It's definitely not rocket science, but when your team can't even compete and still loses by 100 points, suddenly building a team and applying pressure on game day is like trying to manufacture a wormhole.

That is why it is important to draft blokes who can win the football, want to win the football, and have the ability to win the football consistently. Contested ball winning, mature bodied midfielders - with the ability to play AFL football. MFC thought they could get out of this mess by picking outside types who use the ball well. They just never considered how to get the ball out to those players. They were ahead of themselves. When a team consistently finishes last, maybe they should've been more worried about the basics of football - as opposed to the cream on the top.

Like Fyfe?

Fyfe and Judd are exceptions, generally you will get those.

That being said, I'm not sure Fyfe would be the player he is at Fremantle - if he'd been drafted to Melbourne.

It has taken him a few years to build his body, MFC didn't have a few years up our sleeve to sit and wait on a player.

We needed mids, Fyfe was a forward early, and MFC wouldn't of been able to get the ball forward.

Fyfe and Judd are exceptions, generally you will get those.

That being said, I'm not sure Fyfe would be the player he is at Fremantle - if he'd been drafted to Melbourne.

It has taken him a few years to build his body, MFC didn't have a few years up our sleeve to sit and wait on a player.

We needed mids, Fyfe was a forward early, and MFC wouldn't of been able to get the ball forward.

But that is the example of how inflexible rules on drafting a 'type' of player just doesn't work.

Drafting is very, very hard.

But that is the example of how inflexible rules on drafting a 'type' of player just doesn't work.

Drafting is very, very hard.

It is for the MFC...

I find your analysis deceiving.

From the 50 from drafts you mentioned came

Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Goddard, McVeigh, Cooney, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, Murphy, Thomas, Kennedy (WCE), Pendlebury, Gibbs, Boak, Cotchin, Naitanui, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Martin, Cunnington, D.Swallow, Bennell.

So that is 25 players whop would safely make a big difference to our team and probably at least 15 who would be our best player and close to 10 who are genuine superstars of the competition.

Beyond that you are left with

Koschitzke, Didak, Ball, Brennan, Walker, Sylvia, McLean, Hansen, Leuenberger, Kreuzer, Masten, Scully, Day, Gaff, Polec.

All of whom would walk into our side and be top 5/10 players at their peak and a couple could easily be in the upper echelon above.

Leaves us with

Polec, X.Clake, Tambling, Ellis, Watts, Ray, Trengove, Morabito, Livingston, McDougall, Walsh, Gumbleton, Morton and Grant.

Trengove, X.Clarke, Morabito and Gumbleton have had their careers destroyed by injury. Ellis, Ray, Watts have been useful contributors.

Leaves you with Walsh, Morton, Grant, McDougall and Livingston who weren't good enough for AFL and effectively busts.

I think Demon fans have a right to expect quality from a top 5 pick.

-

I'm arguing whether a top 5 pick player out of those 50 picks is a genuine AFL 'A' grader or not. I'm looking at the issue from an overall perspective, not from a MFC perspective.

14 B+ or A graders from 50 picks ... 22 players who are not busts but they are certainly not top players and ... 14 busts. One could argue that a team has as much chance of drafting a bust as it does an A grader.

What is also true is that many people here are assuming that a top 5 pick will be an A grade player - yet the facts don't bear that out. Assuming anything with the draft is fraught with danger - there are just no guarantees with drafting.

I'm talking about actual output too - injuries don't count. A bust can be a player who is cruelled by injuries. Harsh maybe but that is the reality of the situation.

I didn't include McLean and Sylvia in my tally of 14 busts but they were busts in terms of what people were assuming would happen with those 2 players - not total busts but many here were disappointed with their actual output. "Useful contributors" doesn't cut it in terms of what people were assuming.

There is a prevailing attitude here that if a top end draft pick doesn't look likely to become a top player, they'd rather get rid of him totally. Many people here won't be satisfied if Tompous ends up only being a C+ or B- player. Look at how many here are wanting to trade him out already. The bloke has played 21 games.

