Slartibartfast

What happens if he plays the first 9 games and is then injured for the rest of the season?

I think Pro Dee is trying to clarify his position on Jack which in the past has been a little equivocal. I'm glad because I now think I have a handle on where he stands. Some might have understood it earlier than me for which I congratulate them. Me, now I'm clear so hopefully we can get back to Sam.

He got the things I rate highly: clean hands great lateral movement can get the ball makes good decisions What's not to like?

That's why they are picks in the 40's.

What ever happened to Stretch, Kennedy, Bugg and Melksham?

You've just described Barry Prendergast. Wanted to show he was smarter than anyone else. Boy, that worked well. What I like about Quigley is he gives a really good outline of the player. Calls it as he sees it and provides us information. If he was that good he'd be on a recruiting team somewhere. The fact that he isn't means he's just an average observer IMO. Not that I care, I enjoy him.

He's not the only bloke to change his mind with increased research and exposure to the available talent. I've changed my mind almost on a daily basis. I want Francis at 3 but I'm not prepared to miss on both Oliver and Parish which may happen. I'm not sold on needing 2 key forwards, few teams have them. Diversity is the key because it provides unpredictability and the ability to target opposition defences weaknesses. It's what Hawks do so well. I'm happy with Weideman at 7 if he's a genuine 7. I don't want him just because he's tall.

Wow.

After a long and exhaustive consideration of this issue I've decided Billy Stretch is going to be my favourite player this year (which really hurts cos I love Jack Viney) so he is the one. Uses the ball so well, works really hard and has been a passionate Demon supporter for life. He's living the dream. Ripping bloke, no tickets on himself, popular and respected amongst the playing group and coaches. Get the ball 20 to 25 times a game Billy and you'll write your own history.

Probably thought we had a better future!

Last bit of discussion on this bloke was close to a month ago and he is almost certain to go in the top 10 and possibly to us at 3. Why? Are we too focused on type and not enough on genuine footy talent? Seems to tick the boxes of competitor and has skills. You've got to admit it would be a bit funny if he ended up at pick 3 and we'd ignored him for weeks. It's a fascinating draft. I love the suspense. I'll be a bit sad on Tuesday when it's all over.

That isn't right. He and his family didn't mind coming to the east coast as it was closer to Fiji. They knew it was either MFC or WCE.

But we can't get Quigley's stuff anymore can we?

I think this is absolutely correct and will come strongly into their thinking. But what will also come in is their evaluation of our list, where do they see Bugg, Melksham, Kennedy, Stretch, ABN, AVB, Kent, Petracca, Trengove, White, Harmes, JKH and perhaps most importantly King fitting in. What sort of forward line do they want to run? Two key forwards? Not many have that. Do they want a Curnow or a Weideman type? The Hawks are so difficult to defend because they can change their forward structure each quarter. Interestingly they are probably harder to match up on now without Buddy. Is two key forwards with a resting ruck viable now and in the future. Lots of ways to skin a cat. And how do the FD see limitations on rotations working. What do they think the AFL will do to reduce congestion? What sort of player does that favour? There has been some very good discussion about who we will take but this year I reckon there is so much we don't know that we are all a bit lost. I certainly am. Most interesting draft in years this year.

Please give us your top 20 then with summary. I'll be fascinated. I'm sure others will too. Thanks

How should we consider yours?

On the other hand better teams have more options. That's not to downgrade his achievements thought. I thought he made some critical fundamental skill errors too. That dropped chest mark against North in the third (for example). His good is very good but he is inclined to make the rookie mistake.

OR: With Weideman the forward line will be just about set for a decade and we WILL get a quality mid at 7. If they rate Parish a long way ahead of a mid we are likely to get at 7 then they will take him at 3. But it's just as likely they will rate the tall they can get at 3 a long way ahead of who we get at 7. And what if we decide to go two mids? Look, I don't know but I think it's far from clear and there are lots of valid arguments. I'm not at all sure the FD won't still be having these discussions.

I agree with you on Parish but the way I get there is different. I think we will look at the difference in ability of the talls we would get at 3 and 7 and the difference in mids we'd get at 3 and 7. We would then factor in the risk associated with each type. For example if we believed there was little difference in the mids we'd pick up in each position but a huge difference in talls we'd probably go tall and then mid. But we'll factor in risk. Talls are risky so that might mitigate any perceived difference in them. From what I've read none of the talls available are "locks". Therefore it's Parish at 3. But if we think there is a lock at 3 for a tall and we'll also pick up a good mid at 7 then we might well go that way. I think in this case "best available" means a combination of both, not each individually. I've got no idea which way we'll go.

Wrong. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-13/private-testing-for-top-draft-picks

I'm a fan of Roos, best thing that has happened to this club in a long time besides Jackson. I don't think Roos is costing us anything, in fact I think he makes us money from membership to sponsorship. And yes it did work well with Horse, but what was the process and what did they do when there was a divergence of views? That's what I'm interested in and it's what I'm asking. But if I was Goodwin, who is hoping to become a career senior coach, and there were decisions being made by Roos that I disagreed with but would impact my ability to achieve success I'd find that a very difficult situation.

If Saty was there we'd know why Brayshaw didn't do the full session, we'd know when Petracca is due to join the full group and why T Mac and Garland were the mature age attendees. We'd also know other stuff I'm not interested in but Saty provided information no other watcher did. Sad he was hounded off by the selfish few.

Nut in my OP I highlighted "his is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins." Pose any question you like, my question is about who has the casting vote/final say if Roos and Goodwin have differing views.

It's based upon the notion of differing opinions which are common in any organization. So does that mean Roos is second in charge?

I see the question is either too hard or I've not explained it. Lets go with the second and move on.