Roast Carlton beaten tactically (AGAIN)

[40yearBLUE]

Brett Burton 185cm
Mark LeCras 182cm
Ross Glendinning 188cm
Alex Jesaulenko (you beauty) 182cm

Look there are litterally hundreds of great KPP under 192cm, in fact there are more under than over. Hence 190cm being a fair measure.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Look I also concede that we were at rock bottom in 03 and were taking anything with a pulse and we were bound to make some monumental blues.

We were rebuilding from the ground up and an overfocus on mid types is explainable in that 3-4 year period. Its the last 3 years that I have concerns about

But my thread link clearly shows the players taken under WH which is the last 3-4 years and we have clearly and demonstrably taken more players over 190cm than is average and that 1 in 4 is the statistical average at AFL clubs.

That may be because we took some duds between 01 and 07 and needed to replace them but the fact remains we have taken plenty of KPP and have on our list more than is average right now, in the top 4 I recall but I have still not found the post that lists them in order. I did the research for it but it took a while and wont do it again, if I find the post I will bump it.

 

[blue healer]

But my thread link clearly shows the players taken under WH which is the last 3-4 years and we have clearly and demonstrably taken more players over 190cm than is average and that 1 in 4 is the statistical average at AFL clubs.

That may be because we took some duds between 01 and 07 and needed to replace them but the fact remains we have taken plenty of KPP and have on our list more than is average right now, in the top 4 I recall but I have still not found the post that lists them in order. I did the research for it but it took a while and wont do it again, if I find the post I will bump it.

Check the player list mate there is only the 3 I mentioned earlier and AW (who I overlooked) between 189cms and 192 cms and I repeat I don't see any of them as KPP's

 

[Bluebear]

You can make what you like of this but if gives some credence to the argument that we have not been too good at drafting for balance via the draft itself

Why focus on first and second rounds when often good talls come late. Jammo (not sure of height), Jacobs?

Secondly, it only adds credence to us not being balanced if you believe that you must have a certain "type" to play a certain role.

Is Walker tall enough to play FB or CHB?

You'd say no. Tom Hawkins would disagree with Tex having played both positions on him well in round 5. It all depends on how well you play a position and how smart you are. Just ask Hartlett.

Fev is shorter than most KPP's you'd care to list that fit your category.

I'd take Le Cras over Gumbleton.

Setanta is tall enough to be a ruck but plays like a forward pocket.

Height is largely irrelevant.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Check the player list mate there is only the 3 I mentioned earlier and AW (who I overlooked) between 189cms and 192 cms and I repeat I don't see any of them as KPP's

I am not sure which list you now refer to but it dont much matter. I dont care much and it is not a matter of whether you "think" a player is a KPP that is the point. The point is that drafting a bloke because of a perceived lack of his type is only relevant as an argument if you can prove we are deficient.

My argument is that we are not deficient of "prospects" (whether they will make it is in doubt and the fact they have not yet made it is not in dispute) and I used height as my measure. I am not sure what other measure you want to use, but let me know and we can start another debate based on that criteria.

We dont know who our next gun FF is going to be, for you all you know it could be AW. I am not saying it will be but who thought LeCras would be the gun forward he is? We have the players, now we just have to be patient. It could be Tiller, it could be Levi, it could be Aussie or most likely it could be either Hammer or Hendo.

I have given you the facts, we already have more players tall enough for the role on the list than most other clubs with about 3 or 4 clubs with more talls than we have. I have also shown you how WH has taken 1 in 3 talls over the past 4 years compared to the statistical average of 1 in 4. (25% more than average??).

I am not sure what more I can tell you. The facts are there. The rest is just opinion, of which you are entitled, but the facts so far dont bear your opinion out.

What else ya got.

 

[blue healer]

Why focus on first and second rounds when often good talls come late. Jammo (not sure of height), Jacobs?

Secondly, it only adds credence to us not being balanced if you believe that you must have a certain "type" to play a certain role.

Is Walker tall enough to play FB or CHB?

