Academy 2021 Father/Son Prospects - Nominations are in!

[Lore]

Those who have been nominated:

FATHER-SON
Collingwood – Nick Daicos
Melbourne – Taj Woewodin
North Melbourne – Jackson Archer
Port Adelaide – Jase Burgoyne
Western Bulldogs – Sam Darcy

How many will Saints get? Every Academy, father-son nomination

Check out who your club has nominated as a father-son or Academy selection

www.afl.com.au

 

[eth-dog]

Aren't the Papley's cousins of Ben and Michael Ross too RedmanWasHere?

 

[Apex36]

We don’t have a second round pick this year, as we traded it away last year.

We currently have picks 49, 53, 59 and 73, currently worth 687 points.

The problem for the Bulldogs (or the Lions) will be combining a lot of later picks and trading them up for fewer second round picks.

Typically when doing this, them team trading multiple picks does lose out on points.

Collingwood will also be looking to trade future second and third round picks for current picks, as they are ~800 points short of a bid at pick 1, or ~400 points short of a bid at pick 2.

GWS, and maybe Port, might also look be looking for later points to help match bids on their academy or FS kids as well.

Pies are more likely to try to push out a player for some points than trade future picks imo

 

[THE_GUN]

Another option would be to trade out our future second and third rounders for points this year.

For instance we could trade our 2021 first and 2022 second and third rounders for Brisbane's 2022 first and 2021 second and third rounders.

Then how do you get the points to match Darcy ??
brisbane will finish top 2-3 and their 2nd/3rd wont be enough in points this year

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Aren't the Papley's cousins of Ben and Michael Ross too RedmanWasHere?

They are too.

I'll edit the pinned post ASAP.

Also, I didn't know it was pinned until the tag.

 

[briztoon]

Pies are more likely to try to push out a player for some points than trade future picks imo

Name/s?

 

[Apex36]

Name/s?

Cox, Thomas, C Brown, and a few others. Not major pieces or particularly valuable trade assets by any means, but if we can get a couple of third rounders in it will go a fair way to making up the points we need. There’s always the real possibility of a player with genuine value requesting a trade too.

 

[eDPS]

I know this is 2021 thread but for Melbourne supporters Noah Yze kicked a goal after the siren playing for YJFL under 15s against YMA today. Kicked atleast a couple and looks a very crafty forward at this stage.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

I know this is 2021 thread but for Melbourne supporters Noah Yze kicked a goal after the siren playing for YJFL under 15s against YMA today. Kicked atleast a couple and looks a very crafty forward at this stage.

Would Noah be for 2024 or 2025?

 

[eDPS]

Would Noah be for 2024 or 2025?

2024

 

[the dog's kennel]

Could the bulldogs be anymore kissed by the afl! They get basically 2 number 1 draft picks gifted to them by the afl. First Ugle-Hagan and now Sam Darcy. The whole system is a bloody joke. Especially when there are clubs that need it more and clubs who have had basically no father sons come through. Complete BS

If Darcy went Pick 2 say and the Dogs made the GF I can see how people would be really p!55ed off at us cleaning up 2 drafts in a row. And to be honest, I don't like Academy picks, I don't think the system should have allowed picks like the Jamarra pick. But I think the principle of Father/Son and Father/Daughter is a really good one. It's unique to our code and I think it's a wonderful innovation. I wouldn't want to see Steve Kernaghan's daughter playing at Collingwood, say.

Yes, it's unfair to GC and GWS for now. But I reckon they should be allowed to retain Academies until their veterans are old enough to start pumping out the F/S options. The two changes I would make is to a) up the games required to 150 instead of 100. You get a lot of also-ran players pass 100 games. F/S should only be for club stalwarts. b) not have any F/S discount at all. You shouldn't require a points "incentive" to pick up a father/son.

 

[danster168]

If Darcy went Pick 2 say and the Dogs made the GF I can see how people would be really p!55ed off at us cleaning up 2 drafts in a row. And to be honest, I don't like Academy picks, I don't think the system should have allowed picks like the Jamarra pick. But I think the principle of Father/Son and Father/Daughter is a really good one. It's unique to our code and I think it's a wonderful innovation. I wouldn't want to see Steve Kernaghan's daughter playing at Collingwood, say.

Yes, it's unfair to GC and GWS for now. But I reckon they should be allowed to retain Academies until their veterans are old enough to start pumping out the F/S options. The two changes I would make is to a) up the games required to 150 instead of 100. You get a lot of also-ran players pass 100 games. F/S should only be for club stalwarts. b) not have any F/S discount at all. You shouldn't require a points "incentive" to pick up a father/son.

It's not unfair only to GC and GWS. It's unfair for everyone! Grossly unfair. And will put a massive asterisk on any future dogs flags in my eyes. They deserve pick 17-18 or wherever they finish on the ladder this year. That's it. When you've got potentially 2 number 1 draft picks gifted to you by the afl when you don't deserve it , it peeves me right off. Melbourne this year for example have the rights to Mac Andrew this year, but what do you know the AFL changes the rules this year to say that we can't have him because he's likely to go in the top 20 picks. Yet, in the same sentence they're allowing the dogs a potential top 1 pick to go to the dogs under f/s. I think they've got to scrap f/s altogether. I mean who really cares that Jack Silvagni plays for Carlton? But if you like the romance of it I think the club should have to pay overs for the privilege. Definitely not a discount, definitely not equivalents but overs for the privilege.

