Traded 40. Jackson Thurlow (2013-2018)

[barmy44]

How about coming down and training with the boys?
Those dimensions, you sound to be a good size.

i was a very good full forward in my teens, got offered contracts with both sturt and west, but i didnt have the aggression.

i hated being hit, and there is only so far you can take it with a mind set like that. i miss it, though.

edit: hawkins also has me covered. starting last year, at least

 

[Moggy]

i was a very good full forward in my teens, got offered contracts with both sturt and west, but i didnt have the aggression.

i hated being hit, and there is only so far you can take it with a mind set like that. i miss it, though.

[obligatory response]
Nothing a few sessions with Maxy Rooke can't fix!
[/obligatory response]

 

[David the Cat]

Thurlow got 40...a lot of history with that number!

 

[meto]

I'm telling you Thurlow is a Boris replacement. He even looks like him!

Have they announced their numbers? I'm assuming Thurlow will be #36 and Hartman #40.

Yes he does, marginally better looking though!

They both look awesome recruits, I read (Sth Aust U18 Academy 2012) recent size stats on Hartman were
189/83, I noticed he's a little slumped in the photo but hey 18th birthday just the other day, wait till he hits the weights, might even add a couple of cms being so young.

As I've said, nothing wrong with this pick 16, Aust U18 Carnival, highest av in possessions, highest av in marks, Jackson is worthy of our selection and a great addition to the list.

 

[barmy44]

Yes he does, marginally better looking though!

They both look awesome recruits, I read (Sth Aust U18 Academy 2012) recent size stats on Hartman were
189/83, I noticed he's a little slumped in the photo but hey 18th birthday just the other day, wait till he hits the weights, might even add a couple of cms being so young.

As I've said, nothing wrong with this pick 16, Aust U18 Carnival, highest av in possessions, highest av in marks, Jackson is worthy of our selection and a great addition to the list.

4 kgs heavier than thurlow? wow.

 

[Vdubs]

Thurlow got 40...a lot of history with that number!

Who was between Ian Nankervis & Wojo?

 

[David the Cat]

Not sure VD....isn't that enough history for you?

 

[Vdubs]

Not sure VD....isn't that enough history for you?

Maybe Ugrinic?
No, just curious, pre Wojo, there is an annoying hiatus of who wore 40. I can usually recall stuff like that.

 

[Tazwegian]

40 is a good round number. I like it.

 

[meto]

4 kgs heavier than thurlow? wow.

You've got to wonder about that 79kg being a little on the light side if Hartman's 83.

 

[FredLeDeux]

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.

It is an error if someone says that hindsight or history has proved that a decision was wrong at the time it was made. This is a type of error in decision-making called cognitive bias; it is not actually a logical error but it is akin to one because it is irrational. The particular error is called outcome bias (paraphrasing Wikipedia here for convenience) - judging a decision by its outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made, given what was known at that time. This is an error because no decision maker knows how a calculated risk will turn out. The outcome will often be determined by chance or unforeseeable events, with some risks working out and others not. People who make outcome bias errors are holding decision makers responsible for events beyond their control.

A simple example of an outcome bias error would be to say that because Mitch Brown hasn’t established himself as our CHF, hindsight proves the decision to draft him was wrong. This is an error because it assumes the recruiters knew things they could not have known when they drafted him, eg his injuries, Hawkins’ explosion, Pods’ continued form and Vardy’s appearance.

There can be a fine line. It would be quite legitimate for someone to say later that the Brown decision was wrong at the time it was made because, eg., it was already known that he had certain physical weaknesses likely to cause his particular injuries, and/or that the Hawkins/Pods/Vardy factors were reasonably predictable.

It is legitimate for people to disagree about the merits of a decision at the time it was made, on the basis of the relative weight to be attributed to each the facts known to both parties at that time. Everyone is entitled to their own informed opinion.

You can say that history has proved a decision to be successful or unsuccessful; you can’t say that history has proved a decision to be right or wrong.

The ethical issues you raise involve a whole new and different set of logical issues, including such exotica as the Historian’s Fallacy and Presentism.

 

[Moggy]

If we declined him because of the off-field stuff, that was a good decision at the time.

There can be a fine line. It would be quite legitimate for someone to say later that the Brown decision was wrong at the time it was made because, eg., it was already known that he had certain physical weaknesses likely to cause his particular injuries, and/or that the Hawkins/Pods/Vardy factors were reasonably predictable.

It is legitimate for people to disagree about the merits of a decision at the time it was made, on the basis of the relative weight to be attributed to each the facts known to both parties at that time. Everyone is entitled to their own informed opinion.

You can say that history has proved a decision to be successful or unsuccessful; you can’t say that history has proved a decision to be right or wrong.

The ethical issues you raise involve a whole new and different set of logical issues, including such exotica as the Historian’s Fallacy and Presentism.

I will probably regret this, but....

You talk about rightness/wrongness being based upon the decision maker's ability to uncover all the factors then attribute correct weight to these. This sounds reasonable.

However, earlier you said that the Darling/Guthrie decision was a good decision because we decided that the off-field stuff was a deal-breaker.
Given that, so far, Darling seems to be doing very well - isn't it more correct to say that we made a bad decision because we put too much weight on the off-field issues?

