Jump to content

Featured Replies

7 minutes ago, Colm said:

Not sure I agree with this logic. Take O'Sullivan for example. He’s rated as pick 10 on most boards. But he will be gone well before that pick comes round as it will push out to 13/14. 

But those picks pushing out the numbers are already "earmarked" for Academy or Father/Son and can be selected at any time with the points or eligibility. The other selections are still available in total just pushed back one in the system for every pick made from these choices. 
 

 
1 minute ago, old55 said:

He was never going to be a "freebie". North wanted the rules bent so they could match a bid before 40. They still would have had to pay the points with the discount.

I'm pleased the AFL didn't allow this.

Yes, sensible decision in the end. But being able to match a player that was never a member of their academy until the last minute under special AFL permission with points would have been the definition of freebie to me.

I'm annoyed with the North assistance, plus the prospect of pick 3 for an average, perennially injured KPD and them scabbing for more still. They have a bad case of hand out syndrome. 

1 minute ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Yes, sensible decision in the end. But being able to match a player that was never a member of their academy until the last minute under special AFL permission with points would have been the definition of freebie to me.

I'm annoyed with the North assistance, plus the prospect of pick 3 for an average, perennially injured KPD and them scabbing for more still. They have a bad case of hand out syndrome. 

I think there's a legitimate case for Sanders to be part of North's Academy. He said on Gettable that they have helped foster his development and he has had his Aboriginality confirmed. 

He is now actually confirmed as North Academy but they cannot match before 40.

 
13 minutes ago, old55 said:

Yes but @drdrake point is O'Sullivan is actually 8th best player in the available pool because Walters and Read aren't available.

Still see my argument above that the earlier the pick the less detrimental effect this has.

 

5 minutes ago, 58er said:

But those picks pushing out the numbers are already "earmarked" for Academy or Father/Son and can be selected at any time with the points or eligibility. The other selections are still available in total just pushed back one in the system for every pick made from these choices. 
 

Same same but different I guess in that whatever way you look at it we won’t get O’Sullivan with pick 10 weather  your logic is because he’s the 8th best talent available or because the pick becomes pick 13. Either way we don’t get him with that pick. 

Given we seem to be getting linked with more first round picks rather than players even though we have a few leaving.Am I the only one starting to wonder if we are trying to get a strong enough hand of first round picks to satisfy WC for pick 1?!


1 minute ago, Colm said:

 

Same same but different I guess in that whatever way you look at it we won’t get O’Sullivan with pick 10 weather  your logic is because he’s the 8th best talent available or because the pick becomes pick 13. Either way we don’t get him with that pick. 

You're actually arguing for abolishing Academy, F/S and FA compensation.  That's a legitimate position to hold.

I'm OK with them but I understand your point.

42 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Clubs looking at Shaun Mannagh, who kicked six goals and had 27 possessions for Werribee in the loss to Gold Coast in the VFL Grand Final.

The former Ovens and Murray league star is 26 and in his 21 games this year he averaged 25 possessions and 1.9 goals a game, including four goals and 40 possessions against Southport and seven goals from 25 possessions against Sandringham.

Clubs believe he could play as a pressuring forward who wins his own ball at AFL level.

Yeah baby.

12 minutes ago, old55 said:

You're actually arguing for abolishing Academy, F/S and FA compensation.  That's a legitimate position to hold.

I'm OK with them but I understand your point.

I’m actually not. My point is a very simple one and probably more directed at at poster who was saying we should pick O’Sullivan at pick 10 should we get it. He won’t be there at that pick whatever way you look at it. 

 
3 minutes ago, Colm said:

I’m actually not. My point is a very simple one and probably more directed at at poster who was saying we should pick O’Sullivan at pick 10 should we get it. He won’t be there at that pick whatever way you look at it. 

He won't be there because Academy and FA Compensation picks will intervene. 

26 minutes ago, old55 said:

He won't be there because Academy and FA Compensation picks will intervene. 

He won't be there as I reckon North will take him with the McKay compensation pick 3.

The hard part with all this pick swap we need to know what clubs will get next year in relation to Father Sons and NGA picks.  Such a massive advantage bulldogs have been massive winners in recent years, now Brisbane not only get NGA priority but also father Son which gives them another Ashcroft next season.

Sydney and Brisbane should have limits on NGA as they have access to FS where as GCS and GWS don't as yet

Edited by drdrake


If we end up having 5, 10 & 13 it will be interesting to see if JT and Tim Lamb rate McKercher or Duursma in the same way they rated Clarry in 2015. If they do we may see a play of offering picks 5 & 10 to North for pick 2 or 3 and change. I wouldn't be against that.

If we do keep 5, 10 & 13 I would like us to take O'Sullivan at 5 and then the two best available mids at 10 & 13. O'Sullivan looks a key position talent too good to pass up. Top shelf bookends are so hard to find/recruit. I'd pick him out of that likely combination of Sanders/Caddy/Watson/O'Sullivan available at pick 5. 

Edited by BaliDemon

I mentioned this previously, but I would be very happy if we choose two or even three players from the following list of young talent.

● Zane Duursma

● Colby McKercher

● Nate Caddy

● Nick Watson

● Ryley Sanders

● Connor O'Sullivan

● Darcy Wilson

● Ollie Murphy

● George Stevens

For those interested, you can find information about them via the link here: https://central.rookieme.com/afl/power-rankings/afl-draft-power-rankings-september-2023/

Amazing that people are unhappy with the Academy advantages the AFL is gifting to GC but still consider it's worthwhile for us to draft McKercher or Sanders.  You just know the AFL is going to put rules in place to make sure they get to the inaugural Tasmanian team, it fits the pattern.

31 minutes ago, old55 said:

Amazing that people are unhappy with the Academy advantages the AFL is gifting to GC but still consider it's worthwhile for us to draft McKercher or Sanders.  You just know the AFL is going to put rules in place to make sure they get to the inaugural Tasmanian team, it fits the pattern.

First rounders now get automatic three year initial contracts. Gives kids more time now to really settle in, form strong friendship bonds and so on. If McKercher or Sanders sign a further extension during that time then it pretty much wards off Tassy completely. I wouldn’t let that situation cloud our drafting in 2023. 

Edited by BaliDemon

On 9/20/2023 at 10:11 PM, whatwhat say what said:

we would've killed for that kinda compo when we were propping up the table

Particularly at a time when GC and GWS had pillaged all of the good talent


1 hour ago, old55 said:

Amazing that people are unhappy with the Academy advantages the AFL is gifting to GC but still consider it's worthwhile for us to draft McKercher or Sanders.  You just know the AFL is going to put rules in place to make sure they get to the inaugural Tasmanian team, it fits the pattern.

Imo I would avoid Tasmanians.

Its just too dangerous.

46 minutes ago, BaliDemon said:

First rounders now get automatic three year initial contracts. Gives kids more time now to really settle in, form strong friendship bonds and so on. If McKercher or Sanders sign a further extension during that time then it pretty much wards off Tassy completely. I wouldn’t let that situation cloud our drafting in 2023. 

If they signed an extension that took the beyond the inaugural Tassie year their managers should be shot.  

Yep, we're already seeing the lengths the AFL will go to make North viable.

We've seen the extraordinary draft, trade and list management concessions handed to the expansion clubs.

That is absolutely the blueprint for the Tassie team too.

We will and should be incredibly wary of Tasmanian prospects. 

Edited by Binmans PA

5 hours ago, samcantstandya said:

We end up with 3 potential guns, A Sanders/Watson etc.. at 5, O'Connor at 10 and a slider at 13. Plus Brown F/S with a later pick. Then recruit rookies like Orlando Turner & maybe Riak Andrews NGA, plus Jacob's bro Sam as a developing tall

Tell me more, Samcant!

5 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Clubs looking at Shaun Mannagh, who kicked six goals and had 27 possessions for Werribee in the loss to Gold Coast in the VFL Grand Final.

The former Ovens and Murray league star is 26 and in his 21 games this year he averaged 25 possessions and 1.9 goals a game, including four goals and 40 possessions against Southport and seven goals from 25 possessions against Sandringham.

Clubs believe he could play as a pressuring forward who wins his own ball at AFL level.

Sounds like a gift from heaven.

Get him.


49 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Yep, we're already seeing the lengths the AFL will go to make North viable.

We've seen the extraordinary draft, trade and list management concessions handed to the expansion clubs.

That is absolutely the blueprint for the Tassie team too.

We will and should be incredibly wary of Tasmanian prospects. 

So should we have been ‘wary’ of Luke Jackson because of the go home factor? No, we were bold, drafted him and he was pivotal in our premiership success as a result. Okay, he went home but we’re getting adequate compensation for him three years later. 

A strong club backs itself in and takes the best available kid. A weak club worries about what everyone else is doing and compromises its card hand as a result. 

Edited by BaliDemon

6 minutes ago, BaliDemon said:

So should we have been ‘wary’ of Luke Jackson because of the go home factor? No, we were bold, drafted him and he was pivotal in our premiership success as a result. Okay, he went home but we’re getting adequate compensation for him three years later. 

A strong club backs itself in and takes the best available kid. A weak club worries about what everyone else is doing and compromises its card hand as a result. 

No... the WA clubs don't and won't have trade and list management concessions. The Tassie team will.

You completely missed the point here. LJ is not at all an apt comparison to Tasmanian prospects. 

Edited by Binmans PA

6 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

No... the WA clubs don't and won't have trade and list management concessions. The Tassie team will.

You completely missed the point here. LJ is not at all an apt comparison to Tasmanian prospects. 

No, you completely missed the point. 

 
54 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

No... the WA clubs don't and won't have trade and list management concessions. The Tassie team will.

You completely missed the point here. LJ is not at all an apt comparison to Tasmanian prospects. 

48 minutes ago, BaliDemon said:

No, you completely missed the point

Unlike MFC 2023.

Except when they missed that, too...

Our draft and trade targets need to be blokes that can hit targets, human or the DA's one.

(Yeah, I know it's actually 'behinds' but you get my point...)

Edited by Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

9 hours ago, drdrake said:

He won't be there as I reckon North will take him with the McKay compensation pick 3.

 

I think you could be right...


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

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

    • 17 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • 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.

    • 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? 

    • 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?

      • Like
    • 232 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/

      • Angry
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 47 replies