List Mgmt. 2024 Father Son watch MKIII. Operation Ashcroft jnr. Featuring various academy boys.

[Jivlain]

 

[Miller1971]

Good chunk of those are boys only unfortunately, if not all.

Yep, all single sex schools other than St Peters

So maybe 12 in the Greater Brisbane area. Add another 6 or so for the schools between Caboolture and Bundaberg. And 3 for Ipswich, Gatton and Toowoomba.

There are already plenty of AFL Schools of Excellence, but they just aren't doing as good a job as the likes of Palm Beach and Helensvale.

Park Ridge State High, Woodcrest College (Springfield), Brisbane South Secondary College, Cav Road High and Springwood State High are all Schools of Excellence in the Brisbane area.

There are also a bunch on the Sunny Coast and Gold Coast. Not to mention the AIC system really stepping up and while not being official schools of excellence, they run strong programs. Obviously St Laurences is one, who played PBC in the state final last couple of years both junior and senior. Iona College has former Nt Melbourne player Leigh Harding running their program, Padua and Ashgrove both have connections to Aspley and Wilston Grange with good players in each school exposed to more footy.

2013
Elliot Yeo
Sam Docherty
Billy Longer
Patrick Karnezis
Jared Polec

2014
Joel Patful
Jack Crisp

2015
Jack Redden
James Aish
Matthew Luenberger

2016 & 17
I’ll call it a wash because we traded Hanley for draft picks and let Rockliff walk for compensation pick.
Schache (mental health reasons)

2018
Dayne Beams (he was mentally and physically cooked though)
Sam Mayes (family reasons)



2013 to 2015 set us back 5 years because of the amount of recently drafted players we lost, and the damage to the club’s reputation this period caused.

Some pretty massive outs. I'm in Brisbane, but not a Lions supporter - but they are some huge outs.

If they bring in one of the "mooted" changes.. ie. making the Northern Academies like the NGAs and you can't match a bid on a player in the top 40 why would Northern clubs even bother with Academies, mise well just close them up and hand the Academy keys to the AFL to fund and operate.

Agree. Would just create a stupid cat & mouse game where kids don't get developed or exposed appropriately as clubs would try to hide them.

I don't mind the system changing, but whatever changes they make - clubs should still get first rights over talent from their academy (and F/S) but have to pay a fairer price and plan ahead better.

I hate the idea of capping thigns in a single draft as well. Clubs can't control if 4 generational kids come along in one year (like the Suns last year) they might get 4 in one year and none for the next 5 years. Luck of the draw.

 

[Elixuh]

Lmao, Josh Daicos

7

Josh Daicos

Age

25

Ht

178cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.6

4star

K

8.3

3star

HB

7.3

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.6

5star

CL

1.3

3star

D

16.2

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.5

4star

CL

1.5

4star

D

13.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

1.2

4star

was taken with pick 57 and no one bid on him from memory. He was a spud who was barely draftable in his draft year. Good stuff.

 

[Miller1971]

yes, but getting Nick Daicos for picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 as a Pick4 value seems a bit silly.

The draft index value is silly, nobody would trade Pick 4 for those picks, so it just needs a tidy up.

 

[Elixuh]

yes, but getting Nick Daicos for picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 as a Pick4 value seems a bit silly.

The draft index value is silly, nobody would trade Pick 4 for those picks, so it just needs a tidy up.

It needs a tidy up, but also the AFL either wants a FS rule or it doesn't. It is a complete lucky dip and is only inequitable for GCS and GWS. GCS and GWS are the only clubs who could justifiably complain.

 

[Dalions]

yes, but getting Nick Daicos for picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 as a Pick4 value seems a bit silly.

The draft index value is silly, nobody would trade Pick 4 for those picks, so it just needs a tidy up.

Nick Daicos should have been pick 1.
Was the best player in the draft that year and the silly part is why he wasn’t bid on at pick 1.
Forget the bullshit “we wanted our player to feel like the rightful pick 1” or what ever crap they come up with in their reasoning for not bidding.
They saved Collingwood at a guess probably between 800-1000 points by teams not bidding.

Personally I think the current system is fine but just take away the 20% discount.

Tighten up the nga eligibility and allow them to match bids earlier.

 

[briztoon]

yes, but getting Nick Daicos for picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 as a Pick4 value seems a bit silly.

The draft index value is silly, nobody would trade Pick 4 for those picks, so it just needs a tidy up.

