Mighty Tigers:
Despite what you say, I still believe that for the most part, the only thing our young list is missing is experience. On Saturday we were carved up by a battle-hardened side with years of pre-season's in their legs and their muscles,five solid years of (losing 
) finals experience, and a game plan that they've been adhering to for so long it's second nature to them.
Not only did we field a side of kids, many in their 1st or 2nd year, and showing distinct signs of tiring late in the year, but we were decimated by injury and suspension (Cotchin, Jackson, Foley, Griffiths, White, Thursfield, Moore), and bizarrely tried on the day to play to some zone structure, instead of man on man.This led to soft, downhill-skiing clowns like Didak and Davis, who always go missing in September, being gifted a lot of gimmee goals.
True we had a lot of key outs but the Pies were missing Shaw and Cloke and have Fraser and Medhurst in the ressies. They have depth to cover their outs and pick and choose. We obviously don't yet and IMO it's not just a wait and see with our list issue. It's also true the Pies had far more experience but what about the week before against North when we were dreadful as well. We still lack class even potential class across the park on our list. We are still scanning through our list to find out who is up to it or not. Only Jack, Lids, Cotch and Martin are potential A-graders on our list at the moment (all early picks which isn't a coincidence). Sure you need to develop and get consistent contributions from the whole 22 and beyond on your list to become a good side but classier youngsters are easier to develop and it's class that wins flags. It's why the Pies go missing in September because they lack classy players where and when it counts most in finals. That class is found these days at the top end of the draft.
If, as you say, we stock up on more kids with high draft picks, by this stage next year they too will be running out of puff and being brushed aside by more experienced teams. It's just an unfortunate part of being inexperienced. To say that our list still needs major work is an insult to the huge raft of kids that we've drafted in the last 2 years. To use an agricultural metaphor, no farmer tries to harvest his crop as soon as he's planted the seeds. Let's see how these kids are with 4 or 5 pre-season's under their belts.
The bit in bold is the whole point to rebuilding. You need to bottom out properly over a couple of years, take your medicine as a club and use the draft system to your maximum advantage. By winning just 2.5 more games in the past two seasons we have cost ourselves another top 20 pick last year and another top 6 pick this year. Imagine if we could have added two young guns inside the top 6 of this year's draft to our existing promising cubs. Or last year instead of searching in whoop-whoop for a Roberts with a late rookie pick, we pick up a top 20 kid who is committed to and capable of a successful AFL career. It's what Melbourne did last year and the year before that. It's what Hawthorn, St Kilda, Collingwood and the Bulldogs did during the past decade. They played the system for all its worth. Other clubs will improve as well and their youth will improve. We haven't yet seen most of Melbourne's kids from the past 2 drafts yet. When you get an opportunity to gain an advantage over the other clubs you should jump at it.
As for my argument re:Collingwood and Geelong. Okay, as I've acknowledged, I forgot the Pies got a couple of high picks in 2004/5. But we still have w-a-y more top 10 draft picks running around than them or Geelong. Boththose clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
Our top 10 picks who played last weekend: Lids, Jack and Martin. That's just 3. We were missing Cotch while Vickery and Tambling were dropped to the ressies. That's just six all up. If you count Jack as a first rounder then it's seven. We haven't had the luxury of quality Father-Sons walking in by the cheap like the Cats and Pies did. We are only half-way there in the rebuild of our list and at least 3 years minimum away from playing finals IMO. Playing the system for all its worth would accelerate our ascension into a top side.
Geelong: Mackie (7), Selwood (7), Corey (8 ), Bartel (8 ), Varcoe (15), Kelly (17), Taylor (17), Ablett (F/S), Scarlett (F/S), Hawkins (F/S), traded two first rounders for Ottens.
Steven King who played in their 2007 flag was a compensation pick back in the mid-90s.
Tenace (7) was a flop.
Collingwood: Fraser (1), Thomas (2), Didak (3), Pendlebury (5), Reid (8 ), Presti (10), Brown (10), Jolly (14), Wood (14), Shaw (F/S), Cloke (F/S).
So they both aren't first rounders poor. As has been mentioned what both clubs have done better than us is use their 2nd and 3rd round picks. Finishing low on the ladder gives you higher 2nd and 3rd rounders especially in these compromised draft. It's all about giving our recruiters a greater draft pool to select from to find the best possible young players available.
Remember in this draft you need to finish bottom 3 just to finish up with pick 8 which in a normal draft belonged to the club that finished ninth. Finishing 9th-11th this year and you end up with a lousy first pick in the mid-late teens plus very late 2nd and 3rd round picks. It would be recruiting suicide for us.
The other thing to remember is recruiting methods, statistics and scouting are more rigorous and sophisticated nowdays compared to even 5-10 years ago so there are fewer mistakes with selections being made at the top end of the draft. The top 7 kids of the 2009 draft are playing seniors in their debut year and all look the goods. It's no coincidence. This year 100 kids will attend the upcoming draft camp with all its kicking etc tests. The guesswork in drafting at the top end has ever so slowly being minimised. Richmond should use that increasing certainty to add more class and quality to our list.
