1 hour ago, manny100 said:

Suggestions in the press that we should not pick up Jackson or Pickett at 3 and 10 because rucks and small forwards get picked up later than those picks is the 'Gamblers fallacy' at work.

Whether rucks or small forwards at high picks have dudded in the past will not be a consideration.

The suggestion that rucks and small forwards get picked up later is due to historically less chance of success. That's not a gambler's fallacy. I'll let Wikipedia explain: A gambler's fallacy 'is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random, this belief is false.'

Flipping a coin is a closed system - the result of the toss being the outcome. You're trying to argue away what we call science - assessing consistent outcomes, hypothesising the cause, and testing the hypothesis. Due to the nature of AFL, it's very difficult to test any hypothesis, and our science hasn't progressed far. There are also other randomised factors involved, such as certain contact injuries.

But you don't throw away the data on outcomes and conclude that they're random because you can't  fully discover the cause - that's called religion. I can assure you that the prevalence of rucks or small forwards at high picks having dudded in the past will be a consideration - it's just a matter of how much weight we give to it.

We should not take Pickett unless he is best available at our pick IMO. As exciting as his highlights look, #10 looks like a big reach to me. 

Yes and that is exactly what I said. The mistaken belief is that if rucks and small forwards dud out with high picks then that 'roll' will either continue or reverse (vice versa).  The point here is that it has the same effect as the gamblers fallacy simply because people believe it will happen regardless of randomness. Its the state of mind trends induce. Its happened so many times before its bound to happen again or vice versa. 

Of course it will be considered because human nature picks up trends. But in reality the trend or run of heads or tail is irrelevant because its the player research that matters when matching pick and player.

Pickett at 10 would be one of the biggest reaches of all time. He’s not a top 10 talent. Pick 28 if he’s there maybe, but pick 10?! Madness!

We traded next years first rounder and a host of picks to get a second pick the top 10. Surely we wouldn’t use it on a 170cm player who doesn’t hit the scoreboard or find the ball!

Taylor was lost me in the job for too long.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I like the logic in all of that but....

We also haven’t had a first round pick for 4 years and pick 10 comes from next years pick when the view of the list could be significantly difference. Vince, Lewis gone, Jones all but, Hibbo and Nev possibly soon. That’s a lot of steady quality going/gone. 

Whilst Ryan and Rioli were involved it was the bland and unspectacular top 10 pick Dom Sheed who had 30 touches and kicked the match winner. I’m inclined to be conservative and take the player who’s more cake than icing. 

So you rationalise why they're doing it - if they do ?

Btw, I don't see a high pressure small forward as "icing".  They're crucial in the modern game.  Surprised you don't see that. 

Fwiw, I'd prefer best available at pick 10, not Pickett.  But I can understand if they pull the trigger.

Edited November 23, 20195 yr by ProDee

Hawthorn are a prime example of a reason to pick up Pickett at 10....

I have to keep reminding myself in these threads, the draft hasn’t happened yet and we haven’t actually selected anyone..

If you’re getting worked up about something that hasn’t even happened yet, with limited knowledge compared to the recruiters then you seriously need to book a decent holiday or hit some 420.

Edited November 23, 20195 yr by Beetle

1 hour ago, manny100 said:

Yes and that is exactly what I said. The mistaken belief is that if rucks and small forwards dud out with high picks then that 'roll' will either continue or reverse (vice versa).  The point here is that it has the same effect as the gamblers fallacy simply because people believe it will happen regardless of randomness. Its the state of mind trends induce. Its happened so many times before its bound to happen again or vice versa. 

Of course it will be considered because human nature picks up trends. But in reality the trend or run of heads or tail is irrelevant because its the player research that matters when matching pick and player.

I'm not sure that you even remotely read my post.

It's not that rucks and smalls dud out with high picks - it's that they often dud out, and so using a high pick is a bigger risk.

The very simple gist is - success factors in football are mostly not random. 

If rucks generally take longer to develop and struggle to make it, it's probably not a random coincidence.

If top prospects from the SANFL consistently struggle to shine in the AFL, there may be something behind it. 

If draftees who receive a high proportion of their ball on the outside tend not to make it, then it's worth considering.

If heads or tails has come up five times in a row, then this is random. 

37 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Taylor was lost me in the job for too long.

We haven't even drafted yet,   its all speculation right now.

Never believe what you read in the media - they are the enemy of the people.

1 hour ago, WERRIDEE said:

Taylor was lost me in the job for too long.

 

Me like alcohols too.

 

 

 

*hic

there's three theories with draft picks:

- he ends up a star; i always wanted him!
- he's a good, not great player; he's fine...i guess, but if only we picked xyz!
- he's no good; i never wanted him in the first place

it's all pot luck and then development

2 hours ago, Beetle said:

If you’re getting worked up about something that hasn’t even happened yet, with limited knowledge compared to the recruiters then you seriously need to book a decent holiday or hit some 420.

Or into a psychiatry ward.

I get the feeling we'll be trying to split the pick in order to get both Picket and Weightman if at all possible. 

