Looking at the current AFL Ladder......

[stevie]

We must not win or draw. (I can't express it the other way).
Melbourne will not win another 2 games after this weekend.
This is our only chance to force them above us on the ladder.

There are plenty of guys going around at Sandy who need to be tried out before seasons end.
Riewoldt clearly needs time to repair his calf muscle.
I am sure Armitage, Steven and Montagna are carrying injuries that need a one week break as well.
Josh Bruce and McCartin need to tried out in defence.
Dempster and Sam Smith would make a potent forward line capable of kicking multiple behinds.
Jack Watts needs to watched carefully.
He should attract at least 6 defenders at all times.
Those defenders opponents aren't that dangerous, they probably can't kick 40 goals between them in a game together.

Who is Sam Smith?

More importantly, who is JRK?

[gringo]

I think the best we could get is a couple of jumps in position so deliberately losing is pretty pointless. The top 2 picks look very good then there are about 5 including the academy players who are pretty even then there is another big group of similarly good players behind them. After about 25 there is mostly average players it looks like. Guys like Parish are a possibility to be around at 5 and if not someone like Balic who is risky at a top 5 pick but worth around 7 to 10 yet could be better than than most. I hear we are way into Mathieson who again is too expensive at a top 5 but could be acceptable at 7 to 10. The Dogs popped on Stringer and Bontempelli because they were placed at a point where they could pick a little more creatively without the pressure of a top 4 pick.

I just hope we get Lovell with our second pick. He is a little ripper, he plays footy the way you love it played.

[Bunk_Moreland]

I think the best we could get is a couple of jumps in position so deliberately losing is pretty pointless. The top 2 picks look very good then there are about 5 including the academy players who are pretty even then there is another big group of similarly good players behind them. After about 25 there is mostly average players it looks like. Guys like Parish are a possibility to be around at 5 and if not someone like Balic who is risky at a top 5 pick but worth around 7 to 10 yet could be better than than most. I hear we are way into Mathieson who again is too expensive at a top 5 but could be acceptable at 7 to 10. The Dogs popped on Stringer and Bontempelli because they were placed at a point where they could pick a little more creatively without the pressure of a top 4 pick.

I just hope we get Lovell with our second pick. He is a little ripper, he plays footy the way you love it played.

Agree with what you say.

If we have a pick 1-5 and Parish is about, we go for Parish, after that it is a choice between Mathesian, Balic, Curnow, Dunkley, maybe even Tucker any of those will be very good mids.

My preference is Parish as he has a bit more pace and I think we need a bit more.

As I have been saying all along, our first rounder will take care of itself, its what we do with our second, third, trading etc that will either continue the momentum of the last two years or stop us in our tracks.

My choice

Round 1 Parish
Round 2 - Tucker (or Collins) if we can get another Goddard type slider I would be wrapt.
Round 3 - Rice (F/S)
Round 4 - upgrade Sinclair.

Trade in an underplayed OOC Suns player or two and we are flying once again.

Oh BTW didn't Goddard and McCartin show some promise on the weekend

[matrix]

neither do i plugs but if youre going to type something it sometimes has to be able to be comprehended otherwise we have nfi what youre on about


anyhoo
i dont care about the ladder
we end up where we end up and we'll get whatever pick we are given

[Teflon]

Plugged let's get semi serious for a nano second
Where SHOW me where I have stated a side requires "x" amount of top 5 draft picks before it can compete??????
Put up???
You continually fabricate what isn't said to manufacture an argument that no ones having bar you and this is where I suspect you land yourself in trouble with so many posters - the mirror really is a good analogy and you ought to think about the FACTS that many here have raised your constant tactics with mods. When do you learn???
By the way, again there is no prescribed time limit on when a side rises from the depth but most sides go through that cycle and IMO Port is a good example of over achieving to quickly without the basis (see KPP depth) to sustain it (that's an opinion.... you'll need to look that word up).
The rest of your post is nonsense so excuse me if I don't bother replying to it.
Yours sincerely,
Teflon

I never said you did say that you need a certain amount of top 5 players. My point about not wanting to win is I cant work out when we decide we want to win and that is why I keep mentioning Port. You said they weren't down long enough but every flag winner since 2008 have been down for less time.

Just like you not buying wins this year I don't buy that we have to basically fail for the next 2 years and basically meh every game we play in that time. We will get up the ladder because of the other picks as well as top 5 picks. 80 to 90% of your players in a premiership side are outside the top 5 and that is fact. We have 3 top 5 picks. We will have at least 2 in about 3 years. The same as the hawks now and more that Sydney or Geelong ever had. 2 less than the pies. Geelong beat us with one top 5 pick when we had 5.

I want to win as many games as we can every year but some years like last year this year and probably the next we will only be capable of winning up to 6 games. Does that stop me wanting to beat the Hawks? Not a hope. Will I be upset if we lose to the Hawks. Not a hope, well not a day later anyway. I see no correlation between being down the bottom for long periods and winning flags. Surely the last 7 flags proves that.

