Game Day 2024 Trade Period

Remove this Banner Ad



Stark set of statistics here.

Finally we appear to be fixing the area that in truth has been a weakness for the entire existence of the club
Christ, that's rough. I'm thinking we're about to experience a seismic 180 on the goal scoring front. It started to turn last year with the emergence of Treacy, but if you include expected growth from experience and same players staying together, plus Bolton adding more than the sum of his parts (genuinely think he's going to free everyone up a bit and we'll see a big overall leap from this), we're going to be keeping the ad execs at 7 very happy.

On SM-G988U1 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Depth for the sake of depth isn't a good thing at all. My best 23 wouldn't have Banfield or Walters in it and they're far superior to Narkle.

If he's behind Simpson as well why the **** should he be on our list.

Draft a younger actual genuine small forward (not a failed midfielder like Narkle) and they can play the 0-5 games Narkle would've played.

He's not in our top 30 players and he isn't even close to that. He spent six months outside the system and has been delisted again for a reason.
I'm no huge fan of the potential signing by any stretch because it's depth that we pretty much know will be depth and we don't need it, but 2 things with noting:
  1. You're underestimating his ability. He'd likely if not near certainly would be top 30, both because of ability and versatility. He played out the season and 3 finals with Port, who yes aren't amazing and had a couple injuries but we're not exactly talking injury crisis. The general Port fan sentiment seems to be "He's no world beater, but I'd rather keep Narkle than get Atkins or keep McEntee."
  2. If it's a 1 year deal, on the balance of probabilities it's better than another late draftee. They spend 2 years on your list, if they're anything better than not complete dogshit you feel obligated to give them another deal, and most of them don't work out. List spots get tight when you don't have multiple players requesting trades every year. With future trades (especially Warner apparently being a buy 1 get 1 free if we get him) and the NGA having good depth, I'd rather get someone we don't feel iffy making the hard call on if/when list spots get tight.
Inevitably, there's gonna be a Nic Martin of this year's draft and someone's gonna have a nice whinge about it. But it looks like our 3rd pick is gonna be quite late and our 2nd pick isn't the earliest either (barring a pick trade). If we missed on the gem/s that would supposedly make us kick ourselves for listing Narkle twice, what makes us think we would've got him the 3rd time?
 
Your opinion on Narkle does seem to have him in the Noah Cumberland tier of potato so I see why you are upset at this idea

He’s just a waste of a list space. It doesn’t make any sense no matter how much people try to justify.

We have 42-44 players on our list depending on number of Category B rookies. You just can’t afford to have players like Brodie and Narkle on your list taking up the space of a talented youngster - That’s on top of two clearly cooked veterans. This ‘premiership window’ isn’t going to last very long if we keep making these decisions. We’re on track to have a gun best 22 with nothing but laughable hacks as depth in 2-3 years.

A good top 30 players with some good youth underneath to challenge them is what is ideal. Maybe throw in some spud talls as genuine last resorts if needed. I don’t see the need for spud smalls. There’s nothing wrong with 5-6 players on our list being developing players nowhere near the best 23 as long as 2-3 or them develop into at least decent depth in the following seasons.
 
He’s just a waste of a list space. It doesn’t make any sense no matter how much people try to justify.

We have 42-44 players on our list depending on number of Category B rookies. You just can’t afford to have players like Brodie and Narkle on your list taking up the space of a talented youngster - That’s on top of two clearly cooked veterans. This ‘premiership window’ isn’t going to last very long if we keep making these decisions. We’re on track to have a gun best 22 with nothing but laughable hacks as depth in 2-3 years.

A good top 30 players with some good youth underneath to challenge them is what is ideal. Maybe throw in some spud talls as genuine last resorts if needed. I don’t see the need for spud smalls. There’s nothing wrong with 5-6 players on our list being developing players nowhere near the best 23 as long as 2-3 or them develop into at least decent depth in the following seasons.
Not actually sure if you're serious here. You need veteran depth on your list. You can't afford to have it full of untried, inexperienced kids. There would be no window at all if our list profile looked like that. For the last 10 years, premiership winning teams have used between 37 and 40 players during that year. You need plug and play depth.
 
Last edited:
Not actually sure if you're serious here. You need veteran depth on your list. You can't afford to have it full of untried, inexperienced kids. There would be no window at all if our list profile looked like that. For the last 10 years, premiership winning teams have used between 37 and 40 players during that year. You need plug and play depth.

By ‘good youth underneath them to challenge them’ I’m referring to guys that’ve been on the list 1-3 years and have already played AFL football.

You’re 100% right that teams use 37-40 players but the amount of players that make a meaningful contribution (i.e. more than 5 games) is closer to 28-30 players. I can’t see Narkle being anywhere near best 22 so I think it’s a waste of time to have him play say three games when that could’ve been Simpson or a draftee from this year.

I might not have written it the best way but I don’t think anything you’ve said is overly inconsistent with my opinion tbh. Do think in hindsight 30 isn’t a great enough number though but I’m still lost at what Narkle provides that this doesn’t have.

FWIW we had 29 players play five or more games this year and 36 play overall.
 
