Competitions 2017 Essendon Board Draft Game - Sign up/Discussion Thread

[eth-dog]

Case in point, the game against us was his first in the seniors after 12 weeks out with a hamstring. And he didn't play that game against Freo, when Walters kicked four. Are you thinking of someone else? Or Freo vs. GC in Round 2 (which I don't remember)?

Sorry, meant round 2 where Walters kicked 3.3 on him (should have kicked 5-6)

 

[WEEVZ]

Not like any of this matters since I have the best defence

You sure about that?

 

[eth-dog]

In all Siriusness, GC concede over 4 goals/game from smalls. That's ridiculously high.

 

[WEEVZ]

In all Siriusness, GC concede over 4 goals/game from smalls. That's ridiculously high.

To be fair to those players, the ball is down there a lot.

 

[eth-dog]

To be fair to those players, the ball is down there a lot.

They had around 20 goals more kicked against them than we did by small forwards last year; if you take out Adelaide and Hawthorn in fact we averaged 3 a game.

 

[WEEVZ]

True can't discount the Eade factor though, he shouldn't be coaching. Has lost touch with the game even more than Malthouse did.

 

[Mercuri Rising]

In all Siriusness, GC concede over 4 goals/game from smalls. That's ridiculously high.

Again, amount of ball down there can't be ignored. I think Saad is genuinely solid defensively, and whatever gap there is between him and the top-tier lockdown smalls is more than made up for by his work going the other way. And GC often do try to free him up so he can use his pace, so I doubly don't mind what the scoreboard says. Anyway, we're not really getting anywhere with this.

 

[Mercuri Rising]

They had around 20 goals more kicked against them than we did by small forwards last year; if you take out Adelaide and Hawthorn in fact we averaged 3 a game.

This is frustrating, it reeks of eth-style Fake News / creative statistics but I'm too lazy to pore through it, so I'll concede the point.

 

[Mercuri Rising]

Not like any of this matters since I have the best defence

Sorry mate, I use the only unbiased criterion there is - number of kidneys.

 

[Mercuri Rising]

FB: yaco - yaco - yaco
HB: yaco - yaco - yaco
C: yaco - yaco (C) - yaco
HF: yaco - yaco - yaco
FF: yaco - yaco - yaco
FOLL: yaco - yaco - yaco
INT: yaco - yaco - yaco - yaco

 

[yaco55]

How did I enter this thread ? Though it looks a poor team.

 

[Mercuri Rising]

How did I enter this thread ? Though it looks a poor team.

Selling yourself short!

 

[eDPS]

How did I enter this thread ? Though it looks a poor team.

Idk it looks like a team capable of 2nd and 3rd efforts

 

[eth-dog]

Again, amount of ball down there can't be ignored. I think Saad is genuinely solid defensively, and whatever gap there is between him and the top-tier lockdown smalls is more than made up for by his work going the other way. And GC often do try to free him up so he can use his pace, so I doubly don't mind what the scoreboard says. Anyway, we're not really getting anywhere with this.

Have an extremely high goals/inside 50 conceded rate still. Their defence is putrid.

 

[Mercuri Rising]

Have an extremely high goals/inside 50 conceded rate still. Their defence is putrid.

OK. Not confined to smalls though, if anything I would suspect they'd concede more to talls with their mids getting shredded. Anyway, I rate Saad, not really fussed about GC defence overall esp with the way he's often used. Can play lockdown well when required. Agree to disagree.

 

[Laverde2Smack]

Saad is a poor defender but a decent attacking weapon.

 

[MightyDons4]

It'll be interesting to see if anything gets done, willing to discuss options with people myself but it'll prove tricky with the restriction of only having 22 players. Or are we allowed to dip into the remaining players as sort of a free agency pool, if there's any 2 for 1 trades?

I'm easy either way tbh.

