Draft Pick 71: Cameron Sutcliffe

[Kickett Punches Read]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

the fact is, is that the recruiters put a hell of a lot more research into the players we select, then some nuff nuffs on big footy. Just because he isnt rated here, doesnt mean he cant play. I can remember people saying Barlow who? when we selected him in the rookie draft, and the guy would have just about won the brownlow if he hadnt of snaped his leg. No point writing of a guy because some of us think nelson or frost or whoever is a much better player. we simply dont know. For all the raving on about nelson.... there is a clear reason he was not selected in the ND... 18 clubs didnt think he was talented enough. hopefully he can go into the RD and we can select him there, adn he can do another barlow

 

[Clay Davis]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

We picked Justin Bollenhagen before Barlow and Chris Hall before Broughton.

 

[Nickos66]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Pretty pointless argument of we're cherrypicking from previous drafts.

You could say 16 clubs got it wrong when brownlow medallists were drafted in the 50's & 80's.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

We picked Justin Bollenhagen before Barlow and Chris Hall before Broughton.

Thanks for the history lesson Wikipedia.

 

[theGav56]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

the fact is, is that the recruiters put a hell of a lot more research into the players we select, then some nuff nuffs on big footy. Just because he isnt rated here, doesnt mean he cant play. I can remember people saying Barlow who?

When we selected Silvagni I pretty much had it down as bust. I assumed Caaaarlton would've been all over him, and if he had any prospects at all would have taken him. They needed talls, and his name is Silvagni.

 

[93567]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Oh very good, reductio ad absurdum. That's too dumb to even respond too.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate technique of logical deduction whereby you take an argument/statement and extend it to a logical conclusion that is absurd. If a premise can lead to an absurd conclusion, then it is untenable. Simply because it includes the Latin word "absurdum" does not mean that it is a derisive term, it is a very effective method of logical deduction. So, too dumb?

 

[yakka man]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

the fact is, is that the recruiters put a hell of a lot more research into the players we select, then some nuff nuffs on big footy. Just because he isnt rated here, doesnt mean he cant play. I can remember people saying Barlow who? when we selected him in the rookie draft, and the guy would have just about won the brownlow if he hadnt of snaped his leg. No point writing of a guy because some of us think nelson or frost or whoever is a much better player. we simply dont know. For all the raving on about nelson.... there is a clear reason he was not selected in the ND... 18 clubs didnt think he was talented enough. hopefully he can go into the RD and we can select him there, adn he can do another barlow

For the last time I don't give a stuff what people on bigfooty think! I read most of the phantom drafts out of interest but would never think to use them as a reference. Like you say recruiters put a lot of time into the draft and yet they still make many terrible decisions and have a low success ratio. If recruiters never got it wrong then there would be no need for a rookie draft.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate technique of logical deduction whereby you take an argument/statement and extend it to a logical conclusion that is absurd. If a premise can lead to an absurd conclusion, then it is untenable. Simply because it includes the Latin word "absurdum" does not mean that it is a derisive term, it is a very effective method of logical deduction. So, too dumb?

Well it took you more than a week to respond, so uh yeah!

 

[theGav56]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Like you say recruiters put a lot of time into the draft and yet they still make many terrible decisions and have a low success ratio. If recruiters never got it wrong then there would be no need for a rookie draft.

If the success rate for picks in the 70's is <5%, I'd find it really difficult to talk about "terrible decisions" and "low success rates" as being flaws in the recruiting. I think the reality is that the draft is speculative at best, and in those regions of the draft it is like picking penny dreadful stocks and expecting to build your superannuation. It isn't going to happen.

 

[93567]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Well it took you more than a week to respond, so uh yeah!

Respond? You're getting confused. I am not the person you called dumb. I simply came on this thread for the first time today, saw some idiot bandying about the term 'reductio ad absurdum' without a clue, and decided to point out the irony of you calling someone dumb. Do you not see the irony?

 

[yakka man]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Respond? You're getting confused. I am not the person you called dumb. I simply came on this thread for the first time today, saw some idiot bandying about the term 'reductio ad absurdum' without a clue, and decided to point out the irony of you calling someone dumb. Do you not see the irony?

