deanox

Reckon it could be based on round 1 when we went with Spargo, Bedford, Pickett and ANB all in the one side? We then had Spargo and Pickett suspended, and Bedford didn't do enough, so we went with Bennell, ANB, and, Hunt. We tried the mozzy fleet early this year, but didn't have the right cattle.

CT's phantom draft had him going at Brisbane for pick 29, and noted he could be an option for St Kilda. Given we took Bowey at 21 (before Laurie), I suspect the club rated him a bit higher than media may have, and we felt we needed to get him before 28. Personally, I've got no idea! But I like the sound of "one of the best kicks in the draft".

This is pretty crazy. What evidence is there that we were actually interested in Holmes other than CT's phantom draft, which although it had us picking him also stated "Holmes would be a genuine surprising inclusion in the top-30, but it is not beyond the realms.". If it is truly that surprising then maybe we weren't actually interested? Maybe we knew Geelong were interested but had no picks this year, so leaked that we were interested, to try and get them to trade in before our pick 28, and the story ran from there? I note that although he had St Kilda taking Bowey, CT also linked us directly to him, rating him as one of the best kicks in the draft and noting that he can play wing or small forward: sounds perfect for our needs. CT also wrote we would be "looking to see if Bailey Laurie is still available" for our pick 21 too.

Another idea to make the academies and father son a bit more "fairer". Similar system to now (points discount and bidding system) but you must have your next pick within 1 round (~17 picks) of the original pick, or else you can't bid. So you move up at most 1 round, plus pay the rest of the points from future picks like current. The club who gets out-bid gets the next pick like usual, and also another pick exactly 1 round later (~18 picks) as compensation. So Dogs would have needed to keep their first rounder to bid. Adelaide would have got picks 2 and pick 21 (1st pick of round 2) in return for pick 1. Not perfect, but better than nothing. And the draft order is only a little effected overall. You can downgrade your picks, but if you trade them out completely, you could miss out on your player if you underestimate their pick. And live trading is increased as clubs offer to drop back in the draft order on the night if academy or f/s players go a bit lower than expected.

Swans just sitting around bored as hell, waiting for fox footy to get their carrier pigeon saying they have matched the bid.

Do you think the crows will get any less exposure in their market as a result of this? If anything they have just taken the pressure off Thilthorpe. If they took him above Ugle-Hagan, the comparisons and the talk would have been super noisy.

Hand all or some of the "spent" picks to the club who lost their spot? May give them access to earlier picks than otherwise, or could give them assets they can trade on the night to improve other positions or future draft hands.

And now they're telling us that the crows are taking 4 minutes to decide who is next?

And the dogs know if they are matching or not. Rubbish.

No excuse for Adelaide not to click in no. 1 within 3 seconds. They know before they get there who their no. 1 is.

Also this:

I don't like it but I can "see" the case GCS would make to defend the trade with Geelong: "We think Melbourne will slide, and the 2021 3rd round pick will around the 37-40 mark. We expect this year's academy picks to push pick 27 out to early to mid 30's, so expect the picks will have a similar points value once they are used. We also believe it is worth sliding back a few places in the draft so that we have better visibility on the players: we are unsure about the 2020 cohort having not seen them play due to covid, and we think 2021 picks will be more valuable for that reason. We know its a bit of a gamble on Melbourne sliding, but we think it's a good bet and we're confident we'll come out ok." If you are in the camp that thinks we will finish bottom 4 next year, it is hard to argue with this position.

Yeah once he was dropped, he basically ran the drinks as 12th man. He may not have made it back but it definitely made it hard to find form or confidence.

In Mahoney's words, it's a calculated risk. It is clear they think we are underperformed, which means they think it was 15+ next year for 18 and 19 this year. And that our 2nd will be around 33, within 1 or 2 of the lions, so close to break even. If they though we were performing on par with no scope for improvement we would be looking at trading out 10 and 28 is, and if they thought we were over performing it would be even worse. So they obviously think the risk is justified. It was clear they expected the same thing in the Kosi trade, so makes sense they still do, given they have recruited an A grade KPF and backed the coach in with additional support. Regardless of what we might think, it's clear that is their strategy.

