Which podcast?Yep GC have egg on their faces. I thought Ryan Daniels covered it well in his podcast.
I still can’t believe they dug their heels in and declined the North F3. Whatevs
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.
Which podcast?Yep GC have egg on their faces. I thought Ryan Daniels covered it well in his podcast.
I still can’t believe they dug their heels in and declined the North F3. Whatevs
The podcast (hardball gets) he does through the West and they did one in the aftermath of the trade period.Which podcast?
I wonder if it was part of the Logue deal but we wanted to do it later so Melbourne wouldn’t ask for it? Or if it was so it looked better for North from a PR point of view & no one even notices this one sided trade weeks later.I think we might have that pick. I think you're also right that we don't really have much of value to trade at this point. I'm surprised we were able to swap a future 4th for a pick in the 40s.
Not sure why, but Lemmey is giving me vibes of being a BF favourite bargain on most club boards but will probably get passed a lot and might even go undrafted. Seems to happen every year to somebody & I still want him too.I still really like Lemmey at our first pick. Seems a natural footballer in his highlights, genuinely tries to influence the game without ballin hand and has great skills for a big man.
I wonder if it was part of the Logue deal but we wanted to do it later so Melbourne wouldn’t ask for it? Or if it was so it looked better for North from a PR point of view & no one even notices this one sided trade weeks later.
There is a reported pick swap to happen as soon as the draft starts where Brisbane end up getting pick 40 from North.I have a feeling that we might be a back up option to the Bombers if Davey gets a bid before their pick 24ish. Long shot, but good to be ready. If we swap 39 and 40 for Essendons (24ish) then can we upgrade Shultz, an NGA kid as our last pick, as will have an extra pick the remaining 2 NGA’s as Cat B? Not sure if possible but any draft gurus could help me out if this logic works?
You’re right, if we want to snag Essendon’s pick 22(24) after fletcher and Ashcroft bid match it will cost us 30 (32) and 44 (41). Leaving us 43 (40). We’d need to have someone we really like still in the board when the Bid for Davey comes to pull the trigger on that trade.There is a reported pick swap to happen as soon as the draft starts where Brisbane end up getting pick 40 from North.
The five picks 34,35,36,38,40 provides enough points for pick 1 and to get pick 68 at the back end. They will go into points deficit - prob around 300-400 points for Jasper Fletcher who is prob around late teens.
Davy is right on the cusp of going close to 22. I would expect they trade with a club to drop a few places but get another pick. Our pick 30 which will be 32 is not enough alone to match bid at 20. Pick 26 would give enough points to match 20, so a deal like 23 > 27 and 3rd round pick.
Our picks 43,44 will move up to 39,40 but then after Jasper Fletcher move back to 40,41. Those two picks are equivalent to pick 23 so essentially no point.
I think if a club wants to move up 3-5 spots and give up a third round pick in the process then that is a chance or Essendon could pocket a F3 for their trouble. But 23 > 40,41 won’t be on Essendon’s radar.
Why would essendon trade pick 24 for two worse picks 32 and 41? They can't match the bid so they just downgrading picks at that point.You’re right, if we want to snag Essendon’s pick 22(24) after fletcher and Ashcroft bid match it will cost us 30 (32) and 44 (41). Leaving us 43 (40). We’d need to have someone we really like still in the board when the Bid for Davey comes to pull the trigger on that trade.
Why would essendon trade pick 24 for two worse picks 32 and 41? They can't match the bid so they just downgrading picks at that point.
The podcast (hardball gets) he does through the West and they did one in the aftermath of the trade period.
There will be a heap of interest in trading in future picks in the third round. Next year's draft has a heap of Academy and Father Son prospects. We can't trade the North 2nd without bringing in another second rounder in the trade. We can trade the North 3rd rounder or Carlton 3rd rounder and one of our 4th rounder. So if we used the pick 30 and one or two futures pick we could move up the draft quite a bit if there was a player we rated very highly that slipped.Don’t we have Norths F4??
In the trade we did with North for Logue/Tucker.
We gave up our own F3 for North F4.
My understanding is we have
F2 (North), F3 (North), F3 (Carlton), F4 (North)
Therefore we can trade F3. I’d be offering the Carlton one up for an upgrade but I doubt anyone will show any interest.
