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 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
8 don't understand why we've put work into someone we can't get.
I think he moved up the draft board relatively late. So maybe 2 months ago he would have been around our pick. But also we might have had 13 + 36 in the draft as well if the Houston trade didn't get done.8 don't understand why we've put work into someone we can't get.
Does the "can't trade back the pick" only relate to the specific pick? Once pick matching kicks in, the original picks that started the night as 60/66 will be a different pick number.Aren’t we talking about pick 60/66 from this draft being traded back to Brisbane? What do future drafts have to do with this?
The whole rule was made up to prohibit this type of trade when Sydney did it early on after the points system was introduced. I seriously doubt the AFL would ok us trading back their picks to them just because the trades were made during trade period vs draft night. You need to remember they have to tick off these trades and by the letter of law posted, that’s a no go.
As far as I can tell it still counts as the same pick, regardless of whether or not it moves up the order. Once again if you could trade a pick back in directly from the club you traded it to just because the number changed, it would defeat the purpose of the rule in the first place. Doubt the AFL would let that fly.Does the "can't trade back the pick" only relate to the specific pick? Once pick matching kicks in, the original picks that started the night as 60/66 will be a different pick number.
We're trying to persuade him to get arrested so no one else wants to draft him.8 don't understand why we've put work into someone we can't get.
Who knows with the AFL. I still can't believe they allow clubs to increase picks above list spots once they enter the draft. Totally defeats the purpose of only being able to take in the same number of picks as you have list spots.As far as I can tell it still counts as the same pick, regardless of whether or not it moves up the order. Once again if you could trade a pick back in directly from the club you traded it to just because the number changed, it would defeat the purpose of the rule in the first place. Doubt the AFL would let that fly.
Not fully. The club still needs to find deals to be able to split their pick(s). Not usually difficult, but not nothing either. They are also limited by the rule because they'll only have a small number of picks to trade.Who knows with the AFL. I still can't believe they allow clubs to increase picks above list spots once they enter the draft. Totally defeats the purpose of only being able to take in the same number of picks as you have list spots.
It's not really live trading when you've got a month to line up deals which you do as soon as the draft opens. And they re-rookie blokes they've delisted to create fake list spots anyway. It's still a farce. And frankly with the new dvi, teams will start hiding blokes a bit more. I think Sydney already are.Not fully. The club still needs to find deals to be able to split their pick(s). Not usually difficult, but not nothing either. They are also limited by the rule because they'll only have a small number of picks to trade.
I think the rule mostly makes sense. Without it clubs could stockpile many picks by trading both picks and players. With the rule the capacity for stockpiling is reduced to live trading picks only, bringing it back to something more reasonable.
The matching system itself is kinda crap. Not sure of an alternative. One thing I'd like to see is less academy players, reducing the amount of matching needed.
I think it is potentially a mechanism to ensure that clubs don’t overstock on picks during the trade period ,only to change their mind come draft night and pass up on some of the picks.Will ruin the draft spectacle seeing multiple clubs just pass on picks simply because they changed their mind.Who knows with the AFL. I still can't believe they allow clubs to increase picks above list spots once they enter the draft. Totally defeats the purpose of only being able to take in the same number of picks as you have list spots.
We traded pick 58 for picks 60 66
58 = 170 points
60 + 66 = 226 points (equivalent of pick 54)
Our picks are 52, 55, 60, 66 = 679 points
Not sure if it helps us get up the draft board but that is the info we have.
We might be after GC's pick 51. Otherwise it's hard to see the point
Correct me if i am wrong, but I believe it may have to do with theThe point from our point of view may be …
58 probably now ends up getting used for the Ashcroft bid.
And pick 59 probably gets used by the Swans to pick up their academy prospect Joel Ashcroft. Maybe we intend to force the Swans to match a bid on him and use up that pick?
And all that would mean that pick 58 and pick 60 end up effectively being the same pick. Which would mean that this pick swap means we effectively picked up 66 for nothing.