Strange: odd; unusual or surprising; difficult to understand or explain. It is strange that people think they should comment negatively on someone's motives or reasons for signing a contract when they don't know the full facts (and aren't even asking the questions to determine those facts). That you don't think the word fits the sentence and would like to keep arguing about it is strange as well.

Yep, ok ill retract ridiculous comment, but I do think its overly harsh. The misses stand out in our memories, because they have come at times we could have won if he kicked them, but overall his kicking for goal has been good and I'm not sure he has been poor often enough enough for it to be a pattern or concern yet.

He has 46 goals 25 behinds for a career accuracy of 65%. Ridiculous comment.

It's strange that ppl are commentating, ie offering commentary on the situation, without actually knowledge. Asking questions about the situation is perfectly reasonable. But again, those questions shouldn't be loaded with misinformation i.e. "why did he sign a contract when he knew his kids would be interstate?".

Also why not read direct quotes: "The best way to look at it is we’re bringing our First Round pick forward a year, as we did last year when we were able to secure Kozzy Pickett. "We believe that there is more of a variety of player in this year's draft (compared to next year) which suit the type of players we need on our list. "We think there is an opportunity this year, with the lack of footy that has been played by the Victorians, that clubs lists could potentially be more different than usual. “There’s definitely the potential that players we rate very highly in this draft could still be available with our three picks.”

If they were going short term then they would have traded all the picks for players. That we are taking the picks to the draft now and not in 2021 is a medium term strategy not short term strategy. I am calling Occam's Razor here: the club rate our list as quite good and think we have underperformed. They are betting that we will rise up the ladder and our picks will be worth less in the future. Pick 18 and 19 this year is arguably better than just pick 15 or 16 next. We swapped our 2nd, 3rd and 4th next year for other clubs as well. Brisbane's 2nd, Dogs 3rd and Norths 4th. I reckon we are betting that will be a collective win.

I thought there was one relatively insightful take away (well, insightful because it came internally not from us) when Gawn said something about "the midfield has another level to go, the defence is holding up to a high standard but we felt we lacked an A grader up forward, and now we've got one".

My expectation is that there was a verbal agreement, and that it is in line with what the dogs were expecting. The reason it isn't written down is the same reason clubs get a week to finalise: there is normally a bit of an agreement window, say $50k, to allow clubs to balance their caps once they have the full picture. And I reckon the pies are reneging on the agreement, claiming porkies like "we didn't mean that for every year" and "that was the original discussion but we thought that changed when we agreed to the lower picks" even though those explicit conversations never happened.

On Weid he has kicked reasonable amount of goals and his stats are ok vs his peers. I think his problem hasn't been taking the number 1 defender, its been taking all of the defenders, as the only forward (literally, or figuratively when TMac was playing). When this happens he struggles to get to the contests because he is being blocked and bumped etc. by the additional tall defenders. We don't seem to kick it "to him" very well, instead kicking it to the forward line and hoping he gets there.

Dawes' abilities suited Malthouse's game plan perfectly. He could run and get to contest after contest. He could always halve those contests and where he couldn't mark it he was able to control it to create a stoppage i.e. throw in. This allowed Collingwood to play a stoppage game of kick long to the contest as a get out of defence, and also as a form of attack where the opposition zone had them covered i.e. instead of trying to beat the zone they were able to set up for a stoppage forward of centre. Need tried this style with us but the game was moving past it tactically and it was the polar opposite to our Bailey era attack, so it was a terrible option for our list. Dawes was never really able to reinvent himself as a forward, largely due to those concrete hands!

Well yes obviously, but it's about opportunity cost, and timing. This year we were able to get both a mature forward and still keep our second round pick. Wait till next year and we have a mature forward, and a mature ruck in the 2s, but no draftee. The question was "should we have kept him another year" and without a first round pick, the loss of a 2nd rounder itself may have not been a preferable situation.