Lucifers Hero

I don't have the answers to all the questions. So best guess on the 'extra elements' is there are things in his job that are more related to the captain role eg setting an example, motivating/supporting teammates, ensuring the game plan is being followed, playing the 'General' role and ensuring set-ups occur. As you suggest all players should be able to do those things but Viney would I suspect have them in his on-field remit. But tbh his score differential suggests he didn't necessarily succeed in those, which is what fans have observed. But that is all guesswork on my part based on what I see other team captains do and how their on-field jobs differ to their players. Other players may have their own individual on-field KPI's to be scored highly for a game. That is the best answer i can give. But my perceptions could be all wrong. The bnf isn't equitable. It is skewed in favour of how many games are played. The more games the more opportunity to get votes. It usually wouldn't be an issue as most players would play 19-22 games. This year only 12 players reached those numbers. 10 of those made up the top 10. Those to miss were Jones (22 games), Hibberd (19 games).

Criticisms of Viney's position are a bit churlish. His score (323) has an extra element of his leadership role, which we can't rate. Without that element he probably would have been below Harmes (319) and Petracca (293). You could say Viney, Harmes and Petracca were about equal. Sounds right to me as the difference between their scores is miniscule over 22 weeks. I'm delightfully surprised with Fritsch's performance and I thought Salem's year was better than the scores show. Well done to Max and Clarrie.

2018 Result Comparing the two boards shows how poor the coaches thought our year was! Last year it was won with 657 votes; this year with 464. 10th position came in last year at 366 votes. This year at 199 votes. As I understand it (and could someone please confirm) 4 coaches give each player a score out of 10 for each game making the max number of votes available as 880. This year a lot of players had 0 to 2 out of 10 scores from all four voting coaches. The comparison accurately reflects our season - it was poor but someone has to win (the right people did) and someone has to be in the top 10 albeit it with a very low score.

A hidden gem in the pps to GCS is the first pick of the second round (currently #20). It is very valuable due to the structure of the draft schedule (Day 1 is for round 1 only) and of live pick trading. Last year the first 3 picks of the second round were traded overnight after round 1 as clubs traded up the order for any preferred players not taken in round 1. Those picks are so valuable the AFL has left Day 2 of the draft free this year for clubs to set up live-pick trade positions. GCS can extract maximum value for pick #20 should they trade it. Whoever holds it, it will be a very valuable chip in live trading come the end of Day 1 of the draft. The live-trade premium for our pick #20 is the reason we reportedly do not want to trade it to Freo for Langdon. I would really like the club to stand its ground on this and find another way to give value for Langdon. Please don't blink, Dees!

I expected it to be both pps and off-field support. Evans has been there for several years now, I think. He would need to get a move on if he is to fix the off-field things. One would hope the off-field support, if it was to be given would have been part of today's package. In the short term the items that benefit GCS the most are increase sal cap and increase soft cap. Other improvements will flow from those, with the right people.

So GCS got a heap of priority picks. But no news of the off field support they really need eg improved club rooms and facilities increased salary cap (Gil refused because he "...has a strong view that salary caps should not be compromised". LOL - Gil has principles! Yeh, I know a cheap shot but couldn't resist!) gold-coast-package Without sal cap increase they will struggle to both attract mature players and keep their young talent. better medical and fitness staff and related resources better development and welfare staff improve the low morale of draftees that play their Home games on dodgy suburban ovals that no-one goes to watch increase their 'soft cap' - Its tough getting football staff to go there without lots of $$. Priority picks are like fool's gold. Stewie Dew said as much mid year when he said pp's won't solve the problems. Without changing the off field issues it will continue to be a revolving door of draftees. I don't mind GCS getting the pps. But it is so frustrating that he AFL have missed a golden opportunity to really help the club. Fix the off-field things and players might stay.

If anyone is going the occasional update would be handy, or a bit of gos would be welcome! News of new club base location/progress.? Jaguar signing up for next year(s).? Outcomes from the presentation to the AFL Commission a few weeks ago. News of replacements for T. Viney, Jennings, Rawlings etc. We wouldn't want to fall behind other clubs looking for similar staff.

2019: 1,2, 15 and 21. (and possibly #9 if they trade it to Carlton for Martin. 2020: Their natural 1st pick. Probably #1 to #3. Their mid round priority pick #11. And whatever top 5 picks they get for Lukoscius and/or King leaving.

GCS priority package makes the split of #3 interesting. GWS have #12 and #18. Their 2020 1st round pick will also be quite high. Hard to find value in there. However, GCS have 1, 2, 15 and 21. They may also have pick #9 if they get it from Carlton for Jack Martin. In 2020 they will have their natural 1st round pick (guessing #1 to #3) and 2020 mid round priority: pick #11. I would be looking to split #3 with GCS: 2019 pick #15 this year (if they get it) plus 2020 #1 to #3 next year? Or if they get #9 from Carlton this year - that plus their #11 next year. Or some other combo. The point is GCS provide much more fertile ground to max the value of our #3. Or it will force GWS to up the ante for it.

And 15 tied to Brisbane's finish. Carlton have pick #9. So 1,2, 9, 15 and 21. Gold Coast had snookered themselves by trading out 2019 picks last year and had nothing between pick #15 and #56. They have a nice top of the draft package now!

draft-bonanza-suns-get-top-picks-secondrounder-darwin-zone-more It's three years of draft assistance includes: Picks No.1 and No.2 at the 2019 NAB AFL Draft. The first pick of the second round (currently pick No.20) at the 2019 NAB AFL Draft. Mid first-round pick (currently pick No.11) at the 2020 NAB AFL Draft. The first pick of the second round (currently Pick.19) at the 2021 NAB AFL Draft That is two priority picks this year. One at the start and one at the end of round 1. The public dialogue was about either the start or the end. Staggering that they get both!

