Or Jordan DeGoey and Jake Lever.dragit wrote: ↑Thu 15 Nov 2018 8:12amYep we could have got Jarrod Pickett and Paul Ahern instead.ListManager wrote: ↑Thu 15 Nov 2018 8:00am So everyone thinks that the top 6 are guns and that's why we should not accept 8 and 15 for 4. If it was 100% certain that the top 6 were in fact guns then I would not want 8 and 15 either. The fact is it never ends up this way. What better example than Mc Cartin? Imagine what our list would look like if we had traded pick 1 to GWS for 2 top 10 picks???
If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
- dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
It's much easier 4 years later, I don't recall anyone suggesting they would be the two best players before the draft.mad saint guy wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 3:25amOr Jordan DeGoey and Jake Lever.dragit wrote: ↑Thu 15 Nov 2018 8:12amYep we could have got Jarrod Pickett and Paul Ahern instead.ListManager wrote: ↑Thu 15 Nov 2018 8:00am So everyone thinks that the top 6 are guns and that's why we should not accept 8 and 15 for 4. If it was 100% certain that the top 6 were in fact guns then I would not want 8 and 15 either. The fact is it never ends up this way. What better example than Mc Cartin? Imagine what our list would look like if we had traded pick 1 to GWS for 2 top 10 picks???
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2016 11:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 269 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
Silly agreement again. Pick 4 is better than pick 8 because you get more choices. If you make the wrong call that is on the drafter not the draftees. Also it doesn't take into account that the first pick goes to the worst team. Ie poor coaches, mentors, club morale
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Mon 20 Jul 2015 6:19pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 14 times
Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
"It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
To be fair many people were saying Lever would have been in contention for the top 3 if not for his injury and while an outsider to many, Emma Quayle was talking up DeGoey as being the best prospect in the draft.
Although if I was picking at the time with 4 and 7 I would have taken Marchbank and Wright.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11551
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3522 times
- Been thanked: 2464 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
I understand that all scenarios should be planned and discussed but the focus should be to recruit the best players available and to ensure that we try and unearth the next DeGoey or Lever. I remember one of the main characteristics discussed a few years back was the family background rather than the focus being on the player's ability and talent. We were interested in getting an 18 year old from a 'good home' and perhaps missing out on the best footy players available in the draft
You can't really guarantee that you'll get the players you want so I'd prefer the recruiting team find the right talent instead of trying to outsmart themselves and their counterparts with these sort of hypotheticals.
You can't really guarantee that you'll get the players you want so I'd prefer the recruiting team find the right talent instead of trying to outsmart themselves and their counterparts with these sort of hypotheticals.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Sat 22 Sep 2018 3:55pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
Nobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
NeXus Nick is back but where is Joffaboy????
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1013
- Joined: Tue 20 Oct 2015 5:52pm
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 234 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
No deal - would look at Port's 5 & 15 for 4 maybe....
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10404
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 701 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
From an age article 2015 covering the best picks from 20 down.
No. 15 Pick
Scott Camporeale - Carlton, 1994, 252 games
The shortlist: Andrew Jarman (Brisbane, 1987, 110 games) Max Hudghton (St Kilda, 1996, 234 games), Brady Rawlings (North Melbourne, 1998, 245 games)
No.8 Pick
Jimmy Bartel – Geelong, 2001, 272 games
The shortlist: Chris Tarrant (Collingwood, 1997, 268 games), Jude Bolton (Sydney, 1998, 325 games), Joel Corey (Geelong, 1999, 276 games)
No.4 Pick
Peter Matera - West Coast, 1989, 253 games
The shortlist: Justin Leppitsch (Brisbane, 1992, 227 games), Scott Lucas (Essendon, 1994, 270 games), Matthew Pavlich (Fremantle, 1999, 335 games)
Now from that is a Pavlich or Matera worth a Bartel + Camporeale?
Certainly take Bartel out in exchange for Tarrant or Bolton and its an easy yes.
But we need to look at all the other pick 15 and 8s vs 4. All the chumps or gops that didn't make the list.
Draft pick 4 has a 98 game average (lower than picks 5, 7 and 8 (98))
15 have hot over 100 games. Nine all australians.
missing from that list above is Gaff, Oliver, Bontempelli and one Josh Kennedy!
Draft 8 has 13 100 gamers and 6 all australians. the best pkayer not listed above is probably Ty Vickery, Daniel Motlop, or Ben Reid.
