No Priority Picks in 2012.

[stewie griffen]

The PP should be scrapped altogether, if a team is that shit it is a fault of their own to let the list get that way, they should not get an advantage over other teams.

Hows Ryan Griffen going? Oh wait....

I would suggest that it is the constant flip flopping by the AFL that is annoying people, at least that is what has annoyed me. Add to that, its a very poorly worded article containing no clarification on whether this article is detailing specifically the expansion clubs or all clubs. Just a token 'oh Melbourne have already had some so they probably wouldn't get one' comment.

 

[THE MOEMAN]

I agree that priority picks should be scrapped also. Encourages tanking and rewards poor list management

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

Yep should be scrapped....but not completely until all clubs have had one. If you have had one since year 2000 already then your not eligible. But teams that haven't still should have one up their sleeve.

 

[Slattery_20]

Its almost like Roby's power rankings in regards to criteria and data.

Essendon (despite winning by 8 goals) are the worst team and thus qualify for 12 priority picks?

YESSSS

 

[Slattery_20]

could these ****s be any dumber? or are they just out and out cheats??

how can they hand out pick 1's like candy to vic teams for years and call emergency meetings when the vic teams are struggling then as soon as they get up off the bottom and the few non-vic teams slide they dust their hands of the whole thing and stick their heads in the sand while people have come out and said tanking did happen and say it never did? they have effectively stopped any chance of anyone getting a pp for years now. **** you cheats.

should it be any surprise that the only teams that have received a real priority pick are carlton, collingwood, hawthorn, st kilda, melb, western bulldogs and richmond? anyone see a pattern here?

i cant be frakked looking at the number but it must be something like 10 priority picks there to melb clubs, and a big fat goose egg to non-vic clubs. is that coincidence? nope. **** **** ****

Port have never qualified for an early priority pick, under any of the systems. {Pre-06 one <5 wins = PP; 06-09 two years of <5 wins = PP}.
Perhaps that has a bit to do with it?
Read the rules, and stop your whinging.

how embarrassing for you.

There's only one embarrassing person here, and they're very, very embarrassing - they're coming across as a pathetic beggar with tears running down their cheeks.

Can you guess who that is?

 

[philthy05]

Port have never qualified for an early priority pick, under any of the systems. {Pre-06 one <5 wins = PP; 06-09 two years of <5 wins = PP}.
Perhaps that has a bit to do with it?
Read the rules, and stop your whinging.




There's only one embarrassing person here, and they're very, very embarrassing - they're coming across as a pathetic beggar with tears running down their cheeks.

Can you guess who that is?

3 wins last year would have qualified us under the old system. the same system that has pendlebury,griffen and franklin running around for their sides. it should be obvious i understand the rules. im not even asking for these rules to be extended to us now. i said very clearly no number 1 pp should ever be given out again. ive said that about ten times already.


how is pointing out clear facts whinging?

point out where i have been factually wrong??

i have never asked for port to even be given half of the concessions with pp's other teams have been given in the past. its clear, and this is the funny bit because you are all in agreement with me, that they should never have been given out in the first place.

so posters with players like griffen running around in their side are jumping around screaming that it would be wrong to hand a team priority picks for being shit. lol, the irony.

ill repeat, again.

my suggestion is that priority picks, when they are given be picks after non-finalists have had their picks. making it pick 11 at the earliest but likely later after compo etc. this does not strip other non-finalists of a top pick nor does it strip a top ten draft pick away. it doesnt gift a team an get out of jail free card but does give a struggling team a chance to add what could be a good player. what the hell is wrong with that? its surely better than the old system, and likely to be better than the new one when we eventually find out what it is.

so, when i suggest that the afl is a bunch of morons for ever giving out pick#1's ( which strangely enough most of you seem to agree as long as you still have yours running around for you now),

and they were stupider in the way they removed them where am i wrong?

funny slatts that you would call me embarrassing. your normally a better poster than that.

when i have posted logical suggestions and pointed out facts people have attacked me rather than address my logic. i dont think ive seen a fact disputed. some might disagree with my insinuations of the afl being pro-vic but they are going to cop that when all evidence points to that, even if some of it is just basic timing of it they still leave themselves open to it with alot of poor decisions. the fact dogs r barking attacks my grammar after ive revealed his post to be incorrect in every-way is hilarious.

