old55

facepalm?

Immediately following the 2010 draft the vast majority of posters were lauding the fact that we went for 4 talls after BP drafted mainly mids with our early picks prior to that. Now Clark has arrived and Scully has gone and the tune has changed.

To draw examples from Bob's posting on the training thread you'd play Scarlett, Fisher, Reid and Fletcher on the most dangerous opposition forward for their defensive capabilities rather than using Lonergan, Dawson, Tarrant and Hooker in these roles? I think there's a reason why Sellar came to the club and it's not for depth. Beau Wilkes was picked by St.Kilda for similar reasons. Sellar doesn't have to be "gun tall defender", he just has to be adequate.

That's quite wrong. Geelong needed a KPF because of the Mooney/Pods/Hawkins issues I explained (IMO they still do), Gold Coast needed KPFs, Carlton needed a KPF - all needed KPFs and particularly needed ready-to-go KPFs at least as much if not more than us. And 3 very experienced recruiters with excellent records passed on Darling in multiple opportunities to take him. It's impossible to say whether any of them would have taken Cook - Gold Coast took Day and Lynch and I suspect if they hadn't we would have taken one of them ahead of Cook and Darling. Carlton and Geelong couldn't take Cook because he was gone, but they didn't take Darling who wasn't.

With Mooney in his last year and on his knees, Pods turning 30, a massive question mark over Tom Hawkins and the Cats in the final circuit of the flag window, their acknowledged recruiting genius overlooked Darling not once but twice.

According to your "logic" Hughes and Clayton should be sacked too like Prendergast apparently was for overlooking Darling. Stephen Wells should go as well - after all Billie Smedts didn't play a single game last year and Cameron Guthrie only managed 2 despite Geelong's transparent rotation policy. "No darling, off with their heads!"

When we win the flag and I reflect on the input of Dean Bailey and Garry Lyon, I'll be reminded of the relative contributions of the pig and the chicken in the traditional big breakfast.

The problems between club Admin and the FD were telegraphed long before this when Jim felt forced to step in as Director in charge of football matters despite the parlous state of his health. These problems clearly spiralled out of control to 186 on Jim's watch - but I'm not going to blame him. Where was his great mate Garry when this was happening? I would have a lot more regard for Garry if he's stepped up at start rather than cleaned up the mess.

It;s ironic that the concern with Jimmy is that he's giving more than he possibly can given his circumstances and the concern with Garry is the opposite.

Cameron Ling is a very keen surfer - doesn't seem to have affected his ability to lead.

It's a very exciting time of the year. Looking at our complete list of 46 it seems like only about 8 players aren't currently potential best 22 this year - Cook, Fitzpatrick, Davis, Tynan, Lawrence, Williams, Sheahan all likely to have work to do at Casey this year and add Gawn to the list because of his injury. That gives us 38 possible starters by my calculations, there's a lot of competition in every area - it's going to be fascinating© to see how it comes out in the wash.

Wayne Hughes didn't agree with you and Scott Clayton didn't agree with you 8 times.

I think Martin could make it as a KPD, he's showed promise earlier in his career but he's become more valuable in the ruck with the acquisition of other backmen. He could end up back there if we have a spate of injuries. So I understand where you are coming from with Martin back. But in practice this deosn't work - we need a stable back 6 and KPDs spend virtually 100% of the time on the field - they don't rotate to the bench so whose place is Martin taking when he plays his 50% back?

Darling looks like he'll be a very good player but remember he was playing as 4th tall behind Kennedy, Lynch, Naitanui/Cox and therefore on the 4th tall defender. Inking him in as "the pea" is "a reach". We've been looking for a long target for quite a while (Hale) and hopefully in Clark we've met that need. Clark, Watts, Jurrah, Howe, Sylvia, Davey that's a pretty formidable forward 6, and we have McDonald, Cook, Williams, Sheahan, Petterd, Green and Dunn also on the list. I'm not missing Jack Darling. If I could go back to that draft with the benefit of hindsight I'd be looking for a midfielder, not another forward.

Apparently Gold Coast didn't know it either - they had 8 picks before Darling was selected and didn't take him with any of them - they picked Sam Day and Tom Lynch instead of Darling. Apparently Carlton didn't know either they picked Matthew Watson. Were they "luxury punts" too? For every Darling there's an Angwin.

I support the postion that it's too early to judge Cook and I supplied examples of A Grade KPPs taken before pick 10 who took 4 years to deliver, e.g Reid, J.Kennedy. You assert the hypothesis that "most tall, long term development-type players (such as Cook) are perhaps better being picked slightly later in the draft." then I imagine you've probably got some examples to support this hypothesis. I simply asked you to provide some - I don't know any A grade KPPs that fit this assertion but maybe you do. A-grade KPPs are picked almost exclusively early in the draft - the latest it gets is 2nd round.

If you read my post earlier in the thread I said that with the arrival of Clark, any merits of a move forward for Frawley are seriously diminished. I was ctually referring to a discussion in another thread (16th March training - http://demonland.com...post__p__518129) where I suggested Sellar could free Frawley to play an attacking role in defence. The key point is that Frawley is wasted as a lock-down defender.

I imagine Essendon would be right into him, If say Goddard or Pendlebury go to GWS then St.Kilda or Collingwood will be all over him.

This is where your logic is flawed in the other thread too. Sellar doesn't have to be a better lock-down defender than Frawley, he doesn't even have to be as good - it's highly uinlikely that he will be. He just has to be adequate. The attacking benefits that Frawley delivers when freed of this limiting role outweigh any loss of lock-down - that's the crux or the argument. If someone really starts to get away from Sellar and the balance of benefits swings then Frawley and Sellar can switch because by definition Frawley is on a less dangerous opponent. BTW I'm not arguing that Frawley play forward here. Bob's example of the 2008 GF was a very good one Scarlett limited Franklin but Hawthorn still won.

I was one who suggested it last year, but with Clark's arrival it shouldn't be required. It's borne of the idea that Frawley's skills are wasted in a primary defensive lock-down role.

I've already given you the example of Ben Reid from 2006 - a total of 8 games in his 1st 3 years - key premiership player in his 4th year. Even Josh Kennedy took 4 years to really establish himself. maybe you can name some tall, long term development-type players picked later in the draft that have become A grade KPPs?

In the back 6 there's Frawley, Rivers, Garland, Grimes Depending on your view of Sellar's role (see 16th training report) ... If Sellar is in, Garland plays small and there's 1 vacancy. if he's out then Garland plays tall and there's 2 vacancies. I'm interested to know whether Tapscott and Nicholson are training with the backs? I also read that Morton is training with the backs. That seems to leave Bartram, Bennell, Strauss, Tapscott, Nicholson and Morton battling for 1 or 2 postions.

Very keen to see your list of talented talls taken with lower picks.

You can read the parts you want to - just the recent stuff or just the stuff from posters that interest you - at least everything is in one place. I don't see the problem. IMO there is a problem now with 30 threads on Morton's development that didn't start out on that topic.

If we had a separate sub-forum with a thread per player this wouldn't happen - conversation about particular players could be directed to that thread and we wouldn't have the 300 threads hi-jacked by yet another Morton analysis session. The other advantage is that it would keep all conversation about the player in one place so we'd be able to trace changing opinions and keep people honest - I'm as guilty as anyone. I've suggested this to the mods a few ttimes but it's gone nowhere - maybe if there is sufficient member groundswell we could get it to happen. The "Change Rooms" sub-forum under the Melbourne Demons forum on Big Footy is the idea.