Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Reef McInnes

  • Thread starter Thread starter jsdsgn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

With how our offseason is going without a doubt he'll be bid on at pick 13 or some stage, and with his height and physical attributes I don't know why someone wouldn't bid at that stage... Tall mids with scope to develop are all the rage nowadays.
 
Kappa said:
With how our offseason is going without a doubt he'll be bid on at pick 13 or some stage, and with his height and physical attributes I don't know why someone wouldn't bid at that stage... Tall mids with scope to develop are all the rage nowadays.
Click to expand...

I’ll bet GWS does bid to get at us again. We need to trade with Adelaide or Essendon to get 7-9 and be ahead of GWS.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

regpies said:
I’ll bet GWS does bid to get at us again. We need to trade with Adelaide or Essendon to get 7-9 and be ahead of GWS.
Click to expand...

If our main target is still there at 9 I say we try and trade 14 & 16 with the Crows for 9 and either 22 or 23. We take a top 10 pick and then use the other to match on McInnes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Hong Kong Pie said:
I'm not sure how the draft system works - what happens if a club tries to draft RM at say pick 12? What can we do and where does that leave us with other picks?
Click to expand...
Found this, might help:

Each draft selection now has a points value attached to it, starting with Pick 1 (worth 3000 points) down to Pick 73 (nine points). Picks from 74 onwards are worth nothing.
The best way to explain the scenario is via a hypothetical example.
— LET’S say Port Adelaide bid on Sydney Swans academy prospect Nick Blakey at Pick 5 (1878 points)
— IN order to snare him, the Swans now have to match the Power’s bid using the draft picks they already hold.
-FIRST, we must take away the 20 per cent discount (which is automatically given to clubs for bids inside the first round) that would be given to the Swans, meaning they now have to find 1503 points to secure Blakey.
— THE SWANS’ first three selections, which are Pick 26 (729), Pick 33 (563) and Pick 38 (465), covers the Power’s bid.
— However, as the value of those three picks adds up to 1757, they have 254 points left over. This means the Swans’ Pick 38 would slide back to Pick 52 in the draft.
— NOW Nick Blakey is officially selected by the Swans at Pick 5, but the Swans have lost their first two picks (Pick 26 and Pick 33).
— THE Power select again at Pick 6 and the predetermined draft order continues from there.
 
neilk said:
Found this, might help:

Each draft selection now has a points value attached to it, starting with Pick 1 (worth 3000 points) down to Pick 73 (nine points). Picks from 74 onwards are worth nothing.
The best way to explain the scenario is via a hypothetical example.
— LET’S say Port Adelaide bid on Sydney Swans academy prospect Nick Blakey at Pick 5 (1878 points)
— IN order to snare him, the Swans now have to match the Power’s bid using the draft picks they already hold.
-FIRST, we must take away the 20 per cent discount (which is automatically given to clubs for bids inside the first round) that would be given to the Swans, meaning they now have to find 1503 points to secure Blakey.
— THE SWANS’ first three selections, which are Pick 26 (729), Pick 33 (563) and Pick 38 (465), covers the Power’s bid.
— However, as the value of those three picks adds up to 1757, they have 254 points left over. This means the Swans’ Pick 38 would slide back to Pick 52 in the draft.
— NOW Nick Blakey is officially selected by the Swans at Pick 5, but the Swans have lost their first two picks (Pick 26 and Pick 33).
— THE Power select again at Pick 6 and the predetermined draft order continues from there.
Click to expand...

Given the picks of 60 and above equal to 90 or less points to each bid, we're gonna need picks better than that if we have to match a bid between 13-25
Picks in the 40's/50's would be better use than the ones we have after pick 16.

They'll need to get rid of that 2021 first rounder for sure. Or do something
 
magpie_marty said:
I would hate to be this Reef kid after reading so many posts.
Is he the savior that will lead Collingwood to glory and a premierships?
Same applies from the other comments re the other Daicos.
Seriously get a grip.
Click to expand...

He will be a superstar if we have to match him with a second round pick

He will be another dud we paid too much for if we have to match him with 14 or 16.
 
Maybe I am showing my ignorance here but I have a query.
Many people here are saying he will go in the 20's or even the early 30's.
If that is the case then it is a speculative pick. Why are we so concerned about points and "having" to match a bid.
I can understand how you would make sure you have a strategy for the likes of Moore or from what we have been told Daicos. But for a player in the 20's or early 30's surely it's a case of "if we get him then all good but if we don't then there is other talent out there that is equally as good."
Sounds to me like people are thinking that just because he is a NGA (or whatever it is called) we have to get him.
If he wasn't a NGA (or whatever it is called) attached to us would we all be this interested in him.
Seems to me like we are over valuing him purely on the basis that we have access to him.