You'd say no. Tom Hawkins would disagree with Tex having played both positions on him well in round 5. It all depends on how well you play a position and how smart you are. Just ask Hartlett.

Fev is shorter than most KPP's you'd care to list that fit your category.

I'd take Le Cras over Gumbleton.

Setanta is tall enough to be a ruck but plays like a forward pocket.

Height is largely irrelevant.

Tell that to those who ruck against or try to spoil Sandilands.

You use Tex vs Hawkins as an example but Hawkins at that time would have had trouble getting a kick in the park, didn't start to show any form til they put him on the ball.

Do you want to play Tex at CHB?

Sure you can find examples of 190's who are exceptional but for every 1 that could play KP there are at least 10 that can't. I don't know the average league height but suspect it's not much shorter than that

You name Le Cras and I'll name Franklin who I'd give my left one to get in our team.

I agree that some good talls come late or via the rookie draft but we haven't even been trying to get them late in the last 2 years. It's almost as if we said 23 years ago "we've just taken 4 in 2 years, that'll be enough."

I repeat we have 2 talls on our rookie list and they were picked up this year

 

[40yearBLUE]

Just cos its fun:

Peter Dean 188cm
Michael Sexton 192cm
Andy Mckay 185cm
Alistair Lynch 193cm
Wakelin Bros 190cm
Malcolm Blight 192cm
Warwick Capper 190cm

Some great KPP players there and most under 190cm

 

[Blue since 72]

Virtually all our KPP's are in development apart from Waite and Thornton. There seems to be a definate division on here between posters who want top 4 plus success now and posters who are comfortable with a longer term view.

Some of our developing KPP's look like they'll turn out to be decent players:

Jamo, Bower, Hendo, Aussie (hopefully), White, Hammer, Sauce, 206, and even Krueze who although ahead of the game is still developing.

Then we have more speculative picks like Casboult and Donaldson; too early to rate.

I wouldn't be adverse to picking up an experienced, quality out of contract KPP from an AFL list or a state league player who could add value but our list is what it is; developing, and we arn't going to be Geelong tomorrow or next year.

Only clubs that are on the verge of GF appearances can afford to top up, the rest of us have to build a list predominately of young blokes and hope they come good.

Not enough KPP's?, too many mids?, don't agree with either statement, the club is building the list and we all know big guys take longer than little guys and by that rule are alot more speculative than the little guys. We expect too much from our young KPP's too early in their careers.

We have enough of all types but we are not a mature football team.

Picking up another KPP is not going to miraculously get us into a GF.

Lets take a breath, relax our sphincters and see if the club can develop the players we have (and whoever we draft) into a GF winning team.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Tell that to those who ruck against or try to spoil Sandilands.

You use Tex vs Hawkins as an example but Hawkins at that time would have had trouble getting a kick in the park, didn't start to show any form til they put him on the ball.

Do you want to play Tex at CHB?

Sure you can find examples of 190's who are exceptional but for every 1 that could play KP there are at least 10 that can't. I don't know the average league height but suspect it's not much shorter than that

You name Le Cras and I'll name Franklin who I'd give my left one to get in our team.

I agree that some good talls come late or via the rookie draft but we haven't even been trying to get them late in the last 2 years. It's almost as if we said 23 years ago "we've just taken 4 in 2 years, that'll be enough."

I repeat we have 2 talls on our rookie list and they were picked up this year

Height is largely irrelevant because we are debating Key Pos not ruck. Saying tell that to Sandilands is like saying which is better ford or holden and you chiming in with Ducati.

Even accounting for the 4 rucks we still have more players over 190cm. Most clubs have 4 rucks btw so if you took all rucks out of every list we still have more kpp prospects than all but 4 clubs.

We have repeatedly shown you how we HAVE taken talls and you keep arguing we havent. What other criteria other than height do you have for talls? because clearly you are not getting the fact we have drafted tall? This is the part that is starting to amuse me, and whilst you made some good points you are wasting all that cred on lame arguments (sandilands) and not acknowledging the facts.

