Macca

Goodes 43, S Black 31, Hird 64, A Lynch 50, Tingay 50, T-Mac 53, Chapman 35, Fyfe 20 ... there are numerous other examples as well as being 2-4 busts out of the top 10 picks in any given draft we've ever had (busts - in terms of expectations) I don't profess to have all the answers nor do I believe anyone has those answers. With all the hundreds of drafting anomalies, we can either blame all the recruiters over the years as being largely incompetent (and we have to blame all of them) ... or we blame the system. To me, it's a no-brainer. My argument is not centered on our club either ManDee, I'm more looking at things from an overall perspective Those wanting to scream like banshees at our drafting decisions can go on screaming till their hearts are content - it won't do them any good. They may as well be howling at the moon. Lifting the drafting age might help considerably ... League Considering Draft Age Rise: McLachlan (whether anything comes of all this is another matter)

Some here just want to lash out at the club in a senseless fashion. Drafting is such an inexact science - it is never consistently going to be what people want it to be. We could draft well for the next 5 years and I wouldn"t change my stance ... unless, in the meantime, the draft was overhauled

WADA are possibly going to be hamstrung by the same issues that ASADA had ... Witnesses won't talk, all records destroyed, players denying any wrongdoing, a governing body wanting to protect the brand and all the money etc etc Somehow all that is ASADA or WADA's fault ... and they are the good guys!

Conspiracies do happen ... they're not all the grassy knoll variety. As you're well aware, there's a number of dodgy dealings in the horse racing industry ... more than a few :-)

There is no easy fix - I accept the draft for what it is. You want it to be something it can't be Try answering the question on Grant.

So the draft system is fine is it? Are you being serious? Kindly explain the hundreds of anomalies then ... I don't even know where to start but let's go with a biggie ... Chris Grant at pick 105 Please explain After you're done trying to explain that little beauty I've got another 300 examples to throw at you Hope you've got plenty of time on your hands .

In your opinion In my opinion if WADA doesn"t appeal it WILL mean that the EFC & the AFL conspired against ASADA & WADA in bringing about a not guilty verdict

You also need luck with top end draft picks - we've had very little luck. GWS were almost certainly going to draft A graders with the block of top end picks that they had - the luck was on their side. They had the probability factor in their favour. The drafting system we have is not a great one - in fact, there's not that many good players to come out of any given draft. Anyway, our luck seems to be turning and it will be some other club's turn to draft busts. Richmond went through it before us and their luck turned eventually. The Cats aren't drafting A graders like they once did despite having the same bloke in charge of recruiting - Stephen Wells. Eventually, more people here will come to terms with the drafting system. Right now, it just doesn't work in the way that people want it to work. It's just easier for people to point an accusing finger - apply logic and common sense and you'll see different outcomes.

First thing tomorrow morning then? (for the decision) At the very least, WADA/ASADA has made Essendon sweat a little ... and they will be sweating on the decision. If I was a player, I'd be still quite apprehensive right now.

People here want to go down the path of just playing all our young players? ... don't expect to win any games if that happens. Demand more from the senior players and stop with the unrealistic focus on draftees. The saviour/messiah mentality just doesn't work - especially with teenagers. Today's footy requires much much more than that. We see a few kids doing well elsewhere and adopt the monkey see, monkey do approach. It's just nonsense. There is an absolute stack of draftees at other clubs either struggling or playing 2's. We've already got too many kids in the side because of the state of our list. Some kids like Hogan, Brayshaw & Viney are good to go ... others like Stretch, JKH & Toumpas are playing because the alternatives are often far worse. Yet some here expect instant results from our draftees? Astonishing. Given the state of our list, I'm actually in favour of playing a certain amount of young players. However, it's the senior players who are supposed to be producing the goods on match day. My expectations with the youngsters who have played less than 20-30 games is tempered by a realistic approach. In reality, a player needs 60-70 games under his belt before he has arrived as a footballer (there are obviously exceptions to that rule)

The glaring issue for me (and it's been a glaring issue for a number of years) is the inability of our established or experienced players to perform to a satisfactory level when the heat is on. We can't expect to get a collective A grade output from Dawes, Watts, Pedersen, Howe, Garland, N Jones, Tyson, Vince, Lumumba & Dunn but we can expect a B grade level or a strong B (B+) Yesterday, as a collective, we got a C grade output (and that is being kind) As a team, we let ourselves down badly again. Where is the gut running, playing in front, spread, teamwork, 1%ers, disposal skills etc? Previously, it's been N Jones who has been able to stand apart on a consistent basis but he was basically on his own. This year, it's McDonald and also Salem who have put their hands up. We need a lot more from our core group of established or experienced players - focusing on kids or fringe/depth players is looking away from where the real issue is. I expected a number of our established players to improve and get better this season but in many cases, they've regressed. They need to lift.

