Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
HavUEvaSeenTheRain said:
Yes we can because we never had the Stocker pick until the last second, we didn’t even think we were going to get it. It is completely different. We would’ve been taking what we seen as a lesser player before a pick we didn’t even have.
Click to expand...

Nope. Had we of retained the pick used for McGovern, we may have drafted both.

Our intention was always to bring some players into the system a year early to get 12 months development into them.
 
Stamos said:
#26 or #28?
Just stop it with your nonsense fantasy
Click to expand...

Clearly all the picks were being packaged up to get Sydney's pick 13 for academy points.

Or did you not understand that part of the trade?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Jeremias said:
It's still a first round pick. And a first round pick - be it pick 1 or 18 (which will slide on draft day) is too much to pay for Narkle.



He has played 17 games in nearly 4 seasons, if that is not a fringe player then I'm not sure what is.

Why he's a fringe player is irrelevant, most players are fringe players because the club has better options.



Not sure why that is relevant, when determining his trade value.

Newnes has proven to be a walk up start at Carlton, should we have given a high pick for him too?

There are many better uses for our first round pick, and we would be able to get Narkle for far cheaper than that.
Click to expand...

So, trying to justify giving up the Lions 1st (which will be pick 20 something) for Narkle by getting the Cats 2nd back too. LOL that pick will be well into the 40's this year...

Our first needs to be put toward a proven AFL talent that can fill a hole in our list. Not spent on players that are struggling to break into their own side that "might" come good.
 
Eiffel 65 said:
I'm going to have a look at the replay tomorrow. I don't ever recall the commentators specifically saying Tom Papley or a small forward is exactly what we need. I know the play you're talking about, and I just don't recall them specifically mentioning Tom Papley or a small forward as the missing piece of the puzzle for us.

The reality is he didn't kick 6. He didn't kick any and has only kicked 3 goals since round 8. He was beaten by a maligned footballer because he's not the elite player that some are making him out to be. This isn't a one off. He's been beaten by his opponents over the last two months. He's just a good footballer and people thinking he's the one missing piece for us need a reality check because it's simply not the case. If we're looking for a pressure forward, Papley just isn't right for us. Some of his defensive efforts were atrocious tonight. Went to ground and didn't chase hard when he didn't have the ball. The moment Papley fell over and allowed plowman to walk around him was absolutely disgraceful. He has got to be better than that.

Watch the coverage again. Pregame, the actual game and post game commentary on Fox Sports and the you'll find the main point of discussion was our ball use heading inside forward 50. This is now becoming the main discussion point on other shows such as On The Couch and Footy Classified. They're not saying a small forward is our biggest area of concern anymore.

Zac Fisher played a far better game than Papley tonight and Owies looked lively. Owies could well have ended up having a few shots on goal if he executed those tackles properly. It's something to work on, but his defensive pressure looked pretty good to me. Give him a bit more time and he'll be a very good player. Just needs a bit more time to adjust but he looks a likely type.

Once again, I'm going to tell you that I believe Zac Fisher will be a better small forward than Papley with a full preseason training in the position. Your interest in Papley is either coming from underestimating Fisher's ability or overrating Papley's ability. It's one of the two.

Bring Papley across on the big coin and we're going to have a large chunk (in excess of 15% of our salary cap) tied up in two players who may only get you a combined total of 15 possessions and 1 goal per game. You won't win too many flags with that list strategy (referring to McGovern and Papley).
Click to expand...
You cant use mcgovern as a reason to lump in papley as a non-starter.

Yes bringing in Mitch was the worst decision since the John Elliott era and he is a total waste of draft assets, cap space and is the one blemish on SOS's brilliant record at the Blues. He is overweight, weak, inconsistent, undisciplined, overrated and overpaid. Yes he was a mistake which we will regret for the next decade but we have to live with it and back him in.

Papley does not have any of those traits. He will be a gun whether its for us or someone else.
 
Eiffel 65 said:
Nope. Had we of retained the pick used for McGovern, we may have drafted both.

Our intention was always to bring some players into the system a year early to get 12 months development into them.
Click to expand...
It makes no logical sense that we wouldn’t have drafted the player we rated the highest when we didn’t even know we would get another pick.
 
Geez I’m sure Plow and SPS are wrapped Gov’s in form slump.....whipping boy 2020 mode unlocked!

FWIW I’m not happy with his form or his effort and want him dropped.


This is Teagues moment, I know they are friends but he needs to hit him between the eyes.

When he’s on he can be the difference for us up forward. He hasn’t really played alongside Charlie either, still could turn out good for us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Interesting to see who comes and goes and it will all happen very quickly after the grand final it seems from announcements recently.

