Gator

Melbourne needed pick 3 because they thought the player they'd earmarked wouldn't be there at pick 6. One club had picks between 3 and 6 - Essendon. If we think Melbourne have recently been light on for mids take a look at Essendon. Watson and Stanton are geriatrics with their best footy well behind them. Zaharakis hasn't taken the next step. If anything he's regressed. Myers is a disappointment. Hocking is a good player, but little more than a no frills tagger. That leaves Heppell as their only class mid with years left. If you're Essendon you're taking Parish. No questions asked. Any surmising 3-4 weeks before the draft is prone to error, however, it just makes sense that Melbourne want the class mid in this draft. Especially when he's exactly what we need.

I was fortunate enough to chat with Roos for a few minutes a while back and he left me under no illusion how important development is and how the lack thereof has let down the MFC. For example, he said Dan Hannebery would be "nowhere near the player he was if he'd been drafted to Melbourne". That said, our drafting has been pox.

Harper was very promising in his early games for North. I can only assume that he can't win contested footy - Toumpas style.

Just part of due diligence. He'd be one of a few in the mix at 7.

Having seen extended vision of Parish last night I now get the hype. We'll take him at 3.

They're about as sure as you're going to get. They're just as sure as picks 3 and 7, more so, except Petracca, I suppose. We have one quality tall over 6'. How does that work for you ? I'll repeat, our midfield stocks are in a far better position than your assessment. That said, the latest 3 minute video of Parish is sublime. He plays like a taller Shane Crawford with a far better mark. I know it's a video, but he looks perfect for the club at pick 3. Unlike others I quite like the look of Mathieson, but Curnow at pick 7 to partner Hogan would be brilliant. If, of course, he's as good as made out.

Class is class. Really good off both feet and a very good mark. Parish and Curnow would be a dream outcome.

Hawthorn just won a flag with 6 genuine mids; namely, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Shiel, Hill and Smith. I'm happy to throw in Roughead to make it 7, although he spends more time in the forward-line than a typical mid. Burgoyne def/mid, Rioli for/mid, and Duryea def/mid help make up the numbers/rotations. Forming our core rotations over the next 2-3 years will be Jones, Vince, Tyson, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Salem, vandenBerg, Stretch, ANB, Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg and perhaps Harmes and Trengove with some luck. I accept that not all are proven, but that is 15 names of varying degrees who will rotate through the midfield and I have no doubt some A-graders will emerge. We need to find a core 6 or 7 from that lot with other role players from defence and the forward-line. Kent and Garlett are also capable of taking turns. I don't believe the picture is as bleak as you paint it and while I'm happy to pick a mid plus forward with 3/7 I wouldn't be displeased with 2 talls. In my opinion, your view is far too bleak. If those I've bolded become genuine A-graders we're well on the way to developing a formidable midfield unit. And I'm not capping some I haven't bolded.

I skimmed over your response, so decided to have a closer look.I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc. Clearly there are plenty of variables. A top 10 draft pick gives you a chance to get a terrific player. It allows you to cherry pick from what you consider to be the top end of the draft pool. The best recruiters have plenty of fails, but they also have solid records. Despite plenty of failures, if you said to Stephen Wells, who's been doing this for 20 years, that the draft is a "complete lottery" I can't imagine he'd agree. While a chimp with a dartboard could have emulated Prenderghast's success, or lack thereof, I don't consider that the norm. There's a reason that plenty within the industry consider the head recruiter one of the most important people in the club. Despite our clubs failings, there are a string of champions drafted within the top 5- Riewoldt, Pavlich, Hodge, Judd, Franklin, Roughead, Pendlebury. Most supporters know it's not a certainty to land one with a top 5 pick, but we dream of that chance, because that's how premierships can be won. I also don't like your premise as it's way to soft on an underperforming recruiter. Afterall, how can anyone hope to succeed when it's a complete lottery ? I accept you've gone some way to retract your original comments and you're right to say the order of the top 10 will never pan out as selected, but given a good draft I expect a bloody good player in the top 10 and won't accept lame excuses for failures. If it's a crap draft, like 2003 then naturally one is more forgiving. I'll end it here as we've had this discussion before and I recognise how pointless it is.