Draft pick 15 has no one even close to the players listed above - troy chaplin and lyndon dunne, or daniel rioli would be the next best. in 28 years 10 players have made 100 games. 5 all australians.
So go for double the likelihood of a really good player, or increase your chances of not getting a one hundred gamer? i say keep pick 4.
even more cut and dried since 2010.
pick 4:
gaff, hoskin-elliot, toumpas, bontempelli, pickett, oliver, ainsworth, davies-uniacke
pick 8:
heppell, longer, mayes, mcdonald, wright, ah chee, logue, coffield
pick 15:
smedts, ellis, garner, jones, rioli, gallucci, bailey.
No. 15 Pick
Scott Camporeale - Carlton, 1994, 252 games
The shortlist: Andrew Jarman (Brisbane, 1987, 110 games) Max Hudghton (St Kilda, 1996, 234 games), Brady Rawlings (North Melbourne, 1998, 245 games)
No.8 Pick
Jimmy Bartel – Geelong, 2001, 272 games
The shortlist: Chris Tarrant (Collingwood, 1997, 268 games), Jude Bolton (Sydney, 1998, 325 games), Joel Corey (Geelong, 1999, 276 games)
No.4 Pick
Peter Matera - West Coast, 1989, 253 games
The shortlist: Justin Leppitsch (Brisbane, 1992, 227 games), Scott Lucas (Essendon, 1994, 270 games), Matthew Pavlich (Fremantle, 1999, 335 games)
Now from that is a Pavlich or Matera worth a Bartel + Camporeale?
Certainly take Bartel out in exchange for Tarrant or Bolton and its an easy yes.
But we need to look at all the other pick 15 and 8s vs 4. All the chumps or gops that didn't make the list.
Draft pick 4 has a 98 game average (lower than picks 5, 7 and 8 (98))
15 have hot over 100 games. Nine all australians.
missing from that list above is Gaff, Oliver, Bontempelli and one Josh Kennedy!
Draft 8 has 13 100 gamers and 6 all australians. the best pkayer not listed above is probably Ty Vickery, Daniel Motlop, or Ben Reid.
Draft pick 15 has no one even close to the players listed above - troy chaplin and lyndon dunne, or daniel rioli would be the next best. in 28 years 10 players have made 100 games. 5 all australians.
So go for double the likelihood of a really good player, or increase your chances of not getting a one hundred gamer? i say keep pick 4.
even more cut and dried since 2010.
pick 4:
gaff, hoskin-elliot, toumpas, bontempelli, pickett, oliver, ainsworth, davies-uniacke
pick 8:
heppell, longer, mayes, mcdonald, wright, ah chee, logue, coffield
pick 15:
smedts, ellis, garner, jones, rioli, gallucci, bailey.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
It seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
In this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...Cairnsman wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 8:40pm2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier
So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
Hey CM... just read in another thread that you've suggested #5 and #15 is a possibility...
That deal I would take in a heartbeat
That deal I would take in a heartbeat
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1013
- Joined: Tue 20 Oct 2015 5:52pm
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 234 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
If we're not looking at taking Max King at 4, and he is for mine the logical choice at 4 if Walsh, Luko and Rankine go 1, 2 and 3, then we'd be crazy not to do 4 for Port's 5&15 if offered. If we want Max, we don't do the trade and take him at 4, to me it's that simple.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2016 11:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 269 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
If King is available we should get him and suck it up for another year as we will suck again. King will spend most of the year in the VFL so our mid field issues remain but "if" he comes good we will be happy in a years time.
I am also expecting to get pick get 1-3 next year as well so it would make more sense to get a potential full forward elite player this year for the future and get an elite outside mid next year rather than get a good inside mid this year and get an elite outside mid next year
I am also expecting to get pick get 1-3 next year as well so it would make more sense to get a potential full forward elite player this year for the future and get an elite outside mid next year rather than get a good inside mid this year and get an elite outside mid next year
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10404
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 701 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
another year of sucking and picking up a first or second draft pick is probably much needed.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
You speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 9:05pmIn this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...Cairnsman wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 8:40pm2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier
So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
Are you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?Cairnsman wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:24amYou speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 9:05pmIn this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...Cairnsman wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 8:40pm2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier
So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
Nup. Suggesting you speak with such certainty.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:45amAre you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?Cairnsman wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:24amYou speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 9:05pmIn this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...Cairnsman wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 8:40pm2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier
So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
Well I’m not like some of the other forumites here... I have no inside sources, no pretend inside sources, am certainly not a dark mystic and to be honest, outside of the top 10 haven’t followed this draft as closely as others.Cairnsman wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 3:46pmNup. Suggesting you speak with such certainty.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:45amAre you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?Cairnsman wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:24amYou speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 9:05pmIn this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...Cairnsman wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 8:40pm2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier
So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal![]()
I have to form my opinion based on the available reading and footage.
