if we did this then every club would start. and tanking is bad enough, but getting players to do this is just plain wrong.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Tank?
- Thread starter TimeFor11
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Barnzy
Premium Platinum
WCE are already considering packing away Cox and Kerr for the rest of the season. Some clubs just make it as plain as day. I guarantee you that they won't be called WestTank anytime in the future but they sure will reap the rewards as a club down the track.
Players are NOT allowed to do that. It is called draft tampering and they can be banned for years by the AFL.
Players coming out of contract can nominate preferred teams but that is different and applies to the preseason draft and not the National draft.
2001 Draft
Pick 8: Jimmy Bartel
and for those who still don't get it
2000 Draft
Pick 12: Shaun Burgoyne
2000 Draft
Pick 18: Daniel Kerr
2001 Draft
Pick 13: Nick Del Santo
2001 Draft
Pick 37: Leigh Montagna
2002 Draft:
Pick 7: Andrew Mackie
2003 Draft:
Pick 73: Shane Tuck
Pick 8: Jimmy Bartel
and for those who still don't get it
2000 Draft
Pick 12: Shaun Burgoyne
2000 Draft
Pick 18: Daniel Kerr
2001 Draft
Pick 13: Nick Del Santo
2001 Draft
Pick 37: Leigh Montagna
2002 Draft:
Pick 7: Andrew Mackie
2003 Draft:
Pick 73: Shane Tuck
burraboy_15
Rookie
this is the last chance to get top draft picks.
i wouldn't mind tanking the rest of the season.
i wouldn't mind tanking the rest of the season.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25449974-5012432,00.html
The better your pick the better your chances of picking AFL grade talent. Yes there are examples of good players taken a bit later but they are the exception rather than the rule. It is important to also understand how recruitment resources have changed over the last 5 years, including at the RFC. Clubs realise the source of success is the draft, and they have invested more and more resources to unearth good players. To suggest that cattle does not win premierships is living in la la land. Sure they need the development, coaching, facities and other resources, but at the end of the day talent is what separates the Geelong's from the Collingwood's.
The season is shot we have no chance at making finals, and with the huge draft concessions the gold coast will be getting, the club has to get the very best picks possible and this includes a priority pick minimum. It means trading players for more picks to maximise our chances of finding AFL quality players. Beating sides that have put the cues in the rack do nothing to develop a side, they simply enshrine mediocrity, this is what Richmond have done for so long to our detriment. Finishing 9th is simply the worst possible outcome for a club and we have done it again and again. If we tanked last year we would have Jack Watts and Daniel Rich at our club, if we didn't tank in 2007 we would not have Trent Cotchin at our club. These are the players, the blue chip players that separate the pretenders from the champions.
The better your pick the better your chances of picking AFL grade talent. Yes there are examples of good players taken a bit later but they are the exception rather than the rule. It is important to also understand how recruitment resources have changed over the last 5 years, including at the RFC. Clubs realise the source of success is the draft, and they have invested more and more resources to unearth good players. To suggest that cattle does not win premierships is living in la la land. Sure they need the development, coaching, facities and other resources, but at the end of the day talent is what separates the Geelong's from the Collingwood's.
The season is shot we have no chance at making finals, and with the huge draft concessions the gold coast will be getting, the club has to get the very best picks possible and this includes a priority pick minimum. It means trading players for more picks to maximise our chances of finding AFL quality players. Beating sides that have put the cues in the rack do nothing to develop a side, they simply enshrine mediocrity, this is what Richmond have done for so long to our detriment. Finishing 9th is simply the worst possible outcome for a club and we have done it again and again. If we tanked last year we would have Jack Watts and Daniel Rich at our club, if we didn't tank in 2007 we would not have Trent Cotchin at our club. These are the players, the blue chip players that separate the pretenders from the champions.
tugga
Hall of Famer
- May 9, 2006
- 35,855
- 71,710
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tottenham,NY Rangers,Red Sox, SA Spurs
I will be filthy if we win two more games for the year. Lose to North, Melbourne and West Coast please.
burraboy_15
Rookie
happens very rarely.
and when it does it is a player who should be drafted higher but isn't the right fit to a team. if a team needs big players, they pick up a big player.
plus this season doesn't matter anymore, i think go for the early picks!