 

[blue healer]

I am not sure which list you now refer to but it dont much matter. I dont care much and it is not a matter of whether you "think" a player is a KPP that is the point. The point is that drafting a bloke because of a perceived lack of his type is only relevant as an argument if you can prove we are deficient.

My argument is that we are not deficient of "prospects" (whether they will make it is in doubt and the fact they have not yet made it is not in dispute) and I used height as my measure. I am not sure what other measure you want to use, but let me know and we can start another debate based on that criteria.

We dont know who our next gun FF is going to be, for you all you know it could be AW. I am not saying it will be but who thought LeCras would be the gun forward he is? We have the players, now we just have to be patient. It could be Tiller, it could be Levi, it could be Aussie or most likely it could be either Hammer or Hendo.

I have given you the facts, we already have more players tall enough for the role on the list than most other clubs with about 3 or 4 clubs with more talls than we have. I have also shown you how WH has taken 1 in 3 talls over the past 4 years compared to the statistical average of 1 in 4. (25% more than average??).

I am not sure what more I can tell you. The facts are there. The rest is just opinion, of which you are entitled, but the facts so far dont bear your opinion out.

What else ya got.

Neither of us are going win this discussion because, as you point out it is our opinion.

And I don't care about how many talls other teams have but with our adequate list of taller players Betts is our leading goalkicker with daylight behind him. We have tried all but Fisher and Austin ad nauseum.

Not to mention that we are forever moving the deckchairs in our backline.

I think we are going better than many expected but we should look beyond the current perceived problems we have with commitment, hardness, delivery etc from our mids and consider our future gaps.

These next 2 drafts are going to be difficult at best and we knew they were coming I just don't think we are as well prepared as we could have been.

If I'm wrong, and I hope to hell I am, I'll be the first to go on here and admit it

 

[blue healer]

I got to go and do some work so outa here

Thanks for the discussion I've enjoyed it

 

[blue healer]

Meant to also say that it's nice to be in a discussion that has never included the words "sack the coach"

 

[Bluebear]

Tell that to those who ruck against or try to spoil Sandilands.

......because the guys that are standing at 193+ cm are doing so well at that as well? Silly comment.

You use Tex vs Hawkins as an example but Hawkins at that time would have had trouble getting a kick in the park, didn't start to show any form til they put him on the ball.

Isn't Hawkind too tall to be an "onballer"?

Do you want to play Tex at CHB?

If you look behind you, on the wall, about 3ft above your head.......you'll see my point.

Sure you can find examples of 190's who are exceptional but for every 1 that could play KP there are at least 10 that can't. I don't know the average league height but suspect it's not much shorter than that

Should we go through the list of 193+ playwers that tried to play KPP and were crap?
Again, height is irrelevant.
You would be in the camp that would have told Jeff White he was too short to ruck in the modern game.

You name Le Cras and I'll name Franklin who I'd give my left one to get in our team.

Yet Franklin didn't play in Tassie......and who did they start out of the square?

Lewis.

Who kicked the clutch goals in their GF? A short fat midfielder called Dew.

Mark Williams was one of the best forwards in the league for years, Medhurst has come and gone, Porplyzia when fit, Goodwin in the last few years, Ricuito.................I'd love to have Buddy to.......but are you saying Buddy is that good just becaue he is tall? How often does he use his height, rather than his agility and speed to influence a contest?

I agree that some good talls come late or via the rookie draft but we haven't even been trying to get them late in the last 2 years. It's almost as if we said 23 years ago "we've just taken 4 in 2 years, that'll be enough."

What......you mean like Tiller, Casboult, Donaldson, Jacobs, Jammo, Austin was 3rd round,

I repeat we have 2 talls on our rookie list and they were picked up this year

So how tall should our KPP's be?
Is it 193cm?
So we just put a line through 192 cm? What if the 191cm KPP has a longer reach, and a much quicker first 5m sprint.........or has a 5cm adavntage in his vertical leap?