There will always be a bit of that, but overall the numbers don't lie. If you have a better way of comparing I'm all ears.

The only contention was that it was not a "complete lottery". You said it was, hence my response.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous assertion to say "it's a complete lottery". I didn't really want to expand, because, unlike some, I don't need to monotonously hear the sound of my own voice, and genuinely didn't think I needed to explain what was an inane proposition, however... In 31 drafts the draft pick with the most average number of games is pick 1 (143). The second highest average is pick 2 (128). The third is pick 3 (124). And lo and behold pick 5 happens to be no. 4 (103) ! If it was a "complete lottery" the top 3 draft picks wouldn't have the top 3 success rates over these 31 drafts. Clearly the science has improved over more recent years, so these types of results will continue. Nine of the top 10 draft picks (worst of those 9 being 84), average more games than any pick chosen from pick 20 onwards (assuming that pick has been involved in at least 20 drafts, which takes us to pick 75). Naturally there will be nuances where a later pick like 56 - 82 games might have 3 or 4 x 200 game players, which boosts averages, but the overall numbers (shown above) are compelling and certainly not representative of a "complete lottery". Obviously, as a Melbourne supporter I know there is no guarantee, that's obvious, but there's a reason clubs try to improve their draft position, like we did this year, and clubs like the Saints, who orchestrated 6 x top 22 draft picks over the last 2 years for this current rebuild. No-one has ever stated that drafts wouldn't be completely re-done with the benefit of hindsight, but early picks give clubs the best chance at cherry picking top end talent. To state that drafts are a complete lottery and that every pick from 1-75 has an equal value simply disregards empirical evidence. Having seen some of your postings over the journey I have no doubt that none of the above will sway you. And I couldn't care less. Cheers...

I'm too young to remember Tassie, but an older Brother had this image as a huge poster on the back of his bedroom door. Thanks for sharing.

Worse. Much worse. Although it was 2009 and some still defend him.

No, it's not.

You're going to respond to every suggestion until now and draft day that doesn't have Parish at 3, aren't you ?

Steve, you are not allowed to discuss a player's frame pre-draft.

And there's your glaring issue. Hogan is the only quality forward. We desperately need a Gunston, Stringer or Darling type. Someone who isn't the main focus, but can kick 50+ goals. I don't disagree that we need outside class, but 50 goal talls are much harder to find, which is why I like the idea of Curnow. The best talls are usually taken early. Vince, Jones, Viney, Tyson, vandenBerg, Brayshaw, Petracca, Trengove, Salem, Stretch, ANB, and now Kennedy, Melksham and Bugg provide a solid group who can rotate through the middle. It really depends on who our recruiters think are best available. They may think Curnow has huge upside to partner Hogan and is too good to ignore. Obviously many of our mids are a work in progress, but if they reach the heights expected we'll be pretty well covered except for a real line breaker. I'd rather that be the last piece in the puzzle than overlook a potential Stringer type. Although, I also reckon Petracca could be our Stringer and better

Brett Anderson once again said this afternoon he thinks the Dees will take Curnow at pick 3. I don't know whether it is pure speculation or an educated guess with a bit more substance.

Retired.

Former West Coast players have publicly stated that the shocking plane travel every second week shortened careers. Why would a big tall with a history of back issues want to potentially shorten his career. He may leave the Dees, but imo it won't be to go home to WA.

Chin up big guy. He loves being a Dee.

Flattery.

He looked far better than that to me, but if you're right with that desription he won't go near top 10.

In all likelihood this thread will be "bumped" in 3 years, so I'd like this on record. Mathieson will be a gun. I keep reading that he can't kick, but to me this looks a ridiculous exaggeration. He's such a natural and tough footballer he'll be invaluable with his smart clearances around stoppages. My preference is for a mid and forward/utility and you could do far worse than making certain of Curnow at 3 and Mathieson at 7. I also want the finishing class Parish brings and recognise it's a need, but there are a few scenarios that will serve the club well.