I just hope we are level headed in the draft and trading periods and avoid trying to be smarter than SOS.Make balanced judgments that suit the list, build the midfield, don’t care which and he that takes.
 
AB_Blue said:
Geez I’m sure Plow and SPS are wrapped Gov’s in form slump.....whipping boy 2020 mode unlocked!

FWIW I’m not happy with his form or his effort and want him dropped.


This is Teagues moment, I know they are friends but he needs to hit him between the eyes.

When he’s on he can be the difference for us up forward. He hasn’t really played alongside Charlie either, still could turn out good for us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Plowman would be "rapt" but he really shouldn't be maligned. He is our mr fix it and has so many strong performances that he has earned our patience. Hes a top 15 player for us imo.

SPS isn't a whipping boy imo.

Chubbs McGovern can come good, but he does need some tough love.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

HavUEvaSeenTheRain said:
It makes no logical sense that we wouldn’t have drafted the player we rated the highest when we didn’t even know we would get another pick.
Click to expand...

Eiffel 65 said:
You can't say that for sure.

In 2015, we had Charlie ahead of Harry on our draft board but drafted them the other way around. The reason being the draft order was as follows:

Carlton Pick 10
Adelaide Pick 11
Carlton Pick 12

Adelaide had a very strong interest in Harry at pick 11 and were a strong chance to take him at the pick should he have been available. However, they weren't interested in Charlie.

Knowing this, SOS took the gamble and took Harry ahead of Charlie despite being slightly lower on our draft board because he was more confident Charlie would get through to pick 12 than Harry.

Same situation may have occurred in 2018. Both Port and Adelaide were strongly linked to Duursma around the mark. Should we have still made the trade with Adelaide to secure Stocker, we may well have taken Duursma first pick knowing that Stocker was more likely to slide through to the second selection.

Because we didn't hold the additional selection as it was on-traded for McGovern, this wasn't a consideration.
Click to expand...

Have another look at the attached post. Hopefully that makes sense.

It doesn't always come down to who you rate highest. If you have multiple selections in a tight range, the selection order may come down to who has interest in certain players and who is likely to be available at your 2nd or 3rd selections.

This situation was also seen with Geelong and Port Adelaide in the 2019 draft.
 
Juddernaut08 said:
You cant use mcgovern as a reason to lump in papley as a non-starter.

Yes bringing in Mitch was the worst decision since the John Elliott era and he is a total waste of draft assets, cap space and is the one blemish on SOS's brilliant record at the Blues. He is overweight, weak, inconsistent, undisciplined, overrated and overpaid. Yes he was a mistake which we will regret for the next decade but we have to live with it and back him in.

Papley does not have any of those traits. He will be a gun whether its for us or someone else.
Click to expand...

Well hopefully it's for Sydney because he clearly can't fire a shot against Plowman. LOL.
 
Eiffel 65 said:
Have another look at the attached post. Hopefully that makes sense.

It doesn't always come down to who you rate highest. If you have multiple selections in a tight range, the selection order may come down to who has interest in certain players and who is likely to be available at your 2nd or 3rd selections.

This situation was also seen with Geelong and Port Adelaide in the 2019 draft.
Click to expand...
We never had multiple picks that’s whole point. Me traded at the last second. It couldn’t be more different.
It’s like saying let’s not take Walsh first let’s take Lukosius instead and then hopefully trade in a pick and get Walsh anyway. If you have picks 1 and 3 knowing GC rate Walsh at 3 and Lukosius at 1 then sure you take Lukosius at one knowing you will get Walsh anyway and you get your top two targets. To not take the guy You rate the highest when you don’t even have another pick is just moronic.
 
Arr0w said:
J, that pick will be in the 20's by the time it is used and getting a 2nd back

Happy to exchange 2nds and 3rds, but Narkle would easily be a better option than we currently have on the list
Click to expand...

I agree with you in that it's ultimately not a lot and that the pick will blow out, but it's still a first round pick.

And given the likelihood of us being active on the trade table there are plenty of better ways we can use a first round pick, be it our own or tied to the finishing position of another club.

Narkle is coming out of contract and will be 23 before the end of the year. He has been in the AFL system for 4 years and has played 17 games in that time. He's not a part of Geelong's best side, and for the purpose of this discussion it is not relevant that he would be in ours.

That's not someone who would be involved in a trade for a 1st round pick, and Geelong wouldn't be so silly as to expect it.