 

[philthy05]

Why is everything the fault of Victorians when comes to interstate supporters? What the **** did we do?

In this situation, its a bit ridiculous.

Its not the AFLs fault that Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn and StK were shithouse during the PP era. Port, WCE, Syd and BL were all awesome during 2001-2006. Adelaide also solid.

its not the fault of interstate supporters. i dont blame them for some stupid decisions made by the afl. i think there where a lot of natural tendencies towards favouritism for the vic clubs in the system that the afl never saw fit to address for obvious reasons. alot of the stuff would have been hard for them to change anyway and they never honestly would have cared enough to fight for real equality. in any case its becoming irrelevant as the last decade has really seen a change towards a different type of discrimination, which is money. money will dictate all and we see it now already. anyway moving on,

i agree its not the afl's fault that the vic clubs were shit at one time, and the clubs out of vic great, then vice versa.

what we can hold the afl accountable for is their decisions. their decision to give priority picks, their decision to change it, their decision to change it in a way that was not the smartest way it could have been done. these all were decisions made that could have been done better and dont need hindsight to see that.

 

[Slattery_20]

Priority picks were a terrible idea in the first place, and it's a very, very good thing for the competition that they've been removed.
We obviously disagree on what their accountability should be.

And I don't know what a better way of removing them would have been, other than stopping handing them out?
Should they stop having them, but then have them occasionally anyway, when it's your side "an interstate side"?

In which case, can we have Selwood because he *might* have been ours, under a completely different incarnation of the rules?
And GC should have Patton/Coniglio because they were bottom of the ladder?

And bring back zones, and get rid of caps... hell let's just apply every rule, from every era, to suit my side "make the AFL accountable"


EDIT
FWIW - the first Vic pick in last year's draft was #15 (down-graded from 14). Previous year was #6, then #8, then #12.
I'm not sure how you can really say this with a straight face in the first place; but doing it on the basis of "HERP DERP VIC BIAS" is, clearly, pretty silly.

 

[Slattery_20]

3 wins last year would have qualified us under the old system. the same system that has pendlebury,griffen and franklin running around for their sides.

You think I like that the rule was changed a year after Pendles/Thomas, the first year we qualified ever? Which knocked our picks from 2 & 5 to 2 & 18 ?
You think I like that our 2nd worst season (in the draft era) gave a pick 8, which would've been ~3?

No... but I can accept that those are the rules; and every club played that season, that draft under the same rules... Essendon's 2010 season wasn't played against Melbuorne's 2009 side under 2009 rules... 2006 season wasn't played under 2005 rules; nor 1985 rules; etc etc etc.

And similar for Richmond, WCE... also had picks knocked way back in the order for the GC concessions (VIC BIAS)
That's life; rules change.

 

[dlanod]

Wrong! How about West Coast getting I think Darling as a priority draft pick in what 2010. Also, Brisbane and Sydney have a bigger salary cap, and can have first dibs at anyone in their state,who they can keep as rookies. I think Adelaide and PA would have similar concessions so stop winging, you were handed a premiership along with all the interstate clubs when you entered our competition with your draft concessions. Small traditional clubs like the Bulldogs (being a historic club, Port Adelaide would relate to this) have suffered because of those draft picks (remember 1997 and 1998) and the newer franchise teams.

The only team that stuffed that up was Freo who drafted away or their first round draft picks to Hawthorn and Essendon who both got premierships courtesy of Freos inept list management.

Wow. So much fail.

Darling was a priority pick after the first round. Not the pre-first round pick that Carlton (3), Collingwood (2), Hawthorn (2), Melbourne (2), Richmond (1), Bulldogs (2), Saints (2), Fremantle (2, one traded to Hawthorn) and West Coast (1) received.

Brisbane doesn't have a bigger salary cap.

Queensland and NSW teams have first dibs after the national draft on any undrafted kids that they can then take as rookies. These are two states that generally have less than ten players combined drafted in the national draft each year.