 

[BomberTime]

B: Ben Stratton Michael Johnson Brad Sheppard
Hb: Callum Mills Jackson Trengove Shannon Hurn
C: Mitch Duncan Sam Mitchell Travis Colyer
Hf: Toby Greene Cale Hooker Cyril Rioli
Ff: Stewart Crameri Jack Gunston Tory Dickson
Rr: Shane Mumford Gary Ablett Jobe Watson
Bench: David Swallow Kyle Langford Jade Gresham Sharrod Wellingham

Not a bad team at all. Some areas could be improved. Love the versatility of my team. Trengove can hold down a key back, can play 2nd ruck and also go forward which he did last year. Stratton and Sheppard can play small and tall. I would be interested in another key back but Johnson is not the worst key back. Mills, Hurn and Wellingham offer excellent kicking of the back flanks.
It's a great forward line. Hooker as we know, is one of the best key defenders but I'm convinced he can be a gun key forward with his strong hands and fairly accurate kicking. Gunston is a proven gun forward. Crameri can play the hard running brute medium forward and exploit a mis match. Rioli and Dickson zipping at their feet as well as Greene. The small forwards alone are good for 150 goals a season.
The midfield, contested ball machines in Jobe, Mitchell and Gaz getting pretty good service from the big Mummy. Clearance after clearance. Duncan and Colyer offer outside goal kicking mids who can play forward. Rotating with Rioli, Mills, Gresham, Swallow, Langford and Greene.

I'm happy with the team.

 

[eth-dog]

Why have Hooker forward when Gunston, Crameri and Dickson are all basically key forwards

 

[BomberTime]

Have thought of moving Hooker back the whole draft period (still might if not trades eventuate). I personally don't like Crameri as the key forward. Feel he operates better when he gets the mismatch 3rd defender or smaller type defender.

 

[DraftMe]

The Adelaide board, who do an epic version of this game have squad sizes of 25 (3 emergencies). Does anyone think we should continue with 3 more picks each before any trade is officially made? It might make trading a bit easier.

 

[eDPS]

The Adelaide board, who do an epic version of this game have squad sizes of 25 (3 emergencies). Does anyone think we should continue with 3 more picks each before any trade is officially made? It might make trading a bit easier.

I'm really not a fan of extending this any longer haha I'm already tired of all the waiting

 

[DraftMe]

I'm really not a fan of extending this any longer haha I'm already tired of all the waiting

yeah fair enough haha

 

[Harlequin Dream]

I am happy for the drafting to finish up. However, I would like a few changes in how the competition is run.

I think it would be much more interesting if we had a series of 1v1 match-ups to determine the winner. With each player arguing his case against the other with the winner advancing to the next round. The loser of the match-up would either be eliminated or drop down to a loser's bracket.

I would also like to have the teams reviewed post-season. Most teams are dependent on how their developing players improve. It is hard to judge this only on pre-season speculation.

 

[MightyDons4]

The Adelaide board, who do an epic version of this game have squad sizes of 25 (3 emergencies). Does anyone think we should continue with 3 more picks each before any trade is officially made? It might make trading a bit easier.

I reduced it to 22 this year for two reasons. The first being that it saves time and the second being that there is no real need for emergencies in my view since they have no effect on how people vote.

I made a quick 'best of the rest' 22, and I really don't think any of these players would really make that much of a difference for anyones side.

FB: Lachie Hansen - Patrick Ambrose - Luke Brown
HB: Zak Jones - Joel Hamling - Hayden Crozier
C: Sam Gibson - Clayton Oliver - Danyle Pearce
HF: Toby McLean - Mitch Brown - Dean Kent
FF: Jayden Laverde - Tyrone Vickery - Tom Papley
R: Tom Nicholls - Rhys Mathieson - Connor Blakely
I: Scott Selwood - Matthew Wright - Billy Hartung - Brendan Whitecross

I am happy for the drafting to finish up. However, I would like a few changes in how the competition is run.

I think it would be much more interesting if we had a series of 1v1 match-ups to determine the winner. With each player arguing his case against the other with the winner advancing to the next round. The loser of the match-up would either be eliminated or drop down to a loser's bracket.

I would also like to have the teams reviewed post-season. Most teams are dependent on how their developing players improve. It is hard to judge this only on pre-season speculation.

I actually used the 1v1 match up system myself when voting in previous years. The problem lies within making the reasoning behind decisions public, as there will no doubt be many disagreements and it will create a lot of conflict.

Honestly, most people will lose interest by the end of the season and will likely be looking towards the 2018 draft game.