There is no but about it. lol..., think...the player Gold Coast take is not what this is about, ( that I liked btw , but irrelevant) happens AFTER the picks traded, not before... AFTER...Hello, think, think, think...But as you've ignored a dozen times, the pick that GC got in return was secured in the knowledge a specific player was available.
You're a dog with a bone on this, aren't you.There is no but about it. lol..., think...the player Gold Coast take is not what this is about, ( that I liked btw , but irrelevant) happens AFTER the picks traded, not before... AFTER...Hello, think, think, think...
It is not ignoring something, it is focus of what the trade Ken Wood sees of picks... pick 11 and this draft 64 for pick 27... Think!!!
Forgot about what happened AFTER the trade, think only of the picks and you might get it.
Absolutely, and thanks for actually at least thinking about it.You're a dog with a bone on this, aren't you.
We got no information from people at the draft live to indicate there was any hold up in going straight through...The trade happened live, during the draft, for the subsequent pick. The premise of the trade is GC being able to get a specific player. You're assuming GC don't make any indication to KW about why they are doing the trade, which strikes me as an odd assumption.
If, this happened, which is what I would expect to have happened I would be more than content. The fact is nothing from those at the draft indicated this had and that Ken Wood give it a good sniff. I really hope he did, as then he would have done his job.GC and Geelong submit the paperwork, Ken Wood looks it over, possibly gives GC a call to say "this looks odd, are you sure", they say "Yep, we're doing this trade because there's a player we rate highly enough to use that future first to secure". It's possible they even include that information on the submission, impossible to say without seeing the paperwork though.
Lets just take time to reflect on Champion Data rating Melbourne as having the best list in the comp.It would be interesting to see the data from human recruiters vs champion data rankings and to see how they compare. I remember some lines from moneyball regarding your bias and how it influences decisions or how you miss what's in front of you.
How would a computer generated drafter go against an AFL real life, person one?
Fair enough legend, I have noticed that taking a reductive approach to differing views seems to have increased as of late, which is a shame.I'm chilled as - just bemused as to how FF has come to the conclusion that others are drunk or not thinking when they suggest that Ken Wood might actually consider specific context when assessing trades, rather than just draft pick values.
I was looking at eDPS rankings for 2020.I'd like to know what kids might go in the 15-18 range (before bids)...
Asking for a friend...
We were only ever using 3 picks in the national draft, so pick 55 was always going to be burnt.It’s been interesting to read people’s thoughts on our recruitment of Philp over Robertson. I back the recruiters in, although I was big on team Robertson.
What I think people are missing is. We traded pick 22 and pick 55 for Philp, so when assessing Philp vs Robertson or whoever was still available, you need to factor in, it’s Philp vs Robertson and 55 or who we could have got, if we packaged 55 with the pick we used in the 40s.