Remove this Banner Ad

2012 draft

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Martin_Riewoldt said:
Pick 9 + Post to GWS for 12 + 13

They need a KPD. Cornes will only be around for one more year, Phil Davis hasn't been that great and I personally don't think Mohr is not up to AFL standard. Post is young, and does have a pretty large figure, so would fit in well.

Word is though that GWS will take Plowman with pick 3, so who knows.

Then trade 29 and 31 to WBD for 21 and 47. (They won't use 47, and they have 5 picks before it, so they would basically be swapping 21 for 29 and 31.)

Trade 47 + Graham to North for 35.

Leaves us with 12, 13, 21, 35, which I believe is better than 9, 29, 31, 50.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is much better!
 
Tigerbob said:
O'Rourke won't get past the Bulldogs second pick. They love him.

Garlett, Macrae or Plowman, any of these will make me extremely happy. Plowman underrated immensely. I think can become a utility and play in the midfield. Great kid, will be a very good player. Macrae has moved so far in the rankings, I am even having second thoughts about whether he or Garlett would be the better choice for us.

Martin_Riewoldt is spot on about his mail on the Dees, consider Wines done at number 4 to Melbourne. I think O'Rourke and Plowman/Garlett goes next at this stage to the Bulldogs. Month and a bit to go, plenty of changes to happen. Port Adelaide take a SA Kid I reckon, rumours they like Kennedy, Brisbane missing out on Tippett and getting Maloney may make them reach for a Shaw.

It will be a very interesting draft, so even it is. I think dropping to 12 from 9 and getting something else (like a Anderson or Pick 13) would be the right draft to do this. Very even. Be smart Richmond, be smart. (I have no doubt they will be).
Click to expand...

So Bulldogs are very keen on O'Rourke, Gartlett and Stringer(think i read that) as well as needing to get a back men with Hargraves, Lake and Morris either not longer at the club or don't have a lot of years left in them. So Plowman could be one they target to fill a need.

For us this could mean that Mayes could well fall though Port may want him.

How I feel the draft may pan out.
1. Whitfield
2. Toumpas
3. Grundy
4. Vines
5. O'Rourke(from what your telling me)
6. Plowman/Gartlett/Stringer
7. Mayes
8. Shaw
9. Macrae/Gartlett/Plowman/Vlaunstin(don't think were interested in stringer)
10. Daniher

Ive got the feeling that if Melbourne take Vines then we will get a gun at 9.
 
Martin_Riewoldt said:
Pick 9 + Post to GWS for 12 + 13

They need a KPD. Cornes will only be around for one more year, Phil Davis hasn't been that great and I personally don't think Mohr is not up to AFL standard. Post is young, and does have a pretty large figure, so would fit in well.

Word is though that GWS will take Plowman with pick 3, so who knows.

Then trade 29 and 31 to WBD for 21 and 47. (They won't use 47, and they have 5 picks before it, so they would basically be swapping 21 for 29 and 31.)

Trade 47 + Graham to North for 35.

Leaves us with 12, 13, 21, 35, which I believe is better than 9, 29, 31, 50.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't do the bulldog trade would prefer our picks. If we could 21 by it self for 31 and 50 then I would but I don't think they would want.
 
Tomnat Tigers said:
So Bulldogs are very keen on O'Rourke, Gartlett and Stringer(think i read that) as well as needing to get a back men with Hargraves, Lake and Morris either not longer at the club or don't have a lot of years left in them. So Plowman could be one they target to fill a need.

For us this could mean that Mayes could well fall though Port may want him.

How I feel the draft may pan out.
1. Whitfield
2. Toumpas
3. Grundy
4. Vines
5. O'Rourke(from what your telling me)
6. Plowman/Gartlett/Stringer
7. Mayes
8. Shaw
9. Macrae/Gartlett/Plowman/Vlaunstin(don't think were interested in stringer)
10. Daniher

Ive got the feeling that if Melbourne take Vines then we will get a gun at 9.
Click to expand...

Vines.... Vines?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Martin_Riewoldt said:
Pick 9 + Post to GWS for 12 + 13

They need a KPD. Cornes will only be around for one more year, Phil Davis hasn't been that great and I personally don't think Mohr is not up to AFL standard. Post is young, and does have a pretty large figure, so would fit in well.

Word is though that GWS will take Plowman with pick 3, so who knows.

