Strategy POLL: Who would you take at pick 6 in the 2013 draft?

Who would you take at pick 6 in the 2013 draft?

  • Bontempelli

    Votes: 62 18.9%
  • Kelly

    Votes: 16 4.9%
  • Billings

    Votes: 10 3.0%
  • Kolodjashnij

    Votes: 14 4.3%
  • Aish

    Votes: 74 22.6%
  • Scharenberg

    Votes: 92 28.0%
  • McDonald

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Freeman

    Votes: 6 1.8%
  • Lennon

    Votes: 16 4.9%
  • Sheed

    Votes: 8 2.4%
  • Salem

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • Crouch

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • McCarthy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gardiner

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taylor

    Votes: 5 1.5%
  • Acres

    Votes: 5 1.5%
  • Hartung

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Dunstan

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Battersby

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Other player not mentioned in poll

    Votes: 8 2.4%

  • Total voters
    328

Remove this Banner Ad

How will you feel if we get Adams and pick 6 turns out to be a better player than pick 11?
Yes that's the flip side but I think 3 players 10 11 and Adams is better long term than 6 10 and keeping the troublesome Shaw. How would you feel if Adams goes to Geelong instead by Friday?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yeh we might out draft ourselves with pick 10...... :rolleyes:
What are you on about?
If we'd moved #10 up to #6, then we'd have #6 and #11, with four (arguably three: North excluded) teams picking between our selections.

We didn't. We moved #11 up to #6, giving us #6 and #10, with three teams (arguably two) picking between our selections.

This distinction is important, and the fact that we effectively leapfrogged one of our own selections is irrelevant. If we'd moved from #11 to #9 and kept #10, you could say we'd only really gone up by one (ie. both picks up by one)... but even that's not the case.
 
I lol'd as well. Assuming we have a gentleman's agreement with west coast, it is most definitely only a 2 pick upgrade. However as we clearly weren't planning to use pick 31 I'm quite happy with the trade.

I think this gentlemens agreement bullshit is getting out of hand. Everyone is talking about it like it's fact that we have some sort of agreement with them. I don't really believe we would say that we won't pick player X at both 6 and 10. We might have told them who we are most interested in but no way would we have said to them that we 100% will not draft player X.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I lol'd as well. Assuming we have a gentleman's agreement with west coast, it is most definitely only a 2 pick upgrade. However as we clearly weren't planning to use pick 31 I'm quite happy with the trade.

Sorry mate, but you should be LoLing at yourself. We can't draft the same player twice - pick 10 and 11 are not the same pick.

Let's take North our of the equation.

Therefore we've gone from Pick 9 and 10 to pick 6 and 9.

Now let's assume that drafting is an exact science and all clubs rate kids the same. The guy we draft at pick 9 won't change, what will change is that draft pick 10 now becomes draft pick 6. Thus the change is instead of getting the 10th highest rated palyer, we get the 6th highest rated player.
 
Judging by the poll so far there is a clear top 3 add Boyd and it's a clear top 4 picks. Why do we want to upgrade to pick 6 again?
Why? Due to the fact the guy we pick up at 6 might be picked up by WCE, Brisbane or Melbourne instead and could be the difference between a flag or runners-up in the future.

Just because it is "even" from 5 to 11 in your eyes doesn't mean those players will actually turn out the same going forward. Some will definitely turn out better the others, so you might as well have first crack at it instead of being handed whatever is left over.
 
I think this gentlemens agreement bullshit is getting out of hand. Everyone is talking about it like it's fact that we have some sort of agreement with them. I don't really believe we would say that we won't pick player X at both 6 and 10. We might have told them who we are most interested in but no way would we have said to them that we 100% will not draft player X.
Yeah I agree I can't see us saying we won't get a player of we think he'll be the bet choice at our pick 6 or 10. In that case it's a 3 pick upgrade
 
I think this gentlemens agreement bullshit is getting out of hand. Everyone is talking about it like it's fact that we have some sort of agreement with them. I don't really believe we would say that we won't pick player X at both 6 and 10. We might have told them who we are most interested in but no way would we have said to them that we 100% will not draft player X.

This "agreement" business sounds dodgy to me too. Not discounting it but it seems like speculation at this point. The problem with it that I see is that we don't know how the other picks will go, so if we miss out on 2 or 3 of our top prospects and Sheed suddenly becomes the obvious choice at 10, we've either handicapped ourselves or we "betray" West Coast. I suppose it's a possibility only if Hine doesn't rate Sheed at all, or has ruled him out entirely for some other reason.
 
Why? Due to the fact the guy we pick up at 6 might be picked up by WCE, Brisbane or Melbourne instead and could be the difference between a flag or runners-up in the future.

Just because it is "even" from 5 to 11 in your eyes doesn't mean those players will actually turn out the same going forward. Some will definitely turn out better the others, so you might as well have first crack at it instead of being handed whatever is left over.

I'd also add that just because the media and bigfooty see it as even between 2 and 15 or so, that doesn't mean that the club does. Herd mentality is herd.
 
I think this gentlemens agreement bullshit is getting out of hand. Everyone is talking about it like it's fact that we have some sort of agreement with them. I don't really believe we would say that we won't pick player X at both 6 and 10. We might have told them who we are most interested in but no way would we have said to them that we 100% will not draft player X.
Getting pick 6 and jumping a couple of spots is worth a "handshake".
 
Shaw and 31 would get Adams. I'll be angry if we don't get Adams for the sake of moving up 2 positions in the draft.
Could you stop saying 2 positions, when its actually 3.
If we didnt have 6 WC would use it so really that is WC, Brisbane and Melb we jump ahead of.
 
Another way of looking at it - say all the clubs in this draft rate the same 15 players as real standouts

At pick 6 - 5 are gone, leaves 10 to choose from

At pick 10 - 9 are gone , leaves 6 to choose from

At pick 11 - 10 are gone , leaves 5 to choose from

Pick 11 to pick 6 would potentially give us an extra 5 players in the pool of who we rate to choose from-well worth while.
 
If we'd moved #10 up to #6, then we'd have #6 and #11, with four (arguably three: North excluded) teams picking between our selections.

We didn't. We moved #11 up to #6, giving us #6 and #10, with three teams (arguably two) picking between our selections.

This distinction is important, and the fact that we effectively leapfrogged one of our own selections is irrelevant. If we'd moved from #11 to #9 and kept #10, you could say we'd only really gone up by one (ie. both picks up by one)... but even that's not the case.
10 isn't moving and never was.
We are moving from 11 to 6.
6 replaces West Coast thats 1.
7 is Brisbane thats 2.
8 is locked with North Melbourne regardless.
9 is Melbourne thats 3.
10 is US again.
We are moving up 3 live selections.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy POLL: Who would you take at pick 6 in the 2013 draft?

Back
Top