Game Day The 2025 Draft Day Thread

[UseR2006]

And a song to sing as we watch,

Hey Matty Clarke by Kevin (Random260) Wilson :

Hey Matty Clarke you campaigner, where the **** is Sharp
I’ve looked at all these other spuds and there’s no one that I like
I wrote you a ****ing letter and posted about it twice
You dopey ****ing Richmond fart, you forgot my ****ing Sharp

If I wanted a stupid ruckman type, I would’ve bloody asked
And this half back flank and temu mid, you can shove right up your arse
You’ve stuffed the bloody order up, it’s enough to make you spew
But it’s not just me who’s snakey, SGIO is dirty too

Next time I come to see ya, I’m going to punch you in the guts
And I’ll sack the other recruiting knobs and kick Toddy in the nuts
You just wait 'til next year when you go back to the draft
And me and me little GIO come stomping through the door
And we'll say, yeah, you wait for it

Hey Pyke and Woosh you smell his breath
And check his bloodshot eyes
And don't listen to him eagles fans 'cause he tells ****ing lies
He's just a ****ing useless campaigner and he's not even very bright
'Cause the stupid ****in' w***er, forgot me ****in' Sharp

Hey Matty Clarke you campaigner, where the **** is Sharp
I’ve looked at all these other spuds and there’s no one that I like
I wrote you a ****ing letter and posted about it twice
You dopey ****ing Richmond fart, you forgot my ****ing Sharp

A Quick Ai rendition: https://suno.com/s/blQP3cSnulhqYb5g
It's funny how it interrupted the lyrics XD

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

Some absolute space cadets in this thread.

Um, would you even care if he wasn't a Banfield?
That's literally the point you numbskull - he is a Banfield which means we don't need to use any draft capital to get him on our list.

Honestly, some of the apologist behavior in here would make Stalin blush

All the club knows best/que sera sera stuff in here is just astonishing. As if the club doesn't make mistakes repeatedly. Yes, it's all done and dusted, but no need to defend it.
Every draft pick is a gamble somewhat relative to the pick number. That's why a lot of us wanted Banfield & Evans. The potential talent is there and we could've gotten them for a bargain using 3rd to 5th round picks, or with a rookie spot if they slipped past the draft.
We could've at least been able to give it a consideration if we delisted Barnett and moved Cripps to the rookie list. Opposing either of the above is absurd imo. Barnett is barely WAFL quality and Cripps is possibly in his final year and should have had no issue with it. It doesn't affect his salary and eligibility to play AFL. Again, other clubs have done it, so why wouldn't we?

 

[joeyavalanche]

However bad you think we have drafted the last few days, remember that every other club would bend over backwards to take in the crop we just picked up

 

[JoshWoodenSpoon]

They've done a power of work guiz

 

[Keys]

But to do it, we would have had to use a main list space (and given a two year contract).

What's blindingly obvious is that the club didn't rate either Banfield or Evans highly enough for that - or they would have made sure that the spaces were there. It's not like a team of AFL recruiters don't know exactly how to get the number of list spots they want. If they didn't make the spaces, they didn't want the spaces.

I'm going to invoke Occam's razor and say it's way more likely that an AFL recruiting team didn't want any more spaces than that they forgot how to engineer them.

I think it’s a perfectly valid argument for people to say the club should have created the list space to add Banfield and/or Evans

I personally have said many times Cripps should have been moved to the rookie list and couldn’t work out why they didn’t

But for whatever reason, they chose not to because it didn’t fit their list build strategy. Whether people agree with that is one thing, but it needs to be accepted that it was a choice arrived at after long and careful consideration. It wasn’t because they didn’t know they could open another spot

 

[Deplorable trumpster]

I think it’s a perfectly valid argument for people to say the club should have created the list space to add Banfield and/or Evans

I personally have said many times Cripps should have been moved to the rookie list and couldn’t work out why they didn’t

But for whatever reason, they chose not to because it didn’t fit their list build strategy. Whether people agree with that is one thing, but it needs to be accepted that it was a choice arrived at after long and careful consideration. It wasn’t because they didn’t know they could open another spot

What about the possibility that they just assumed that Williams would be the only one who would attract a bid and got that badly wrong?

