bing181

Good for you.

You can probably stop right there. Is he a key forward? You're assuming he is, and arguing from there. I'm not. The Brownlow reference was in the context of "if he wins a Brownlow playing like this, you'd still be unhappy"; I for one never said I was satisfied, don't know who else did; and no I wasn't there, but that has no bearing on the discussion in question, which is in regards to your preconceptions in regards to Jack W.

No, you do. The best player in a draft is the best player in a draft. What happens a number of years later is just that. I find some of the Watts discussion here really bizarre, to say the least. As was pointed out, if he took yesterday's form into the AFL, and held it for most of the year, he'd go close to a Brownlow, and Melbourne would be a much better side as a result. Yet there'd still be those here lamenting that fact that he didn't crash packs - or whatever other preconception they have of what he SHOULD be doing.

Think it's the main rehabilitation group. As opposed to training apart from the group, presumably as part of his sanction for drinking etc.

2 Goals, 26 possessions (that's 26 ...) and named in the best. Think I could live with that. There's only one Jack Watts. If he becomes the first 196 cm small forward, so be it. So much of the criticism of him comes from expectations of what he should be. Perhaps we should just give him a chance to be what he is.

Great to see Junior out there. Cornes looked decent as well. The old guard still flying the flag, both well and truly earned their places.

Gutsy from Lyon - honest, deeply personal and moving. That he looks up to Jimmy as the man he'd like to be, while still delivering that eulogy, shows just what a figure Jimmy was and how he touched people. The AFL and football(ers) get a pretty rough trot at times, as do the supporters, but the response to Jimmy's passing has been remarkable.

Hmm. No Cook - must be injured again. Thought Magner would be right as well, but clearly not yet.

But you just did, no? IMHO, it's just way way too early to be making comments on players like Gysberts and Strauss, especially given their run with injuries.

I need one of those "not sure if serious" images. Your basic premise is invalid. Top picks won't live up to expectations (for a variety of reasons), and rookies will exceed expectations. A top 30 pick is no guarantee of anything, except that at 18 you do OK with a footy. At 25? Your guess is as good as mine. Every past present and future recruiter will at some time select top 30 picks (18 year old kids) that don't turn out to be decent players. Was forever thus. Nothing to do with recruiters themselves, or their capability. There are some decent posts in the "drafting 2007 etc" thread hereabouts.

I'm realistically enthusiastic. Going to have a great year - just not all the time in every game, certainly for the first half. There was a great post I saw by a Port supporter re Friday's game, who said that for 10 minutes or so of the last quarter, we played like we could beat any team in the league. We just (!) need those 10 minutes to become a 100. Doubt it will be this season though.

I think many of us have those kinds of fond memories. I grew up in the country, parked the car on the boundary line each Saturday afternoon, the smell of linamenet in the rooms before the game, tea and cake at half time from the boot of the car, the inspiring speech at 3/4 time from the local butcher - also coach - etc. etc. There's a link here of the NT grand final, really worth a look if you're into "local" leagues. Players of all shapes and sizes, just playing footy. Re all this as well, I live OS, and to get a bit of a footy fix, watch a fair bit of the other AFL teams as well. Perhaps some around here could try the same, it helps get a bit more perspective and objectivity on our beloved MFC and our players.

And how many years did Swan run around at Collingwood before he became a player that makes other players look good. Four I believe. Drafting poor, young players not coming on quick enough ... barking at shadows.

From reports I've read, including from Port supporters, Davey was one who gave at least an "honest" performance on the weekend. Everyone reading too much into this, not even worth its own thread. Cook played in Casey twos last year, as at various times did other Melbourne players - however, they were generally under an injury cloud, or coming back from injury.

All that article says is that Melbourne players shouldn't automatically expect to play in Casey firsts if they're not performing, and Lovett will have final say. Typical Demonland beat-up about nothing. (Ref. Nasher's post above).

