Bucky's top ten draft picks

[parkeysainter]

They are playing the kids. Have been all year and more. Its detrimental to play them all at once though and is counter productive.

Seriously though...since Riwoldt was pick 1 in 2000 (I think it was that year), has any pick 1 been as dominant as him over the other draft picks in their draft since then?

I'm tipping players from the same draft have turned out better than McCartin, Watts, Boyd, Waitering, Whitfield for example.

[Crossy66]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.

No its not. earlier i gave you a list of the best players in the AFL today, with none of them at number one and only one at number two . Its just a fact that a one or two draft pick is not the best player in the draft. No one said pick 44 is as good as 2 so why mention it? I am saying that any pick in the top 5 will get you are good player and that is based on fact, not emotion and that player has as much chance of becoming a star as pick one.

So to answer Teflons question earlier:
Riddle me this batman: Does pick 1 in a strong draft give our recruitment team greater negotiation options yes/no?
My answer is no it doesnt, and i have supplied fact to back it up. Any pick in the top 5 is just as good and its not my opinion its actually what happens in reality I note the clever use of the word "negotiate" which could mean anything. Would you swap pick one for two picks, say 8 & 9 ? personally i would stick to top five

BTW, the point hasnt been missed. You say that nobody's suggesting we tank. Read back through Teflons posts and the suggestion is absolutely to tank. i.e lose games to get a higher draft pick. You say that would be stupid - I cant argue with that!
I want to see the kids get a game too, and i think thats what we have been doing. But kids need on field coaching or leadership to get value out of the game, otherwise the experience will be of no benefit. So there needs a sprinkling of older players.

[Crossy66]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

I am not ignoring what a "higher" draft selection means.
I am just giving you facts that number one or number two doesn't guarantee you the best player in the draft. Did you want to question that? If so provide examples in the last 10 years where number one has turned out to be the best player in the draft. Its a fallacy.
We ARE playing kids, we ARE working out who stays or goes and who can kick, stay composed and hit a target. Do you think that hasnt crossed the coaching staffs mind?

[Teflon]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.

No its not. earlier i gave you a list of the best players in the AFL today, with none of them at number one and only one at number two . Its just a fact that a one or two draft pick is not the best player in the draft. No one said pick 44 is as good as 2 so why mention it? I am saying that any pick in the top 5 will get you are good player and that is based on fact, not emotion and that player has as much chance of becoming a star as pick one.

So to answer Teflons question earlier:
Riddle me this batman: Does pick 1 in a strong draft give our recruitment team greater negotiation options yes/no?
My answer is no it doesnt, and i have supplied fact to back it up. Any pick in the top 5 is just as good and its not my opinion its actually what happens in reality I note the clever use of the word "negotiate" which could mean anything. Would you swap pick one for two picks, say 8 & 9 ? personally i would stick to top five

BTW, the point hasnt been missed. You say that nobody's suggesting we tank. Read back through Teflons posts and the suggestion is absolutely to tank. i.e lose games to get a higher draft pick. You say that would be stupid - I cant argue with that!
I want to see the kids get a game too, and i think thats what we have been doing. But kids need on field coaching or leadership to get value out of the game, otherwise the experience will be of no benefit. So there needs a sprinkling of older players.

I’ve heard it all now and it’s becoming silly
So now you’re saying a higher selection in the draft doesn’t give you more recruitment options because the current best players chosen in the draft turned out not to be no 1 picks? That’s not the order of selection issue.....that’s the recruitment decision made at the time.
Whether I’d swap pick 1 for 2 top 10 picks is irrelevant - the POINT is if I have no 1 pick I’d have that choice.......winning a few games against lowly opposition so supporters can puff their chest and feel like we are ‘culture building’ is pipe dream stuff and robs us of one of our only opportunities to get the best kid we want
Talk is this draft 2 mids in Walsh/Smith standing out (rest are great talks apparently) both those 2 mids rumoured to go by 5.....you be happy to beat up on Carlton and Brusbane and miss out on a genuine need ? Or even an elite talented mid we sorely need..??
Get the best pick
I don’t care what you call it our main aim this season is to uncover talent - winning is secondary to that .

[Teflon]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

I am not ignoring what a "higher" draft selection means.
I am just giving you facts that number one or number two doesn't guarantee you the best player in the draft. Did you want to question that? If so provide examples in the last 10 years where number one has turned out to be the best player in the draft. Its a fallacy.
We ARE playing kids, we ARE working out who stays or goes and who can kick, stay composed and hit a target. Do you think that hasnt crossed the coaching staffs mind?

You are deliberately mixing a recruitment selection with the advantage of having that higher order choice - first get the choice you then need to execute but I’d rather have that choice (and have greater control over getting the player I want than to have that choice taken away from me cause I wanted a few cheap wins...)
Is our coaching team thinking strategically about our future playing needs???
You mean the same coach who told us this list is ‘just underperforming’??? You actually trust them to get that right after the road to 2018 debarked we are now in???
Head out of sand time me think......

[Crossy66]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.

No its not. earlier i gave you a list of the best players in the AFL today, with none of them at number one and only one at number two . Its just a fact that a one or two draft pick is not the best player in the draft. No one said pick 44 is as good as 2 so why mention it? I am saying that any pick in the top 5 will get you are good player and that is based on fact, not emotion and that player has as much chance of becoming a star as pick one.

So to answer Teflons question earlier:
Riddle me this batman: Does pick 1 in a strong draft give our recruitment team greater negotiation options yes/no?
My answer is no it doesnt, and i have supplied fact to back it up. Any pick in the top 5 is just as good and its not my opinion its actually what happens in reality I note the clever use of the word "negotiate" which could mean anything. Would you swap pick one for two picks, say 8 & 9 ? personally i would stick to top five

BTW, the point hasnt been missed. You say that nobody's suggesting we tank. Read back through Teflons posts and the suggestion is absolutely to tank. i.e lose games to get a higher draft pick. You say that would be stupid - I cant argue with that!
I want to see the kids get a game too, and i think thats what we have been doing. But kids need on field coaching or leadership to get value out of the game, otherwise the experience will be of no benefit. So there needs a sprinkling of older players.

I’ve heard it all now and it’s becoming silly
So now you’re saying a higher selection in the draft doesn’t give you more recruitment options because the current best players chosen in the draft turned out not to be no 1 picks? That’s not the order of selection issue.....that’s the recruitment decision made at the time.
Whether I’d swap pick 1 for 2 top 10 picks is irrelevant - the POINT is if I have no 1 pick I’d have that choice.......winning a few games against lowly opposition so supporters can puff their chest and feel like we are ‘culture building’ is pipe dream stuff and robs us of one of our only opportunities to get the best kid we want
Talk is this draft 2 mids in Walsh/Smith standing out (rest are great talks apparently) both those 2 mids rumoured to go by 5.....you be happy to beat up on Carlton and Brusbane and miss out on a genuine need ? Or even an elite talented mid we sorely need..??
Get the best pick
I don’t care what you call it our main aim this season is to uncover talent - winning is secondary to that .

I'm not saying anything. I am giving you facts that your belief that a number one pick is the best pick is a fallacy. If you want to provide proof to the contrary then do it.
You think tanking is good - i dont.
And yes, i believe that doing your absolute best every time you pull on the jumper and to hate losing are the values we want in our players.
Also picking up just one kid is nowhere near as valuable as developing thewhole list

[Teflon]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.

No its not. earlier i gave you a list of the best players in the AFL today, with none of them at number one and only one at number two . Its just a fact that a one or two draft pick is not the best player in the draft. No one said pick 44 is as good as 2 so why mention it? I am saying that any pick in the top 5 will get you are good player and that is based on fact, not emotion and that player has as much chance of becoming a star as pick one.

So to answer Teflons question earlier:
Riddle me this batman: Does pick 1 in a strong draft give our recruitment team greater negotiation options yes/no?
My answer is no it doesnt, and i have supplied fact to back it up. Any pick in the top 5 is just as good and its not my opinion its actually what happens in reality I note the clever use of the word "negotiate" which could mean anything. Would you swap pick one for two picks, say 8 & 9 ? personally i would stick to top five

BTW, the point hasnt been missed. You say that nobody's suggesting we tank. Read back through Teflons posts and the suggestion is absolutely to tank. i.e lose games to get a higher draft pick. You say that would be stupid - I cant argue with that!
I want to see the kids get a game too, and i think thats what we have been doing. But kids need on field coaching or leadership to get value out of the game, otherwise the experience will be of no benefit. So there needs a sprinkling of older players.

I’ve heard it all now and it’s becoming silly
So now you’re saying a higher selection in the draft doesn’t give you more recruitment options because the current best players chosen in the draft turned out not to be no 1 picks? That’s not the order of selection issue.....that’s the recruitment decision made at the time.
Whether I’d swap pick 1 for 2 top 10 picks is irrelevant - the POINT is if I have no 1 pick I’d have that choice.......winning a few games against lowly opposition so supporters can puff their chest and feel like we are ‘culture building’ is pipe dream stuff and robs us of one of our only opportunities to get the best kid we want
Talk is this draft 2 mids in Walsh/Smith standing out (rest are great talks apparently) both those 2 mids rumoured to go by 5.....you be happy to beat up on Carlton and Brusbane and miss out on a genuine need ? Or even an elite talented mid we sorely need..??
Get the best pick
I don’t care what you call it our main aim this season is to uncover talent - winning is secondary to that .

I'm not saying anything. I am giving you facts that your belief that a number one pick is the best pick is a fallacy. If you want to provide proof to the contrary then do it.
You think tanking is good - i dont.
And yes, i believe that doing your absolute best every time you pull on the jumper and to hate losing are the values we want in our players.
Also picking up just one kid is nowhere near as valuable as developing thewhole list

Where have I said no1 pick guarantees the best player is chosen?
You’re not giving facts your putting words into my argument and talking rubbish either because you can’t understand nor admit a no1 draft selection gives you much greater control over your strategy - it is obvious; it’s why we have draft selections that are ranked.....but keep arguing a different point by all means....
I don’t think tanking is good - where have I said “tanking is good”
Again more rubbish
I do think if we lose because we play kids, experiment positions, use those not our future sparingly etc then so be it - secondary concern
I don’t agree that a few losses in the second half of this year while playing this way will instill a “loser culture”
He’ll id argue we got that trying our best @nd overrating our list with what appears to be rudderless coaching
You want to beat up on lowly sides for some mythical cultural gain - good for you, I think that’s nonsense

[Crossy66]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.

No its not. earlier i gave you a list of the best players in the AFL today, with none of them at number one and only one at number two . Its just a fact that a one or two draft pick is not the best player in the draft. No one said pick 44 is as good as 2 so why mention it? I am saying that any pick in the top 5 will get you are good player and that is based on fact, not emotion and that player has as much chance of becoming a star as pick one.

So to answer Teflons question earlier:
Riddle me this batman: Does pick 1 in a strong draft give our recruitment team greater negotiation options yes/no?
My answer is no it doesnt, and i have supplied fact to back it up. Any pick in the top 5 is just as good and its not my opinion its actually what happens in reality I note the clever use of the word "negotiate" which could mean anything. Would you swap pick one for two picks, say 8 & 9 ? personally i would stick to top five

BTW, the point hasnt been missed. You say that nobody's suggesting we tank. Read back through Teflons posts and the suggestion is absolutely to tank. i.e lose games to get a higher draft pick. You say that would be stupid - I cant argue with that!
I want to see the kids get a game too, and i think thats what we have been doing. But kids need on field coaching or leadership to get value out of the game, otherwise the experience will be of no benefit. So there needs a sprinkling of older players.

