The Chazz

Would be lovely RPFC, and I would hope that the Club seriously considers that if it were the case. Wouldn't get any complaints from me.

Well HT, the amount of sh!t I had to put up with on that particular topic, and the number of personal remarks I received, I think I'm within my right to have a dig here and there. Heck, even Schwab had a go at people with the same opinion as me - did he not say that he was glad some of us weren't negotiating on behalf of the Club?

I'm always unsure what to make of the comment "further behind the 8-ball". If we're behind the 8-ball, we're in a fair bit of strife. But if we're further behind the 8-ball, in a game of pool that would mean there are more angles opening up to reach our desired destination. I think we are as close to being behind the 8-ball that is possible without sitting on top of it.

Interesting to see the Webjet FoJ deal was worth "almost $1m".

My only issue Jose, is that throughout the last part of Bailey's career, it was often mentioned with great disappointemnt that Bailey didn't say certain things in a presser, that he didn't show enough emotion, that he didn't appear to get angry, etc, etc. People were using this as ammunition when stating their opinion that Bailey should be sacked. But now that it's a new coach, we accept it? How long will this last? He'll probably get a way with it for the first season, but if this time next year we are 0-3, the masses will be starting to roll in and we go through this process again. That's why I made the comment, as did thai, that if those words were coming from a Malthouse, or any other proven AFL coach, you could put up with it. The fact that our last untried coach (Bailey) said virtually the same words as our current untired coach, doesn't give some, me included, a great deal of confidence that things have in fact changed within the club.

This is a seriously good post.

Always have and always will wear my red & blue regardless of the result. Given the fact I haven't seen success in my 30+ years, it gives me great pride knowing that everyone who knows me are fully aware of what team I barrack for. I wore my jumper in to the bottle shop on Saturday to get some refreshments for that afternoons game. Much to my disappointment, there was absolutely not 1 brand of beer on special. I questioned the check out assistant, who kindly informed me that there are around 2 weekends a year where no beer is on special. My reply, as I looked down at my jumper, was that sadly when these blokes play, I'm willing to pay whatever I need to to numb the pain. He laaughed at sincerely wished us well and tha twe would come away with a win. I'm not even in Vic! If that had've been a weekend in January, I'd rather go thirsty than pay full price for beer.

If we can manage to finish on the bottom, I think there's every need. we get pick 1, 2, 9, and Jack Viney as a 2nd round selection. 3 picks in the top 10 in a so called strong draft, has to have some appeal doesn't it? Gives us a fair bit to offer as trade to get a start mid too. I'm already emotionally drained, so seeing another 19 losses won't impact me too greatly. Actually, I just want to see us beat GWS. Anything else and I couldn't care less to be honest, not for 2012 anyway.

Well said. Nasher, where has it been said that the Coach has absolute power? The relationship between the head recruiter and the head coach is one of the most important offield relationships a club can have. They both need to put an immense amount of trust and faith in each other. The Head of Recruiting needs to know what vision the coach has in terms of game style and structure, while the coach needs to know what potential draft prospects are coming up not only this year, but for the next 2+ years. If they know that the 2014 draft is going to be riddled with quality key forwards, they are likely to turn their attention to other areas in this draft, so that they aren't too unbalanced. The recruiter's job isn't compromised because of this input from the coach, just as the caoch's job isn't compromised because of this input from the recruiter.

Well, where possibly in deeper poo than I thought. I could've sworn that the driving factor behind all selections at last year's drafts (NAB, PSD and Rookie) was Neeld's desire to get harder bodies on the list. I would imagine if BP went to Neeld at pick 50-odd and said "we have 2 choices, both I rate as near identical, the only difference is one's a light-framed forward pocket, the other is a hard-at-it in and under player, but if I had to lean one way or another, I'm thinking the light-frame boy", I would imagine Neeld's response would be, as he has been quoted saying during draft preparations before "Queen's Birthday, 80,000 crowd, Dane Swan tearing us a new one in the midfield, what's our best chance of stopping him, light frame forward or grunt?".

Robbie, I will PM you for both our sakes. Cheers

They've been discussing it all preseason striker. Like the onfield performance, I won't believe anything until I see concrete evidence informing me of a certain outcome.

Unless you can show me otherwise, I will not believe that it is so clear cut that the Head of Recruitment, at the end of each draft, is solely responsible for all picks made. The recruiter will present a case for a select few players, and between he and the Football Department, they will all have a high level of input, then I'm quite sure if there are multiple players available at our selection, the coach will have the final decision, unless the recruiter is adamant that there are better options. This doesn't mean the Head of Recruitment's role is compromised. In any organisation, the person doing the recruiting generally had discussion with their boss about the ideal candidate, and they present their case of both the pros and cons of each candidate. I would guess that 70% of the time the boss will have the final say, with the other 30% of the time the final call will be given to the recruiter. How does that compromise the recruiters job?

