Ron Burgundy

Neeld knows we need quality mids more than anyone. After all, he was the Pies midfield coach and our midfield was useless last year, something I expect he also noticed. But we don't just need mids - we need quality mids. Pick 20 won't ensure a bullet proof midfielder, even though it could get a really good one. However, we also need an effective forward line. Again, we need quality forwards. For pick 20, I reckon Dawes would be a fantastic get. We'll see a very different forward structure in 2013 if we manage to land him - and I reckon Clark would be high fiving literally everyone if we get him. That said, I'm not sure we'll actually be able to get Dawes across the line. It's no certainty - and we don't necessarily hold all the aces like some here seem to think.

Jimmy saved the joint. Neeld, Craig, Misson and a few others are now fixing it. And, as an aside, I'm very happy for West Coast to pay 'overs' to have Wellingham play in front of his family and school friends each fortnight.

I could stomach Harley Bennell for pick 4.

Sorry, it's hard to keep up with these threads much of the time. If Viney's rated top 5 to 7 in the draft (which he appears to be), and we are forced to use pick 3 on him in circumstances where the club before us doesn't actually rate him the pick 2 but nonetheless nominates him at that pick essentially to stuff us up, I don't think that is paying 'unders' for a father/son selection. That said, I sincerely hope we do use pick 3 on him if that occurs. However, there is no way we're paying 'unders' in using pick 3 on a father/son selection here.

And, if push comes to shove, I genuinely hope we do pick Jack Viney at three. At least we'll be acting with integrity in relation to the issue.

I agree with this. The whole intent of the father/son rule is to enable sons to get to the clubs where their fathers played without costing that club 'overs' to get them there. From what I've read, it seems to me that neither GWS or GC actually rate Jack Viney in the top two. But there is a real risk that GC will nominate Viney essentially only to stuff the MFC around. If this occurs, GC and the father/son rule (in its current form) lack integrity. I have also read numerous reports that suggest that Daniher would be the best pick in this draft if he wasn't going to Essendon under the father/son rule. Why then haven't the Suns been touted as likely to nominate him? The answer surely has to be the proximity and number of our draft picks relative to GC. Hence, this is not about the best available player at number two - it'll all be about GC stuffing up the MFC. And IMO that's poor. Very bloody average indeed.

So are you saying the Suns will try to select Viney with pick two, thereby forcing us to take Viney at three and the Suns will then take Toumpas (their "second" choice) at two? Absent this, I would've thought that if the Suns nominate Toumpas at two, we are then able to pick Viney with our second round pick - and hopefully Wines + Hogan or Grundy or O'Rourke with picks three and four.

Even though I feel aggrieved by several recruiting blunders during BP's time, I have to say I agree with this. I had thought the club would pick Swift, Zaharakis or Shuey with picks 17 and 19 in that draft - perhaps with Swift topping the list. Would've been a mistake.

The thing that sucks here is that the father/son rule is intended to get kids to clubs where their fathers played. It is designed such that clubs don't pay 'overs' for the kids of such players. With pick 3, we should be able to snag a bullet proof 10 year player for this club irrespective of the 'father/son' rule. That we may have to use pick 3 on Jack Viney makes a mockery of this rule. But, if push comes to shove, we must select him. He will captain this club one day. We're talking about a generationally important player here. If GWS or the Suns force us to use pick 3 on him, I will hate them for eternity because he is rightfully ours and they are simply playing games against the intent of the system. That said, we still have to pick him. Our new culture must have integrity, even if other clubs lack it.

Happy about this. Well done MFC.

Rivers? I genuinely hope he re-commits to the red and the blue next year, but I'm not convinced at this point in time that's going to happen.

That may be so Fat Tony, but in this case Viney potentially means a lot more to the MFC than he might to various other clubs. From what I've read, it seems to me that it'd be a very big mistake not to recruit him in the circumstances. For a start, recruiting a hard nut, extremely competitive kid to the MFC under the father/son rule could greatly assist in changing the cultural perceptions people have about the club. We've also had a very poor history with first round draft picks, so I'm not confident that we'd nail the so-called 'best available' anyway - it's always a lottery. So, to my mind, it'd have do be a very, very compelling case not to draft Viney in favour of some other player. And relevantly, whilst I don't know about his quality relative to the other 5 or 6 players in the mix, I know for fact that he is an absolute gun. I've heard such feedback from a player who played with him at North Adelaide (who was previously a rookie at the Bulldogs) - he regularly stated he'll make a bloody good AFL player in due course, and the Dees will be lucky to get him.

Totally agree with this. 2012 was the culmination of a weak culture with weak standards for many years prior to 2012. Whilst we are not finals bound in 2013, I reckon we will see a very different standard set next year. The type of rebuild that Neeld has undertaken takes time. In short though, it is the right methodology. And Sheahan can get stuffed - along with his other bozo On The Couch mates, Healy and Roos. The day any of them say anything truly insightful about the MFC has not yet occurred IMO.

2003 draft. Pick 3: Colin Sylvia Pick 4: Farren Ray Pick 5: Brock McLean

Malthouse is going to love Brock.

And for the Neil Craig detractors who are asking particularly clever questions such as, "why then did Adelaide get rid of Craig as coach?", cop a tip. Neil Craig's not employed by the MFC as our head coach. He's employed for his undoubted experience in elite sport as the director of sports performance, a role created for him. And remember - he chose the MFC. Many other clubs wanted his services.

Roost - they've only had 12 months. To go from being way below par, to then meet the standard, and then hopefully exceed it, takes time. The thing that inspires confidence, for me at least, is that they are now focussing on the fundamentals. Also, they now have a plan that seems to be built around the basics - discipline, fitness, structure etc. Good effective planning, executed well, generally creates results. Positive results. For me, the narrative is not wearing thin. In fact, I find it encouraging.

Nope Neeld Aniher. It seems to me Little Goffy was simply basing his analysis on facts - material facts. I don't think anyone - even the critics - can credibly assert our list is "too old".

It was only one game. In short, it's dangerous to base such conclusions on limited, selective evidence. I'd suggest you check out our other results over the past few years. Cop a tip, they're not particularly flattering. Inductive reasoning's not particularly well respected in the intellectual world - but it does seem to be appealing to the masses. After all, most people thought the world was shaped like a dinner plate for many, many years. And most Europeans would've laughed out loud prior to 1788 if anyone suggested that not all swans were white. Look at all of the evidence (ie, our results over the relevant period of time). We haven't slipped so quickly. We sucked.

Get him.

Junior should've got the one year extension he wanted/deserved. So yep - I think we got this one wrong.

Particularly given that it seems we've essentially let Moloney go.

Port's players must be getting restless about this. Who's out of contract again at the end of this year?

Hope we implement and then strictly enforce the Swans' no d1ckhead policy. It works.

I don't think the Pies would be targeting Pederson as a direct replacement for Cloke (if he's gone). Not to say they wouldn't be interested in him, but I would've thought they'll want a bigger fish than that as their replacement forward for Cloke. That said, I reckon Pederson would be a top pick up for us.