Accepting Mediocrity

I'd love to hope so, but statistically it's unlikely. Even Curnow took until his 3rd year before he averaged more than 1 goal per game. The only 2m talls I can recall having any real impact early on were Joe Daniher and Ben King. Jackson looks an incredible athlete, but raw footballer to me. I'd be surprised if he cements his place in the team before the first 'Trade Jackson' thread crops up.

I think I'm in the minority, but I still hold high hopes for the Weed. Has the traits you look for in a key forward - tackles to hurt, good set of hands and is a lovely kick of the footy. Had a shocker in 2019, but wasn't on his own there. He's still only 22 and played 31 games. Admittedly, we'd want to see solid improvement in 2020, but his best footy is still a few years away yet.

This - it's not as though our forwards were leading into space all year and the mids kept kicking it over their heads. The loss of Hogan, poor form and injury to key players hurt us badly, but our structure forward of center was a farce.

I'm as excited as anyone about Kozzie's highlight reel, but it's worth remembering that he didn't make any impact in the SANFL seniors this year. He's exactly what we lack, but it might be a few years before we see more than the odd cameo I suspect. Jackson almost certainly won't have any meaningful impact for a few years yet. Anything we get out of them in the meantime is a bonus.

Barring injury, you'd expect both Jackson and Pickett to spend a bit of time in our forwardline this year. Neither is likely to have much impact. Ranked by importance, I think the biggest scope for our forwardline to improve comes from: 1 - McDonald rediscovering his mojo (clunking marks, 40+ goals, gives us a focal point - we're a different team when he's playing well). 2 - Close to a full season from Melksham, Fritsch and Hannan (all are relatively known quantities, all were badly missed in 2019). 3 - Continued development from at least 1 of Weideman and Petty to cement their place as a 2nd tall. Don't need either to tear games apart, but a genuine 2nd marking threat would be nice. 4 - Petracca to continue current trajectory (and more consistency over 4 quarters). 5 - The odd cameo from Pickett (if he plays 10-15 games and averages a goal and a few big tackles a game, I'd consider it a win for a first year player). 6 - Jackson to show some positive signs (but should spend most of the year at Casey). Oh, and some decent delivery wouldn't go astray either.

With so many sliders likely to be available, you can almost put your house on us recruiting a kid none of us have heard of.

We've been saying that since 2009. Gotta be right eventually I suppose.

No doubt you're right - not that it's entirely fair. His job is to assess talent, but it's up to the rest of the coaches to decide which players suit our team. You'd suspect the coaches had a fair bit of influence on the decision to recruit Pickett.

Just goes to show how much utter smack gets thrown around in the media in the lead up to the draft. '2 clear standouts - then a group of 10-12 very evenly rated, then it drops off a cliff from there' was the consensus. Kemp sliding to 17 and Robertson slipping outside round 1 suggests recruiters thought differently.

Never heard of Orange-Bellied or Swift Parrots? Highly migratory. (Discussing bird migration tendencies still has more relevance than whether Jackson might or might not get homesick).

I feel for Taylor. For better or for worse, his reputation (among supporters at least) will either be greatly enhanced or shot to pieces depending on how we do out of this draft. Our recruiting team seems to have decided that Jackson and Pickett, despite being somewhat unconventional picks, have enough upside to be worth the price. To a large extent, recruiting is still a game of probabilities, however. There's every chance the cards don't fall our way simply through bad luck, and the players we select are deemed failures by the Demonland jury. Hindsight is 20/20 after all. One thing is for certain - the likes of Kemp, Young, Green et al will be brought up every time they play a good game until they retire, while the other high picks who didn't make the grade will be conveniently ignored. Good luck to him!

I'm as skeptical as anyone about picking such an unproven small prospect with pick 11, but given that it he seems to be close to a lock, I'm slowly managing to convince myself he's a gun in the making. We all know the art of drafting is picking the best player in five years time, which isn't necessarily reflected by under 18 championships stats. The recruiters have a lot more intel than us in this regard. Pickett does appear to have some special traits that can't be taught - if he can learn the rest, he'll be a player. A calculated gamble (that may or may not massively backfire). If he turns out to be a gun, I'll never question our recruiting team again. However, I reserve the right to write weekly meltdown posts on here if he turns out to be a dud.

