History would suggest that many struggle post broken leg if the tibia is involed. Barlow is the only one i can recall fully recovering.

Nathan Brown was never the same, Gary Rohan is OK but not the same player he was.

I thnk Strauss and Blease have been unlucky, as has our club.

Pretty unusual for 2 recruits to have the same injury early in their careers not too far apart.

it will be interesting to see where Strauss and Tappscott play this year and how they go.

Very sad tail of poor recruiting and poor development. Regardless of the reason, and there always be conjecture about drafting and development and the injuries these boys all had, the fact is we got very little from a bunch of drafts in recent years. This group typify the period that I hope is well and truely behind us. Cant wait to finally get to see an A grade star develop at the Dees. Its been a long time between drinks for us.

I do feel sorry for Strauss, he was starting to show real class when he broke his leg. Agree about Blease and Gysberts, neither had the drive to make the standard at AFL level. Not sure why Tapscott never made it, he was big bodied, hard at it and a good kick.

Blease picked just before Shuey in the same draft - well, that was a disaster.

And not to forget Gysberts at pick 11. Bennell over Sloane, and Jurrah over Rockcliff.

Will people PLEASE stop cherry picking players taken 5, 10 or 50 picks later and saying "we could have had this guy"!? It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how player development works. NOBODY realised Rockliff was going to be any good, let alone a total ball magnet.

It's like buying a lotto ticket and then saying "oh, I should have picked THOSE numbers" when your ticket loses. It makes absolutely no sense.

Rockcliff would've delivered more value to the club.

In hindsight yes. Not at the time.

Will people PLEASE stop cherry picking players taken 5, 10 or 50 picks later and saying "we could have had this guy"!? It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how player development works. NOBODY realised Rockliff was going to be any good, let alone a total ball magnet.

It's like buying a ticket and then saying "oh, I should have picked THOSE numbers" when your ticket loses. It makes absolutely no sense.

To get a full understanding on how much the Lions realised how much of a gun Rockcliff was - these are the picks in the draft the Lions took BEFORE Rockcliff.

Household names such as Keiran King, Bart McCullough and Aaron Cornelius. Brisbane passed on him in their last selection in the main draft and picked him up in the preseason draft !

Rory Sloan was Adelaides 3rd selection - they preferred Shaun McKernan before him.

Point well made Autocol.

Will people PLEASE stop cherry picking players taken 5, 10 or 50 picks later and saying "we could have had this guy"!? It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how player development works. NOBODY realised Rockliff was going to be any good, let alone a total ball magnet.

It's like buying a lotto ticket and then saying "oh, I should have picked THOSE numbers" when your ticket loses. It makes absolutely no sense.

I totally agree the draft is a lottery and all clubs waste picks on duds. The Demons however managed to acheive a worse hit rate than mos in previous years, whether that is picking or development or more likely a combination is anyones guess but the end result is a rubbish side. The successful team have drafted stars we have drafted none.

I think we have also been very unlucky in recent years. Jurrah was unlucky but possibly should have been seen coming, Strauss's leg was unlucky, Clarks foot and depression was unlucky, Trengoves foot was unlucky, Hogans back was unlucky, Dawes and Garlands lack of preseason was unlucky, Salem's thyroid was unlucky, Gawns knees were unlucky, Spencers ankle was unlucky. Evey team gets injuries but ours have been key position players when we have little or no depth that have hit us hard. Mitch Clark has been the single biggest problem. compounded by injuries to Dawes and Hogan. A forward line with Clark and either Hogan or Dawes last year would have made a significnat difference to this side and I recon would have given us another 4-5 wins. That is a big difference to the season.

I totally agree the draft is a lottery and all clubs waste picks on duds. The Demons however managed to acheive a worse hit rate than mos in previous years, whether that is picking or development or more likely a combination is anyones guess but the end result is a rubbish side. The successful team have drafted stars we have drafted none.

I think we have also been very unlucky in recent years. Jurrah was unlucky but possibly should have been seen coming, Strauss's leg was unlucky, Clarks foot and depression was unlucky, Trengoves foot was unlucky, Hogans back was unlucky, Dawes and Garlands lack of preseason was unlucky, Salem's thyroid was unlucky, Gawns knees were unlucky, Spencers ankle was unlucky. Evey team gets injuries but ours have been key position players when we have little or no depth that have hit us hard. Mitch Clark has been the single biggest problem. compounded by injuries to Dawes and Hogan. A forward line with Clark and either Hogan or Dawes last year would have made a significnat difference to this side and I recon would have given us another 4-5 wins. That is a big difference to the season.