Sydney got no concessions as they were a relocated existing club.

Brisbane got shithouse concessions - three players from each club, most of which had already been delisted or even had retired.

Having said that, I don't think it's all one big conspiracy. I think the AFL's hand was forced by the continued shitness of GC and GWS, and they didn't want to give them more of a leg up. For those whinging about "poor Port", they're more likely to win another game and finish outside the old priority pick range anyway. This is a team with games against Melbourne and GWS to come.

 

[Slattery_20]

Having said that, I don't think it's all one big conspiracy. I think the AFL's hand was forced by the continued shitness of GC and GWS, and they didn't want to give them more of a leg up. For those whinging about "poor Port", they're more likely to win another game and finish outside the old priority pick range anyway. This is a team with games against Melbourne and GWS to come.

Bringing it back in now, either for all clubs, or for some but not all, would only lead to MORE inconsistencies, MORE subjectivity, and MORE allegations of conspiracy/bias.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Try and fix what Port see as an injustice leads to every other side slipping further back in the order...
then you have to fix what Richmond possibly see as an injustice from 2 years ago, and Ess & Bris from a year ago,
and Ess/North from 2006, etc etc etc etc and you'll end up with everyone having a priority pick before the first round....

 

[philthy05]

And I don't know what a better way of removing them would have been, other than stopping handing them out?

you cant seriously think of a better way to have ended the reign of priority picks then how the afl has done it??

we may disagree here but i credit you with more intelligence than you may be admitting, because im sure you could think of a better way. hell, im very sure the afl did think of a better way but this way was more convenient and no harm was going to be done that they couldnt live with.

lets review it, for years they give the best kids away to the crap teams, this encouraged at least some level of tanking, we know this whether the afl will admit it or not. then when they change it they half-arse it and make it end of 1st round then 2 shit years gets you the 1st pick. not only does it still encourage tanking but it requires an extra year of tanking.

then, they decide to remove priority picks because of the expan teams coming in. fair enough, not much you can do there as giving pp's on top of all those gc/gws picks would have pushed teams too far back. ild argue though they frakked up with those gws/gc picks anyway, should have been top 3, then non-finals teams, then alternate picks throughout finals teams but thats another argument i guess.

now, if the reporter has got it correctly, to wipe the slate clean and continue giving priority picks irregardless of recent poor form during time they were removed is just stupid.

 

[philthy05]

Should they stop having them, but then have them occasionally anyway, when it's your side "an interstate side"?

In which case, can we have Selwood because he *might* have been ours, under a completely different incarnation of the rules?
And GC should have Patton/Coniglio because they were bottom of the ladder?

And bring back zones, and get rid of caps... hell let's just apply every rule, from every era, to suit my side "make the AFL accountable"

?

i have never suggested anything about having them then not having them? that's a weird statement.

ive only suggested that a better way to have done it all along would have been to award them after non-finalists picks.

where do you get ive asked for old rules to be retro-fitted now? not only have i said many times that they shouldnt, but my suggestion moving forward has been the one mentioned above. this does not give you selwood, nor gc patton and coniglio, or does it relate to anything like zones.

ild like to point out that the afl has not currently scrapped priority picks, only removed the set criteria for them.

we have no current idea who will be eligible, why they will be eligible, and what the priority pick will be.

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't they should be in. In any way, shape or form. Early or late. The end. Glad they're gone.

I don't even really like compo picks being tied to ladder position.

It seemed to me, from your vigorous posting in this thread, you were arguing for a PP for your club. That might not be the case, . Either way, does not affect my POV - never again.

 

[Redeye Rambler]

The priority pick has failed as an equalisation measure. It is supposed to give a leg-up for teams struggling on the field. The players selected with priority picks take several years to peak and provide a 10 year boost to the "struggling" team - well after they have recovered from struggling at the bottom of the ladder. There will always be some clubs that are "behind the ball" in regards to list management, (due to financial, location, supporter base and other reasons), so there is still a need for equalisation.

I propose keeping the PP, but only after the first round and only able to select mature aged players.

 

[Humdinger]

Wow complaining that the slate has been wiped clean? They brought in a new system so obviously the slate has to be wiped clean...