Oh right, on that count I apologize. I didn't bother to look back through the thread. But don't be a fool, I know what the term means. I wouldn't of used it if I didn't. Of coarse it is a logical reasoning technique, most people use it on a daily basis. But it is often used by lesser minds. If you take an argument completely out of context and reduce it to ridiculous proportions you are not covering the topic at hand.

 

[93567]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

But you're plain wrong. I can prove Pythagoras' Theorem using reductio ad absurdum. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem employs reductio ad absurdum! Was Kurt Godel a "lesser mind"? And yes, one is covering the topic at hand, provided that the statement for which the technique is applied is a logical statement (i.e. a priori). Given your want of belittling people for their lesser abilities and propensity to grand, dismissive statements, I surmise that you consider everything you write to be true a priori. Hence, reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate technique when arguing with you

P.S. Incidentally, if the reductio leads to a statement that contradicts a posteriori knowledge, that's also a pretty darn convincing argument.

 

[Seppo]

But you're plain wrong. I can prove Pythagoras' Theorem using reductio ad absurdum. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem employs reductio ad absurdum! Was Kurt Godel a "lesser mind"? And yes, one is covering the topic at hand, provided that the statement for which the technique is applied is a logical statement (i.e. a priori). Given your want of belittling people for their lesser abilities and propensity to grand, dismissive statements, I surmise that you consider everything you write to be true a priori. Hence, reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate technique when arguing with you

P.S. Incidentally, if the reductio leads to a statement that contradicts a posteriori knowledge, that's also a pretty darn convincing argument.

We talking football anymore? If this has nothing to do with Cam Sutcliffe. take your thesaurus to another thread.

 

[Clems Knee]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Why stop? Afraid of big words Seppo?
The way I see it, yakka man has been thorughly pwned. Started off by saying "Considering the players that were still available it was a stupid pick.", followed it up with abuse and derision "dummy" etc, and couldn't manage to hold his argument together. Best thing is, I learnt some Latin.

We don't know if this will be a good pick or not. Probabilities are, like most picks this far down, it will be a bust, but give the kid a chance. The Recruiters have seen something in him, from all accounts he has an impressive attitude.

 

[yakka man]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

But you're plain wrong. I can prove Pythagoras' Theorem using reductio ad absurdum. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem employs reductio ad absurdum! Was Kurt Godel a "lesser mind"? And yes, one is covering the topic at hand, provided that the statement for which the technique is applied is a logical statement (i.e. a priori). Given your want of belittling people for their lesser abilities and propensity to grand, dismissive statements, I surmise that you consider everything you write to be true a priori. Hence, reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate technique when arguing with you

P.S. Incidentally, if the reductio leads to a statement that contradicts a posteriori knowledge, that's also a pretty darn convincing argument.

Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Just because you can throw around big words and mathematical models doesn't mean you truly understand a topic. The fact that you need to satisfy your ego on an internet board instead of actually talking Footy tells me you need an escape from the real world.

Why stop? Afraid of big words Seppo?
The way I see it, yakka man has been thorughly pwned. Started off by saying "Considering the players that were still available it was a stupid pick.", followed it up with abuse and derision "dummy" etc, and couldn't manage to hold his argument together. Best thing is, I learnt some Latin.

Just shutup. I didn't abuse anyone (besides calling an initial post by someone else silly), it was actually the other way round when 93567 came in to impress himself. You obviously have no opinion so just stay out of it.

 

[93567]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Just because you can throw around big words and mathematical models doesn't mean you truly understand a topic. The fact that you need to satisfy your ego on an internet board instead of actually talking Footy tells me you need an escape from the real world.



Just shutup. I didn't abuse anyone (besides calling an initial post by someone else silly), it was actually the other way round when 93567 came in to impress himself. You obviously have no opinion so just stay out of it.

You're the one who felt the need to call someone's argument too "dumb" to be worthy of your response. Don't get on your real-life high horse now, you're the one who started being unnecessarily belligerent on the internet (insert obligatory picture of the kid with Downs Syndrome running).