What if we had a 200cm guy that also had almost the biggest vertical leap at the club and was the fastest over 20m.......unstoppable right?.......well.....we have him........still doesn't know how to play footy yet.

Stop picking numbers, and let WH pick footballers.

Get me a hard midfield and a tight defence, which we are capable of with our current personnell.......and I'll show you our next flag.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Neither of us are going win this discussion because, as you point out it is our opinion.

And I don't care about how many talls other teams have but with our adequate list of taller players Betts is our leading goalkicker with daylight behind him. We have tried all but Fisher and Austin ad nauseum.

Not to mention that we are forever moving the deckchairs in our backline.

I think we are going better than many expected but we should look beyond the current perceived problems we have with commitment, hardness, delivery etc from our mids and consider our future gaps.

These next 2 drafts are going to be difficult at best and we knew they were coming I just don't think we are as well prepared as we could have been.

If I'm wrong, and I hope to hell I am, I'll be the first to go on here and admit it

Now you are getting closer to the real problem we have instead of arguing a manufactured one that just isnt there. If we get that right (hard working elite mids) we wont ever miss not having a gun kpp (forward or back for that matter) and will win enough games to take us to a flag. If we unearth decent kpp along the way all the better but they are not required (or as required as a gun deep mid rotation), not in the forward line at least, and not of the height you think. It dont matter if you best goal kicker is Milne or Reiwoldt so long as your mids are winning the contest, they take the pressure off the backline and ensure a winning score, whether that is 120 points or 80. And it also dont matter if you dont have a forward kicking lots of goals as I pointed out earlier, the side on top dont have a goalkicker in the top 20.

Mids are the key, and our mids not playing well or working hard enough are our current issue. KPP are a furfy argument mostly raised by those that dont really understand modern football or our current place in it.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Any team, (YES ANY TEAM) can beat any team (YES ANY TEAM) if they are the team working hardest on the day. The reason we won both of those games was because we worked harder ON THE DAY. Not because they didnt plan for us and not because we fooled them with some game plan that other sides have now worked out.

Now i understand your simple view on things 30YBlue..any team can beat anyone else on any day. At a very simple level of understanding, they can...but what a silly thing to say as an argument. Each year some teams end up on 15+ wins and some teams end up on 2-4 wins.

That bottom team beating a top 4 team on a particular day usually means the top team got caught unawares with effort/planning on one day. On the other hand, the bottom club absolutely fired up for one week. So if you take the simplistic one week view..you could claim it as a fair win. BUT..if you think it through in the long term, that bottom club cant sustain that form/rage/hardness/skill for more than 1 week because they are not a good club and why they are on or near the bottom of the ladder (Dees/Rich last year).

So their form aligned for one week. If that bottom team had to play that top four team 5 weeks running...we all know the top team will win 4/5 restoring order. This is what i mean about catching some teams on the hop throughout the year.

For Carlton, you can illustrate the fact that if we played Saint Kilda in a full on finals match, there is no way barring a miracle we are 10-14 goals better than them (by miracle i mean all Saints players dropping dead). Surely even all Blues is their blue coated blood can understand this.

You and a few others think we beat Geelong and Saints in those two weeks and that because we did, that we are in the same bracket as those teams... and that what has happened in the last 5 weeks is a short term blip. Personally I think the blip has occurred in yuor brain.

Your problem is you can't analyse anything...for the tall KPPs debate you use all our ruckman as statistics and then say we have the same number of KPP talls as any other clubs. You count centrimetres but dont analyse that Hamspon/Jacobs/Warnock actually arent KPP players..they are bonafide ruckman with little KPP footy smarts or agility.

This failure to analuse anything is your inherent problem on most of your posts...and when you do try and analyse, it is very scary!

