I propose a forum wide ban on anyone using the draft penalties as an excuse for our current plight, over the last decade we've wasted far more first and second round picks than those couple of penalties.

That's fine, but in islolation they were significant penalties. The players in question would be in their prime and it's the very age group letting us down today. You may be sick of excuses, but that doesn't diminish the effect of those penalties at the time.

That's fine, but in islolation they were significant penalties. The players in question would be in their prime and it's the very age group letting us down today. You may be sick of excuses, but that doesn't diminish the effect of those penalties at the time.

In comparison to our drafting record at the time those penalties pales into insignificance.

Since 2000 our List Management has compounded our drafting problems even further.

So if you want to hang your hat on outside influences as excuses for our current position then that's your decision, but at some point we need to accept the fact that we are solely responsible for currently having the worst list in the league. Just as the fines we received back then having nothing to do with our financial position.

Its definitely had an impact on the list and the absence access to talent from those years has had an influence in the decisions made subsequent to recruiting and list. There are of course other issues at hand that contribute to the list management position at MFC. And I dont think any one is denying that or playing the victim. But to deny or diminish the impact of one significant contributor in favour of others is just self serving.

I propose a forum wide ban on anyone using the draft penalties as an excuse for our current plight, over the last decade we've wasted far more first and second round picks than those couple of penalties.

You're right that it's not the reason but it is a reason. Just as it's not right to wholly blame our list problems on that, it's also not right to outright dismiss it as a factor.

Its definitely had an impact on the list and the absence access to talent from those years has had an influence in the decisions made subsequent to recruiting and list. There are of course other issues at hand that contribute to the list management position at MFC. And I dont think any one is denying that or playing the victim. But to deny or diminish the impact of one significant contributor in favour of others is just self serving.

Small impact at most. From memory in '99 we lost pick 5 which was given to Fremantle, they took Leigh brown and Damian Cupido and Danny Roach were the two next players taken. Do you honestly believe that any of those players would have made any difference at all to the position we're currently in?

The following year the players taken around what would have been our second pick were Sam Hunt, Ryan Lonie, Jeremy Humm & Guy Richards.

meh

Small impact at most. From memory in '99 we lost pick 5 which was given to Fremantle, they took Leigh brown and Damian Cupido and Danny Roach were the two next players taken. Do you honestly believe that any of those players would have made any difference at all to the position we're currently in?

The following year the players taken around what would have been our second pick were Sam Hunt, Ryan Lonie, Jeremy Humm & Guy Richards.

meh

Its simplistic to draw a line as to who we would have chosen to suit your point of view

Here are some of the players that we could have had access to:

1999 : Glass, McPharlin

2000: Hunt, McPhee, N. Lonie, Williams (Haw), Jones (NM) and Johncock

The lack of talent to develop or alternatively trade is the cost.

I have no issue with taking Leigh Brown. Capable KPP when we have few. Hell if he was not going to cut the mustard we could have traded him for pick 13 in 2002 draft.

Its the denial to the access and use of talent to further improvement the overall list.

2000: Hunt, McPhee, N. Lonie, Williams (Haw), Jones (NM) and Johncock

Daniel Cross was available too. Handy midfielder?

Agree, with Jarka.

I was trying to illustrate the dearth of 25 - 27 yr olds that we have because of the penalties.

Didn't mean it as the reason for a plight, but it does mean, right now, we have few at the peak of their careers.

Which isn't terrible, since we have our talent in the 23 and under bracket.

I don't want another post 98 draft analysis, very tiresome.

Its simplistic to draw a line as to who we would have chosen to suit your point of view

Here are some of the players that we could have had access to:

1999 : Glass, McPharlin

2000: Hunt, McPhee, N. Lonie, Williams (Haw), Jones (NM) and Johncock

The lack of talent to develop or alternatively trade is the cost.

I have no issue with taking Leigh Brown. Capable KPP when we have few. Hell if he was not going to cut the mustard we could have traded him for pick 13 in 2002 draft.

Its the denial to the access and use of talent to further improvement the overall list.

You're assuming that we would have taken and developed a KPP into a good player, which in reality when you look at our drafting back then is unlikely. History tells us that around that time we had around a 50% success rate with first round picks, 50% in the second round and Nil% in the third round.

No matter what spin you put on it the most likely result would have been just one extra player, hardly something that would have had a dramatic affect on our performances over the last 8 years.

Edit: Just read your post rpfc, sorry for misinterpreting your post

I am not assuming anything but countering your view that we would not have drafted any good players.

In a list of 40 players where we were denied access to the use of 2 talented players to develop or trade is a rough 5% of your list. In a game where the difference between winning and losing is often marginal then its significant over the period since the penalties were in place.