 

[Virgin Dog]

It's not unfair only to GC and GWS. It's unfair for everyone! Grossly unfair. And will put a massive asterisk on any future dogs flags in my eyes. They deserve pick 17-18 or wherever they finish on the ladder this year. That's it. When you've got potentially 2 number 1 draft picks gifted to you by the afl when you don't deserve it , it peeves me right off. Melbourne this year for example have the rights to Mac Andrew this year, but what do you know the AFL changes the rules this year to say that we can't have him because he's likely to go in the top 20 picks. Yet, in the same sentence they're allowing the dogs a potential top 1 pick to go to the dogs under f/s. I think they've got to scrap f/s altogether. I mean who really cares that Jack Silvagni plays for Carlton? But if you like the romance of it I think the club should have to pay overs for the privilege. Definitely not a discount, definitely not equivalents but overs for the privilege.

I agree the system is ****ed, but is there an asterisk on West Coasts flags thanks to their father son picks? Or Geelong's? Would there be an asterisk if Melbourne breaks their drought with Viney in the side, or even by extension May since he was obtained by a series of events starting with a priority pick?

The draft is miles from fair, but every team has had some sort of unfair benefit to some degree, so to suggest the Dogs would have an asterisk on any future flags thanks to getting JUH/Darcy is an odd stance to take. Geelong, GWS, Sydney and Collingwood have all benefitted just as much, if not more, from "unfair" aspects of the draft, and none of these sides' previous or future achievements should be dismissed

 

[Liam Boy]

Jackson Archer (Grant) North Melbourne

I think you'll find his father's name is Glenn

 

[RedmanWasHere]

I think you'll find his father's name is Glenn

******* hell!

I feel like I'm having a mare in this department.

 

[Ants]

RedmanWasHere, the OP is missing Misiti. He may not be drafted, but is eligible this year.

I think the rules have reverted back to you can only use picks that you have list spaces for.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Would be good if it has. Bulldogs got a huge leg up last year due to that change.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

I think the father son rule should stay, you just do not get a discount which would make the system fair. An you can not use points to match a first round bid.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

I think the father son rule should stay, you just do not get a discount which would make the system fair. An you can not use points to match a first round bid.

And just take them with whatever pick you like?

 

[maddog37]

It's not unfair only to GC and GWS. It's unfair for everyone! Grossly unfair. And will put a massive asterisk on any future dogs flags in my eyes. They deserve pick 17-18 or wherever they finish on the ladder this year. That's it. When you've got potentially 2 number 1 draft picks gifted to you by the afl when you don't deserve it , it peeves me right off. Melbourne this year for example have the rights to Mac Andrew this year, but what do you know the AFL changes the rules this year to say that we can't have him because he's likely to go in the top 20 picks. Yet, in the same sentence they're allowing the dogs a potential top 1 pick to go to the dogs under f/s. I think they've got to scrap f/s altogether. I mean who really cares that Jack Silvagni plays for Carlton? But if you like the romance of it I think the club should have to pay overs for the privilege. Definitely not a discount, definitely not equivalents but overs for the privilege.

Like that time you got two first round draft picks for Scully and we got one for Cal Ward. Or when you did that dodgy deal with GWS to get Viney for a later pick. Or when you tanked to build your list.

If you guys do manage to ever win a flag it will be the most tainted of all.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

And just take them with whatever pick you like?

If another team uses their first round pick on your F/S then you have to match with your first round pick (No points)

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

It's not unfair only to GC and GWS. It's unfair for everyone! Grossly unfair. And will put a massive asterisk on any future dogs flags in my eyes. They deserve pick 17-18 or wherever they finish on the ladder this year. That's it. When you've got potentially 2 number 1 draft picks gifted to you by the afl when you don't deserve it , it peeves me right off. Melbourne this year for example have the rights to Mac Andrew this year, but what do you know the AFL changes the rules this year to say that we can't have him because he's likely to go in the top 20 picks. Yet, in the same sentence they're allowing the dogs a potential top 1 pick to go to the dogs under f/s. I think they've got to scrap f/s altogether. I mean who really cares that Jack Silvagni plays for Carlton? But if you like the romance of it I think the club should have to pay overs for the privilege. Definitely not a discount, definitely not equivalents but overs for the privilege.

Like that really matters, then put an asterisk on all Melbourne's premiership when there was only 12 teams in it and no salary cap and drafting.
I don't think us Dogs members will care if people like you put a so called asterisk on teams premierships.

 

[TradeDraft]

Nick Daicos been bit Injury Prone this Season.

Could he fall because of Injury Issues?

 

[Ticky009]

Nick Daicos been bit Injury Prone this Season.

Could he fall because of Injury Issues?

No

 

[BronCrow]

Nick Daicos been bit Injury Prone this Season.

Could he fall because of Injury Issues?

How far would you like him to fall down the draft?

 

[Jen2310]

How far would you like him to fall down the draft?

Surely he'll fall to the rookie draft heh.

In all seriousness, he has done enough to keep his spot up at the top end of the table. No matter if he may have some kind of injury or for whatever reason he isn't playing this week.

 

[Giant Strides]

Nick Daicos been bit Injury Prone this Season.

Could he fall because of Injury Issues?

Sure, he could trip and fall on his way up the stairs to take his #1 draft pick jersey.