As for our season, i said it in a post before...who can you hand on heart say we are better than. I would say the following teams i'm sure we are better than:

• Tigers
• Melbourne
• Port
• Brisbane (on a bit of faith given its 1-1 because Judd/bower were out of the smal loss we had)
• Adelaide
• WCE (we'll find out this w/e as therr is no confidence)

We have beaten the following teams but i'm sure we are not better than them or even if the same class (top 4) if you take your eye off a one week upset win:

• Saints
• Cats

I dont know where we stand vs the folllowing (I havent given up on us being better mind you...i just dont know)

• Bombers
• North
• Sydney

I dont thnink we are as good in 2010 vs

• Hawks
• Doggies
• Freo
• Pies

This really illustrates that we dont know where we stand if we can only name 5-7 sides we think we are better than.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Now i understand your simple view on things 30YBlue..any team can beat anyone else on any day. At a very simple level of understanding, they can...but what a silly thing to say as an argument. Each year some teams end up on 15+ wins and some teams end up on 2-4 wins.

That bottom team beating a top 4 team on a particular day usually means the top team got caught unawares with effort/planning on one day. On the other hand, the bottom club absolutely fired up for one week. So if you take the simplistic one week view..you could claim it as a fair win. BUT..if you think it through in the long term, that bottom club cant sustain that form/rage/hardness/skill for more than 1 week because they are not a good club and why they are on or near the bottom of the ladder (Dees/Rich last year).

So their form aligned for one week. If that bottom team had to play that top four team 5 weeks running...we all know the top team will win 4/5 restoring order. This is what i mean about catching some teams on the hop throughout the year.

For Carlton, you can illustrate the fact that if we played Saint Kilda in a full on finals match, there is no way barring a miracle we are 10-14 goals better than them (by miracle i mean all Saints players dropping dead). Surely even all Blues is their blue coated blood can understand this.

You and a few others think we beat Geelong and Saints in those two weeks and that because we did, that we are in the same bracket as those teams... and that what has happened in the last 5 weeks is a short term blip. Personally I think the blip has occurred in yuor brain.

Your problem is you can't analyse anything...for the tall KPPs debate you use all our ruckman as statistics and then say we have the same number of KPP talls as any other clubs. You count centrimetres but dont analyse that Hamspon/Jacobs/Warnock actually arent KPP players..they are bonafide ruckman with little KPP footy smarts or agility.

This failure to analuse anything is your inherent problem on most of your posts...and when you do try and analyse, it is very scary!

As for our season, i said it in a post before...who can you hand on heart say we are better than. I would say the following teams i'm sure we are better than:

• Tigers
• Melbourne
• Port
• Brisbane (on a bit of faith given its 1-1 because Judd/bower were out of the smal loss we had)
• Adelaide
• WCE (we'll find out this w/e as therr is no confidence)

We have beaten the following teams but i'm sure we are not better than them or even if the same class (top 4) if you take your eye off a one week upset win:

• Saints
• Cats

I dont know where we stand vs the folllowing (I havent given up on us being better mind you...i just dont know)

• Bombers
• North
• Sydney

I dont thnink we are as good in 2010 vs

• Hawks
• Doggies
• Freo
• Pies

This really illustrates that we dont know where we stand if we can only name 5-7 sides we think we are better than.

You really are a tool and I know now you only post this drivvel to wind me up. So on that count well done. This is crap of the highest order.

We beat Geelong and we beat Stkilda because we have the quality on our list to be able to do that. You rightly point out that we are not able to sustain that form, but that is not because we dont have the talent, it is because we dont have the fitness, the hard bodies, the discipline both physical and mental that is borne of years of hard work.

Those of us that understand this know we are well on track, we use historical markers from teams such as Geelong to measure our progress as similar stages of construction, we examine ourselves each year to see if there has been the improvement we strive for and improvement is not linear, sometimes as evidenced by Geelong some years you slide down a little as you craft that team into the sustainable top side.

