nutbean

Thats a good watch - Scully - caught a lot - turned it over nearly every time. Fitzy - looked all at sea Gaff - looked very composed Trenners - got a few touches.

Wrecker - I found your post regarding "precautionary principle" quite interesting and if I could cherry pick from part of the definition that I found then I firmly fall into that camp. " The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. " I am happy enough to believe there is plausible risk. My main concern in all this debate is not whether man made climate change exists - it is my lack of belief that enough countries that truly can make a difference will implement policies that will actually make a difference.

My squeeze goes nuts over one song called My pal by God. 4 piece band from Melbourne - mid to late 80's - sadly two of the four members died of heroin overdoses. Great song..

Unexpected live shows gold. Saw Steve Poltz - knew very little about him other than he was with Jewel for a while - absolutely sensational - part folk part comedy - but his musicianship was fantastic. Also saw an Irish guy debut his album "Gallie" - he has been here four years, plays around the traps in Melbourne and is very good. Lastly - seeing Raised by Eagles next week in a "shed". Looking forward to seeing them but the "shed" phenomenon is interesting. It started in rural Canada where they were starved of any decent live music - so an enterprising farmer figured out that if he could get 100 people into his shed he could get some good talent to play and break even - it was never about money. There is a "Shed" in Maryknoll and Bones who runs it has had lots of good local acts play - The Stilsons, Jeff Lang, Suzannah Espie to name but a few. ( Maryknoll is a bit much for me though... eek..religion is ok for some but eek)

you didnt let the tape run too long and get a couple of episodes of Bellbird as well ? or maybe "to market to market"

I think there is no bigger tick for your argument than the kick out he fluffed from full back that resulted in a goal towards the end of this last season and it made the AFL highlight videos for the week ! I thought - "you have got to be kidding me - A Jack Watts clanger that got its own video !". He absolutely draws more than the average amount of attention from media - some fair and some unfair. edit - couldn't find that video but found two others 1/ http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-06-21/secondgamer-saves-watts-blushes- have a look at the title and then look at the play - seriously - he took one step and was called to play on delivers a handball to a free man and a goal. You could hardly suggest that the second gamer "saved him" 2/http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2015-06-08/watts-misses-swan-capitalises- again - go through the titles of lots of videos - it seems sometimes the media is keen to sink the boots in ( again - sometimes fairly but many times unfairly) I am no apologist for JW and some of his exquisite play that he displays is equally let down by him going missing for large chunks of a match and some tepid attacks on the contest,. But he absolutely attracts too much comment. ( and I just added to it)

I agree with a lot but actually disagree with the overall thrust of the post(s). Saty may have put a lot of extraneous stuff in training posts that weren't interesting to me and also was would not suffer criticism of any player be it constructive or otherwise, but I can never get to training so I enjoyed the snippets of meaningful reporting on the training and basically ignored all the fluff. Come back Saty - I appreciate you !

I was Caulfield Scopus boy - I won every fight I had by at least 100 metres.

Actually I noticed that through out his junior year at TAC his hair was immaculate. As soon as it was mentioned that he was likely to be picked up by us his hairy ..well...became messy. I don't like the look of that and I wouldn't draft him as I am afraid that after a two seasons he would seek a transfer to Essendon to get hair styling tips from Hurley.

Again, only relying on highlight reels, Parish does not miss a single target in the footage shown whereas Scully's footskills ( or lack thereof) were evident even in the "best of" footage.

I mentioned the folly of relying on highlight reels and maintain if you were to go by highlight reels then Francis is a no brainer. Hence the reason that you take the highlight reel with liberal dose of salt. Whispering Jack who obviously see a bit of underage footy said that Francis goes missing/ is inconsistent whereas Parish is in, under and about for the whole game/s. This is something that you can never ascertain just from watching highlight reels.

I wish I could find the actual quote but Roos is on record saying he has very little to do with draft selections. He says he has people to do that for him and whilst the whole coaching panel may discuss what the obvious needs and priorities are for the team ( ie mids - inside, outside, goal kicking ) I was left with the impression that if we wanted mids with certain traits Roos defers to the recruiting guys to pick the best available.

I've been called worse.

I absolutely understand there is substance behind recruiting. I guess my frustration is more with posters than the actual system - you rightly point out that it is not an exact science but there are many on here that have expectations that is exactly what it should be. Recruiters are working with a limited data set and a data set that is skewed by immaturity and constrained by draftees in the main playing in a same age competition. It is further exacerbated by internal club problems which has hindered development - (I think we are over that now.) To me, the making of the a good recruiter is the picks outside the top 20 as picks inside that mark usually pick themselves. The likes of Prendergast were shown up IMO not for the picks of Morton, Toumpas and Watts - but on the likes of Cook and Gysbert who were picks that were considered speculative for the positions they were taken. I think it also needs to be acknowledged that an enormous amount of resources has been thrown into the development of the draftees as Roos has publicly stated that our previous draftees were somewhat thrown into the deep end with little help. There is no doubt in my mind that our previous treatment of our draftees has added to our recruiters poor record.

