4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

What's your view on Dylan Stephens AF? I liked his highlights and what I've read but admit I have no clue. 

I do realise this is the Pickett thread and after seeing his highlights I'd be excited if we picked him.

I have as much clue about Stephens as you mate and probably being slightly provocative, but he appears to be a soft outsider with neat skills. I don't see the love for him and his SANFL stats of basically 18 touches a game doesn't do much for me.

I'm probably a bit burnt by Trengove and Toumpas, whose experience in the SANFL failed to translate to the top level.

Once again, if our guys rate him, I'll trust them, but he doesn't seem like a 'Melbourne' player to me.

Our record with Dwarves is diabolical.

S'pose we could get lucky eventually.

Pick 10 though? How bout best player at 10 and not a needs-based Hail Mary?

2 minutes ago, A F said:

Once again, if our guys rate him, I'll trust them, but he doesn't seem like a 'Melbourne' player to me.

You mean he's going to make an immediate impact, develop beautifully, remain injury free and play 200 plus games?

Is it a scent to make Port Adelaide trade for our pick 10, we get 12 & another pick in teens. 
Weightman & ??

8 minutes ago, Vineytime said:

Is it a scent to make Port Adelaide trade for our pick 10, we get 12 & another pick in teens. 
Weightman & ??

Rather we did this before 2.00pm yesterday.  So many things can go wrong, leaving it until,the night. ?

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Loves a hang time though...

 

Very nice for someone to take a hanger in a school game but there’s a long, long road to the place of a professional football match.

I'm conflicted. 

Pickett is exactly what we need, but a needs based top 10 pick ?

I'll rationalise it as a broader list management decision that helps with the final touches.

Edited November 23, 20195 yr by ProDee

18 minutes ago, Vineytime said:

Is it a scent to make Port Adelaide trade for our pick 10, we get 12 & another pick in teens. 
Weightman & ??

Very possible. 

Feels like an overpay and that we're getting sucked into draft trends. Small forwards were undboubtedly undervalued at the draft a few years ago and now teams are rushing to pick them early. For example Gryan Miers went pick 57 a few years ago despite kicking 7 goals in a TAC cup grand final. Can't believe we didn't pick him up. Pickett averaged less than 12 touches a game this year, kicked only 17 goals, is tiny at 170cm, yet we are thinking of picking him at 10?

Don’t believe we will pick him at 10. Seems massive overs. We prob have 4/5 options for a split where we could pick him and another player. 10 makes no sense. 

I've just spent the last hour looking at highlights, reading articles and listening to a radio interview of this young man.  I think this fella could be the next C Rioli. And that is worth a first round pick to me.  Very exciting and has a natural ability to create pressure and panic in opposition.

42 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I'm conflicted. 

Pickett is exactly what we need, but a needs based top 10 pick ?

I'll rationalise it as a broader list management decision that helps with the final touches.

Post academy bids, it'll probably end up being pick 12. The fact it won't be a top 10 pick makes me feel better about it.

I’m on the Jackson/ Pickett wagon. They’re both players I’d be excited about having on the list with huge upsides. Without having any of the knowledge that recruiters have I just feel that so much of what goes into the thinking process must be re how we realistically imagine they will develop or cope with the next level. So many  Players that dominate in underage footy don’t make the step up. Weid may yet come on but he’s a prime example. Keogh was a much less polished  player in that draft but in all likelihood is going to be twice the player weid will be. You cant pick players only on exposed junior form. So if the recruiters choose these two I’m right on board. 

Kozzzy Pickett or Elijjjjah Taylor at pick 28 would be a great draft swoop. We need exciting small indigenous players. 

I don't buy into the hype, I'd be shocked if we picked him up at 10. You need to be Shane Crawford good to make it at his size. Might turn out to be a player, odds are against him though.

1 hour ago, Greendale said:

Pickett averaged less than 12 touches a game this year, kicked only 17 goals, is tiny at 170cm, yet we are thinking of picking him at 10?

This. I'm all for drafting on potential, but surely runs on the board have to come into it at some point. Happy to take the punt on him at 28, but there are safer options available in the first round with more upside IMO. Drafting for such specific needs so early in the draft has desperation written all over it.

3 hours ago, Pulp Fritschon said:

Kossie at 10 seems a stretch but I don’t mind a bolter. The top 10 rated kids going into the draft are never the top 10 players a few years down the track. 

 

 

Exactly.

It’s highly unlikely Rowell and Anderson will end up being the best 2 players in the draft when we review in 10 years.

I feel like Pickett could be the beneficiary (or victim depending on how you look at it) of media hype. I think he’s worth a spot on an AFL list but doesn’t strike me as a top 15-20 pick. I know stats aren’t everything but his numbers aren’t exactly mind blowing. 

Would seem like an overpay at pick 10. 

Right now, honestly who knows what we will do but i have my concerns if its Jackson at 3 and Pickett at 10. I believe Pickett is a player we need, we need quick players in teh fwd line, but him at 10 v a Kemp or an Ash.. im not sure.

But can remember saying Oliver at 4 is a bad move so what would i know. What i do know is the minute they are called out by us i will  back them in 100% and they will be Melbourne Football Club players and i hope part of the elusive success we are craving.

9 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Exactly.

It’s highly unlikely Rowell and Anderson will end up being the best 2 players in the draft when we review in 10 years.

I remember the 2000 draft when Riewoldt, Ball and Judd were selected as the top 3. And realistically were the top 3, although you could argue about which one came where. But that seems to be far more the exception to the rule than the norm. 

1 minute ago, Wells 11 said:

I remember the 2000 draft when Riewoldt, Ball and Judd were selected as the top 3. And realistically were the top 3, although you could argue about which one came where. But that seems to be far more the exception to the rule than the norm. 

Reiwoldt wasn't in the Judd/Ball draft.

12 and 18 would be good 

Jackson 3 

Weightman 12 

Pickett 18

3 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Reiwoldt wasn't in the Judd/Ball draft.

Oops yes, reiwoldt was 2000. But in 2001 it was hodge, ball, Judd. Same essential meaning. 

22 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Oops yes, reiwoldt was 2000. But in 2001 it was hodge, ball, Judd. Same essential meaning. 

You could definitely put a strong case that Hodge and Judd were top 3 prospects of that draft. Luke Ball not so much.

39 minutes ago, Demon3 said:

Right now, honestly who knows what we will do but i have my concerns if its Jackson at 3 and Pickett at 10. I believe Pickett is a player we need, we need quick players in teh fwd line, but him at 10 v a Kemp or an Ash.. im not sure.

But can remember saying Oliver at 4 is a bad move so what would i know. What i do know is the minute they are called out by us i will  back them in 100% and they will be Melbourne Football Club players and i hope part of the elusive success we are craving.

You didn't seriously think parish was going to be a better player a skinny inside mid player never works

I reckon he is exactly what we need, and worth splitting 10 again for as it seems we can potentially get him in the late teens.