mauriesy

Patrick Dangerfield. And we could have had him with pick #4 2007.

Bit of a stretch to suggest that a first-round draft pick who didn't work out and was picked up with a third-round draft pick is still equivalent to a first-round draft pick. Bring back Luke Molan, Nick Smith and Daniel Bell and we should be coasting.

I've said we would be better off if Jones was our 3rd or 4th best midfielder. But only in the sense that Ball is next best to Swan and Pendlebury, or Simpson is next best to Judd and Murphy. I still don't think Jones is a true A-grader, and we can't build a midfield with him at the top.

What about this then? Jim Stynes was still the President and on the board when Neeld was appointed on September 17, 2011. In fact on November 3, 2011 Stynes said: ''It looks like we have a coach now that is really serious and he is not going to relax''. He is not going to sit back and let it all happen. He is going to create it - it's good.''

Jazz musicians have got far more ability to improvise and do their own thing within the team. In a classical orchestra that would be frowned on. Perhaps the football analogy is that we want a structured, disciplined team but ultimately with some ability for individual improvisation. Don't want to kill the 'joy of football' completely.

To me it's like taking jazz musicians and telling them to play classical. They're used to syncopation, innovation and not much following a script, and suddenly they have to adhere to formal structures, count bars and work strictly together as a team.

It's interesting that Daniher gets accused of hanging on to players too long, but get rid of them like Bailey and he's accused of lack of loyalty and removing leaders too early.

Unfortunately, you normally get remanded if you are an 'unacceptable risk'.

It's amazing how Melbourne supporters can be so pessimistic and so optimistic simultaneously.

It's still an interesting hypothetical though how much better off we'd be if Grimes had played 80 games, Jetta, Blease and Strauss 60, Gysberts, Gawn and Tapscott 45, and Cook and Fitzpatrick 20 or so.

Hmmm. The idea that the football department and the administration are too far apart is at least different from the previous criticism that they were too close together.

I was making the point that protracted injuries don't just hurt you for the time players are injured, especially with young players ... they hurt you because their development is also hindered. It's different with a 100- or 200-game player because they have developed nearly as much as they are going to and they can come in from even a 6-8 week injury spell and still be nearly as effective. Here's the actual games each player has played versus the total AFL games that Melbourne have played since they joined the club (not counting NAB etc.). It shows how little AFL football they've played, due to a combination of injury and development time. Six of these players were top 20 picks, some are players on which we were basing our future midfield, the area that is so lacking at the moment. Cook 0/29 (0%) Fitzpatrick 2/51 (4%) Gawn 4/51 (8%) Blease 6/73 (8%) Strauss 11/73 (15%) Gysberts 18/51 (36%) Tapscott 19/51 (38%) Jetta 30/73 (40%) Grimes 38/95 (40%) Contrast Blease and Strauss with players taken in the same year (2009) and the number of games they've played e.g. Stephen Hill 74, Sidebottom 66, Rich 66, Redden 54, Yarran 49, Hurley 47, Vickery 45. Many of these players have already had finals experience. If our players had managed 50+ games with a couple of finals we might be in a different position.

Not directly, but the fact that we've only been able to get: 0 games into Cook 2 into Fitzpatrick 4 into Gawn 6 into Blease 11 into Strauss 18 into Gysberts 19 into Tapscott 30 into Jetta 38 into Grimes Is one of the reasons for delayed development.

Except Martin didn't have neck tatts when he was drafted.

They have some emerging stars in that 2006 team, but that was a really ordinary forward line. Franklin, Roughead and Rioli are a quantum leap from that lot.

I know he wasn't a top 10 pick, but being 179cm hasn't stopped Sam Mitchell from being a star (and amassing 30 Brownlow votes last year).

Maybe showery tomorrow and not good weather for tall marking forwards. Wouldn't be surprised to see Franklin up the ground, even in the middle.

Our first round compo pick, which will likely fall around #3-5, will be far more critical to our future that pointless discussion about whether we're paying 'overs' for Viney. Viney is a given, the compo pick is a gift. Yet there's very little discussion of it.

Here's what the same guy said about Viney:

Read the first line of Nashers post #37.

If it's pick #1, it'll be someone like Whitfield (then #2 for the next best). Then Viney with #23 because that'll be all we need. If it's pick #2 upwards it'll be Viney. Because we said we would and he's worth it.

See, you just can't. 13,469 posts and 99% of them negative.

This talk of 'overs', 'unders' and the true worth of Viney is all rubbish, fuelled just for the purpose of speculative argument and by a small media contingent. I've seen nothing rational or factual that says we'd be wasting any pick in the top 5 on Viney. And, of course, it definitely won't be pick #1.

Trouble is Moloney hasn't written very much so far on his new clean slate. It concerns me that his manager is playing the media game already. Anything more than a 2-year deal would be too much commitment. If he goes because our offer is insufficient, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

WYL, here's challenge. Just say one positive thing about Melbourne. One tiny little thing. It can't be that hard.