But tools like you are not studious enough to understand such difficult thought process and concepts, like I put it yesterday BlueGibbs hungry must eat, Carlton losing must sack coach, Carlton not kick goals must argue WH is tosser does not get talls..........yep good on ya. Get a clue and we can debate, otherwise you are just a pest.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Little know fact from Mark Herveys presser after the Richmond loss

Perth reporter: What do you put the loss down to Mark?
Harvey: Well I forgot that they had a team in this league. I mean Furk me they kind of snuck up on me. Who knew they could play, I thought they were duds coached by that Wallets bloke, but apparently they have a new coach and ......anyway, they snuck up on us a bit.
Perth reporter: Snuck up, didnt you do any planning, I mean did you even read the draw?
Harvey: Uh no, we have this bloke that tells us who we are playing this week and sets out our kit but I must have been reading the form guide when he mentioned it was the Tigers.
Perth reporter: Fair enough, I hear from the Melbourne press that the Blues snuck up on a couple of the better sides early on but that everyone is a wake up to em now.

 

[40yearBLUE]

More

Darren Jarman 186cm
Darren Glass 193cm
Dermie 186cm
Wayne Carey 192cm
Chad Cornes 192cm

If only we had a few players between 186cm and 193cm..........

 

[40yearBLUE]

Still more, this could go on for days.....

Mal Michael 190cm
Nick Davis 184cm
Peter Summich 190cm
Ash McIntosh 191cm
Ben Rutten 191cm
Leo Barry 184cm (what tha??)
Craig Bolton 190cm
Garry Ablett snr 185cm

So many KPP players not physical giants.

 

[Tanks_Alot]

Just cos its fun:

Peter Dean 188cm
Michael Sexton 192cm
Andy Mckay 185cm
Alistair Lynch 193cm
Wakelin Bros 190cm
Malcolm Blight 192cm
Warwick Capper 190cm

Some great KPP players there and most under 190cm

What? Most under 190cm When there's only 2/7?

Anyway, there's a difference between shit talls and good talls. 188cm is tall so I'll use P.Dean as an example:

P.Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J.Russell

Both are 188cm.

It's not about getting a bunch of shitty talls in, it's about getting talented talls in. BTW McKay was a HBF, not a KPP. To me a KPP is a player who is allocated to the spine of the side.

 

[40yearBLUE]

What? Most under 190cm When there's only 2/7?

Anyway, there's a difference between shit talls and good talls. 188cm is tall so I'll use P.Dean as an example:

P.Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J.Russell

Both are 188cm.

It's not about getting a bunch of shitty talls in, it's about getting talented talls in. BTW McKay was a HBF, not a KPP. To me a KPP is a player who is allocated to the spine of the side.

Sorry Tanks, I meant most of them as in the total of the names I had posted over a few posts not just that post but your point is taken but if you look at the entire list I have made so far most in fact are under 190cm and arguably the some of the very best KP footballers ever under 190cm such as G Ablett snr.

And bingo as you rightly point out, it is NOT about the height, it is about the players. I did not want a speculative tall with our first pick just because he was tall. This list is to show you dont have to be tall, and yes to me 190cm is tall but what some posters consider tall is 196cm.

I think I have well and truly made the point that 190cm is plenty tall enough to hold down a key position.

 

[Bluebear]

It's not about getting a bunch of shitty talls in, it's about getting talented talls in.

.....and this sentence should end this debate.

Yes, it would be great to have some talented players at 194-196 cms playing key positions, but we (and by this I mean WH) are not going to overlook the likes of Lucas, to take a chance on Talia, for example, if we think Lucas is a much better player.

We will always take the best available. Sure, if two players can't be split then you take the one that best fits your list and that may well be a tall.........though at the moment a case could be made for just about anyone.......an outside mid with elite disposal on both sides........an inside mid who'd eat his own boots just to get the footy.......

The only positions we seem to have covered recruitment wise is rucks and small forwards. All other positions remain open for speculation, and could do with more talent. So best available is always going to be a win.

