grazman

6. Grimes 5. Bruce 4. McLean 3. Rivers 2. Jamar 1. Davey

I like Pickers, and what he's saying is logical, but I beg to differ. Big blokes are speculative... plenty of clubs have got it wrong and still get it wrong. Unless the player is cut and dried (like Watts or Nick Nat) using an early pick is folly IMO. Is Butcher worth pick 2 just because there won't be as many chances in the future and he looks the best of the current draft or is he worth pick 2 because he's genuinely good enough to be ranked that high? Tough call, particularly given the club wants a contested KPF. If that's the case I certainly wouldn't discount the idea of tabling pick 2 in trade week if the club's not sold on Butcher and desperate for another tall forward.

I've seen enough of Newton to know he won't cut it as a forward. He has zero confidence kicking at goal even in the VFL. Still he's on the list for another year so we may as well try and do something with him, for that reason I'd try and turn him into a defender at Casey. As for promoting players... I'm more thinking about protecting players. That's why I'd send Morton and Bennell back for this week. I don't care who comes in really - it's academic from my point of view.

PJ made three clangers (one of which resulted in a goal to the opposition) and gave away at least two free kicks which resulted in opposition goals. Yes he tried hard, but he was also pretty silly at times.

I beg to differ. He got punched in the throat as a 19 year old playing his first season of footy. His confidence was a little shaken, but he was ostensibly played as a forward then as an outside receiver - he got an undeserved tag of 'soft' because he played the role he was assigned. I can't remember too many times in his career when he didn't go when it was his turn - and certainly none at all in the last five years.

Yep. I can't remember the exact words, but Matthews qualified what he said by saying something like "I'm not sure what I expected from an 18 year old school kid and that Key Position players do take a long time to develop." Picking talent is not that easy - particularly for KPF. Coaches that have dabbled in recruiting have more often than not, made a complete hash of it. As for Watts himself, I saw plenty of good signs and one bad sign last night. His kicking, vision and poise is great, but he's obviously being targeted for physical attention. I don't have a problem with that - that's footy. He dropped his head at the last minute in a marking contest waiting for the contact he thought was coming - while completely understandable as an 18 year old kid playing men and the kid's got a great temperament so he'll learn from it, but it's something the Footy Department won't have missed. Watts may not get sent back to Casey this week, but he will get sent back and supporters should accept it as a natural part of his development. He's on a steep learning curve and still doing his VCE, the days of sink or swim are over.

You could also argue that some of those players shouldn't be in their best side anyway. There's some interesting decisions to be made at Richmond at the end of the year with players such as Richo, Bowden, Brown, Pettifer, McMahon, Polak, King, Schulz, Tambling and Oakley-Nicholls

The two reasons for extending Bailey's contract this year rather than waiting until 2010 are: 1. It is a public show of faith in the coach and the approach to the players/media/supporters... it creates a sense of certainty. 2. This certainty has a flow on effect in match planning... anyone want to argue that 5 wins at the end of the season is better than 4?

I think Bailey can coach and I think the evidence is that there's been substantial improvements in key areas such as clearances and in general workrate (last week aside). He's building a side from the bottom up and he's developing some very raw material at the moment. It takes more than one year to 'rebuild' and it takes more than one year to completely change the coaching philosophy and game plan of a club. If the club is serious about rebuilding then it's already factored in the first two picks in this years draft, and it must also understand that it's completely unfair to judge a coach on only the final year's performance of his contract - particularly when he's delivered on his end of the bargain for the first two... it's why Bailey should be given an extension on his contract this year.

Food for thought DD (both of you). When I was a young man (so much younger than today!) I remember a psychology lecture (one of the ones I attended anyway) discussing the usefulness of IQ tests in assessing a child's potential. " An IQ test simply measure how well you can do on that IQ test at that particular point in time." His point being the same as yours - I think... that there are a lot of other variables that need to be considered. With IQ tests like the draft too much gets read into the importance of a score that probably has no correlation to anything other than a simple measure. Kids get drafted on a lot of intangibles that aren't as definitive as we'd sometimes like them to be such as talent and potential, they sometimes don't get drafted because of other intangibles such as attitude. As Dist Dee said it's a judgement call and recruiting is more art than science - in the end and each club would have kids rated differently. and now to answer the actual question... The club by virtue (or the lack thereof) has had a number of high draft picks recently and looks to have another couple on the way. I agree that too many supporters lack patience and understanding. There's obviously a rough timeline for when this should translate into performance on the field, but I think what supporters expect and what the club expects are two different things eg Col Garland and Col Sylvia who've both taken longer than a few us wanted.

Oh please, that's as soft as butter, - I disagree with you ergo I accept mediocrity. You're getting a bit up yourself aren't you.

Yeah... not trying to deride the North player, this aint soccer afterall, the point I was making was the same one you were. If Jamar had suffered a broken jaw the penalty would have been worse, but if anything his actions of shaking it off and following the play actually contributed to the leniency of the penalty imo. The system doesn't penalise this sort of act harshly enough. Kings action could have been construed as a shepherd as much as Gardiner's. Anyone that's played the game knows exactly what Gardiner's intention was - to attack the head of the opposition player, it was a gutless sniper act that could easily have broken Jamar's jaw and perhaps put his career in jeopardy considering he's probably still somewhat at the crossroads.

