Jump to content

Featured Replies

4 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Pick 2 is better than 6 and 11 is laughable. Most clubs will take 2 top 10 picks over 1

Yeah right, like last time we had pick 2. Christian Petracca or Caleb Marchbank plus Liam Duggan? You must be laughing so hard!

 
7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Pick 2 is better than 6 and 11 is laughable. Most clubs will take 2 top 10 picks over 1

What planet are you on? haha

7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Pick 2 is better than 6 and 11 is laughable. Most clubs will take 2 top 10 picks over 1

Ha! That's gold!

 
15 hours ago, old55 said:

Yeah right, like last time we had pick 2. Christian Petracca or Caleb Marchbank plus Liam Duggan? You must be laughing so hard!

Agree with your but it depends which year is highlighted.

The following year, 2015 it was:

  • pick 2 Schache - now on his 3rd club
  • pick 6 Francis - traded to Sydney for a very late pick.
  • pick 11 Milera - still with the Crows

As we all know the draft is a lottery...!!

Edit:  corrected Matera to Milera

Edited by Lucifers Hero

I think we have two clubs (NM and WC) playing chicken at the moment to see who will give way first. I think we leave them alone and do our own thing and see what happens.

Would the Hawks be willing to trade their pick 4 (and a guarantee we would not pick Watson) for pick 6 and our future first? 

We then have a nice hand at the draft - 4 and 11, which I'd be happy with - but it may also make WC be a bit more inclined to relinquish Pick 1 (certainly more so than our previous offer to them) if WC's main aim is to be more certain of getting Curtin and another good first round player. So, if we are lucky, it might net us Pick 1.

 


24 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Agree with your but it depends which year is highlighted.

The following year, 2015 it was:

  • pick 2 Schache - now on his 3rd club
  • pick 6 Francis - traded to Sydney for a very late pick.
  • pick 11 Matera - still with the Crows

As we all know the draft is a lottery...!!

Exactly, it depends on the players we think are going to available at the picks.  If we trade 6 and 11 for 2 it's because we think 2 will be a star.  Making the blanket statement that 6 and 11 are always better than 2 is what is laughable.

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Agree with your but it depends which year is highlighted.

The following year, 2015 it was:

  • pick 2 Schache - now on his 3rd club
  • pick 6 Francis - traded to Sydney for a very late pick.
  • pick 11 Matera - still with the Crows

As we all know the draft is a lottery...!!


Milera?

On 30/10/2023 at 15:44, rpfc said:

6 and 11.

Two ‘Top Ten’ picks.

Two Top TEN picks.

TWO Top Ten Picks.

nathan fillion castle GIF

i think people see 11 as a "top ten pick" because of the 2 gold coast academy kids and potentially even the bulldogs f/s

so its kind of like pick 9 if you were to take the GC academy kids out

 
2 minutes ago, FrothiesLiam said:

i think people see 11 as a "top ten pick" because of the 2 gold coast academy kids and potentially even the bulldogs f/s

so its kind of like pick 9 if you were to take the GC academy kids out

Ummm, that makes our ND11 into ND13 or ND14…

 

Also this whole question is about getting one the best ten kids and ND11 won’t before the academy players and it won’t after. 


Just now, demoncat said:

More info from the article linked:

D5EDB9ED-9B98-45C4-9884-474663E02FF7.thumb.jpeg.092fb1780a81232fd60991ee07f71f86.jpeg

Unclear whether the above makes West Coast more likely to accept our offer, but suggests at the very least North would be unwilling to offer anything further (which I personally agree with from their list build perspective)

On 30/10/2023 at 16:49, Neil Crompton said:

I think we have two clubs (NM and WC) playing chicken at the moment to see who will give way first. I think we leave them alone and do our own thing and see what happens.

Would the Hawks be willing to trade their pick 4 (and a guarantee we would not pick Watson) for pick 6 and our future first? 

We then have a nice hand at the draft - 4 and 11, which I'd be happy with - but it may also make WC be a bit more inclined to relinquish Pick 1 (certainly more so than our previous offer to them) if WC's main aim is to be more certain of getting Curtin and another good first round player. So, if we are lucky, it might net us Pick 1.

 

Wouldn’t work because if we didn’t take Watson at 4 the Dogs would take him at 5

1 hour ago, demoncat said:

More info from the article linked:

D5EDB9ED-9B98-45C4-9884-474663E02FF7.thumb.jpeg.092fb1780a81232fd60991ee07f71f86.jpeg

Essentially means West Coast are taking pick 1 to draft. Norths offer is better than ours, and ours is already overs IMO. We're better off taking what we have to draft. A shame as Reid looks to be a potential game breaking star of the future, but it would be unwise to over commit for one player.

Let's say we wind up with Sanders at 6, Windsor at 11, Brown at 42, and our future first is round pick 15 as an example. If we use the moneyball math idea,

Reid is a 10/10
Sanders is 9/10
Windsor is 7/10
Brown is 4/10
Future first is 6/10.

