Lucifers Hero

Champion Data top Mock draft is: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-mock-draft-2019-champion-data-rankings-pick-1-prospects-matt-rowell-tom-green-noah-anderson/news-story/e8b5be824b0695bda92ce6a7869dd570 1. MATTHEW ROWELL 2. THOMAS GREEN 3. NOAH ANDERSON 4. LUKE JACKSON 5. HAYDEN YOUNG 6. CALEB SERONG 7. SAM FLANDERS 8. LACHLAN ASH 9. DEVEN ROBERTSON 10. WILL GOULD Interestingly, Green is ranked as 2nd best. Surely, we must bid for him at 3? Are we afraid GWS won't match? I see no risk in bidding for him - we either get one of the top 3 draftees (Green) or we select the player we would otherwise have chosen currently predicted to be Jackson. We must nail pick 3 and if Green is best available we go for him!

I thought his ranking on our forward line was fairly accurate based on 2019. Reckon he has our list ranked in the right region - bottom half of the eight. I don't think we are a top 4 list, yet. We might be after the draft. I do like that he has us ahead of Essendon but even then they are ranked too higly. Reckon he has sold Sydney short at 17th. And not sure how he could rank Adelaide at 15; not much going for them really. Can't say that I like him or that I ever will.

And to add more context to Twomey's selection of Weightmen at 8, it is because they were acting as recruiters and Sheehan had selected Jackson at 7, as a Freo recruiter so he was off the board for Twomey at 8. He desperately wanted Jackson at 8. And they didn't make any adjustment for matching bids on Academy players. It was a bit of a game really; not really an expected draft order.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-11-14/afl-announces-change-for-tribunal-in-2020 The governance of the AFL Tribunal will move from the Football Operations Department to form part of the AFL Legal Department led by AFL General Counsel Andrew Dillon, ensuring the Tribunal function operates separately to the Match Review Officer and the General Manager Football Operations. Not rocket science to separate the 'policemen', Michael Christian/Steve Hocking from the 'judiciary' the Tribunal. Don't know what took them so long. Now lets not have conflicted ex-players sit on the Tribunal when their ex team will be affected ala the Toby Green fiasco. I suspect consistency is a little too much to ask for!

Given that he was played in an unfamiliar role in defence he had a very good season. He should only be played forward where he can be really damaging. Gains separation, leads well to the ball, can take a great mark and is one of our more accurate kicks for goal. Looking forward to watching him have a settled and successful year.

Not entirely sure but I think picks need to be used in sequence for Academy players so if Freo hold 7 and 10 when Henry is bid on those picks are used. Any surplus points remaining gives them another pick further down the draft.

Just published: Live pick trading rules The answer to your question therein is: "The Giants could move on their first selection (Pick 6) in return for later selections, which would aid their second selection (Pick 40) in matching a bid. They could then look to leapfrog back into the top 15 after completing a deal with another club, following the closure of the loophole with the same club. Another option would be to wait until (after) the player has been bidded on, with teams able to make a live trade to downgrade while on the clock, allowing for lower selections to be used to match bids". The advantage to them is getting the Academy player on the cheap and getting another player in the draft. Once Freo or GWS trade out their pick (6/7)the club holding those picks drafts a player, Freo and GWS take Henry/Green on points when bid. So our pick 8 becomes the 10th pick in the draft. I am of the same view as other posters that once an Academy or F/S player has been bid on a club should not be allowed to trade out their next pick(s). There are more than enough advantages for those clubs as it is getting some of the best players year after year.

Right on cue: Live Trading Rules Released 20 minutes ago! Re GWS, it says: "The Giants could move on their first selection (Pick 6) in return for later selections, which would aid their second selection (Pick 40) in matching a bid. They could then look to leapfrog back into the top 15 after completing a deal with another club, following the closure of the loophole with the same club. Another option would be to wait until the player has been bidded on, with teams able to make a live trade to downgrade while on the clock, allowing for lower selections to be used to match bids". Fortunately, it doesn't prohibit swapping back in a pick traded to a club during the trade period. This means we can pick swap with Freo and North if we wanted to.

Agreed. I thought it was an odd video to put on line. It only raises doubts, especially after last year's exaggerated claims about his fitness on start of pre-season. Would have preferred a video of the repeat 50m sprints, flat out, as Saty described.

In the video he looks exhausted after a 30 sec jog... Looks dejected: on haunches, head on hand, looks up, grimaces, head in hands...

The fate of picks 3 to 10 has been speculated on except pick 5 held by Sydney. Nor have they been linked to a player in the top 10 except as a bidder for Green. So I wouldn't be surprised that if GWS match a bid on Green then Sydney trade #5 out. Who to and for what? To Freo for 10 and 22? With 5 Freo take Jackson, another player at 7 and get ahead of the game for Henry. To the Cats for 14, 17? Sydney also have 25 and 32 - a nice set of picks to take to the draft or extract max value from another team wanting to move up the draft. Its too quiet on the Sydney front I reckon!! They are a wild card in the top 10! Especially, if their target player(s) are in the low to mid teens!

TMac isn't necessarily a No 1 tall but can't agree with those comments from Dermot . I think it reflects that we haven't and don't have a forward coach to teach him the finer art. It also reflects that in 2019 he was the no 1, 2, and 3 tall; no Hogan, a still developing Weideman and a raft of tallish, part time supporting acts.

