And you know this how?

It's my opinion, not fact.

Is that not obvious..?

(do we need another wager?)

Very true, but my opinion is that pick 12 is way too high for him.

I thought that'd be obvious. I concede the FD know much better than I do, and should they see fit to take him that early I'll trust that decision is based on more than I know.

Do I really need to preface all my posts with "In my opinion..."?

Is there a reason that when I have an opinion I am accused of being a "keyboard warrior"?

Has it not occurred to those using this term that they are also one of these..?

If you re-read my post, I never called you a keyboard warrior. Just that the no-it-all posters from last year ridiculed Gysberts at pick 11 as being way too high.

And yes... all of us on demonland are keyboard warriors to some extent, however some posters profess their opinions as being gospel more than others do.

I know, but you did allude to it & whether you intended it or not, I've been accused of being one by other posters in the last few days.

I dislike the term.

Most Phantom Drafts don't have Mitchell going as early as 12 and I certainly haven't seen that much of the players but if we're really aiming for a KPF who plays the tall forward role differently to Watts and Jurrah, he could be our man.

One of the reasons Mitchell is not rated as highly as he might otherwise is because he was injured (shoulder) for most of the season. He was certainly rated at under 16 level and was well fancied last year. He was considered by Gold Coast as one of its 17 year old selections last year and I reckon the GC Suns regret not taking him against Alex Keath who has taken up cricket

I know what you're saying, but they'd regret taking Keath over any player that persevered with footy.

If Keath stayed with footy they wouldn't likely regret it.

I freely admit that I know next to nothing about the candidates in this years draft. Last year I put a lot of time into looking into the young players and I was absolutely thrilled with our picks (Fitzpatrick in particular), but this year with fewer high picks I've struggled for motivation. That being said, I have to agree with E25 that the phantom draft published by Clark is horse#*@!. My logic in this is quite simple. He has us taking Jacobs with our first pick. I know nothing about his quality, but I can't see us taking a medium defender with our first pick. It will either be a quality mid or a tall. I would expect the likes of Lycett, Darling, Lynch or Gorringe (although we don't expect them all to be available) to be in the mix. I don't know enough about the mids on offer to suggest any of them, but I would expect us to go that direction rather than another mid-sized defender.

I know what you're saying, but they'd regret taking Keath over any player that persevered with footy.

If Keath stayed with footy they wouldn't likely regret it.

Glad to read that you know what I'm saying but my emphasis is not on Keath in any way whatsoever. It's important to know that my point is very much that Mitchell was a "slider" because he was very much out of sight and out of mind. It's hard to tell where he might have been in the calculations had he not been injured for most of the year but there's a good case for the argument that he might have been a top 10 contender. Obviously not everybody will see it that way and it's always a risk drafting a player with a recent history of injury. Ask the blokes who drafted Selwood to Geelong and Swift to West Coast.

Impossible to tell who will be drafted where as many of the draft decisions come down to how the young men interview in person. I tend to think the dees will go after the best available at pick #12, and having not sat in on any of the interviews I really have no idea who the dees think that will be.

As for mock drafts, they are just on persons opinion. No such thing as a perfect mock draft, nobody can get it 100% right. So why bother fighting over what is pure speculation and fantasy?

I still tend to think Darling is going to be selected at pick #12 despite his apparent character flaws.

Then don't waste your time reading them or our time telling us you don't rate them.

Why did that bother you so much? I was merely saying Emma Quayle is the best judge of young talent around draft time and that I prefer her opinion to anyone else's.

If you don't like my opinions then don't waste your time reading them or telling us you don't rate them.

Ha ha.

He's already given his opinion. He's preferred pick is Darling, with good reason. Do a search if you want.

I think you and H should do lunch together. Then you wouldn't have to refer to H in each of your posts.

The issue isn't whether the opinion is right, it's the discussion it generates and what you learn.

I agree, and the whole reason I bother to read phantom drafts at all has little to do with what order the players go in. It's to gain some insight in to the types of players who will be drafted, and who in particular the author rates. Without the phantoms, I wouldn't know Jack Riewoldt from Jack Juniper. I learn truckloads about the young players that I'd know zero about otherwise. It also an air of mystery when someone like a Jordie McKenzie, Liam Jurrah or Jordan Gysberts appear on our laps completely unexpectedly, then you discover that you've found absolute gold.

It's the same thing that bugs me about the types of posters who say carp like "well what bold predictions have you made recently?" (Demonology readers know who I'm talking about.) "What's your prediction?" style threads don't interest me much either. Who gives a shit what yours or my or anyone's crystal ball says right now? It's the discussion and insight that is interesting, not the "ha ha I was right, you were wrong" pissing contest that comes afterwards.

I agree, and the whole reason I bother to read phantom drafts at all has little to do with what order the players go in. It's to gain some insight in to the types of players who will be drafted, and who in particular the author rates. Without the phantoms, I wouldn't know Jack Riewoldt from Jack Juniper. I learn truckloads about the young players that I'd know zero about otherwise. It also an air of mystery when someone like a Jordie McKenzie, Liam Jurrah or Jordan Gysberts appear on our laps completely unexpectedly, then you discover that you've found absolute gold.

It's the same thing that bugs me about the types of posters who say carp like "well what bold predictions have you made recently?" (Demonology readers know who I'm talking about.) "What's your prediction?" style threads don't interest me much either. Who gives a [censored] what yours or my or anyone's crystal ball says right now? It's the discussion and insight that is interesting, not the "ha ha I was right, you were wrong" pissing contest that comes afterwards.

Agreed.

I agree, and the whole reason I bother to read phantom drafts at all has little to do with what order the players go in. It's to gain some insight in to the types of players who will be drafted, and who in particular the author rates. Without the phantoms, I wouldn't know Jack Riewoldt from Jack Juniper. I learn truckloads about the young players that I'd know zero about otherwise. It also an air of mystery when someone like a Jordie McKenzie, Liam Jurrah or Jordan Gysberts appear on our laps completely unexpectedly, then you discover that you've found absolute gold.

It's the same thing that bugs me about the types of posters who say carp like "well what bold predictions have you made recently?" (Demonology readers know who I'm talking about.) "What's your prediction?" style threads don't interest me much either. Who gives a [censored] what yours or my or anyone's crystal ball says right now? It's the discussion and insight that is interesting, not the "ha ha I was right, you were wrong" pissing contest that comes afterwards.

Great post Nasher