rpfc

At a club where, even when we were good, we were worried about application 'on the day' - Jordie is a coach's godsend. Every single day and twice on Sundays. At some point I will move past 186 but who was the beacon in the night during that game?

The latter is more visible...I think it's more important. The notion of 'learn by not having to do' - we asked kids to do far too much, too soon and if they had a cross or a Vince to take the burden then the steps to achievement are smaller and more manageable.

'A million monkeys at a million typewriters' comes to mind...

When he says he is a role player, he isn't talking himself down - he is just pointing out that he has a very defined role (like we saw on the weekend) and that unless you are an expansive player capable of some special things you should stick to the basic tasks that define your role. For him it is spaces to lead into, avoid, where to create space for others, where to direct te ball at contests et al. Simple stuff that I haven't seen a great deal of over the years at Melbourne - everyone has seemed to 'wing it' when they get the footy. And they haven't been good enough to do that well.

He's a natural footy player with confidence and skills. Who knew that that was the type of player to draft?

Today was nothing? If we lose next week, next week will be close to nothing. This week will be last week - and evidence to the players that they are capable. Today was not nothing no matter what happens next week.

lol at those saying Grimes lifted. He does what he did every week, some of you just get 'taken' by his occasional clanger. It's hard to look good when you are in the middle of everything down at the Dees.

Welcome back fellas (and shielas). Don't forget. You're here forever.

We did the trade for a 'ready to go body' to help Jones. Kelly wouldn't be that and unless you are going to get a star you may as well draft down and get some value. I don't think you are being genuine when you compare Tyson and Kelly. One is three years older and has some weight to throw around. Just what we need - a big body, not more bodies...

You cannot judge that trade 3 games in and not sound foolish. It looks a good trade at this stage but don't kid yourself that you know how it turns out.

It's unprovable isn't it? Development or Recruiting? I am still yet to see a kid hampered by our development flourish in another environment. Maybe Bennell will be that proof... 2001 to 2004 saw us draft Molan, Smith, Bell, Sylvia, McLean, Bate and Dunn with top 15 picks. A couple wasted picks, a couple of teasers, a couple of solid players and one tardy professional. 2005 saw us draft a battling mid with an early pick with a low ceiling but a readiness to play right away - enter the unfashionable Nathan Jones. 2006 had Frawley and Garland chosen. Both players struggled early but have become highly sought after professionals. 2007 had Morton and Maric chosen early and both were not good enough to cut it at other clubs when they were moved on. 2009 had Gysberts chosen early and moved on with, again, the determination made that he wasn't good enough at a second club. 2010 Cook was chosen early - spurned after two years and no other club saw fit to rookie him. 2011 saw us trade away our early pick but there are zero players from any draft (Nat, PS, Rookie) that year that is still on our list. I will leave it there but I look at the facts and largely see poor drafting and talent evaluation, and wasted talent and poor development at the fringes.

No excuses now on that score. If we have players that have been the victim of poor development then they will shine through now. I don't think that will be many players - I don't see a great deal of talent amongst a lot of our list and Roos is not going to be able to get blood from a stone. Loved to be proved wrong.

I picked a hell of a day to stop sniffing glue.

Great post. I too get frustrated when the future of the club is used a bludgeon on here without exploration, intended to incite fear and morbid group think. It's up to us what happens to this club. So we might as well get busy living...

Ok, I am not going to react to Dawes being back until Saturday approx. 1.45 and the siren has gone to start the game and he is out there...

This is brought up by commentators, fans, and even some Landers - if I had time I would do some quote pulling - they are using the argument that because we are incompetent we shouldn't receive the compensatory devices that incompetent teams receive. It is a ridiculous closed cycle of an argument and it should be explored and dismissed by Jackson to whomever if (or when) the time comes to make our case for the rules of the game to be properly applied.

Saying that we shouldn't receive assistance because we have 'brought this on ourselves' is a terrible argument. Everyone 'brings it on themselves.' We have drafted poorly and developed sub-optimally. That is not being disputed. But equalisation isn't a 'we tried, it didn't work, move on' scenario. The draft gives the best players to the worst teams every year. Simply because we have been consistently bad at picking kids out of the Teenage Lottery that is the AFL Draft doesn't mean we have less claims for more access to equalisation - it should enhance our claims. And the chosen vehicle for equalisation by the AFL is the draft, and more to the point - priority picks. Follow the god-damn rules.

We are in a draft regulated sport. Teams build their teams largely from the draft. The draft acts as a form of equalisation. We are a bad team. We are going to get preferential treatment in the draft because of how poor we are. That treatment will include (most likely) a top 3 pick. Teams that are consistently bad can receive extra preferential treatment. We have been consistently bad. We agreed to the rules as we continue in the league - I don't have a 'handout mentality' simply because I want the rules of equalisation to be enforced consistently. Scully and Strauss are our only Priority Picks. They weren't great picks. Sue us. We need a leg up.

Have some self-reflection.

That's an interesting way to turn what i was saying around. Jones has seemingly bucked the trend of poor development at the club. We haven't picked well with early picks. Bad development at the fringes but the theme is we have chosen poorly.

For those that are not advocating trying to keep him - you can't then turn around and decry FA. You'd be talking out of both sides of your face.

We have to spend $9.5m a year - that is approx. the salary cap floor. If we paid people what they have been worth - Nathan Jones would have to be about $5m for us to reach the $9.5m number. Gotta pay somebody... We always bemoan losing talent. It would be good to keep Frawley - don't kid yourself it wouldn't be.

Am I coaching or something?

Do you understand what a Royal Commission is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission This is something Gillon McLachlan can do...

We will see...