I have little time for Goddard but his assessment is fair as evidenced by our 2019 %'age being the second worst by a long way. But considering Petracca was the 'lone ranger' being the only one to play 22 games forward and most of the other regulars barely played half the season then 14th is ok. Would be more worried as St Kilda and Crows who have less reasons than us for performing poorly. Anyway, 2019 was a bad year no matter how it is dissected. It is now done and dusted. Nonetheless, we will see many more postmortems to fill the media space and we will not rank well, because we shouldn't. But they will have little meaning as 2020 will be an immensely better year. Scribes overrated us at the start of 2019, I will guarantee they will underrate us for 2020. We will show them!

Even if they did offer 14+17 we should not accept it - In draft points 14+17 is worth far less than what we gave North to get pick 8 and their is an intangible value in the quality of pick 8. No way should we 'sell' it at a discount to another club. If we did we would look pretty stupid having given up our 2020 first rounder and paid a massive premium to get 8.

That several clubs are prepared to package up their mid teen pick for a top 10 shows there must be some real gems in the top 10 that won't be on the table at 14, 15, etc. Two top 10 players (@3+8) are far better for us than one top player @3 and two lesser more speculative players in the mid to late teens, especially now that we are likely to have Bennell. Unless we get an offer too good to refuse we take 8 to the draft!

And Sumich seems to have an axe to grind with Freo so he may just be playing nasty so Freo miss out on him or as you say pay up big for pick 3.

Yes, we can. But even by including their 2020 #11 and getting a second round back it really doesn't improve the equation that much (compared to what we paid for #8) let alone increase the chances of really improving our talent which pick 8 will.

Of course their are many permutations of pick swaps with various clubs; I was commenting on the trades being mooted with GCS and Geelong. I have posted elsewhere that if GCS include 2020 #11 it is closer to getting us the value I am looking for. (Btw we can't give anything back to GCS as we cannot trade another 2020 pick.) Pick 50 is worth 273 points, so even by removing it, it doesn't essentially change the position I was posing for the need to get value back for pick 8. Can't see the point in doing the first deal with North otherwise. But I still put more value on a pick 8 (might become 9 or 10 than picks 17-23 (ie 14 to 20 after academy and f/s picks) to get us a very good player. None of the players you mention or those linked to us will be there at 17-20 so I still favour taking 8 to the draft - unless we get an offer we can't refuse.

If we just wanted pick 10 and 22 (which we traded to Freo) we could have done it as part of the Langdon trade. They would have loved our 2020 first pick. Can't help but think there was a particular strategy behind the North pick 8 trade. Also, under the new rules according to Cal Twomey (not sure which thread) Freo can't trade pick 22 to us as we traded it to them so they would have to find another club with a similar pick to get pick 8.

Its a shame Twomey doesn't give more info on the 3 GWS picks we rejected. Twomey hasn't thought thru the GCS interest in pick 8. With 3 Acadamey/FS picks likely before 15 the GCS picks 15 and 20 will become 18 and 23. That will be poor value for our pick 8 and I can't see us getting a very good player at 18 and 23. It is worth recapping the North trade. Out: 26, 50 and 2020 1st round pick for North's pick 8. While not a big believer in Draft Points to measure pick value it is worth using it as a guide for pick swaps: Even if we win the Premiership, and North get pick 18, the trade (then valued at 1987 points) will give them quite a premium for their pick 8 valued at 1511 points). Realistically we are not likely to win the premiership so the value to North will be much more than the 1987 points. As a point of reference if we come 8th in 2020 the trade value will be 2331 points to North for pick 8 valued at 1551. So, I can't see how the mooted interest for pick 8 by GCS (pick 15 and 20 = 2024 draft points), Geelong (pick 14 and 17= 2186) give us value. And I put an 'intangible value' on a top 10 player being an excellent, long term prospect than two players in the late teens. So would rather keep pick 8 and do either of those mooted trades. I strongly feel that a trade for pick 8 needs to give us substantially better value that we paid for it otherwise we have coughed up our 2020 first round pick for a mighty discount.

Hope you are wrong. He looked pretty skinny in the legs, arms and upper body. That may help him run but he looks more like a 2-3 year player than a 5/6 year player.

Any news on what Lever has been up to in the off-season? Wouldn't mind seeing him beefed up a bit by round 1.

Good question. Going by the Cal Toomey tweet above: " One pick swap is not allowed to be connected to another". That 22 was part of the Langdon player trade rather than a pick swap, might make the 8 for 10 and 22 swap with freo ok. And, if Cal Toomey is correct "You aren't even able to trade back a selection that was traded to you during the trade period itself (back to the same club that gave it)" it will be a nightmare for the AFL to track during the five minutes between drafts as so many picks changed hands during trading. It would mean many picks can't go back to the original club in what is otherwise a genuine and honest pick swap. Certainly a lot of grey areas which hopefully are clarified by draft time. Otherwise its is another AFL hornets nest?

Maybe, maybe not. As I wrote the word 'intent' I remembered how Steve Waugh used it to motivate his team at the start of his captaincy, one of the most successful for the baggy green in the modern era. Each and every player went onto the field 'with intent' regardless of how they felt in the moment. Over time that became a psychological advantage for the baggy greens. I would love to see our guys train and then play 'with intent' every game: intent to tackle, intent to chase, intent to compete etc from which real and inferred pressure will (I hope) be created. I've concluded that your field is psychology so take it easy on this mere mortal, amateur who knows only a little about motivation of teams.

One step at a time od. As far as wins go, I'll be looking for 8w/4l or better at the bye!