It has nothing to do with being down the bottom for an extended period - again no one has said that so why mention this at all?
Comparing Ports rise to all other flag winners since 2008 is useless - Port won flags in 04 while while Pies and others were down before that, besides after Ports sustained period of success everyone expected their fall to last and be Melb like FACTS are that hasn't happened and Port have risen faster than Blues, Dees and probably Tigers truth be told but in reality they now look a little light in in quality KPP stakes and we all know you don't win flags without a decent spine. I don't want that same mistake so unlike you I am not interested in winning next 8 oly to have a false dawn papering over cracks in a side who last week I saw couldn't compete for 3 qtrs and whose best players are all retiring in 3 years.
I will take a hit now and in reality for next 2 years - not because that's a magical timeframe to do so (that's your version), but because we are ordinary and need too end quality depth badly.

Still think you must have a time frame. Im sure when the Demons got certain players they thought they had a decent spine. We basically are still a KP back short and no proof that we have KP forwards yet that will do the job into the future so do we hopefully stay down until we get more KPP and what then happens if they don't work out. Without mentioning timeframes there is obviously timeframes based on what you are saying. And I don't get your point about Port and when they won the flag. The point is they were down lunger recently than any of the last 7 falg winners.

My point is there is no magical fix even if you lose. The difference between pick 5 and pick 7 is hardly worth losing games for especially as you don't know the result of the losses for probably 3 years. And who says there is a tomorrow anyway. Some older people have been waiting for a flag since 1966. I don't think they need or hope or don't care about losing games now for something they may never see. Flags aren't a common thing at the Saints.

This makes less sense than the last - are you now arguing there must be a fixed timeframe for a rebuild cause I'm not? I do know I don't want Melbourne or Carltons extended run but that's hardly saying a rebuild should take "x " years. That's just bizarre
You post is al "what if" - what if our KPF doesn't work out??? We're in strife cause that means we've wasted a number 1 draft pick....but again, no one is saying the club shouldn't get its selections right??? So why mention that at all?? Point is we had a number selection which gave us considerable benefits because we are ordinary??
Your now arguing no difference between pick 5 and 7 - that too is illogical.... both from a first selection option basis or even a trade position. Are you really saying 7 is of equal value when potentially trading? Is pick 5 more advantageous over 7 IF it means a Darcy Parish (or any player the club has identified it needs) is there at our choice and we get to swoop before another suitor? Are you really suggesting the draft order is of no benefit ???? How odd.

Again, your last 7 flag winners homework merely proves you need multiple top draft selections in a side to challenge for a flag and ofcourse the timeframe on when Port were down is referable to all flag winners since 2007 because many started their rebuild earlier AND you need to take into consideration who was available when they were down (no one said drafting doesn't also require luck - cop a weak draft year and you're unlucky but you can't control that so why bother??)

Only thing the club can control to some degree is maximising what selection it has WHILE it's on the bottom - that small advantage is all the system affords you but it can be a very big advantage if you get lucky and as my dear old ma used to say " ya got to be in it to win it"

[plugger66]

This makes less sense than the last - are you now arguing there must be a fixed timeframe for a rebuild cause I'm not? I do know I don't want Melbourne or Carltons extended run but that's hardly saying a rebuild should take "x " years. That's just bizarre
You post is al "what if" - what if our KPF doesn't work out??? We're in strife cause that means we've wasted a number 1 draft pick....but again, no one is saying the club shouldn't get its selections right??? So why mention that at all?? Point is we had a number selection which gave us considerable benefits because we are ordinary??
Your now arguing no difference between pick 5 and 7 - that too is illogical.... both from a first selection option basis or even a trade position. Are you really saying 7 is of equal value when potentially trading? Is pick 5 more advantageous over 7 IF it means a Darcy Parish (or any player the club has identified it needs) is there at our choice and we get to swoop before another suitor? Are you really suggesting the draft order is of no benefit ???? How odd.

Again, your last 7 flag winners homework merely proves you need multiple top draft selections in a side to challenge for a flag and ofcourse the timeframe on when Port were down is referable to all flag winners since 2007 because many started their rebuild earlier AND you need to take into consideration who was available when they were down (no one said drafting doesn't also require luck - cop a weak draft year and you're unlucky but you can't control that so why bother??)

Only thing the club can control to some degree is maximising what selection it has WHILE it's on the bottom - that small advantage is all the system affords you but it can be a very big advantage if you get lucky and as my dear old ma used to say " ya got to be in it to win it"

You really do talk in riddles Teffers and when facts are used you come up with crap that the last 7 flag winners proves you need multiple top picks even though facts say on average they have less than us now. Well every single club gets multiple top picks apart from 4 of the last 7 flag winners. Yep 4. And yes many of the those winners started their rebuild earlier than Port. Why does it matter though because those sides have bugger all top 5 picks. Yep bugger all. And the point of pick 5 to pick 7 is you are happy to meh, winnable games. Even if we won our winnable games the worst pick we could get is about 7 so that is why it was mentioned. Surely it isn't that hard to get.

