Academy Watch

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

This may be a stupid question seeings as the point system, by the looks of things, may be only applicable for the first two rounds and that it will be a 'live' bidding process, but if they make it so it isn't the live system, are we able to use a higher pick which is worth more points and have access to multiple players if they are bid on? It seems like if it is a live system we make be forced to only take one player as we are unable to obtain enough points for a player taken slightly later? Sorry if it comes across a little confusing haha
 
The points per draft pick is sound I believe. It basically is rating them all. What is the anomaly here is that I also think they should have 3 'experts' also rank the players maximum spot as well to stop clubs over bidding on players. If a player was rated 20 in the draft, a club nominates pick 12 for eg, then the club needs to come up with the points for 20.

If a club bids 30, then you come up with the bids for 30 and get a perceived 'bargain'.

I have no trust that clubs without academies will over bid on players they like just to make the 4 clubs 'earn' them.

I don't get the discounts. Seems no one pays full price cause it's only father and son and academy. Am I missing something?
 
The Golfing Lion said:
The points per draft pick is sound I believe. It basically is rating them all. What is the anomaly here is that I also think they should have 3 'experts' also rank the players maximum spot as well to stop clubs over bidding on players. If a player was rated 20 in the draft, a club nominates pick 12 for eg, then the club needs to come up with the points for 20.

If a club bids 30, then you come up with the bids for 30 and get a perceived 'bargain'.

I have no trust that clubs without academies will over bid on players they like just to make the 4 clubs 'earn' them.

I don't get the discounts. Seems no one pays full price cause it's only father and son and academy. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Understand what you're saying but they are then essentially drafting a lesser talent simply to spite the academy clubs, but the end result will then be that a more talented player will be available to the academy club anyway
 
Confused_screaming.jpg
 
In the event say a team bids maybe a pick 6 or 7 on Keays (which would be at the higher end of where he sits right now, perhaps if he continues to have a good season), does that mean with the points system we'd be needing to give up maybe one or two extra picks on top of our second rounder? Do you think there'd be a scenario where the Lions may think Keays is too expensive and not within their needs? Which would be an absolute shame and rort of the system, and would probably signal a victory for Eddie :mad:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If someone bids a top ten pick and we have to give up our second third and fourth for him thats still a win, getting two top ten talents is all we need from the draft this year, no more drafts with six draftees. We have enough young players for now
 
BlackGun1 said:
In the event say a team bids maybe a pick 6 or 7 on Keays (which would be at the higher end of where he sits right now, perhaps if he continues to have a good season), does that mean with the points system we'd be needing to give up maybe one or two extra picks on top of our second rounder? Do you think there'd be a scenario where the Lions may think Keays is too expensive and not within their needs? Which would be an absolute shame and rort of the system, and would probably signal a victory for Eddie :mad:
Click to expand...

Someone bids pick 6 and we'll be using our second, third and fourth rounds picks and getting pick 64 back. Pick 7 would see us use our second and third rounders.

There's absolutely scenarios where a club may think a player is too expensive. That's not any different to the current system - teams have opted not to nominate a player as a father/son (James Stewart, Liam Picken, others), the Lions put out last year that they wouldn't match any bid on Dawson that'd use our second rounder. It's just that no team has had a much higher valuation on an academy or father/son prospect than the nominating club. Now instead of the gap being per round it's more substantial earlier in the first round as well. It is really only affecting the high end talent.
 
Yeah the 'Make 'em earn it' ploy is fine in theory, but if, say Collingwood offered pick 6 for Keays, we'd presumably walk away and they'd be forced to follow through and draft him there, so it's a dangerous bluff.
 
With the Keays scenario above the club could go two ways and it would very much depend on whether they rate this years academy players vs next years top end of the draft.

If we didn't rate the top end of next years draft given our needs we could very well match the bid and then take some other academy guys by dropping down next years first pick a couple of spots. Assumes we rate the other available academy guys as well this year.

Alternatively if we do rate next years draft highly and our other academy guys we may decide to pass so we don't push ourselves back next year.

I tend to think that at our current stage in time the ability to get two high end picks in a year outweighs our need for numbers. We've had so much list turnover in the last few years that we could do with a quieter draft where we don't have to bring in lots of players, but a couple of really highly rated ones. In other years that may change. For example if you're really clearing the decks then passing on the high guy to get a spread of guys may be beneficial, but still even then if its a choice between top end talent vs a number of mid range picks then in the AFL where the talent level in the first few rounds and even within the first round differs substantially, top end will tend to win out. Just look at the last few years, you don't often see teams trading a top pick for a selection of lower picks.

The NFL is different where players have matured and projecting them out is easier with starters being able to be found several rounds into the draft.

All of the above of course depends on where we rate Keays.
 
Sorry for this. But AFL isnt my first language..

Is there a limit to how many kids a club can draft? If so, should the limit be raised?

When one looks at the injury toll some clubs go through (GC for example) shouldn't it be made possible for a greater depth of talent per club?

Does the AFL have some obligation to clubs because of the higher injury toll due to their interchange implementation that is injuring players?


.
 
tigernova said:
Sorry for this. But AFL isnt my first language..

Is there a limit to how many kids a club can draft? If so, should the limit be raised?


.
Click to expand...

You can draft as many players as you have list spots available. In theory you could delist your whole playing list and fill it from the draft if you wanted.
 
Fatcat08 said:
You can draft as many players as you have list spots available. In theory you could delist your whole playing list and fill it from the draft if you wanted.
Click to expand...
should the limit be raised?

When one looks at the injury toll some clubs go through (GC for example) shouldn't it be made possible for a greater depth of talent per club?

Does the AFL have some obligation to clubs because of the higher injury toll due to their interchange implementation that is injuring players?
 
tigernova said:
should the limit be raised?

When one looks at the injury toll some clubs go through (GC for example) shouldn't it be made possible for a greater depth of talent per club?

Does the AFL have some obligation to clubs because of the higher injury toll due to their interchange implementation that is injuring players?
Click to expand...

Its not really right to look at injury outliers and say things should be raised. I tend to thing that if you look at injury numbers across the whole comp over the last 10-15 years I'm not sure if you'd find a massive upswing to justify raising the size of the list TBH.
 
Fatcat08 said:
Its not really right to look at injury outliers and say things should be raised. I tend to thing that if you look at injury numbers across the whole comp over the last 10-15 years I'm not sure if you'd find a massive upswing to justify raising the size of the list TBH.
Click to expand...
Those are figures id like to see..... unadulterated..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top