WTF.... I know the modern game has changed, but fair dinkum.... The only difference I guess was that Mark Jamar is tough enough to keep going.

As compared to say Alistair Clarkson who had 14 from his first 44... or Brett Ratten who lost how many in a row? What's your point exactly - you appoint a bloke to do the dirty work, then hatchet him after he delivers the goods (rebuilding through the draft). Maybe DB and the club are a lot braver than you're prepared to give them credit for. - BTW how do you think the search for the Richmond coach will go if they say that he needs to have a least a 25% ratio from his first two years?

Good point Maurie, From what I've seen and heard of Bailey so far I think he's the man for the job, further more I'd extend his contract right now - especially if we're planning ahead to secure a priority pick (and at 1 and 10 we should be).

Depends on Junior's fitness - if he doesn't come up then it creates the opportunity, but with the fifteen man rule, it'll be interesting to see who plays in the magoos.

thanks for the clarification Bob, I thought it was a little strange, Colin keeps his cards pretty close to his chest nowadays, and even in the past, he'd only publish his rankings close to or after the draft.

I think the scenario is pretty simple. We just have to win less than four matches and finish below West Coast. West Coast's problem is that they're currently two matches and percentage ahead of us and play another three games against sides that are 'tanking' (perception only, because AD tells us this doesn't happen in his empire). Richmond had to pull Terry's chute quickly, he's stuffed them up for four and a half years, he was going to stuff them up for the rest of the year by actually trying to win games. Their real problem is that obviously if they're thinking ahead then next year's priority pick is what they're going to angle for, in which case the caretaker has a real bastard of a job, because he can't win more than one match in the next 12 weeks. The WCE v Richmond match at Subi should be very enlightening. The other problem the Tiges have is that half their list logs on daily to check the fortunes of their superannuation to see if they can retire at the end of the year or have to wait until they're 67 - so there's not much there to offer GC for some of their plum picks next year.

I'll be interested in seeing how many weeks Gardiner gets, in the 80s and 90s it would have been two weeks straight up even with a good record, maybe even as much as four with a bad one. I bet he gets only one week with an early plea for a deliberate attack on the head of an opponent that could potentially have left his with a broken jaw. I actually thought the standard of umpiring last night was much better than against the Hawks - at least they let the game go. There's obviously an issue with the midfield, but there's a bigger issue with delivery, obviously with such a young team there's always going to be problems with running the game out, but you can see where the game plan is heading.

I think it's important to keep in perspective why Robbo has been dropped, and while Bailey has intimated that the mark and play on maybe part of the reason it's not the whole reason. Watching the Foxtel telecast it was clear that Robbo wasn't chasing or putting any kind of forward pressure on when we didn't have the ball. He didn't lead at the ball when we did have it, he was criticised by James Hird for failing to present as a viable target. His preoccupation was to double back so that he could jump on someone's shoulders. He has slipped back into bad habits. When Bailey came to the club he had to change his ways, he actually showed something about dogs and tricks, he was chasing and tackling and working to advantage, his injury was just terrible luck. He's been dropped on form, that form isn't so much about kicking goals, but failing to do the team oriented things - well that's my take on it anyway.

I think he's played in the midfield at Casey since returning from injury. Perhaps a run with role?

People are tough on Bate, I thought he had a reasonable game. He's one of the league's leading 'score assists' players and works a lot harder than many seem to understand.

So even if he thinks Styne's is badly misrepresenting the club he should just shut up. "Unity" is the handmaiden of "Groupthink" which is the bridesmaid to an "escalating commitment to a failing course of action" I can see you're a fan of groupthink, because those that dissent are marginalised and ridiculed - as you've done to Mick. You were right in the first instance about Styne's clarifying his position, but the issue here is not a simple difference of opinion, and I doubt that Mick would even have approached Jim if it was, it's about the misrepresentation of the club as a whole.

Absolutely. Anyone that knows Mick would never doubt the sincerity of his actions. He's been a wonderful and tireless servant of the the club and his anger at Jim's comments would certainly not have been for himself or even for the previous board, but for the MFC as a whole and what it stood for. Jim's comment that is wrong and could hardly have been made in ignorance, why it was made is mystifying. Mick had a choice of either shutting up or taking the matter further. I doubt that I'd barrack for a club where principles were sacrificed for 'unity'.

I don't want to be unduly harsh on any particular player.... buuuutt, how long do we persist with PJ? We were slaughtered for most of the match, and if you believe the AFL site, Dunn had more hitouts than either Meesen and PJ for nearly half the match. What's PJ done this season to justify his spot in the 22? We'd be better off with one ruckman and using someone like Dunn or Newton to pinch hit. Jaded, winning the contested ball isn't the problem, (100 compared to Geelongs 130 and 24 clearances compared to 30) the problem is obviously we butchered the ball so badly that no matter how often we got to use it we just gave it right back to them. I really like Belly's attitude and courage, but I think it's touch and go as to whether he'll make it as a midfielder. As for Bate it wasn't his best game, but from what I saw nearly everytime he went to the ball he was competing against two and three Geelong players.