One of the worst games I have been to in recent times. Was the 1st game after Sean Wight's passing, and the players gave very little. Was an emotional time for my family (personal reasons), and then had the passing of Sean who was my favourite player growing up and beame a fairly good friend during his footy career, then to see that dismal performance. I sincerely hope that the players that run out on Sunday just don't embarrass themselves and the Club. Stynes' legacy is being celebrated before this game, and the greater AFL community will be hoping we can get over the line. This will hopefully be the last time we can go to that "emotional well" looking for inspiration, so after Sunday, it's going to be a very long year. It's sad that we are coming up against a team that is 0-3, and I'm praying that we will be at least competitive.

He has ticked that box. In previous years we have been on a rollercoaster, and when we've played poor and the media turn the blow torch on, we've come out and won. We have been a lot more consistent this year, especially when the media turn its attention on to us.

Here's a beauty for all you "know-it-all's". Read this; http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-future-is-in-their-hands-20101117-17xqp.html This is a link to Emma Quayle's 2010 Phantom Draft. As a massive % of posters on here juice up every time Emma opens her mouth regarding draft picks, she too would've passed on Darling at our pick. In fact, she didn't even have Darling in her Top 25. Yet, there was a thread on here recently trying to create interest in someone like Emma becomming our head recruiter. did the Eagles pull the wool over her eyes too? It's not a case of having 2 bob each way RF, it's about how the roles are, and how they work with each other. You are incorrect in what you are saying, and I think you need to admit it.

So who was the best available at pick 12 then Range? May I suggest you change your signature to 202? - 202? - 202?.

The disappointing aspect is that our captain is rubbed out for a week, especially given his track record in terms of games played in recent seasons. I'd much prefer our captain miss a game because he ran back with the flight of the ball and got knocked out cold, rather than trying to make a physical statement outside the field of play.

So who was the best available at pick 12 in 2010? Looking at their resumes, I wouldn't have thought too many Clubs would've knocked back the All Australian CHF. And from all reports, "a" club were going to draft Cook with their first pick but we beat them to it. Would BP make this up? Why would he?

Because your post is 100% correct! In both those tackles, Grimes was trying to make a physical statement that was taken too far. He intentionally did that, but did he intentionally try and crack Jackson's head on the ground? I doubt it. Yet some people will be still livid with the decision rather than livid with the actions.

There is absolutely no way you can tell if Cook is a bad pick or not. I, like you Range, hope this bites you on the arse!

You've obviously played the game before DC.

RobbieF - check the above list of other first round picks that were shockers. Even if we had've gone "best available", there was no certainty that we'd have nailed a star, especially given our form at the draft table.

So, in 2010 we draft Cook, Howe, Davis and McDonald. Do you think BP said before each of those selections were made "these players are the best available at this pick so we should pick them"? He and Bailey both said in their interviews that they went in to the draft wanting certain players; forwards who can take a mark, and bigger defenders. These players were the best available for our needs, and especially once you get to the 2nd round+ as all picks are quite speculative. I still disagree with tha tline you re-posted. I'm reading it that should a coach, or someone else within the club, instruct to the recruiter's that we need a certain type of player, that you believe the recruiters role is being compromised. If that's what you are meaning, I just can't see how that is anywhere near accurate. Of course the recruiters are going to discuss needs with the coach, if they didn't, there could potentially end up with a total inbalance of players.

I see the recruiters position having many aspects, that I won't go in to a majority of them. What I would suggest is that the recruiters would start concertrating on the current years draft prospects approx 2-3 years prior to their final U18 year (aka their draft year). The recruiters would meet with the football department, in particular the coach and maybe even the List Manager, I'm guessing maybe at least once a month, to discuss what prospects are progressing. For someone like Neeld, I have absolutely no doubt he, in his discussions with the recruiters, would be informing them of where we have holes in our list, how these holes relate to the game plan we are trying to introduce, and through their observations of the current draft stocks as well as what is coming up next year and the year after, be able to guide Neeld in who could be earmarked for that spot, all while Neeld is guiding them as to what our draft needs are. To say that the role of a recruiter is somewhat compromised because the coach is guiding him is, in my view, totally incorrect. In terms of established players (as brought up by RR), I think it would depend on the profile of that player for a start. High profile players, or perhaps high expense players, would in my view see a team of the coach, list manager, perhaps CEO, and maybe the football manager and/or Neil Craig (whatever his title is!), approach them. RobbieF - I just read your latest post. We will never know what Luke Molan could've been. In hindsight, he was a bad 1st round pick, but just take a look at the injuries the poor bloke suffered pretty much from day 1. Actually, while you're there, take a look at the events in his life within 2-3 years of him first being drafted.