 

[Shueygod]

For the love of the West Coast board (and Obeanie1 sanity) don’t drag me back in here.

Typical copout from yourself, expected nothing less.

 

[uptheWC]

But not according to our club. Time will tell who was right.

Doesn't seem worth the melts.

According to St Kilda he was.

Showed great improvement over the season and has great physical attributes.

 

[Shueygod]

But that just highlights the poor list management if the clear worst team in the league finds itself in a position where they’re not even going to have enough players to delist in a year
Port are delisting the likes of Ryan Burton and we’re continuously hanging on to no-hopers or guys way past their use by date

Who then should be out of contract next year that isn’t?

Owies maybe.

It’s more a case of the worst team in the league bringing in 12 players this year (inc our extra rookie spots), 12 players last, 9 players the two before and 11 the year before that.

 

[Shueygod]

Looking back now, a lot should be clear, if you calm down enough to not be a puddle on the floor.

What's obvious is that Williams was the only one of our club-tied players the club rated above the rookie list. Hence didn't leave spaces on the main list for them - they weren't going to be drafted there. I was sad about Banfield for about a minute then moved on (some of you really need to move on).

If you think the list management team don't know exactly the mechanics to move players between lists, then you're being ridiculous. If they didn't move them they didn't want to. So likely it's to do with next year's crop. It's likely that we'll be bringing in another 8 more players (particularly if our NGAs next year are a step up) through trades and drafts, and we're not likely to be moving on all those kids that quickly - so not filling up spots with kids we don't rate that highly on two year contracts might be brutal, but the only real choice.

Yes, I think that Banfield or Evans might have been better long term than Barnett or Cripps - but what's the cost next year - who can't we get in a stronger draft?

On the bids for Addinsall - we were more than likely aware that GC had the points (you think that's not right there at every recruiter's fingertips?) - but rumours were that GC might let him slide, and we liked the look of him. So take a punt. But add in to that the fallback; clearly Lindsay was considered a clear best of what was remaining (by our recruiters anyway), and the Dogs at least were sniffing around that pick (and probably those campaignery Cats). Either we got in ahead of it, or we lost out both Addinsal and Lindsay.

(I'd guess that "shock" was probably more "****, they did want him after all" - followed up by right then, pick Lindsay then)

Who knows, maybe we tried to shop 29 around, but got no takers, so we ended up taking the player we rated best at that pick, but the cost was losing the spot for Banfield (and it sounds like Evans knew we weren't taking him anyway). Maybe we'd been approaching everyone for a few picks to move up on night one, but the Hawks were the first to take the bait?

Maybe St Kilda's F2 would have got us a champion - but history says it's more likely a spud, so perhaps the melting wasn't quite worth the extremity?

I'd like to see us take one of the sliders tomorrow in the rookie draft, but I can understand the method in the players we've used the extra spots on - they're AFL ready bodies that we can use for a year or two or three while some of all these kids grow into their AFL bodies

Nailed it.

 

[stallon]

Pretty sure most of this board are just over-rating Banfield and Evans.

We thought Evans would be rookie listed and Banfield a late pick potentially sliding to the rookie draft.

Definitely not pick 40ish, maybe pick 50+.

Shit happens, the list isnt in tatters because we didnt add Banfield and Evans in a weak draft.

We still added the 2 best talents available to 16 of the teams, we added a guy who was rated top 5 a few months ago because his kicking/vision is so elite and only slid because his versatility isnt there(who actually cares?? just play him in d50), we added a high upside mid/wing who slid due to an injury, and we added a great running high half forward also another position of dire need.

5 great list additions, sure some will complain we didnt grab an inside mid, but we did try with Addinsall, and Duursma will be this in the future, potentially Allen(and Allan) too.

