Conspiracy theorists

[little graham]

Don't worry about a thing. Its all sealed in fate.

In five years time, after pyke is sacked and Simon Goodwin returns home after losing three gf's as Melbourne coach, getting rid of 3 or 4 senior players, Jarman will be traded to us from china and kick five goals in the last quarter of a tight GF and not win the norm smith.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I've been banging on about the club being nepotistic but I'm glad to see they didn't compromise their draft order with Jarman. It gives me some hope.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Nope. There was a few posters suggesting it was a tactic to ensure we weren't forced to take him earlier than we'd planned.

Ridiculous logic by posters
Plenty of academy and father/son bids go unmatched so clubs aren't going to play chicken like that

 

[Pdub]

Ridiculous logic by posters
Plenty of academy and father/son bids go unmatched so clubs aren't going to play chicken like that

You wouldn't bid on a player you don't want, but you would bid on a player you are happy to take if the bid isn't matched, but if a matched bid improves the talent available at a later pick then you would probably risk not getting your preferred player, but only if the difference between the preferred player and the player you are bidding on is negligible.

Like I said earlier, I'd bet that Sydney rated Florent higher than Bowes, but bid on Bowes because if they didn't GC would likely have taken a non-academy player at pick 11, a player that Sydney probably hoped to take at pick 21 especially when the Northern clubs all prefer players from SA and country vic over melbourne.

 

[LoBu]

Ok, by not nominating we told every other club not to bother, we are closest and don't rate him. So the clubs all don't pick him, giving us a free hit at the rookie draft. But we do actually rate him, but needed the cloke and dagger because he needs 2 years to develop the fitness needed to match his skills.

 

[Sanders]

It doesn't need to be the only reason to be a reason.


We didn't pick Gallucci last night because of his standing jump result at the combine, but it certainly would have made him more appealing.

Like a steel trap.

A very rusty, oxidised and corroded steel trap

 

[Sanders]

You wouldn't bid on a player you don't want, but you would bid on a player you are happy to take if the bid isn't matched, but if a matched bid improves the talent available at a later pick then you would probably risk not getting your preferred player, but only if the difference between the preferred player and the player you are bidding on is negligible.

Like I said earlier, I'd bet that Sydney rated Florent higher than Bowes, but bid on Bowes because if they didn't GC would likely have taken a non-academy player at pick 11, a player that Sydney probably hoped to take at pick 21 especially when the Northern clubs all prefer players from SA and country vic over melbourne.

It's the earnest sincerity I find funniest

 

[kulak]

I think it could happen, if all of the following things are true:
- we have picks close together (eg 20 and 23)
- the next two players on our list are two academy prospects from the same academy
- the academy team has barely enough points for one of them
- we prefer academy prospect A
- academy team prefers academy prospect B
- we know their preference
- they don't know our preference

In that case we might bid on academy prospect B first, hoping they match the bid so that we can get our preferred choice of academy prospect A.

None of those factors were present in the Ben Jarman draft decision.

The odds seem low that it would ever happen.