Interesting article in the paper today I believe. It shows that there are 6 sides who have more top 20 picks than any of the top 4 sides in the AFL. What that shows to me is the side that wins the flag get the lower picks right and also trading. Yep you need top end talent but again I ask how long do you stay down for top end talent? Its a simple question that I still haven't seen an answer to. Port wasn't long enough. Geelong and Sydney had one pick 5 on their list between them when they won there last flag and the Hawks, flag favourites and winner of the last 2, have 2 top 5 picks. I still don't know how long we should be down for before I can barrack again. How many top 5 picks should we have? 3, 5 ,7 or like the Hawks 2?

[SMS]

Winning more important.

We will MAKE great players.

You think the top 70 u18 players in the COUNTRY out of what? 200,000? Are going to be that vast in skill and ability?

Biggest myth is top draft picks.

Lonie was 37 sinclair a rookie i would argue they will be top 10 or 20 in that draft over the next 10 years.
List management, coaching, leadership, membership/money and WINNING CULTURE is what matters.

I am proud that the saints are doing those things needed. Great president now and reiwoldt is the greatest leader weve ever had. Richo is the right man and with gillonat the helm we have a chance.
Draft picks?? Give me a break. We'll get another 5 very good youngsters this year... Upto us to choose what we need and mould them into stars. So relax and do YOUR JOB which is BARRACK AND SUPPORT THE CLUB and ALWAYS WANT TO WIN!

ITS NO coincidence hawks get a pick 40 and turn him into a star and melbourne get a pick 1 and turn him into a dud

[plugger66]

Winning more important.

We will MAKE great players.

You think the top 70 u18 players in the COUNTRY out of what? 200,000? Are going to be that vast in skill and ability?

Biggest myth is top draft picks.

Lonie was 37 sinclair a rookie i would argue they will be top 10 or 20 in that draft over the next 10 years.
List management, coaching, leadership, membership/money and WINNING CULTURE is what matters.

I am proud that the saints are doing those things needed. Great president now and reiwoldt is the greatest leader weve ever had. Richo is the right man and with gillonat the helm we have a chance.
Draft picks?? Give me a break. We'll get another 5 very good youngsters this year... Upto us to choose what we need and mould them into stars. So relax and do YOUR JOB which is BARRACK AND SUPPORT THE CLUB and ALWAYS WANT TO WIN!

ITS NO coincidence hawks get a pick 40 and turn him into a star and melbourne get a pick 1 and turn him into a dud

Is this a different poster who watches us lose and carries on like a spoilt brat when we don't play to the standard you expect. A standard that is far to high at the moment. I wish you would be at least a little positive during games we aren't playing well in.

[Teflon]

Winning more important.

We will MAKE great players.

You think the top 70 u18 players in the COUNTRY out of what? 200,000? Are going to be that vast in skill and ability?

Biggest myth is top draft picks.

Lonie was 37 sinclair a rookie i would argue they will be top 10 or 20 in that draft over the next 10 years.
List management, coaching, leadership, membership/money and WINNING CULTURE is what matters.

I am proud that the saints are doing those things needed. Great president now and reiwoldt is the greatest leader weve ever had. Richo is the right man and with gillonat the helm we have a chance.
Draft picks?? Give me a break. We'll get another 5 very good youngsters this year... Upto us to choose what we need and mould them into stars. So relax and do YOUR JOB which is BARRACK AND SUPPORT THE CLUB and ALWAYS WANT TO WIN!

ITS NO coincidence hawks get a pick 40 and turn him into a star and melbourne get a pick 1 and turn him into a dud

Loves Nick Riewoldt yet doesnt reckon the draft selection order is of any real importance???? try gettin him at 7 genius

Honestly, ofcourse its important and worth it thats why clubs have and do tank - facts of the game even if it snot publicly stated.

Forget this delusional "hawks better than meblourne to develop cause they win" rubbish - Hawks off filed are swimming in cash and their development programs to a melbourne is no contest. Success breeds success but go back and look at the genesis of the Hawks list and they traded out names to get higher order draft picks to build from - even if these werent top 5.

Regardless, point is the higher the draft selection the more control you have over getting the player you want...is anyone disputing this?

[Teflon]

This makes less sense than the last - are you now arguing there must be a fixed timeframe for a rebuild cause I'm not? I do know I don't want Melbourne or Carltons extended run but that's hardly saying a rebuild should take "x " years. That's just bizarre
You post is al "what if" - what if our KPF doesn't work out??? We're in strife cause that means we've wasted a number 1 draft pick....but again, no one is saying the club shouldn't get its selections right??? So why mention that at all?? Point is we had a number selection which gave us considerable benefits because we are ordinary??
Your now arguing no difference between pick 5 and 7 - that too is illogical.... both from a first selection option basis or even a trade position. Are you really saying 7 is of equal value when potentially trading? Is pick 5 more advantageous over 7 IF it means a Darcy Parish (or any player the club has identified it needs) is there at our choice and we get to swoop before another suitor? Are you really suggesting the draft order is of no benefit ???? How odd.

Again, your last 7 flag winners homework merely proves you need multiple top draft selections in a side to challenge for a flag and ofcourse the timeframe on when Port were down is referable to all flag winners since 2007 because many started their rebuild earlier AND you need to take into consideration who was available when they were down (no one said drafting doesn't also require luck - cop a weak draft year and you're unlucky but you can't control that so why bother??)

Only thing the club can control to some degree is maximising what selection it has WHILE it's on the bottom - that small advantage is all the system affords you but it can be a very big advantage if you get lucky and as my dear old ma used to say " ya got to be in it to win it"

You really do talk in riddles Teffers and when facts are used you come up with crap that the last 7 flag winners proves you need multiple top picks even though facts say on average they have less than us now. Well every single club gets multiple top picks apart from 4 of the last 7 flag winners. Yep 4. And yes many of the those winners started their rebuild earlier than Port. Why does it matter though because those sides have bugger all top 5 picks. Yep bugger all. And the point of pick 5 to pick 7 is you are happy to meh, winnable games. Even if we won our winnable games the worst pick we could get is about 7 so that is why it was mentioned. Surely it isn't that hard to get.

Interesting article in the paper today I believe. It shows that there are 6 sides who have more top 20 picks than any of the top 4 sides in the AFL. What that shows to me is the side that wins the flag get the lower picks right and also trading. Yep you need top end talent but again I ask how long do you stay down for top end talent? Its a simple question that I still haven't seen an answer to. Port wasn't long enough. Geelong and Sydney had one pick 5 on their list between them when they won there last flag and the Hawks, flag favourites and winner of the last 2, have 2 top 5 picks. I still don't know how long we should be down for before I can barrack again. How many top 5 picks should we have? 3, 5 ,7 or like the Hawks 2?

Again, entirely off topic - is this deliberate cause no one could be that slow
Honestly do you think the debate I have raged is "we must have 34 top 5 draft picks to be succesful???"

What I am saying is that our chances of securing the player we want is enhanced by a lower draft pick (you with me genius???) - are you now disputing this?
To that end I am arguing we need to maximise our selection options and finish with the highest pick possible to give ourselves the best possible chance to secure that player.
Hawks have done this through smart trading - go check.

Again, are you arguing the draft order is of no benefit to a ream finishing lower on the ladder - is that what you are saying?

BTW your stats are flawed - last decade most of those sides have had a higher number of draft picks than Port (we can all use stats to lie thats easy but again proves little).

I have bolded and highlighted central part of the post to help you stay on topic. please try.

[gringo]

I think the best we could get is a couple of jumps in position so deliberately losing is pretty pointless. The top 2 picks look very good then there are about 5 including the academy players who are pretty even then there is another big group of similarly good players behind them. After about 25 there is mostly average players it looks like. Guys like Parish are a possibility to be around at 5 and if not someone like Balic who is risky at a top 5 pick but worth around 7 to 10 yet could be better than than most. I hear we are way into Mathieson who again is too expensive at a top 5 but could be acceptable at 7 to 10. The Dogs popped on Stringer and Bontempelli because they were placed at a point where they could pick a little more creatively without the pressure of a top 4 pick.

I just hope we get Lovell with our second pick. He is a little ripper, he plays footy the way you love it played.

Agree with what you say.

If we have a pick 1-5 and Parish is about, we go for Parish, after that it is a choice between Mathesian, Balic, Curnow, Dunkley, maybe even Tucker any of those will be very good mids.

My preference is Parish as he has a bit more pace and I think we need a bit more.

As I have been saying all along, our first rounder will take care of itself, its what we do with our second, third, trading etc that will either continue the momentum of the last two years or stop us in our tracks.

My choice

Round 1 Parish
Round 2 - Tucker (or Collins) if we can get another Goddard type slider I would be wrapt.
Round 3 - Rice (F/S)
Round 4 - upgrade Sinclair.

Trade in an underplayed OOC Suns player or two and we are flying once again.

Oh BTW didn't Goddard and McCartin show some promise on the weekend

Agree on needing a bit more pace but quick thinking is worth more than foot speed to me. Sam Mitchell wouldn't be able to get near Brett Peake in a foot race but one is a much better player.
Maybe we could get the slider that plays like (Brendan) Goddard- Francis. I'm not sure on Rice, he seems best placed in the backline and we are very well set with those types of smaller backs.

[Bunk_Moreland]

This makes less sense than the last - are you now arguing there must be a fixed timeframe for a rebuild cause I'm not? I do know I don't want Melbourne or Carltons extended run but that's hardly saying a rebuild should take "x " years. That's just bizarre
You post is al "what if" - what if our KPF doesn't work out??? We're in strife cause that means we've wasted a number 1 draft pick....but again, no one is saying the club shouldn't get its selections right??? So why mention that at all?? Point is we had a number selection which gave us considerable benefits because we are ordinary??
Your now arguing no difference between pick 5 and 7 - that too is illogical.... both from a first selection option basis or even a trade position. Are you really saying 7 is of equal value when potentially trading? Is pick 5 more advantageous over 7 IF it means a Darcy Parish (or any player the club has identified it needs) is there at our choice and we get to swoop before another suitor? Are you really suggesting the draft order is of no benefit ???? How odd.

