2010 list scenarios

[Swampfox 190]

IMO the best KPP Forward in this draft is Jake Carlisle

As for pure Ruckman i am not that impressed with whats on offer

Fitzpatrick ahead of Vardy

Fitzpatrick keeps on his feet more than Vardy and a one trick pony giving away his advantage is a dead loss

Edited October 21, 2009 by Swampfox

[Darren Cuthbertson 0]

We do have a problem. Bartram is the only out of contract player most of us would delist.It seems our only options are undesirable

- Bite the bullet with McNamara;

- Pay out a contracted player; or

- Pass up Pick 34 ( or PSD)

Hoopla -you should be running the club.

[hoopla 418]

Hoopla -you should be running the club.

Don't know where you get that from Darren. If I was we'd be promoting the Red and Blue Foundation - and Barts would have been delisted weeks ago

[1858 285]

Ok ... two points

a/ as you said he would have to obviously make it through the ND ... which IMHO would be a massive risk in this draft he would be a good pick up 50-60 ish

b/ pre-selected rookies have been in the past a trade-off for your number of veterans ie 2 Veterans = 0 preselected rookies or 1 veteran = 1 preselected rookie etc.

However, I've not read the new rookie rules so I'm not saying thats definitely the case this year

However, assuming nothing has changed there - wanting to pre-select McNamara would come at the cost of retaining Bruce on our full-list which means no pick 34 or PSD1 I would suspect and suggest is not our desired option.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Having said that my understanding is that you can only pre-select 1 rookie prior to the rookie draft anyway so how do we trade that off against 2 veterans? What you are saying resembles more the nominated rookie scenario but I am pretty hazy on much of the rookie rules so I'll take on board what you are saying.

[Akum 2,660]

We do have a problem. Bartram is the only out of contract player most of us would delist.It seems our only options are undesirable

- Bite the bullet with McNamara;

- Pay out a contracted player; or

- Pass up Pick 34 ( or PSD)

We won't use pick 34 because in this draft Bartram is better than anyone who's likely to be still around at pick 34

[sylvinator 96]

I really liked the way Bartram played in Round 21 and 22.

He is always fit, strong and courageous. His pace is pretty good also. It's his decision making and disposal have let him down in the past.

However in rd21 and 22 I noticed he was taking the most obvious option each time and executing the skills correctly by hitting a teammate in a better position.

Ideally I would like to see Bartram played as a shut-down back pocket player who can provide a little bit a run from defence.

People forget he's still very young.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

The changes/additions will be fairly straight forward:

MELBOURNE

1. Bail, Rohan

2. Bartram, Clint

3. Bate, Matthew

4. Bell, Daniel

5. Bennell, Jamie

6. Blease, Sam

7. Bruce, Cameron

8. Cheney, Kyle

9. Davey, Aaron

10. Dunn, Lynden

11. Frawley, James

12. Garland, Colin

13. Green, Brad

14. Grimes, Jack

15. Jamar, Mark

16. Jetta, Neville

17. Johnson, Paul

18. Jones, Nathan

19. Jurrah, Liam

20. Maric, Addam

21. Martin, Stefan

22. McDonald, James (veteran – outside list)

23. McNamara, Tom

24. Meesen, John

25. Miller, Brad

26. Moloney, Brent

27. Morton, Cale

28. Newton, Michael

29. Petterd, Ricky

30. Rivers, Jared

31. Strauss, James

32. Sylvia, Colin

33. Warnock, Matthew

34. Watts, Jack

35. Wonaeamirri, Austin

Additions:

Pick #1 Tom Scully

Pick #2 Jack Trengove

Pick #11 John Butcher

Pick #18 Gary Rohan

Pick #34 Lewis Jetta

PSD #1 Luke Ball

Rookie Draft - Ben Griffiths

B)

[Hiram Cowfreak 78]

On another site I read that the hold up with Bartram is due to him being offered a one year contract and he wants two years.

If this is true, and Clint signs on again, the way I see it is we will have only:

Picks 1,2,11 and 18 + Ball; or

Picks 1,2 11 18 and 34 and no PSD pick.

I would have liked us to use 34 but it looks unlikely.

Edited October 22, 2009 by ravi shanker

[hoopla 418]

On another site I read that the hold up with Bartram is due to him being offered a one year contract and he wants two years.

If this is true, and Clint signs on again, the way I see it is we will have only:

Picks 1,2,11 and 18 + Ball; or

Picks 1,2 11 18 and 34 and no PSD pick.