Btw, who did he support in his youth? Wasn't us was it?

I think he was a Roos fan. I remember on the footy show they had a photo of him when he was a youngster in a roos jumper with his idol Wayne Carey.

I am not assuming anything but countering your view that we would not have drafted any good players.

In a list of 40 players where we were denied access to the use of 2 talented players to develop or trade is a rough 5% of your list. In a game where the difference between winning and losing is often marginal then its significant over the period since the penalties were in place.

I didn't say that we wouldn't trade any good players, I'm saying that looking at our record back then the most likely outcome would have been one decent player from the three draft picks we missed. If you compare that to the picks that we've blown over the last decade then it's insignificant, or do you really believe the opposite?

I didn't say that we wouldn't trade any good players, I'm saying that looking at our record back then the most likely outcome would have been one decent player from the three draft picks we missed. If you compare that to the picks that we've blown over the last decade then it's insignificant, or do you really believe the opposite?

Your answer is in the post you quoted.

When it comes to having to draw on players like Godfrey Reed and other cellar dwellers on the list frequently with injury then IMO the lack of even one of the players I mentioned is significant on playing performance.

Your answer is in the post you quoted.

When it comes to having to draw on players like Godfrey Reed and other cellar dwellers on the list frequently with injury then IMO the lack of even one of the players I mentioned is significant on playing performance.

Rubbish.

Here is a list of the other 1st round picks taken around the same time:

Johnstone - Universally recognised as being one of the major problems of the team over the last decade

Lamb - Was not good enough, provided nothing

S.Thompson - Good player, unfortunately the club couldn't convince him to stay

L.Molan - See Lamb but worse

D.Bell - Goes ok but not what you'd build a team around

N.Smith - See Molan

Oh yeah, I clearly see how that recruiting mob would had made a huge difference with an extra pick.

There is not one shred of evidence that suggests that CAC would have been able to pull a miracle out of his arse back then and pick up an elite player who would have made a significant impact to our results, and to suggest otherwise would be bending the truth to beyond breaking point.

There is not one shred of evidence that suggests that CAC would have been able to pull a miracle out of his arse back then and pick up an elite player who would have made a significant impact to our results, and to suggest otherwise would be bending the truth to beyond breaking point.

There's not actually any shred of evidence that they would've ballsed it up either. In reality it's all pure speculation and we will never know.

There's not actually any shred of evidence that they would've ballsed it up either. In reality it's all pure speculation and we will never know.

Apart from his actual recruiting results from the same time.

There's not actually any shred of evidence that they would've ballsed it up either. In reality it's all pure speculation and we will never know.

Exactly Nasher. Its speculation in order to feed a crusading hobby horse. My view is simply that the picks may not have delivered us a star but would have delivered players who would have been better than the lowest player(s) on our list. Therefore their absence leaves our list worse off for not having them.

Exactly Nasher. Its speculation in order to feed a crusading hobby horse. My view is simply that the picks may not have delivered us a star but would have delivered players who would have been better than the lowest player(s) on our list. Therefore their absence leaves our list worse off for not having them.

So you think that my view is pure speculation but you know for a fact that the picks would have delivered a player "better than the lowest player(s) on our list". lol, how is that not pure speculation as well?

So you think that my view is pure speculation but you know for a fact that the picks would have delivered a player "better than the lowest player(s) on our list". lol, how is that not pure speculation as well?

Sorry, I was playing to your common sense. My bad

Sorry, I was playing to your common sense. My bad

Rhino.. aka Chief Wordsmith.

You need to stop having contempt and distain for other people’s views. This is a football forum, not federal parliament.

Lighten up or ship off.

If the player we drafted with pick 5 was Darren Glass (as I am led to believe was probable) then would we have wasted all of those subsequent picks on key defenders?

Maybe we would then have ignored Molan and picked up Dal Santo instead since we no longer needed that key defender. Suddenly we go into this year with an AA full back and a midfield led by Nick Dal Santo. Plus we may have picked up Jed Adcock with the pick we traded for Ben Holland.

The fact is that none of us know what would have happened if we hadn't have had the draft penalties. All we know is that it definitely had an negative impact. To dismiss it altogether is foolish, as is blaming it as the sole cause for our troubles.

If the player we drafted with pick 5 was Darren Glass (as I am led to believe was probable) then would we have wasted all of those subsequent picks on key defenders?

No gurantees that Darren Glass would've developed to his full potential at MFC. Nicho was ND fullback.

On a side n.b.

Hasn't Darren Glass had the most goals kicked against him this year?

We all know he's quality but without midfield support, he has had trouble.

Something to consider when we bag our defenders.

Sorry, I was playing to your common sense. My bad

No sweat, I already knew that you're a hypocrite so it's no big deal