 

[agro]

Just cos its fun:

Peter Dean 188cm
Michael Sexton 192cm
Andy Mckay 185cm
Alistair Lynch 193cm
Wakelin Bros 190cm
Malcolm Blight 192cm
Warwick Capper 190cm

Some great KPP players there and most under 190cm

I think you will find Peter Dean was 185cm, Michael Sexton was 189cm, Capper was 188cm and Blighty was around 185cm.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Just cos its fun:

Peter Dean 188cm
Michael Sexton 192cm
Andy Mckay 185cm
Alistair Lynch 193cm
Wakelin Bros 190cm
Malcolm Blight 192cm
Warwick Capper 190cm

Some great KPP players there and most under 190cm

This is where you show how simple you are 30YBlue and why I'm embarrassed for you. You cite 10-20 KPPs that are 185-190. Boo hoo for you. The analysis you miss is that for every KPP you have cited over the last twenty years that is 185-190, i could cite you 99 for everyone one of yours who isnt a KPP player. So when you look at it, the odds of being a successful KPP at 185, 186, 187 cms etc., is probably close to 1 in 100 or probably even worse. In simple terms, to go into the next draft and pick 185-190cm and expect them to turn out a KPP of any note is absolutely ludicrous based on odds/probability. Yes they do exist but absolutely rare gems in todays game and even going back ten years.

Another point you fail on is stating that height has been changing quite drastically. 185 cms 15 years ago is similar to 190cm now. For example, ruckman used to be 195-198 not long ago. Now most of them are taller and over 199 cms. Height has changed for KPP players as well and to cite players from 10 + years ago is just a poor argument.

PS
But dont let me stop your next piece of drivel.

 

[40yearBLUE]

This is where you show how simple you are 30YBlue and why I'm embarrassed for you. You cite 10-20 KPPs that are 185-190. Boo hoo for you. The analysis you miss is that for every KPP you have cited over the last twenty years that is 185-190, i could cite you 99 for everyone one of yours who isnt a KPP player. So when you look at it, the odds of being a successful KPP at 185, 186, 187 cms etc., is probably close to 1 in 100 or probably even worse. In simple terms, to go into the next draft and pick 185-190cm and expect them to turn out a KPP of any note is absolutely ludicrous based on odds/probability. Yes they do exist but absolutely rare gems in todays game and even going back ten years.

Another point you fail on is stating that height has been changing quite drastically. 185 cms 15 years ago is similar to 190cm now. For example, ruckman used to be 195-198 not long ago. Now most of them are taller and over 199 cms. Height has changed for KPP players as well and to cite players from 10 + years ago is just a poor argument.

PS
But dont let me stop your next piece of drivel.

Oh this is a wonderful train of logic, because there are 100 players under 190cm playing non KP to every 1 therefore it is 100 to 1 that a player under 190cm can be a successful kp? Is that your argument? There is absolutely no causal effect between the 2. None. If you had argued that the odds of making it as a KP player are 100 to 1 for any player of any size you would have been close to forming a coherent argument but just because you can name 100 players under 190cm that made it in other positions.......the mind boggles. Anyway nice try. At least you didnt say players under 190cm is spuds, although the argument you could have made would have been more logically based but there you go.

Yep height has been changing for years. Cough Leo Barry Cough LeCras Cough Sam Fisher Cough Jason Blake Cough Goldsack Cough Luke McGuane Cough. Nealy all of these are 191cm (LeCras and Barry mid 180's), way too short for KP All but Barry still playing today. And heres an interesting argument. Using your logic, the odds of making it as a KP player if you were not exactly 191cm are extremely fraught given that so many successful KP players are 191cm today

And what you conveniently fail to cite is not only have heights changed but as has the game, and the CHF/FF role is less important in the structure of a flag winning team today, and HBF/CHB/FB often rotate in todays game to suit match ups. Even within matchups we often see talls play short and shorter players play tall. So agian the KPP role is not only less defined it is a shared role rather than a key role, but that fact seems to have escaped the chasm that might once have contained cerebral matter.

Look you are having a bit of fun with me, but much better posters than me have been trying to point out the same thing. Go argue it with BlueBear. See how long he tolerates your "argument".