I’ve reviewed it and come to as best a decision as I can
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: Accepting 8 & 15 by letting go of #4
Just Mystic please Speptic. It's the circles that are dark.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 4:20pmWell I’m not like some of the other forumites here... I have no inside sources, no pretend inside sources, am certainly not a dark mystic and to be honest, outside of the top 10 haven’t followed this draft as closely as others.Cairnsman wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 3:46pmNup. Suggesting you speak with such certainty.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:45amAre you suggesting these guys will be there at 8?Cairnsman wrote: ↑Mon 19 Nov 2018 11:24amYou speak with such certainty. Are you sure you're not being one of the sheeple?skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 9:05pmIn this case you'd miss all of Walsh, Luk, Rankine, Rozee, King and Smith...Cairnsman wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 8:40pm2 first round DPs beats 1 DP every day of the week.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 2:10pmIt seems to me that that’s exactly what you’re saying.ListManager wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 12:18pmNobody ever said, "pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns". What I am saying is I would rather have pick 8 and pick 15 than just pick 4. The belief that the guns are in the top 6 is just perception. It very rarely turns out that way. Back ourselves in to turn pick 8 and 15 into Nick Dal Santo and Leigh Montagna rather than turning pick 4 into Chris Judd.the dome wrote: ↑Fri 16 Nov 2018 9:15am "It’s a weird argument to me where pick 4 is too risky but pick 8 & 15 means we’ll pbly get two guns"
If we really want to step up our midfield the opportunity is there @ #4. next week.
Reading about young Smith in The Age yesterday I couldn't help thinking here is the young mid the Saints have been after from the beginning. Then again champion data had Luka heading our way @ #4.
Pick 4 comes with more options & for that reason I believe we will keep #4.![]()
It’s unlikely that we’ll get Judd at 4 but back ourselves to get 2 champions at 8 (Dal who went at #13) and Monty (at #15 who we got in the 40s).
The main aspect of ur argument is 2 picks are better than one... but the fact still remains that they’re lesser picks. You’re drafting outside the highest identified talent pool.
I’d love to get that Caldwell guy but he’s pbly gone by 15
If perceptions don’t mean anything then why is there suggestion that we’re a good chance to get a “player” at #15
Could get Caldwell at 8 I suppose but you might miss him too
At 15 you're choosing from a plethora of players that are rated similarly, making the selection much much riskier
So I'm going to say in many cases yes 2 picks is better than one but not everyday of the week and I certainly wouldn't do this deal![]()
I have to form my opinion based on the available reading and footage.
I’ve reviewed it and come to as best a decision as I can
...if the club can land the midfileder that ticks the boxes and pick up 2 first round DPs...well...but a midfielder is the prime target. Take it to the bank.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
- Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 318 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
I dont mind that thinkingdesertsaint wrote: ↑Sun 18 Nov 2018 11:36pm another year of sucking and picking up a first or second draft pick is probably much needed.
but you can also add to the equation of possibilities...WOULD we be having this dilemma if -
# we didnt snag a clutch goal in the dying moments fo the game against Gold Coast ?
3 we dint extend McCartins contract at the start of 2018 & we were identifying draft talent two years out (Max King)
# the experts truly believe that talent pool for mids in 2020 will be as GOOD as what is available this year
# we didnt give away future picks easily - or give away next years future greedily this year
Im not denying it isnt complicated but thats why we pay big money to experts to make the right call
And we are being run by experts
My philosophy to explain the difference between winning clubs and the rest
is not the number of right calls you make - but the number of mistakes you make
eg Paddy vs Petracca both are a right call - but if paddys diabetes kicks in ...
Seeya
*************
*************
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4243
- Joined: Thu 25 Mar 2004 2:47pm
- Location: incarnate
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 694 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
Smith will, but unlimely Max King
Would be Rozee to GC and Max to PA
We would have Smith, Ben King, Caldwell etc to choose from.
Nee!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4243
- Joined: Thu 25 Mar 2004 2:47pm
- Location: incarnate
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 694 times
Re: If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4
Smith will, but unlikely Max King
Would be Rozee to GC and Max to PA
We would have Smith, Ben King, Caldwell etc to choose from.
Nee!