Unfortunately, yes they do. Much of the argument - such as it is - re drafting is based on the fallacious assumption that if Player X taken after our pick turns out (5 or 6 years down the track) to be a better player, then we failed, people should be shot, heads should roll etc. etc. But players' success or failure does NOT depend on where they were taken in the draft, and the draft is NOT a reflection of a player's capacity or capability. If it was, we wouldn't even need to bother with the rookie draft, as they'd all be total spuds. But there are rookies who were passed over completely in the draft who have become AA players, B&F winners, club captains, 200 gamers, etc. etc. Even looking over recent Brownlows. Judd, sure. Ablett - hard to say where he would have gone, he went F/S and was NOT a walk-up first 22 player by any means. But Goodes (pick 43) and Swann (pick 58) - they were taken at those picks because that's about how they were rated as 18 year olds. Which is all the draft is. It's an assessment of a bunch of kids just out of high school, a guide. Not only is not an accurate predictor of 25 year olds, it's not even accurate a year later when they're 19 or so - the Rising Star attests to that. And even then the Rising Star isn't an accurate predictor of players becoming "elite". Jared Rivers anyone? (not knocking him either ...). If you go by the Rising Star, the best pick in the 98 draft went at pick 67 - Byron Pickett. There have been some good posts in this thread, and even some good analysis. If people think that we should be winning more games, then they're going to think we have a problem. But that problem, as alluded to above, is not our recent drafting. And if Cale Morton turns out to be an average player, so be it. It just means that his capabilities at 25 didn't match his capabilities at 18 - when he was in fact, very very good. It does not mean we "failed". Finally, a suggestion to those still not convinced. Take an afternoon. Take 4 years' drafts, say 2003 - 2006, those players should be fulfilling their potential by now. Classify the players by round (first, second, third etc.), right down to the rookies, and put all those players names on bits of paper. For each of our picks, make a selection AT RANDOM from the players available for that round. At the end of that, rate the selections and throw away the bottom half of those (players who didn't make it), and then see where you end up. Different? I'm sure. Better than any other team around? Not so sure. And just remember people, the same Hawthorn recruiting team who took Franklin at pick 5, took Mitch Thorp at pick 6 two years later. Speaking of Hawthorn, the player who impressed me two weekends ago was Suckling. Rookie who didn't even play in the firsts till his third season.

You're back? You said you wouldn't be here.

I watched a half on the AFL Grandstand page on Youtube. Mesmerising stuff. Tungatalum looks the goods indeed - though he's and outside player's outside player, not sure if Neeld would go for him! I also liked the tall forward for Nightcliff - still very young and raw, but took a couple of great marks up forward. Forgot his name, started with S I think ... So great to watch just a great game of footy, with real people in all shapes and sizes as players.

Here you go drafting experts, NT Grand Final, pick who out of these is going to be elite: http://www.youtube.com/ABCGrandstand Stafford and Tungatalum for me.

Almost?

You said "3 years". And if you go back 5 years, you're not talking about BP.

Well, "big strong kids" is a bit of an oxymoron, the best you could hope for is any two of those. In any case, "big strong kids" we signed in the last 3 years: Clark, Seller, Sheahan, Davis, McDonald, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Williams - and for strong I'd throw in Tapscott and Magner. Eventually, Cook (big is there, strong will come).

Fair point. But equally, it could be a change in direction in response to a change in the way footy is played, even changes in the rules (e.g., interchange).

Two points to contribute to what I nevertheless see as an utterly pointless exercise/thread: (i) One of the positives to come out of the NAB series has been Nathan Jones. Has been amongst the best every game he's played. Until this year (2012), there have still been posts characterising him as a "spud", and "not in best 22". This is his seventh season. (ii) Another big positive out of the NAB series has been James Magner. Definitely (it would seem), first 22. He's 24. It has taken him 6 years to reach AFL level. It simply isn't possible to formulate any reasoned critique of drafting until players are 24 or so, more in the case of big men. By that criteria alone, we have no idea whether BP's drafting was a fail or a success.

With all due respect, I don't know that Neeld and co. are actually watching the scores all that closely. They're looking at systems and how they're working, structures and where they're breaking down, and the capability of the players to implement the game plan. etc. etc. Much as that probably infuriates the die-hards, the I've-been-waiting-47-years's and the win-at-all-costers.