Traded 40. Jackson Thurlow (2013-2018)

Remove this Banner Ad

Who knows if Darling would have stayed in Victoria anyway - there is always the away from home factor to consider as well. Anyway, 15 or so other clubs passed on him as well so there were clearly issues at the time.
 
I like how this thread has totally gone off topic lol
If we picked Darling and then didn't need to pick Kersten, who would we have picked in his place than could have filled the role that Guthrie currenly has? Not to mention that player would be 1 year less experienced and developed but Hunt and Enright would still be 1 year closer to retirement.

As for Collingwood and their ruck stocks, who cares :p
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tazwegian

A8r2IFWCEAAl0iP.jpg:large


Size wise looks like he would have no problem slotting in for a few games next year if his form is good.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FredLeDeux said:
Darling is a star, and may well end up having a better career than Guthrie.
But the results of the decision to pick Guthrie over Darling are, of course, utterly irrelevant on the question of whether or not it was a good decision; the merits of a decision can only be judged on what was known at the time it was made.
Click to expand...

You have said similar things to this recently. I am not sure I agree entirely with the point I think you are making.

While one can only make a decision on the information available to one at the time of the decision, it is still legitimate to use hindsight and future info to evaluate the original decision. You can look back on a choice and say, "we did what we could with the info we had, but time has proven we didn't make the best choice available".

And is there a difference when decisions become more complex, involving collaboration or ethics, or intangibles etc?

We really believed we were helping Aboriginal children when we took them out of their communities and relocated them in state or church run institutions. I suspect that some children were helped by this move, just as they are today as we intervene in the NT where we see abuse. But in hindsight, we see the decision was also sometimes wrong, we feel some referred guilt, and we wish to make amends - even if it is only to say sorry. Not all the decisions were right or good, but at the time we/they thought they were according to prevailing wisdom and available info.

In the case of Guthrie over Darling (or any similar drafting case), the "mistake" (if you wanted to argue it was a mistake) would be in the evaluation of the available info at the time. We had the info, we just interpreted it less perfectly than we had in some other drafting situations.

I am partly thinking out loud on this. :)
 
CharacterFirst said:
You have said similar things to this recently. I am not sure I agree entirely with the point I think you are making.

While one can only make a decision on the information available to one at the time of the decision, it is still legitimate to use hindsight and future info to evaluate the original decision. You can look back on a choice and say, "we did what we could with the info we had, but time has proven we didn't make the best choice available".

And is there a difference when decisions become more complex, involving collaboration or ethics, or intangibles etc?

We really believed we were helping Aboriginal children when we took them out of their communities and relocated them in state or church run institutions. I suspect that some children were helped by this move, just as they are today as we intervene in the NT where we see abuse. But in hindsight, we see the decision was also sometimes wrong, we feel some referred guilt, and we wish to make amends - even if it is only to say sorry. Not all the decisions were right or good, but at the time we/they thought they were according to prevailing wisdom and available info.

In the case of Guthrie over Darling (or any similar drafting case), the "mistake" (if you wanted to argue it was a mistake) would be in the evaluation of the available info at the time. We had the info, we just interpreted it less perfectly than we had in some other drafting situations.

I am partly thinking out loud on this. :)
Click to expand...

Darlings numerous transgressions were well documented at the time and the boy should be commended for the variety of shit he was able to get involved in such a short time. I think most Clubs came to the same "evaluation" of the facts presented.
His turnaround has been quite remarkable and both he and the Eagles deserve kudos for that.

Will his behaviour be sustained? Maybe , maybe not...........one of his original issues was that he got far too ahead of himself when dominating junior footy - who's to say that tendency won't emerge again after a couple of years of success in the AFL ?
 
Farmer2Goggin said:
Darlings numerous transgressions were well documented at the time and the boy should be commended for the variety of shit he was able to get involved in such a short time. I think most Clubs came to the same "evaluation" of the facts presented.
His turnaround has been quite remarkable and both he and the Eagles deserve kudos for that.

Will his behaviour be sustained? Maybe , maybe not...........one of his original issues was that he got far too ahead of himself when dominating junior footy - who's to say that tendency won't emerge again after a couple of years of success in the AFL ?
Click to expand...
Yep; maybe. I wasn't really arguing the rights or wrongs of the decision, more the philosophy.
 
Stig_90 said:
That's strange, I thought they usually gave our first pick the lowest number.
Click to expand...
barmy44 said:
thats what i thought... however, im going off afl.com.au, so for all we know your assumption actually is correct.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain when Harley retired they changed it to the higher draft pick got the number of the player that was departing with the most games played. Except the captain went first.
Smedts got 2 (Harley), Guthrie got 29 (Gaz), Horlin-Smith 33 (Max) & Schroder 15 (Gamble).
Then it was Hamling got 45 (Ling), Kersten 39 (Dasher), Murdoch 21 (Moondog), McCarthy 6 (Ottens) & Orren 23 (don't remember)...
 
CharacterFirst said:
Yep; maybe. I wasn't really arguing the rights or wrongs of the decision, more the philosophy.
Click to expand...

It's a tough one , I agree, CF.
I suppose it's all about assessing the risks - as we saw with Garlett and the Main Draft. One of the GFC responses has been the no DH policy and to value traits like leadership and character which seems to have worked reasonably well with respect to the young ones recruited over the last few years.
 
barmy44 said:
thats what i thought. he is 3 cms shorter than me, and 6 kgs lighter, and im not that big :confused:
Click to expand...
How about coming down and training with the boys?
Those dimensions, you sound to be a good size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dazbroncos
B Rookie 40. Ted Clohesy (2022 - )
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Kobe Gryant
Kobe Gryant

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top