I didn't think this was new thread worthy, but I read a somewhat interesting article in the herald sun over the weekend, entitled "What if Melbourne picked Nic Naitanui"
The premise being would we have picked Jack Watts at 2...
Maybe i'm reading to much into it but i was a little suprised by this comment:
"To be honest (whether to take Watts) wasn't a decision we had to make because we did get that late inkling that Jack was going to Melbourne and Nic was going to be available at No.2, which saved a bit of debate.''
Now it does say earlier we did all on homework on NicNat, Watts, Yarran, Rich and Hill and visited families etc,. which is to be expected but i'm just surprised by the "which saved a bit of debate" part of it.
Surely it should've been very well nutted out as to who we were taking if Melbourne took NicNat. It's not like there are loads of permutations for the guys to worry about. They other took NicNat, in which case we go to our number two priority. Or they overlook him and we take him. No matter how sure we were that melbourne were taking watts, it's not like it was that hard to have our second priority "debated" and decided upon before we go into the draft.
Reading too much into it or rightly a little off put by that comment?