If Essendon finish on the bottom of the ladder, do they deserve the #1 draft pick?

Remove this Banner Ad

It still feels to me that justice hasn't been metered out enough for Essendon's crimes. They have paid the price for mismanagement and bring the game into disrepute but that was a few years ago and new evidence has been issued that paints their deception in a completely different and dangerous light. There needs to be some acknowledgement and punishment handed out to Essendon from the AFL to ensure that this doesn't occur in the future. And if the price of ensuring that is Essendon becomes a basket case for the next 10-15 years then that is a price I'm happy to see paid, for the future integrity the AFL competition.
 
Hoops said:
of course they deserve it because that's how our draft works, the worst team gets pick 1.
Click to expand...

They will only be a bad team for a year due to the loss of those senior players, the draft is suppose to help teams that have a consistent period of being at the bottom of the ladder.

Maybe its time to revise the way the draft positions are selected and it is determined over an average of the previous 2 or 3 seasons, that way it will benefit those teams that have remained consistently at the bottom and not those that just have one bad season (or cheat like the Stoners did yet receive a number 1 draft pick for it).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Furn2 said:
Injuries aren't a crime.

If you murder someone and write a book about it you can't make make money from it.

If you get attacked by a shark and you write a book about it you can keep the money.

If you can't see the difference between benefitting from having bad luck and doing something wrong then I can't help you.
Click to expand...

It's a rubbish analogy, sorry. I'd say every wooden spoon club from the past hundred years was "doing something wrong". Specifically, they were failing as football clubs, the purpose for them existing.

I want to start 2016 with a clean slate. I think the punishments have been sufficient. Today is day 1 for Essendon, as far as I'm concerned. If the Dons can salvage something from this shambles before the end of the decade, my hat will go off to the people in charge.

This "bad governance"/"doping" debate is pure semantics, just as it was when the penalties came down in the first place. A bit of simple point scoring for Paul Little and Essendon supporters on here that is pretty irrelevant now that we know what is facing them. Removing or delaying Essendon's first round pick in 2016, based on some subjective measure of how good the club would have been if Heath Hocking and Tayte Pears had been available seems pretty pointless to me and it potentially opens a huge can of worms.
 
Spiritof82 said:
They will only be a bad team for a year due to the loss of those senior players, the draft is suppose to help teams that have a consistent period of being at the bottom of the ladder.
Click to expand...

Wrong wrong wrong. The draft is based on the philosophy of Any Given Sunday, that is an equal competition, even though we know that is near impossible to have. Therefore the draft is supposed to give the kick along to the team that has one bad year and they bounce back to competitiveness.
 
MC Extra Dollop said:
It's a rubbish analogy, sorry. I'd say every wooden spoon club from the past hundred years was "doing something wrong". Specifically, they were failing as football clubs, the purpose for them existing.

I want to start 2016 with a clean slate. I think the punishments have been sufficient. Today is day 1 for Essendon, as far as I'm concerned. If the Dons can salvage something from this shambles before the end of the decade, my hat will go off to the people in charge.

This "bad governance"/"doping" debate is pure semantics, just as it was when the penalties came down in the first place. A bit of simple point scoring for Paul Little and Essendon supporters on here that is pretty irrelevant now that we know what is facing them. Removing or delaying Essendon's first round pick in 2016, based on some subjective measure of how good the club would have been if Heath Hocking and Tayte Pears had been available seems pretty pointless to me and it potentially opens a huge can of worms.
Click to expand...

So now your comparing being crap with a being found guilty of club-wide doping program ?

You'd have no problem if the entire Hawthorn list tested positive to HGH tomorrow and were banned for 2 years for them to recieve the first pick of every round in 2016 and 2017 ?
 
Hoops said:
of course they deserve it because that's how our draft works, the worst team gets pick 1.
Click to expand...
They will be the worst team due to their own actions. They are not deserving of being being rewarded with a top pick while other teams that didn't dope miss out.
 
MC Extra Dollop said:
It's a rubbish analogy, sorry. I'd say every wooden spoon club from the past hundred years was "doing something wrong". Specifically, they were failing as football clubs, the purpose for them existing.

I want to start 2016 with a clean slate. I think the punishments have been sufficient. Today is day 1 for Essendon, as far as I'm concerned. If the Dons can salvage something from this shambles before the end of the decade, my hat will go off to the people in charge.

