Opinion Is Ugle-Hagan the first ever ‘strategic’ #1 pick?

Remove this Banner Ad

briztoon

Wannabe Draft Nuffie
Nov 28, 2015
13,811
14,058
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
NUFC, Philadelphia 76'ers
Wait, what???

Did Adelaide post something official, saying that their bid on JUH was strategic, to stop the Dogs drafting a kid in the second round?

If they genuinely said this, that’s one big fat pile of b.s. any right minded draft follower should see right through.
 

Bulldogs85

Club Legend
Sep 25, 2016
1,414
2,369
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Wait, what???

Did Adelaide post something official, saying that their bid on JUH was strategic, to stop the Dogs drafting a kid in the second round?

If they genuinely said this, that’s one big fat pile of b.s. any right minded draft follower should see right through.
they said in the video that they placed a bid on JUH because supposedly we were interested James Rowe who is 22 years old so he is not exactly a kid But I agree with you it is a big fat pile of BS
 

briztoon

Wannabe Draft Nuffie
Nov 28, 2015
13,811
14,058
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
NUFC, Philadelphia 76'ers
Alot of this has been taken out of context.
AFC said they rated RT number one out of the gettable players in the draft. Pretty sure Hamish has said JUH was thr best talent in the draft.
Hamish also said RT was the best SA kid all through his jr years.
They knew we weren't going to get JUH but bid on him to take away Bullies later picks as they also had an interest in Rowe.
It kinda like how we traded up with Collingwood to get Brayden Cook because we knew clubs before our next pick would have taken him.
The whole draft is full of strategies to get the players clubs want.
Bwhahaha if you actually believe this.

All you have to do is look at the Bulldogs picks and points at the end of trade week and do some basic maths.

The Bulldogs were always going to lose all their first and second round picks just matching a bid at pick 2, let alone pick one.

As the draft got nearer, the noise got louder that Adelaide was going to bid at pick 1, so the Bulldogs traded in more picks and points to match a bid at pick 1.

Before the Bulldogs last trade to get extra points, if a bid came at pick 2, their next live pick was their last pick, 54.

After that last trade, it meant they had picks 52 and 54 as live picks, should Adelaide not bid at pick 1.


Adelaide’s last pick was pick 40.

The Bulldogs third pick was pick 41.

The Bulldogs were never, ever, ever going to be in the position to make a second selection before Adelaide used their last pick on Rowe.

It would have meant they would only have had to use one pick, their first to match a bid.

Or to trade back in to the draft ahead of Adelaide’s last pick, and bidding on JUH would have had no influence on the Bulldogs ability to trade back in.


This whole thing is farcical to say the least.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ScrappyDo

Premiership Player
Mar 29, 2018
3,860
11,044
Omnipotent
AFL Club
St Kilda
Looks like there was no debate about the thread topic, and so, probably, Ugle-Hagan is the first ever ‘strategic’ #1 pick.

And he probably knows it.

IMO it’s a pity that the draft rules make this sort of thing possible.
The only possibility for a 'strategic' pick is the existence of the FS/NGA bidding system.
JUH being the first FS/NGA eligible player to be selected at #1 means the answer is obviously YES within your context.

However, since the Dogs had positioned themselves to take JUH, and had broadcast their intent, there was nothing strategic about it. Almost a fait accompli in fact.

Given that the Dogs had traded down the draft, JUH being taken at 1-2-3-etc would not have effected Adelaids bounty of earlier picks, and would not have had any predictable or quantifiable effect on later picks due to the volatility of live trading and the uncertainty over players without form lines (see COVID19).
Within this context, it's actually not possible for the selection to be 'strategic' by the definition of the word, since Adelaide attained no measurable benefit from doing so.

Had the Dogs been placed differently in the draft, in a way that Adelaide could benefit from their loss of points/picks, then you could claim an element of 'strategic' intent, however that's stretching the definition since one single move in any contest can hardly form a 'strategy'.

So to answer the question. No.
JUH was not the first 'strategic' number 1 pick, since there was nothing strategic about it.

The only possibilities for it to be so were removed from the table the moment the Dogs traded their 1st round pick.

The other possibility was for Adelaide to deal with the Dogs for some mutually beneficial arrangement in return for not bidding on JUH in the first place.

The loser of the entire circumstance was in fact the AFC, since they lost the various benefits of having pick #1 for no gains at all.

The reasons behind it boil down to one simple thing. And l don't say this to start an argument, it's just an observation.

The AFC is currently run by a group of knuckle dragging arse-hats that couldn't even form the word 'strategic' let alone think intelligently enough to develop such a thing.
As with most egotistical slack-jaws in such positions, they are occupied with bluff and bluster to maintain their status.

The club's culture has been utterly trashed.
They made complete fools of themselves over the Brad Crouch business with StKilda.
And they bid on JUH as payback for the Dogs tight fisted trading the year before, to grandstand to the members as hard men.

Just my opinion btw. Don't bite my head off.

The reason you're not getting feedback and this thread can't stay on topic, is because the premise of it is either obvious, or completely incorrect, depending on the context.

SD
 
Last edited:

gangsta deluxe

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2005
8,212
9,586
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Rajasthan Royals!!!
Bwhahaha if you actually believe this.

All you have to do is look at the Bulldogs picks and points at the end of trade week and do some basic maths.

The Bulldogs were always going to lose all their first and second round picks just matching a bid at pick 2, let alone pick one.

As the draft got nearer, the noise got louder that Adelaide was going to bid at pick 1, so the Bulldogs traded in more picks and points to match a bid at pick 1.

Before the Bulldogs last trade to get extra points, if a bid came at pick 2, their next live pick was their last pick, 54.

After that last trade, it meant they had picks 52 and 54 as live picks, should Adelaide not bid at pick 1.


Adelaide’s last pick was pick 40.

The Bulldogs third pick was pick 41.

The Bulldogs were never, ever, ever going to be in the position to make a second selection before Adelaide used their last pick on Rowe.

It would have meant they would only have had to use one pick, their first to match a bid.

Or to trade back in to the draft ahead of Adelaide’s last pick, and bidding on JUH would have had no influence on the Bulldogs ability to trade back in.


This whole thing is farcical to say the least.
It is demonstrably a complete joke and I love how Adelaide supporters like the OP lap it up hahahaha
 

Ants

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2005
3,365
1,109
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
Just wondering if it has ever happened before. That the club with the #1 pick doesn’t pick the player that they rated #1 (that was Thilthorpe in 2020), but reads out another name for purely strategic reasons.

Is this the first time?

I know that being #1 pick is a bit of a mixed blessing anyway, but the way it happened this year must leave JUH feeling a bit used, “we only called your name so we could get someone else later down the list”. It usually means “you are the best kid in the country”.

But I’m mainly interested in the historical curiosity.
Going strategic would have been bidding on JUH and then Campbell, after trading #6 for #9 and steak knives to Essendon once JUH was bid on (with it all agreed with EFC before hand). Doing so might have cost them Thillithorpe, but given them 2 of the top 7 talents. Essendon would have lost nothing and gained the steak knives.

What Adelaide did was bid on the best player, and then take the player they wanted most.
 

Remove this Banner Ad