With only 5 spots then I would probably have played it -Thats why when everybody kept saying no it confused the buggery out of me as pure numbers it was 7 out and 6 in and we should have a rookie spot ? Unless its the Parker thing
9. Gibcus
17. Johnson
28. Sonsie
29. Howes
30. Clarke
That's not radically different to Clarke's picks, we're almost on the same page, I guess it comes down to Johnson vs Brown & Howes vs Banks. Just to be clear to everyone reading, Brown & Banks are Tigers now & I will be embracing them & supporting them just like any Tiger. But every year the differences in my strategy & that of Clarke's will be put in the spotlight, that's how I learn & get better. I'm not the oracle either & I don't want to come across as that but much like picking a ruck at 20 (CCJ) if I see a potential fault line then I won't be holding back. Hindsight has vindicated my stance on rucks in the top 20, I think I share the same reluctance with flankers in the top 20, these decisions rarely pay off. In my experience a flanker needs to be uber elite to qualify for such high standing, even with the game opening up I don't think it warrants a complete overhaul of ranking principles.
I think in totality that group of 5 players still represents a potential royal flush, you could potentially get 5 core players & three A graders, I think value has been maximised at each pick & I think including a strong overhead marking wingman would have been a good move. Clarke is kind of a boom/bust selection given his defensive side & contested game needs some work but he's also underage so I think you can factor in significant upside. There is some potential to hit the midfield and when I stack his credentials alongside Rachele I can see we're still in the frame to unearth a comparable player. That's in essence how I would go about formulating my rankings and deriving value at each pick.