Roos dropped 4 players and gave Watts the vest ... and we came out in the first half tonight and delivered an ordinary performance. Roos would have expected a lot better. Tonight was really disappointing - the future looks bright with the addition of our new young players but they need the leaders/experienced/established players to lead the way. Many here are wanting to drop JKH as if he's the reason we lost. He's the least of my concerns in terms of the overall team. .

That mentality has been with the team/club since '07/'08 The players who should be impacting the contest aren't ... they get enough touches to improve the stat sheet but these players rarely, if ever, play really well against the best sides (a few of our less experienced players like Salem & T-Mac did play very well tonight) They do enough to not stand out as being a candidate to be dropped but not enough to influence games. The 'ok' or 'alright' category. Our attack on the ball tonight was not up to scratch. It must be really frustrating for Roos. .

Not harsh at all - he did a couple of nice things but he should have come on and had a manic attack on the ball. He must know he is at the crossroads. Dawes was largely ineffective and Howe simply doesn't work hard enough. I didn't notice Garland much and Pedersen didn't do a lot .. the other 5 have a lot more to offer than their output at the moment (N Jones, Vince, Dunn, Tyson & Lumumba) As I said previously, we need a lot more from our experienced players than just 'ok' or 'alright'. By the way, I wasn't singling Jack out anyway - if I was, you might have a point. I named 10 players who aren't doing enough. Those here pointing the finger at the young players are looking in the wrong direction - our established and experienced players aren't doing nearly enough and they are not leading the way - Watts included. Besides all that, my original post was more a reflection on the form of those players for the whole year (so far) - not just tonight. More is expected and we're not getting it. .

Established or experienced players who had very little impact ... Dawes Watts Pedersen Howe Garland Other established or experienced players who are still down on their best and/or need to do more ... Dunn Vince N Jones Tyson Lumumba We need a greater impact from all 10 of the above players - we cannot hope to win games unless that happens. They should be leading the way and they aren't. The possession count by a few of the aforementioned 10 players was quite flattering. 'Ok' or 'Alright' doesn't cut it. The Swans were in cruise mode after half time.

On a brighter note ... Pies got smashed Tigers over-run and overrated Bombers are pretenders Hawks lost a game they would have won if Hodge & Lewis weren't rubbed out ... and hopefully the Blues lose (by a point)

Yep - he also looks to do something constructive when he gets it - Salem the same. A lot of players had dirty nights

A dozen players or more have had no impact. Trying to find 6 good players is a fruitless exercise ... Salem & T-Mac have done well. Our skills are deplorable

The above scenario has happened hundreds of other times for the past 30 years. Often a number of the better players from any given draft are scattered all over the place. It will happen again and again no matter how much we pay the recruiters. Expecting perfect results from a far from perfect system is unrealistic to say the least. Trying to project how good these draftees will be 3-5 years down the track is fraught with danger (as we've found out) .

9th might be a trifle ambitious for the Tigers - their next 4 ... vs Coll, @ Port, vs Ess, @ Freo.

So if people here don't rate Grimes why would they think he's got any trade value? Also, his new club would have to take up his current contract. Grimes stays but unless he improves, he's a depth player. It's darn near impossible to even have 32 "AFL ready" players on a list so there are advantages to having players with a fair bit of go in them as depth players ... if these players also offer up value in terms of experience, leadership and such like, all the better. We are in the process of building culture so I can definitely see the value in players like Grimes. Previously, our last 10 players (apart from rookies and draftees) haven't offered up very much at all. His biggest issue has always been that he gets knocked off the ball far too easily - and he's not suited to pin-pointing short passes. Certain players like Jack should be instructed to predominantly charge forward and kick the ball out in front of the forwards (who should be leading hard) .

We received a "grant" of 1.4 million in early 2013 and that's it (unless you can prove otherwise) By contrast, Port Adelaide received a grant of $14 million from 2011 onwards ... Grants increase Port rescue deal to $14 million ... many might read that as $1.4 million vs $14 million. The AFL possibly pointed PJ in our direction but there were and are plenty of other CEO's that can do as good a job. As for Roos, we could have gone down the track of appointing an experienced coach on previous occasions but instead chose the rookie path.

There are also a stack of draftees who need up to 3-5 years in the system before we see their best (and improvement can be expected thereafter) The examples are numerous ... T-Mac is a good example - he might end up being a B+ or even an A grade player but he only played 2 games in his first year (the last 2 games of 2011) "Nailing a draft pick" is not always about instant gratification ... the draft pick number attached to their name is often a poor guide too. Patience and top development is a key ingredient with any given draftee.

I had no issue at all with his debut year - in fact, he did better than expectations IMO.

Quite right Redleg A good example of that is Collingwood in 2006 - they received 9 prime time free-to-air games in that season after having a 5/17 record in 2005 (they also tanked in 2005 - lost their last 8 games after achieving 5 wins by round 14 of that season) Carlton are receiving a similar deal this season after being a largely dismal outfit last year.