So, back on topic. Jezzitizle's reductio ad absurdum is a good argument. To add to his argument, I'd like to know what your criteria are for an "highly rated player"? Surely the only objective rating system we have, in terms of drafting, is the AFL draft. It allows the teams to select players based on how highly they RATE them. Here we have dozens of highly trained, experienced, well paid, full-time experts who get the opportunity to select players for their team. Not only that, but their ability to retain this well paid, full-time employment is based on the success of their decisions. So, in essence, we have dozens of people with more time, more money, more experience, who not only rate the prospective recruits, but compete with one another for these players. And you want to completely ignore that data and look at what a bunch of interested amateurs and journalists (whose objective is to sell a story, not make the best decisions for their team) think?

Cameron Sutcliffe has just become my new favourite player.

 

[kp junior]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

You're the one who felt the need to call someone's argument too "dumb" to be worthy of your response. Don't get on your real-life high horse now, you're the one who started being unnecessarily belligerent on the internet (insert obligatory picture of the kid with Downs Syndrome running).

So, back on topic. Jezzitizle's reductio ad absurdum is a good argument. To add to his argument, I'd like to know what your criteria are for an "highly rated player"? Surely the only objective rating system we have, in terms of drafting, is the AFL draft. It allows the teams to select players based on how highly they RATE them. Here we have dozens of highly trained, experienced, well paid, full-time experts who get the opportunity to select players for their team. Not only that, but their ability to retain this well paid, full-time employment is based on the success of their decisions. So, in essence, we have dozens of people with more time, more money, more experience, who not only rate the prospective recruits, but compete with one another for these players. And you want to completely ignore that data and look at what a bunch of interested amateurs and journalists (whose objective is to sell a story, not make the best decisions for their team) think?

Cameron Sutcliffe has just become my new favourite player.

Except these are the same geniuses that didn't think Sandilands, Cox, Barlow, Broughton, Boyd etc etc were worthy of pick 79 and let them slip to the rookie draft

 

[apuchar]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Except these are the same geniuses that didn't think Sandilands, Cox, Barlow, Broughton, Boyd etc etc were worthy of pick 79 and let them slip to the rookie draft

I think people tend to set the bar too high for recruiting. They may have not have chosen them initially, but they did choose them. The American recruiters are stunned that we have to select people at such a young age.
They can't understand how we are supposed to be able to project that far forward.

 

[93567]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Yes, they don't make perfect decisions. Who does? It makes no sense to compare a recruiter's success rate to hindsight, unless you compare everyone's predictions to hindsight. So, did the journalists and BigFooty amateurs think that Sandilands, Cox, Barlow, Broughton, Boyd etc were worthy of pick 79?

 

[Clems Knee]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Just shutup. I didn't abuse anyone (besides calling an initial post by someone else silly), it was actually the other way round when 93567 came in to impress himself. You obviously have no opinion so just stay out of it.

Never argue with a fool. People might not be able to tell the difference. My opinion regarding Sutcliffe, by the way, was in the paragraph below the one that you quoted. Too much to read?

 

[kp junior]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Yes, they don't make perfect decisions. Who does? It makes no sense to compare a recruiter's success rate to hindsight, unless you compare everyone's predictions to hindsight. So, did the journalists and BigFooty amateurs think that Sandilands, Cox, Barlow, Broughton, Boyd etc were worthy of pick 79?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=649034&highlight=michael+barlow

Barlow pick 61 in the 2009 BigFooty phantom draft, and I can't be arsed looking for any others.

Sometimes the Bigfooty experts will be right, someyimes (more times) the club's recruiters will be right, but neither are perfect obviously.

I'm not sure what I'm arguing about. Beer

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

Beer good.

 

[theGav56]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=649034&highlight=michael+barlow

Barlow pick 61 in the 2009 BigFooty phantom draft, and I can't be arsed looking for any others.

Sometimes the Bigfooty experts will be right, someyimes (more times) the club's recruiters will be right, but neither are perfect obviously.

I'm not sure what I'm arguing about. Beer

Yes good point. Clearly he is not the 61st best player from that draft. Not many #1 draft picks with Brownlows are there?

 

[yakka man]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

You're the one who felt the need to call someone's argument too "dumb" to be worthy of your response. Don't get on your real-life high horse now, you're the one who started being unnecessarily belligerent on the internet (insert obligatory picture of the kid with Downs Syndrome running).

