deanox

im of the opinion that we've done as well as any other club regarding rucks. white with that pick 2, we've also developed jolly and simmonds who have been reasonable rucks at other clubs. if either of those rucks were currently jamars age, no one would ever mention that we've had problems with rucks...its just that we are struggling atm...

:D im liking all these homework challenges. at least we're getting back to the good old days of solid debate and discussion instead of the petty crap. this is a really good thread, i hope it stays this way.

jarka, ive reread the posts and i see what you are talking about. im just not sure it is fair to make conclusions on how good a recruiter CAC is based on 'how well he drafted talls'. remember, most people here advocate taking the best available player, whether it is a tall or a small. we havnt done particularly well with KPP players when drafting, but of the 13, 9 have been top 30 picks (longmuir, lamb molan rogers smith rivers bate dunn frawley) and i think rivers is a success and the jury is still out on three. it could be 4 from 9. and we know the circumstances around molan already... top 20 picks and you have 6 (lamb molan smith bate dunn frawley) of which 3 of 6 could be excellent...(and again the molan circumstances and the smith horror run with injuries). the fact that we havnt pulled a smokey tall in the later stages of the draft is what worries me, not the possible 50% strike rate in the earlier picks. but then again have we? miller, ferguson and newton were all later picks. miller is still on the list and has shown much promise. maybe he will be a dud, but he will be a dud who has played 100 games when he goes. ferguson just got delisted. he showed much potential in the early days and perhaps it was his physical development that hampered him rather than his skills or attitude. and newton could be anything at this stage as a speculative later pick. ok so his efforts with KPP's havnt yielded a riewoldt, a franklin, a tom hawkins, a lynch or a hall, but to say they have been a 'failure' is probably a little bit harsh. to comment that CAC is not a good recruiter based on this is absurd. his efforts with shorts and mids has been outstanding, and i dont think his drafting of talls is necessarily as bad as has been made out by some posters.

harsh curtis, very harsh. i think he looks to be a kid with great potential to do a lot of things. he is a smart footballer. we must remember he isnt a CHF, he isnt a short quick mid. he could bulk up and maybe be a KPB, a negating run with player, or a HFF. he has the potential to be lots of things, i look forward to watching his development.

sorry fan, you pretty much said what i said, but it took me a while longer to post it!

jarka. imo that is a terrible, self serving assesment. we could have picked up buckley, hird, voss and g. ablett in a draft and you would have claimed it a fail because it didnt get any KPP... 1997 is a pass. do you consider TJ a failure? he played 160 games for the club and has been a good (if inconsistant) player, who we eventually traded (after getitng 10 years out of him) for pick 14. Ottens, Coad (sic) and Cornes and were inbetween our 1st and 2nd draft picks. we couldnt have got any of them, and we didnt even use the 1st pick on KPP, so that was a stupid suggestion. Yes we couldve used 22, 39, 50, 66 or 77 on N Thompson, but no other clubs picked him up before pick 82 either, he was obviously a real smokey, and not expected to make it. you have highlighted no one who we could reasonably expected the recruiting staff to take at any of the early piks. longmuir played 85 odd games, brown played heaps, and rigoni played his fair few. considering you havnt highlighted any other reasonable players we could have got, i would brand 1997 a success (3 good players out of 6). agree that 98 was a fail, none of those players made it. but once again there was no obvious standouts waiting for us to pick them with the picks we had. pick 72 is speculative at best, so i dont think that is a good argument regarding ken mcgregor (who isnt that much chop either, unless you are yze_magic). 99, four out of 6 players. i count that as a pass. and a good one at that. how can you possibly claim 2000 was a fail? we had pick 16. we picked a kid who is excelling at afl level, and is a possible future captain. it is not CAC's fault he wanted to leave is it? after that the only picks we had were 62, 73, and 80. You havnt highlighted anyone who we could have picked up with these picks. 2000 is a pass. (and that you suggested martin pike at 33 indicates you have no real idea about what is going on here... 2001, 100% fail. no questions asked. but as grazman says, was molan CAC's fault, or someone elses? 2002, bell and rivers were great picks ups here, inspired even. what is the point of using laycock as an example when he was a top pick 10 before our first pick? ferguson was eventually a fail, but he was a best first year player and showed lots of potential. could have been the right call.the others were failures, although it can be argued that smith was cruelled by injury. again, your examples of players we missed dont exactly send shivers down my spine...i'll agree with your pass, but i think it was only just. how can 2003 be a failure? mclean and sylvia are both showing promise and could be 10 year players. CJ hasnt quite had it at afl level, but has shown good promise at vfl, and considering he was a 3rd round father son pick didnt cost much. his skills alone meant he was worthy of a chance. holland for pick 20 has already been shown to be a pretty good use of the pick. we may disagree on that, but he has had an impact at melbourne and has filled the role we desperately needed at the time. his trade was a decision made by the footy dept about chasing a player they wanted, and is not necessarily a slight on CACs drafting ability. pass. 2004, bate dunn and newton all taken as 17 yo bottom age players. if they had've had another year it is likely they all would have gone top round...all have shown great potential to be 10 year players for the club. with only short notice, this looks to be one of our best drafts... 2005. jarka would you have chosen bower or gilbert over jones? you listed 5 players between 14 and 42, but 12 (jones) was the only pick we could have used on them. i believe jones was a great choice in comparison. you have suggested no other uses for the other picks, so i assume you are happy with them. pass. 2006 is to ealry to call imo, but i think we made good selections is frawley and petterd, and i am very interested to see how garland develops, he was a late speculative pick with limited footy background. jarka, i agree our drafting of quality talls has not seen us pick up a pavlich, a fevola, a lloyd or a hall just yet. but your analysis suggests that our chances of picking one of those sorts of players up have been limited at best. ottens or cornes instead of johnstone, fevola (38) instead of lamb, a decision that 15 other clubs chose to leave him as well...hunter instead of wheatly perhaps. anyone in the 20901 where we had all sorts of prbs (as discussed above). your grading does not necessarily reflect your research, but having it reflects the case you wish to argue. i give him 7 passes out of 9 seasons, with 1998 and 2001 the fails, and in 2001 he may well have been instructed to take certain players...

