Remove this Banner Ad

News Giants in the Media

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrono
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Hi all,

This is not specifically on topic, but rather than create a specific thread for this, I'll place it here and a reminder in the Forum Rules thread, to gain maximum exposure.

I note that this relates to a practice that has happened on this board, and indeed on most boards within BigFooty, and I have done it, so no-one's pointing fingers specifically at anyone in particular. But please comply so we don;t have problems going forwards.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

NewCorp has expressed concern about whole articles (or close to) being cut and pasted onto this site. News claims it breaches their copyright. Posters here are the publisher of each of their posts, so you (as an individual) might be liable for any breach of copyright where you have copied material from another source.

If referring to material from a source outside of this website, the accepted rule on BigFooty is that users may quote one or two paragraphs only and include a link to the full article.

Mods are being asked to remind posters of this requirement:

5. No illegal content; respect copyright owners
  • Articles from other sites should be limited to a relevant paragraph or two and a link to the source.
Please adhere to the above site rules so that the Mods don't need to involve themselves in your posting.

Further to the above, here is the request that site management has made to Moderators:

Warn Users

There is a new Warning to apply to posts which you believe to contain infringing material - mainly full copies of news articles:

Possible copyright material.

The user will get this message with the Warning:

=============

This post looks like it may contain re-published material from another source:

{url}

You are the publisher of your posts, so copyright holders are within their rights to request the removal of their material, and to take action against you for breach of copyright if you do not.

Please remove any posts which contain, for instance, full articles from news organisations or material which might otherwise breach the copyright of a third party.

You may of course retain small portions of material which you are directly commenting on, and link to the source - just edit the post and take out the excess material, and link to the source if you have not already.

Posting or failing to remove such material could be against our terms of service:

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.
www.bigfooty.com

www.bigfooty.com

Particularly:

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

risks copyright infringement,

The Big Interest Group Terms of Service include this clause:

Terms Of Service | Big Interest Group

15. Copyright and trade mark policies

15.1 It is Big Interest Group’s policy to respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable international intellectual property law (including, in the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and to terminating the accounts of repeat infringers.

So please remember, when using material that may be the copyright of another party, you must:

  • Use only that portion you are directly commenting on. A reasonable guide might be a paragraph or two.
  • Always link to the source.


Thank you for your attention on this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions.
 
Last edited:
Apolgies then. I am not SOS. I just think that trading up is not the best way to go as you have to pay a" tax" of about 20% points wise to do so . The best results are from trading into the future, where you get rewarded for accepting a player one year later, sometimes well very rewarded as we did with Callaghan and probably will as well with the Pick for Hopper.
Yep future trading has been great, but you can’t always do it and sometimes you need to identify the guy you think will work best and take the 20% tax hit …. Cadman seems that guy
 
I just think that trading up is not the best way to go as you have to pay a" tax" of about 20% points wise to do so . The best results are from trading into the future, where you get rewarded for accepting a player one year later, sometimes well very rewarded as we did with Callaghan and probably will as well with the Pick for Hopper.
I certainly agree that GWS has been wasteful with their picks at times by trading up (and losing overall value in doing so) to get "the best pick/kid", which certainly hasn't always worked out for us. Like everything, though, it's never a 100% vs 0% split - sometimes you do it because you perceive the risk-reward quotient is worth it. (Not that it necessarily will turn out that way.)
Yep future trading has been great, but you can’t always do it and sometimes you need to identify the guy you think will work best and take the 20% tax hit …. Cadman seems that guy
If Sheezel didn't present as such a flight risk, I would speculate that we might have taken the punt. But with the narrowing tunnel of most guys at the pointy end perceived as flight risks, and the concurrent need for a long-term KPD, I can understand why they did what they did. We did pay overs IMHO though.

The irony would be if Gruzewski ended up as the guy who solved our KPF problem! (i.e. the guy most of us asked "why did we draft him?")
 
We also can't just keep taking mids and half backs.
At some stage you gotta take KPP.
The sooner you do it. The sooner they develop which aligns with our teams older mids hitting their peak.
Sure. Future trades are good but you can't always do it and you don't always retain value. You could do it forever waiting for the 'perfect' pick that doesn't exist.
At this stage I'm viewing the Cadman pick as the right move in that draft.
Who did you want a 12?
Sure we might have picked up a decent player...but we might also have lost Cadman.
They made sure in a decisive move.
If you lose that way....I'm okay with it...
If they gambled a future star full forward on a pick 12 prospect....I'd be pissed.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

On trading up, 2 of the "trade ups" that are discussed weren't about trading up, but around academy picks.