I’ve heard it all now and it’s becoming silly
So now you’re saying a higher selection in the draft doesn’t give you more recruitment options because the current best players chosen in the draft turned out not to be no 1 picks? That’s not the order of selection issue.....that’s the recruitment decision made at the time.
Whether I’d swap pick 1 for 2 top 10 picks is irrelevant - the POINT is if I have no 1 pick I’d have that choice.......winning a few games against lowly opposition so supporters can puff their chest and feel like we are ‘culture building’ is pipe dream stuff and robs us of one of our only opportunities to get the best kid we want
Talk is this draft 2 mids in Walsh/Smith standing out (rest are great talks apparently) both those 2 mids rumoured to go by 5.....you be happy to beat up on Carlton and Brusbane and miss out on a genuine need ? Or even an elite talented mid we sorely need..??
Get the best pick
I don’t care what you call it our main aim this season is to uncover talent - winning is secondary to that .

I'm not saying anything. I am giving you facts that your belief that a number one pick is the best pick is a fallacy. If you want to provide proof to the contrary then do it.
You think tanking is good - i dont.
And yes, i believe that doing your absolute best every time you pull on the jumper and to hate losing are the values we want in our players.
Also picking up just one kid is nowhere near as valuable as developing thewhole list

Where have I said no1 pick guarantees the best player is chosen?
You’re not giving facts your putting words into my argument and talking rubbish either because you can’t understand nor admit a no1 draft selection gives you much greater control over your strategy - it is obvious; it’s why we have draft selections that are ranked.....but keep arguing a different point by all means....
I don’t think tanking is good - where have I said “tanking is good”
Again more rubbish
I do think if we lose because we play kids, experiment positions, use those not our future sparingly etc then so be it - secondary concern
I don’t agree that a few losses in the second half of this year while playing this way will instill a “loser culture”
He’ll id argue we got that trying our best @nd overrating our list with what appears to be rudderless coaching
You want to beat up on lowly sides for some mythical cultural gain - good for you, I think that’s nonsense

I have explained to that there is no 1 draft selection is no better than a top five pick and have supported it with fact. Nothing to admit or understand. i have asked you for some facts to support YOUR argument and you cannot do that.
Re Tanking: read back through your own posts. You state consistently that we should play to lose to be more strategic to get a higher draft pick. Thats the definition of tanking.
Any time you do anything other than your best when you put a team on the field negatively impacts culture. I dont want to beat up on lowly sides, i want to win every game and that should be the mindset of the club.

You seem hung up on a number one pick being the solution. Its one player and its no better than any other top five pick.
I dont want to continue with the argument, you have your view and i have mine and thats ok. But if you want to deal with or produce some facts to support your view re draft selections great if not i'll let it go .

Something else to think about, the top sides over the past ten years have not had high draft picks. Geelong, Sydney, Hawks have outstanding culture and nurture talent. When players come into this environmnet they know what standards expected.
Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Saints43]

They are playing the kids. Have been all year and more.

Rubbish. They're selecting kids because they have to.
Go back and look at the round one team that scraped past the lions. Full squad to select from. How many kids were selected against an interstate team that everyone knew would struggle this season?

[rodgerfox]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

[Teflon]

I think the point has been missed here. No one is saying tank or play to lose, i agree that will not occur and is stupid. But you can now start pumping games into younger players rather than older ones. That will mean we wont have the best team on the field but we will have our future players getting games which will be better for the future.
Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.
anyway getting back on topic beside Walsh who else do we want?

Spot on DJ
These old hat drama queens just ignore the point of what a higher selection means and it’s dumb
Play kids, work out who stays who goes , who can kick stay composed and hit a target

Also the pick 5 is as good as pick 2 is silly, it really is. It is like saying pick 44 is as good as pick 2 because that is where Sloane and McGovern were picked at #44. Pick 2 is the second best pick because you get to pick any player bar one.

No its not. earlier i gave you a list of the best players in the AFL today, with none of them at number one and only one at number two . Its just a fact that a one or two draft pick is not the best player in the draft. No one said pick 44 is as good as 2 so why mention it? I am saying that any pick in the top 5 will get you are good player and that is based on fact, not emotion and that player has as much chance of becoming a star as pick one.

