jimmyclean
Team Captain
Most supporters on here would say Jack Watts is awful and doesn't deserve to be playing AFL.
Sure have a clever bunch ere.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
MFC-AFL DRAFT HANDOUTS: The Truth
- Thread starter }>-DEMON-<{
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Most supporters on here would say Jack Watts is awful and doesn't deserve to be playing AFL.
Sure have a clever bunch ere.
- Banned
- #177
Most supporters would be correct. He has shown very little thus far at AFL level to positively say that he belongs. That's not to say that I don't think he has a lot of potential.
I don't know why we all go attacking each other over the tanking issue. The thanks for that ought to go to the AFL for making it all possible. If a team is in the position where losing a nothing game at the end of the season carries a greater reward than winning it, of course they're going to want to lose. It's the smart option. I never blamed Melbourne, or Carlton, or Collingwood, or anyone else who did it. We had a game against Richmond in late 2005 that was as dodgy as all get-out, now I think of it. (For that, we picked up Dowler, which I think is punishment enough)
The AFL have never bothered to get their heads around the issue of giving teams an incentive for losing. They spent more time and effort trying to bury the issue than they did looking to correct it. And they've caused just as much of an issue trying to engineer new competitive teams in 'growth' areas, and giving them license to scoop off talent from existing clubs.
My only issue is with the extraordinarily dodgy effort to calculate how the draft picks were allocated in the original post. It's a mess.
For the record, Collingwood had pick 7 in the 2004 draft, North Melbourne had pick 10. Richmond had eight top-ten picks overall, next was Carlton with seven, then Hawthorn and Gold Coast with six.
If you want to make Melbourne look bad, well they had four top four picks over a three year period. Only Carlton managed better than that over the 2004-10 period.
But really, I don't care. I just see it as good management of a dodgy system. It's the system that needs overhauling.
The AFL have never bothered to get their heads around the issue of giving teams an incentive for losing. They spent more time and effort trying to bury the issue than they did looking to correct it. And they've caused just as much of an issue trying to engineer new competitive teams in 'growth' areas, and giving them license to scoop off talent from existing clubs.
My only issue is with the extraordinarily dodgy effort to calculate how the draft picks were allocated in the original post. It's a mess.
For the record, Collingwood had pick 7 in the 2004 draft, North Melbourne had pick 10. Richmond had eight top-ten picks overall, next was Carlton with seven, then Hawthorn and Gold Coast with six.
If you want to make Melbourne look bad, well they had four top four picks over a three year period. Only Carlton managed better than that over the 2004-10 period.
But really, I don't care. I just see it as good management of a dodgy system. It's the system that needs overhauling.
The Swans don't get cap concessions?
Please tell us all when this was taken off Sydney?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
LOL.
I've heard of 'March premiers' before; but a February dynasty?
That's a new achievement.
Well done.
Hopefully once the GC/GWS concessions are gone, there's been a re-think of it & if it comes back at all, it's in a different format.
I'd like to see the priorities & order awarded on when teams are ruled out of finals rather than end of season result.
I don't believe many sides tank all year. The real blight is those games rd 16 onwards when there's no ladder result worth playing for, only a pick to lose.
If the pick is already locked in by comparative poorness by rd 12, they'll hopefully play out the year in good faith.
I don't like that there's an arbitrary number of wins, either.
I wouldn't mind bottom ranked sides being allowed an extra list spot/s or rookies for a year or two.
die hard dee
Rookie
do i need to remind you of Carlton, they set a standard in tanking, and one we could not match
Concessions you clearly have NFI about if you think they're the reason for our recent success.
smasha
It's Time!
Our list needed the pick more than you but we tried to win.
Dimetriou's fault.
He knows the score but conveniantly ignores it.
Since the tanking,the AFL hasn't been the same.
Leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
They should have put rules in place to stop it but didn't so the blame is all on them.
Carlton making money out of a pub of Richmond Football Club tradition,The Royal Oak.
