If we get Gore at #52 - iLL KISS fj'S lEFT NuT
As flattered as he would be I don't think he'll hold you to it...
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 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
If we get Gore at #52 - iLL KISS fj'S lEFT NuT
Yep agree, he will also slot in quickly which rightly or wrongly I think is a priority for the club. Could easily play round 1 as a competitive rebounding defender with damaging disposal. Could see him cementing a spot before Lennon through better competitiveness. I think he already has Houli's and Griggs measure. I'm sold he will be a player, no doubt, its just a question of his ceiling.I'm sold on Corey Ells. Don't really care much about his pace. If he can average 22 disposals and 5 clearances and can damage oppositions with his ball use and decision making i'm sold. In addition to that he can play any role.
If they do select Weller they will have played a very good game of poker. Seems they are not talking up Weller to the media, id love someone to ask the likes of Cal T "What makes you not link Weller to the tiges?" Or "seems the word is stronger for Ellis than Weller is that what you are hearing?Honestly think we will take weller if he is there at 12. I rkn ellis is backup. Maybe the club feels weller wont be there when its our turn to pick. Therefore would want to invest heavily into ellis. Knowing duggan most likely gone aswell
yeah apparently us and Collingwood were most interested. I know we were super keen on him a couple months back. Its going to be very interesting if its our pick and he is still there.If they do select Weller they will have played a very good game of poker. Seems they are not talking up Weller to the media, id love someone to ask the likes of Cal T "What makes you not link Weller to the tiges?" Or "seems the word is stronger for Ellis than Weller is that what you are hearing?
Yep agree, he will also slot in quickly which rightly or wrongly I think is a priority for the club. Could easily play round 1 as a competitive rebounding defender with damaging disposal. Could see him cementing a spot before Lennon through better competitiveness. I think he already has Houli's and Griggs measure. I'm sold he will be a player, no doubt, its just a question of his ceiling.
Its hard to understand why we might overlook Weller at 12, as he does look to be a game breaker with possibly more upside. Maybe they see Ellis as safer and would contribute more quickly? Maybe Ellis has the edge in coachability? Dimmer will be coaching for his job over the next 1-2 years, and as a supporter I want short term improvement as well.
I have started to look on Weller more favourably of late, particularly when I heard the speculation surrounding Scott Selwood. Under this scenario the sublime pace and skills of Weller would be the better compliment.
I think Wright, Lever and Durdin should be taken if you were strictly looking at best available. But the dimension that blurs debate is time. Best available for when and for how long will you get the peak? If the club is looking for a short term injection of quality a midfielder is the go.
Get off your high horse, you're delusional (not an opinion, a fact).That's a solid case why a number of people may well face the sack within 24 months particularly in the list management area. Not only about ignoring quality but misunderstanding list needs and where the group is at with respect to windows and so forth!
Get off your high horse, you're delusional (not an opinion, a fact).
Ynote e assuming we rate Ellis higher than Weller. You're assuming that if we did, there is no good reason to rate him higher. Your opinion over professionals who watch hundreds of hours of footage and rank them very specifically.
I am not assuming anything.
I am predicting a few things based on current list assessments.
Heppell has had a more accomplished career than Conca atm. It is difficult to argue Heppell was not rated higher at draft time.
Some are getting paid good money to make professional decisions on behalf of players and fans who have invested a lot of time over the years.
If the required level of professionalism is not being met to stakeholders clearly it is their entitlement as for any investors to take action.
Stakeholders are looking for precision not window dressing and if what is required is an art any science proposals will likely fall on deaf ears!
You know who was rated higher at draft time in 2004 then Roughead and Griffen as a general consensus Richard Tambling.
In 2005 Xavier Ellis was rated higher then Scott Pendlebury
in 2006 Bryce Gibbs (and a few others) were rated higher then Joel Selwood and Gumbleton, Thorpe and Hansen were rated better KPP prospects then Riewoldt
in 2007 Cale Morton, Reece Palmer and Chris Masten all rated as superior prospects to Patrick Dangerfield.
in 2008 Jack Watts was the considered the top prospect in the field.
in 2009 Scully was considered better then Martin and Cunnington. Butcher was the best KPF prospect way ahead of Jake Carlisle
ect. ect. ect.
