Macca

I'm prepared to give the new rule change a go ... the PAT is a token point anyway in it's old form so making it harder (especially in inclement weather) might make coaches go for the 2 point conversion as a consequence (at least a fair bit more often) I've also got an inkling that people will get used to the rule change quite quickly once it's in operation. I also like the fact that both plays are "live" as well now. The rule change has been talked about for a few years now so I saw the move as an inevitable one anyway - I suppose I was ready for the change. Progressive thinking in sport has never bothered me and it's interesting that 30 of the 32 clubs voted for the change. Of course, whenever there's a rule change there's nearly always unintended consequences so at a guess, I reckon the kickers conversion rate from 33 yards might get worse (possibly because of the extra pressure?) We might see a few run back interceptions from those 2 point attempts as well ... blocked PAT attempts can be run back as well so there's quite a bit involved with the rule change. A maximum of 2 points only can be achieved from a run back (I believe) NFL rule change: Extra point moved back, defenses can score

If you're talking American sports you could go down the track of picking out a City which has multiple sporting teams (as pantaloons suggested) or you could go for teams with red and blue as their predominant colours. Or just pick teams randomly like many do. I've got 4 mates who have gone done the whole City track (New York, Detroit, Pittsburgh & Boston) but there's a stack of other cities that have at least 3 teams who are involved in the big 4 sports. I'm Green Bay Packers in the NFL, Boston Red Sox in the MLB but I also have a soft spot for the St Louis Cardinals ... and the Vancouver Canucks in the NHL. I don't really have an NBA team but I love watching the sport (especially during the playoffs) The NBA is all about the stars in my eyes. Over on this part of 'land there are threads on all the sports but the cricket and NFL threads get the most traffic. The other sports tend to get a little bit of traffic when those sports are in finals/playoff mode. The soccer thread can sometimes get busy. That's if you want to chat about those sports of course - I reckon a lot here have teams but they either don't know about the sporting threads or they're not used to chatting about other sports on the net - or chatting about it here. There's a few of us that keep things ticking over and even the cycling thread can get interesting.

Well, Roos changed 4 players after the Freo game and then changed another 4 players after the Sydney game Grimes, McKenzie, Jamar & Michie all went after the Freo loss and then the following week ... Hogan, JKH, Newton & Watts all went. If he does it again that will make 12 changes over a 3 game stretch. Is there a method behind all this? .. previously (especially last year) we've never seen him make this many changes. Could it be that he was aiming to get the team set up for after that horror stretch of games? Players who could or will come back in ... Watts, Hogan, Jamar, Riley, JKH, Newton. Jetta (?) and Viney(?) ... there's quite a number who may make way but I'm not sure he'll make more than 4 changes. Salem is a definite out because of injury (we'll really miss him) whilst Stretch will almost certainly be another out. After that, there's quite a number that might go but again, I reckon we'll only see 4 changes (maybe 5 at a stretch) .

No, of course not ... whilst I don't have a great deal of faith in the draft, I do accept it for what it is. If we trade top order picks, well and good, if not, so be it. It's actually quite possible to dislike something or question a system but be accepting of that something or system at the same time. Taxes, peak hour traffic etc etc. We're going to draft some decent players and draft some that are not so good - and the draft number that a player is picked at is not always a good guide - T-Mac 53, Morton 4. It's just the way it is. And I am a hard marker of players - always have been. 'A' grade gets bandied around far too easily. You've got to be a top rate player to get an A rating from me. .

You obviously grade players differently to me .... by the way, sometimes I'll refer to a good player as an A grader or a B+ player. I use the word differently on different occasions. Many of us do ... "He's a good player" can be interpreted in a number of ways. To give you an idea of how I rate players I'll use the best 6 players that I've seen at our club as an example ... in order ... Flower, Neitz, Stynes, Wells, Hardeman and Lyon. I'll give Flower A grade status easily ... Neitz and Stynes are easily B+ status ... Wells, Hardeman & Lyon are B+ as well but I rate all 3 behind Neitz & Stynes. An A grader generally has to be at that level for a large part of his career - a B+ player much the same. That's my criteria. Anyway, besides all that, what's at issue here is where do we apportion the blame for a club drafting a bust? ... If people here or elsewhere want to point the finger at the club, the recruiters or the player himself, they're free to do so. As I've stated on numerous occasions, I'd rather blame the system. .