Its all good

 

[Selurs]

Literally 60 pages of melts because we missed out on <checks notes> picks 38 and 40. Picks that, combined, average less than 140 AFL games.

I get it because they're ours and we're attached, but all the people who "know" it was bad?

I mean, it's like winning lotto, driving your 2yo Rav4 down to the Lamborghini dealearship, selecting your new Huracan, then spitting the dummy because they won't give you a trade-in for the Rav4. I mean, it's fine, it's your Rav4, but you've got a Huracan now! Just jump in, burn out, and leave that Rav4 behind!

 

[EaglesOz]

Pretty sure most of this board are just over-rating Banfield and Evans.

We thought Evans would be rookie listed and Banfield a late pick potentially sliding to the rookie draft.

Definitely not pick 40ish, maybe pick 50+.

Shit happens, the list isnt in tatters because we didnt add Banfield and Evans in a weak draft.

We still added the 2 best talents available to 16 of the teams, we added a guy who was rated top 5 a few months ago because his kicking/vision is so elite and only slid because his versatility isnt there(who actually cares?? just play him in d50), we added a high upside mid/wing who slid due to an injury, and we added a great running high half forward also another position of dire need.

5 great list additions, sure some will complain we didnt grab an inside mid, but we did try with Addinsall, and Duursma will be this in the future, potentially Allen(and Allan) too.

Its all good

Its a very good take, and could be right. The other side of the coin is that, while i thought our draft is an A, not an A+ or an A-, i think compared to our trade/draft hand and the potential, we probably only got a C- at best.
Still a pass, but we probably overpaid a bit for Starc, threw away a solid R2 pick next year that reduces our flexibility, stuffed up the strategy for Addinsal, didn't delist and rookie Barnett, probably look like taking on 1 too many older recruits, etc.
Limp is probably the best way to explain our draft, and management at the moment. If we don't take the best youngster remaining in the rookie draft, that C- will go to a D in my mind.
It just seems like a continuing pattern / set of minor losses that is irritating.

 

[EagleEgo]

For those who want to know why St Kilda chose to bid on Banfield, Cal Towmey did offer a reason for this. You should be able to find this on the AFL draft replay (second day).

 

[Knifey Spoony]

Weird how I am so happy with the players we got yet still so mad.

Hope Banfield and Evans have great careers at their respective clubs.

Hoping for Frod/Greeves and Walley today, two absolute free hits.

 

[ziad]

I am happy, and can see the clubs clear build strategy, but I am not apologising for the club drafting the best quality tallent based on their collective and considered assessment. Real signs of uncompromising strategic thinking, by the club.

 

[PepperTom32]

Some of the melts in here have been absolute all-timers. Fair to say, we’ve probably done our mate random260 pretty proud. One thing we cannot question - we’re an incredibly passionate bunch, whether you agree with the next person or not. At the end of the day, we all want the club to do the absolute best it can. But also, don’t let it consume you. I love footy more than almost anything, but perspective is pretty important I reckon.

Time will tell around the decisions that have been made, but one thing’s for sure. There are a few kids I cannot wait to see pull on the blue and gold in the very near future!!

Good call. I was mad last night. Woke up this morning and I’m not so mad. Just a bit miffed. Hope the recruiting team get their ducks in order for next years NGA’s and Banfield MKII.

 

[bombard]

On consideration, after a good night's sleep, and the ability to step away and catch my breath: the list management piece of this remains ****ing incompetent.

 

[FKASC]

There were always going to be epic melts in this thread one way or another. Eagles fans put so much weight on this draft it was a ticking time bomb.