That was the point I was trying to make.They can match that bid, father sons are fine there.
If the bid comes close enough that it would just consume that very early second then trading the pick for points to cover the bid and something else is a great deal for them.
That was the point I was trying to make.
A pick that will match the bid number after discount and a club to pay a price for moving up the draft list a few spots. Port paid a second to move up up a few spots in the first round. Personally because Essendon don’t have great bargaining power and it is the second round the best outcome personally would be securing a decent F3 or current third.
Collingwood, Hawks and West Coast who will have picks around 26-28 come to mind if they want to secure a player and move up a couple of spots. Our pick 32 or combination of 40/41 won’t cut the mustard.
We may have a fiddle around with our late picks. Bell likes a late bargain. Some of the clubs matching bids will have a bunch of picks late in the draft and may have some interest in moving up some spots. Our pick 67 by the time the fourth round starts is a good chance to be late 50’s. Someone might buy for a F4 and we have the very late current 4th up our sleeve to match any late academy bids.
I think we have done our bit and will go to draft with our early thirty and two early 40’s picks.
There is a lot to like about having two in a row and right at the start of 40’s. Ensures we get the two picks in before any academy bids. I honestly can’t see any of our academy boys going between 1-40, then we have two picks and what happens thereafter is in our hands
Interesting that 31-40 is regularly under performing.A bit of useless trivia, or not so, to pass the time. Looking at success and longevity of pick selection. There may be a few errors but pretty close.
I'm not so adverse to us using our picks on good prospects that may take a little longer to develop rather than trying to trade further up the order. Trading several picks to get to an earlier pick does'nt necessarily stack up given these stats (chances given up for a single greater chance).
What was it about the 2013 crop that have been so successful, 33 out of 80 have played over 110 games
150 games or more since selection in 2010 draft
1-10 =8 (2 at 148)
11-20=4
21-30=5
31-40=2
41-50=1
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2011 130 games +
1-10 =5
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=1 (L Neale)
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2012 120 games
1-10 =8
11-20=2
21-30=2
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70
2013 110 games
1-10 =6
11-20=5
21-30=9
31-40=2
41-50=3
51-60=4
61-70 =2 (Karl Amon pick 68 Taberner pick 70)
71-80=2
2014 =100 games
1-10 =5
11-20=5
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70=3
2015 85 games
1-10 =6
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=0
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =2
2016 70 games
1-10 =6
11-20=7
21-30=7
31-40=4
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =1
71-80=2
Sounds like a plasible theory. Every now and then you get one like Warner who turns into an absolute gun from pick 39.Interesting that 31-40 is regularly under performing.
"Slider" territory maybe.
Do you think the relative “success” of picks in the 51+ categories is because teams go for slightly older “fills a need” players in that range rather than speculative potential? We certainly have with the likes of Ryan, Schultz, Bewley and Frederick recently.A bit of useless trivia, or not so, to pass the time. Looking at success and longevity of pick selection. There may be a few errors but pretty close.
I'm not so adverse to us using our picks on good prospects that may take a little longer to develop rather than trying to trade further up the order. Trading several picks to get to an earlier pick does'nt necessarily stack up given these stats (chances given up for a single greater chance).
What was it about the 2013 crop that have been so successful, 33 out of 80 have played over 110 games
150 games or more since selection in 2010 draft
1-10 =8 (2 at 148)
11-20=4
21-30=5
31-40=2
41-50=1
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2011 130 games +
1-10 =5
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=1 (L Neale)
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2012 120 games
1-10 =8
11-20=2
21-30=2
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70
2013 110 games
1-10 =6
11-20=5
21-30=9
31-40=2
41-50=3
51-60=4
61-70 =2 (Karl Amon pick 68 Taberner pick 70)
71-80=2
2014 =100 games
1-10 =5
11-20=5
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70=3
2015 85 games
1-10 =6
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=0
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =2
2016 70 games
1-10 =6
11-20=7
21-30=7
31-40=4
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =1
71-80=2
Do you think the relative “success” of picks in the 51+ categories is because teams go for slightly older “fills a need” players in that range rather than speculative potential? We certainly have with the likes of Ryan, Schultz, Bewley and Frederick recently.
