rpfc

You really can't.

I have said it before - I would applaud 'affirmative action' for tall players. But I don't want, should the situation arise, the less talented player over the more talented player - simply because of his height. If BP sees someone slide out the top ten then he should take him, regardless of his height. As an aside, I am not saying you always pick best available for every round of the draft. I am saying pick 'best available' in the first round.

And a few of us don't want to overlook the better talent, just because he is a mid. All will be revealed on Thursday.

Now for something completely different...

He makes a lot of sense... Well argued. You have redemption.

No worries. I can be blunt, facetious, sarcastic, glib, and 'unreadable', so I get on the nerves of many. Back on topic: There is a good summation on another thread by Demonland. I'm happy now, if we pick him or not, I just wanted there to be no outright rejection of his recruitment by the MFC.

Well said. There is no line through his name and that is all I wanted.

That's how I read it too (same as TU), but it is just an article so who knows what we will do with 34 and 50. Go grab some lunch and you'll feel better...

I am not that familiar with the kids outside the best 20 or so, so I am not the person to ask about who to take at 34 or 50. We can take the gamble at 11, and that would be fine, but I want everyone to understand that the gamble might see a very good mid being overlooked for a tall that might never reach the heights they have placed on him (relegating Jurrah to 3rd tall, providing a decade long target out of the square, etc).

I reject that. Every third post is incredibly blunt, but rude? I don't see it that way at all. You can't see tone in writing as you can in speech, and I rarely write anything with malice, I apologise if it comes off the screen as rudeness or bullying. Again, I still say the worst thing I can do is show indifference by not writing anything.

Now, I like you BD. But I always say - give me an argument. Give me something more than what you gave me, and I know you were being flippant, but I put higher expectations on some more than others, like we all do. Your last paragraph meant you had a point, but because you didn't give that in your previous post, I couldn't infer that you had nuance in your post. I really don't think I am rude, I think indifference is the worst thing I could do. I am blunt, and I understand that that can grate. And I certainly don't think I bully posters, I have had this discussion with other posters before. Maybe I stand by my arguments but I rarely get personal, if ever. Hyperbolic nonsense is something we are all guilty of from time to time, I really don't believe that to be as cutting as you claim. It certainly wasn't meant as a personal jibe.

Not in the first round (unless they are the best player). If you want to be speculative (and I realise that you are being only slightly speculative by taking a tall at 11) then go and find a Tippett at 34 (he was chosen at 32) or a Jack Anthony (chosen at 37 - although he is a [censored] but I digress). And I am sure that 50 will be spent on Thorp or a untried tall.

After reading that article in the Hun today I am more convinced then ever that I have no idea what we will do with Picks 34 and 50. Gut feeling: Thorp is a long shot.

No I am happy with that post. Like with picks 1 and 2, we should have the mindset to get the standout player in the draft left at pick 11. If he happens to be a mid, tall, backman, protestant, whatever... BP may rate a particular mid that he thought would go in the top 10, and take him at 11. It's hardly a spurious scenario, in fact, I think it is highly plausible. And I am OK with BP getting the best player, rather than the best, tall player. But that is just me.

Well, I will throw it back and say if we have got Scully or Trengove at 1, and Ball at 18, why not go for this despeartely needed KPF at Pick 2? That way you can be sure to get the best KPF in the draft. But you won't want to do that, because there is a talent (in fact a few talents) that are above that 'best KPF in the draft' at Pick 2. That is the mindset that I wish to maintain with Pick 11. That is all.

I have already stated that I would prefer 'affirmative action' for tall players in another thread. But I just am getting fed up with posters positing 'Pick 11 - Best Available Tall.' That is a recipe for overlooking a talent because of a perceived need that may change over time. Hawthorn overlooked Selwood for Thorp. Something they didn't need to do at all. Then Pick 11 is going to have to be an enormous talent.

I just realised... It's nearly 8 weeks since an AFL game was last played... We're effing doomed, man. I'm freaking out!!