The term outside mid is used in a disparaging way.

The description of kids that are hard and win contested football run and spread with speed describes Toumpas to a tee at under 18 level. You keep hearing the same thing - plays inside and out - tremendous work ethic, hard working.

He has shown any of this at AFL level - sadly no but that doesn't rewrite what he was showing at draft time.

And while the raising the draft age debate might sort a few of cases like Toumpas and Morton et al, you're always going to have players that just don't make it. I realise drafting elite juniors doesn't always translate into elite AFL level players but give me a well built and strong kid who hits packs and wrenches the footy out any day of the week.

But that is the example of how inflexible rules on drafting a 'type' of player just doesn't work.

Drafting is very, very hard.

Not really, Nat Fyfe was still a very good contested mark as a junior. He was apparently marking everything.

Fyfe wasn't an outside 'cream on top' type player MFC had previously drafted. He was still very much a contested player, he just didn't quite have the body - which is probably why he went where he did. When it comes down to 'type', that is something MFC should of actually had - a type. To identify our needs. There was no point drafting outside skirt riders when we couldn't win a contested ball out of the centre, we were wooden spooners for a reason. MFC should've focused on fixing the basics.

They all would walk into our side and be in our best 5 or 10 players. Which wouldn't.

First of all - it ain't hard to walk into our team and be in the top 5 or 10- but to suggest that these have all been good footballers and worthy of top selection in the draft is fanciful .

If your grading is who was on par of better than their draft number - You could make a case for Didak and I would suggest we need more time for Scully, Day and Gaff. The balance have been underwhelming as top 10 selections.

The trouble is MFC taken undeveloped athletic ball users - ahead of mature bodied, contested ball winners.

We did this at a time when we couldn't even extract the football out of the centre in our AFL games.

So when these kids finally came into our side, they were coming into a side that still couldn't get the ball out of the centre.

Outside types like Morton, Strauss, Blease, Toumpas, and even forwards like Watts and Cook, were always going to be up against it, because the supply was never there.

Why? Because we neglected drafting mature bodied, contested ball winners to get the ball out in the first place.

Had MFC understood the basics of football leading into these drafts - like Roos does - we would've had a completely different side, we wouldn't be in the position we are currently in. Paul Roos is having to go back, identify and rectify all the areas we previously got wrong. That is why we have Tyson, Vandenberg, Salem and Brayshaw. That is why Roos didn't take Kelly. As I've said previously, it's not rocket science.

Fantastic post and spot on, but shows how under Prederghastly we had no idea and then, with a key pick in the draft three years ago, under Todd Viney, but coerced by Neeld, we got it majorly wrong and dropped off Wines.

Thanks christ we now have a recruiting guy in Taylor who understands where the game is at and hopefully where it is headed.

But even now luck can play a part - if we didn't go Trengove we would have most likely gone Morabito and not Martin, for example.

If Petracca wasn't available, Roos went on record as saying we would have most likely gone McCartin, which now shapes as a bust - early days though on this one.

Morton could take a mark and find space. Toumpas fumbles and can't seem to get 5m away from his opponent which is his biggest issue. Being unable to get space makes him panic.

If ToumpAs could spread and make space like he was recruited for I am sure he would be fine. He is either restricted because of his hips to run or isn't being coached correctly.

First of all - it ain't hard to walk into our team and be in the top 5 or 10- but to suggest that these have all been good footballers and worthy of top selection in the draft is fanciful .

If your grading is who was on par of better than their draft number - You could make a case for Didak and I would suggest we need more time for Scully, Day and Gaff. The balance have been underwhelming as top 10 selections.

I wasnt comparing to draft number - the other poster said only 14 of 50 top 5 draft picks were good players, that number is clearly incorrect and misleading. In the context of the expectation Melbourne supporters have for Toumpas based on his draft number, the expectation is rightly high and even more if you draw down and remove key position players from the equation.

