Number 1 2006 thoughts and opinions?

Remove this Banner Ad

Crow Chick said:
Just a quick comment about the F/S discussion of Gibbs. It's not the number of games that is the issue, the Crows are fine with the 200 games, it's the qualifying time frame that is the problem.

Port - first AFL game in 1997. SANFL F/S qualification period end of season 1996.

Freo - first AFL game in 1995. WAFL F/S qualification period end of season 1994.

West Coast - first AFL game in 1986. WAFL F/S qualification period end of season 1985.

Crows - first AFL game in 1991. SANFL F/S qualification period end of season 1989. (Therefore, games played in the year prior to AFL entry (1990) are not counted in F/S qualification, whereas games played the year before West Coast, Freo and Port's entry are counted).

Hope this clears it up for some of you!:)

But, the Crows put forward that proposal and the AFL agreed. The Crows should have made it more even in terms of yrs, I dont know what they were thinking. In reality, the Crows do not have a leg to stand on and with the other clubs well and truely aware of what the crows are trying to do, I cannot see the AFL changing the rules. The crows needed abit of foresight and tried to change this afew years back when Gibbs wasnt such hot property. Unfortunatly, they just presumed he would be eligible.
 
theorangeapple said:
There is a reason why it is structured like that...to make it fair.

I dont think the crows will have a leg to stand on. Firstly, they put forward this f/s proposal. Secondly, if they had any problems with the criteria it should have been brought up earlier. You cant just wait until you have a gun f/s prospect missing by afew games to say "OHHH hang on, despite having this criteria for over 10yrs, we dont like it now". Maybe if they had realised earlier and tried to have it altered they might have been a chance to change it. As it stands now, the whole AFL is watching the crows very sceptically because they know the Crows are going to try and wiggle and jiggle something.
Those number of games were derived so each club had an equal opportunity to to draft the same number of sons. However, the crows and the AFL have discovered that there are some serious descreptancies in the SANFL stats. In other words the stats used to come up with the 200 SANFL games number are incorrect.

The AFL will most definetly look at the rule and are likely to change it. Whether those changes make Gibbs eligable for us, I am not sure about. However, the rules will be modfield. Its not just for one club as someone has mentioned.

According to the correct stats, there are not as many 200 game former SANFL players as was originally thought and as a result the rules are disadvantaging the SA clubs.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

:::buddy38::: said:
I dont know about 2006 but #1 for 2007 will be Alex Fiore, he is a gun. He probably wont go #1 but he is definetly the best u16player from Eastern Rangers

name's too much Aaron Fiora :D
 
vinnie_vegas69 said:
Carlton aren't eligible either - To get a PP before the first round now, a team has to finish with 16 points or less for two consecutive seasons.

You guys finished with 18 points this year - Remember, it's not 4 wins, it's 16 points.
Vinnie, I never meant to say Carlton were eligible for a PP before the 1st round and I thought the rule changes stated you had to be down below X no. of wins to get any PP.
http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=237543
 
cypher said:
Vinnie, I never meant to say Carlton were eligible for a PP before the 1st round and I thought the rule changes stated you had to be down below X no. of wins to get any PP.
http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=237543
Yes, but to qualify for PPs after the first round, it's only based on winning 4 games or less in one year.

Sydney would get an extra second round pick if they finished on 16 points next year.
 
vinnie_vegas69 said:
Yes, but to qualify for PPs after the first round, it's only based on winning 4 games or less in one year.

Sydney would get an extra second round pick if they finished on 16 points next year.
No ********!

I doubt even we'll manage to sink as low as four wins since we've added depth with Saddington and McLaren.

The Hawks might with their draftess less likely to play than last year's recruits and the exit of their fullback.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If by Daniel Merret you mean ROGER Merret, there was a thread a couple of months ago that went into detail about him.

Pretty much, there was one poster saying he was a potential top player (and that Essendon had him lined up for F/S in 2006), and several other posters saying he wasn't particularly good, and was actually old enough to be drafted THIS year (and not be bottom aged at that).

Which all implied to me he probably isn't good enough to get drafted.
 
1. Gibbs, Bryce (Midfielder with good pace and exdrodinary abillity to find the ball also a beautiful kick, great footy brain)
2. Sellar, James (CHF/Ruck excellent pack mark contester and is always hungry to get the ball)
3. Selwood, Joel (Midfielder/HalfBack reasonable pace but the thing that really stands out is his disposal)
4. Jetta, Leroy (Forward/Midfielder blistering pace, has that magic and has great goal sence)
5. Benjamin, Clinton (Forward/Midfielder his so fast he'll rip ya pants off noes how to find the ball and good work ethic)
6. Hansen Lachlan (Defender/Forward does well under pressure and is versatile good footy brain to)
7. Gumbleton, Scott (Forward is great kick at goal very good with disposal and makes others look good)
8. Thorpe, Mitchell (Forward is a super lead for a mark ast for a CHF and a good sence of goals)
9. Reiwodt, Jack (Forward has great footy brains is consistent is a nice set shot)
10. Reid, Ben (CHB/ Potential Ruck has a great disposal handles pressure and is good in the air)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Number 1 2006 thoughts and opinions?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top