Ron Burgundy

I hardly think I post in an emotive way. In particular, if you actually read my post in its entirety, you will see I am seeking to comment on the process that I suspect failed us, not necessarily the players ultimately selected. And yes - stuffing up this pick has cost us, certainly in the short to medium term, a potentially elite midfield. Hardly 'emotive rubbish' - in fact, the contrary view suggests a more emotional response to me. And finally, you're not completely right about not knowing "one thing about Dusty". Having watched him play, I reckon I know a thing or two. That said, I'm prepared to conceded that I don't actually know him if that makes you happy. But, given that the rest of the informed AFL world reckons he's going to be absolute superstar, I might back their collective opinion on this issue over yours. In fact, I'll just back Damien Hardwick's view given that he coaches him - he rates him exceptionally highly. Also, your assertion that every other club would have picked Scully and Trengove with picks 1 and 2 is far too convenient for me - I also don't believe it's factually correct. I'm pretty confident Roos is on the record as saying the Swans would've picked Martin with either of those picks, and I think Richmond may well have too. And I reckon if some other clubs actually had picks 1 and 2 and the benefit of time to nail these selections like we did, you may ultimately have seen the sands shift on this, but that's pure speculation of course. Net result - we don't have our first pick anymore or Martin. Thankfully we have Trengove. But we needed to nail two elite midfielders with these picks. In short, such an opportunity will never present itself to this club again. I suspect Neeld took a similar view when he got the gig and had to assess our list.

Given that our antenna was seemingly tuned into Radio Tom only, having watched the way in which he dealt with the club during his two years with us (including lying to Jim and then skipping the coop as soon as possible), do you actually think Scully should've been a complete no brainer for that pick. Loyalty was always something that needed to be interrogated NKVD style in that draft. Everyone just had to know GWS would be floating around. I can't presently think of any other top 6 picks from that draft who didn't put ink to paper fairly soon after being offered contract extensions by their respective clubs. The process failed us.

You're missing the point IMO, nutbean. In simple terms, I think the role of a recruiter is to advise the club on the best players for each selection it has in the drafts in which it participates (generally, the national, PSD and rookie drafts each year). They get paid to do this. Presumably it involves monitoring and assessing a lot of players across a number of competitions, potentially over several years. None of this, I expect, is contentious analysis. To do this job effectively, indeed professionally, I expect the best recruiters employ rigorous processes. They then follow those processes. Part of that process would involve interviewing players, parents, friends, club coaches and school teachers. I don't expect this would always produce the silver bullet for each selection, but it would be an important information gathering component in the recruiting process. In fact, I expect questions would be asked if it this process wasn't followed. Most commentators seem to agree that Dustin Martin is the best pick from the 2009 draft - a midfield game changing pick. As we all know, we had the first TWO picks in his draft and we elected not to select him. That does not trouble me in itself - predictions are made and it is not always obvious as to how some players will develop. It is further troubling that one of the players we backed to build our entire midfield around (something you would really want to be pretty damn certain about) never truly committed to the club and then left as soon as his initial contract expired. On any construction, certainly in any results driven field, a major stuff up. But what actually troubles me is this. Despite the comments you have made above, the club seemingly failed to institute and follow a professional process in relation to these selections. If it did, it would've interviewed Martin. It did not. I would hope it would've also interviewed several other players (Rohan, Morabito etc). I'm not sure if it did. If then, after interviewing Martin AND Scully AND Trengove AND a few others (ie, after following a professional process), the club then arrived at the view that Scully and Trengove were the two best players to spend picks 1 and 2 on - that's fine. But it's not what happened - and I find that reckless in the extreme. History has also proved this to be a mistake. Most people I know who have some responsibility in their job will say that there will always be some tolerance given for the wrong decision, but only if it was made after adhering to a professional and appropriate decision making process. In this case, it seems not to have occurred. And that's why I am annoyed. I mean, how does one credibly benchmark Scully and Trengove if you fail to interview Martin. And, to the best of my recollection, everyone knew he was a certainty to be picked up by Richmond at number three well before the draft. Reckless stuff. And it has cost us a potentially elite midfield.

Thought he was brilliant. Honest, hard at it, accountable, doesn't shirk the issue (unlike several of our senior players). He'll transform this club. In a good way.

Some people are concerned about our new game plan. I'm not. I have absolute confidence in Neeld and his new coaching team. I mean, it's not as though we have this unbelievably good list that's getting cruelled by our new game plan. With a very different game plan last year, virtually the same list got belted by 186 points.

I wish they did. At least we'd then have Shuey, Zaharakis, Darling and we would have, at the very minimum, interviewed Dustin Martin.

The disappointing thing is that we bottomed out - and bottomed out almost comically over a long period - to get to where we are now. I just can't believe it. I just wish we adopted the Swans formula over that period. It has practical, common sense to it - and that's why they have players like Josh Kennedy (pick 39) and we do not. They focus on 'hard at it', effective players with good character traits. It's footy - not science, and that approach is a proven formula. It's simply damning that Neeld knew we had to dip into VFL stocks to try and create a competitive midfield this year - says it all really.

We seem to lack players who can run and carry and consistently break lines. Whilst I really like Neville (he gives it a red hot crack), I think we got the wrong Jetta (Lewis). Yarran's goal against Richmond was sensational - Jurrah aside, we just don't have too many players who can do that stuff (perhaps with apologies to Petterd, Howe and Sylvia). With 40 or so players on our list, and heaps of decent draft picks in recent years, it's bordering on bizarre that we don't at least have some truly elite players.

I have absolutely no concerns about Mitch Clark.

Of course they're above us. I said 'arguably', because perhaps West Coast didn't embark on a 'rebuild' like the other clubs I listed above them (given they actually won the flag in 2006).

Richmond are in front of us IMO. But let's not limit it to Richmond alone. Who has the better list out of the clubs that started their rebuild at about the same time, namely: 1. Richmond; 2. North Melbourne; 3. Essendon; 4. Melbourne; and 5. (arguably) West Coast. The question being, if you could trade our entire list for one of these other clubs, would you do it? And, if so, for which club's list? It not only disappoints me that we have backed some of the players currently on our list - it really also annoys me the players we actually overlooked to pick them. For instance, I hate watching the way Darling is dominating so early into his career. Shuey and Zaharakis too, particularly given the rumour doing the rounds that Blease wants to join his mate at GWS.

Yep, it was really entertaining to watch us get belted by 186 points by Geelong last year - especially given we were apparently well advanced in our rebuild. I am genuinely relieved we have Neeld at the helm. He'll sort these choir boys out. And he'll bring a level of professionalism to this club that it's probably never experienced before. In fact, it may even be a good thing for Neeld to see what this team is really like so early into his MFC career. There definitely won't be any delusions of grandeur about this list anytime soon.

We will lose to Richmond in round three. That's virtually a science fact.

I love Neeld. And I share in his frustration with this list.

Agree on 1, 8, 10 and 13 in particular. Strongly disagree with point 15 though - we need a big body in the forward line, and I reckon Clark will prove himself to be a great pick up. In short, we need more of his type.

And to think we nearly had Rockliff too. I'd trade any player on our list for that guy. There are simply no positives in being unable to beat the Lions at the G in round one of the season.

I agree with this statement, but, given that we've had so many top 20 picks in recent years, it's a damning fact that our best midfielder is a seasoned VFL player. Our recruitment has been appalling. And we haven't even been able to retain some of the talent we've actually had on this list either. Scott Thompson had 39 possessions today, following 51 against the Gold Coast. Gone. We lost Darren Jolly too. Not to mention the former number 31. We didn't even interview Dustin Martin. Seriously - it's been amateur hour in that department for too long. I simply cannot believe Richmond has a better midfield/team than us. However, I have a lot of confidence in Neeld and his coaching team. I still do. It's not his fault we've got the list we do, and we'd invested so much time in a game plan that wasn't going anywhere and we've now had to start again. Neeld's head must been spinning in frustration right now. I am so p1ssed off. Round 1 and we're already staring down the barrel of yet another truly ordinary season.

