nutbean

I support Melbourne but on field performances and a persecution complex caused by Demonland posters has me wavering.

Eddie wouldn't and Eddie is lambasted by all and sundry on a regular basis for being too conflicted. His calling of Collingwood games has been ridiculed because of his blatant bias. I like Eddie ( i think i might be one of the few) because of his passion for his club - but he is a standing joke on his televised views on anything that touches on Collingwood. I believe GL has passion for Melbourne but tries his darndest not to be "Eddie" on the TV when it comes to his views.

Bennell has regularly carved sides up.....

The only one I am prepared to commit on is Brayshaw. In the few games this season I think he has shown he has enough tools to be very good. If I learned anything from drafting is that "time will tell" is the only safe bet.

SWYL - you dismiss the journalists and their drafts - but the top journo's do watch and do talk to talent scouts and recruiters - they are basing the rankings on what they have seen and what they have heard. I actually think that these journo's are pretty well spot in predicting the ORDER in which the players will be drafted. What they are not good at is getting the output of each player in the draft during their career. Every draft order since inception would look completely different in retrospect given the exposed form we now have. I did get to a point where I think we should dismiss the "rankings" which seem to become formalised close to draft time and go with exactly who we think is the best option. If you draw a line through the drafts and look at picks taken where they were thought to be ranked - sooo many are just wrong ( in our case - Watts, Toumpas, Scully, Trengove..etc) If you draw a line through the drafts and look at the picks that were taken early than their ranking - soooo many are just wrong ( in our case - Cook, Strauss, Gysberts etc) I have reconciled myself that the draft is a turkey shoot and some will work out and some won't.

So then I don't understand why you find it so hard to accept that at SANFL level/pre draft Toumpas looked to the recruiters a better pick than Wines ? From the first game of the preseason AFTER the draft at AFL level Wines has proven to be everything that Jimmy is not - that is a sad fact. I think where you and I will always disagree ( and I include Paul Roos in the "I" category as he stated the same) - you have an expectation that a player that is drafted pick 2, 3 or 4 will be better than someone picked 10,11 or 12. The history of every draft tells you that this is just not the case. As Roos has said - at draft time we don't have enough exposed form against open competition and most kids come in with deficiencies - especially in the defensive side of their game. No amount of due diligence is ever going to allow us to have confidence that a pick number 4 is going to be better than the picks that follow - history has shown us that. Wines was not the better option predraft but certainly is after 3 years of exposed form. But Grundy now is probably going to outperform his 18 pick ranking- fyfe at 20 something - just wow and Bontempelli on form should have gone pick one.

In answer to your question about him playing a vote winning game in the grand final - I hope Jimmy comes good - my head is telling me he is a bust - I hope he proves me wrong. I have never argued that on what I am seeing now that Toumpas will get close to the dizzying heights of Wines. I am arguing about what we knew at draft time. Here is one more quote for you "Now Mark Neeld has some tough cattle. Lets go.." That was posted in the welcome to Jimmy Toumpas thread the day he was drafted by ummm....hmmm.. you ! There has been questions aplenty about Jimmy's ferocity and attack on the ball - however on draft day you put Jimmy into the tough cattle class....

Paige Cardona had us taking Wines in her mock draft - but she had Toumpas going at pick 2.

So you would have then taken Scully well before you would have taken Martin. Scully was a training machine - had to be held back at sessions - from his earliest days he was determined to be the very best he could be ? You have no problems with the likes of McKenzie and Bail ? - have all the attributes in terms of attitude - your suggestion that the other attributes can be learnt seems to amiss here. And now you are also shifting the goal posts with Toumpas - he would have been drafted on attitude alone - that isn't where his problem is. The other attributes you are alluding to that you say can be learnt seem to be the ones that are missing in Toumpas - not the attitude.

Are you going to answer or evade ? What do you think Todd would say if asked the question ?

The critical point is that Toumpas was considered a better footballer - end of story -forget context - forget list position, forget speed, forget grunt. All you have highlighted are valid points except none of them are the critical point. It is probably right to suggest that Cook was drafted as a "needs" footballer. Listening to most recruiting managers these days they are all sing from the same hymn book. You pick the best available footballer not for needs - if two players are considered equal then you pick the player that suits your need. You trade for needs as there is more exposed form in established or emerging players. As Macca and I have constantly banged on - there is too little exposed form on 18 year olds at the time of the draft - so there has been a litany of mistakes made in drafting in the past and it will continue in the future.

How about all the footballers who made it through to rookie list ?

Very different footballers - but I think the comparison is being made because of the perception that they are both troubled individuals. But I would have him in a heartbeat.

No argument from me. Since it has already happened to us and will continue to happen we need to do exactly the same.

definition of obvious - easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent it is not obvious at all unless you would like to expand...

the one I find as ridiculous is - "let's draft xxxx. He barracked for Melbourne as a kid".

I think lazy is harsh but yes, he does have quiet weeks but he is an absolute game changer. Question is - can we get the "best Bennell" week in and week out ? Would a change of environment bring out the best in him more regularly ? I have no idea but geez - you would salivate at the prospect. (I know that stats can be misleading but I just looked at his career stats and I would take that laziness every day of the week)

If you were able to ask whatever you like, I am not sure what your expectation is asking the specific question at the AGM ( or at any other time ) surrounding Wines and Toumpas or for that matter any recruiting decisions. The answers for each recruiting case would be one of two. 1. We picked we was considered the best available player at the time of the draft ( this would account for most of our recruiting decisions) 2. We picked this player with a pick that may have been considered a little higher than expected but he fitted our need and we believed that they would develop into good footballers. ( Cook, Strauss etc) I'll even go further and for entertainment let you have a follow up question. "But Wines was a better choice than Toumpas" And Viney's answer would be "That is your opinion and at the time of the draft it was opinion that was not shared by myself, my recruiting team and most others." Would that satisfy you ? (because frankly, I can't see you getting any other answers but these).

you see...it could be worse...you could have been a Richmond supporter

all 3 ?

I love lamp.

I wish i could find a link to one article he spoke about the draft - he pretty much called it tattslotto - for all the reasons that have been outlined previously. I think he has also made his peace with the draft on the same understanding that there is just not enough exposed form at the highest level from players that are so far from mature to be able to confidently predict how their careers will pan out.

So have I -I realise what an imperfect science it is. I go back through the last 10 drafts ( and then some) and see that what was considered top 10 talent at draft day didn't pan out that way during those players careers to date. I see that if you reordered the draft now based on output not one draft would like anything like the order the names were called out - That's the reality. I am dubious if we had the right culture in the past - a culture that pushed for excellence - a culture that nurtured and developed talent. I am unsure on some of our picks if they didn't have the talent or we didn't have the support coaches, staff or players around them to bring out the best. I do believe this is less of an issue now - if there is talent in what we draft now I think we have the structure to bring it to the fore ( my only small knock is it easier to be a budding footballer in a team when you have great players around you. Jesse Hogan would find it easier to develop at the Swans where he would be the third tall behind Buddy and Tippett. )

This what gets me - Am I miffed that we were considering both Wines and Toumpas and it appears we picked the wrong one - sure. But to suggest we need to ask Todd Viney why at draft time when he was offered the choice of two players - one that was considered a better choice than the other - why did he pick what was considered the better player at time - is sheer nonsense. No amount of venting is going to alter history to suggest that Wines was a no brainer at that time. As each draft goes by I am more and more certain that the gulf between TAC and AFL ( and even AFL and SANFL/WAFL) is immense for these young players. There is nothing more certain that clubs will pick what is considered good talent that just never materialises - I just hope it isn't our club.

damned if you do ..damned if you don't..