I think Andrew will be gone long before our pick... but I'm intrigued as to how the system works.  As in, we can only nominate him after the first 20 players are picked?  Or after what was pick 20 has been used?  What if a team with multiple picks between 1-20 use them on matching a bid (not sure if any club is in that situation)?

7 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

Yeah I don't think there will be gentlemen's agreements for the reigning premiers.  

Maybe not what we need but wouldn't say no if we could get him - he'd be coming into the best system with Gawn and Jackson and having Majak on our list would surely help as well.

My thoughts to. Would have at least 1 initial year where he'd have Majak as a mentor and then a few more years to develop his craft at Casey and be ready to go when Gawn's career is winding up.

1 hour ago, adonski said:

Fair enough. Personally I'd be really disappointed if we spent a first round pick on a medium sized defender. I think it's one of those positions you can mould a player into.

Both my head & my heart are telling me we'll go for the best available mid (not a massive prediction given it's a midfield heavy draft).

I agree. Rivers was a 2nd rounder and I think he’s too talented for that role. I’m fine for him sharing it with Hunt, one more chance for J Smith, Deakyn developing and looking at some other cheap options. 

Lets draft Shane Grambeau with No 17

Campbell Chesser - remember the name 

3 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Campbell Chesser - remember the name 

He was interviewed on Road to the Draft and also made an appearance on AFL 360 with Nick Daicos, he’s well spoken and appears pretty down to earth. Recovering from a knee injury but it’s not being mentioned as an issue.

10 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

I think Andrew will be gone long before our pick... but I'm intrigued as to how the system works.  As in, we can only nominate him after the first 20 players are picked?  Or after what was pick 20 has been used?  What if a team with multiple picks between 1-20 use them on matching a bid (not sure if any club is in that situation)?

If another club bids on him using pick 1-20 then we are not allowed to match the bid.

He will go to that club. We won't have a say in it at all.

How to upgrade pick 17.

We have 4 'live' picks with value:  17, 37, 49, 57, (and later picks 94 and 112  which can be used to promote players from the rookie list). 

We won't have enough list spots to use all 4.

Hypothetical: 

GWS and Freo are playing a bit of cat and mouse re Lobb.  GWS have picks 2 (untradeable), 13, 53, 71. 13 is too much and 53 not enough.

We can 'help'!  We get GWS #13 and give #17 and #49 (or 37 and something back to us if we really want to sweeten the deal).  GWS will have a better hand to deal with Freo.  We improve our hand and still have 3  'live picks' if we want to fill all our senior list spots.

Freo have a fistful of picks and if they were to get #17 as part of the Lobb deal they could then deal with Geelong for Clark.  As an aside Geelong would take out the 'grandstanding' award by demanding a 1st round pick for a player they have had for several years but haven't played very often.

12 hours ago, picket fence said:

Lets draft Shane Grambeau with No 17

Lov ett.  Unfortunately the French are out of favour at the moment.

On Trade Radio, Lamb has said we will try and get as high as we can and there are a few things they are looking at.  So every chance pick 17 could move up the order.

31 minutes ago, Premiers said:

On Trade Radio, Lamb has said we will try and get as high as we can and there are a few things they are looking at.  So every chance pick 17 could move up the order.

Interesting. If we take him at face value, are we targeting a specific player or do we have a few that we'd be interested in? Maybe we don't think the guy we really want will get to 17, but we'll still get a good enough player in that range?

My feeling is we're going to try and take two first rounders in this year, so we keep building that second wave and continually bring in elite talent.

By now we know Taylor rarely misses, so having the opportunity to basically go Petty, Spargo, Jackson, Pickett, Rivers, Bowey, Laurie and two more is 9 players. You've then got significant elite talent under 22 going into 2022. This then complements the elite older talent, who themselves, with the exception of Max, May and I'd argue Brown, are all in their sweet spot for the best footy of their lives.

I'm loving this list build. Cerra would have been amazing, but I reckon we'll target someone again like that next year or the year after.

The guys that have a year to go on their contracts are going to be tougher to massage in terms of spreading their salaries across multiple years due to their ages, but hopefully playing in a premiership and their leaders taking less money, might mean they do too.

Edited October 8, 20213 yr by A F

2 minutes ago, A F said:

Interesting. If we take him at face value, are we targeting a specific player or do we have a few that we'd be interested in? Maybe we don't think the guy we really want will get to 17, but we'll still get a good enough player in that range?

My feeling is we're going to try and take two first rounders in this year, so we keep building that second wave and continually bring in elite talent.

By now we know Taylor rarely misses, so having the opportunity to basically go Petty, Spargo, Jackson, Pickett, Rivers, Bowey, Laurie and two more is 9 players. You've then got significant elite talent under 22 going into 2022. This then complements the elite older talent, who themselves, with the exception of Max, May and I'd argue Brown, are all in their sweet spot for the best footy of their lives.

I'm loving this list build. Cerra would have been amazing, but I reckon we'll target someone again like that next year or the year after.

The guys that have a year to go on their contracts are going to be tougher to massage in terms of spreading their salaries across multiple years due to their ages, but hopefully playing in a premiership and their leaders taking less money, might mean they do too.

I don't think we really have the currency to grab another first rounder do we?

2 minutes ago, adonski said:

I don't think we really have the currency to grab another first rounder do we?

Potentially not, but I'd be looking at the Bulldogs and Collingwood who need picks and trying to flip in 2nd and 3rd picks into a late first rounder/early second rounder.

I just realised I didn't include Sparrow and JJ in those 9, so there's 11 young guys under 22. 

The only thing the list doesn't have at the moment is 2 or 3 200+ gamers. I wouldn't be against targeting one or two of the Hawk veterans. 

We'll see...

40 minutes ago, A F said:

Potentially not, but I'd be looking at the Bulldogs and Collingwood who need picks and trying to flip in 2nd and 3rd picks into a late first rounder/early second rounder.

That's true eg trade 37 and 49 to collingwood for 27?  They would win slightly on points. But even if they wanted to do this... could they?  I thought there was a rule about needing to have the same number of list spots available as picks you use for points to prevent teams from stockpiling like this?

Assuming it was doable, what would 17 and 27 packaged up net you?  On points it's equivalent to pick 7.  But no team would do that.  The only teams that I think might consider it would be Freo at 8 and GWS at 13 as they both have earlier picks.

6 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

That's true eg trade 37 and 49 to collingwood for 27?  They would win slightly on points. But even if they wanted to do this... could they?  I thought there was a rule about needing to have the same number of list spots available as picks you use for points to prevent teams from stockpiling like this?

Assuming it was doable, what would 17 and 27 packaged up net you?  On points it's equivalent to pick 7.  But no team would do that.  The only teams that I think might consider it would be Freo at 8 and GWS at 13 as they both have earlier picks.

I'd be targeting a pick higher than 27. I'd love to get into the top 10, but as you write, no club would consider it, unless Belly has another master stroke...

41 minutes ago, A F said:

Potentially not, but I'd be looking at the Bulldogs and Collingwood who need picks and trying to flip in 2nd and 3rd picks into a late first rounder/early second rounder.

Those clubs have already moved back to 23 and 27, I doubt they want to move much further because they need list spots to carry picks. Can’t have all their picks in the 35+.

From 37 it’s probably hard to jump too high. 

49 will crash in a lot after all the dogs and pies picks get consumed by bids. As will 57. Making both picks worth at least a little currency.

All those picks might have to move around on draft night with a Woewodin bid too.

Im not sure we’ll be able to create another pick inside 30. Teams like West Coast, Geel and Rich will want to use the picks they have in that range just ahead of us. But I can see why we’d be keen to nudge both 17 and 37 up a few notches. 

17 & 37 is equivalent to pick 9

We'd probably be able to grab GWS' pick 13, but is sacrificing a second rounder for a four spot upgrade worth it?

13 minutes ago, adonski said:

17 & 37 is equivalent to pick 9

We'd probably be able to grab GWS' pick 13, but is sacrificing a second rounder for a four spot upgrade worth it?

If they don't take Mac Andrew at 3 they won't consider it - I've heard a few ppl say they are very keen on him.

5 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

If they don't take Mac Andrew at 3 they won't consider it - I've heard a few ppl say they are very keen on him.

Given Mac is projected to go top 10 by many, I don't think the Giants will be able to wait until 13

1 hour ago, A F said:

 

The only thing the list doesn't have at the moment is 2 or 3 200+ gamers. I wouldn't be against targeting one or two of the Hawk veterans. 

 

I would. Don't need or want them.

21 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Tomlinson is more of a backman than a defender. We don’t ever want him one on one against a dangerous mobile forward.

I think the doubt is relating to lack of confidence in Hunt’s defensive abilities, lack of confidence in Joel Smith full stop and limited exposure to Deak Smith. And I’d add Riv and Bowey being young too. Riv was excellent defensively for most of the year but I’m not sure we want to limit his role so much. 

I don’t think there’s much to worry about, but I do think we’ve been spoiled by having Jetta and Hibbo for so long.

Don’t know much about him - would Turner be expected to spend all of 2022 at Casey developing or get a glimpse in the seniors?  Is he a KPP defender or a tall flanker?  Is he a lock down type? Any comments on his one on one capabilities.  

20 minutes ago, adonski said:

Given Mac is projected to go top 10 by many, I don't think the Giants will be able to wait until 13

I wouldn't be shocked if Mac was there at our pick 17 and we bypassed him. Maybe even getting him after 20.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I wouldn't be shocked if Mac was there at our pick 17 and we bypassed him. Maybe even getting him after 20.

i would

all the talk is that he's firming for top 10 if not top 5

i think the immediate success we've had with luke jackson has changed the attitude to prospective hybrid ruck / forwards

10 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

i would

all the talk is that he's firming for top 10 if not top 5

i think the immediate success we've had with luke jackson has changed the attitude to prospective hybrid ruck / forwards

Brody Grundy, who was 10 times the footballer mac is now, when he was drafted, went at 19. Luke Jackson also was a far better player than Mac is now, when he was drafted. Mac weighs 70 kgs and was 13th in the B & F at his club. Mac may or may not become a good AFL player, but he is a risk IMO, with a top pick, as those players are expected to play early.

I am not sure "all the talk" is actually accurate, or mischievous.