2 hours ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I get the feeling we'll be trying to split the pick in order to get both Picket and Weightman if at all possible. 

I get this - turn 10 into two strikes at longer-odds needs-based. 

(Our draft-hand and pick-trade movements have to be looked at holistically) 

Port would be the one who should net us both. 12 & 18 in exchange for 10 & 28 & future 4th. 

Gets us ahead of the Dogs on Weightman at 13 and should be enough to land Pickett. 

I suppose the key would be Stephens (or another decent prospect) still on the table at 10.

Though I think there will still be someone of interest in the mix at 13 who the Dogs will prioritise. 

So that opens up Geelong at 14 & 17 as well - and then, repeating, GC at 15 & 20.

But I think Port are then a threat on KP at 18 if they also hold 12 &16. 

I wasn't a fan of us trading down from 8 pre-draft - as that was the absolute sweet spot. 

But we may have calculated that 10 is also also a decent sweet spot, and with 28 gives us extra flexibility. 

He's not going to last till 28.

5 hours ago, Skuit said:

I get this - turn 10 into two strikes at longer-odds needs-based. 

(Our draft-hand and pick-trade movements have to be looked at holistically) 

Port would be the one who should net us both. 12 & 18 in exchange for 10 & 28 & future 4th. 

Gets us ahead of the Dogs on Weightman at 13 and should be enough to land Pickett. 

I suppose the key would be Stephens (or another decent prospect) still on the table at 10.

Though I think there will still be someone of interest in the mix at 13 who the Dogs will prioritise. 

So that opens up Geelong at 14 & 17 as well - and then, repeating, GC at 15 & 20.

But I think Port are then a threat on KP at 18 if they also hold 12 &16. 

I wasn't a fan of us trading down from 8 pre-draft - as that was the absolute sweet spot. 

But we may have calculated that 10 is also also a decent sweet spot, and with 28 gives us extra flexibility. 

I wasn't a fan of trading 8 either, and it now appears we are a chance to miss out on the Jackson/Young combo 

but hopefully whatever we do with pick 10 comes off. it feels a pretty big gamble.

If it were me in charge i think i'd be looking to trade 

28 and our future second from the Hawks to Port for pick 18 

Pick 3 to the Dockers for 7, 8 - they'll be desperate for Luke Jackson and likely bid on Green which helps us

7 - Young

8 - Ash 

10 - Weightman 

18 - Pickett 

and our other two list spots are filled by Brown and Bennell 

Edited November 23, 20195 yr by Patches O’houlihan

35 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I wasn't a fan of trading 8 either, and it now appears we are a chance to miss out on the Jackson/Young combo 

but hopefully whatever we do with pick 10 comes off. it feels a pretty big gamble.

If it were me in charge i think i'd be looking to trade 

28 and our future second from the Hawks to Port for pick 18 

Pick 3 to the Dockers for 7, 8 - they'll be desperate for Luke Jackson and likely bid on Green which helps us

7 - Young

8 - Ash 

10 - Weightman 

18 - Pickett 

and our other two list spots are filled by Brown and Bennell 

We cannot trade that pick as we dont have a first round next year

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

He's not going to last till 28.

And there lies the dilemma.  

As someone mentioned above, I still see us as a chance of trading pick 10 for two picks in the teens (with our pick 28 thrown in as well) so we can select the players we want without 'reaching' too much.

It's a hard one, and i am a bit torn. I like Pickett, i really do, and he's exactly what we need. He fits the Goodwin style of play with his hard and aggressive approach to the contest. His not a Jeff Garlett type but definitely more your Byron Pickett/Cyril Rioli type.

I am torn because at pick 10, you have the likes of Ash, Kemp, Robertson and even Young who are probably more talented  and still be available around that mark.

In saying that if the club decides with Pickett at 10 then i can see why they would go with this approach.  He fits a significant need for us and i can see him playing senior footy early in his career. Having the likes of May, Jetta and Bennell to a degree play a leadership role for Pickett will only do him wonders.

 

 

On 7/22/2019 at 4:32 PM, olisik said:

Taylor also drafted an inside contested mid (Sparrow) with our second rounder last year. The same year we traded away Tyson because we had too many inside contested mids...

Great trade. Tyson was a 1 trick pony and not a great one at that. Also didn't play this year and we got a potential gun that can play multiple positions.

Win win.

ok. all aboard. i'm keen. but please don't waste 3 on jackson! anyone else, its just DUMB. happy to take picket at 10, but prefer it if we could possible get another pick under 20 as well.. hopefully there's secret deals going on behind the scenes and the recruitment staff are smarter than they have been the past few years. don't waste assets/picks.

Edited November 24, 20195 yr by Rocky

I still can’t see us taking Pickett at 10, despite what has been reported. Weightman maybe. I would rather Stephens if available, and a small forward at 28. Hopefully we split 10 & get Weightman/Pickett & someone else, or both of them.

Using a high draft pick on a small forward seems like a waste to me 

Have to love Pickett’s aggression and power. Also like how he uses both feet in the highlights. Can see why he is on our radar with pick 10. 

Jackson and Pickett are far from the safe combo but I am actually beginning to like it.