They certainly have - the game continually evolves (stating the obvious I know). 10 years ago it was all about trying to emulate geelong - midfielders, midfielders and more midfielders. Then collingwood won a flag, and the 'Leigh Brown Role' became a thing, which resulted in average players becoming seriously overrated because they could play forward and ruck (see Kurt Tippet). I'm cautious of following the Richmond trend - I still think drafting good footballers first and foremost is a more sound strategy than trying to fill positions with first round picks. On that basis, I wouldn't be disappointed if we drafted Robertson. Also, Andrew Swallow is being seriously underrated here - sure, he was a limited footballer, but you don't captain a club and win 3 B&F's by being an average player. He dropped off a cliff because he was cooked, not because the game changed IMO.

No one is questioning whether he's the type we need, the question is whether he's actually any good. For every Eddie Betts and Charlie Cameron, there's a whole stack of small forwards that don't make the grade.

Like all of us, I have no idea if Jackson will be any good. But the fact that he's from WA shouldn't alter our decision IMO, unless it comes down to a genuine 50/50 between him and a local kid. At some point you need to back yourself to retain interstate players. If he leaves down the track, so be it. Better than drawing a line through half the talent pool. The likely alternative (Green) is from NSW anyway. Apparently they can get a pretty good idea via bone structure analysis (not sure how specifically). I read somewhere that he measured a similar height at the start and end of the year, and so is unlikely to have much growth left in him. Regardless, an extra 2-3cm means SFA in the scheme of things. If he's a bust, it won't be because he's too short.

I foresee only 2 possible scenarios: 1 - Pass on Jackson and Pickett, watch them become the next Grundy and Betts, while the players we select make Cale Morton look elite. Demonland melts. 2 - Draft Jackson and Pickett, watch them spud it up until they get traded/ de-listed. Then watch Green, Young and Kemp go on to win multiple brownlows, premierships, norm smiths and Nobel Prizes, all while regularly rushing into burning orphanages to save small children. Demonland melts.

Seems highly unlikely that Sydney wouldn't bid for Green, knowing that GWS would take him regardless. Surely Robertson and Kemp won't slide that far. Still hoping we take Kemp.

They were in the minority from memory - most saw that Oliver, whilst raw, had serious potential. He dominated the 2nd half of the year and won the TAC Cup B&F, all while a long way off AFL fitness standards. Perhaps he was a 'riskier' pick than Parish, but he at least had the kind of exposed form you look for in a top draft pick. Those advocating against Pickett, myself included, aren't against high risk/ high reward drafting on principle. He just seems like too much of a long shot to be worth the price of pick 10 (especially considering what we gave up to get it). Drafting so blatantly on a needs basis rarely ends well. The obvious alternatives (Kemp, Stephens, Serong, potentially Young) aren't exactly safe options either, but seem lower risk with just as much upside.

I don't think this really applies come draft time - mock drafts in the media are generally pretty spot on a week out from the draft (especially for the first round). Clubs might still be weighing up certain picks, but if all the phantom drafts have us taking Pickett, at worst it means we are strongly considering him.

Agreed - they are both indigenous forwards with skills, that's about where the similarity ends I reckon. AMT looks a far better comparison in terms of body type and attributes.

Yeah, you're right actually. Regardless, Daniel shot up the draft boards based on actual output (4 goals in a TAC cup final, among the best afield in the AFL grand final curtain raiser, won the repeat sprint test at the combine, etc). I don't think the same can be said for Pickett. Both, perhaps, are viewed differently in part due to their surname.

I've never seen him live, but I don't get the where the hype around this kid has come from. A month ago, Weightman and Henry seemed to be regarded by those in the know as by far the most likely small forward prospects in the draft, with Pickett a speculative mid-draft prospect. Despite none of them (as far as I know) playing any footy in the meantime, Pickett seems to have come from nowhere to be firmly in the pick 10 discussion. They didn't though - if anything, Cyril slid in his draft, and Daniel was widely touted as a top prospect all year. Both regularly dominated games and kicked bags at TAC cup level, and tested well at the combine. Statistically, Pickett hasn't come close to achieving what either of them did at junior level. His highlights look great - but at the national champs he simply couldn't find the footy. Aside from kicking a solitary bag of 6 in the SANFL reserves, what's he actually achieved? It would be a brave call to draft him at 10, considering that we'd be probably be passing up at least one of Kemp or Young. I'll leave it up to our recruiters. If we take him, I'll trust the gamble is worth it. If he makes the grade, players with his traits are the reason we watch footy.

FFS can anything go right for this guy? He's the MFC in human form, feels wrong that he's at another club.

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. 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.

Don't read much into it. Not saying they won't pick him necessarily, but it's standard practice for potential draftees to tour any number of clubs apparently.