Case in point, Melbourne are now being lauded for their drafting/talent ID over the past 4/5 years, yet who would they have taken (according to Melbourne themselves) at picks 2 and 2/3, in the 2013 and 2014 drafts respectively?
Jack Billings (who Roos says they would have taken ahead of Josh Kelly had they kept pick 2) and Patrick McCartin.
Why, because they are "dud drafters", like Trout supposedly is, or because those two were considered extremely talented, after outstanding junior careers, and consensus top 3 picks, who the guys that identified Hogan, Oliver, Petracca, Brayshaw, Neal-Bullen, Hunt, Fritsch etc would have drafted at either picks 2 or 3?
I'm going to go with the latter, and I would also confidently say that had they been at a club with better development and coaching, and with better current leadership, they would be tracking far better than they currently are with us (even taking into account Paddy's injury issues).
We saw the talent that Billings for instance possesses last year. Three 3 Brownlow vote games, including one of 30 disposals and 5 goals, yet this year he's battling big time, despite a second full type preseason and being closer to his prime years.
Is that because he's untalented and those games he played last year (or his 25 disposal 3 goal game in his first season, or his matchwinning game v WB in his 2nd season, etc) didn't actually happen, or what?
He has the talent, but it's the job of those coaching/developing him to bring out that talent on a consistent basis, and they're clearly not doing that. If it's not in fact their job, what the hell are we wasting our money paying them for?
He, like so many others on our list, is not playing anywhere near as well as we know from past experience he can, which means that Richo and his team are failing to get the best out of them, and that I would have thought is coaching at its core.
Getting the best out of your team and those in it.
If you're not getting anywhere near close to that, what point is there in you being there?