Well in my eyes 'ok' can be B grade so it's not hard to figure out. What about the other 25 who are less than B grade? We can't exclude them

We could go on for hours but it is pointless Lets agree to disagree

I'm arguing whether a top 5 pick player out of those 50 picks is a genuine AFL 'A' grader or not. I'm looking at the issue from an overall perspective, not from a MFC perspective. 14 B+ or A graders from 50 picks ... 22 players who are not busts but they are certainly not top players and ... 14 busts. One could argue that a team has as much chance of drafting a bust as it does an A grader. What is also true is that many people here are assuming that a top 5 pick will be an A grade player - yet the facts don't bear that out. Assuming anything with the draft is fraught with danger - there are just no guarantees with drafting. I'm talking about actual output too - injuries don't count. A bust can be a player who is cruelled by injuries. Harsh maybe but that is the reality of the situation. I didn't include McLean and Sylvia in my tally of 14 busts but they were busts in terms of what people were assuming would happen with those 2 players - not total busts but many here were disappointed with their actual output. "Useful contributors" doesn't cut it in terms of what people were assuming. There is a prevailing attitude here that if a top end draft pick doesn't look likely to become a top player, they'd rather get rid of him totally. Many people here won't be satisfied if Tompous ends up only being a C+ or B- player. Look at how many here are wanting to trade him out already. The bloke has played 21 games.

Why just pick 2? ... what about picks 1, 3, 4 & 5? You're being selective again - think macro and you'll see things differently. I'll say it again - out of the 50 top 5 picks in those 10 drafts, 14 were busts, 22 players were 'ok' or 'alright' players and only 14 of the 50 were genuine top footballers (and I was being generous with a few of those 14 players) That is an awful strike rate considering many footy fans are expecting A grade from a top 5 pick. Especially amongst us Melbourne supporters. One can't conveniently leave out vital data if one is arguing in a macro sense. As it is, my 50 pick sample size (10 x top 5 picks) is not a huge sample size anyway. We could look at all the first round picks from the 29 drafts and then we'd still need to include all those players who should have been top 5 picks or first round picks (specifically those players that were originally not first round draft picks) Anyway, one can't change things back and there is one main reason why busts happen. That reason is based on the fact that not all standout juniors can cut it in the big time. Which ones? ... who knows? And there lies the issue - which ones are going to be busts? If clubs knew the answer to that question, they wouldn't draft these players who end up being busts - but they continue to do so. Draft sets up teens to fail, says Melbourne coach Paul Roos .

A day on and I can see why Roos wants to move on quickly ... nothing much to be gained by emphasising a numerous amount of basic football errors. Hundreds of basic errors in fact. Don't even bother to look at the film - we were truly awful, right across the board. For instance, in the first couple of minutes I saw one of our experienced forwards metres behind his man when the ball was quickly kicked forward - half a minute later another experienced player gave off a handball and didn't follow up with an obvious shepherd. Do this against an average side and you're asking for trouble but against Hawthorn? Once again our experienced and established players just didn't lead the way and didn't do enough. T-Mac again played well, Pedersen was a reasonable target, Garlett flashed in and out and Garland & Cross tried hard. That's about it - a sorry day. The trilogy of terror is over at least. Now it's the Dogs, Port & the Pies. Need a win.

If you peruse through the following drafts I've listed below, I reckon you'll find otherwise. Out of the 10 drafts I've listed (looking at the top 5 picks from each of these drafts only) I found 14 very good or top players, another 22 who were 'ok' or 'alright' and in terms of supporter expectations, 14 busts. Some here would argue that unless you get an A grader with a top 5 pick, anything less than that (B grade or C+) is a bust. Factoring that in, there's a lot more busts than people realise. It's still too early to properly evaluate talent in the drafts from 2010 onwards. 2000 draft 2001 draft 2002 draft 2003 draft 2004 draft 2005 draft 2006 draft 2007 draft 2008 draft 2009 draft .

No... I'm not saying that at all. How about I tell you about my thoughts instead of you trying to guess my thoughts and then putting words into my mouth? Of course there's a lot of science to drafting but it's not an exact science. So, it's then only a matter of drawing logical conclusions. It"s not that hard if you give it some thought

Wrong I never meant it that way at all and I'm not sure why you would think that. What I don't have is a default belief that a top order draft pick is going to be a gun footballer. That's a steadfast belief that I've nearly always had too. If the draft starts spitting out perfect results, I'm happy to change my mind.

That's a laugh - you accusing me of writing drivel? ha ha ... why don't you take a good look in the mirror. I used to like you Wyl but if you insist on getting personal, forget it. You may think you've picked the strong suit but don't get too confident. I've got a contrary view about drafting than many here - I can live with that. It honestly doesn't bother me. I doubt I'll ever change many minds but that doesn't bother me either - my main motive is to at least get people thinking about the workings of our drafting system (maybe 10-15% here might bother) The other motive is to quell down the abuse that many of our top end picks have copped or are copping. I see that sort of stuff as largely just venting and unnecessary.

I've seen people here take the club to task (and the recruiters) over the Luke Molan pick & the Trengove pick. All because those players dared to get injured. Don't kid yourself, it does happen and it will happen with the Petracca pick if he doesn't come good.

So if Petracca re-does his knee and because of that never attains even B grade status, will that be another drafting "blunder"? Much like the Luke Molan pick was such an obvious drafting blunder (sarcasm) .