He's worth a 3rd round pick.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

HavUEvaSeenTheRain said:
We never had multiple picks that’s whole point. Me traded at the last second. It couldn’t be more different.
It’s like saying let’s not take Walsh first let’s take Lukosius instead and then hopefully trade in a pick and get Walsh anyway. If you have picks 1 and 3 knowing GC rate Walsh at 3 and Lukosius at 1 then sure you take Lukosius at one knowing you will get Walsh anyway and you get your top two targets. To not take the guy rate the highest when you don’t even have another pick is just moronic.
Click to expand...

Not if you have 2 picks in the space of 3 selections and if you know the player you rate higher will be available at your second selection, however the player you rate a spot or two lower won't be because another club rates them higher than you do. Refer to the McKay and Curnow example on how SOS managed to get both, when if he had of taken Charlie at pick 10, we wouldn't have drafted Harry.

We had 1 pick, which was pick 1. SOS always showed a tendency to trade up the draft board. What I'm saying is that we could have bundled those picks to move up to Sydney's pick 13, giving us our second selection, as well as done the live trade with Adelaide to obtain our 3rd selection.

And no, it's not moronic if the club does their research into the players other clubs are more likely to draft. It's actually smart because it increases the likelihood of acquiring all your target players.

Also note that the trade was always getting done if our player was there. If you look at the footage, Adelaide were trying to force the trade onto SOS earlier than he wanted.
 
Last edited:
Jeremias said:
I agree with you in that it's ultimately not a lot and that the pick will blow out, but it's still a first round pick.

And given the likelihood of us being active on the trade table there are plenty of better ways we can use a first round pick, be it our own or tied to the finishing position of another club.

Narkle is coming out of contract and will be 23 before the end of the year. He has been in the AFL system for 4 years and has played 17 games in that time. He's not a part of Geelong's best side, and for the purpose of this discussion it is not relevant that he would be in ours.

That's not someone who would be involved in a trade for a 1st round pick, and Geelong wouldn't be so silly as to expect it.

He's worth a 3rd round pick.
Click to expand...

He could well be a DFA depending on how deep lists are cut next season. Otherwise a standalone pick in the 50's probably gets the job done.

At worst, he's an upgrade on Darcy Lang.

Best case scenario is he's our version of Dan Butler should we try to recruit him.
 
Jeremias said:
I agree with you in that it's ultimately not a lot and that the pick will blow out, but it's still a first round pick.

And given the likelihood of us being active on the trade table there are plenty of better ways we can use a first round pick, be it our own or tied to the finishing position of another club.

Narkle is coming out of contract and will be 23 before the end of the year. He has been in the AFL system for 4 years and has played 17 games in that time. He's not a part of Geelong's best side, and for the purpose of this discussion it is not relevant that he would be in ours.

That's not someone who would be involved in a trade for a 1st round pick, and Geelong wouldn't be so silly as to expect it.

He's worth a 3rd round pick.
Click to expand...
I would rather get Sam Walsh brother in the draft around that pick.
Could Narkle be this years DFA?
 
Eiffel 65 said:
Not if you have 2 picks in the space of 3 selections and if you know the player you rate higher will be available at your second selection, however the player you rate a spot or two lower won't be because another club rates them higher than you do. Refer to the McKay and Curnow example on how SOS managed to get both, when if he had of taken Charlie at pick 10, we wouldn't have drafted Harry.

We had 1 pick, which was pick 1. SOS always showed a tendency to trade up the draft board. What I'm saying is that we could have bundled those picks to move up to Sydney's pick 13, giving us our second selection, as well as done the live trade with Adelaide to obtain our 3rd selection.

And no, it's not moronic if the club does their research into the players other clubs are more likely to draft. It's actually smart because it increases the likelihood of acquiring all your target players.
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely crazy to pretend as if we would’ve taken anyone other then Stocker at that pick 13 (that ended up getting pushed back.) The multiple picks in close proximity has nothing to do with it because we never would’ve had that. That Adelaide pick where we ended up taking Stocker was never there when we would’ve had a selection so we would’ve taken the best player (Stocker) exactly like the example you just made about pick 1. We could’ve still made that trade with Adelaide but we had absolutely no idea we could until after the fact So no decision could be made about who we could possibly take later on when we were taking that pick at 13 (16)
 
Papley plays with an intensity that is beyond pretty much anyone in our team. This will have an impact on our team as much as anything. Mad not to cough up a decent trade if the option is there.

In saying that, I would assume the Club figures out exactly how much it's willing to part with for Paps, then see if they can shake another (better?) player from somewhere else. If not, hand it over. The difference between playing conservative and getting the trade done will soon be forgotten when he's kicking goals and laying tackles.

No logic in comparing the Gov trade with Paps. The intensity that Gov belatedly showed in his chase last night is the intensity that Paps plays with as standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top