If you are going to pick an exception to the rule, actually use a good one. 2001 AFL draft: Luke Hodge = pick 1, Chris Judd = pick 3.
You are selling your soul for a pottential star or dud.
Are you unhappy with Vickery this year? We finished 9th and got him.
I suppose if we tank and end up 15th and melbourne 16th you (and many others) will slag them off for tanking in a year or two because they got pick 1&2
Check and Mate. The game is over non-tankers. Anyone who disagrees with Beave on this one is deluded.
What the hell are you talking about? Your logic is so so flawed. Just because we get one lousy pick at 17, 18 or 19 doesn't mean anything. We've had plenty of better picks in the past and what good has it done us? Given the top 5 picks this year will offer something anyway, it will depend more on how we nurture and develop all of our picks infinitely more than if we get pick 3 instead of 4 and one extra pick before the second round.
This is exactly the mentality that will keep us down the bottom forever. Put the resources into good coaching and development as well as having state of the art physical conditioning and we will zoom up the ladder.
I cannot believe that people can think that one extra pick at the end of the first round is going to make all the difference in the world. As I have said previously, with that logic we should have won the last two flags as we had a whole 5 choices in the top 20 in 2004. Look at where it has got us instead.
I've already lost one of my kids (a 7yo) from the Tigers and the other one is hanging on more out of loyalty to me than the team. If we keep losing I'm not sure how much more she would take. So from my selfish point of view I'd like to see us start winning a few games.
But the fact that King and White started in the middle at the opening bounce showed the club aren't overly concerned about winning. And the fact that we couldn't beat a very ordinary Carlton side should give the pro-tankers hope that we won't win too many more games. Although we do have some games coming up against some very poor teams in the next few weeks.
But the fact that King and White started in the middle at the opening bounce showed the club aren't overly concerned about winning. And the fact that we couldn't beat a very ordinary Carlton side should give the pro-tankers hope that we won't win too many more games. Although we do have some games coming up against some very poor teams in the next few weeks.
Our recruitment resources in 2004 were pathetic compared to what they are now. They still need to improve though. That is one draft and one draft where we stuffed up, so instead of picking more kids what we did was take the minimum amount 3 out of the last 5 drafts and trade picks for players. Given the state of our list in 2004 we needed a full on rebuild of 5 years taking 5 kids minimum a year, but we did not, we did a half arsed rebuild and now we are back to where we started.
2001 is widely regarded as one of the best drafts of the last decade. The 2009 draft is one of the least regarded of the last decade. Guess which one will be harder to find good players in?
2000 draft:
1- Riewoldt
2- Koschitzke
3- Didak
4- Luke Livingston
5- Andrew McDougall
6- Dylan Smith
7- Laurence Angwin
2001:
1- Hodge
2- Ball
3- Judd
4- Polak
5- X.Clarke
6- Sampi
7- Hale
2002:
1- Goddard
2- Wells
3- Jared Brennan
4- Tim Walsh
5- J.McVeigh
6- Salopek
7- Mackie
8- Luke Brennan
2003:
1- Cooney
2- Walker
3- Sylvia
4- Ray
5- Mclean
6- K.Bradley
7- Tenace
2004:
1- Deledio
2- Roughead
3- Griffen
4- Tambling
5- Franklin
6- Williams
7- Lewis
8- Meesen
9- Russell
10- Egan
11- Thomilf
12- Meyer
2005:
1- Murphy
2- Thomas
3- Ellis
4- Kennedy
5- Pendlebury
6- Dowler
7- Ryder
8- JON
2006:
1- Gibbs
2- Gumbleton
3- Hansen
4- Leuenberger
5- Boak
6- Thorp
7- Selwood
8- Ben Reid
2007:
1- Kreuzer
2- Cotchin
3- Masten
4- Morton
5- Grant
6- Myers
7- Palmer
8- Henderson
2008:
1- Watts
2- Naitanui
3- Hill
4- Hartlett
5- Hurley
6- Yarran
7- Rich
8- Vickery
9- Ziebell
From that evidence I'd say the top 3 are almost always certainties but unless it's a deep draft like last year - which is already proving its depth of quality - it can even be a bit of a crap shoot from pick 4 down. Nonetheless, as beaver's article pointed out, first round picks make it at a better rate than second rounders, who have a similar strike rate to rookie picks.
