List Mgmt. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan
- Thread starter Maggsy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I spoke to his under 18s coach at last year's sanfl grand final and he thought Ben had the best skills of anyone in the SANFL under 18s that season.
He WILL be a very good player? How many players rated in the 3rd round or later of a draft are sure to become a very good player? Have you thought about this?
Just because it's written in the Advertiser, doesn't mean it's right. Absolutely no standards or fact checking required for their articles. Just write whatever comes to mind, don't worry about the truth.
It works better I think, stops a club like Melbourne picking up a top 5 player like Viney for a second rounder. Makes the system consistent and predictable.
Going to make the "Crows mess up their list management and have to delist a contracted player" article after trade week very very funny.
- May 16, 2015
- 13,022
- 17,418
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
The varying permutations of this is doing my head in. The end game is to get Jackson onto our list but to me it's a bit disrespectful just to hope we rookie him. If he is the best available he should be on our main list. In addition a SA boy. I am sure the list management team have a plan and keeping it close to their chest but if we miss out on him, the PR will cause a massive backlash. Let's hope it ends well.
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 26, 2012
- 8,528
- 12,477
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think Andrew Capel doesn't know what he's talking about. The Crows have as many picks available as they have list spots. They can choose not to fill them all, but we can delist then entire team and pick up to pick 200 if we want.
- Aug 21, 2008
- 5,695
- 10,765
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 26, 2012
- 8,528
- 12,477
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yep, totally agree. It makes it a lot fairer.
Here's some made up scenarios:
Scenario 1 (old system): St Kilda has pick 3 and pick 21 in the draft. Their F/S, Little Bobby Harvey, is nominated by Carlton with their pick 4 in the draft. St Kilda match and take Little Bobby Harvey with pick 21.
Collingwood has pick 5 and pick 23 in the draft. Their F/S, Little Nate Buckley, is also nominated by Carlton with their pick 4 in the draft. Collingwood match and take Little Nate Buckley with pick 5.
In otherwise identical scenarios, why should St Kilda's F/S cost pick 21, but Collingwood's F/S costs pick 5? That's hardly fair and equitable.
Scenario 2 (current system): St Kilda has pick 3 and pick 21 in the draft. Their F/S, Little Bobby Harvey, is nominated by Carlton with their pick 4 in the draft. St Kilda match and their pick 21 (and potentially other picks) drop down in the draft order to pay the points cost of taking Little Bobby Harvey at that pick (with a discount applied to the points cost).
Collingwood has pick 5 and pick 23 in the draft. Their F/S, Little Nate Buckley, is also nominated by Carlton with their pick 4 in the draft. Collingwood match and their pick 23 (and potentially other picks) drop down in the draft order to pay the points cost of taking Little Nate Buckley at that pick (with a discount applied to the points cost).
Both teams are treated equally. Much fairer system.
TexForPM
Premiership Player
Ok say pert want to pick him up at 46.
Even though we haven't nominated him for the ND do we have the ability to match?
Even though we haven't nominated him for the ND do we have the ability to match?
Mr MysteryGuest
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 4, 2015
- 8,284
- 8,564
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Except that collingwood would still have use pick 5 in the current system. The difference would be that st kinda will have to use them a bunch of other picks to fill in the points gap, collingwood won't have to give up any other pick and might even have a few points left over from 5.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
According to an article on AFC we have two live picks. The two late picks were used on Keath and Thor. I'm not sure where this "we have four live picks" thing came from.
TrainRoo32
Premiership Player
Just feels like the outrage from last year with BJ.
At the end of the day the club will be realistic and while nostalgia or romanticism will be considered they will do what’s best for the club.
Having said that I’d love for us to get him even if it’s 39
We have 36 players on the list with two live picks taking the list to 38 how the hell are we going to get to a list of 40 players without anymore picks
I have asked are those two more picks non live picks whatever that is
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
This: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/9a05ab2a2c8f74e49b3bb85d644c6d67 confirms it. Pick 12 and 39. That's it.
It's coming from those posters who've actually done the maths Jennie and there's plenty of examples of their working above.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Everything I'm reading says two picks.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Yeah, der. We've all done the math... I just can't find any hard evidence to support their stance.
Try counting maybe?
Lever, Wigg, Cameron, Thompson, Menzel, Gore, Ellis-Yolmen out = 7 players
Gibbs, Bigson, Greenwood, Keath in = 4 players.
That's at least a deficit of 3 players just to make our 2017 list, where we played one short.
By now you should know that the standard of AFL media is appalling.
After trade week and it's inane nonsene you can't be seriously considering News Ltd and AFL media to be "hard evidence".
Counting is far harder evidence.
We know how this works by now, a lazy journo sees the Crows have two picks in the top 70, assumes that = list vacancies and the next 3 even lazier journos just assume the first one did their work properly.
- Status