So to answer Teflons question earlier:
Riddle me this batman: Does pick 1 in a strong draft give our recruitment team greater negotiation options yes/no?
My answer is no it doesnt, and i have supplied fact to back it up. Any pick in the top 5 is just as good and its not my opinion its actually what happens in reality I note the clever use of the word "negotiate" which could mean anything. Would you swap pick one for two picks, say 8 & 9 ? personally i would stick to top five

BTW, the point hasnt been missed. You say that nobody's suggesting we tank. Read back through Teflons posts and the suggestion is absolutely to tank. i.e lose games to get a higher draft pick. You say that would be stupid - I cant argue with that!
I want to see the kids get a game too, and i think thats what we have been doing. But kids need on field coaching or leadership to get value out of the game, otherwise the experience will be of no benefit. So there needs a sprinkling of older players.

I’ve heard it all now and it’s becoming silly
So now you’re saying a higher selection in the draft doesn’t give you more recruitment options because the current best players chosen in the draft turned out not to be no 1 picks? That’s not the order of selection issue.....that’s the recruitment decision made at the time.
Whether I’d swap pick 1 for 2 top 10 picks is irrelevant - the POINT is if I have no 1 pick I’d have that choice.......winning a few games against lowly opposition so supporters can puff their chest and feel like we are ‘culture building’ is pipe dream stuff and robs us of one of our only opportunities to get the best kid we want
Talk is this draft 2 mids in Walsh/Smith standing out (rest are great talks apparently) both those 2 mids rumoured to go by 5.....you be happy to beat up on Carlton and Brusbane and miss out on a genuine need ? Or even an elite talented mid we sorely need..??
Get the best pick
I don’t care what you call it our main aim this season is to uncover talent - winning is secondary to that .

I'm not saying anything. I am giving you facts that your belief that a number one pick is the best pick is a fallacy. If you want to provide proof to the contrary then do it.
You think tanking is good - i dont.
And yes, i believe that doing your absolute best every time you pull on the jumper and to hate losing are the values we want in our players.
Also picking up just one kid is nowhere near as valuable as developing thewhole list

Where have I said no1 pick guarantees the best player is chosen?
You’re not giving facts your putting words into my argument and talking rubbish either because you can’t understand nor admit a no1 draft selection gives you much greater control over your strategy - it is obvious; it’s why we have draft selections that are ranked.....but keep arguing a different point by all means....
I don’t think tanking is good - where have I said “tanking is good”
Again more rubbish
I do think if we lose because we play kids, experiment positions, use those not our future sparingly etc then so be it - secondary concern
I don’t agree that a few losses in the second half of this year while playing this way will instill a “loser culture”
He’ll id argue we got that trying our best @nd overrating our list with what appears to be rudderless coaching
You want to beat up on lowly sides for some mythical cultural gain - good for you, I think that’s nonsense

I have explained to that there is no 1 draft selection is no better than a top five pick and have supported it with fact. Nothing to admit or understand. i have asked you for some facts to support YOUR argument and you cannot do that.
Re Tanking: read back through your own posts. You state consistently that we should play to lose to be more strategic to get a higher draft pick. Thats the definition of tanking.
Any time you do anything other than your best when you put a team on the field negatively impacts culture. I dont want to beat up on lowly sides, i want to win every game and that should be the mindset of the club.

You seem hung up on a number one pick being the solution. Its one player and its no better than any other top five pick.
I dont want to continue with the argument, you have your view and i have mine and thats ok. But if you want to deal with or produce some facts to support your view re draft selections great if not i'll let it go .

