old55

There is no reason Freo would pick Young ahead of Serong on draft night if they rated Serong higher. They picked in the order they rated and Young was gone at 7. Freo couldn't gift us Young in some deal without losing their 2nd pick because Carlton bid Henry at 9. Your plan looks like this: 7 Freo Serong 8 MFC Young 9 Carlton bid Henry Freo lose pick 10. Or if we do the trade with Freo and they agree to let Young through then Carlton can pick him at 9. You're clutching at wet straw. We had the alternatives covered and got the result we wanted.

Young went at 7 to Freo. 7 is before 8. It's likely we knew this was going to happen, next we wanted Pickett, knew he'd be there at 10 and got Rivers for "free". Your post makes no sense.

Probably not. I was just plain wrong with my reading.

not bad on the left hand handball too

I really like the Adam Goodes comparison that @DeeZee made today in this thread. If we take Jackson we think Goodes is the type of player he might become. Better role comparison than Grundy or Buddy.

Pick 3 wasn't involved in any deal.

For Port to make that trade they need to believe that Hawthorn will take the player they want at 11.

Not many of them have the opportunity to secure a job that pays $500k+ per year for the 3 years if they can get it together. That's a fair incentive.

Most players stick around for a flag or two. If Jackson wants to go to Freo after he has won a couple of flags with us then I'll take the 2 1st rounders and rights to all Fyfe's kids trade.

This is exactly right. The fact that the gun small forwards have been drafted late is a fault of drafting. It's that recruiters have been unable to rate them correctly. It's not that they are not worth drafting early. If we draft Pickett early it's because we think he'll be a gun and if he is it will be worth it. Clubs that continue with the current model of only drafting small forwards late because they can't rate them properly will eventually get left behind. BTW, exactly the same argument applies to drafting Jackson at 3.

At the Members Forum

To be fair pick 10 is our 2020 1st rounder only. We got 28 which is close enough to the same as 26. And 50 is not going to be used.

Hope Petracca doesn't catch that - definitely season ending.

Or we're supremely confident he wouldn't get through to 8.

Petty is training with the forwards.

Taylor specifically said that we wouldn't trade down if there was even 1% chance we'd miss the player we want. That makes me think we'll get the same player at 8 or 10.

What you think we'll do and if you don't like that, add what you would do. Jackson, D.Stephens, Pickett

Good on you for finding some quotes. I hope there would be some very positive assessment of the player we're likely to take at 3. But i don't see anyone saying "Yet for some reason it’s an iron clad lock that Jackson will dominate the game." I've followed Pennant St, Mach, Binman and Dr.Evil over the years and they're all good posters who would recognise that every draftee has risks and no-one is "iron clad locks to dominate". They're giving reasons why Jackson might be a risk worth taking.

I gotta say I start to wonder if you really were at these games? That's a pretty fundamental fact you're missing.

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've read the thread and didn't see it. You're making the claim, put up!

I'm not sure whether we'll pick him or not. Taylor does rate him highly, he said so in the Road to the Draft interview. If we think he'll be the best long term prospect at our pick then we'll take him and the fact that he won't play next year is irrelevant.

I haven't read anyone saying that. Quotes please.

Training with the backs apparently