Review 2023 National Draft Review Thread II [McKercher, Z.Duursma, Goad, W.Dawson, Hardeman, Maley]

[Makeshift Park]

They won't need to necessarily exchange their pick 4 for a surplus of points and can instead be quite strategic and potentially look to trade into round 1 in 2024.

The latest reported offer from the Dogs is 10 + 17 + F1. That's already heavily trading into 2024.

 

[DuckYeah]

Just to be clear, it's not so much that I personally think he's overrated, more that it seems like supporters and pundits rate him higher than recruiters. I don't think he'd be in the top 5 conversation if he wasn't the best WA player in a year WCE hold Pick 1.

I think he has the tools to be a ****ing multiple All Aus backman.

 

[roos 10]

The latest reported offer from the Dogs is 10 + 17 + F1. That's already heavily trading into 2024.

We can give them 2 first next year and 14 this year

 

[Wild Bill]

We can give them 2 first next year and 14 this year

We can also not bid on Walters at 2 & 3 which helps them a lot. If the points offered by us and dogs are similar this could be the difference.

 

[Mop]

We can give them 2 first next year and 14 this year

Incorrect my friend, only allowed to trade one future.

 

[roos 10]

Incorrect my friend, only allowed to trade one future.

No mate we have 3 first next year will still have one

 

[The Nostradamus]

Incorrect my friend, only allowed to trade one future.

That’s not correct

We have 3 future firsts next year if we really wanted we could trade all 3

 

[kool kangas]

Incorrect my friend, only allowed to trade one future.

That cant be right as we have the 2 future assistance picks #19 and #20 which we are allowed to use for starters..

 

[LB2Snake]

View attachment 1823008
What’s everyone’s thoughts on this (personally think it’s overs).

No flipping way do we do that deal. Stupid overs for a 1 pick Upgrade and 2 pick downgrade. Insanely stupid of north to do that deal. WC can have 2 and 5 and we keep 3 at worse.

Also, who suggested that deal? I’m so over the media wanting North to cop it in the neck for everybody else. Fk off!!!

 

[JGreezy]

Yeeeah, I'm not sure we would have something.

Why would GC take that instead of the Dogs' offer?

I think we'd be better off keeping 2 and 3 and paying overs for the GC pick ourselves than doing that.

I'm not looking at it from GC perspective, just ours. We'd be trading 2 & 14 for 1, which I'm okay with.

Then we move 3 back to 5. But if we are drafting the same player at either pick (Sanders or Watson?) then I don't mind that move.

 

[The acurate one]

.

View attachment 1823008
What’s everyone’s thoughts on this (personally think it’s overs).

I'd rather keep Magoo and draft Dinkers. **** that shit!!
And I'd probably give up on AFL and follow NRLW. I did enjoy that GF fwiw.

We currently and in no particular order have,

1.Xerri
2.Comben - can't get on the park
3.CCJ - no words
4. Mahony - honest battler
5. Taylor
6. Stephenson
7.Bonars
8.Drury
9.Free
10. Harvey
11.Phillips
12.Tucker
13.Shiels

How many of the above are on our list in 2025? Not farking many is the answer.

Take all of our picks, work hard on getting an additional 3rd top ten pick and tell 'em all to **** off.

 

[justroyal]

That will set us up for rebuild 4.0

 

[Psicosis]

View attachment 1823008
What’s everyone’s thoughts on this (personally think it’s overs).

I think it’s pretty close to what it’ll be - I think we will get something else back from WC (second round this or next).

 

[Passmore]

That will set us up for rebuild 4.0

More instalments than Police Academy.

 

[Psicosis]

If we do slide from 3 to 5, people need to wrap their heads around that we are likely to take Watson at that pick. Whether it’s 3 or 5, doesn’t matter. It’s similar to trading down Pick 1 and taking Sheezel last year.

 

[Mute Point]

Incorrect my friend, only allowed to trade one future.

Care to enlighten us all here as to where you got this information?

 

[Flawed Genius]

If we do slide from 3 to 5, people need to wrap their heads around that we are likely to take Watson at that pick. Whether it’s 3 or 5, doesn’t matter. It’s similar to trading down Pick 1 and taking Sheezel last year.

1 Reid NM
2 Walter GCS
3 McKercher WCE
4 Curtin WCE
5 Duursma HAW
6 Watson NM

?

 

[Farthers]

I think it’s pretty close to what it’ll be - I think we will get something else back from WC (second round this or next).

2,3 and 5 is better than 1, 5 and pick 20 something. I would prefer we just do the GC part of the deal and keep 2 and 3.

 

[Mop]

That’s not correct

We have 3 future firsts next year if we really wanted we could trade all

Care to enlighten us all here as to where you got this information?

No mate we have 3 first next year will still have one

That cant be right as we have the 2 future assistance picks #19 and #20 which we are allowed to use for starters..

???

Admittedly I did forget about the assistance pick which may have different rulings, but I'm basing it on what Port copped last year.


"Under League rules, clubs can trade out a future first-round draft selection but if they do that, must retain the rest of their future selections for that draft. If they trade out a second, third or fourth-round future pick, they must hold their first-rounder for that year."


What am I missing here, good people?

 

[The Nostradamus]

???

Admittedly I did forget about the assistance pick which may have different rulings, but I'm basing it on what Port copped last year.


"Under League rules, clubs can trade out a future first-round draft selection but if they do that, must retain the rest of their future selections for that draft. If they trade out a second, third or fourth-round future pick, they must hold their first-rounder for that year."


What am I missing here, good people?

Rule is you must have at least 2 first rounders over 4 years

Port gave up 2 first rounders for JHF so can’t trade their next 2 years first rounders

Although ironically they are trying to get an exemption to the rule in order to land their trade targets

We can trade heaps of our first rounders as we have used the last 4 years worth firsts

 

[Mop]

Rule is you must have at least 2 first rounders over 4 years

Port gave up 2 first rounders for JHF so can’t trade their next 2 years first rounders

Although they are trying to get an exemption to the rule in order to land their trade targets

We can trade heaps of our first rounders as we have used the last 4 years worth

Personally I reckon if a list wants to go all in, as long as they have any three picks in a draft, let them do what they want.
If Port want to go all in, fair play.


I'll back your knowledge in.


Edit: Here's the passage that backs you up, even if they word it as an "exemption"

Exemptions are allowed in the AFL's rule for clubs using at least two first-round picks in a rolling four-year period if a recruiting target is of a certain age and experience as determined by the League.

 

[The Lone Latic]

AKA "top prospects have literally nothing to gain from participating in the combine".

Nothing to gain and everything to lose if one of the metrics test out poorly

Fwiw, I don't care who we draft so long as we don't overpay if we want Reid and we fill some of our structural needs. I just dont want us doing sonething stupid.

I watch 0 junior footy so can't rate the talent anyway

 

[Psicosis]

1 Reid NM
2 Walter GCS
3 McKercher WCE
4 Curtin WCE
5 Duursma HAW
6 Watson NM

?

Yes, IMO

 

[RHLK]

If we go in with 2 & 3, surely we take our surest bet at #2, and a bigger risk/reward at #3?

Who do you think that might be?

 

[The acurate one]

I think the 2 Future picks should be added to the title . No way we hold them.
We could win 6 games easily and there’d be gone.