I agree with Surrey. He has to take blame for what he did but when he left in 2000, we were still OK. The 2000 and 2001 drafts followed by the penalties in 2002-3 were the big contributing factors in our demise.

He reamins one of our best coaches ever, if not the best. Still upset about the seletions for 93GF though

_________________
T E A M

it is not so much Parkin, I blame Elliot for most of this mess. Besides the obvious salary cap stuff and running the club into the ground, Carlton were very very slow to adapt to the draft system. Finding the best young draft talent was not on our radar...it was all about attempting to buy teams.

Probably the thing that magnifys our current situation is poor drafting in 2000. We had some high picks and they all turned out to be duds. Livingston, Prendergast etc should be leaders at the club now, but they were duds. We had some awful years of recruiting prior to losing those draft picks.

They have all cleared out now but the team is not playing for the coach and perhaps some new faces alone might change things quickly.

You watch things will change quickly once change is implemented. They are talented kids that are lacking direction. I am not concerned that they ar enot playing well now. Immature minds and bodies can be moulded, but the problem is if you leave it too long before implementing change, it is hard to teach older dogs new tricks.

actually agree with him 100%, players like Murphy, Gibbs, Russell etc.. shouldnt be even getting a game until they hit 20-21, their bodies are just not up to the physical demands of the modern game.

it shits me no end when people bag kids who have just come into the game, expecting them to play like they are 5 year veterans.


Luke Ball is a classic example of this - also Kozi. The saints had no choice but to play kids and they have been physically smashed. Sometimes I fear JK ending up with the same sort of injuries that Kozi has had.

_________________
I'm shocked to be sitting here

its almost sad to see Luke Ball like he is at the moment.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

I understand what you are saying but nobody is concerned for the condition of Hawthorns`list and they are the youngest in the comp.I think it may make our young players even hungrier for success having gone through this bleak period.To me its about player management.

I think some people have selective memory.
In 2000, we traded to get 3 first round draft picks. 4,11 and 15 from memory.
Credit should go to Parkin and Brittain for looking long term on this occasion.

You cant blame the coaches for the quality of players selected.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Bingo!

firstly, i wrote it, but secondly, what you just said is wrong IMO

the starting 22 for Cartlon would be the youngest by far in the AFL

the starting 22 for Hawthorn would be nothing like the average age of Carlton and when you remove a player like Kouta, Lappin etc. who dont give us a great deal, we are even younger again.

same goes for collingwood when they talk about how good they are going with their kids.

Carlton and perhaps Richmond are the only sides in the same position at the moment and that is they have young kids playing in prime positions becuase they have to.

Hawthorn is not the same

Take out

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

What about 1999- Rounds 1,2,3 for O'Reilly, Mansfield
2001 - Rounds 1 and 2 for Corey Mac.

Can we blame them for that

In hindsight 1999-2003 we didn't really participate in the draft

_________________
T E A M

I think you have a selective memory.

Pick 4 was for Hamill we did not plan to trade.

Pick 11 was for Murphy because our salary cap was bursting at the seems.

Pick 15 was our pick 15.

We traded or we were forced to trade?

Carry on.

Absolutely.

But lets not make stuff up to suit the argument. In 2000, we were proactive and did extremely well to get 3 first round picks.




Not at all. I remember how we got those picks. We could have swapped Hamill for players, swapped the picks for players or retained Murphy. The fact is we traded to get those picks and utilised them on kids.
Credit where its due.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

We can all play on words but to say he or the club was pro active in trading into the first round is comical. Parkin was a great coach for the Blues but in my eyes in his second stint he should have got 1 more flag for the club. Adelaide got 2, WCE got 2, Kangas got 2, Bombers got 2.
We got 1 flag and even Collingwood got 1 flag now that puts everything in perspective.

I'm not saying Parkin was a great coach.
I'm just saying that we didnt bastardise our draft picks in 2000 as is being intimated here.
How many flags we got etc etc etc is irrelevant to my point.

Move on.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

I'll say Parkin was a great coach.
He wasnt coach in 1990 so Collingwood didnt get a flag in his time. He got us to 3 GF in his second stint. If not for Kouta going down, it would have been 4.

_________________
T E A M

These are very pro active responses BV.

Back to the initial topic,

when Parkin said he'd have a clean-out of all of those guys, he was also asked how many of them had trade value? His answer was 2, but he didn't say which two. Obviously Fevola was one of them, but who was the other? Maybe Lance for a fourth rounder?

He also said that we could not get rid of 10 players in one draft. Also I think it may have been Shaw who said that with the draft being shallow this year perhaps it would not be worth trading Fev for early draft picks or words to that effect.

It's like saying 'I've got all this furniture in my new house that's old and crappy and will eventually get replaced with new stuff.

But rather than replace it one piece at a time I'll take my couch, chair, kitchen table and bed to the tip tomorrow because no-one will give me anything for them on ebay.

Even though I can sleep in my bed and sit on my couch with some comfort until I can afford new ones, I'll chuck em out and sit on milk crates and sleep on the floor for 2 years.

That'll show 'em.'

This draft being a bit shallow stuff can get a bit monotonous though, and eventually the club needs to make a choice I guess. The last draft which we were told was pretty poor was 2005... the top end has definitely proven itself (Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury, Ryder, etc), but even an early second rounder (I think) like Birchall seems to be providing good value.

All I am saying is that if the club wants to trade Fev, then listening to the pundits saying it is a weak draft may not be the best approach, and more draft picks may well be of greater advantage than they currently seem. I guess Cazz is the one who should know more on this issue.

Why should we trade are only A listed player for someone untried. I think that is ridiculous.

Once we have a new coach and a better direction Fev will be a different player.

IF, IF (I dont want) we have to trade him, it should be for another ELITE player that will slot right in plus a draft pick depending on the player. IE Judd, Leunberger etc