Mach5

And then GWS will also still have picks 40, 59, 60, 80 and then add 53. Dont know the points value, but wouldn’t be surprised to see them parlay this bunch of picks into one earlier pick. (to be honest, thought they had more in the 2nd round, but obviously not)

I think so. They have a good haul there already in case Green makes it past pick 6. If they trade 6 for more picks, they’ll have an excess.

My prediction: GWS don’t offer enough to trade pick 3. We bid on Green. GWS choose to match, but trade pick 6 to Geelong for later picks but more points. GWS then try to work a trade with Freo for their leftover picks, to use on Henry, getting pick 10.

I think its value lies in getting to pick 8, other teams being able to assess the talent still available, and then make their bids based on the knowledge we’re happy to put it up for grabs. Based on the evenness of talent at that stage of the draft this year, it’s highly likely a player will be left who a team really likes, and we can capitalise on that. Much like Adelaide did last season (or should have) when Stocker was still available & the blues had him rated at 6. Alternatively, we might find one of the players we’re really into is still there & that no bids are appealing enough to pass the kid up.

Is there anything wrong with a sociopath or psychopath on the playing list? If they play their role on & off. You’d be trying to identify those who crumble or throw their toys out of the cot at the minutiae.

What an incredibly banal hill you’ve chosen to die on. Anyway, you’ve demonstrated that recruiters wouldn’t even need to ask you one of these questions to put a line through you. Irrespective of talent you’ve shown a tendency to throw the toys out the cot at the mere prospect a minor inconvenience. Bravo.

Yeah, you got me champ

You’re still not paying attention. It’s about engaging the left side of the brain and getting more honest answers to the subsequent questions. The weird questions themselves and their answers are irrelevant. What’s the harm?

Great to see the AFL making rules on the run, and allowing trading of picks to make up the points after a bid has been placed. Wonders never cease. https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-11-07/get-set-for-draft-night-drama-why-clubs-are-holding-fire-on-pick-swaps

That’s why it would be a great deal. I don’t see it happening, and we’ll only trade pick 3 if we come out on top, naturally. I also don’t buy the idea that Freo will be fixated on certain players simply because they’re from WA. But like you said, it’s predicated upon Freo really really liking a player they need pick 3 to get.

Mate, it’s not rocket science. The draftees enter the interview process armed with carefully crafted and rehearsed answers to the standard lineup of questions. The “weird” questions are purely designed to “throw” the kids off their game, make them think laterally and begin to reveal their true personalities. It’s all about getting honest answers to the later questions. The immediate answers to the weird questions are not taken into account one iota.

Yeah, nah.

3 for 7 & 10 would be a great result. Not sure any other options seem quite good enough. Geelong’s picks don’t really excite me. Having 7, 8 & 10 does.

Isn’t that exactly what Cody Weightman is?

Is this what passes for comedy these days? Lightweights...

I’m really warming to the idea of Jackson. Losing Tim Smith and Frost, we’re down a couple of talls. I know we picked up Tomlinson, but I’ve also written off Pruess. Just makes sense for list balance. Bradtke will take time, but also looks more likely to end up a forward. Gawn won’t be around forever. And if not, it’s just another nudge to GWS to give us a proper return for pick 3.

Just watching his highlights, Jackson twice spins around and through opponents, something most players aren’t exactly capable of, let alone other ruckmen. That is exceptional athleticism and talent. I’m more than happy to take Jackson at 3.

This is exactly it. Float the possibility of us taking Jackson at 3, that way if he’s still on the board at 8 we look certain to select him. Freo will panic and select him at 7. Job done.

Hey, Dyson Heppell did it. But so far we have no evidence Young can do it. I'm open to taking him if the recruiting dept think he can. I just don't see it myself.

Yep, and you'd hope that he comes from from a high-performing data analysis dept within an AFL footy dept. It's not like he's being brought in from the SANFL.

He is.

Firstly, not singling out the poster above, merely using the post as a reference point and there’s quite a few other good examples in this thread... I’m repeatedly surprised by the way “supporters” insist on reducing performance/underperformance to a singular catalyst. “We had a poor season... this one element was the cause!” (Insert Goodwin/Mahoney/McCartney/gameplay/playing list/etc. whatever In this similar case, it’s “Port had 2 consistently middling seasons, therefore their data analyst who we’ve brought on board mustn’t be any good, demonstrated by their lack of improvement” Could it not be a case that there were other factors that led to Port’s underperformance and that the data analysis was adequate or even one of the few bright spots? How could we possibly know? I just shake my head at the narrow-mindedness.

Any recruiting dept that made decisions based on this factor is totally derelict in their duty. Should never be a consideration.

I still think this is a big change of happening. GWS have, in terms of 2020 picks: - GWS 1st round pick - GWS 2nd round pick - GWS 3rd round pick - North 3rd round pick I think to satisfy us, it’d have to be pick 6, 1st and 2nd round picks at a minimum. Maybe even a third too. In a very weak & compromised draft, GWS should be content to trade out, just as we’d expect more in return than you normally would. The other possibility is that we’re simply keeping pick 3, but want to prime GWS for us to bid on Green, to solidify our reputation as straight-shooters and ensure we have more options at 8. I’d be bloody happy with Green, but they’ll never allow it to happen. I think GWS have tried to be too cute, not working hard enough to complete a trade using players, or acquiring good enough assets before the end of the trade period, with the assumption that we’ll eventually trade as it gets the best net result for us. The fly in the ointment is that I’m not sure we’re willing to give a competitor such an advantage without significantly benefitting ourselves (and bringing their position back into line). Interesting times.

We can only hope. Makes it more likely Stephens will be left on the board.