Collingwood actually traded pick 2 for those picks. It was long and convoluted, but Collingwood knew they had a high end father son kid, and would be better off trading their first round pick for extra picks that added up to a higher points value.

Collingwood isn’t the only team to benefit from making such trades. The teams that trade up, recognise it’s better to obtain a high end pick, that keep hold of their lower round picks.

It’s up to teams recruiting staff to identify all opportunities to improve their draft hand. Some teams have been very good at it, others not so.

 

[Tom14]

Collingwood actually traded pick 2 for those picks. It was long and convoluted, but Collingwood knew they had a high end father son kid, and would be better off trading their first round pick for extra picks that added up to a higher points value.

Collingwood isn’t the only team to benefit from making such trades. The teams that trade up, recognise it’s better to obtain a high end pick, that keep hold of their lower round picks.

It’s up to teams recruiting staff to identify all opportunities to improve their draft hand. Some teams have been very good at it, others not so.

Collingwood panicked hard in the 2020 trade period and totally stuffed that trade up - if they'd held onto the pick they could have had Callaghan or whoever and still managed to match a daicos bid with later picks. They didn't even get good value in the trade because they assumed they'd be trading out a pick in the teens.

Rest of your post I agree with.

 

[CarterS]

Nick Daicos should have been pick 1.
Was the best player in the draft that year and the silly part is why he wasn’t bid on at pick 1.
Forget the bullshit “we wanted our player to feel like the rightful pick 1” or what ever crap they come up with in their reasoning for not bidding.
They saved Collingwood at a guess probably between 800-1000 points by teams not bidding.

Personally I think the current system is fine but just take away the 20% discount.

Tighten up the nga eligibility and allow them to match bids earlier.

Replace the word Daicos with Ashcroft (saved less points as he was pick 2 not 4, but still)

 

[CarterS]

yes, but getting Nick Daicos for picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 as a Pick4 value seems a bit silly.

The draft index value is silly, nobody would trade Pick 4 for those picks, so it just needs a tidy up.

agree but is also bad form to change the rules suddenly when teams have been planning based on the rules being a certain way this year. Give a year's notice or something.

 

[Miller1971]

agree but is also bad form to change the rules suddenly when teams have been planning based on the rules being a certain way this year. Give a year's notice or something.

yes, I totally agree. I think it needs fixing, but doing it this year would be absurd.

Though I don't mind seeing the Blues suffer at most opportunities.

 

[Dalions]

Replace the word Daicos with Ashcroft (saved less points as he was pick 2 not 4, but still)

I agree,

 

[bungalow_bill]

yes, I totally agree. I think it needs fixing, but doing it this year would be absurd.

Though I don't mind seeing the Blues suffer at most opportunities.

If only they could just apply the new rules to Carlton this year.

 

[briztoon]

Collingwood panicked hard in the 2020 trade period and totally stuffed that trade up - if they'd held onto the pick they could have had Callaghan or whoever and still managed to match a daicos bid with later picks. They didn't even get good value in the trade because they assumed they'd be trading out a pick in the teens.

Rest of your post I agree with.

I don’t disagree, but how many people forecasted in 2020, that Collingwood would crash and burn, and end up with pick 2?

Did anyone speculate that Collingwood would even miss the finals?


Collingwood weren’t the only team to screw up that trade period, when it came to trading picks.

Pretty sure we were offered Collingwood’s future first round pick for our two late first round picks, instead we opted to trade both picks to Melbourne for their future first round pick.

 

[Elixuh]

Split into groups of six to discuss. Maybe its a social experiment and they're going to tell each of the groups something different to see what they do. Hmmm,

• Brisbane group - told it'll come in next year - "a fine decision AFL"
• Richmond group - told it'll come in this year - throwing faeces at the wall and screaming
• St Kilda group - told its not coming in at all - too busy using crayons on a colouring in book and told the AFL they don't have a draft strategy anyway

 

[CarterS]

Split into groups of six to discuss.

Primary school level stuff here, what sort of operation are they running?

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Those groups of 6 could combine to give 3 different reasons and we're left none the wiser.

Still don't understand how and why, after the debut season of the Tomahawk, did the AFL go through so many hoops and end up having us in a spin.

Plus the introduction of a points system.

If a father-son or academy player comes out and dominates, why should the rules be changed?

It's a long held question I've held.

 

[irel]

One group will get Kane to present
Second group will get Dillon
Third group will get the Work Experience year 10 student. Hope we're in this group, it will be probably the most informative.

