can be no question that we have made some significant recruitment errors over the last six or so years. However, I firmly believe that the majority of players we selected were taken at the right point in the draft, but failed because we weren't able to provide them with the environment to develop.

When one pick goes wrong, it's easy to say we picked the wrong player. When multiple players taken in the first round over a six year period, the fact those picks coincided with two sub-standard coaches, a sub-standard CEO, sub-standard management, sub-standard fitness regimes, sub-standard facilities, and sub-standard leadership should not be ignored.

I'm one of those who is in the 'development' more than the 'drafting' camp.

Holistically, I see development as referring to providing draftees with the ability to get the best out of themselves. IMO, the MFC has not provided this for a decade.

Specifically, I think this includes having good leaders at the club, having strong training programs (a lot has been said about how we trained under Bailey with a view to playing downhill skiing uncontested football, and not matching it with the clubs who started playing stronger contested football), having optimal facilities (this has changed in the last few years, but we were at the Junction Oval until 2010 (correct me if I'm wrong on the dates, I can't remember), having clear plans, and a preparedness to get our hands dirty and work hard consistently (rather than expect that the talent we brought into the club would get us there on its own).

There can be no question that we have made some significant recruitment errors over the last six or so years. However, I firmly believe that the majority of players we selected were taken at the right point in the draft, but failed because we weren't able to provide them with the environment to develop.

When one pick goes wrong, it's easy to say we picked the wrong player. When multiple players taken in the first round over a six year period, the fact those picks coincided with two sub-standard coaches, a sub-standard CEO, sub-standard management, sub-standard fitness regimes, sub-standard facilities, and sub-standard leadership should not be ignored.

What you say makes a lot of sense. God knows we have stuffed these kids up with a revolving door of coaches, game plans and experienced players, leaders being pushed out the door. Tough love coaching, getting rid of player counsellors and so on. It has all made things difficult. The lack of leadership on the field has been telling since Neitzy retired. Unfortunately he was our last real leader, I think.

But we were just as dysfunctional in the 90's but we could still pick some X factor players out of the draft system. Players with that something special that allows them to stand out in their first season, however they may not always go on with it. But at least they had. that X factor. I just have not seen any X factor from our plethora of first rounders. They have all been nice types, some skills, ticked some boxes but no excitement factor at all.

In the age old Demonland drafting vs development debate, I've started to lean more towards the drafting camp. I just don't think we've drafted that well, plain and simple.

Drafting at the lower end has been decent, (Kent, Clisby, Terlich and Jones last year, going back further Howe, Tom McDonald, Gawn, Fitzpatrick etc.). The problem has been in not getting the results we need from our higher picks, Blease/Strauss/Tapscott being the holy trinity here.

I don't believe it's any single factor, though for mine, the Hood touches on many of them. i'd also throw in injuries - and not just to the players themselves (see holy trinity above, but add to that players like Evans and Taggert). Having the likes of Dawes and Clark stuck primarily in rehab for the last season or two can't have helped, either off-field or on.

On the other hand and for comparison, of the 19 players St Kilda drafted 2007 - 2010, only 3 remain on their list, and you would imagine that they had enough decent leaders and coaches across that period.

I think a big part of the hurt, in terms of development, has been having no competitive team for these kids to work to get into.

From day 1 coming to the club it hasn't been "work hard, you're now on the list but your draft pick means nothing, you're no different to a rookie and you have to earn a spot in the senior team," instead it has been "you're the future, you're the now, you've got the talent, just bulk up a bit and run better than you used to, we need you to hurry up and develop and get ready for senior footy, because as soon as you are we're going to shove you out there to carry the team and be our saviours."

The latter might not have been what the coaches have said to them, in fact I'm sure they've said the former, but the latter has been implied, it has been (whether said or unsaid) on the minds of all connected to the club, and it has been the reality.

It's overwhelming, it's unrealistic, it's counterproductive, it's self-defeating... and it has been our reality.

This is a Blease and Tapscott thread, not a 'let's recount past failures for the zillionth time' thread. Take it somewhere else.