Expected the melts to be on night 1 though

 

[We_The_West]

Its a very good take, and could be right. The other side of the coin is that, while i thought our draft is an A, not an A+ or an A-, i think compared to our trade/draft hand and the potential, we probably only got a C- at best.
Still a pass, but we probably overpaid a bit for Starc, threw away a solid R2 pick next year that reduces our flexibility, stuffed up the strategy for Addinsal, didn't delist and rookie Barnett, probably look like taking on 1 too many older recruits, etc.
Limp is probably the best way to explain our draft, and management at the moment. If we don't take the best youngster remaining in the rookie draft, that C- will go to a D in my mind.
It just seems like a continuing pattern / set of minor losses that is irritating.

Given the age profile of our list and the fact that we need to pay 95% of the TPP Salary Cap, plus the loss of Oscar and Liam Ryan, we need to pay some people higher and hopefully a lot of these guys are on front ended contracts.

The additional rookie spots will also help us achieve this given no increase to the cap.

It's an interesting watch and given FRod, NHH, BOB and Greeves all didn't get drafted and yet Evans and Banfield did... shows the range in which all clubs rate players differently.

Personally, I think we came away with 5 high potential recruits in positions of need.

All 5 could well be best 23 players in 3 years time.

 

[Elite Pete]

It’s not because we missed out on player X and Y. It because it clearly looks another error. They rated the kids enough if they got through 20 more picks they would’ve been Eagles.

Why didn’t we do what every other clubs do and move a vet to the rookie list and have that flexibility to then match during the draft if we wanted to or not and leave it open for 2 train ons.

Who knows if you have those main list spots open teams might not even bid and you can take the kids yourself like the Pies and Doggies did.

 

[Elite Pete]

Imagine if we didn’t get granted the 4 extra list spots. I’d suggest no Macrae, Schoenberg, train ons/rookie spot and Newton?

 

[Wooshaaaa]

Imagine if we didn’t get granted the 4 extra lost spots. I’d suggest no Macrae, Schoenberg, train ons/rookie spot and Newton?

This is a great point.

It would've also changed our draft strategy with the 5 picks we had, if we had 5 picks!. Sam Allen wouldn't be an eagle, blamaries or the Richmond mature age might be.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

However bad you think we have drafted the last few days, remember that every other club would bend over backwards to take in the crop we just picked up

Rubbish. Gold Coast destroyed us this draft and trade period as did Brisbane

 

[EaglesOz]

Given the age profile of our list and the fact that we need to pay 95% of the TPP Salary Cap, plus the loss of Oscar and Liam Ryan, we need to pay some people higher and hopefully a lot of these guys are on front ended contracts.

The additional rookie spots will also help us achieve this given no increase to the cap.

It's an interesting watch and given FRod, NHH, BOB and Greeves all didn't get drafted and yet Evans and Banfield did... shows the range in which all clubs rate players differently.

Personally, I think we came away with 5 high potential recruits in positions of need.

All 5 could well be best 23 players in 3 years time.

I didn't mean financially, just thought we could have got something fractionally more out of the pick trades for Starc. Cap space wise, frontload everyone, id even pay Zac Bailey a $1million signing fee (frame it that way) to politely let Brisbane (and others know) that we remember things like Evans.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

If we move Cripps and Barnett to the rookie list who is out of contract and gets delisted next year considering we’d likely need minimum 6 (likely more considering we have 3 rated NGA/FS prospects and will no doubt trade in a player or two) spots open?

That appears to be how the list management team have come to the conclusion they aren’t worth a list spot as we’d need to offer two years.

The equation isn’t as simple as Evans and and Banfield vs nothing, it’s actually Evans and Banfield vs players we pay out (Owies for example not a great loss ) + 200k.

Do I think it’s likely that 200k could be used (now or with the benefit of front ending in the future) to add to a contract and get better players than those two.

Probably.

Huh? Next years delistings are not gonna be a problem

Delist

Harry Barnett
Jamie Cripps
Tom Cole
Matt Flynn
Harvey Johnston
Rhett Bazzo

Id then consider that Newton/Long are both fighting for the 1 spot to make it 7. This isnt including that people may ask to leave too. Id expect Jack Williams to get a ton of trade interest as well.

I dont think next years crop of delistings is a gotcha moment here