Now you're twisting my words. What I like to see is the whole picture ... many here prefer to see the draft in a selective way. I'm not surprised though - most prefer it that way. It's an uncomplicated view and allows people to vent.

Why are people here so convinced that a star junior will become a gun AFL player? I've never bought into that concept ... and the results from the drafts continue to confirm my cynical view.

There's a difference between the words "supposed" and "expected" One word often emphasises an absolute outcome and the other word can indicate a degree of apprehension. I used the word supposed in the sense that for many here, it's a cut and dried outcome. A grade or bust

I think you'll find that Tilbrook was a mature age recruit but I see your point in that regard - for whatever reason we have often stunk at recruiting - but not always. Around the time that the draft was originally introduced (1986) we had already started to recruit in a much smarter way (the Irish experiment included) and strangely enough, our original zones finally spat out a number of decent players (the zones were kept going for some years as the draft took hold) We also have drafted quite well previously - no real A graders but there's a reason why we played 5 final series under Northey and 6 final series under Daniher. We're just in a real lull right now and it's been that way for far too long. Finally, I don't mind the criticisms that may come Toumpas' way - but let's make it fair and balanced. We had a number of poor players yesterday and Toumpas was certainly not on his Pat Malone in that regard.

How do you explain all the top end busts then? (there has been over 100 first round draft picks that have become busts - including numerous top end picks) You need to do a bit of research - do that, and you'll find I'm on the money. By the way, how do also explain all the top players who were picked late? ... Goodes 43, S Black 31, Chapman 35. Fyfe 20, Grant 105, Hird 64, T-Mac 53 ... etc etc etc I'm pointing out that the draft is not an accurate guide so it therefore can't be relied upon. I see the same player as what you do - but I don't judge him by his draft pick number nor will I point the blame at the club, our recruiters or the player himself ... he is what he is. Many here do judge by that criteria even if they won't admit it. And to say we should have picked someone else because of how he is right now is just utterly pointless. Toumpas is a product of a bad system - a system that continually spits out poor and odd results. His output so far hasn't been great but I'm not at all surprised by that - mainly because I see the draft as largely flawed and somewhat of a lottery. Anyway, it's a team game so it's never about one player anyway - regardless of whether we have separate threads about these players or not, context is always needed. We had more than a dozen poor players yesterday - why the focus on one or 2 players? Think of it this way, if we didn't have a draft and Toumpas came out of our academy or zone, would we be talking about him in the same way? I doubt it. The draft pick number changes how we view recruits. If you disagree - so be it. .

... er, no he wasn't. Certainly not in my eyes anyway. He was just a top junior - that's it (so far) Many top juniors don't make it in the big time. For proof - go back and look at any previous draft ... before 2010 to be fair as some players mature late. I've got the facts, results and data on my side Wyl - you've just got your misplaced faith and hope in a poor system. Your anger and frustration regarding Toumpas is misguided. Don't get me wrong, I still have some expectations but those expectations are tempered by the reality of the situation. Long ago (before we started drafting busts) I came to terms with our drafting process. I'm not avoiding the truth - I just see the truth differently to you. .

Cale Morton pick 4 Mitch Thorp pick 6 There's hundreds more examples of busts like those. Tom McDonald pick 53 Adam Goodes pick 43 There's hundreds of other examples where good to top players were picked far too late. How is the draft anything more than a rough guide? Every club (including his own club) passed on Fyfe - should we sack every recruiter who overlooked Fyfe? If the draft is accurate, all the recruiters should be held to account on this "mistake" alone .... x 200 other such "mistakes". That's a lot of sackings. Toumpas was never supposed* to be a top player at AFL level - nothing is definite when it comes to drafting ... originally, he might have been and he could still be a good player. People here should have sold their shares in the draft long ago - clinging on to false hope and faith is largely pointless. *For those confused by the word "supposed", I mean it in the sense that a top junior is not automatically going to become a gun AFL player. There are no such guarantees. .

I'm astonished that you and others have so much faith in a poor system (the draft) You speak with such authority too - I see your view as utter nonsense. And I've had the same view for over 20 years - the proof in the pudding is in the eating. Have a look at any previous draft and come back and tell me that it's even semi accurate. You and many others have been collectively brainwashed. The concession I'll make is that the top 10 picks are almost certainly better prospects than the next 10 picks (and so on and so forth) However, there are still numerous busts within those blocks of 10 picks and top players continue to be drafted outside of the top 10 picks (who ordinarily would be top 10 picks if the drafting system was accurate) .

Context has to nearly always be applied in a team game - it's not golf or tennis. We had many players who didn't give a yelp yesterday - singling out one player is just nonsensical. In fact, I could only find 4 decent players from yesterday's debacle - so 18* players didn't do enough. Simple maths. *Salem was injured so he's excused. 17 then. .