rpfc

You are betraying your intelligence if you think this is a possibility.

It's not a fair question... Sigh, I really hate it when people don't know I'm being facetious.

Make Money: Sydney (sat night/Roos game), PA (NT game), Coll, Breakeven: WB, Geel, Lose Money: WCE, GC, NM, Freo, BL, GWS It's just a terrible commercial draw, the only way we are going to breakeven is if we get a major sponsor ASAP and we win a few early games and smash through 45k members.

I don't know, what is our injury outlook 5 months out?

I am not referring to any individuals; every thread on a delisted FA has multiple people saying "not an option." It's fine to think that, it is also good to give an argument as to why they would not be a better option than whatever kid would be available at 40, 57, PSD2 or in the RD.

You are 'picking and choosing' your stats on this and I have removed all those that are not in the last decade - the simple fact is that teenagers picked outside of the second round have a progressively lower success rate. It is hard to find the stats on it without doing it myself... From 2004 to 2008 (not including FS picks and NSW scholarships like Walker which skew data, I have also removed mature age recruits): 149 teenagers were taken between Pick 1 and 30 with 99 of them playing more than 50 games and 43 of those reaching 100 games. 128 teenagers were taken between Pick 31 and 60 with 46 of them playing more than 50 games and 18 of those reaching 100 games. So the success rate of picking teens to play 100 games in the first 30 picks to the next 30 drops from 28.9% to 14.1%. (Note: Picks 1-10 is 38%, Picks 11-20 is 34.7%, Picks 21-30 is 14%, Picks 31-40 is 20.5%, Picks 41-50 is 11.9%, Picks 51-60 is 9.5%) It's just so fraught picking teenagers in the draft; it is little wonder that Roos is a 'draft sceptic' in the words of Greg Baum.

That was between us and GWS with the latter obviously telling GC that it would be best for their chances of getting Martin that they play along. It wasn't 10 clubs coming together for a giant conspiracy of silence that Fox Mulder would think is a 'far-fetched'...

You are reading too much into what is on the club website. The AFL have a certain control over what is on the website, just because it is on there doesn't mean we put it there. And it certainly doesn't mean that 10 clubs come together before the draft and tell each other who they are going to draft. That is laughable.

Do those that shoot down every mention of discarded AFL players realise that we are looking for player 39 and 40 with our last two selections in the draft? The option of picking up delisted players is just as reasonable as speculative teenagers.

Do you know that was a rhetorical question?

What if we can pick up a Barlow as opposed to a Magner? I am a bit sick of picking up kids that are gone two years later. This is less about Garlett and more about drafting players on what they can do right now as opposed to what they might be able to three years from now. I would have a rule that any player brought onto the list has to have at least one great to elite facet to their game from the beginning so that they can play a role immediately at AFL level; whether it is speed, winning contested footy, spread and run, skills, etc. If there is a 22 year old out there that Roos sees as a 'soldier' or a 'role player' I would take him at 40 rather than risk not getting him in the RD.

What does this even mean? Do you think that money is tied to ladder position? We required money for payouts of staff, the Lions need it because the Broncos own that town and when they are not winning every game, they struggle to make money. Source please. Just source please... Who the heel makes a claim like that off without the article that goes along with it? Don't ever write 'simples' again. Excellent post and people should read it then click the link and go to Page 122 where it will state that all clubs receive between $9-12m from the AFL. AFL House runs the game, the clubs just play it.

15 years? And you can win titles and still be made fun of in gifs apparently... That was my point. You picked the wrong gif.

Well I could say "you know what I meant" or I could come back with a smartarsed "he didn't play under Roos did he?" I will go with the latter.

When another club has Pick 6 and Pick 10 then the owners of Pick 9 will keep their cards close to their chest. With that in mind, do you think Roos and Viney would do such a thing?

I didn't know any genuine questions ended with 'party pooper'... If I was running the recruitment at the Dees Pick 9 would be the best mid we can get from this draft class, Pick 40 would be the last remaining kid that might be there ahead of the best VFL/SANFL/WAFL midfielder that might be there. I see Garlett as a luxury purchase. There would still be strong bodied mids from the state leagues that we would be leaving on the table. I don't know their names because I can't follow it very closely but they would be there. We still need numbers for our midfield for 2014: Jones, Viney, Tyson, Cross, Trengove, Grimes, Michie, McKenzie, Matt Jones, Pick 9, Vince, Toumpas, Hogan, Watts, Evans, Barry, Howe, Jetta, Bail, Nicholson, Blease and Kent our midfield prospects for 2014. They need to be added to/improved upon for Roos' first season. Viney, Tyson, Michie, Toumpas, Pick 9, Hogan, Watts, Evans, Kent, and Howe should be able to contribute in there but Jones, Cross, Vince, Matt Jones, Grimes, and McKenzie make up our experienced midfield bodies and that needs improvement. That is where my head would be as soon as any of the top 25 or 30 kids are off the table for ND 40 and ND57.

Kobe drools on himself and you want me to be inspired by that?

If Paul Roos, Todd Viney, and Jason Taylor think it is best we don't pick a player - I am inclined to trust their judgement.

I think he will be there at 40 and that we will not pick him.

Frawley, McDonald, Jones, and Kent is less than half. Terlich has not played under Roos so I will wait to see how year 2 goes with him. The rest won't hurt.

He is not a Demon yet.DFA starts Nov 1 as all contracts go till Oct 31.

Interesting question. I guess you will be doing a lot of gesticulating...

Ok, you might be wrong and you are wrong. We might still delist at the next lodgement and it's a 'moot' debate we would be having.