the wisby comparision of messen and wood was posted somewhere on the forum, not sure where, try the search function...

is he also doing a course in social work or something?

we have plenty of supporters with money, but im not sure how many of them want to be front line, putting money into the club and running it like other clubs seem to get...we had gutnick and we got his money...i'll tell you what tho, if i ever was worth 100million you can bet your bottom dollar that a chunk of that would be going the mfc's way...

me and wisby seem to be suggesting the same sort of role for him...

if he is the best availbable in the psd then yes, get him. the coaching staff would be more aware with this: why have essendon given up on him? are there other reasons? is he not suited to playing a KP due to his style? if its an issue of confidence then he would be a steel. if we think he can be servicable for 10 years (ala holland) getting 10 games a year kicking 10-15 goals and playing the odd game down back as a fill in KPP then maybe he is a good option, because holland wont go for ever. does bailey see kepler and miller fighting for the same spot, or different ends of the ground? add kepler as the 3rd tall to one end, and miller can settle into the 3rd tall at the other end...(rivvers and caroll back, neitz and juice forward)...we still have other options at both end such as frawley, bate, robbo... it might depend also on how the draft goes. if we get 2 KPD then perhaps we skip kepler for a mid with pace who was rejected? just for list balance. all in all it will be an interesting decision, but from what ive seen, there have been no better options so far...

thats a sure fire way to make sure he doesnt get a kick next year...

addiction is an illness i agree. but predisposition? if you mean in the way that he could get off the drugs and become 'addicted' to god, because he has seen the light, and you are trying to say he has an obsessive, addictive perosnality, then possibly you are right. but otherwise i dont believe that at all. it is an illness, but you got yourself into the mess. would you have much sympathy for me being hung over on a sunday? prob not, i got myself into the mess...

im of the opinion that a) no charges were laid in either situation, so that suggests there was nothing big to report, and it is possible that they were 100% the victims and b.) they were on an end of season trip, were probably drunk, and the fact that all they did was act in self defence isnt too bad. drinking impairs judgement at the best of times, when someone picks a fight with you they have done well if they havnt caused a serious ruckas.

its about then that you start to say something, stutter, then think better of it.

i thought i read it was both saliva and blood test. saliva swab would be what they do at the scene, blood test back at the station. they stopped him because he was driving erratically. i doubt the police even knew it was him driving when they pulled him over. maybe the searched car was because of his history. maybe it was because he was pinging like an alley cat, no shirt, 18 yo blonde in tow, and driving erratically. who knows? but if they really found something the search was justified.

you know another preseason in the gym and hopgood might just have bulked up... anyone know hows his ostrich farm is going?

yeah but it is pretty clear cut when he is found in possession of drugs, and the policeman says 'we need a swab of your saliva' and ben says 'no'. he has been charged with refusing a saliva swab, as well as the possession. its not like a circumstantial murder case where he gun was found somewhere, blood was found, the body wasnt, and there is half a finger print! but i get your point.

thanks guys, that was what i was trying to clear up. and rhino for the owns visy thing...carlton might be lucky that they get off here unscathed...

well we have more than just bubbles in common with west ham...

if pratt is found guilty and is no longer allowed to be a business director etc does that mean he has to step down from the carlton job? and if he loses visy, does judd lose his money?

good point RE his disposal and his defence shortcomings. i am interested to know if you think the aim is to have a full list of players who work hard both ways with excellent disposal etc or if that is not always 100% realistic and perhaps having a player who doesnt bring that but brings something else we sorely lack (pace) into the equation. you can teach defensive pressure, but you can't teach pace, and thats what its going to come to down, if we think we can teach him to work harder. but do we out and out ignore any body who doesnt fit the specific criteria, regardless of what else they bring?

i heard that bomber thompson actually utilised yze_magic before the grand final... (as a guest speaker of course )

he is young and has pace. we could do worse if we have a spot on the list and are paying him nothing.

i dont know whos worse? the afl or the ICC? the afl screw us round more, but the ICC is massively screwing the game...