26 beats 10, but it's just about what's better for the list at that point in time. If it was just 6 and 11 I'd consider it. To add future firsts and other picks tips it too far the other way. If West Coast won't accept 2+15+17, then it's extremely unlikely they will accept 6+11+42+future first. And I hope they don't. it's overs.

Time to move on from pick 1/Reid.

38 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Essentially means West Coast are taking pick 1 to draft. Norths offer is better than ours, and ours is already overs IMO. We're better off taking what we have to draft. A shame as Reid looks to be a potential game breaking star of the future, but it would be unwise to over commit for one player.

Let's say we wind up with Sanders at 6, Windsor at 11, Brown at 42, and our future first is round pick 15 as an example. If we use the moneyball math idea,

Reid is a 10/10
Sanders is 9/10
Windsor is 7/10
Brown is 4/10
Future first is 6/10.

26 beats 10, but it's just about what's better for the list at that point in time. If it was just 6 and 11 I'd consider it. To add future firsts and other picks tips it too far the other way. If West Coast won't accept 2+15+17, then it's extremely unlikely they will accept 6+11+42+future first. And I hope they don't. it's overs.

Time to move on from pick 1/Reid.

I don't think you can use that arithmetic methodology directly on this issue.  Following that logic, it would be better to have O.Baker (4/10), S.Weideman (4/10), K.Turner (2/10), D.Smith (2/10) and F.Rosman (2/10) than C.Petracca (10/10).  The point is that Petracca and Reid (allegedly) are in a whole higher echelon than all those other players.


42 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Essentially means West Coast are taking pick 1 to draft. Norths offer is better than ours, and ours is already overs IMO. We're better off taking what we have to draft. A shame as Reid looks to be a potential game breaking star of the future, but it would be unwise to over commit for one player.

Let's say we wind up with Sanders at 6, Windsor at 11, Brown at 42, and our future first is round pick 15 as an example. If we use the moneyball math idea,

Reid is a 10/10
Sanders is 9/10
Windsor is 7/10
Brown is 4/10
Future first is 6/10.

26 beats 10, but it's just about what's better for the list at that point in time. If it was just 6 and 11 I'd consider it. To add future firsts and other picks tips it too far the other way. If West Coast won't accept 2+15+17, then it's extremely unlikely they will accept 6+11+42+future first. And I hope they don't. it's overs.

Time to move on from pick 1/Reid.

I tend to agree, although would be more than happy if they took our current offer

But surely they need to split pick 1 right?

Totally understand them holding out for the best offer - as they should - but at the end of the day I think they’re in the same position as North in needing as much high end talent as possible over the next few years

The only way they get that in this draft is by splitting 1 

Their fans might disagree, but I’d still be taking ours or Norths offer come draft night…

 

7 minutes ago, Deemac said:

I reckon we will truly trade up to get Dursma if we can’t get Reid 

I think we'll definitely attempt to get Duursma but not sure North will be fun to deal with.

West Coast would be wanting more from North than us. They will know who will be available at our picks and it's their decision if the players are enough. They may also be in a position next year if they get our F1 to bundle up with theirs to get pick 1 next year. Finn O'Sullivan looks like he will be really good. Unless they finish last and get him anyway.

1 hour ago, Clintosaurus said:

West Coast would be wanting more from North than us. They will know who will be available at our picks and it's their decision if the players are enough. They may also be in a position next year if they get our F1 to bundle up with theirs to get pick 1 next year. Finn O'Sullivan looks like he will be really good. Unless they finish last and get him anyway.

 

I agree

 

NM need to keep those picks and keep on the rebuild phase, Reid isn't changing the results

 

As for us, Reid will be a great pickup who will play Rnd 1


So West Coast want the moon and the stars for pick one, do they?

I'd be willing to do my bit for the mighty Demons and moon them.

2 hours ago, Demonstone said:

So West Coast want the moon and the stars for pick one, do they?

I'd be willing to do my bit for the mighty Demons and moon them.

I will go one better and show them my black hole 😁

14 hours ago, demoncat said:

I tend to agree, although would be more than happy if they took our current offer

But surely they need to split pick 1 right?

Totally understand them holding out for the best offer - as they should - but at the end of the day I think they’re in the same position as North in needing as much high end talent as possible over the next few years

The only way they get that in this draft is by splitting 1 

Their fans might disagree, but I’d still be taking ours or Norths offer come draft night…

 

Spot on.

No doubt WC are holding out for us to trade with North. I’m guessing a leak of our offer for pick 3 comes out before the draft. And it’ll be a deal North will refuse.

Maybe we’ll find a way to move up slightly. Geel or Hawthorn with our f1.

Either way, I agree we’re more likely to benefit from a single elite pick than WC or North who need many to build.

 

Would hope we’d wait until after pick 1 was taken to execute a trade for p3 or 4.


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.

      • Thanks
    • 132 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.

      • Thanks
    • 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.

      • 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
    • 381 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