What I don’t get is what was in it for Brisbane? They’ve just swapped out 226 points and gotten 170 points back. Surely they need all the points they can get for Ashcroft? Unless there is something in the bidding that favours using fewer picks?
They didn't have enough list spots to use #66 as points. In the end they had no use for it.The point from our point of view may be …
58 probably now ends up getting used for the Ashcroft bid.
And pick 59 probably gets used by the Swans to pick up their academy prospect Joel Ashcroft. Maybe we intend to force the Swans to match a bid on him and use up that pick?
And all that would mean that pick 58 and pick 60 end up effectively being the same pick. Which would mean that this pick swap means we effectively picked up 66 for nothing.
What I don’t get is what was in it for Brisbane? They’ve just swapped out 226 points and gotten 170 points back. Surely they need all the points they can get for Ashcroft? Unless there is something in the bidding that favours using fewer picks?
Well this is the year we don't have to worry about having a large draft arsenal to move up the board, just have to be smart.As it stands, Collingwood doesn’t have the stock to trade back up the order this year, considering its lack of a future first round selection and other clubs’ desire to remain in the pool. The Magpies have also committed to re-listing Ash Johnson and Oleg Markov as rookies.
Reckon the Lions have got Ashcroft covered with their first 4 picks - they'll likely trade out 27 and another pick when a pick comes in for Ashcroft, e.g., trade 27 to he Doggies for 35 and 48The point from our point of view may be …
58 probably now ends up getting used for the Ashcroft bid.
And pick 59 probably gets used by the Swans to pick up their academy prospect Joel Ashcroft. Maybe we intend to force the Swans to match a bid on him and use up that pick?
And all that would mean that pick 58 and pick 60 end up effectively being the same pick. Which would mean that this pick swap means we effectively picked up 66 for nothing.
What I don’t get is what was in it for Brisbane? They’ve just swapped out 226 points and gotten 170 points back. Surely they need all the points they can get for Ashcroft? Unless there is something in the bidding that favours using fewer picks?
Northern Knights prospect Gabriel Stumpf lit up the National Draft Combine and presents significant upside in his athletic profile as a ruck-forward.
Likewise, former high-jumper Floyd Burmeister has all the tools to develop into a modern day key position player with his mobility and versatility.
Should a lockdown defender be in mind, West Australian key backs Clancy Dennis
and Darcy Petersen combined well at the National Championships.
Along similar lines, over-age rucks like Aiden Riddle and Lucas Impey held their own at the National Championships. The former’s Claremont teammate Max Rohr also has potential in the same age category, while Northern Bullants high-flyer Will Elliott is not far removed from the pathway either.
Condon would be our target as a Ruck/Forward, agree, looks like we're well off for Forward/RucksAm I the only one salivating at the prospect of us having a ruck combo of Smit and Stumpf?
A lad with a power name of ‘Floyd Burmeister” was surely born to succeed - let’s get him.
Sounds like a Banjo Paterson character, surely that makes him an exciting prospect?
OK from Banjo Paterson to Jane Austin.
Moore, Cameron and Peterson, do we need another Darcy?
Do we really need more rucks?
We already have:
- Cox (on his last legs?)
- Cameron (great form)
- Steene (developing, been injured for a while, now back)
- Smit (new)
- Frampton (stepped up when needed)
- McStay (break in case of emergency)
- Johnson (has done it when needed)
Could we add Kerr as an NGA player to Cat B?I'm looking through this afl draft 2024 booklet and it says you can have 3 cat B rookies.. I always assumed it was two? It was initially three precovid - Didn't realise it got changed back
"
Category B Rookies
In addition to maintaining the maximum number of
allowable players on its Rookie List, each Club may
include a maximum of three extra players on its
Rookie List provided those players are:
a. former International Scholarship List players
at that club who have been nominated; or
b. in the case of a club which is based in Sydney or
Brisbane metropolitan area, a player who satisfies
the Rookie criteria;
c. International players;
d. players who have not been registered or played
in an Australian Football competition for three years;
e. Academy Players;
f. NGA Players."