grundog49's Phantom Draft

[Greendogg]

I don't think GC would be too worried about going into deficit if matching the bid on Scheer at pick 30.
Keep in mind that in your phantom you have GC matching Sydney's pick 10 bid with GC's pick 11. This leaves them with a surplus of 213 points.
Matching a bid of pick 30 on Scheer costs 432 points.
With their points surplus from the Bowes bid this means that matching the Scheer bid would only cost them 219 points deficit for next year which isn't much especially when they have 3 2nd round picks for next year.
Suppose the best of their second rounders next year is pick 22. All it would cost to match Scheer would be exchanging that pick 22 for pick 30 and Scheer.
Well worth it for Scheer I personally think.

And GCS have 4 second round picks next year and pick 73 this year which adds 9 more points towards Scheer...
Spot on, Scheer is definitely going to be a Sun..

 

[Greendogg]

you've got suns taking jack graham with pick 52. not sure where you've got this pick from? we've only got the 4x top 10 picks plus pick 73 (not sure how we snuck up to 70??)

tarranto, scrimshaw, florent & bowes would be a pretty decent haul. the sandringham dragons connection is nice. i reckon we'll match any bid on scheer though.

We get points left over from matching the Bowes bid which translates to pick 52 if we don't match the Scheer bid but we absolutely will, so yeah Grundog is a bit out on this one..

 

[grundog49]

Hey grundog49 , noticed you have the Eagles passing pick 103 but then using pick 121?

My bad

 

[PhoenixBonez]

My bad

All good mate, just wanted to point it out for you.
Thanks for posting, enjoyed reading through it.

 

[Fatcat08]

We get points left over from matching the Bowes bid which translates to pick 52 if we don't match the Scheer bid but we absolutely will, so yeah Grundog is a bit out on this one..

no, any first round bid that is matched with a first round pick gives you left over points to use at the end of the draft if you're in deficit, it doesn't result in that pick sliding back to the points equivalent position. Still surprised that people aren't aware of this rule.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Good on you for having a go - I read it because you made some sense in your Sydney picks in the BF Mock. That said, I am really struggling on what you are picking for the Eagles. Can you elaborate your rationale?

Pick 11 Ruck - English
Pick 38 HBF - Drew
Pick 53 3rd tall Fwd - Waterman
Pick 103 - pass
pick 121 Ruck - Sweet

Initial observations
This is known as a midfielder draft - and deep on midfielders. Great quality mids especially in the first 2 rounds. Yet you gave us 2 ruckman - any reason why? Neither are ready to play so will not be ready to cover for Lycett if delayed in 2017 or NicNat. They will be nutured for at least 3 to 4 years and the club believe the window is still open.
We are not into English. From what I have heard, the Suns and Freo are more seriously into English and they have many picks in top 10 so I expect a premium to be paid for him but not by us.
Waterman at 53 - any reason why you took him at our 3rd pick when after the minimum discount at that level is 197 points. We simply pick him up with our next pick at 103 assuming anyone bids on him and get a better prospect at 53 .
Drew - was OK on him so assume you think he is best available
Pass at 103 then pick at 121 assume is an oversight.

Eagles are on record to say that they will take one tall and then continue to address midfield. I don't this you have addressed this.
We have 5 spots available on the senior list (1st time last year we went 1 less senior and 1 more rookie as there were some health issues) and yet you only took 4 players? I expect we will not go an extra on the rookie list and fill the senior list. NicNat will open up a slot immediately allowing any rookie elevation.
We really need 2 inside mids and you have only offered up Drew (more outside)!

I would be absolutely pissed off if that was the outcome of draft so happy to hear rationale.

 

[grundog49]

Good on you for having a go - I read it because you made some sense in your Sydney picks in the BF Mock. That said, I am really struggling on what you are picking for the Eagles. Can you elaborate your rationale?

Pick 11 Ruck - English
Pick 38 HBF - Drew
Pick 53 3rd tall Fwd - Waterman
Pick 103 - pass
pick 121 Ruck - Sweet

Initial observations
This is known as a midfielder draft - and deep on midfielders. Great quality mids especially in the first 2 rounds. Yet you gave us 2 ruckman - any reason why? Neither are ready to play so will not be ready to cover for Lycett if delayed in 2017 or NicNat. They will be nutured for at least 3 to 4 years and the club believe the window is still open.
We are not into English. From what I have heard, the Suns and Freo are more seriously into English and they have many picks in top 10 so I expect a premium to be paid for him but not by us.
Waterman at 53 - any reason why you took him at our 3rd pick when after the minimum discount at that level is 197 points. We simply pick him up with our next pick at 103 assuming anyone bids on him and get a better prospect at 53 .
Drew - was OK on him so assume you think he is best available
Pass at 103 then pick at 121 assume is an oversight.