Considering there looks likely to be a quite a few academy and father/son prospects going in the first round next year the Bulldogs only have to finish in the top six for there to only be around 6 positions draft difference between the pick we take this year and the Bulldogs pick traded to Hawthorn that's used in 2023 as a result of our trade with Hawthorn.I read that pick 43 will come into 40 after F/S & Academy bids.
It improves the Jaeger trade pretty much:
In: Jaeger & pick 40
Out: Meek & F2 (Western Bulldogs)
Do you think the relative “success” of picks in the 51+ categories is because teams go for slightly older “fills a need” players in that range rather than speculative potential? We certainly have with the likes of Ryan, Schultz, Bewley and Frederick recently.
Did you remove all the rookie upgrades and 2nd round on academy picks? If not it'll artificially make 3rd, 4th and later picks look more attractive.A bit of useless trivia, or not so, to pass the time. Looking at success and longevity of pick selection. There may be a few errors but pretty close.
I'm not so adverse to us using our picks on good prospects that may take a little longer to develop rather than trying to trade further up the order. Trading several picks to get to an earlier pick does'nt necessarily stack up given these stats (chances given up for a single greater chance).
What was it about the 2013 crop that have been so successful, 33 out of 80 have played over 110 games
150 games or more since selection in 2010 draft
1-10 =8 (2 at 148)
11-20=4
21-30=5
31-40=2
41-50=1
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2011 130 games +
1-10 =5
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=1 (L Neale)
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2012 120 games
1-10 =8
11-20=2
21-30=2
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70
2013 110 games
1-10 =6
11-20=5
21-30=9
31-40=2
41-50=3
51-60=4
61-70 =2 (Karl Amon pick 68 Taberner pick 70)
71-80=2
2014 =100 games
1-10 =5
11-20=5
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70=3
2015 85 games
1-10 =6
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=0
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =2
2016 70 games
1-10 =6
11-20=7
21-30=7
31-40=4
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =1
71-80=2
Upgrade Shultz??? Cant be doneI have a feeling that we might be a back up option to the Bombers if Davey gets a bid before their pick 24ish. Long shot, but good to be ready. If we swap 39 and 40 for Essendons (24ish) then can we upgrade Shultz, an NGA kid as our last pick, as will have an extra pick the remaining 2 NGA’s as Cat B? Not sure if possible but any draft gurus could help me out if this logic works?
Don’t forget several of those early drafts were compromised. Especially 2011 and 2012. Players like o’meara, hogan, jezza cameron, Treloar, Jack Martin, Brad crouch, Dylan Shiel, Jamie Elliott and a few others should have been in the top 10 of those drafts but were made available to GWS and GC in various ways that diluted the pool for everyone else.A bit of useless trivia, or not so, to pass the time. Looking at success and longevity of pick selection. There may be a few errors but pretty close.
I'm not so adverse to us using our picks on good prospects that may take a little longer to develop rather than trying to trade further up the order. Trading several picks to get to an earlier pick does'nt necessarily stack up given these stats (chances given up for a single greater chance).
What was it about the 2013 crop that have been so successful, 33 out of 80 have played over 110 games
150 games or more since selection in 2010 draft
1-10 =8 (2 at 148)
11-20=4
21-30=5
31-40=2
41-50=1
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2011 130 games +
1-10 =5
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=1 (L Neale)
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2012 120 games
1-10 =8
11-20=2
21-30=2
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70
2013 110 games
1-10 =6
11-20=5
21-30=9
31-40=2
41-50=3
51-60=4
61-70 =2 (Karl Amon pick 68 Taberner pick 70)
71-80=2
2014 =100 games
1-10 =5
11-20=5
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70=3
2015 85 games
1-10 =6
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=0
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =2
2016 70 games
1-10 =6
11-20=7
21-30=7
31-40=4
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =1
71-80=2
Do you think the relative “success” of picks in the 51+ categories is because teams go for slightly older “fills a need” players in that range rather than speculative potential? We certainly have with the likes of Ryan, Schultz, Bewley and Frederick recently.