Hannabal

Fancy being unfit in late October having not trained for weeks ? Go figure. I don't really give a flying whether we get Sampi, but he'd be more talented than many on our list. Being the 38th player on the list wouldn't be the worst punt I've seen.

Now he does. And who knows what led him to that decision. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone. It's as simple as that.

Pike was a p!sshead who was sacked from 2 clubs and headbutted the current CEO of a third. How much of a d!ckhead do you have to be ? As for Sampi ? It's the measure of a club and their leadership of how well they can nurture a wayward talent. Naturally there'll be times when you say "thanks but no thanks", but to dismiss Sampi out of hand when we aren't privvy to all the facts seems silly to me.

Palmer may have more pace and he may be more the type we need, but from what I've read Masten is better. I'd take the better player every time. Masten, Ebert, Palmer, or if we were terribly lucky (and I know it won't happen) Cotchin. Anyway you look at it, it looks like a very good young midfielder is heading our way.

I would. Let's not be too precious, after all they are only footballers. Sampi is a talented player and football clubs imitate life in that some people mature later than others. Indigenous players can sometimes present their own challenges, but with a good network of support and different environment, he may thrive. He fits our 23 and under criteria, has pace, and we could do with a goal kicking forward crumber. You would never have touched Pike either Rhino, it doesn't make you right. I don't know Sampi's problems, but if we can't take a chance on nurturing unfulfilled talent every time someone has blotted their copy book, or struggled in a particular environment, then we're not much of a club. I don't think it's much of a punt, btw. The upside is very good and the downside doesn't lose much. He's stated that he'd like to come to Melbourne (the city) and he may not have thrived under the ego driven West Coast mantra or the spotlight of a small two team town. I'd certainly look at him.

The MFC is a nice club. It has nice players, nice supporters, and a nice history. It's just so nice. I couldn't give a rat's toss bag about McLean's off season misdemeanors. And I also acknowledge that his season was curtailed by a broken foot that sidelined him for 7 weeks and affected his return. Naturally he was never going to be as fit or sharp after missing that block of the season. And because we have such a nice midfield he was the one that was sat on upon his return. I'll back McLean to have a fantastic 2008. I'll back him to rebound from some minor setbacks. And he's the only one I want leading this club. And I hope opposition supporters think he's a pig. It's far better than being nice.

Palmer just lacks that bit of class. He looks like Brent Guerra, or an oversized Garry Moorcroft. I expect a bit of class with pick 4. I'm not saying Palmer won't be quite good, but I suspect he'll be more run of the mill once he hits AFL level. Masten or Ebert for me.

When is anyone truly ready to become Captain ? This club needs a hard nosed attitude from a hard nosed leader. And if it's a year or so "too soon", so be it. I'll spew up if Green, Bruce, or anyone else captains this club after Neitz.

I'd be happy for McLean to captain the club from next year. One thing is for certain though, after Neitz I don't want any other captain of the MFC other than Brock McLean.

I hate our current away strip.

Possibly I'm missing something, but I like the new logo. It's simple, classy, reflects our jumper and colours, is instantaneously recognisable which is important for brand awareness, and unlike some of the others it doesn't look like it belongs in a comic strip. Then again I also like our very first logo - the interwoven MFC. Obviously I like plain and less messy logos.

Why would we want an old HBF ? Pass.

Jesus pal, have you read the thread ? If you had, you wouldn't be asking me "And Craig hasn't ?". But to ask an amateur supporter to undertake the excersise you did as well as infer that Cameron is above such scrutiny was ridiculous.

Yes, I know. Did you not read my post #104 ? I'm a stickler for correct interpretation and you had a different slant. The decision rests with CAC. Period. EDIT: and after about 5 years of posting about Molan I'm as sick of rehashing the topic as CAC, and won't be posting further comment.

"It's a matter of public record that Luke Molan was not his choice, he was under instruction." The comment above, and the one I referred to, was posted by Grazman. And yes, I skimmed your post.

I've learnt that if I'm on the opposite side of Freak I'm doing ok.

With respect, that's a ridiculous post. If you're paid the bucks produce the goods.

Imo you draft the best player at your pick, OP or no OP. Players do recover from it. I understand why some supporters are gunshy when they see those dreaded letters, but it wouldn't prevent me from picking a player. And certainly not if he was 'best available'.

