Roos just said that we didn't have Kelly at pick 2 if we kept that that pick.

Probably would have been Scharenberg for abit of height

The problem is Kelly is ready to go. Salem isnt. We did the trade for ready to go players.

Yes we have Tyson but we could have had Dunstan at the same time who is also provides some grunt.

I am just concerned

We did the trade for a 'ready to go body' to help Jones.

Kelly wouldn't be that and unless you are going to get a star you may as well draft down and get some value.

I don't think you are being genuine when you compare Tyson and Kelly. One is three years older and has some weight to throw around.

Just what we need - a big body, not more bodies...

We did the trade for a 'ready to go body' to help Jones.

Kelly wouldn't be that and unless you are going to get a star you may as well draft down and get some value.

I don't think you are being genuine when you compare Tyson and Kelly. One is three years older and has some weight to throw around.

Just what we need - a big body, not more bodies...

Kelly is going to be a star. Dunstan would've been that mature body to help Jones out.

Hindsight is a great thing.

I would've pulled the trigger on the Kelly trade, we were not to know Dunstan would 100% slip.

Had to pull the trigger on the trade, Tyson is an asset to the club, he has been fantastic.

I thought Kelly and Salem were the standout class of the draft, so I look forward to seeing Salem get out there.

I will add we have not drafted any leaders either.

This i think is the biggest failing of the club in the past 8 years.

None of them have stood up during a match as a leader.

Grimes, Capt Vic U16, Vic U18, TAC Nth Knights. All 3 teams he was capt over Cotchin.

Trengove capt SA U18

Jnr leaders at least

It's unprovable isn't it? Development or Recruiting?

It's both, obviously, but I think it's more a failure to develop than recruit. You've listed a lot of players who have not made it but more to the point is those who every recruiter would have drafted that have gone nowhere. Watts, Trengove, Tapscott, Blease, Strauss and Grimes are all players who would have been drafted with the expectation of developing into really good footballers but who, to this stage at least, haven't.

Clearly players develop when surrounded by elite players and coaches, Geelong is the perfect example. Guthrie and Murdock are just two examples of players who would be miles behind where they are now if we had drafted them. The lack of mature bodied leaders with "good habits" has cost us as much if not more than poor drafting.

It's both, obviously, but I think it's more a failure to develop than recruit. You've listed a lot of players who have not made it but more to the point is those who every recruiter would have drafted that have gone nowhere. Watts, Trengove, Tapscott, Blease, Strauss and Grimes are all players who would have been drafted with the expectation of developing into really good footballers but who, to this stage at least, haven't.

Clearly players develop when surrounded by elite players and coaches, Geelong is the perfect example. Guthrie and Murdock are just two examples of players who would be miles behind where they are now if we had drafted them. The lack of mature bodied leaders with "good habits" has cost us as much if not more than poor drafting.

Someone also made a good point in one of the other threads (may have been "the master"??) as well in regards to time on field, in that having Daniel Cross on your list playing 94% time on ground gives you the luxury of having Jack Viney on the field for only 66% of the game. I haven't analysed this at any level, but I wonder how much time on ground the likes of a young Morton or Trengove spent relative to other players their age. You would think that can't be good for their bodies or their confidence.

I both agree and disagree, Bob.

I certainly agree that poor development has been a major issue. While a player can learn by being told by coaches and shown video, players will learn infinitely better when there are examples of those good habits that you see in leaders every day. Nasher's point is good too.

However I also think that poor drafting has played a bigger role than you give it credit for.

We have drafted a number of players who are athletically unsuited for AFL footy and that has hurt them as much an anything. I would be more worried about our poor development if we had drafted better suited players. Murdoch and Guthrie are both athletically very good, and have the base to develop upon. Murdoch is the prototypical athlete-over-footballer. He has taken some time to develop his football skills and greatly benefited from being at Geelong. Guthrie is a 'gamer', and would likely have done well at Melbourne too.

Would Blease have done well at Geelong? I doubt it. Would Strauss? That's a different question.

I both agree and disagree, Bob.

I certainly agree that poor development has been a major issue. While a player can learn by being told by coaches and shown video, players will learn infinitely better when there are examples of those good habits that you see in leaders every day. Nasher's point is good too.

However I also think that poor drafting has played a bigger role than you give it credit for.

We have drafted a number of players who are athletically unsuited for AFL footy and that has hurt them as much an anything. I would be more worried about our poor development if we had drafted better suited players. Murdoch and Guthrie are both athletically very good, and have the base to develop upon. Murdoch is the prototypical athlete-over-footballer. He has taken some time to develop his football skills and greatly benefited from being at Geelong. Guthrie is a 'gamer', and would likely have done well at Melbourne too.

Would Blease have done well at Geelong? I doubt it. Would Strauss? That's a different question.

How do you think Trengove, Scully, Watts, Grimes, Morton and Gysberts would have gone?

We've made mistakes, that's obvious, but we've not got anywhere near the best from what we've had.

FWIW I think Prendergast made two fatal mistakes. First is he didn't select "genuine" midfielders and second he didn't/couldn't identify competitiveness.

How do you think Trengove, Scully, Watts, Grimes, Morton and Gysberts would have gone?

We've made mistakes, that's obvious, but we've not got anywhere near the best from what we've had.

FWIW I think Prendergast made two fatal mistakes. First is he didn't select "genuine" midfielders and second he didn't/couldn't identify competitiveness.

Trengove would have done better, because he would have been able to develop the parts of his game that would have made him effective as an inside midfielder. Scully the same, because his lack of size for an inside mid would still remain. Watts would have done much better. Grimes would have been better. Morton I'm unsure of, and Gysberts would have failed also. IMHO.

I think it all depends on whether the issue is football skills. If it is then it's a development problem. If it's athletic or physical, then it wouldn't have helped. But it's ultimately unprovable.

Does development come from the club actively "developing" the players or is development simply having better senior players in the team to take the burden off young players?

Edited April 14, 201411 yr by Clint Bizkit

Does development come the club actively "developing" the players or is development simply having better senior players in the team to take the burden off young players?

The latter is more visible...

I think it's more important. The notion of 'learn by not having to do' - we asked kids to do far too much, too soon and if they had a cross or a Vince to take the burden then the steps to achievement are smaller and more manageable.

Edited April 14, 201411 yr by rpfc

Does development come the club actively "developing" the players or is development simply having better senior players in the team to take the burden off young players?

Interesting thought CB....