Are you happy with what we gave up to do the Polak trade ?

[Dean3]

Harry's dartboard works perfectly, as long as the dartboard is revolving, you're blindfolded, drunk and spun around 3 times. :hihi

 

[TigerPort]

Numerically, of course pick 13 is not as good as pick 8. It's not as good as pick 12 either. Ask yourself this: was pick 1 in the 2001 draft better than pick 3?

I don't know where I read this but it's a good example.

It's like playing darts.  If you are one meter out from the dart board you have a pretty good chance of hitting the bullseye.  If you take one step back you reduce your chances.  Another step back and you further reduce your chances and so on.  Sure, sometimes your gonna hit the bullseye (or close enough) from a fair distance back with a looping lob throw.  Such a throw will always occur.  The percentages will always say that your gonna hit the bullseye more often if youre closer.  No two ways about it (unless you have no idea on the kids coming through ofcourse).

In a nutshell we have taken 5 steps back from the dart board for a guy who could not prove his worth at Fremantle.

But the kids in the draft aren't in one congo line in terms of diminishing talent. So your example of taking a step back from the dart board at each throw is flawed.

The draft talent pool is more like a pyramid with the number one on top and then spreading out.

If you want to use the dart board as an example you would have one shot in close take to hit the bullseye take one step back and have two shots then another step back and have four shots and so on. Therefore on your 6th step back you are having 32 shots at the bullseye.

What nonsense tigerport,were you drinking port when you typed your post.Pyramids,taking a step back,6th step back.

Nope 2 hours to beer time, seven hours to bourbon time and 10 hours to port time then :smash ed

 

[mb64]

Numerically, of course pick 13 is not as good as pick 8. It's not as good as pick 12 either. Ask yourself this: was pick 1 in the 2001 draft better than pick 3?

I don't know where I read this but it's a good example.

It's like playing darts. If you are one meter out from the dart board you have a pretty good chance of hitting the bullseye. If you take one step back you reduce your chances. Another step back and you further reduce your chances and so on. Sure, sometimes your gonna hit the bullseye (or close enough) from a fair distance back with a looping lob throw. Such a throw will always occur. The percentages will always say that your gonna hit the bullseye more often if youre closer. No two ways about it (unless you have no idea on the kids coming through ofcourse).

In a nutshell we have taken 5 steps back from the dart board for a guy who could not prove his worth at Fremantle.

But the kids in the draft aren't in one congo line in terms of diminishing talent. So your example of taking a step back from the dart board at each throw is flawed.

The draft talent pool is more like a pyramid with the number one on top and then spreading out.

If you want to use the dart board as an example you would have one shot in close take to hit the bullseye take one step back and have two shots then another step back and have four shots and so on. Therefore on your 6th step back you are having 32 shots at the bullseye.

What nonsense tigerport,were you drinking port when you typed your post.Pyramids,taking a step back,6th step back.

Nope 2 hours to beer time, seven hours to bourbon time and 10 hours to port time then :smash ed

Look forward to one of your posts in 10 hours time.

 

[the claw]

Numerically, of course pick 13 is not as good as pick 8. It's not as good as pick 12 either. Ask yourself this: was pick 1 in the 2001 draft better than pick 3?

I don't know where I read this but it's a good example.

It's like playing darts.  If you are one meter out from the dart board you have a pretty good chance of hitting the bullseye.  If you take one step back you reduce your chances.  Another step back and you further reduce your chances and so on.  Sure, sometimes your gonna hit the bullseye (or close enough) from a fair distance back with a looping lob throw.  Such a throw will always occur.  The percentages will always say that your gonna hit the bullseye more often if youre closer.  No two ways about it (unless you have no idea on the kids coming through ofcourse).

In a nutshell we have taken 5 steps back from the dart board for a guy who could not prove his worth at Fremantle.

It's a neat metaphor Harry, but you're just speculating about the apparent nature of the draft, not what actually does happen. Every draft is unique.

good point D3 - with darts you always know the bullseye is worth 50 points (think that's right unfortunately everyone is only guesssing (& hoping) at the worth of a draftee

i dont think anyone in their right mind woulg argue that drafting is becoming an exact science. a top 10 pick should and 99% of the time does guarantee you a very good long term player if you know what you are doing.