Again, your last 7 flag winners homework merely proves you need multiple top draft selections in a side to challenge for a flag and ofcourse the timeframe on when Port were down is referable to all flag winners since 2007 because many started their rebuild earlier AND you need to take into consideration who was available when they were down (no one said drafting doesn't also require luck - cop a weak draft year and you're unlucky but you can't control that so why bother??)

Only thing the club can control to some degree is maximising what selection it has WHILE it's on the bottom - that small advantage is all the system affords you but it can be a very big advantage if you get lucky and as my dear old ma used to say " ya got to be in it to win it"

You really do talk in riddles Teffers and when facts are used you come up with crap that the last 7 flag winners proves you need multiple top picks even though facts say on average they have less than us now. Well every single club gets multiple top picks apart from 4 of the last 7 flag winners. Yep 4. And yes many of the those winners started their rebuild earlier than Port. Why does it matter though because those sides have bugger all top 5 picks. Yep bugger all. And the point of pick 5 to pick 7 is you are happy to meh, winnable games. Even if we won our winnable games the worst pick we could get is about 7 so that is why it was mentioned. Surely it isn't that hard to get.

Interesting article in the paper today I believe. It shows that there are 6 sides who have more top 20 picks than any of the top 4 sides in the AFL. What that shows to me is the side that wins the flag get the lower picks right and also trading. Yep you need top end talent but again I ask how long do you stay down for top end talent? Its a simple question that I still haven't seen an answer to. Port wasn't long enough. Geelong and Sydney had one pick 5 on their list between them when they won there last flag and the Hawks, flag favourites and winner of the last 2, have 2 top 5 picks. I still don't know how long we should be down for before I can barrack again. How many top 5 picks should we have? 3, 5 ,7 or like the Hawks 2?

Again, entirely off topic - is this deliberate cause no one could be that slow
Honestly do you think the debate I have raged is "we must have 34 top 5 draft picks to be succesful???"

What I am saying is that our chances of securing the player we want is enhanced by a lower draft pick (you with me genius???) - are you now disputing this?
To that end I am arguing we need to maximise our selection options and finish with the highest pick possible to give ourselves the best possible chance to secure that player.
Hawks have done this through smart trading - go check.

Again, are you arguing the draft order is of no benefit to a ream finishing lower on the ladder - is that what you are saying?

BTW your stats are flawed - last decade most of those sides have had a higher number of draft picks than Port (we can all use stats to lie thats easy but again proves little).

I have bolded and highlighted central part of the post to help you stay on topic. please try.

But Teflon what happens if the player we really want is a FA or OOC and he is swayed by the continual losing of the team and decides that a team like say the Bulldogs has more to offer. Because we have not won all the games we should have, we miss out on the Dangerfield or Aish or Treloar that we require as a top recruit to finish off the trading that has occurred?

[plugger66]

Again, entirely off topic - is this deliberate cause no one could be that slow
Honestly do you think the debate I have raged is "we must have 34 top 5 draft picks to be succesful???"

What I am saying is that our chances of securing the player we want is enhanced by a lower draft pick (you with me genius???) - are you now disputing this?
To that end I am arguing we need to maximise our selection options and finish with the highest pick possible to give ourselves the best possible chance to secure that player.
Hawks have done this through smart trading - go check.

Again, are you arguing the draft order is of no benefit to a ream finishing lower on the ladder - is that what you are saying?

BTW your stats are flawed - last decade most of those sides have had a higher number of draft picks than Port (we can all use stats to lie thats easy but again proves little).

I have bolded and highlighted central part of the post to help you stay on topic. please try.

It isn't off topic at all. I have noticed that if you cant debate something because the answer makes your theories look silly you either get personal, call off topic or try to be funny. You also ask basic questions that have obvious answers and have never been in dispute when we have had these discussions.

Lets look at how this started. I wanted to win games and you didn't care because it will result in a better pick. I don't think any person has disputed that but we have moved on from that obvious result. It is now about how many of these better picks we need and that is why I have shown you how many the last 7 GF winners have had. You don't like that because it shows that you don't necessarily need a good amount of top 5 picks. You wont even tell us how many top 5 picks we need so we can start hoping the side wins again.

And when am I arguing that the draft order is no benefit? I did say its hardly going to make any difference between pick 5 and 7 but I wont use silly examples like you did by using a top pick and pick 43. Plain silly.

Every single person knows if we finish lower we get a better pick. No one has ever said otherwise but you don't care if we win to get a better pick. When facts are used to show that a better pick wont always help the side you revert back to something that no one has even disagreed with you with.

If you could just tell me how many years should I wait to start barracking again that would be great. Please don't bring up obvious points that no one has disagreed with you.

[matrix]

[SMS]

The first 3 quarters last week were deplorable.
We need to have standards. Lets not be melbourne and think playing a good quarter every now and then is fine.

Reiwoldt at pick 1? Great example douchebag. Name another. 500 and youll convince me

Kosi at 2 worth it?
Fisher at 55
Dane swan at 50 something
Hird in the 70s
Bruce was nothing
Selwood pick 7
Dal pick 13
I could go through and find all the great players picked outside top 10
Id love to see the percentage ratio.
Bet its about the same.