Note:
Before anyone jumps in, I am not making any personal judgement on the Guthrie/Darling call. I am very happy with Guthrie.
I just feel an need to keep Fred honest when it comes to Historian's Fallacy issues

 

[Moggy]

OR

Are you saying that a good decision is a properly worked-through decision, even if the weightings used turned out to be inaccurate?

 

[FredLeDeux]

I will probably regret this, but....

You talk about rightness/wrongness being based upon the decision maker's ability to uncover all the factors then attribute correct weight to these. This sounds reasonable.

However, earlier you said that the Darling/Guthrie decision was a good decision because we decided that the off-field stuff was a deal-breaker.
Given that, so far, Darling seems to be doing very well - isn't it more correct to say that we made a bad decision because we put too much weight on the off-field issues?

Note:
Before anyone jumps in, I am not making any personal judgement on the Guthrie/Darling call. I am very happy with Guthrie.
I just feel an need to keep Fred honest when it comes to Historian's Fallacy issues

OR

Are you saying that a good decision is a properly worked-through decision, even if the weightings used turned out to be inaccurate?

I didn't actually make any comment about the Guthrie decision. I said that if we declined Darling because of the off-field stuff, that was a good decision at the time. I don't know if we did decline Darling at all, nor what the reasons were for such a decision if it did occur. I just believe that that sort of behaviour ought to be given very high, almost overwhelming weight in whom we draft. It is a personal opinion on how one factor should be weighed when making a drafting decsion.
However, assuming for the moment that we did make that decision, and for that reason, then no, it's not "correct to say that we made a bad decision because we put too much weight on the off-field issues"; that would be an outcome bias error, because it judges the decision by its results, rather than by what was known at the time the decision was made.
And no, I am not "saying that a good decision is a properly worked-through decision, even if the weightings used turned out to be inaccurate". First, the fact that the weightings (have so far) turned out to be inaccurate is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was a good decision, because, once again, it judges the decision by its outcome, rather than by what was known at the time. Secondly, I have said nothing whatever about what does and does not constitute a good decision or good decision-making; nor do I intend to do so, people already write books on it by the thousands.

 

[Grizzly_82]

Who cares Guthie will be a great player in time and who to say Darling would be playing well for us anyway? He could be more comfortable playing in his home town anyway.

I doubt Wells or the GFC lost any sleep over the deacon.

 

[meto]

I thought and posted we should've taken Darling at the time, but many on BF were anti JD due to the negative press that surrounded him.
Lets face it alot of these footy kids grow up to fast and don't deal very well with the world, till they're brought into a mans' environment. I thought with our seniors being the people they are, his transition would've worked out positively as it has at WCE.
I think Guthrie needs a permanent role, probably a rotating defensive mid, he doesn't mind the inside stuff, we haven't seen his best not by a long shot.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Maybe Ugrinic?
No, just curious, pre Wojo, there is an annoying hiatus of who wore 40. I can usually recall stuff like that.

Can't remember in between those two, but John Yeates much much earlier on.

 

[Senatorguesty]

Who cares Guthie will be a great player in time and who to say Darling would be playing well for us anyway? He could be more comfortable playing in his home town anyway.

I doubt Wells or the GFC lost any sleep over the deacon.

Exactly.
If we worry about every draft where we took someone who fills a need for us instead of someone who is by opinion playing better footy in a completely different position then EVERY draft (except maybe 2006 ) will have question marks over it.
Is Darling a good player? He could be.
Is Guthrie a good player? He could be.
Which will be the greater need in 2-3 years time? Guthrie.

 

[footscore]

Darling's a vastly superior player to Guthrie but that's only because he's been given the chance to play two full seasons while Guthrie is in and out of the side almost every fortnight

He shoulda played in our last game but he was overlooked.
Guthrie has a similar game to that of Bartel, plays of half back but is also a talented midfielder.
He seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place because the coach can't just drop a Josh Hunt or a Joel Corey for the sake of playing Guthrie but on the other hand, Guthrie is being deprived of opportunities which isn't a good thing to say.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Darling's a vastly superior player to Guthrie but that's only because he's been given the chance to play two full seasons while Guthrie is in and out of the side almost every fortnight

He shoulda played in our last game but he was overlooked.
Guthrie has a similar game to that of Bartel, plays of half back but is also a talented midfielder.
He seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place because the coach can't just drop a Josh Hunt or a Joel Corey for the sake of playing Guthrie but on the other hand, Guthrie is being deprived of opportunities which isn't a good thing to say.

He played 18 last year.

 

[footscore]

He played 18 last year.

yep but 4 or so as the sub.
If he was playing for Richmond, he'd be needed on a weekly basis.

 

[sarah.13]

Given that we had drafted Brown, Vardy and Menzel in the previous 2 drafts, a tall forward such as darling wasnt considered more due to list management than anything else.

 

[Jmac2225]

Who's spot would Darling take anyway? Could of been handy this year with Menzel and Pods injured but for chunks of the year but I doubt we would of found a spot for him in 2011 when he played most of the season for WC.

 

[meto]

yep but 4 or so as the sub.
If he was playing for Richmond, he'd be needed on a weekly basis.

Totally agree with you on Guthrie......I'd like to see him given a chance in the middle rather than small defender.
Or defensive/mid, however they work that group.

 

[cattas09]

I reckon Guthrie is underrated on this board. He has lots of time and poise which is something youngsters often take ahwile to establish. Dont understand why he wasnt in the EF last year, was and still is alot better play than Murdoch IMO