Its about blxxdy time! Such an obvious thing to do! While we are at it, an experienced forward coach please. All year, I've been frustrated with defenders trying to be forward coaches, especially as many of our forwards are inexperienced in their role at AFL level and are converted defenders and midfielders. At some stage we need players who are skilled and experienced in their role.

I wasn't suggestion he should stay at Richmond. More an example in response to how fans overestimate what players earn ie Ellis would reportedly get $350k ish if he stayed. That article is an update on the one I read. It is saying $3m over 5 years which is $600k pa. $600k may put him our of our reach. But I would rather spend that on him than two existing 'depth' role players or one existing role player plus one of the mooted new recruits especially as Ellis is a Free Agent, an 'impact' player. re the 5 years, clubs are getting creative on length of contract eg Gaff, Kelly and I think Coniglio signed 7+ year contracts but there are a few 'outs' built into them. I would like to think that we can also be creative on contract length, terms and shape.

A good example is Brandon Ellis. Two time premiership player. Fast, talented mid. I was surprised to read that he reportedly would get about $350-$400 if he stayed at Tigers. He is going to GCS as a Free Agent for a reported $500k pa. Still not a huge amount. He is reportedly very close to his family who are here in Melbourne. Don't know how we couldn't put up a competitive offer to him. I wish we could have had Ellis. Reckon he would probably be better for us than Tomlinson or Langdon.

I also think that is fair. But we are tying that up for 3-4 years. My point was at some stage we need impact players and will need the money to get them. And having an abundance of 'role players' on good money for 2, 3, 4 years inhibits our ability to get the impact player(s). So I'm all for Tomlinson but would rather keep the money free by either not recruiting him or letting go of others.

Got it! To be eligible for the SSP a player needs to have been overlooked in the most recent AFL drafts. That subtlety had escaped me.

Agreed Rusty. It could have as much to do with our forward pressure as the kicking. What it showed was that our long-chased recruit in Ed Langdon is the 3rd worst in the league. This dampened my hopes of his recruitment significantly improving the 'connection' with our forward line.

Therein are some scary tables, JD: Worst Kicks Inside 50 1. Clayton Oliver (Melbourne): 45 kicks — 8.9 per cent retention rate 3. Ed Langdon (Fremantle): 30 kicks — 16.7 per cent retention rate I guess the retention rate has a bit to do with how well the forwards defend. Nonetheless, Oliver and Langdon 1 and 3 worst are a bit of a worry.

Its hard to know who is really available but some outside midfielders likely to be on the move are: Hill (3 premierships), Papley (Grand Finalist), Martin, Zac Jones (Grand Finalist), Brandon Ellis (2 premierships). The only one who can't kick as a strength is Jones but he would generally fit the criteria. For whatever reason we seem not interested in any of them (which I doubt) or they have chosen Saints/Blues/Gold Coast (Papley still uncertain) instead of us.

We also have Chandler and Lockhart as rookies = 6; same as Richmond. The difference is Richmond have either chosen their 6 'small' players better or developed them better. But not sure the quantity is so important as 2019 Premiers, WCE have only 2 under 180: Rioli and Ryan. I suspect the quantity depends on what works for the respective game plans. But its fair to say WCE have also recruited and/or developed better than us.

Rules have changed. There is now a 'pre-season supplemental selection period' (SSP) after the rookie draft. I've gone back and edited my previous post. The SSP is how we recruitedJay Lockhart, Carlton got Gibbons and Richmond got Stack. None were previously on an AFL list. The SSP runs from December to March.

I'm quite happy with Tomlinson but we have quite a few average role players. Just not sure we need another one, even if he is better than those we have. I would be a lot happier if we had not signed up role players in ANB, the two Wagners etc with other role players in contract. At some point we need impact players. Tbh, I would rather keep the spot on our list vacant for a year rather than commit to another role player albeit versatile, for a 3-4 year contract. At the quoted rate that is $1.2 to $1.6 of our salary cap. I know by 'free' you mean draft picks/trades but that sort of money in a tight sal cap doesn't make him 'free'.

He comes well credentialed. But I struggle to get excited about drafting another mid-sized reserves player, albeit a good one. The interesting thing is that having been overlooked in a previous AFL draft he can go to the club of his choice as a Rookie in the new preseason draft, effectively as a 'free agent'. But he might chance his hand first in the main draft and secure a better contract. Edit: After @DeeSpencer post below I've found there are various AFL drafts/selection methods to recruit players. We recruited Jay Lockhart under 'pre-season supplemental selection period' (SSP); Carlton got Gibbons and Richmond got Stack the same way. None were previously on an AFL list. No draft pick was used. So, I'm assuming that the same rules would apply to Sokol. Could be wrong.

I remember commenting on this in a Post Game thread quite early in the season as it was clear Gus couldn't bend over, run or tackle. His back problem was known as he missed the family 100 x 100 sprints on Christmas day and he spent most of the preseason in rehab. Like another poster said, I don't understand why we kept playing him especially in the second half of the season. Hope playing him doesn't cause him to spend this preseason in rehab.

Does that mean we were his only option?