I'm arguing whether a top 5 pick player out of those 50 picks is a genuine AFL 'A' grader or not. I'm looking at the issue from an overall perspective, not from a MFC perspective.

14 B+ or A graders from 50 picks ... 22 players who are not busts but they are certainly not top players and ... 14 busts. One could argue that a team has as much chance of drafting a bust as it does an A grader.

What is also true is that many people here are assuming that a top 5 pick will be an A grade player - yet the facts don't bear that out. Assuming anything with the draft is fraught with danger - there are just no guarantees with drafting.

I'm talking about actual output too - injuries don't count. A bust can be a player who is cruelled by injuries. Harsh maybe but that is the reality of the situation.

I didn't include McLean and Sylvia in my tally of 14 busts but they were busts in terms of what people were assuming would happen with those 2 players - not total busts but many here were disappointed with their actual output. "Useful contributors" doesn't cut it in terms of what people were assuming.

There is a prevailing attitude here that if a top end draft pick doesn't look likely to become a top player, they'd rather get rid of him totally. Many people here won't be satisfied if Tompous ends up only being a C+ or B- player. Look at how many here are wanting to trade him out already. The bloke has played 21 games.

I dont think you are grading many players fairly, i count 30 at least B-plussers.

Edited May 18, 201510 yr by goodoil

Morton could take a mark and find space. Toumpas fumbles and can't seem to get 5m away from his opponent which is his biggest issue. Being unable to get space makes him panic.

If ToumpAs could spread and make space like he was recruited for I am sure he would be fine. He is either restricted because of his hips to run or isn't being coached correctly.

Your kidding me right? Of course anyone can mark when your getting cheapies across half back. Don't give me this rubbish that he was doing it contested style.. Surely that's not what you ment..

For all the space Morton supposedly showed he would turn it right over with his dodgy disposals.

He was by far the softest AFL player I have ever seen. He literally avoided any sort of physical contact at all cost. Not only was he physically soft he was mentally weak. Got gifted games early in his career only to get a reality check when Neeld came in and set our training standards high. Didn't wanna do any of the hard work and just cruised on through.

Went to West Coast and nothing improved one bit. Woosha couldn't be any more quick enough to show him the back door.

I dont think you are grading many players fairly, i count 30 at least B-plussers.

We could go on for hours but it is pointless

Lets agree to disagree

We could go on for hours but it is pointless

Lets agree to disagree

Well theres the 25

Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Goddard, McVeigh, Cooney, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, Murphy, Thomas, Kennedy (WCE), Pendlebury, Gibbs, Boak, Cotchin, Naitanui, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Martin, Cunnington, D.Swallow, Bennell.

Just interested in which of them you dont rate above "OK"

Edited May 18, 201510 yr by goodoil

Your kidding me right? Of course anyone can mark when your getting cheapies across half back. Don't give me this rubbish that he was doing it contested style.. Surely that's not what you ment..

For all the space Morton supposedly showed he would turn it right over with his dodgy disposals.

He was by far the softest AFL player I have ever seen. He literally avoided any sort of physical contact at all cost. Not only was he physically soft he was mentally weak. Got gifted games early in his career only to get a reality check when Neeld came in and set our training standards high. Didn't wanna do any of the hard work and just cruised on through.

Went to West Coast and nothing improved one bit. Woosha couldn't be any more quick enough to show him the back door.

Cale Morton kicked 4 goals early on against Essendon. He also was able to beat Adam Goodes when he was in his prime.

When Jimmy can do either of the above I am happy to rate him as doing better, that said I would be happy enough if he could win a 1 on 1 contest. Just one!

Cale Morton kicked 4 goals early on against Essendon. He also was able to beat Adam Goodes when he was in his prime.

When Jimmy can do either of the above I am happy to rate him as doing better, that said I would be happy enough if he could win a 1 on 1 contest. Just one!