Yes some people are getting paid well to make decisions but these are not decisions based in 100% certainties more like about 30%. If drafting were an exact science then the best players would always go at number 1 and the worst wouldn't even have been drafted (in fact their would be lucky to be 30 players taken every year). And then i wouldn't have to read every other post about why we didn't pick up such and such a player who was taken 12 spots after our pick and turned into a star.
Only have to look at America to see how many draft busts still occur in the first rounds to see that no matter how much time, money and research is done nothing can be taken for granted in an assessment of Human talent and determination. All you gooses should go watch Gattaca again.
You know who was rated higher at draft time in 2004 then Roughead and Griffen as a general consensus Richard Tambling.
In 2005 Xavier Ellis was rated higher then Scott Pendlebury
in 2006 Bryce Gibbs (and a few others) were rated higher then Joel Selwood and Gumbleton, Thorpe and Hansen were rated better KPP prospects then Riewoldt
in 2007 Cale Morton, Reece Palmer and Chris Masten all rated as superior prospects to Patrick Dangerfield.
in 2008 Jack Watts was the considered the top prospect in the field.
in 2009 Scully was considered better then Martin and Cunnington. Butcher was the best KPF prospect way ahead of Jake Carlisle
ect. ect. ect.
Yes some people are getting paid well to make decisions but these are not decisions based in 100% certainties more like about 30%. If drafting were an exact science then the best players would always go at number 1 and the worst wouldn't even have been drafted (in fact their would be lucky to be 30 players taken every year). And then i wouldn't have to read every other post about why we didn't pick up such and such a player who was taken 12 spots after our pick and turned into a star.
Only have to look at America to see how many draft busts still occur in the first rounds to see that no matter how much time, money and research is done nothing can be taken for granted in an assessment of Human talent and determination. All you gooses should go watch Gattaca again.
That's happens quite a bit.Didn't win his teams best and fairest funnily enough.
Selwood was not rated as low by some, Franklin was not rated as low by some, Tambling and Scully where not rated as high by some.
If it is so inexact how do these gurus command high salaries?
I hate to break it to you, but you don't represent all stakeholders, as the vast majority of stakeholders believe the required level of professionalism is being met.I am not assuming anything.
I am predicting a few things based on current list assessments.
Heppell has had a more accomplished career than Conca atm. It is difficult to argue Heppell was not rated higher at draft time.
Some are getting paid good money to make professional decisions on behalf of players and fans who have invested a lot of time over the years.
If the required level of professionalism is not being met to stakeholders clearly it is their entitlement as for any investors to take action.
Stakeholders are looking for precision not window dressing and if what is required is an art any science proposals will likely fall on deaf ears!
Likewise those rating Tambling ahead of Franklin and Rough head clearly should not be in highly responsible positions atm and possibly even Griffen.
And the same could be said about Heppell. Some didn't rate him as high others did.
Seriously you're trying to use my own point against me?? You actually remind me of this video from about 4:20 mark
I'm sure if you think about it you'll figure it out. But i'll give you a small clue clubs are willing to spend millions of dollars for the smallest of advantages.
I hate to break it to you, but you don't represent all stakeholders, as the vast majority of stakeholders believe the required level of professionalism is being met.
Also...a prediction 'based on [your] current list assessment' is an assumption. Any general statement, like every one you've made so far, requires assumptions to be made (I.e stereotypes).
You should try grounding yourself in unbiased fact every now and then, rather than the 'magic' (read: delusion), it might rebut the assumption I make whenever I see one of your posts.
I think Cal Twomey mostly talks out of his *** or gets his draft movements from big footy. Recruiters would have known after tac cup finals who they were taking and all this talk of players moving is rubbish imo.
I think each individual recruiter would know who they want. Then they have to sit down and agree on an order.I think Cal Twomey mostly talks out of his *** or gets his draft movements from big footy. Recruiters would have known after tac cup finals who they were taking and all this talk of players moving is rubbish imo.