You are being selective again Harks, but lets's entertain the idea, despite misunderstanding what I have posted1. Wines had a big body. Cripps had a big body. Petracca had a big body. De Goey had a big body ...etc etc.
We just pick and choose as to why some 'Big bodies' will develop further and others won't. Doubt there's any science behind your claim. Just bias.
Hawthorn? They take players and develop them for specific roles and they do it well. Smart.....and who cares where they finished this year when you know that their formula works whilst we'll still be trying to find the best players and not build the best team.
2. Extreme cases? It's quite feasible for such scenarios to arise.
You said always and even had to magnify it with an 'ALWAYS' So is it always or not? It's not always is it? It's a long way from always.
Whether recruiters look at it that way or not come selection time, I don't know, but the notion of 'just get the best player and we'll work out how he fits later' is so wrong on so many fronts. It smacks of a mindset that suggests 'let's find a future Brownlow medalist ahead of building a Premiership team'
RIDER: I probably didn't explain this well and some will say why can't you have both but I'm talking about the mindset.
3. Dusty at 3? I know who he is now so how do I answer that question and which team do I compare it to?
Would I sooner had had a #13 and the #20 instead of the #3 and reeled in Talia and Fyfe? The answer would be an easy YES.
In summary we see things differently and a lot depends on where you are at the time as to how you should draft.
You're rebuilding - Get the best players by all means as you have gaps everywhere.
You've passed your 88 game rebuild - It may be time to clean up around the edges, given you couldn't get things done via trade and may not be able to again.
I've said this before and I'll say it again - For this draft period (and at this stage), I'd like for us to trade down should the situation present, given we're more likely (or even forced to) pick up a couple of 'needs' type players rather than something we have and that may seem to be better for now.
P.S. I still don't know what you headline was about, but that's OK
1. How much growth have we seen in Wines? His first 12 game season he averaged 25 odd disposals a season, conveniently he is still on a similar average. Cripps grew height wise from his draft year, averaged 26.9 disposals in his 2nd full season 28.1 this year, massive growth? De Goey 18.2 in his 2nd season, 16.8 this season. Tell me Harks, how much growth have those 3 had? No bias, just facts. Worpel was never a 1st round prospect, nor should he have slid into the 3rd round. Long term he is a early to mid 2nd round talent long term. This messiah complex with Clarkson and Hawthorn is hilarious. What would you make of Hartung, Garlett, Wilsmore, Webster, Ross, Hatherley, Tatupu, O'Rourke, Miles, Pittonett, Hardisty, Miller-Lewis, Langford, Fitzpatrick, Lovell, Surmane, Stewart, all from 2013-2015? Yet you want to hang your hat on a mature body draftee, who is clearly an exception to the rule given the above names
2. Yes, ALWAYS best available when drafting and I have never deviated from that statement
3. This is where you have completely misunderstood my previous post. Not Dusty at 3, I stated "would you say no to drafting 3 of him? " https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/carltons-2019-draft-thread.1209887/page-50#post-63538590 . 1 the square/pocket, 1 on a HFF, 1 in the guts. Go on tell me best available is not effective with a player like Martin. Perhaps you want an example of a lesser player? Perhaps Shane Edwards, who could play HB, Mid or Small forward, should we not draft 3 of him as they are too much alike?
"In summary" you don't bypass better talent to reach for needs. That was the mantra of Rogers and Hughes, not one that I would use as a strategy for any form of success.
Then you go on in other posts about "best available" has been disproved, show me evidence of where that has failed? Perhaps rather than debating Best Available v Needs, perhaps you/I/others should be debating how and who we rate as best available and why.
As for the headline, "Reaching again Harks?" You would rather bypass 20 odd players that have greater talent and select a player of need, the headline is fitting Harks and I am grateful, SOS does not subscribe to your form of Rogers/Hughes mantra/recruiting