Then trade 29 and 31 to WBD for 21 and 47. (They won't use 47, and they have 5 picks before it, so they would basically be swapping 21 for 29 and 31.)

Trade 47 + Graham to North for 35.

Leaves us with 12, 13, 21, 35, which I believe is better than 9, 29, 31, 50.
Click to expand...
Still want O'Rourke and Macrae, they won't be at 12 and 13
 
Martin_Riewoldt said:
Pick 9 + Post to GWS for 12 + 13

They need a KPD. Cornes will only be around for one more year, Phil Davis hasn't been that great and I personally don't think Mohr is not up to AFL standard. Post is young, and does have a pretty large figure, so would fit in well.

Word is though that GWS will take Plowman with pick 3, so who knows.

Then trade 29 and 31 to WBD for 21 and 47. (They won't use 47, and they have 5 picks before it, so they would basically be swapping 21 for 29 and 31.)

Trade 47 + Graham to North for 35.

Leaves us with 12, 13, 21, 35, which I believe is better than 9, 29, 31, 50.
Click to expand...
I'd do every one of those trades and think they are pretty fair. The only condition I'd make is that I'd want the Dogs & North trades to be done together as otherwise it is potentially weakening our draft position.

It would be interesting to see if the supporters from the opposition sides involved think that these would go over well (North supporters may not like the Graham trade though unsurprisingly)
 
I would love to do the GWS trade but dont believe they will go for it under the conditions mentioned tbh
The only way i can see it happening is if they have a trade/player they can get around the 30-35 mark and we do something like.

#9+#31 - #13+#14

But my dream result for this trade period would be to Trade Graham/McGuane+50 for #30-#40, Then trade #9+#35/#40 for #13+#14 and #35/#40 for Jacobs

Nett Result
Jacobs,Chaplin,Knights + #13(O'Rourke),#14(Stringer,Vlustuin),#31(McBean,Hayes)
 
I'd almost be tempted to take a punt on Garlett with the extra first round pick if we got it.
 
Martin_Riewoldt said:
Pick 9 + Post to GWS for 12 + 13

They need a KPD. Cornes will only be around for one more year, Phil Davis hasn't been that great and I personally don't think Mohr is not up to AFL standard. Post is young, and does have a pretty large figure, so would fit in well.

Word is though that GWS will take Plowman with pick 3, so who knows.

Then trade 29 and 31 to WBD for 21 and 47. (They won't use 47, and they have 5 picks before it, so they would basically be swapping 21 for 29 and 31.)

Trade 47 + Graham to North for 35.

Leaves us with 12, 13, 21, 35, which I believe is better than 9, 29, 31, 50.
Click to expand...

A couple of things with this. If GWS are going to package up 12 & 13 it will be for one thing because they haven't got list space so Post wouldn't work. It would need to be 9 for 12 & 13 straight and would only work if GWS can't fit 5 draft picks in after they trade for a couple of older blokes and add a couple of NT players. Either that or we trade 9 for 13 & Anderson if they have no room to keep him and would rather the 5 draft picks.

The Doggies trade makes no sense from their end. If they won't use pick 47 because they have so many picks why would they down trade a pick for 2 picks which just gives them more picks. They'd be more likely to package 2 picks together to get a better one.

I do think the Graham one could be possible though and I believe that's what the club will aim for.
 
tigs2010 said:
A couple of things with this. If GWS are going to package up 12 & 13 it will be for one thing because they haven't got list space so Post wouldn't work. It would need to be 9 for 12 & 13 straight and would only work if GWS can't fit 5 draft picks in after they trade for a couple of older blokes and add a couple of NT players. Either that or we trade 9 for 13 & Anderson if they have no room to keep him and would rather the 5 draft picks.

The Doggies trade makes no sense from their end. If they won't use pick 47 because they have so many picks why would they down trade a pick for 2 picks which just gives them more picks. They'd be more likely to package 2 picks together to get a better one.

I do think the Graham one could be possible though and I believe that's what the club will aim for.
Click to expand...

I would do that !
 

