IMO GWS wouldn’t have done a deal with the Crows if they didn’t have assurance from the dees that we won’t bid on Green. 

Why wouldn’t we pick him if he is what we are after is beyond me. We don’t need to help gws get better our job is for our team to get better. 

Last I looked we weren’t in the grand final this year.

1 hour ago, Davos said:

I was at that game. Walked away thinking he was the best player I saw. Put on a clinic.

One game does not make a swallow Davos but he was very good.

The game against SA however, ok and one of the Allies better players imv but not quite at the level of this one.

I guess they are all young and going to have some major variations on the day.  Quality of opponents, recovery times etc.

On 11/20/2019 at 10:35 PM, DemonOX said:

IMO GWS wouldn’t have done a deal with the Crows if they didn’t have assurance from the dees that we won’t bid on Green. 

Why wouldn’t we pick him if he is what we are after is beyond me. We don’t need to help gws get better our job is for our team to get better. 

Last I looked we weren’t in the grand final this year.

I think it's as simple as the Giants rate Jackson higher than Green, and they'd grab him if we did bid so they don't care. 

4 hours ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I think it's as simple as the Giants rate Jackson higher than green, and they'd grab him if we did bid so they don't care. 

Based on needs i would guess so PO.  They have plenty of mid field power.

On 11/20/2019 at 9:44 AM, ProDee said:

Blah blah blah

You had to edit that post?

Did you spell blah wrong?

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You had to edit that post?

Did you spell blah wrong?

Jellyfish have survived for over 600 million years without a brain.

There's hope for you yet, Junior.

13 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

Is that the All Australian Matt Crouch you are talking of? If the range was Matt Crouch to Patrick Cripps he would be the first pick in the draft.

If you think Green is Cripps then draft him, but if you think he is Matt Crouch and you think Jackson is Grundy then you go with Jackson. 

On 11/21/2019 at 10:37 AM, DeeSpencer said:

If you think Green is Cripps then draft him, but if you think he is Matt Crouch and you think Jackson is Grundy then you go with Jackson. 

I think you can’t lose with those 2. If we’re genuinely happy to get Green, which I think we should be, we bid.

And we settle for Jackson if GWS matches. That way, we get 1 of the 2 players we want and we stop GWS from getting a second bite at the cherry.

13 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

I think you can’t lose with those 2. If we’re genuinely happy to get Green, which I think we should be, we bid.

And we settle for Jackson if GWS matches. That way, we get 1 of the 2 players we want and we stop GWS from getting a second bite at the cherry.

Getting the player we want more is the most important thing. GWS are going to be a good side with or without Green. In fact letting them get Green - who is unlikely to make them better in the next 2 years - and not having any future draft picks as well as a packed salary cap could work in our favour if we're proactive in grabbing one of their other young mids like a Caldwell/O'Halloran in next years trade period. The footy gods might smile back on us.

 

We will bid on Green because he is a top 3 player in the draft.

5 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

We will bid on Green because he is a top 3 player in the draft.

Only if we want him more than Jackson or anybody else.

I think there is a very good chance the Giants wouldn't match the bid for Green so i guess it comes down to who we rate 3 in this draft. 

7 hours ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I think there is a very good chance the Giants wouldn't match the bid for Green so i guess it comes down to who we rate 3 in this draft. 

I would prefer Green to Jackson.

Green could make a difference to our midfield rotations in his 1st year 

I would bid on him at 3. Would become a great player so not much worry about really. Win win whatever.

If GWS don't match the bid then I think his brother wont want to go the club either and will probably go into the draft, so if the brother is any good they wont want to burn bridges.

5 minutes ago, durango said:

If GWS don't match the bid then I think his brother wont want to go the club either and will probably go into the draft, so if the brother is any good they wont want to burn bridges.

I'm not sure that theory holds water, can you name one instance where that has happened?

 

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I'm not sure that theory holds water, can you name one instance where that has happened?

seeing as this is the first instance where two very talented brothers are both part of one of these farcical next generation academy thingoes i doubt very much it's ever happened

green will be taken by gw$ no matter what

i doubt we will nominate him, and thus gw$ will get two super players - it's an absolutely ridiculous situation

8 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

seeing as this is the first instance where two very talented brothers are both part of one of these farcical next generation academy thingoes i doubt very much it's ever happened

green will be taken by gw$ no matter what

i doubt we will nominate him, and thus gw$ will get two super players - it's an absolutely ridiculous situation

A much more fair system would be academy bidding etc occurs before the draft as in teams can bid their picks for that player and if they do the Giants have an opportunity to match. but it means surrendering the picks to that value before the draft.

I think that a bid at 3 by the MFC is a win/win situation since it will either force GWS to match it and if they don't then we get a player which is regarded by all recruiters as the next best player after the Sun's picks.

As a club we are not there to make life for GWS easy in getting 2 guns not 1.

I only think we should bid on Green if we think he’s best available, the idea of bidding on him to screw the Giants is foolish. 

But at same time I think this will be the biggest pick of the night and will have a knock on effect on several teams weather GWS match or not. Ripple effect may  still be felt at 10 and might decide weather we trade that pick or not. Does anybody know if Giants would be allowed to split with another team and hold on to one pick even though they would have a point deficit ?Say we bid on Green, they split with say Port for 12&18 then use 12 on Green and 18 on another player.  

If we decide not to pick Green and pick Jackson things might play out a bit more predictable. 

43 minutes ago, Colm said:

I only think we should bid on Green if we think he’s best available, the idea of bidding on him to screw the Giants is foolish. 

But at same time I think this will be the biggest pick of the night and will have a knock on effect on several teams weather GWS match or not. Ripple effect may  still be felt at 10 and might decide weather we trade that pick or not. Does anybody know if Giants would be allowed to split with another team and hold on to one pick even though they would have a point deficit ?Say we bid on Green, they split with say Port for 12&18 then use 12 on Green and 18 on another player.  

If we decide not to pick Green and pick Jackson things might play out a bit more predictable. 

They need to match the points. If we bid 3, they can swap to 12&18 but if the points are more than 12, then 18 drops back.

Their other option is to trade for a later pick and a pick next year. That future pick is quarantined from matching the bid

Whomever we bid on at 3, if there is not a match, many will perceive that we picked the lesser of the 2.

Although a few will think a backroom deal was done.

Coming last in consideration will be, we picked the player Melbourne need the most for the next few years. That's my punt.

Edited November 24, 20195 yr by Damo
a comma

2 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

seeing as this is the first instance where two very talented brothers are both part of one of these farcical next generation academy thingoes i doubt very much it's ever happened

green will be taken by gw$ no matter what

i doubt we will nominate him, and thus gw$ will get two super players - it's an absolutely ridiculous situation

 

To be fair, a similar thing eventuated in our favour when Frawley went to Hawthorn, with the absurd FA framework. 

39 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

To be fair, a similar thing eventuated in our favour when Frawley went to Hawthorn, with the absurd FA framework. 

yep, but that's cos we were down so low so we got what he was valued at in terms of it being a pick after our first rounder, ergo pick 3

also a farce, but not a ridiculous one like these nga players and discounts and points accumulation and rules on the run...

2 hours ago, Good Lord George said:

They need to match the points. If we bid 3, they can swap to 12&18 but if the points are more than 12, then 18 drops back.

Their other option is to trade for a later pick and a pick next year. That future pick is quarantined from matching the bid

Thanks for that GLG.