Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Both LP1 and my counts each year are definitely inflated by our yearly debates of needs vs best available (I've made progress), the Ling selection (gone backwards) etc etc287. Last year i would have a break for days on end as it just goes around in circles and you really don't miss much . Just have a bit of fun
Now there is a rookie , how high can he getBoth LP1 and my counts each year are definitely inflated by our yearly debates of needs vs best available (I've made progress), the Ling selection (gone backwards) etc etc
Looking forward to Hynes not even being in his Top 60.
Here is a rough mock draft i have currently. Can't wait for LukeParkerno1 to rip it to shreds. Also involves the Rich/NM mock trade 2 for 6 + 18 which i personally think is slight unders but is what it is
2 for 6 and 18 is great value for the Tigers and probably horrific value for North. We all said that 12 and 14 for 3 was horrific value for Eagles yet both those two sets of trades are a "pick value" gain of roughly pick 55/56. No difference between the twoWell least the trade isn’t too horrible for Richmond still don’t think they do it but they might.
Don’t have many issues with yours I’ll post mine tomorrow but we won’t agree on Hynes. Hoping he’s not the selection
2 for 6 and 18 is great value for the Tigers and probably horrific value for North. We all said that 12 and 14 for 3 was horrific value for Eagles yet both those two sets of trades are a "pick value" gain of roughly pick 55/56. No difference between the two
It just isn't.That is why the pick values are changing was an awful deal for the Eagles. 2 for 6&18 is fair
We can work out for points later. Richmond may not want to go all in this yes draft for their rebuild and want players next as well.
It just isn't.
Last year #4 was traded alongside picks in the 40s for 3 late first round picks which in effect when removing the picks in the 40s for the future 1st rounder it boils down to #4 for 10 and 11. Therefore #2 deserves to go for pick 6 and 11
Yeah, I know you were told by someone who was told by KB, what I'm saying to you is the information you gave was easily observable months ago by looking at our list status. It wasn't anything groundbreaking you were dropping.All i was saying is that a boy i know very well was told by KB and not someone on BF , or a so called journo
I sense the club has more faith in McLean, Armatey and Logan than most Swans fans.
Ergo, we won’t select a tall forward.
Like a dog with a bone , at least it's a fact , not BF shitYeah, I know you were told by someone who was told by KB, what I'm saying to you is the information you gave was easily observable months ago by looking at our list status. It wasn't anything groundbreaking you were dropping.
Someone that has had 3 meetings with us ffsYeah, I know you were told by someone who was told by KB, what I'm saying to you is the information you gave was easily observable months ago by looking at our list status. It wasn't anything groundbreaking you were dropping.
No such thing as a swingman , it's a utilitySo, do we all agree?
Swingman, Utility, Flanker, Academy. In that order
Tehehehehe