And if we are to compare the draft to a lottery it is quite feasible for some clubs to have a lot more luck than others ...

There are those who believe that it's not possible to get so many picks so wrong but ... we're not talking about an accurate system. In fact, the drafting system we have is far from accurate.

Bad system = many poor results (with the good results of that bad system being of a chaotic nature)

Edited December 8, 201410 yr by Macca

I think we have also been very unlucky in recent years. Jurrah was unlucky but possibly should have been seen coming,

How so?

Blease was the only one to show any promise IMO and he was certainly given enough chances.

Blease was the only one to show any promise IMO and he was certainly given enough chances.

Tappscott showed plenty of promise, just a shame his body couldnt hold up to the demands of AFL footy, certainly had some great traits.

Tappscott showed plenty of promise, just a shame his body couldnt hold up to the demands of AFL footy, certainly had some great traits.

Tappy looked good and applied a few great tackles, sadly however he didn't get hold of the Sherrin often enough for mine.

Will people PLEASE stop cherry picking players taken 5, 10 or 50 picks later and saying "we could have had this guy"!? It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how player development works. NOBODY realised Rockliff was going to be any good, let alone a total ball magnet.

It's like buying a lotto ticket and then saying "oh, I should have picked THOSE numbers" when your ticket loses. It makes absolutely no sense.

Thanks for stating the superficially obvious, Barry Prendergast. For a start, certain people at the MFC did think Rockcliff would be good - he was training with the club at the time and many rated him highly.

The point with each of those players I mentioned that the club overlooked is that the club had committed to them PRIOR to the draft, ie, if they were available at certain picks, we would pick them, ONLY for the club to then go against its word and pick someone else at the last minute.

Unprofessional stuff. And it's cost us. Big time.

The game requires you to run harder for longer and then to win your own footy. The recruiters at the time, in retrospect, did not place enough emphasis on this, as each of those players struggled in one or both of these aspects.

I wish these players all the best of luck in the future.

And, as an aside, we've pretty well cracked the nut on the age of planet earth - it's widely considered to be 4.54 billion years old.

But if I were on a blog in Kansas and I stated that such an estimate is utter b.s. and that the age of the world is actually 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs didn't exist, I would get 50,000 likes for that post.

Doesn't mean I was correct in espousing that view.

The game requires you to run harder for longer and then to win your own footy. The recruiters at the time, in retrospect, did not place enough emphasis on this, as each of those players struggled in one or both of these aspects.

I wish these players all the best of luck in the future.

Bob. I agree with you to a large extent but, having watched a few of the replays of games from the latter part of the year including one involving both Blease and Tapscott (v Brisbane Lions), they together with a few others who remain on our list were/are coachkillers of the worst kind.

I witnessed players in the first three quarters when the game was there to be won, miss targets, make bad choices, go long when they should have gone short and conduct themselves with a lack of discipline or poise for the main part. They were poor choices to start with but their development as players was equally abysmal.

Even if some of those players would have had big tanks, their football skills were never up to scratch anyway.

I feel sorry for all three. They were all poorly developed, I feel all could have made it in the right environment with the right development. Our club is somewhat to blame for their failure. For the record Strauss and Blease were fair picks, both went at about the level that most recruiters ranked them. Tappy went a little earlier than most rated, clearly that Neeld was seduced by the big body.

Not sure about that. Strauss was considered a reach at 19 (was expected to go in the 30s). Tapscott was in the first round of most media (and BigFooty) phantom drafts, and was considered a steal if anything.

I'm not sure where the 'real' recruiters rated them, but not many people do.

Below is comments from an AFL club recruiter after the drafting of the 3. While its not a indication of where they would have been ranked across all the AFL clubs it does show neither where taken out of there range in regard to one other club.

Tapscott at 18 was a good get. I had him at 17. Brilliant kick. Strong hands. Needs to up his workrate to get his hands on it more often but if he gets it anywhere around 50 he is a good chance of kicking a goal. Like most kids needs to work on his defensive game. Strong body. Good pick at 18.

Blease - 17 yr old. Very quick, lovely mover, likes to run and carry. Decent kick and gets some good distance. Can get down on himself if beaten. Needs alot of size and strength. He should light up the 'G' flying down the wing ala Robbie Flower. We had him at 15.