Having read this thread, it is clear to me that a lot of people have very strong views on the issue of drug regulation (as does most of the community). Unfortunately it also seems to me that many of those views appear not to be based on any detailed knowledge/understanding of the underlying facts/evidence in relation to the issue. The whole issue is neatly summarised by this week's Rear Vision. The attached podcast is not related to Ben Cousins, but I recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue should listen to this podcast: http://www.abc.net.a...l-drugs/3894358 The program does not express a view in itself, rather it interrogates the issues from different perspectives and covers the various approaches to the issue adopted by different countries, to varying degrees of success. As an aside, for those of you who are not aware of Rear Vision, it is essentially a history program that is produced by ABC's Radio National each week. It is one of the most intelligent radio programs that this country produces. And that's saying something, given that the overall quality of Australian media is simply astonishingly bad.

Matt Burgan was very good IMO, but you just have to love Rooobbbbbbbbooooooo back in the red and the blue and back in front of the camera.

Most of all, I want to see these players develop a killer attack and hunger for the ball. My concerns about some of the players mentioned on this thread are not really to do with their size - it's more about their underlying ambition and mental hardness. I expect some players can be really strong and fit without actually looking like the Michelin Man. Equally, size can probably operate the opposite way too. For instance, Tapscott hasn't exactly been available for selection for much of the time he's been with us, despite looking like a bull elephant at a very young age.

Roos, Sheahan and Healy all agreed earlier tonight (on On The Couch) that the MFC's decision to cut McDonald was the wrong one - entirely misconceived and premature. He would've contributed significantly last year, and potentially also this year. Make of this what you will. I make of it that some of you are massively incorrect in your analysis on this issue.

The Swans are simply brilliant at identifying players who seem to be struggling at other clubs, recruiting them and then turning them into bloody good players. Whereas, for us, Ingerson is really the only player who comes to mind that we've been able to reinvent successfully (and that was a long time ago). I'm hoping Sellar may be the next one (and Magner and Couch, if taking mature age rookies from VFL clubs counts). In short though, our history's not been that great in this area. I'd be interested in people's views as to what makes the Swans so good at identifying and then successfully recycling players. Josh Kennedy is the latest recycled player to shine IMO. This is his bio from the Swans website. I would love him in the red and the blue - a bargain trade at pick 39. ------------------------------------- Kennedy continues to blossom since joining the Swans from Hawthorn in 2010 and is among the club’s most important players. Topped the AFL in clearances last season with 168 and finished second at the Swans in disposals and third in tackles. Incredibly fit and possessing impressive strength and durability, Kennedy played every game for the second straight season. A year after finishing third in the best and fairest, he tied for second with Rhyce Shaw, behind only Adam Goodes. Player honours: 2nd best and fairest 2011 (equal); 3rd best and fairest 2010. Brownlow Medal: 2011 votes 3; career votes 3 Previous AFL club: (Hawthorn 2008-09: 13 games, 1 goal). Draft history: 2006 NAB AFL Draft 3rd round father/son selection (Hawthorn) No. 40 overall; 2009 NAB AFL Draft traded by Hawthorn for No. 39 (Sam Grimley).

We needed his leadership and influence last year. I don't really think the issue is whether he has a good season with GWS this year. Football lists continue to evolve. Players will always be coming and going - it's not a static thing, rather it's a continuum. In this context, just because McDonald was older and wouldn't have been around for a flag (or indeed even the next couple of seasons), doesn't mean you just cut him, particularly having regard to the leadership skills he brought to the list (ie, he clearly had a role to play last year and potentially also this year). The previous football department seemed determined to part the red sea to get young players a game. It seems to me that all good clubs have real competition for spots, and that young players need to earn their selection, not just assume it. Players like McDonald create the benchmark for performance and attitude - I still find it bizarre that this seemed not to have been fully recognised at the time.

Caroline Wilson just said on Insiders that, taking out Cornes and McDonald, the rest of the team had an average of 5 AFL games between them. And they were competitive. In that context, last year's 186 point capitulation is simply outrageous.

Thought this at the time, and history proved it to be the case. Why would you cut a popular, hard at it Captain when he was clearly still in our best 22 and wanted to continue playing, we had a dearth of effective senior players, Cameron Bruce was being belligerent about re-signing for the club, and we had on ball division with an aggregated body weight of 22 kilos?! There is absolutely no way Neeld would've cut Junior had he been at the helm at the time. Ridiculous decision that clearly impacted on the playing group for the whole of 2011.