The game isn't the same anymore I'm afraid.
melbourne losing scully is karma in it's truest form.
blatantly tanked to get him as a PP, and will lose him before he reaches his peak.
hopefully when free agency comes in, it will make clubs think twice before making a mockery of our competition by tanking as melbourne did
blatantly tanked to get him as a PP, and will lose him before he reaches his peak.
hopefully when free agency comes in, it will make clubs think twice before making a mockery of our competition by tanking as melbourne did
Yep - I'm pretty sure they wouldnt have helped you with your recruitment at all
You couldn't expand on that if you tried, but I'm waiting just to see if you have a clue.
It is pretty simple. True or false. The Swans can pay players more money than Essendon can...
It is simple, but not as simple as that. Was wondering how long it'd take you to show up. You actually going to tell us what you know about the CoL allowance this time or are you just going to do the whole "Err, I know, but you go first" shtick again.
Ah nice try - but again I put it in nice simple terms, that nice simple folk like myself can understand. True or false - the Swans can pay more money to their players than the Bombers can
As I said to you before if this statement is incorrect please feel free to set me straight. You havent yet and I think we both have a pretty good idea why....
Maybe it should be based on a "Club Ranking Ladder" after everyone has played each other once, then we don't get skewed results because say a Richmond played top four sides twice and bottom four sides once. At least this would be fair in ranking clubs against each other.
By doing this the draft order can be set and any priority picks determined prior to the end of the year and not including finals results.
It would be nice for the AFL to ensure teams aren't playing each other for the first time come round 20.
Yes AFL you know what I'm talking about, what a dumb ar$ed concept that was.
To do that though, they'd have to rejig the entire fixture and that's F-all chance.
Gotta love playing one side rd 10 & 15, then playing your first against another side in rd 20. ??? What's the logic.
Gotta love playing one side rd 10 & 15, then playing your first against another side in rd 20. ??? What's the logic.
Not really. All they need to do is make sure that teams playing each other for the first time later in the season are a good chance of playing finals and hence wouldn't be tanking.
So instead of say Gold Coast playing Collingwood for the first time in round 20 they have Gold Coast playing ........ say Essendon.
Just kidding.
In fact GC v Pies in round 20 is basically a donated 4 points to the Pies or any top 4 side. GC youngsters will be sore and sorry by this stage anyway.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
But that'd rely on the AFL being able to predict who will be good sides. Most years, hasn't happened for 2 or 3 so it should be "due", there's a fair old rejig as sides drop off & new ones come through.
melbourne losing scully is karma in it's truest form.
blatantly tanked to get him as a PP, and will lose him before he reaches his peak.
hopefully when free agency comes in, it will make clubs think twice before making a mockery of our competition by tanking as melbourne did
We were s**t and deserved a PP. Not our fault that the AFL came out with a ******ed system where it was in our best interest to lose meaningless games. Any smart coach would have done the same thing.
So how did Bailey get the idea... *zing*
Of course you did, because an answer simplified to that level allows you to draw false conclusions. The CoL can't be used as a war chest to be splurged on one or two players as you constantly imply. The most that can be gotten out of it is an extra 7% on top of the players salary. What star player have the Swans snagged with that possible max of 7 cents to the dollar?
We pay a player $200k we lose $200k from our total salary cap. You pay a player $200k you lose maybe what roughly $186k-$187k from your salary cap. Now expand that across a playing list and explain to me how you would not end up with 'war chest'....
You do know that whatever is left over from the salary cap each season can't be used the next season? The same applies for that extra 7%, which in case you still haven't caught on can't all be used on one player.
If you think such a small percentage is helping us steal star players from other clubs then you're clutching. If someone is on 400K, for example, they're not going to leave their club just for another $28,000. There would be other factors involved, none of which include money.
If you think such a small percentage is helping us steal star players from other clubs then you're clutching. If someone is on 400K, for example, they're not going to leave their club just for another $28,000. There would be other factors involved, none of which include money.
Similar threads
