Gator

The only contention was that it was not a "complete lottery". You said it was, hence my response.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous assertion to say "it's a complete lottery". I didn't really want to expand, because, unlike some, I don't need to monotonously hear the sound of my own voice, and genuinely didn't think I needed to explain what was an inane proposition, however... In 31 drafts the draft pick with the most average number of games is pick 1 (143). The second highest average is pick 2 (128). The third is pick 3 (124). And lo and behold pick 5 happens to be no. 4 (103) ! If it was a "complete lottery" the top 3 draft picks wouldn't have the top 3 success rates over these 31 drafts. Clearly the science has improved over more recent years, so these types of results will continue. Nine of the top 10 draft picks (worst of those 9 being 84), average more games than any pick chosen from pick 20 onwards (assuming that pick has been involved in at least 20 drafts, which takes us to pick 75). Naturally there will be nuances where a later pick like 56 - 82 games might have 3 or 4 x 200 game players, which boosts averages, but the overall numbers (shown above) are compelling and certainly not representative of a "complete lottery". Obviously, as a Melbourne supporter I know there is no guarantee, that's obvious, but there's a reason clubs try to improve their draft position, like we did this year, and clubs like the Saints, who orchestrated 6 x top 22 draft picks over the last 2 years for this current rebuild. No-one has ever stated that drafts wouldn't be completely re-done with the benefit of hindsight, but early picks give clubs the best chance at cherry picking top end talent. To state that drafts are a complete lottery and that every pick from 1-75 has an equal value simply disregards empirical evidence. Having seen some of your postings over the journey I have no doubt that none of the above will sway you. And I couldn't care less. Cheers...

I'm too young to remember Tassie, but an older Brother had this image as a huge poster on the back of his bedroom door. Thanks for sharing.

Worse. Much worse. Although it was 2009 and some still defend him.

No, it's not.

You're going to respond to every suggestion until now and draft day that doesn't have Parish at 3, aren't you ?

Steve, you are not allowed to discuss a player's frame pre-draft.

And there's your glaring issue. Hogan is the only quality forward. We desperately need a Gunston, Stringer or Darling type. Someone who isn't the main focus, but can kick 50+ goals. I don't disagree that we need outside class, but 50 goal talls are much harder to find, which is why I like the idea of Curnow. The best talls are usually taken early. Vince, Jones, Viney, Tyson, vandenBerg, Brayshaw, Petracca, Trengove, Salem, Stretch, ANB, and now Kennedy, Melksham and Bugg provide a solid group who can rotate through the middle. It really depends on who our recruiters think are best available. They may think Curnow has huge upside to partner Hogan and is too good to ignore. Obviously many of our mids are a work in progress, but if they reach the heights expected we'll be pretty well covered except for a real line breaker. I'd rather that be the last piece in the puzzle than overlook a potential Stringer type. Although, I also reckon Petracca could be our Stringer and better

Brett Anderson once again said this afternoon he thinks the Dees will take Curnow at pick 3. I don't know whether it is pure speculation or an educated guess with a bit more substance.

Retired.

Former West Coast players have publicly stated that the shocking plane travel every second week shortened careers. Why would a big tall with a history of back issues want to potentially shorten his career. He may leave the Dees, but imo it won't be to go home to WA.

Chin up big guy. He loves being a Dee.

Flattery.

He looked far better than that to me, but if you're right with that desription he won't go near top 10.

In all likelihood this thread will be "bumped" in 3 years, so I'd like this on record. Mathieson will be a gun. I keep reading that he can't kick, but to me this looks a ridiculous exaggeration. He's such a natural and tough footballer he'll be invaluable with his smart clearances around stoppages. My preference is for a mid and forward/utility and you could do far worse than making certain of Curnow at 3 and Mathieson at 7. I also want the finishing class Parish brings and recognise it's a need, but there are a few scenarios that will serve the club well.

It's true that he's a confidence player. In juniors he could get away with being a poor contested ball winner, whereas it has found him out at AFL level. I have strong doubts he'll ever be better than a bog ordinary AFL player.

Has anyone ever said that you're a very smart man ?

Maybe he just does that football thing really well ?

Quigley is the best writer about junior footy I've seen on BF (other than Wisbey). Imo, he's a mile ahead of the prolific Knightmare. Unfortunately, I don't think he's done the last couple of years.

You don't see many players that look idiot proof when it comes to drafting. This guy is idiot proof.

Isn't it time to ban this ^^ [censored] ?

Parish, Curnow, whoever. The first time in a long time I'm completely at ease with who we take.

Without a word of a lie, his name crossed my mind.

As has been mentioned previously, Parish's "highlights": video comes from one bloody game.

I've only seen the highlights and there's definite raw bone potential, but Oliver looks like he lacks that smooth top 10 class. But, it's just based on highlights.