I've got some news: It's Wonaeamirri. And, apparently, he is up and going.

So Watts and Jurrah will become stale and predictable? Like Franklin and Roughead? Brown and Fevola? And for there to be multiple options, the choices have to be near enough in quality to attract the attention of the ball that would normally go to the 1st option. Cameron Cloke was another option in Carlton's forward line, but that didn't mean that 1) the midfielders kicked it too him over Fevola, or 2) that he would be good enough to take advantage of the same delivery. We are only talking KPFs here - not the entire forward line. We have plenty of smaller options to compliment Jurrah, Watts, and Bate. There is your variety should you need it. I think Jurrah is good enough to be the most dangerous forward, for a decade, in a flag... I am ridiculing those that think there is going to be a talent at Pick 11 who will relegate Jurrah to a 3rd tall. Pick 11 will be the third tall, or the 4th tall, if you are willing to invest Pick 11 on a 3rd tall or a 4th tall then by all means, but I can see the sense if BP isn't willing to invest Pick 11. That is not my argument at all. And it certainly isn't moronic. I am saying that if his perceived potential is that he could be as good ad Jurrah and Watts then pick him up. But if he isn't then we are spending Pick 11 on a third tall, who may also be a speculative pick (I have said before that if the best player available is a KPF then of course we take him). Midfielders are different; you need more good mids than good KPFs, and they are easier to spot at draft age. These variables make recruiting mids easier than recruiting talls. It is as simple as that. Going over heavily trodden ground here but we had Smith for depth - how did that work out? Hawthorn drafted Thorp knowing full well that there was no place for him in the side, all things being equal (no injuries, trades, 'Carey-like infractions' etc. from Roughhead and Franklin), and now he is training with us. Is Newton depth? Would the opposition play guessing games with Newton in our forward line? Pick 11 will no doubt be better than Newton and he may well turn into a productive forward, but I am simply asking the question - would you prefer the lesser player at Pick 11 - a 3rd tall in the forward line - or would you prefer the best midfielder available at that stage of the draft? (Again, I stress, if the best player available at 11 is a KPF then there is no argument from me on recruiting him)

Oh, yeah. They are exactly the same... He's only got three games in him... Are you going to stand by that? Hyperbolic nonsense.

Some of you are missing my major points. - Just because you say so, that does not mean Jurrah can be made into a 3rd option. He is our best forward at the moment and will receive the greatest attention. Black or Talia or whoever can't be 'just another option' for Jurrah to be relegated. Does that sink in to anyone? - With Watts and Jurrah in the 50, who is good enough from the talls that we might take at 11 to divert the attention of our mids streaming through the middle. If you say that that player is depth then you are wasting a 1st round pick on depth, if you say that that player will be the third tall I would say we are wasting a first round pick on a third tall, and that he would have to be better than Bate. I am going to watch Sunday Night so I will be back later if anyone wishes to discuss this further.

Oh, noes!! 3 months? More than that - it's about 90 days... The AFL will never recover. And 12 weeks is a misnomer. The Cup runs for a month and the grounds have to be prepared for a month. That would be 8 weeks.

RM - I replied to your post in my Unreadable thread in the General Discussion board as I felt that Rex Hunt didn't need to be on the recruiting board.

The interest is in the unknown. We know who will be 1 and 2. We don't know who will be 11, 18, and 34. I am well aware that KPFs take longer, and their talent is harder to gauge (which is how Tippett made it to 32), but I don't see how a tall at Pick 11 having the impact we want a Pick 11 to have unless he is as talented as Watts and Jurrah. If the best player at 11 is a KPF, by all means take him, but if he isn't, the odds are against that tall having a positive impact on our flag tilt, as opposed to another mid who we can always do with. Especially that early in the draft.

Yeah, it's a strong attitude. Bluffing being an unprovable variable, I would say that we are seriously considering doing what is best for the MFC. And that is not listening to a misguided, guileless, old Xaverian. That's advice a few on this board should heed...