I agree with all you have said and if the measurement for success is as you say - "we should get a bloody good player with a top 10 pick " then I have no problem with that. The only statement I disagree with is "I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc" - This board is littered with - We could have had such and such instead of such and such which to me absolutely equates to pick 4 should be better than pick 5. I believe recruiters need to be held accountable but in as far as that the players drafted need to be good value at the pick they were selected rather than be judged against who they could have taken. I also think their task is made harder by the simple fact of the differing environments that draftees are thrown into both in terms of coaching and development and also the strength of the club itself ( I would much rather learn my trade as a midfielder at Hawthorn behind the likes of Mitchell and Lewis than at Melbourne - it is harder to crack into the team at Hawthorn but you job is made easier by much better players being around you)

I just like being called "chap"

hence my clarification- cheers again.

I did not take into account the equalisation issue and that is 100% correct and does give force to the argument that the draft age should be raised so there is more certainty in what you are drafting. The issue has been raised that there does need to be incentive for youth in whatever competition is created to continue playing football for the extra years without being lured to other sports.

The benchmark of a draft pick needs to be - has he provided value for being a top 10 pick,a 11- 20 pick etc etc. The minute you start comparing your pick 4 with some others club pick 6 it will inevitably end in grief. If a posters idea on measurement of draft pick success hinges on whether our pick turns out better than the 3 players taken after him - then I am calling lottery.

I can absolutely be swayed - I am going to clarify what i mean by a complete lottery. It is patently obvious that the averages will show that the best footballers come from the top ten draft picks. No argument However history will show you that there has been vast differences in the outputs from footballers picked 1-10. Oversimplifying - many posters believe that whoever you take at 1 should be better in ability than who is taken at 2 and who is taken at 2 should be better than taken at 3. The constant postings we took Toumpas at 4 and could have had Wines, we took Watts at 1 and could have had NicNat. Recruiters are working from very limited information - how will the players bodies mature, how will a player go in open company, will a player develop more defensive traits (absent in the TAC), will the player mature into producing good playing and training habits, will a player who is gun in same age comp continue to develop. Watts, Toumpas and Sylvia were not mistakes at being drafted where they were - it has just been unfortunate that they have not produced as others of their draft class have. It is not a complete lottery that you will get a good player in the top 10 - the odds are certainly better. It is a complete lottery and nonsense that the expectation is that we will get the 3rd and 7th best players just because we have picks 3 and 7 in the draft. ( and for a person who had no doubt that I cant be swayed, couldn't care less and doesn't need to expand on inane proposition - you certainly gave expansion a damn fine shot - cheers back !)

I think much of the "give credit to Neeld" for drafting Hogan was to counter balance of "kick Neeld for drafting Toumpas.". Neeld was either involved in drafting or he wasn't. Give him credit for both or none. On Roos - he is on record as saying he has little input into drafting ( although you take a lot of what Roos says with a grain of salt).

Interestingly, the idea behind the higher draft age in the NFL is better education of the athletes and of course the elite feeder competition under the NFL is the college competition. We don't have that here. I agree that the older the player the more certain of the outcome but i vacillate about lifting the draft age and lean to actually leaving it at 18 but there needs to be more realisation that with that age comes the very large disclaimer that there is much uncertainty about what you are drafting.

Agreed as this will make it much more certain of what you have selected. Or....keep the drafting age the same and just accept that you are going to have some wins and conversely have some busts as well.

Absolutely it is - there has not been a draft that would not be completely rewritten with the benefit of hindsight. If we work from the starting point that a top five should be very good footballers then lets start at 2012 ( although these guys still have time) This is subjective but here goes - 2012 - 3 out of the top 5 underperformed 2011- 2 out of the top 5 underperformed 2010 - I would hardly say Day has made it yet, Bennell has been traded - but I like him football. Polec started to show form for Port Adelaide 2009 - 1 out of the top 5 is very good finally ( Martin) - Cunnington is serviceable 2008 - All are good except doubts over Watts 2009 - i out of 5 ( you could argue Masten but butchers it to the point of being completely ineffective for mine) 2008 - 1 very good - 1 whose good is very good but is inconsistent ( Gibbs), Kreuzer - hardly on the park. Hansen is a toiler 2007 - not bad lot - Daisy Thomas IMO has been cruelled by injury after showing plenty. Ellis is a bit meh for mine If you are expecting gold ( as we at Melbourne have ) just because you have high draft picks then you are going to be sorely disappointed. The odds are better if you have a sound structure, good development path and are successful ( meaning you have good players around to not only teach but take the pressure off the youngsters) but still no guarantees.

DFSA (digital footprint strikes again)