For what it's worth, every time we play I want us to win. I can't help it: if the Tigers are playing I want us to win. But I do think playing the kids for the rest of the year is the way to go and I won't be disappointed if that means we end up with a top three pick.
1- Riewoldt
2- Koschitzke
3- Didak
4- Luke Livingston
5- Andrew McDougall
6- Dylan Smith
7- Laurence Angwin
2001:
1- Hodge
2- Ball
3- Judd
4- Polak
5- X.Clarke
6- Sampi
7- Hale
2002:
1- Goddard
2- Wells
3- Jared Brennan
4- Tim Walsh
5- J.McVeigh
6- Salopek
7- Mackie
8- Luke Brennan
2003:
1- Cooney
2- Walker
3- Sylvia
4- Ray
5- Mclean
6- K.Bradley
7- Tenace
2004:
1- Deledio
2- Roughead
3- Griffen
4- Tambling
5- Franklin
6- Williams
7- Lewis
8- Meesen
9- Russell
10- Egan
11- Thomilf
12- Meyer
2005:
1- Murphy
2- Thomas
3- Ellis
4- Kennedy
5- Pendlebury
6- Dowler
7- Ryder
8- JON
2006:
1- Gibbs
2- Gumbleton
3- Hansen
4- Leuenberger
5- Boak
6- Thorp
7- Selwood
8- Ben Reid
2007:
1- Kreuzer
2- Cotchin
3- Masten
4- Morton
5- Grant
6- Myers
7- Palmer
8- Henderson
2008:
1- Watts
2- Naitanui
3- Hill
4- Hartlett
5- Hurley
6- Yarran
7- Rich
8- Vickery
9- Ziebell
From that evidence I'd say the top 3 are almost always certainties but unless it's a deep draft like last year - which is already proving its depth of quality - it can even be a bit of a crap shoot from pick 4 down. Nonetheless, as beaver's article pointed out, first round picks make it at a better rate than second rounders, who have a similar strike rate to rookie picks.
For what it's worth, every time we play I want us to win. I can't help it: if the Tigers are playing I want us to win. But I do think playing the kids for the rest of the year is the way to go and I won't be disappointed if that means we end up with a top three pick.
Rosstickle
Cancelled
- Banned
- #70
My thoughts exactly. I can't barrack against us and am pumped after every win, even if it's West Coast or Fremantle. Providing we get a top 5 pick this year we should end up with a good player. If the kids show improvement and competitive then I'm fairly happy regardless of the result.
Tanking = cheating shouldnt be allowed / rewarded
developing players at the expense of more experienced players is a balancing act that every club MUST do, but because this can be rewarded with priority picks = tainted.
To those that suport tanking in the longer term interests of the club- we recently acquired 2 SPOONS for our cabinet - where has it got us?
I would you trade Cotch for a lower pick and 1 less spoon
how about Lids? (half of bf seem to want to trade him anyway) Rance?
would you say we tanked to get Cotch and Lids?
have you used the word Carltank?
I would prefer that the spoon LOSE you a pick, seeing as the shame doesnt seem to be enough.
And then everyone could enjoy the scrabble to avoid last instead of consoling themselves about picking up some potential gun rather than some other young'un.
developing players at the expense of more experienced players is a balancing act that every club MUST do, but because this can be rewarded with priority picks = tainted.
To those that suport tanking in the longer term interests of the club- we recently acquired 2 SPOONS for our cabinet - where has it got us?
I would you trade Cotch for a lower pick and 1 less spoon
how about Lids? (half of bf seem to want to trade him anyway) Rance?
would you say we tanked to get Cotch and Lids?
have you used the word Carltank?
I would prefer that the spoon LOSE you a pick, seeing as the shame doesnt seem to be enough.
And then everyone could enjoy the scrabble to avoid last instead of consoling themselves about picking up some potential gun rather than some other young'un.
burraboy_15
Rookie
your all fools!
Hmm WC and Melbourne don't win for the rest of the year and we end up above freo and north. That leaves us with pick 7 not to mention only 1 pick inside the top 20.The first 5 picks are good this year were bound to get one of: Scully,Trengove,Butcher,Lucas etc.. maybe theres no need to tank.