So a losing culture worth the following ...
Tambling at 4
Polak at 4 was it?
Fraser at 1
Beetham at 1
Watts at 1
Fiora at 3
X clarke at 5
Tim walsh at 4
Salopek at 6
McIntosh at 9
Luke brennan at 8
Laycock at 7
Walker at 2
Sylvia at 3
Bradley, tenace trotter dunn all top 10

I could go on.

I repeat. Top picks are a myth. Sure pick 6 should be better and will be than pick 70 but thats NOT whats happening
Winning culture for us next two years
Picks 8, 26, 43
Losing culture
Picks 1-4, 18-22, 35-39

Sorry but i dont see the point in having a losing culture over the next 2 years when the draft is an educated lucky dip. Id worry more about our culture.





Winning culture MUCH more important.
Winning = money.

[SMS]

Winning = happiness
Do you think a free agent gun is goong to want to come to us if we are spooners and shitkickers??

[Teflon]

This makes less sense than the last - are you now arguing there must be a fixed timeframe for a rebuild cause I'm not? I do know I don't want Melbourne or Carltons extended run but that's hardly saying a rebuild should take "x " years. That's just bizarre
You post is al "what if" - what if our KPF doesn't work out??? We're in strife cause that means we've wasted a number 1 draft pick....but again, no one is saying the club shouldn't get its selections right??? So why mention that at all?? Point is we had a number selection which gave us considerable benefits because we are ordinary??
Your now arguing no difference between pick 5 and 7 - that too is illogical.... both from a first selection option basis or even a trade position. Are you really saying 7 is of equal value when potentially trading? Is pick 5 more advantageous over 7 IF it means a Darcy Parish (or any player the club has identified it needs) is there at our choice and we get to swoop before another suitor? Are you really suggesting the draft order is of no benefit ???? How odd.

Again, your last 7 flag winners homework merely proves you need multiple top draft selections in a side to challenge for a flag and ofcourse the timeframe on when Port were down is referable to all flag winners since 2007 because many started their rebuild earlier AND you need to take into consideration who was available when they were down (no one said drafting doesn't also require luck - cop a weak draft year and you're unlucky but you can't control that so why bother??)

Only thing the club can control to some degree is maximising what selection it has WHILE it's on the bottom - that small advantage is all the system affords you but it can be a very big advantage if you get lucky and as my dear old ma used to say " ya got to be in it to win it"

You really do talk in riddles Teffers and when facts are used you come up with crap that the last 7 flag winners proves you need multiple top picks even though facts say on average they have less than us now. Well every single club gets multiple top picks apart from 4 of the last 7 flag winners. Yep 4. And yes many of the those winners started their rebuild earlier than Port. Why does it matter though because those sides have bugger all top 5 picks. Yep bugger all. And the point of pick 5 to pick 7 is you are happy to meh, winnable games. Even if we won our winnable games the worst pick we could get is about 7 so that is why it was mentioned. Surely it isn't that hard to get.

Interesting article in the paper today I believe. It shows that there are 6 sides who have more top 20 picks than any of the top 4 sides in the AFL. What that shows to me is the side that wins the flag get the lower picks right and also trading. Yep you need top end talent but again I ask how long do you stay down for top end talent? Its a simple question that I still haven't seen an answer to. Port wasn't long enough. Geelong and Sydney had one pick 5 on their list between them when they won there last flag and the Hawks, flag favourites and winner of the last 2, have 2 top 5 picks. I still don't know how long we should be down for before I can barrack again. How many top 5 picks should we have? 3, 5 ,7 or like the Hawks 2?

Again, entirely off topic - is this deliberate cause no one could be that slow
Honestly do you think the debate I have raged is "we must have 34 top 5 draft picks to be succesful???"

What I am saying is that our chances of securing the player we want is enhanced by a lower draft pick (you with me genius???) - are you now disputing this?
To that end I am arguing we need to maximise our selection options and finish with the highest pick possible to give ourselves the best possible chance to secure that player.
Hawks have done this through smart trading - go check.

Again, are you arguing the draft order is of no benefit to a ream finishing lower on the ladder - is that what you are saying?

BTW your stats are flawed - last decade most of those sides have had a higher number of draft picks than Port (we can all use stats to lie thats easy but again proves little).

I have bolded and highlighted central part of the post to help you stay on topic. please try.

But Teflon what happens if the player we really want is a FA or OOC and he is swayed by the continual losing of the team and decides that a team like say the Bulldogs has more to offer. Because we have not won all the games we should have, we miss out on the Dangerfield or Aish or Treloar that we require as a top recruit to finish off the trading that has occurred?

That did occur BM but I'm talk draft target purely
That said, pick 5 in a trade deal still worth more than 7 so it still has upside imo

[Teflon]

The first 3 quarters last week were deplorable.
We need to have standards. Lets not be melbourne and think playing a good quarter every now and then is fine.