Something else to think about, the top sides over the past ten years have not had high draft picks. Geelong, Sydney, Hawks have outstanding culture and nurture talent. When players come into this environmnet they know what standards expected.
Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

More rubbish
Where are your “facts” refuting that having a higher draft selection gives you more CHOICE and therefore control over your drafting program???? You’ve not stated 1 fact at all, instead hiding behind players selected as why it’s of no benefit - complete garbage
Something to think about re Geelong/Hawthorn - how much of their ability to land FAs has been due to sustained success built off talented lists???? Astute drafting and development?? Do you honestly think St Kilda right now is coming off the same base?? FFS we are bereft of true elite talent, can’t attract an FA to save ourselves all the more reason to MAXIMISE your draft selection options
To suggest winning a few games will morph our culture is fanciful and I actually think, with this current board, purely paper over cracks. Dangerous if you ask me.
I don’t care what you call it but to me winning games isn’t the main driver for this side - we are in a discovery for the future stage that has to be the focus and as I’ve slready said, if we lose a few games along the way.....meh!

[DJ Higgins]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

[rodgerfox]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Yeah, agree.

My post was more a response to the generic 'play the kids' sentiment. It's not as simple as that if you want to develop kids well.

[SuperDuper]

so who are his top ten??
just the list

[Teflon]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Thanks DJ
You got the point and nailed it

[Crossy66]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Thanks DJ
You got the point and nailed it

So Teflon, Friday July 13 Saints v Blues - who are you hoping wins?

[Teflon]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Thanks DJ
You got the point and nailed it

So Teflon, Friday July 13 Saints v Blues - who are you hoping wins?

I hoping the future of football is the big winner and by that I mean Saints Future
A loss and culturally we’d probably have to fold such is the long term damage to the psyche of the club I’m told.

[asiu]

good question
tricky question
sinister question

(pretty glad it says Teflon at the start though)

hahaha
hehehe

ahhhhhh

[Teflon]

good question
tricky question
sinister question

(pretty glad it says Teflon at the start though)

hahaha
hehehe

ahhhhhh

Nah easy question
Win win game yeah??

[Teflon]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Thanks DJ
You got the point and nailed it

So Teflon, Friday July 13 Saints v Blues - who are you hoping wins?

Since we’re dealing in hyperbole here’s one for you Crossy66

Lose against Blues - Land Nick Riewoldt at 1
Win against Blues - Land J Kositchke

Go!

[asiu]

how funny
i was thinkn about that very issue today

as in
thank god we had the priority pick as well
(which made it impossible to eff up)

[SaintPav]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Thanks DJ
You got the point and nailed it

So Teflon, Friday July 13 Saints v Blues - who are you hoping wins?

Since we’re dealing in hyperbole here’s one for you Crossy66

Lose against Blues - Land Nick Riewoldt at 1
Win against Blues - Land J Kositchke

Go!

[Teflon]

I think it's universally accepted that kids develop best when surrounded by experienced senior players though. Just 'getting games into them' doesn't equal development. In fact it often stifles it.

Agree with that but not really the point. If we have a choice between playing a young player who is ready now over an older player i.e. Armo or a fringe player that has had multiple chances but not delivered i.e. Lonie you pick the younger player who may have a future. They may not be as good now but it will help in their development. I am a huge Brown fan but if they do not have a monster forward Logan gets a run. Those kind of choices should be made and is what I was referring to.

Thanks DJ
You got the point and nailed it

So Teflon, Friday July 13 Saints v Blues - who are you hoping wins?

Since we’re dealing in hyperbole here’s one for you Crossy66

Lose against Blues - Land Nick Riewoldt at 1
Win against Blues - Land J Kositchke

Go!

How u like them apples?

[rodgerfox]

We'll Riewoldt didn't help the Saints win a flag - so there's a fair case to say that a gun pick 1 versus a pretty good pick 2 doesn't really matter in isolation.

So in turn, is tanking ever really worth it?

[Teflon]

We'll Riewoldt didn't help the Saints win a flag - so there's a fair case to say that a gun pick 1 versus a pretty good pick 2 doesn't really matter in isolation.

So in turn, is tanking ever really worth it?

Good point Riewoldt was an abject failure
Thank god Kosi stepped up for that 4 game Brownlow streak or we’d never have made the big one...