The PP should be scrapped altogether, if a team is that shit it is a fault of their own to let the list get that way, they should not get an advantage over other teams.

They should put Adam Cooney back in the draft then. Also scrap the Father/Son rule while their at it.

 

[SumTingWong]

They should put Adam Cooney back in the draft then. Also scrap the Father/Son rule while their at it.

I agree. The whole point of the draft system and the implementation of a salary cap was to make the competition fairer for ALL clubs.

 

[Slattery_20]

I love the F/S rule!

STW - no Richo, no Bowden, no David Bourke? Harsh!

 

[doggies ftw]

They should put Adam Cooney back in the draft then. Also scrap the Father/Son rule while their at it.

Okay put him in the draft then...

Why the F/S rule is a great rule?

I love it how you're all replying to my post saying "but you got Griffen wahh" I never said that we should have got Griffen, I have never liked the rule and the AFL made a mistake a fairly long time ago, and a few teams were lucky to be shit while the rule was in. Whats done is done, it can't be changed... Just fix the rule up before it happens again.

 

[philthy05]

I don't they should be in. In any way, shape or form. Early or late. The end. Glad they're gone.

I don't even really like compo picks being tied to ladder position.

It seemed to me, from your vigorous posting in this thread, you were arguing for a PP for your club. That might not be the case, . Either way, does not affect my POV - never again.

you seem to be under the incorrect assumption that they have dumped them.

they just dumped them for the expan years and now have made a vague statement about the slate being wiped clean and gc/gws not being considered for compo picks.

we have no idea what they are going to do with them.

i hate that the compo picks are tied to ladder position too. it was a really lazy way to do it, its exactly what ive been talking about in this thread is the afl's lack of interest in anything outside of themselves. its not even that they couldnt have thought of a better way to do compo picks they just took the laziest approach. their intention was never to do it the best way, or the fairest way, but just to do it and move on.

i cant remember saying anything in this thread about port receiving one ( although i might have?), but have said i dont want them ever to give early ones ever again.

my main rage was if you take this reporter at how he has interpreted keanes comments is that next year if essendon finish with 3 wins and port with 5 wins that essendon would be first considered for a pp because the last few years dont count, slate wiped clean. which would be *****d to put it mildly.

 

[SumTingWong]

I love the F/S rule!

STW - no Richo, no Bowden, no David Bourke? Harsh!

Yeah , without those guys we would have finished?.............oh yeah i forgot

 

[Slattery_20]

my main rage was if you take this reporter at how he has interpreted keanes comments is that next year if essendon finish with 3 wins and port with 5 wins that essendon would be first considered for a pp because the last few years dont count, slate wiped clean. which would be *****d to put it mildly.

And you're making the assumption that they will be brought back, in their pre ~06 format - which seems even more far-fetched.

 

[philthy05]

And you're making the assumption that they will be brought back, in their pre ~06 format - which seems even more far-fetched.

what do you mean , brought back??

you do realize they have not canceled priority picks? whats to bring back? they simply stopped handing them out in expan years and have removed the set criteria?

and ive pointed out a thousand times that we dont know what criteria now exists or type of picks are going to be handed out so im not sure where you get ive made an assumption from?

 

[dlanod]

what do you mean , brought back??

you do realize they have not canceled priority picks? whats to bring back? they simply stopped handing them out in expan years and have removed the set criteria?

and ive pointed out a thousand times that we dont know what criteria now exists or type of picks are going to be handed out so im not sure where you get ive made an assumption from?

Gee I would've thought anyone capable of basic reading comprehension would figure out that Slatts was saying that you're assuming that they were going to revert to their pre-'06 format. Not that the picks had gone and are returning.

There is no criteria any more. The AFL have said that they will be allocated on a case by case basis. Melbourne sucking for two or three years in a row may get one. West Coast, plummeting to the bottom for one year, would not.

 

[Pat_Footy]

Sorry but your post is unintelligible, with no punctuation and a lot rambling, so I will just leave you to feel sorry for yourself, as I don't consider this a worthy discussion.

Take a hike from this thread. You either don't understand what people are posting or you're completely one-eyed.