Reiwoldt at pick 1? Great example douchebag. Name another. 500 and youll convince me

Kosi at 2 worth it?
Fisher at 55
Dane swan at 50 something
Hird in the 70s
Bruce was nothing
Selwood pick 7
Dal pick 13
I could go through and find all the great players picked outside top 10
Id love to see the percentage ratio.
Bet its about the same.


So a losing culture worth the following ...
Tambling at 4
Polak at 4 was it?
Fraser at 1
Beetham at 1
Watts at 1
Fiora at 3
X clarke at 5
Tim walsh at 4
Salopek at 6
McIntosh at 9
Luke brennan at 8
Laycock at 7
Walker at 2
Sylvia at 3
Bradley, tenace trotter dunn all top 10

I could go on.

I repeat. Top picks are a myth. Sure pick 6 should be better and will be than pick 70 but thats NOT whats happening
Winning culture for us next two years
Picks 8, 26, 43
Losing culture
Picks 1-4, 18-22, 35-39

Sorry but i dont see the point in having a losing culture over the next 2 years when the draft is an educated lucky dip. Id worry more about our culture.





Winning culture MUCH more important.
Winning = money.

Hodge at 1 douchebag? Are we really gonna list all players in the draft
Draft isn't a lucky dip if you're smart douchebag - Hawks prove that
Do show me the proof douchebag that losing last week or even a few more games this season is going to hurt our "culture" in the next 5 years??
By the way douchebag - we won heaps in 09 and are still struggling financially - wins on ground sit the key to financial salvation , that lies in strategic off field planning as much as anything

[Teflon]

Winning = happiness
Do you think a free agent gun is goong to want to come to us if we are spooners and shitkickers??

I think players are smarter than looking at win/loss columns genius - why did Bruce come cause he liked the colors???

[Teflon]

Again, entirely off topic - is this deliberate cause no one could be that slow
Honestly do you think the debate I have raged is "we must have 34 top 5 draft picks to be succesful???"

What I am saying is that our chances of securing the player we want is enhanced by a lower draft pick (you with me genius???) - are you now disputing this?
To that end I am arguing we need to maximise our selection options and finish with the highest pick possible to give ourselves the best possible chance to secure that player.
Hawks have done this through smart trading - go check.

Again, are you arguing the draft order is of no benefit to a ream finishing lower on the ladder - is that what you are saying?

BTW your stats are flawed - last decade most of those sides have had a higher number of draft picks than Port (we can all use stats to lie thats easy but again proves little).

I have bolded and highlighted central part of the post to help you stay on topic. please try.

It isn't off topic at all. I have noticed that if you cant debate something because the answer makes your theories look silly you either get personal, call off topic or try to be funny. You also ask basic questions that have obvious answers and have never been in dispute when we have had these discussions.

Lets look at how this started. I wanted to win games and you didn't care because it will result in a better pick. I don't think any person has disputed that but we have moved on from that obvious result. It is now about how many of these better picks we need and that is why I have shown you how many the last 7 GF winners have had. You don't like that because it shows that you don't necessarily need a good amount of top 5 picks. You wont even tell us how many top 5 picks we need so we can start hoping the side wins again.

And when am I arguing that the draft order is no benefit? I did say its hardly going to make any difference between pick 5 and 7 but I wont use silly examples like you did by using a top pick and pick 43. Plain silly.

Every single person knows if we finish lower we get a better pick. No one has ever said otherwise but you don't care if we win to get a better pick. When facts are used to show that a better pick wont always help the side you revert back to something that no one has even disagreed with you with.

If you could just tell me how many years should I wait to start barracking again that would be great. Please don't bring up obvious points that no one has disagreed with you.

Look that's aflat out lie
You introduced:
Later picks more important
Still can stuff up pick 5
and lately...
How many pick 5's you need and how long must we be down
All introduced by you cause no amount of your rubbish "facts" disprove that finishing lower guarantees a better pick which is of more value than the one after....
I am simply saying this is the prize for lower finish and IMO that's more important than beating up lowly Brisbane (which you feel will transform us long term.... utter garbage).
Get the picks, draft well and the wins will come - I don't buy this "we have 8 games to transform into a winning culture" nonsense, we are fooling no one with where we are currently situated and facts are we need talent to get better.
A better draft selection helps us do that and is worth some short term pain IMO

[plugger66]

Look that's aflat out lie
You introduced:
Later picks more important
Still can stuff up pick 5
and lately...
How many pick 5's you need and how long must we be down
All introduced by you cause no amount of your rubbish "facts" disprove that finishing lower guarantees a better pick which is of more value than the one after....
I am simply saying this is the prize for lower finish and IMO that's more important than beating up lowly Brisbane (which you feel will transform us long term.... utter garbage).
Get the picks, draft well and the wins will come - I don't buy this "we have 8 games to transform into a winning culture" nonsense, we are fooling no one with where we are currently situated and facts are we need talent to get better.
A better draft selection helps us do that and is worth some short term pain IMO

I have no idea what is a flat out lie but I haven't lied once in this discussion. I said later picks are more important because we have more of them and because every single side in the AFL, yes every side has more later picks than earlier picks. I don't have to look anything up to know that. Any person knows that. There isn't a fruitloop in this world who thinks you will get up the ladder with only top 5 picks when evidence suggests no side usually has more thn 2 or 3 in a winning GF side. We did have 5 but lost. maybe you can have to many. There is actually more evidence of that but I wouldn't argue that. I will stick to the fact that most sides would have about 15 lower picks in their side compared to maybe 5 top 10 picks. Fact.