Eagles are on record to say that they will take one tall and then continue to address midfield. I don't this you have addressed this.
We have 5 spots available on the senior list (1st time last year we went 1 less senior and 1 more rookie as there were some health issues) and yet you only took 4 players? I expect we will not go an extra on the rookie list and fill the senior list. NicNat will open up a slot immediately allowing any rookie elevation.
We really need 2 inside mids and you have only offered up Drew (more outside)!

I would be absolutely pissed off if that was the outcome of draft so happy to hear rationale.

The pass was an obvious mistake. English is just too good to pass and adds depth as Naitanui recovers from his ACL. Drew at 32 is a steal. Waterman you wont pass on and Sweet I have heard whispers of him being on their radar big time.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

The pass was an obvious mistake. English is just too good to pass and adds depth as Naitanui recovers from his ACL. Drew at 32 is a steal. Waterman you wont pass on and Sweet I have heard whispers of him being on their radar big time.

Not sure if you understand but drafting 2 raw ruckmen means they will not be ready to play at an AFL level until 2020 so adds nothing in depth in 2017. That is why we got Vardy. Will be interested to hear about Sweet as we could pick up Cameron, Goddard or equivalent ruck at a very late pick.

It is not a matter of passing on Waterman - unless he is bid on before pick 53, we can take him with our fourth pick meaning our 3rd non-F/S pick is much earlier and higher quality.

If I was to give a personal grading on your West Coast draft, I regret to say you get an F. Sydney got the best side of you in the mock, let's put it down to workload.

 

[maverick001]

It is not a matter of passing on Waterman - unless he is bid on before pick 53, we can take him with our fourth pick meaning our 3rd non-F/S pick is much earlier and higher quality.

I may be mistaken but my understanding was that you must use your next available selection after the the bid is made, in order to match the father-son or academy bid

 

[dlanod]

As I said I dont think they will risk missing out on Connor Ballenden next year. He's got marquee forward written all over him!

Kids' tattoos are getting ridiculous these days.

 

[dlanod]

no, any first round bid that is matched with a first round pick gives you left over points to use at the end of the draft if you're in deficit, it doesn't result in that pick sliding back to the points equivalent position. Still surprised that people aren't aware of this rule.

Not that surprising - the Lions board only got it settled because we were trying to figure out what was going on with a discrepancy in the AFL's examples, so someone from the club checked up on it and posted the explanation on our board. It's never come up in an actual draft and it's not exactly of enough interest to mention in media articles on draft scenarios (at least that I've seen).

This year will probably be the first time we see it in action with Bowes in amongst GC's first round picks. What's the bet the commentators stuff up the explanation of it?

 

[dlanod]

I may be mistaken but my understanding was that you must use your next available selection after the the bid is made, in order to match the father-son or academy bid

After pick 56 (not 53) any bids are effectively for zero points after factoring in the 197 point discount, so there's no downgrading of picks for the matching club and the player just fills a list spot - in effect they just use up the matching club's last available pick.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

I may be mistaken but my understanding was that you must use your next available selection after the the bid is made, in order to match the father-son or academy bid

Agree on how I read it - a father son bid that has no points attached must be taken at the next possible pick. For Westcoast, anything after 53 would be in the 5th round since we do not have a 4th round pick.

 

[maverick001]

After pick 56 (not 53) any bids are effectively for zero points after factoring in the 197 point discount, so there's no downgrading of picks for the matching club and the player just fills a list spot - in effect they just use up the matching club's last available pick.

Thanks for enlightening!!

 

[Nemisis]

A good effort - makes sense = well done

 

[marty36]

The pass was an obvious mistake. English is just too good to pass and adds depth as Naitanui recovers from his ACL. Drew at 32 is a steal. Waterman you wont pass on and Sweet I have heard whispers of him being on their radar big time.

Are you serious about English offering coverage as a ruckmen in the AFL in his first year against the likes of Mumford,Goldstein,Gawn, Jacobs, Ryder, Vickery and the other seasoned Men who weigh well over a 100 kilo, West Coast would be better playing a tall KPP who carrys some beef like Port did with Trengrove last year in an effort to actually just compete

 

[grundog49]

Are you serious about English offering coverage as a ruckmen in the AFL in his first year against the likes of Mumford,Goldstein,Gawn, Jacobs, Ryder, Vickery and the other seasoned Men who weigh well over a 100 kilo, West Coast would be better playing a tall KPP who carrys some beef like Port did with Trengrove last year in an effort to actually just compete

I dont think he will have to but depth in that position is still good to have.

 

[POULTERBEAR]

what about Brayden Kirk, hes good wont he be going first round?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!??!?! grundog49
also what's wrong with your mock draft, Richmond are meant to have Pick 26 not 30!!!!