This "bad governance"/"doping" debate is pure semantics, just as it was when the penalties came down in the first place. A bit of simple point scoring for Paul Little and Essendon supporters on here that is pretty irrelevant now that we know what is facing them. Removing or delaying Essendon's first round pick in 2016, based on some subjective measure of how good the club would have been if Heath Hocking and Tayte Pears had been available seems pretty pointless to me and it potentially opens a huge can of worms.
Click to expand...
See my post above. Essendon will be the worst team due to their own actions and do not deserve to be rewarded for those actions.
 
Furn2 said:
So now your comparing being crap with a being found guilty of club-wide doping program ?

You'd have no problem if the entire Hawthorn list tested positive to HGH tomorrow and were banned for 2 years for them to recieve the first pick of every round in 2016 and 2017 ?
Click to expand...

I'm applying your own wording ("doing something wrong") to the issue. As far as I'm concerned, Essendon hasn't done anything wrong so far in 2016. If it turns out that it is the shittest team in the AFL this year, going by the ladder position then it will get the #1 pick. And I'm ok with that.

Your Hawthorn comparison is irrelevant because, as I've already explained (and not that it should need to be explained, since everyone is quite aware of this) Essendon has already lost four draft picks in 2013 and 2014 because of this.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
alright, so who is currently the best kid in the land? I'm interested...
Click to expand...
Don't know but you'll need to trade him from Carlton in a few years. Think you're looking for the 18th best kid in the land.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mikeythemoocow said:
they let us become one for a decade.
Click to expand...
They've learned from that debacle.
You can't have clubs capable of filling the G languishing for too long.$$$$$$$$$$$!$!!
Gil has already stated they will get the no.1 pick if they finish last and will not face further sanctions based on the guilty ruling.
As for jobes chas,if he doesn't hand it back I think they'll take it to appease the masses.
 
Definitely Not. Better if Essendon as a club were suspended for the 2016 season, and removed from next year's drafts entirely (as a minimum). The evidence is damning that it was a pre-meditated, deliberate, calculated doping regime and concealed from those within the club itself who may have questioned the entire programme.
 
falcons2 said:
Wrong wrong wrong. The draft is based on the philosophy of Any Given Sunday, that is an equal competition, even though we know that is near impossible to have. Therefore the draft is supposed to give the kick along to the team that has one bad year and they bounce back to competitiveness.
Click to expand...

The draft as it is doesn't help a club bounce back after one bad year as it takes 3-4 years for draft picks to get up to speed and make an impact in a team. If a club has one bad year (or tanks like Carlton or cheat like the Stoners) and then comes good again the following year they don't need the high pick as it won't be the draft choices getting them back up the ladder it would be the current players getting them there.
 
Crow_Magnon said:
Definitely Not. Better if Essendon as a club were suspended for the 2016 season, and removed from next year's drafts entirely (as a minimum). The evidence is damning that it was a pre-meditated, deliberate, calculated doping regime and concealed from those within the club itself who may have questioned the entire programme.
Click to expand...

I think you will find all involved have left the club, been removed or suspended. Now you are starting to want to punish the not guilty.

The correct authorities have made a decision. You dont have to like it but you need to accept it.
The draft is in place as a recruitment strategy to create an equal competition not a reward system.

Reward in the draft is a perception not a reality.
 
falcons2 said:
I think you will find all involved have left the club, been removed or suspended. Now you are starting to want to punish the not guilty.

The correct authorities have made a decision. You dont have to like it but you need to accept it.
The draft is in place as a recruitment strategy to create an equal competition not a reward system.

Reward in the draft is a perception not a reality.
Click to expand...

Unless you want to give the likes of Deledio and Goddard the benefit of the doubt, the last future hall of famer to go #1 was Hodge in 2001. The #1 picks that have been taken since then have all been your 200-game and maybe a B&F/AA or two - at best - types.
 
Spiritof82 said:
The draft as it is doesn't help a club bounce back after one bad year as it takes 3-4 years for draft picks to get up to speed and make an impact in a team. If a club has one bad year (or tanks like Carlton or cheat like the Stoners) and then comes good again the following year they don't need the high pick as it won't be the draft choices getting them back up the ladder it would be the current players getting them there.
Click to expand...
While I think we are getting off topic you are getting to a truth. Clubs like your own and Port Adelaide drifted towards the bottom after periods of some success but didn't languish there for too long. They gained some early draft picks and with other recruitment strategies and a whole host of actions are again competitive. Dont get sucked in like Carlton and Melbourne have that multiple #1's answer all problems.
 
581932_10204239572588547_2431291103925399308_n.jpg
I reckon this bloke thinks so....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
745
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
430
sosos
sosos
Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
754
Satan
Satan
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top