Skuit

. . .

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.

For the record Mandeee - I never said I was good at my job. Also, 'phenom' seems to have been in use in the US since the 1890s. These crazy American hip-hop kids with the bastardisation of our language, huh.

You can check the Foxsports website instead. Or maybe try the Advertiser or Courier Mail perhaps. The Daily Telegraph is pretty average, but as a broadsheet the Australian is a respectable paper. If not, Mungo will probably have a write-up in the Echo in the coming days. *We traded pick 8 for Fremantle's pick 10 and 28.

ManDeee - I have a writing degree and work in the field. It doesn't matter when, but 'phenom' has indeed become an accepted noun - a back-transformation which demonstrates the flexibility and thus dominance of the English language - which like all languages, should be judged on the ability to communicate an idea. In this instance, the notion that Young if a [censored] bloody good kick.

A kicking phenom. He has the best kicking I have seen in a draft prospect on the available footage. I've made it clear multiple times that I am indeed completely uniformed and he may have other weaknesses, but am still waiting for someone to show me a better pre-AFL kick?

I'll take you up on this friendly wager bin. We can split it down the middle if you fancy - the majority of games or otherwise? With pay-out from the time the outcome is clear to the end of the trade/draft period in 2020. If I lose (because of Goodwin's stubbornness), I'll paste an over-sized Oscar head onto my existing avatar. You lose and you and switch to a picture of Oscar the Grouch in a bin, with Omac's head. Deal?

I get both of your peripheral points (while not entirely agreeing - the question of stepping-up to AFL pressure should apply equally to all prospects in my opinion) - but I went back and looked at all the pre-draft footage I could find of Toumpas and Bail - and while decent kicks, I don't see anything remotely close to what I see in Young as to foot-skills. I'm open to the possibility that my constant exposure to crap kicking this year has left me biased. But I genuinely view Young as a phenom. With the bonus of a strong intercept game, leadership, and some aggression. I'm of the belief that we have a very strong list - and would usually back the candidate with the highest ceiling - but right now I just want some reliable delivery.

Yeah - it's a biased opinion, because I would be happy with Young and another prospect on top as well as limiting the GWS haul.

This is my public declaration that I no longer care who we pick. There's nothing to be gained from an emotional investment over something I know so little about. Either I will be (meaninglessly) disappointed or happy on draft night. Then in a couple of years be wrong, feel pointlessly vindicated, or carry a grudge/regret. It took me years to get over us selecting Toumpas ahead of Wines. Mid-field explosions! I then sat out the 2015 draft build-up (after briefly backing Parish) and that worked out okay. I desperately wanted Petruccelle in 2017, but I'm pretty chuffed with Fritsch. Let the cobblers cobble I say, and Welcome to Demonland . . . Whoever.

There's a lot of merit in this line of thinking.

Some of the relentless critics on here also expressed disgust with the clown who called out OMac at the members forum - recognising the fine line of public commentary. This is a useful site for venting frustration for many fans. I find most of it tedious, but I don't concern myself with what the MFC thinks about it and that we all ought to put on a public show of optimism.

Has to attend to the never-ending weiding.

Why did we spend our hand now? Why do Freo want to move up two picks? Draft tampering, that's why.

It's an amusing time of the year RN - but I sincerely believe Young has an extra-natural ability in one particular facet. We all base our draft preferences and demands on rhetoric and limited footage - to varying extents. I get as excited and hyped as the next guy on the potential superstar upside of Henry or Pickett or whoever. But while Jackson for example is touted as a speculative three-year 50-goal-come-ruck-relief-project, I think: Why can't Young, for whatever his current flaws and present draft position, also be considered a long-term project? Others may disagree, but I consider Young's kicking to be well above elite standard and transferable to AFL level. You take that sort of weapon, and then work out how best to deploy it in your system, regardless of position. IMO.

I don't care if nobody cares about my feelings, but I'm super-happy we've landed this bloke. Such an impressive operator, and already paying dividends in the other personnel we've brought on board. To single out one quote among a number of telling actions and the general atmosphere already: - Wanting to instill the same confidence in our players as he did at Port in their ability to run out games - A year after he (and Hinkley) came on board, Port lifted itself into the finals for the first time in six odd years. The next year they were seriously unlucky to miss out on a grand final berth, denied by a missed shot in the clutch. But the standout element of the 2014 season, was Port continuously overrunning teams in the last quarter. I remember thinking at the time how cocky they were, that they would coast like a prize fighter. (With a strange form-line, I think this was also when they introduced the concept of a mini mid-year 'pre-season'). Port in 2014 (as a quick recap): Rnd 1: one goal behind at 3/4-time, outscored Carlton 7.5 v 1.2 in the final quarter Rnd 2: in a comprehensive win over Adelaide after half-time, score 7.2 in the final quarter Rnd 4: annihilate Brisbane, kicking 14.6 in the second half (with another 7-goal haul in the last) . Rnd 5: with scores even at 3/4-time in a tight contest away, kick 3.3 to the Eagles' 1.2 in the last. Rnd 8: down by a goal at the final break, downs Freo with a 5.6 v 2.1 haul in the last Rnd 11: challenged all day by a valiant MFC in hot conditions in Alice, Port prove too good in the last Rnd 12: Port kick 7.5 in the last against a demoralised St Kilda. From there Port slumped for a period, with rumours of a radical mid-season approach to plan for a finals' assault. But they still retained some of their last-quarter nous, including a last-gasp Schultz win against the Dees.

Does Jones' shift to the half-forward flank - I'd suggest widely unexpected, but not unwise (one of the few who can collect around the 50 and slot it; also a reliable set shot from distance) - signal a fresh deployment for Hunt? I know he's been training up front to date, but we're running out of space for him in the forward-line (@WERRIDEE?). Meanwhile, our running half-back stocks have been depleted over summer, with not much in the way of exposed reserves.