So, back on topic. Jezzitizle's reductio ad absurdum is a good argument. To add to his argument, I'd like to know what your criteria are for an "highly rated player"? Surely the only objective rating system we have, in terms of drafting, is the AFL draft. It allows the teams to select players based on how highly they RATE them. Here we have dozens of highly trained, experienced, well paid, full-time experts who get the opportunity to select players for their team. Not only that, but their ability to retain this well paid, full-time employment is based on the success of their decisions. So, in essence, we have dozens of people with more time, more money, more experience, who not only rate the prospective recruits, but compete with one another for these players. And you want to completely ignore that data and look at what a bunch of interested amateurs and journalists (whose objective is to sell a story, not make the best decisions for their team) think?

Cameron Sutcliffe has just become my new favourite player.

With each new post of yours it becomes more evident that you are more interested in impressing everyone than talking Footy. I have already listed the criteria for determining a players draft prospects. Under 18 carnival, draft camp, TAC cup form, state league form, draft experts opinions and footy Journo's opinions etc. If you read the damn thread instead of crying havoc you would see it. You have not covered anything that hasn't been covered. Jezzitizle hasn't had a sook.

You keep claiming that Big footy posters are no experts, so why do you seem to think you are?

Never argue with a fool. People might not be able to tell the difference. My opinion regarding Sutcliffe, by the way, was in the paragraph below the one that you quoted. Too much to read?

I did read it, but I am more interested in defending my honour then caring for your opinion. Or lack thereof Did you even know of Cam Sutcliffe before the draft? Most people didn't and that's the point.

 

[Clems Knee]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

I did read it, but I am more interested in defending my honour then caring for your opinion. Or lack thereof Did you even know of Cam Sutcliffe before the draft? Most people didn't and that's the point.

Right... first I obviously have no opinion, then you don't care for my opinion. For someone who started up with the Latin (incorrectly according to 93567) and quotes Einstein, you may be proving that a little knowledge is dangerous. Defending your messageboard honour? How's that going?

No I didn't know anything of Cam Sutcliffe, don't follow SA footy at all. And I'm clearly not a great judge; I wouldn't have picked Ballantyne or Fyfe as high as Freo did.
But that is the point: the recruiters of the Fremantle Football Club did know of Cam Sutcliffe before the draft, and they rate him high enough to give a two year contract. They probably know more about it than any of us. And unlike the mob down the road, we don't draft our kids based on who their godfather is - we use due diligence.

How about you give the kid a go, instead of huffing and puffing on a thread called "FFC Welcomes...?

 

[yakka man]

Re: FFC Welcomes Pick 71

Right... first I obviously have no opinion, then you don't care for my opinion. For someone who started up with the Latin (incorrectly according to 93567) and quotes Einstein, you may be proving that a little knowledge is dangerous. Defending your messageboard honour? How's that going?

No I didn't know anything of Cam Sutcliffe, don't follow SA footy at all. And I'm clearly not a great judge; I wouldn't have picked Ballantyne or Fyfe as high as Freo did.
But that is the point: the recruiters of the Fremantle Football Club did know of Cam Sutcliffe before the draft, and they rate him high enough to give a two year contract. They probably know more about it than any of us. And unlike the mob down the road, we don't draft our kids based on who their godfather is - we use due diligence.

How about you give the kid a go, instead of huffing and puffing on a thread called "FFC Welcomes...?

I will be at every home game next year and if Cam Sutcliffe gets a game I will be cheering when he gets a touch. You can bet on that. But there is a difference between placing your faith in the Freo recruiting team (whether blindly or not) and having an opinion. As I have said throughout the thread, we were the first team to pull on the pin on Sutcliffe and at pick 71. I can't predict the future but there is a strong chance that he would of ended up in the rookie draft if we hadn't recruited him at 71. As I have said there were talented players still around who have done everything right all year to give themselves the best chance of being drafted. Just because they weren't selected doesn't mean they won't go on to have very good careers if picked up in the rookie draft.

I am stunned that I even had to bother with the professor in regards to the latin which I briefly mentioned.