Before sinking your boots into young Jimmy atleast do your reserch first before looking like a fool.

Cale morton has never once kicked 4 goals.. show me this game? And the only game Morton tagged Goodes was back in 2010 when we thrashed Sydney by over 80 points and Adam Goodes kicked 4 goals and got 26 disposals..

Yeah wow he really beat him hands down that day..

Edited May 18, 201510 yr by dazzledavey36

Well theres the 25

Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Goddard, McVeigh, Cooney, Deledio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, Murphy, Thomas, Kennedy (WCE), Pendlebury, Gibbs, Boak, Cotchin, Naitanui, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Martin, Cunnington, D.Swallow, Bennell.

Just interested in which of them you dont rate above "OK"

Well in my eyes 'ok' can be B grade so it's not hard to figure out.

What about the other 25 who are less than B grade? We can't exclude them

CANT BELEIVE I'M ACTUALLY SAYING THIS... BUT MOD;'S TIME TO CLOSE THIS THREAD DOWN

SINCERELY P.F!

CANT BELEIVE I'M ACTUALLY SAYING THIS... BUT MOD;'S TIME TO CLOSE THIS THREAD DOWN

SINCERELY P.F!

It's a fair thread, Morton was ahead of Toumas by his 3rd year. We are really down [censored] creek and something needs to be done

Well in my eyes 'ok' can be B grade so it's not hard to figure out.

What about the other 25 who are less than B grade? We can't exclude them

Well in my eyes 'ok' can be B grade so it's not hard to figure out.

What about the other 25 who are less than B grade? We can't exclude them

i rate 10 of the rest at b grade or better the first 25 clearly are b+ at worst, remembering of course that though a dale thomas or marc murphy may have dropped away but they have been a graders or close to for an extended period.

Edited May 18, 201510 yr by goodoil

It'd be interesting to know which players other clubs would've selected at pick 4 in that draft.

I suspect Port were fortunate in having pick 7 in some ways, as Wines was an absolute no brainer for them.

I was happy enough with Toumpas when we drafted him - although, like everyone here, I felt a strong attachment to Wines, essentially because of the Jack Viney best mates factor.

Toumpas came in with what appeared to be top tier credentials and was always touted as a high pick. But he simply hasn't looked remotely like the player I had thought we had drafted.

Hugely disappointing. To date at least.

Yes, he has been extremely disappointing. But, at the time, almost all the "experts" rated Toump > Wines. Such is the inexactitude of drafting prospectively. Retrospectively is much easier.

Yes

But this club is still in neutral...The 2 clubs who tanked blatantly are going nowhere...

Hawthorn did ok from their tanking, and it turned out that Roughy and Frankenstein turned out ok

Collingwood got a flag as well.

Do you seriously think any club that has been following football, and they all keep an eye on players, would trade for a guy who is slow, has no major overhead marking ability, and can't kick with his left foot and plays an outside game and panics and ...

No we will get nothing for him, although I'm told he is a great bloke.

Unfortunately when Neeld, in one of his many acts of lunacy, said he wanted an outside player to go with Viney's inside game, we f...ed up completely and missed out on Wines. True, he had been a standout out at the U18 carnival, but why we weren't able to ascertain his pace prior to his injury remains one of the great mysteries.

Roosy and Taylor are paying the price for it now.

as mentioned above, JT was almost universally rated highly...seemed to have good pace at the time.

agree Jimmy T is struggling to adapt.

Jimmy is an interesting case, looks good at casey and in practice matches but the moment the tempo goes up he struggles, looks to me like a kid playing out of his depth at times.

i'd love to see him develop into a really good player, and i think he might but i am starting to think maybe that won't be with us, his type of player is probably the cherry on top of a cake that we are still baking

we need the raw ingrediants to take a shape, guys like brayshaw who chase, tackle and give effort regardless of the score

What a crock of [censored] this thread is. People comparing the size of their balls and slagging off one of our kids. Shut this F____R down.