 

[Thomasno]

yes, but getting Nick Daicos for picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 as a Pick4 value seems a bit silly.

The draft index value is silly, nobody would trade Pick 4 for those picks, so it just needs a tidy up.

Yes, BUT remember that year Collingwood finished second last, so should have been holding pick #2. I think Moore was taken under old bidding rules as well in the first round with a later first round pick?

I hate to defend them here but really it’s not like they’ve made out like bandits.

 

[briztoon]

Yes, BUT remember that year Collingwood finished second last, so should have been holding pick #2. I think Moore was taken under old bidding rules as well in the first round with a later first round pick?

I hate to defend them here but really it’s not like they’ve made out like bandits.

Moore was taken with pick 9 (edit: according to SEN).

 

[dlanod]

Yes, BUT remember that year Collingwood finished second last, so should have been holding pick #2. I think Moore was taken under old bidding rules as well in the first round with a later first round pick?

I hate to defend them here but really it’s not like they’ve made out like bandits.

Moore was taken with pick 9 (edit: according to SEN).

Yep, it was the old system where you used the next available pick. Same year as Heeney and Andrews:

• Melbourne bid pick two on Isaac Heeney, which the Swans matched with pick 17.

• Western Bulldogs bid pick five on Darcy Moore, which Collingwood matched with pick 8.

• North bid pick 15 on Jack Steele, which GWS matched with pick 23.

• Adelaide bid pick 29 on Billy Stretch, which Melbourne matched with pick 39.

• Richmond bid pick 31 on Liam Dawson, which the Lions matched with pick 41.

• Fremantle bid pick 32 on Jack Hiscox, which Sydney matched with pick 36.

• North Melbourne bid pick 34 on Harris Andrews, which the Lions matched with pick 60.

On an unrelated note, I feel like Jack Hiscox flew under the radar for best AFL names ever.

 

[MSB ROYS]

One group will get Kane to present
Second group will get Dillon
Third group will get the Work Experience year 10 student. Hope we're in this group, it will be probably the most informative.

More likely a team of high paid management consultants from McKinsey than a work experience kid...

 

[briztoon]

Lifted from the Suns board, from a HS article.

As Brisbane and Richmond made clear their objections with any change this season, Gold Coast’s Mark Evans said the league should considering changing tack.

He told the Herald Sun the AFL should abandon restrictions that mean Victorian clubs cannot bid for their next generation academy talent within the first 40 selections of the draft.

At present Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and the Suns can take their northern states academy talent as early as pick 1.

But there are restrictions that mean a club which plays finals can only take two academy picks, with the Suns able to take four last year because they missed finals.

Evans told this masthead the league should instead be incentivising all academy talent after changing its rules when the Dogs secured academy talent Jamarra Ugle as the No.1 overall pick.

“Our view on academies is we think the easier solution (than changing the draft) is for the AFL to widen and improve what it does for access to NGA academies rather than make it more difficult for northern academies. There is a fair argument to treat father sons and NGAs the same,” he said.

“Our primary position is this can be solved by opening up NGA player acquisition rather than diminishing the chances for northern academy players to be drafted to their hometown.

“The whole idea was to incentivise clubs. You have to understand why the academies were there in the first place. The next generation academies are there to promote indigenous and multicultural talent. The northern academies are there to grow the game in those markets and service the players and families to promote a higher level of involvement in the code. We shouldn’t do anything to diminish that.

“There are already protections in terms of the number of players who can be matched as academy talent.”

 

[M Malice]

Split into groups of six to discuss. Maybe its a social experiment and they're going to tell each of the groups something different to see what they do. Hmmm,

• Brisbane group - told it'll come in next year - "a fine decision AFL"
• Richmond group - told it'll come in this year - throwing faeces at the wall and screaming
• St Kilda group - told its not coming in at all - too busy using crayons on a colouring in book and told the AFL they don't have a draft strategy anyway

It is gobsmacking f ing obvious that a change to the system with no notice is ridiculous, why the AFL need 3 round tables to know this is stunning.

What sort of vacuous dunderheads have we got running this game, Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane hang your heads and go to the dunces corner.

 

[Nuggo]

Could be a smart management decision to split up the teams. Split up the Northern teams so they can't form a stance for example.

 

[Dalions]

Could be a smart management decision to split up the teams. Split up the Northern teams so they can't form a stance for example.

4 of us into 3 tables.
Very likely.