I would have liked us to use 34 but it looks unlikely.

I agree.... in this last uncomprised draft you'd like to think we could add at least 6 to our list plus 3-4 rookies.

Its beginning to as though we are going to waste a rookies position on Daniel Hughes again - so we're only going to a have a couple of rookie positions available as well

[rpfc 28,731]

I agree.... in this last uncomprised draft you'd like to think we could add at least 6 to our list plus 3-4 rookies.

Its beginning to as though we are going to waste a rookies position on Daniel Hughes again - so we're only going to a have a couple of rookie positions available as well

My sig explains how this draft is compromised.

I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft.

[old55 23,687]

The changes/additions will be fairly straight forward:

Additions:

Pick #1 Tom Scully

Pick #2 Jack Trengove

Pick #11 John Butcher

Pick #18 Gary Rohan

Pick #34 Lewis Jetta

PSD #1 Luke Ball

Rookie Draft - Ben Griffiths

B)

Resident Draft Dreamer!

[Guest hangon007]

My sig explains how this draft is compromised.

I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft.

Yes but your if your numbers are wrong! Hell of a lot of "if" "buts" and "maybes" then claiming Pick 34 = 50 and stating it as fact!

[sylvinator 96]

Additions:

Pick #1 Tom Scully

Pick #2 Jack Trengove

Pick #11 John Butcher

Pick #18 Gary Rohan

Pick #34 Lewis Jetta

PSD #1 Luke Ball

Rookie Draft - Ben Griffiths

B)

LOL.... we can only dream.

I think you will find the players you mentioned with our first 5 picks will all be top 10 draft picks.

Scully- 1

Trengove- 2

Butcher- 8 or 9 to Port who won't let him pass twice

Rohan- 5 or 6. Kangas or Sydney will take hiim

Jetta- pick 7 to the Weagles very likely. May slide to pick 13ish but not much further.

Even Griffiths will be gone by pick 34 probz

[Guest hangon007]

LOL.... we can only dream.

I like his thinking patterns ... we can all live in hope.

Sadly I'm in your camp ... but I hope you/we are wrong :D

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Keyser Söze 0]

My sig explains how this draft is compromised.

I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft.

Nev Jetta is no mug.

If there was a choice between him and Bartram, Cheney or McNamara I know who I'd take.

And don't forget that 2003 was regarded as a weak draft but Sam Fisher was taken at pick 55 and Rischitelli at 61.

Even Brad Sewell, Joel McDonald and Matthew Boyd were taken in the rookie draft that year.

Being a weak draft doesn't preclude you from being able to find a gem with a later pick.

The odds might not be on your side, but i'd roll the dice rather than persevere with a player who has pretty much been measured and found wanting.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Keyser Söze

[hoopla 418]

Nev Jetta is no mug.

If there was a choice between him and Bartram, Cheney or McNamara I know who I'd take.

And don't forget that 2003 was regarded as a weak draft but Sam Fisher was taken at pick 55 and Rischitelli at 61.

Even Brad Sewell, Joel McDonald and Matthew Boyd were taken in the rookie draft that year.

Being a weak draft doesn't preclude you from being able to find a gem with a later pick.

The odds might not be on your side, but i'd roll the dice rather than persevere with a player who has pretty much been measured and found wanting.

Well said!!

[Guest hangon007]

I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft.

This statement you highlight is inaccurate ...

If it was true you would have to fit a total of 16!!! Yes thats right you need to fill 16 spots with 17 (Who are now not eligible -because of the rule change) year old kids into picks 1-33 into this draft - dont think so.

I challenge him to prove it with facts ... name them. He wont and he cant.

History tells us - not possible. History also tells us on average it would be more like 8-10ish ... just as a side point in last years draft it was like 20 kids in total over the whole draft.

Hence pick 34 would be closer to low 40's but with a hell of a lot of "if" "buts" and "maybes" ... he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Keyser Söze 0]

This statement you highlight is inaccurate ...

If it was true you would have to fit a total of 16!!! Yes thats right you need to fill 16 spots with 17 year old kids into picks 1-33 into this draft - dont think so.

I challenge him to prove it with facts ... name them. He wont and he cant.

History tells us - not possible. History also tells us on average it would be more like 8-10ish ... just as a side point in last years draft it was like 20 kids in total over the whole draft.