I'm not in the 'know' within the club but I do get sick of CAC being let off the hook for Molan. Now Graz, or it may have been someone else, says it's on public record that Cameron was told to draft Molan. Really ? I've not read this. I do know that he was asked to recruit the toughest player in the draft. But I doubt Daniher added "and I don't care whether he can play". Especially with such a prized pick as 9. The facts are it was a dud pick. And it rests solely with CAC. Just as the successes rest soley with him. Afterall, it's his neck on the line. You can have all the advice in the world but the final choice is his. He may be asked for a certain type at a particular pick, but I'm sure no one dons the red and blue unless he's satisfied by his own eyes.

Lame.

My "preoccupation" is with your responses, not with Hine. You disregarded CAC's "last couple of drafts", but when asked to name recruiters that had done "better" over the journey you refer to Hine. Why ? Hine has only been around the last 2 drafts. Why refer to Hine as a recruiter that may have done better than CAC when his frame of reference is the very two drafts you discount ? It may escape your memory, but you start your analysis of Melbourne's recruiting from the 2003 draft. You also say on another post when referencing Collingwood and Hine, "They have, however, made other wise drafting decisions to rebuild their list". What are these "decisions" and when were they made ? You said that 2000 was a "shocker" for CAC. Thompson was a fantastic pick at 16 whilst our next pick was 62. You subsequently acknowledged our draft penalties in that year, so do you retract this description of 2000 ? You were also asked to look at the players taken after CAC's picks to clarify who would've been better. You've never under taken the task. As for Hine ? The last two years look very good. He had 2 top 5 picks in 05 which obviously helps, but based on the talent available the Pies have done well in the last 2 drafts. Mind you, they're draft years you disclude in your analysis. In 2004 C'wood drafted Egan at 10, Rusling, Iaccabucci, and Cloke as a FS. If we disregard the FS, and I assume you'll agree that it's reasonable to do so, how does Egan, Rusling and Iaccabucci stack up against Bate, Dunn, and Newton ? You didn't just overlook our "last couple of drafts", you overlooked the last 3. Many players have already been dlisted from the 2004 draft yet you won't acknowledge obvious successes. More self serving decisions on your part. I still can't fathom our "differences of opinion" though. I've rated CAC's drafts on a previous post. Where do you disagree ? Your simplistic approach to evaluating CAC's performance rests with "He's yet to recruit a gun and he's yet to recruit a fantastic KPP". We agree on those fronts, so would CAC, but it only paints a narrow margin of the entire debate ? If I get time I'll analyse Port, Brisbane, Geelong and the Swans as per your request. But seeing as you're the one making the claim that they've recruited better, why don't you do it ? The one reason I'll do it is that I enjoy comparing the various clubs recruiting exploits. It's a fun past-time during the off season. But do you know what Warren, I doubt you've any idea how well those clubs have recruited. I suspect you just look at the ladder and assume others are doing it better. You also don't take into account coaching and development. In fact, you just skim the surface before forming these concrete 'opinions'. This simplistic approach sums up the quality of your posting.

I can only conclude that you're deliberately disingenuous. You highlight Hine when initially quizzed about "who has done better than CAC ?". This was before any reference to the last 2 draft years. You've now trying to conveniently mix timelines here when answering Mo's post. You were then asked "when did Hine become Collingwood's recruiting manager ?". You fail to respond. You're asked about Hine again. You fail to respond. When completely cornered, whilst being fed the answer, you refer to his last couple of years at the draft table. Now you're making out that others referred to this recent period and that you were merely responding to a question about "Hine's reasonable performance". Clearly, you had no clue when he took up his tenure and while trying to save face many posts ago thought it best to keep one's trap shut. After much prodding you're now trying to play down your initial reference to Hine, but the sequential order of posts inconveniently disputes your argument. And in more embarrassment, you've gone from disregarding CAC's last 2 drafts to waxing on about Hine's decisions in the same period. You got caught, won't admit it, and look stupid. And some would say are a liar. Particularly me. Btw, we haven't disagreed again. In my last post I asked you where you disagreed. I'm still waiting for the answer. You've got form.

Rhino spends all day fighting on the Boards but he's concerned that Brock was in a fight.

So they got in a barny. Big deal.

You been touching up your hair ?