I don't get this talk about burning one of our early picks to match a bid. If he is worth it we will and if he isn't we wont. We are not obliged to take him.

I understand how trading picks for someone like Moore or Daicos is strategic because you know they will be top 10, but surely we shouldn't be stressing about someone who is in the 20' or 30's.

If we get him we get him if we don't we don't.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

ottoman said:
Maybe I am showing my ignorance here but I have a query.
Many people here are saying he will go in the 20's or even the early 30's.
If that is the case then it is a speculative pick. Why are we so concerned about points and "having" to match a bid.
I can understand how you would make sure you have a strategy for the likes of Moore or from what we have been told Daicos. But for a player in the 20's or early 30's surely it's a case of "if we get him then all good but if we don't then there is other talent out there that is equally as good."
Sounds to me like people are thinking that just because he is a NGA (or whatever it is called) we have to get him.
If he wasn't a NGA (or whatever it is called) attached to us would we all be this interested in him.
Seems to me like we are over valuing him purely on the basis that we have access to him.

I don't get this talk about burning one of our early picks to match a bid. If he is worth it we will and if he isn't we wont. We are not obliged to take him.

I understand how trading picks for someone like Moore or Daicos is strategic because you know they will be top 10, but surely we shouldn't be stressing about someone who is in the 20' or 30's.

If we get him we get him if we don't we don't.
Click to expand...
Good call :thumbsu:
 
ottoman said:
Maybe I am showing my ignorance here but I have a query.
Many people here are saying he will go in the 20's or even the early 30's.
If that is the case then it is a speculative pick. Why are we so concerned about points and "having" to match a bid.
I can understand how you would make sure you have a strategy for the likes of Moore or from what we have been told Daicos. But for a player in the 20's or early 30's surely it's a case of "if we get him then all good but if we don't then there is other talent out there that is equally as good."
Sounds to me like people are thinking that just because he is a NGA (or whatever it is called) we have to get him.
If he wasn't a NGA (or whatever it is called) attached to us would we all be this interested in him.
Seems to me like we are over valuing him purely on the basis that we have access to him.

I don't get this talk about burning one of our early picks to match a bid. If he is worth it we will and if he isn't we wont. We are not obliged to take him.

I understand how trading picks for someone like Moore or Daicos is strategic because you know they will be top 10, but surely we shouldn't be stressing about someone who is in the 20' or 30's.

If we get him we get him if we don't we don't.
Click to expand...

Well He is Ranked anywhere between 10-30
 
Hong Kong Pie said:
I'm not sure how the draft system works - what happens if a club tries to draft RM at say pick 12? What can we do and where does that leave us with other picks?
Click to expand...

If we don't do any draft pick trades beforehand there are two real options:

a) let the other team have him
b) use our pick 14 to match

We could also do a last minute trade of our two teens picks in order get enough points for Reef and the highest possible draft picks after we've matched, but it'll be very difficult to gain from it. We may be able to get 3 picks in the 20s/30s that give us enough points and leave us with a couple of picks in the 20s, but it's very unlikely and we'd probably prefer to have just matched with one pick in the teens and kept the other one.
 
I don't think he goes in the top 20 from what I have researched regarding the top 20 the past month

Think he goes around 24-30
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
He will be a superstar if we have to match him with a second round pick

He will be another dud we paid too much for if we have to match him with 14 or 16.
Click to expand...
If we have to use 14 - the pick we got for Treloar and Stepho combined, boy o boy will there be implosions.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

BEEG said:
I can see why we traded Stephenson because we think Reef will be a replacement.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t think that’s true. They’re very different players, different body types, playing different roles on the ground.

Stephenson said recently he wanted to play on-ball and my thought was “good luck!” because he’s not built for it. Reef is more of a Bontempelli build and will be expected to play on-ball in time.
 
BEEG said:
I can see why we traded Stephenson because we think Reef will be a replacement.
Click to expand...

So we trade our best Prospect just because of Reef?

That no reason to do that Trade
 
BEEG said:
I can see why we traded Stephenson because we think Reef will be a replacement.
Click to expand...
Reef is more of a Treloar replacement, very similar attributes, just bigger bodied and more raw in that sense.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
I honestly don’t think that’s true. They’re very different players, different body types, playing different roles on the ground.

Stephenson said recently he wanted to play on-ball and my thought was “good luck!” because he’s not built for it. Reef is more of a Bontempelli build and will be expected to play on-ball in time.
Click to expand...

Stevo got plenty of opportunities during the season to prove his worth upfield
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom