The GCS Pick 4 Thread

[BDA 22,289]

4 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

What I've seen in recent years is a shed-load of 18 year olds ripping it up in their first year. Can't think of one player in the comp in the last 10 years who could be described as being played to early resulting in hindered development.

Jake Bowey was thrown in at the deep end due to injury and took to it like a duck to water. 

[manny100 1,396]

6 hours ago, 2021 said:

Also apparently it was Tom Morris who said this, not Riley.

Also, one again, the following quote wasn' mine but from DL:

 

The AFL also gave North the right to an additional two rookies on the list - a measure aimed at allowing the club to keep younger players while bringing in more mature talent.

Sources familiar with the AFL’s draft assistance package for the Kangaroos said the future picks had to be used in trades this year or they would cease to exist.  North Melbourne have not had the problem of key players leaving the club.

Wonder whether North can trade future picks for 2023 picks to use in this draft?

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

5 hours ago, Ouch! said:

Not sure I get the reasoning why putting bids on GC academy players makes our draft hand look worse?  If someone puts a bid in on Ethan Read a little earlier (such as Nth for example) Sure all the other picks slide back as they match it, but so do all the players on the table as well... in addition all the picks that occur after the ones that the GC need to use to match the bid move forward. The only picks that hurt our position are those obtained via free agency compensation (such as the Ben McKay one) or any compo that is granted to Nth for being so poor.

No, what happens say if North puts a bid in at No. 2 for Jed Walter and GC match it Jed Walters goes at 2 and every pick after that gets pushed back. So, right now it's: West Coast 1, North 2, Hawthorn 3, GC 4, Melbourne 5. If North get a compensation pick for Ben McKay it will be: West Coast 1, North 2 & 3, Hawthorn 4, GC 5, Melbourne 6. After Jed Walter goes to GC: West Coast 1, GC 2, North 3 & 4, Hawthorn 5, Whoever trades for GC's Pick 6, Melbourne 7. The  players don't slide anywhere.

Yes, you're right. If Ethan Read goes a little earlier, then all the players expected to go above him slide back one position. That's a totally separate issue.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Sydney_Demon

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

6 hours ago, rodney_g said:

I agree that the North compensation pick will affect the value of our picks. Our current pick 5 becomes Pick 6 based on the latest reporting.

But Academy and Father/Son picks don't affect our value. With Pick 6 we have the 6th free choice of 'open' (non-aligned) players. If Walters and Read and Rogers all get jammed in before us, it doesn't matter - we still have the 6th free choice of a known pool of players.

Yes, we get the 6th free pick of open players but all the listings I've seen so far include all the players, not just the players available to clubs that don't have father/son or academy selections available to them. That makes sense because you don't know exactly when those father/sons & academy players etc. are going to be taken or even if. e.g. if some club selected Ethan Read at 4 GC probably wouldn't match it so then he becomes an 'open' player. Much easier to understand if you leave all the players in the pool & slide back the picks. If you look at historical drafts that's the way it works. e.g. Matt Jefferson went at 15 last year which was Melbourne's first pick, not Pick 13, if you don't count Brisbane's 2 father/sons. In evaluating the value of Fremantle's Draft swap in 2022 I can guarantee Melbourne wouldn't have said it doesn't matter about Brisbane's picks, they would have said they had access to the 15th best player, not the 13th.

[old55 22,842]

Jordan Croft is yet to nominate as F/S at The Dogs and with their tall forward stocks it's not a complete surprise.

I wonder if they'll still chase GC's 4 with 10 + 18 + future something if he doesn't nominate them?

He might fall in around our pick 13 if he doesn't nominate.

[Nascent 8,646]

On 9/26/2023 at 2:09 PM, old55 said:

Jordan Croft is yet to nominate as F/S at The Dogs and with their tall forward stocks it's not a complete surprise.

I wonder if they'll still chase GC's 4 with 10 + 18 + future something if he doesn't nominate them?

He might fall in around our pick 13 if he doesn't nominate.

This is intriguing. Sounds like he is a mad doggies fan so imagine that it's just a matter of time.

However with Naughton, JUH and Darcy they're pretty stacked for forward talent. His manager might be advising him to go to another club for greater long term best 22 prospects.

If he doesn't nominate, then that could scupper plans and make them think twice about utilising 3 first round picks for one player.

Does anyone know when the f/s nomination cut off is? Also curious to learn if Kynan has nominated us yet as well.

[Demon 16 198]

Croft looks like a project pick to me - based on what I’ve seen I’m very surprised that he’s mooted as a potential top 15 pick and despite our need for another tall forward (particularly one who can ruck), I’d be disappointed if we had an interest in him with a first round pick.

[The Lobster Effect 877]

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

Does anyone know when the f/s nomination cut off is?

Oct 31 (for father son and also academy selections)

[Nascent 8,646]

1 minute ago, The Lobster Effect said:

Oct 31 (for father son and also academy selections)

Interesting that it's post trade period. Doggies could shot themselves in the foot to a degree if they commit to pick 4 and croft decides not to nominate them.

[Demons11 6,718]

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

Interesting that it's post trade period. Doggies could shot themselves in the foot to a degree if they commit to pick 4 and croft decides not to nominate them.

I think Croft has nominated them already hasn’t he?

[ChaserJ 4,714]

Not formally. Still expected though.

[Little Goffy 14,028]

On 9/24/2023 at 6:18 PM, Queanbeyan Demon said:

What I've seen in recent years is a shed-load of 18 year olds ripping it up in their first year. Can't think of one player in the comp in the last 10 years who could be described as being played to early resulting in hindered development.

I do wonder - the last four drafts have been 60 or so kids. Before that it was around 75-85 for most of the last 20 years except for a couple of blowouts with more than 100 picks used. That's essentially every club taking one fewer new player in each draft.

Lists overall have been getting older, with mature players more likely to be retained as depth. Even in weaker clubs now you're less likely to see mobs of kids dumped onto the field to see how they go. Except North, who will burn forever as a result.

Part of me wonders if the competition as a whole experienced a cultural shift in reaction to the Gold Coast, GWS and, yes, Melbourne failures after each of those clubs went too hard on the turnover and rebuild or simply thought that pumping through the high draft picks would equal success. It's a more mature competition overall, as well as more mature lists in simple age terms.

[Macca 16,644]

Gut feeling is that we get hold of pick 4 and then try and trade up with 4 & 5

And then draft 2 topline midfielders with excellent disposal skills ... let the 2 draftees learn from the best (Petracca, Oliver, Viney & Brayshaw) We need to look to the future and we may not get another chance at the top end of the draft for quite some time

Petracca can play forward, and Brayshaw can play shallow back (defensive midfielder) Viney & Oliver being the 2 main extractors

Forward flankers can be attacking midfielders (Petracca & ?) whilst back flankers can be defensive midfielders with an attacking mindset (Salem, Rivers - maybe Sparrow)

Our 2 wingmen will likely stay as they are but Brayshaw could fill the role as a wingman with aplomb as he has done previously

With Brown & T-Mac likely to play on along with Petty, JVR & Smith fit and raring to go, our existing forward stocks can work.  And Jefferson could be decent too (down the track)

Not forgetting Fritsch, Petracca & Kozzie as forwards.  We just need our forwards to remain on the field

So we need to cash in if we end up with 2 picks at the top end of the draft

So for those who are all over the potential top 8 draftees (i.e. midfielders), what's the standard like?  

Edited October 7, 2023 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

On 10/6/2023 at 8:40 PM, Nascent said:

Interesting that it's post trade period. Doggies could shot themselves in the foot to a degree if they commit to pick 4 and croft decides not to nominate them.

Even if he nominates them they don't have to match a bid for him on draft night. Ball is in their court.

[Nascent 8,646]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Even if he nominates them they don't have to match a bid for him on draft night. Ball is in their court.

While true, that would mean they would prefer to take a kid in the late 30s compared to Croft, rated a first round prospect 

I was more coming from the perspective that the dogs want him.

Trading out pick 10 and 17 (could be 13 and 20 come draft night) to get ahead of a bid for croft, expected in the teens, makes sense for them. They get a top 4 pick and can get croft for their later junk picks.

However, what if Croft doesn't end up nominating them? Will they be happy to trade 10, 17 and future 1st for a top 4 pick without the benefit of getting another kid rated in the first round. Might make them think twice about it.

[old55 22,842]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Even if he nominates them they don't have to match a bid for him on draft night. Ball is in their court.

If they encourage him to nominate they'll have to take him. Too much bad faith if they don't.

[Jibroni 4,929]

17 hours ago, Macca said:

Gut feeling is that we get hold of pick 4 and then try and trade up with 4 & 5

And then draft 2 topline midfielders with excellent disposal skills ... let the 2 draftees learn from the best (Petracca, Oliver, Viney & Brayshaw) We need to look to the future and we may not get another chance at the top end of the draft for quite some time

Petracca can play forward, and Brayshaw can play shallow back (defensive midfielder) Viney & Oliver being the 2 main extractors

Forward flankers can be attacking midfielders (Petracca & ?) whilst back flankers can be defensive midfielders with an attacking mindset (Salem, Rivers - maybe Sparrow)

Our 2 wingmen will likely stay as they are but Brayshaw could fill the role as a wingman with aplomb as he has done previously

Not sure how we beat the Dogs offer of Picks 10, 17 and Future 1st?

Edited October 8, 2023 by Jibroni

[DeeSpencer 24,787]

36 minutes ago, old55 said:

If they encourage him to nominate they'll have to take him. Too much bad faith if they don't.

They could do a Dunkley style deal where they match if he’s taken outside of Victoria and not match if another Vic club takes him. And/or match if he falls outside a certain pick.

But my guess is they don’t trade up to pick 4 unless they have him as well, effectively guaranteeing they’ll have exchanged 3 firsts to get 2 firsts or two in the top 25 ish.

Edited October 8, 2023 by DeeSpencer

[The Lobster Effect 877]

On 10/6/2023 at 11:02 PM, Little Goffy said:

I do wonder - the last four drafts have been 60 or so kids. Before that it was around 75-85 for most of the last 20 years except for a couple of blowouts with more than 100 picks used. That's essentially every club taking one fewer new player in each draft.

Isn't one of the factors re less players taken at the national draft being clubs now taking players at other times like the mid season draft and during pre-season?

[Macca 16,644]

7 hours ago, Jibroni said:

Not sure how we beat the Dogs offer of Picks 10, 17 and Future 1st?

Yeah that's going to be hard to top, JB

Historically we've endeavoured to move picks up in the draft so we could do something with pick 13 ... if it is another  midfielder that we're looking at somewhere in the top 10 might suffice

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

10 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yeah that's going to be hard to top, JB

Historically we've endeavoured to move picks up in the draft so we could do something with pick 13 ... if it is another  midfielder that we're looking at somewhere in the top 10 might suffice

Any hope we trade 31 and future 1st for 10 (which will end up being 14 anyway)?

5 (7) and 10 (14) = Sanders/McKercher and O'Sullivan 🙏

Edited October 8, 2023 by Stiff Arm

[dazzledavey36 52,884]

Bugger..

 

[demoncat 948]

5 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bugger..

 

Surely we’ll be after one of those two picks? 5, 10 and 13 would be a strong draft hand…

[No10 441]

19 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bugger..

 

No 2024 picks? I’m clearly misunderstanding this whole play.

Why bother trading back for equivalent points in the same draft?

[adonski 10,897]

5 minutes ago, No10 said:

No 2024 picks? I’m clearly misunderstanding this whole play.

Why bother trading back for equivalent points in the same draft?

It'll be 10, 17, F1

https://twitter.com/Sammy__Edmund/status/1711168941488546236?t=lMmD2nyjplHyGXPZlX19Uw&s=19

Edited October 8, 2023 by adonski