Remove this Banner Ad

THE_GUN said:
I would do that !
Click to expand...
No doubt. Just comes down to list space. TBH I could see Brissy doing 8 for 13 & Anderson. They keep an NT kid near home and at 13 would likely still get Shaw or Jaksch rather than reaching at 8.
 
tigs2010 said:
No doubt. Just comes down to list space. TBH I could see Brissy doing 8 for 13 & Anderson. They keep an NT kid near home and at 13 would likely still get Shaw or Jaksch rather than reaching at 8.
Click to expand...
Unless they are looking at a player they believe wont be there after pick#8
 
tigs2010 said:
A couple of things with this. If GWS are going to package up 12 & 13 it will be for one thing because they haven't got list space so Post wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
Not really the case, GWS have said that every pick except for #1 is up for trade if its the right player, plus they wanted to use the MD picks for some more mature bodies but no one offered up a player of the calibre they were after. So they want some more mature players, but no one wants to go there.
 
THE_GUN said:
Unless they are looking at a player they believe wont be there after pick#8
Click to expand...
Yer going of the presumption they want a KPP because the cupboard is pretty bare.

Infamy said:
Not really the case, GWS have said that every pick except for #1 is up for trade if its the right player, plus they wanted to use the MD picks for some more mature bodies but no one offered up a player of the calibre they were after. So they want some more mature players, but no one wants to go there.
Click to expand...

Well yeah that's the case for all clubs. I doubt Post is the "right player" though. :D
 
tigs2010 said:
Well yeah that's the case for all clubs. I doubt Post is the "right player" though. :D
Click to expand...
That was in regards to the MD picks & now picks 2, 3, etc
When we are looking to downgrade our first pick so GWS strengthen their position, we should be getting a decent upgrade on what we get in return and they need a mature bodied key defender.
Fair trade, maybe a little in Richmond's favour, but not by a lot. Unfortunately there's not any late picks that GWS would want to even it up.
 
Infamy said:
That was in regards to the MD picks & now picks 2, 3, etc
When we are looking to downgrade our first pick so GWS strengthen their position, we should be getting a decent upgrade on what we get in return and they need a mature bodied key defender.
Fair trade, maybe a little in Richmond's favour, but not by a lot. Unfortunately there's not any late picks that GWS would want to even it up.
Click to expand...
I just think GWS will say to themselves we'd rather take 12 & 13 than 9 & Post to fill up the list. Whereas if they only have 1 list spot they'd be inclined to upgrade both pick to 9 otherwise they would use 12 & pass on 13.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Tomnat Tigers said:
Watching the videos they released on the AFL website and I must day that Macrae reminds me of Gaff, he is predominately an outside player but can win his own ball on occasion and like Gaff he from the footage I've seen weights his kick perfectly.

If he or O'Rourke falls to our pick we must take them.
Click to expand...
Is there a link? Can't find them anywhere!
 
Silvagni apparently delisted by Shockers. Worth a late pick/rookie spot? Has finals experience.:D
 
Harmichael said:
Silvagni apparently delisted by Shockers. Worth a late pick/rookie spot? Has finals experience.:D
Click to expand...
He was horrendous when I saw him late in the year. Made me appreciate Luke McGuane, that's how bad he was! (and I was previously one asking why Freo weren't giving him game time, and saying we should look at trying to do a trade for him :eek:... Turns out Rossy Lyon does actually know what he's doing!)

Edit: that said, if he was happy to take a rookie spot, could be worth some consideration as one of those mature age, AFL experienced depth rookie players we're after... but he would be a long way off our best 22 IMO.
 
Martin_Riewoldt said:
According to my friend, whose father is prolific at the Dees, they're likely to take Wines at 4.
Hence my top 10 is starting to shape up as:
1) Whitfield
2) Toumpas
3) Grundy
4) Wines
5) Plowman
6) Mayes
7) Garlett
8) Shaw
9) Macrae
10) Daniher

Pick 9 is actually a very strong pick in this draft, because picks 4-11 are all extremely even. This means we could land Plowman, Garlett, Macrae, O'Rourke or Vlastuin who are all excellent players and none we would complain about. I leave Mayes out of that group because there is no chance he will go past PA.

I'd trade 9 for Mitchell, Tyson or WHE, but I would still be very excited if we took any of those players with our pick.
Click to expand...

Macrae is a good player but he seems to have a technical flaw in his kicking action. I would pass.
 
There hasn't been much talk about Sam Mayes, I wonder if he, O'Rourke and Macrae were miraculously available at 9, which we would take?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

tigs2010
List Mgmt. 2026 AFL Draft
22 23 24 25 26
Replies
644
Views
34K
sregit
sregit

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top