bing181

No I'm not.

??? That's all you've got? In your perception, opposition analyst is a step down from head of recruiting, and from that you've jumped to the conclusions that (i) he must have been pushed and (ii) it was because he chose Darling over Cook. If he wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach. As for the rest, surely you're not suggesting that because a subject has a few posters on an internet forum, the professionals in the Football Department are going to be taking note and acting accordingly? Is there any evidence anywhere (except in fertile minds) that anyone in the FD could give two hoots about Darling and whether we drafted him or not? For all you know, Neeld and co. could be over the moon that we have the AA under-18 CHF waiting in the wings as a long-term prospect.

Wild speculation. lf you have any evidence, be great for you to share it with us. The idea that BP is gone because he didn't draft Darling is just absurd.

Great reports guy, thanks again. Just wondering, who wasn't out there at all? Gawn obviously, but (for example) Cook? Are we presuming from the above reports, that we'll have pretty well a full squad available for the first NAB match in a month?

The only thing close to a very big call for us in that draft was going left-field and picking up Howe. Doing what every other club did in passing at least once on Darling wasn't a very big call.

I don't know that it was that much of a consideration, but fair enough. But surely, most other clubs selected midfielders because they thought they were better players.

You keep saying that, but there's no evidence that that's the case either for Melbourne or all the other clubs that also passed. He wasn't the type for any of them? By the standards he'd set the previous two years, Darling had a pretty ordinary 2010, and that's why he dropped down the list.

Nice bit of revisionism there, worth of the aforementioned North Koreans. It was messy all round, and the follow up, especially from Adelaide, was seen as bumbling and amateurish - go type "Neeld" in the search window on some of the Adelaide boards to see what their supporters thought of AFC and their president. 186 was a shattering, traumatic, and yes, chaotic weekend for the club and everyone connected to it. But the seeds for what has happened since were sown in those 48 hours.

Just because you've said it often, doesn't make it any more valid. Do some homework on Darling's 2010 performances, which were less than stellar. FFS, every club, EVERY club passed at least once on him. He hadn't had a great year both on the field and off, and it was widely reported that his 2010 form didn't come up to what people had expected of him after his more dominant performances in 2008 and 2009. It's that that saw him slip down the rankings for all clubs, not helped by the injuries (head and also ankle earlier in the year).

Hasn't stopped you ...

No, that every comment referring positively to Watt's training intensity is wrong. This includes comments from the coaches, and Neeld: “But to his credit, obviously I’ve said a few things in the media regarding Jack and I’ve had those discussions with him face to face. I’m really pleased with the way that he’s training, so we’ll wait and see.” You're cherry picking information to support your position. There was one negative comment re Watts' intensity in one of three training reports, and based on that, the sky is falling.

You can't hide behind that - ruffle all you want, but you're basing your assumptions on ... well, assumptions.

The extension of your argument is that no team will or can ever progress (or regress) without changing the playing group. Same group = same results. Which is patently not true (WCE last year as one of many, many examples). Changes in training and coaching - not to mention coaching staff - can have a big impact on how players and a team perform. As for the leopards, while no-one's expecting a huge leap forward on an individual level from senior players such as Joel Mac or Beamer, newer and younger players such as Gysberts, Howe, Nicholson, Bennell etc., would normally be expected, at this stage of their careers, to improve.

"They" didn't. On the other hand ... "“Jack is at the front of the group, he’s busting his butt off - he’s working hard,” Brown told radio 3AW." FYI: http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2011/12/22/mega-watts-lighting-up-the-track/

... and a head injury. You may well have grabbed him at 12. But no-one else wanted to.

I don't believe the proposition is possible. Sheehan, Tynan and Taggart were all at AFL draft camp where they ran 3 k's, Crouch was at an AFL-affiliated club, and hard to think that in quite a few (pre) seasons at VFL level, Magner hasn't done a 3k trial - not to mention, he was already doing pre-season training with St Kilda before he came to us. That leaves Williams, who I'd put in the same basket as Magner, if he even ran, as he hasn't been doing full training.

??? 25 ran, 23 improved their times (and at the same time had PB's). All 25 had previously run 3 k's - or they wouldn't have had times to better (or not).

For the same reason Dane Swan (Brownlow Medal etc. etc.) was taken at pick 58. It's informed guess-work as to what will happen with 17 and 18 years olds, 5 or more years down the track. There will always be players we should have taken, and there will always be pleasant surprises. AFL week-in week-out is a huge step up from under-age comps, and you only have to look at the long-term success (or otherwise) of the Rising Star nominations, to see that even when young players are in the system and performing really well, it's still no guarantee that they'll make it as A-grade 200-gamers. The only way to judge BP will be to wait a few years, and then look at the totality of his picks. Singling out one or two picks as evidence (either for or against) ... hard to see what it says about his capabilities or contribution. For me, I like what I've seen with BP's lower-end and rookie picks, but time will tell. At least I feel that we now have the coaching staff to help these young guys maximise their potential.

Scully reported to have run 9:37, not 9:27. "The 20-year-old, who left Melbourne to accept a $1 million-a-season deal at the Giants, set a sizzling time of 9mins 37 sec."

Seeing no-one else has posted them, times available from Nico's tweets: - Nicholson, McDonald, Trengrove, Jones, Bail all under 9.40s - DNicholson49 Daniel Nicholson 3km. Myself 9.25sec trengrove 9.33.. All the boys ran awesome.. Everyone just wanting games to begin.

... one of these will play round 1, possible even two. e.g. Nicholson plus one of Couch or Magner. Competition for spots could make the NAB games interesting. Re other posts above, I wouldn't mind betting Bartram will play every game. Neeld said he wanted us to be hard to play against, and Bartram's the most belligerant stopper we have.

You don't need to. If others can't see what the inconsistency is, it's maybe (probably?) because there is no inconsistency.

One week before first NAB. Thought they would have started these a bit earlier.

If you aren't fit enough to run out the game, being able to kick, mark and break a tackle isn't worth sh!t either.

Nicely edited.