In 2016 where we trade up to 2 (originally from 7) but via 3 and ended with Taranto.
That trade was all about getting ahead of the Setterfield bid (which came at 4 and was expected to be 3 with Taranto not being picked before it) and accumulating points for Setterfield, Perryman and Cumming, not so much about getting to Taranto. That was very smart trading.

This one, I've heard mentioned a lot recently in the trade up to Ash. We effectively used 2 first rounders (Essendon's Pick 6 and a future first) to get pick 4.
The thinking with this at the time was that both Sydney and Adelaide were interested in bidding on Green which would have soaked up pick 6 anyway. Green ended up going 10, but having already used our first rounder may have influenced that bid. The idea was effectively swapping our 2020 first rounder for pick 4.

Both of those were lauded as excellent trades at the time.

Green sliding to 10 makes you think maybe we didnt need to trade the future pick to get it, but doing what they did was the percentage play.
 
On trading up, 2 of the "trade ups" that are discussed weren't about trading up, but around academy picks.

In 2016 where we trade up to 2 (originally from 7) but via 3 and ended with Taranto.
That trade was all about getting ahead of the Setterfield bid (which came at 4 and was expected to be 3 with Taranto not being picked before it) and accumulating points for Setterfield, Perryman and Cumming, not so much about getting to Taranto. That was very smart trading.

This one, I've heard mentioned a lot recently in the trade up to Ash. We effectively used 2 first rounders (Essendon's Pick 6 and a future first) to get pick 4.
The thinking with this at the time was that both Sydney and Adelaide were interested in bidding on Green which would have soaked up pick 6 anyway. Green ended up going 10, but having already used our first rounder may have influenced that bid. The idea was effectively swapping our 2020 first rounder for pick 4.

Both of those were lauded as excellent trades at the time.

Green sliding to 10 makes you think maybe we didnt need to trade the future pick to get it, but doing what they did was the percentage play.
Green probably only slid to 10 because clubs knew they wouldn't get him but I hear your point.
Also this is a very succinct and we'll put together summation of what actually happened with those picks.
 
Green probably only slid to 10 because clubs knew they wouldn't get him but I hear your point.
Also this is a very succinct and we'll put together summation of what actually happened with those picks.
if we had to use pick 6 to Green, sides may have been more likely to bid.
 
I listened to this. I am not terribly impressed.
He is basically whinging.
I don't think the bidding system is holding GWS back, or stopping players from choosing AFL.
We need to stop stuffing up our picks.
Some clubs didn't even have Cadman in their top 10. We wasted picks 12 and 15 this year.
Putting effort into WS would be a good start, instead of the “look at our home grown in Canberra and Riverina areas etc.
 
Western Sydney is difficult though. You only have to look at the Premier AFL Sydney competition, I think almost all the clubs are in Swans zone ( 7 of the 9, only West Coast in Rouse Hill and Pennant Hills are in our academy zone, I am not sure about Pennant Hills though).
 
Pennant Hills
They're in Hornsby Shire, so Swans academy zone. They'd draw a bit from Baulkham Hills and Parramatta councils so they could conceivably have Giants' zoned players there.
 
This morning while watching Ch 7 we saw the rarest of things - a TV ad for the Giants v Saints game.
Orange army and Orange tsunami mentioned. Good to see.
Hopefully we can draw a decent crowd - if Toby plays this week that will be his 200th game
 
Hopefully we can draw a decent crowd - if Toby plays this week that will be his 200th game
You would think we will crack 10,000. Saints are playing very well, and baring a catastrophe against Collingwood, we have been very competitive in all our games under Kingsley.
 

Remove this Banner Ad


XO got a write-up, still not sure how real it is considering everything else we've seen in his career but he's been super effective in this half forward as of late and if this continues he's someone that should be getting a contract extension. High pressure numbers, goals and real effort have been so crucial in this hot streak of his.
 

XO got a write-up, still not sure how real it is considering everything else we've seen in his career but he's been super effective in this half forward as of late and if this continues he's someone that should be getting a contract extension. High pressure numbers, goals and real effort have been so crucial in this hot streak of his.
He's become a completely different player....it's crazy. Love it.
Big job this week on a large stage. Hopefully he can hack it.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

You would think we will crack 10,000. Saints are playing very well, and baring a catastrophe against Collingwood, we have been very competitive in all our games under Kingsley.
Yep, should be a good game and given its Toby's 200th, you'd hope the faithful show up. He deserves it
 
Cogs is going to have a baby girl! But nice to see that Jeremy Cameron and Finlaysons are both keeping in touch with him.

 
This covers a pretty wide area of discussion, but is quite interesting:

 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom