Skuit

This is a bit disheartening. We need May focused this year if we're any chance of success.

I didn't think it was the forward-line stupid, until I had a werridee moment and penciled in following hopeful forward line: Bennell Jackson Pickett Fritsch Tomald Petracca (Yes, Meksham - but he and Trac can share runs through the middle).

Safe Picket? Wouldn't it be considered innovate if it bucks a century-old custom? I really don't intend this to be provocative (and it's not directed at you PF) - but I wonder how many people who feel so strongly about dual captains also feel the same way about single parenting. For such a mundane issue, there's almost something evolutionarily biological in the passion it provokes.

I think in Bennell's case your MFCSS is focused on the wrong issues at hand. He's now a paid employee of the Melbourne Football Club and we have first dibs on him up until around mid-March - it's now up to Harley/his body (the two areas of legit MFCSS concern - although no-one here seems to be getting carried away). Still, it's worth reading the first few pages of this thread and then randomly somewhere in the middle for the lols.

I'm not sure that Luke will gain much from having Kozzie as a leap-frog partner

Bravo Soprano. In just 25 words or less you've probably put yourself in the frame for some sort of Demonland triple-award - the shortest time between signing up and threatening to cancel your MFC membership, coupled with the most trivial matter prompting such a threat and perhaps the greatest first-post failure of logic. Rather than the work-load burden, I think this was a more pertinent contention: At work, would you prefer one bad boss (in the broadest of senses) or one bad boss and one good boss? By good or bad, I mean whoever the employee finds most effective as a leader, for whatever subjective reasons. I indeed have two equal-level bosses, who I've learned to individually consult depending on the matter at hand. If you shift your focus from top-down to bottom-up, would it not be better for some kid like Luke Jackson or Kysaiah Pickett to enter the club and have two leaders to look up to, and then the option of leaning toward whichever one suits them best? No matter the skill of the communicator, some people gel on an oratory and interpersonal level more than others - is it not better that we have two leaders who can get the message across in different ways? Your original post focuses on the potential negatives of miscommunication. If they are both strong leaders - even if in different ways - then they should both be on the same page, and certainly not allow factions to develop. If not, they shouldn't be leaders of our football club. And while all of the above can still be achieved by having a captain and vice captain(s) structure, it comes back to a matter of what is the difference.

My MFCSS twitches whenever his name resurfaces. The MFC seems to have escaped serious scrutiny - I'd rather it buried forever than see investigators digging through fresh documents in the hope of a Bombers' take-down.

I'm always confused about how strongly people feel about it. I couldn't give a toss one way or the other. What does a captain do in footy? (Rhetorical). Why can't two people do that? And lessen the burden/double the impact? A lot of the drawbacks mentioned by the OP exist in another manner under one captain. At work, would you prefer one bad boss (in the broadest of senses) or one bad boss and one good boss? I mentioned elsewhere that one of the world's leading strategy consultancies recently elected co-CEOs Last month, Indonesian decacorn GoJek went the same way - with each CEO focused on different areas. Maybe that's how our model operates as well - being on the outside, we just don't know.

What we do know is that Jackson was rated third by one club. (Discounting any needs-based vs best-available discussions). Also that Young wasn't rated third by at least four clubs. And that a minimum of four clubs didn't rate Green in that spot. With one of those clubs rating at least two players ahead of Green. The rest is BS - recruiters can say what they want when they don't have to back it up. In the paradoxical words of Chookrat - it's all just words. I propose the term 'chook-ratting' to apply to any such canvassing in the future.

The whole first sentence would be even more befitting for our preseasons on Demonland; '. . . it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

Our fine young princeling out for his first run with the pack:

'Yesterday I woke up sucking on a lemon' - from Everything in its Right Place by Radiohead. Edit: Bonus points for the first line of second verse: 'There are two colours in my head'

I ran AVB's photo through an age-guess app and it came out as 47.

For all those who say our club has no soul.

You should start a 'Rating Skuit's rating our 2019 draft thread contribution' thread.

I was going to argue the point and then decided against it. But I'm still really curious to know what the bolded is meant to mean?

He still looks like he's carrying a few extra kegs

He's quick, with a (as in one, according to those highlight) long kick.

I just had a serious rush of blood.

Just to clarify - we'll never know whether Freo rated or if forced would have taken Young or Serong in the order they did. My suggestion is that we could have had Young by bending over Freo when we knew for certain they wanted Henry on top. The threat of a bid on Henry at 8 (generally rated above Pickett) might have got us a handshake agreement on Young. Otherwise, holding onto 8 pre-draft would have at least caused some instability for Freo with others looking to trade up.

Happy with our draft haul but feel like we could have been tactically shrewder. I'm sure there were other things going on behind the scenes, but: Swapping out 8 for 10 and 28 pre-draft seemed hasty. 8 was the sweet spot. 28 was also lower than expected - and as shown again, pick ~20 proved another good hand. I have no idea how much (if at all) we rated Pickett above Henry . . . - But there was no way that Freo would let him go, and we still handed them a platter. In my mind we've potentially given up Young over Picket, or could have had 'Pickett' plus. Be that Weightman or Pickett as well as a sub-20 - or then 25ish and some juice for next year In saying that, I support our approach in deciding who we want, and then ensuring we land them. And Pickett and Young are now my new favourite players - behind Clarry of course. It should however be kept in mind that we've also spent most of our cookies next year. B to B+

MFCSS: or they'll prove a constant reminder for one another of their wonderful former life back home.

Jason Taylor's all-new patented Goldilocks Guide to AFL Drafting™. Buy now and pay later* With four easy payments spread across the 2020 AFL draft. (goods cannot be returned, except for by seizure in WA).

Hats off to the poster with the LJ midfield mail (apologies on forgetting who exactly: @Yokozuna?). I had trust in Taylor, but that was when my opinion was swayed - we were obviously onto something big. But I think it's fair to forgive any earlier doubts - as we really were in the dark as to the available footage.