Skuit

In fairness dee-tox, it may be that other clubs have leaked following our open discussions. In saying that, I have no idea why we would bother telling other clubs that we're looking at Pickett at 10. Unless . . . MFC: 'Hey, Freo, we'll swap you 8 for 10 & 28 if you don't intend on taking Young.' Freo: 'Sure. Robertson is our man. But what about Henry?' MFC: 'We won't bid on Henry and Western can have Weightman. We like Pickett.' (People forget that Freo still have to pay for Henry. Massive points dif. between 8 and 16). Media (MFC trades for 10. Likes Pickett . . .): 'MFC likes Pickett for pick 10' (I think I may be in denial about potentially missing out on Young after giving up 8).

This Grundy kid goes alright. Any chance he slips through to 28?

Simon-Kucher & Partners - one of the world's leading consultancies - recently elected co-CEOs.

Yup. You definitely caught me out. But he also has a super-high D/E - and while that stat is mostly b/s, it's high compared to all the other half-backs in the pool. The fact that he can nail a high number of those damaging kicks is exciting - and as been stated before, why is everyone talking about the upside of other unproven draft prospects while dismissing any potential upside in Young?

I think that may be baby-boomer Josh.

Now down to 117 days and 8 hours. I'm starting to get nervous.

These were a few of the quotes I patched together from earlier draft reports, which also noted a bit of mongrel and his desire to tackle. "Has explosive speed", "is a damaging half-back with great intercept marking." ‘"Explosiveness from packs", "Disciplined, checking his opponents tightly and providing them with few opportunities." Sure, a phenomenal kick (Knightmare says the best in a draft prospect outside of Lukosius last year), but it's not like he's lacking in other areas. Also topped the agility test and has leadership qualities. Have no idea where this notion that he's not physically developed comes from - watching the highlights and he constantly backs into packs (maybe one-on-one, he's easily pushed off the ball?) I don't think you can say he's just an everyday back-flanker, a la Marty Hore. Has potential upside in other areas, and looks a better prospect than Lever - who we picked up for around the same or more. A couple of weeks ago Young seemed a lock for 3 - so the sliding since smells a bit fishy to me. I get the talking up of Jackson, but not the fresh knocks on Young.

Demonland added an annoying countdown feature which shows that round one is still 117 days and 9 hours away. You could pretty much fly to Mars in that time.

Ripping right foot pass at the start of that package.

Sweet. We should be eligible for Petracca father-sons shortly after the bye.

But are we posters ourselves providing oxygen for that fire? In Twomey's latest phantom (and he seems to have got the ball rolling on Jackson during the Taylor draft interview) he writes: "Jackson will be the first ruckman to be picked inside the top 10 since 2011 when he has his name called, with the West Australian expected to head to Demonland. Thought it was strange, as it's not a commonly used phrase. Made me think he'd been reading the forums.

Yes, it does seem like Taylor is a bit of a basketball fan. I think I heard somewhere that Pendlebury used to play b'ball as well.

Jackson Weightman Someone random.

My biggest supporter regret is still the loss of Liam Jurrah. I've always backed possibilities like Bennell and was disappointed we lost Frost. Because while winning is great, I still want some extra-natural excitement in watching my team. I rate our list and don't think who we draft will be the key in delivering us flag. I support Taylor and Goodwin and absolutely adore Clarry. I also think draft picks should be considered like a non-refundable gift voucher - it doesn't matter if you spend the full value so long as you get what you want. I should be super-excited by the prospect of Jackson and Pickett. And yet, where this draft is heading leaves me feeling somewhat uneasy. I think it's because of how far the assessment of talent has shifted in the past two weeks - post-football. An outside top-ten prospect and a player slated for the 30s are now our potential pick 3 and what was pick 8.

I get this - turn 10 into two strikes at longer-odds needs-based. (Our draft-hand and pick-trade movements have to be looked at holistically) Port would be the one who should net us both. 12 & 18 in exchange for 10 & 28 & future 4th. Gets us ahead of the Dogs on Weightman at 13 and should be enough to land Pickett. I suppose the key would be Stephens (or another decent prospect) still on the table at 10. Though I think there will still be someone of interest in the mix at 13 who the Dogs will prioritise. So that opens up Geelong at 14 & 17 as well - and then, repeating, GC at 15 & 20. But I think Port are then a threat on KP at 18 if they also hold 12 &16. I wasn't a fan of us trading down from 8 pre-draft - as that was the absolute sweet spot. But we may have calculated that 10 is also also a decent sweet spot, and with 28 gives us extra flexibility.

. . .

I'm not sure that you even remotely read my post. It's not that rucks and smalls dud out with high picks - it's that they often dud out, and so using a high pick is a bigger risk. The very simple gist is - success factors in football are mostly not random. If rucks generally take longer to develop and struggle to make it, it's probably not a random coincidence. If top prospects from the SANFL consistently struggle to shine in the AFL, there may be something behind it. If draftees who receive a high proportion of their ball on the outside tend not to make it, then it's worth considering. If heads or tails has come up five times in a row, then this is random.

Drinking seems legit. But you probably shouldn't be Demonlanding so much if you're on a cruise.

The suggestion that rucks and small forwards get picked up later is due to historically less chance of success. That's not a gambler's fallacy. I'll let Wikipedia explain: A gambler's fallacy 'is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random, this belief is false.' Flipping a coin is a closed system - the result of the toss being the outcome. You're trying to argue away what we call science - assessing consistent outcomes, hypothesising the cause, and testing the hypothesis. Due to the nature of AFL, it's very difficult to test any hypothesis, and our science hasn't progressed far. There are also other randomised factors involved, such as certain contact injuries. But you don't throw away the data on outcomes and conclude that they're random because you can't fully discover the cause - that's called religion. I can assure you that the prevalence of rucks or small forwards at high picks having dudded in the past will be a consideration - it's just a matter of how much weight we give to it.

I should have got nine, but while I was pretty sure of one of the answers couldn't bring myself to accept that Dawes really was our leading goal-kicker with 20 in 2014. I blame Jack Watts. Also, who was Melbourne's captain to start the decade? It depends on what date is considered the start of the decade.

Considering that all I've been doing is assessing his kick, then no I don't think I'm placing too much value on his ability to kick. I've barely advocated selecting him and have joked all along about my limited awareness of draftees. There should also be enough signposts to convey that I've been satirically engaging in overblown hype. I think you're lobbying the wrong person Mach5. An email to Taylor may be more productive. Your last point is a good one. I also think Young's kicking is the greatest ever in the history of the AFL.

Stumbled upon this the other day: Kate Roffey - MFC Vice President Has a "strong background in professional sport and has had the opportunity to spend time with some of the world’s leading sports teams, including the New York Yankees, Manchester United FC, Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins, reviewing world’s best sporting practice.."

We could always use proxies. I pick Hayden Young, for his precision targeting. You're welcome to Luke Jackson if you dare.

I think our discussion has become way too heated ManDeeee and we should probably resolve it peaceably off-line, perhaps by way of a pistol-duel in the town-square at dawn?

Valid points, as conceded. But on on my primary and only point, I checked James's Strauss's draft package and snub his hello.