Hence pick 34 would be closer to low-mid 40's but with a hell of a lot of "if" "buts" and "maybes" ... he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Bit of a misquote there mate, and I don't think rpfc necessarily meant it literally as being exactly pick 50 as opposed to exactly pick 34.

All drafts vary in quality - we all know that.

Hows things going with recruiting Luke Ball?

Have you made that sponge cake in the shape of his head yet..?

[rpfc 28,731]

This statement you highlight is inaccurate ...

If it was true you would have to fit a total of 16!!! Yes thats right you need to fill 16 spots with 17 year old kids into picks 1-33 into this draft - dont think so.

I challenge him to prove it with facts ... name them. He wont and he cant.

History tells us - not possible. History also tells us on average it would be more like 8-10ish ... just as a side point in last years draft it was like 20 kids in total over the whole draft.

Hence pick 34 would be closer to low-mid 40's but with a hell of a lot of "if" "buts" and "maybes" ... he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Had a chat to BP. He said it's about a third of the kids. My sig explains why.

I discussed a couple of months ago with some other nuff-nuff - the 34 = 50 statement is not scientific, it is just a rough extrapolation of the pick number times by 1.5.

I would get rid of Batram for Pick 34 in a NY minute, but the club might think that one day he will able to hit that barn's back side and want to keep him.

PSD1 is more valuable than Pick 34 IMO.

That's where I am coming from.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

LOL.... we can only dream.

I think you will find the players you mentioned with our first 5 picks will all be top 10 draft picks.

Scully- 1

Trengove- 2

Butcher- 8 or 9 to Port who won't let him pass twice

Rohan- 5 or 6. Kangas or Sydney will take hiim

Jetta- pick 7 to the Weagles very likely. May slide to pick 13ish but not much further.

Even Griffiths will be gone by pick 34 probz

LOL ... sarcasm missed !

but you're right ... it would be a dream.

[Keyser Söze 0]

Had a chat to BP. He said it's about a third of the kids. My sig explains why.

I discussed a couple of months ago with some other nuff-nuff - the 34 = 50 statement is not scientific, it is just a rough extrapolation of the pick number times by 1.5.

I would get rid of Batram for Pick 34 in a NY minute, but the club might think that one day he will able to hit that barn's back side and want to keep him.

PSD1 is more valuable than Pick 34 IMO.

That's where I am coming from.

Only if we can get Ball.

Otherwise I'd rather pick 34.

[Guest hangon007]

Had a chat to BP. He said it's about a third of the kids. My sig explains why.

I discussed a couple of months ago with some other nuff-nuff - the 34 = 50 statement is not scientific, it is just a rough extrapolation of the pick number times by 1.5.

I would get rid of Batram for Pick 34 in a NY minute, but the club might think that one day he will able to hit that barn's back side and want to keep him.

PSD1 is more valuable than Pick 34 IMO.

That's where I am coming from.

You were wrong a couple of months ago - as you are wrong today. Without taking pick-order into account making a statement like that just highlights your lack of drafting knowledge.

Plus I noted you didn't name them

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Bit of a misquote there mate, and I don't think rpfc necessarily meant it literally as being exactly pick 50 as opposed to exactly pick 34.

Here is what he said = "I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft."

There is what he said.

Read it for yourself - no mis quote by me! I stand by my comments he is wrong!

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Its not like pick 50 ... massive over-statement.

I challenge him again ... name the kids. "fill 16 spots with 17 (who are no-longer eligible - because of the rule change) year old kids into picks 1-33 into this draft"

He cant do it!

PS ... Lets not forget the "if" "buts" and "maybes"

Looking forward to your reply.

[Keyser Söze 0]

Maybe reading this article would give you a more accurate idea of how the draft is affected.

http://bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=783

I think it has been posted on another thread somewhere, but it relates to this too.

Beyond that, I don't think anyone can help you.

[Keyser Söze 0]

Here is what he said = "I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft."

There is what he said.

Read it for yourself - no mis quote by me! I stand by my comments he is wrong!

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Its not like pick 50 ... massive over-statement.

I challenge him again ... name the kids. "fill 16 spots with 17 (who are no-longer eligible - because of the rule change) year old kids into picks 1-33 into this draft"

He cant do it!

PS ... Lets not forget the "if" "buts" and "maybes"

Looking forward to your reply.

Considering you attributed the quote to me, yes there is a misquote.

Naming the kids or not naming the kids will prove nothing.

That you are asking him to do so proves that you haven't fully grasped the concept of the weakened draft at all.