Jump to content

Featured Replies

I don’t get why we would do 10 & 28 for the cats 2 picks. Why wouldn’t we have just done 8 for those 2 picks? Same result...

 
3 minutes ago, Gawn's Beard said:

I don’t get why we would do 10 & 28 for the cats 2 picks. Why wouldn’t we have just done 8 for those 2 picks? Same result...

Was wondering this, maybe they insisted on getting 2 picks back?

8 hours ago, Dees247 said:

Herald Sun are reporting that we are now going to split 10!

Was the same article that was up a day earlier saying we’d split 8 and take Jackson at 3 just substituting pick 10 for 8. Not sure if it’s based on further intel that we’ll split 10. 

 

can someone explain what's happened/happening? it's not on The Age website, and I don't read the Hun on principle (I'm also in NNSW so no access to a copy of the Hun)

So we gave away 8 for what?

I want to be wrong but I got a bad feeling about this Dr Jones

This all feels like the club is trying to be too clever for its own good. Trading away future picks, splitting picks and then splitting them again, etc.

We can't afford to take risks in this draft. Just pick the best player/s with the picks we have and move on. Stop trying to outsmart everyone else for minimal gains. 


3 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

can someone explain what's happened/happening? it's not on The Age website, and I don't read the Hun on principle (I'm also in NNSW so no access to a copy of the Hun)

So we gave away 8 for what?

You can check the Foxsports website instead. Or maybe try the Advertiser or Courier Mail perhaps. The Daily Telegraph is pretty average, but as a broadsheet the Australian is a respectable paper. If not, Mungo will probably have a write-up in the Echo in the coming days. 

*We traded pick 8 for Fremantle's pick 10 and 28. 

4 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You can check the Foxsports website instead. Or maybe try the Advertiser or Courier Mail perhaps. The Daily Telegraph is pretty average, but as a broadsheet the Australian is a respectable paper. If not, Mungo will probably have a write-up in the Echo in the coming days. 

*We traded pick 8 for Fremantle's pick 10 and 28. 

Thanks for cutting to the chase.

 

Edited by Superunknown

Take 3, 10, 28 all to draft.

At 10, take whoever is leftover out of Kemp, Stephens, Serong, Ash. Young is now off the cards for us it seems unfortunately.

I’d be disappointed if we split pick 10 again into more lower picks, as I think we need elite talent and the pool generally thins out quickly heading into the teens.

 

 
1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

Was the same article that was up a day earlier saying we’d split 8 and take Jackson at 3 just substituting pick 10 for 8. Not sure if it’s based on further intel that we’ll split 10. 

I thought the same thing. Pretty sure it's an error in the article, as they just updated the original article from pre pick swap. I don't think they meant to suggest we are pick swapping pick 10

15 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Take 3, 10, 28 all to draft.

At 10, take whoever is leftover out of Kemp, Stephens, Serong, Ash. Young is now off the cards for us it seems unfortunately.

I’d be disappointed if we split pick 10 again into more lower picks, as I think we need elite talent and the pool generally thins out quickly heading into the teens.

 

Ash will go before 10 imv.  Probably missed that boat along with Young if you believe all the noise on Jackson.

Serong a possibility.  Kemp should be there.


I'll add my voice to the 'don't split 10' chorus (don't think it's on the cards anyway).

My reading is that there seem to be a group of 8-10 players that are hard to split after Rowell and Anderson. As others have mentioned, it's looking likely that at least one of Kemp, Stevens , Ash, Serong or even Young will slide to 10 - all of which have been firmly in the top 5 discussion since the championships. 

Geelong recruiters aren't slouches - if they want 10, it's for a reason.

  • Author

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 10 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

Edited by Dees247

1 minute ago, Dees247 said:

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 8 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

It’s pick 10 now. So that would be a trade with Gold Coast then. I wonder who we’re targeting with those picks.

Can effectively rule out any of Young/Ash/Stephens and probably Kemp will be gone by then too.

Kemp and Weightman would be ideal with 15 and 20.

  • Author
10 minutes ago, ben russell said:

It’s pick 10 now. So that would be a trade with Gold Coast then. I wonder who we’re targeting with those picks.

Can effectively rule out any of Young/Ash/Stephens and probably Kemp will be gone by then too.

Kemp and Weightman would be ideal with 15 and 20.

Sorry, just to be clear, I did mean pick 10 ?

Edited by Dees247

Just take teh 3 picks my god, we need really the best talent we can get, i still think taking Jackson at 3 is a mistake, but use 10, to get the next best available of who hasn't already been drafted and pick 28 is chance to take more of a speculative pick. Lets not mess around anymore, Bennell is the risk we are taking, bank the talent and get on with it.


Lets trade pick 97 for 3, 10 and 28. That way we will get some news for the AFL.

35 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 10 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

I wonder if they would do 10 for 15 and 20. There was talk they might not even use their pick 20. Or was this scenario having us including 28?

Then we could look to use 20 and 28 to see if it's possible to move back up.

38 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

Cal was on SEN today, saying that we might split 10 today or Wednesday. He mentioned for 15 & 20. Not sure how to feel about that. I have to assume we get Weightman at 15?

we would only do it if the guy we want will be there at 15. if they're set on Weightman for example it make sense to improve that third pick as much as possible

 

2 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

Take 3, 10, 28 all to draft.

At 10, take whoever is leftover out of Kemp, Stephens, Serong, Ash. Young is now off the cards for us it seems unfortunately.

I’d be disappointed if we split pick 10 again into more lower picks, as I think we need elite talent and the pool generally thins out quickly heading into the teens.

 

I’m not giving up on Young until Luke Jackson’s name is called out or the club release something before next week stating their intentions. 

12 hours ago, Dees247 said:

Herald Sun are reporting that we are now going to split 10!

Better not miss out on Kemp, Stephens, Ash or a slider for the sake of picking up midgets.


  • Author
29 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

I wonder if they would do 10 for 15 and 20. There was talk they might not even use their pick 20. Or was this scenario having us including 28?

Then we could look to use 20 and 28 to see if it's possible to move back up.

They only mentioned trading 10

Bear with me.

The two later picks could equal pick 4. Any set worth more points than pick 4 would become more valuable to GWS, if we clarified we would be bidding on Green and assuming they planned to match...

1 hour ago, Reevesy said:

Bear with me.

The two later picks could equal pick 4. Any set worth more points than pick 4 would become more valuable to GWS, if we clarified we would be bidding on Green and assuming they planned to match...

Trying to follow... are you saying GWS might trade pick 4 for two of our picks?

 

Indeed. On draft night, if we bid on Green at 3 and GWS wish to match, they have 5 minutes to trade away 4 or have it consumed. At this point the pick number becomes less relevant than the attached points. It would be more valuable to GWS to have 12 and 18 than 4, for example.

1 hour ago, Reevesy said:

Bear with me.

The two later picks could equal pick 4. Any set worth more points than pick 4 would become more valuable to GWS, if we clarified we would be bidding on Green and assuming they planned to match...

 

20 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Indeed. On draft night, if we bid on Green at 3 and GWS wish to match, they have 5 minutes to trade away 4 or have it consumed. At this point the pick number becomes less relevant than the attached points. It would be more valuable to GWS to have 12 and 18 than 4, for example.

I like it...

Potential to take 3, 4 and 28 to the draft.

That would be a smart move if we could pull it off! I would think another team would be able to trump us here though! 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 195 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 330 replies
  • VOTES: St. Kilda

    Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 31 replies