Last edited:
Christ, that's rough. I'm thinking we're about to experience a seismic 180 on the goal scoring front. It started to turn last year with the emergence of Treacy, but if you include expected growth from experience and same players staying together, plus Bolton adding more than the sum of his parts (genuinely think he's going to free everyone up a bit and we'll see a big overall leap from this), we're going to be keeping the ad execs at 7 very happy.

On SM-G988U1 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Yeah it’s brutal.
I think it’s no exaggeration to say on the whole we have been the worst goalscoring team in the AFL over the last 10 or 15 years.
It’s only in the last season or two that I’ve really felt we finally have some natural goalscorers. Amiss, Treacy, Sturt.

They types you don’t even realise it but they are piling on goals week in week out.
Lobb and tabs were there for years and we used to get so excited when they made it to 35 goals a season when they were in their prime.

Meanwhile 36 year old Buddy Franklin would have 55 kicked and everyone would be saying he’s cooked. The likes of Ollie Henry at Geelong would have 40 kicked as a medium forward 21 year old and would be a distant third on their goalkickers list but would probably won our leading goalkicker award with that total for most of the last 10 years.

It’s 2012 I think, since a freo player kicked 50 in a season.
Every other club has had a 50 goal season player in the last 3 years.

Long long overdue, should happen next year if Treacy or amiss play a full season.
 
Imagine if we were able to keep Emmett and get Narkle.

Peel Thunder small forwards would be hard to stop (Walters, Emmett, Narkle)

I mean hey, if Chris Scott had positive things to say about Narkle that's good enough for me.
 
I thought one of the finals Narkle played really well. I would rather add Narkle and Bolton and 2-3 good kids than 4-5 good kids. Seems much more balanced in terms of where we are at.

The mate at the club is underrated. I love that video where we drafted Young and Serong at the same time.

I appreciate Bolton and Narkle are older and maybe it shouldn't matter but if it helps Bolton connect quicker all for it. The 42nd player on our list shouldn't be a major concern.
 
Bombarding the thread sorry. Interesting article from abc on who won 2023 trade period.


For the data nerds this was the graph that interested me a lot. You can see the loss of Schultz and Henry. Was a great predictor of Hawthorn's net trade results.

Fremantle instead looked to next year as they made the best of a difficult situation. Liam Henry, Joel Hamling and Schultz left the club and the Dockers tried to acquire as many 2024 draft picks as they could.

It's a sign that Freo are backing who they already have in house to cover the gap, and that they might rate the 2024 draft depth more than this year's.


1729516652346.png
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Would rather Grainger- Barass tbh.
He can replace Pearce. Don’t back any of the KPDs, even Cox.

Narkle brings such a meh to the squad. It’s a Mates Rates type Rookie

Don’t think he’d be any higher than fifth, maybe even sixth in the KPD pecking order.

The Narkle signing makes sense to me now I know who his manager is. It’s an absolute disgrace.
 
By ‘good youth underneath them to challenge them’ I’m referring to guys that’ve been on the list 1-3 years and have already played AFL football.

You’re 100% right that teams use 37-40 players but the amount of players that make a meaningful contribution (i.e. more than 5 games) is closer to 28-30 players. I can’t see Narkle being anywhere near best 22 so I think it’s a waste of time to have him play say three games when that could’ve been Simpson or a draftee from this year.

I might not have written it the best way but I don’t think anything you’ve said is overly inconsistent with my opinion tbh. Do think in hindsight 30 isn’t a great enough number though but I’m still lost at what Narkle provides that this doesn’t have.

FWIW we had 29 players play five or more games this year and 36 play overall.
We're on the same page then. Typically 28-30 would play more than 5 games in any given premiership year over the last 10 so that's what's important. The odd cameo could also mean the difference but it's more about having a consistent group together. Either way, I think there's room for a stable pony.
 
I'll only be really against it if they keep Emmett. That's less against Emmett and more about having too many mature spuds depth roleplayers. I'll be pretty peeved not taking 3 actual picks in this draft

He’s not really a genuine small forward either. Doesn’t solve the issue everyone is claiming it does even if he was good, which he isn’t.

We need to draft a proper small forward if we delist Emmett and put Narkle on the rookie list. With Emmett instead of Narkle on the list I would’ve been comfortable enough waiting until next year if a small forward was too far from best available with our first two picks.
 
He’s not really a genuine small forward either. Doesn’t solve the issue everyone is claiming it does even if he was good, which he isn’t.

We need to draft a proper small forward if we delist Emmett and put Narkle on the rookie list. With Emmett instead of Narkle on the list I would’ve been comfortable enough waiting until next year if a small forward was too far from best available with our first two picks.
It's the role he's playing though. With the number of small forwards in the draft (including later ones), I'd be pretty bemused if we didnt take one regardless of what we do with Narkle and Emmett
 
Narkle failed a medical??

I don’t see the point myself. Obviously the final nail for Emmett though. Being totally honest Emmett is a long shot due to lack of composure.
I wouldn’t waste my time with either of them. Given how close he is with Bolton and Kozzie it can’t hurt to add a little depth for 12 months.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Game Day 2024 Trade Period

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top