The personal stuff again. Very funny. I didn't know winning was so important to you.

And yes you are simply saying that losing means better picks. Every single person who follows footy knows that but im allowed to ask questions and provide facts or should we just finish on your basic statement. Yep you are right that finishing lower means better picks but I am allowed to argue that it may not mean a thing in the long run because the facts show you don't need to finish low for too long. They are the facts and no matter how you want get back to your basic statement wont change me wanting you to justify the reason for finishing lower apart from a better pick.

And I will ask you again how long do we need this better draft selection before we can start barracking again. I know you struggle to answer questions that may make you look silly but it isn't a hard question. So please answer that basic question.

[Teflon]

Different argument - not interested in justifying question s that have no answers - it's pointless
I'll take a lower pick thanks any day of the week if it means I get greater choice selection and control over the player I want in the draft. That doesnt need justification - facts support me and it's an opinion.
You'll have to commence trolling another thread as it looks like you're out of steam here big boy!! (and they reckon CW is a troll!!)

[plugger66]

Different argument - not interested in justifying question s that have no answers - it's pointless
I'll take a lower pick thanks any day of the week if it means I get greater choice selection and control over the player I want in the draft. That doesnt need justification - facts support me and it's an opinion.
You'll have to commence trolling another thread as it looks like you're out of steam here big boy!! (and they reckon CW is a troll!!)

Teffers you could be the softest poster on here. It is funny. I can see you squirming as you type. Wont answer a simple question and wants to stick to one of the most obvious statements ever made that if you finish lower you get a better pick. Who would have thunk? And calls people out on trolling because of a question that will embarrass him and his opinion.

Yep teffers I cant argue with you. The lower you finish the higher pick you get. I can ask though, how long do you think we need to finish low to get a higher pick? Should I barrack for us next year or 2017?

[Teflon]

Different argument - not interested in justifying question s that have no answers - it's pointless
I'll take a lower pick thanks any day of the week if it means I get greater choice selection and control over the player I want in the draft. That doesnt need justification - facts support me and it's an opinion.
You'll have to commence trolling another thread as it looks like you're out of steam here big boy!! (and they reckon CW is a troll!!)

Teffers you could be the softest poster on here. It is funny. I can see you squirming as you type. Wont answer a simple question and wants to stick to one of the most obvious statements ever made that if you finish lower you get a better pick. Who would have thunk? And calls people out on trolling because of a question that will embarrass him and his opinion.

Yep teffers I cant argue with you. The lower you finish the higher pick you get. I can ask though, how long do you think we need to finish low to get a higher pick? Should I barrack for us next year or 2017?

I'm actually a simple guy, enjoy the simpler things ini life..... that's why I like you!! lbut simple statements like: Finish lower get better picks really appeal to me.
I can see you're struggle.....tripping yourself up so much you can't stay on topic or handle others views very well at all but as they say..... meh!
How long to rebuild you ask??? .... how longs a piece of string genius?

[plugger66]

Different argument - not interested in justifying question s that have no answers - it's pointless
I'll take a lower pick thanks any day of the week if it means I get greater choice selection and control over the player I want in the draft. That doesnt need justification - facts support me and it's an opinion.
You'll have to commence trolling another thread as it looks like you're out of steam here big boy!! (and they reckon CW is a troll!!)

Teffers you could be the softest poster on here. It is funny. I can see you squirming as you type. Wont answer a simple question and wants to stick to one of the most obvious statements ever made that if you finish lower you get a better pick. Who would have thunk? And calls people out on trolling because of a question that will embarrass him and his opinion.

Yep teffers I cant argue with you. The lower you finish the higher pick you get. I can ask though, how long do you think we need to finish low to get a higher pick? Should I barrack for us next year or 2017?

I'm actually a simple guy, likes simple things so statements like: Finish lower get better picks really appeal to me.
I can see you're far more complex, tripping yourself up so much you can't stay on topic or handle others views very well at all but as they say..... meh!
How long to rebuild you ask??? .... how longs a piece of string genius?

This one next. Yep had that as favourite. First winner Ive backed in a year. The reason I ask about how long the rebuild is I really want to know what year I can barrack again. It certainly cant be when we get a certain amount of top picks and it cant be when they start staring because they maybe like Armo and take a few years. I suppose we can guess based on nothing at all apart from maybe how good looking the player is.

Anyway you can meh games for one year or 5 years. I will hope we win every possible game we play in and then if we lose I then can say well at least we will get a better pick. My dog worked that out about the better pick the lower you finish but thanks Teffers for explaining just in case I didn't have a dog. I love the fact you care enough to explain that to me.

Which is next?