Strauss- I love this kid. One of the best kicks in the TAC. Deceptively quick. Moves within himself but hard to tackle. Great balance and footy smarts. Should be a talented onballer or HBF who sets up play. Alot like Heath Scotland. We had him at 24.

How telling these criticisms are in hindsight.

Tapscott - Needs to up his workrate to get his hands on it more often.

Blease - Can get down on himself if beaten.

Below is comments from an AFL club recruiter after the drafting of the 3. While its not a indication of where they would have been ranked across all the AFL clubs it does show neither where taken out of there range in regard to one other club.

Tapscott at 18 was a good get. I had him at 17. Brilliant kick. Strong hands. Needs to up his workrate to get his hands on it more often but if he gets it anywhere around 50 he is a good chance of kicking a goal. Like most kids needs to work on his defensive game. Strong body. Good pick at 18.

Blease - 17 yr old. Very quick, lovely mover, likes to run and carry. Decent kick and gets some good distance. Can get down on himself if beaten. Needs alot of size and strength. He should light up the 'G' flying down the wing ala Robbie Flower. We had him at 15.

Strauss- I love this kid. One of the best kicks in the TAC. Deceptively quick. Moves within himself but hard to tackle. Great balance and footy smarts. Should be a talented onballer or HBF who sets up play. Alot like Heath Scotland. We had him at 24.

Another snapshot at draft time with absolutely no idea on how it would play out down the track.

And if we are to compare the draft to a lottery it is quite feasible for some clubs to have a lot more luck than others ...

There are those who believe that it's not possible to get so many picks so wrong but ... we're not talking about an accurate system. In fact, the drafting system we have is far from accurate.

Bad system = many poor results (with the good results of that bad system being of a chaotic nature)

The science behind the draft these days is far more accurate than when the draft was first introduced - far more. Whatever the debate is on the nature of the draft - lottery or otherwise - a far greater crime was that for too long we sat back thinking first round draft picks would be a panacea. What we failed to do far more miserably was to develop from within.

How so?

I would have thought that the issues with Jurrah were clearly visable before we drafted him. It was always a big ask for Jurrah to leap the cultural divide between the indiginous community he came from and the world of an AFL footballer. I though while Jimmy was alive and a few indignous mate in the side progressed well but as soon as Jim got crook and we appointed Neeld the rot set in. My comment was that when we recruited Jurrah we should have for seen a change in coach and therefor approach and known that Jurrah would struggle. In a way it confirmed the comments made by Matt Rendell that he got the sack for. I know he expressed them badly but he basically said that the gap is too wide to leap with the AFL building somethings to help bridge it and talent like Jurrah will be lost to the game.

The science behind the draft these days is far more accurate than when the draft was first introduced - far more. Whatever the debate is on the nature of the draft - lottery or otherwise - a far greater crime was that for too long we sat back thinking first round draft picks would be a panacea. What we failed to do far more miserably was to develop from within.

Yep ... and sometimes the more you know, the less you know!

Agree with you on the development side of things

I feel sorry for all three. They were all poorly developed, I feel all could have made it in the right environment with the right development. Our club is somewhat to blame for their failure. For the record Strauss and Blease were fair picks, both went at about the level that most recruiters ranked them. Tappy went a little earlier than most rated, clearly that Neeld was seduced by the big body.

What every other person does is irrelevant to one's mistake.

As everyone's mum used to say "if [insert name here] were to jump off a cliff, would you follow them?"

The mistakes we made may have been the ones everyone else would have made, but that doesn't make them any less of a mistake...

We jumped off that cliff ourselves with our drafting over the last decade. No-one followed us over that precipice and fell as hard as we did.

So how we can 'explain away' the fact that we took 'the teenagers we were supposed to' is beyond me.

I doesn't exonerate them, but it's less damning than players who were surprise selections. That is what sets apart a selection like Cook who was a surprise selection on top of being a complete bust. So essentially a failure on all possible fronts.

I doesn't exonerate them, but it's less damning than players who were surprise selections. That is what sets apart a selection like Cook who was a surprise selection on top of being a complete bust. So essentially a failure on all possible fronts.

I vaguely recall the Crows getting a few whacks for selecting a teenager still in school from Victoria in 2007, instead of Brad Ebert..

Was that a failure?

No, because they selected Dangerfield.