A Quick Ai rendition: https://suno.com/s/blQP3cSnulhqYb5g
It's funny how it interrupted the lyrics XD
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
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.
Game Day The 2025 Draft Day Thread
- Thread starter Keys
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
It's funny how it interrupted the lyrics XD
ROFL
Overall I like what we did in the draft and trade period.
Only 1 major head scratcher. In what fuqing universe is that spud Schoenberg worth prioritising ahead of Charlie Banfield? The ceiling = the floor and both are about as high as Caleb Daniels. Agree with many posters be it Shoenberg or not rookie listing Cripps, Clarke has not shown to be very good in his management of the extra 4 rookie listing Cripps spots.
Job for John Worsfold. Can you please rock up to Drew Banfield’s house and motivate Harper to get with our club’s programme in 2026.
Only 1 major head scratcher. In what fuqing universe is that spud Schoenberg worth prioritising ahead of Charlie Banfield? The ceiling = the floor and both are about as high as Caleb Daniels. Agree with many posters be it Shoenberg or not rookie listing Cripps, Clarke has not shown to be very good in his management of the extra 4 rookie listing Cripps spots.
Job for John Worsfold. Can you please rock up to Drew Banfield’s house and motivate Harper to get with our club’s programme in 2026.
Hilarious isn’t it, Harry Barnett isn’t even WAFL standard, generally is in our bottom 3 players every week. They’ve tried him in every position and he’s useless in all of them, yes talls absolutely take time and some of them look like donkeys before they look good, but I can’t think of a singular one who looked THIS bad for 3-4 years and suddenly became useful. He has played maybe 3 decent WAFL games in his time here.
But that just highlights the poor list management if the clear worst team in the league finds itself in a position where they’re not even going to have enough players to delist in a yearIf we move Cripps and Barnett to the rookie list who is out of contract and gets delisted next year considering we’d likely need minimum 6 (likely more considering we have 3 rated NGA/FS prospects and will no doubt trade in a player or two) spots open?
That appears to be how the list management team have come to the conclusion they aren’t worth a list spot as we’d need to offer two years.
The equation isn’t as simple as Evans and and Banfield vs nothing, it’s actually Evans and Banfield vs players we pay out (Owies for example not a great loss) + 200k.
Do I think it’s likely that 200k could be used (now or with the benefit of front ending in the future) to add to a contract and get better players than those two.
Probably.
Port are delisting the likes of Ryan Burton and we’re continuously hanging on to no-hopers or guys way past their use by date
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Schoenberg has zero impact on Banfield, he’s on the rookie list, Banfield would’ve had to go on the primary list. All anger should be directed at the club for not clearing a spot or two on the primary list.
Carbine Chaos
TK Defender
- Apr 1, 2009
- 67,866
- 107,089
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
sharps24
Club Legend
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,889
- 3,269
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Not replying to this post exactly, but you and others have said earlier that game style is all about ground ball players, speed and agility these days, which totally fits.
So as someone who clearly has watched his share of underage footy, would Evans not fit this profile perfectly?
He certainly was and still is a “thing”
I need some of this optimism irl
It’s not just that he’s Drew’s son, it’s that we had priority access to him in general, and he showed he was worth a main list spot where he was taken.
- Oct 9, 2009
- 14,496
- 17,462
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Our very own Sam Allen says that Ollie Greeves is the toughest player to match up on (at 26:29).
It’s not a charity list spot as St Kilda’s selection of him at pick 40 shows. They didn’t pick him out of charity.
St Kilda viewing us as a mob of incompetent fools ripe to be pillaged.
Quinten Kennedy
Team Captain
Not necessarily. In an alternate universe Drew might have been a keen lepidopterist, as an obscure example, while his son still pursued a career in football. And in this scenario none of you would have given 2 shits about the Saints picking him up. Let's be real.
Can understand the need for senior guys in the WAFL side and happy enough with Dev as a pick but surely the other two + Cripps (I’d even put Cole in this basket) could have waited until we knew what we were working with.
Absolutely no need to lock in 5 players before the draft. Thats two senior spots and 3 rookie spots we could still have.
I also understand potentially needing to give assurances to Macrae and Schoenberg to move here. But if they want to try their luck elsewhere then so be it, we owe them nothing. They aren’t game changers and we’ll find others to fill those spots if need be.
Just ridiculous list management to back ourselves into a corner and commit to players that don’t really move the needle.
Quinten Kennedy
Team Captain
But not according to our club. Time will tell who was right.
Doesn't seem worth the melts.
Not sure that's completely true. Schoenberg being added to the list (along with the other two delistees) meant our rookie list was almost full (I suspect we wanted to keep at least one spot open for Banfield if he got through). Given we could have easily moved a player like cripps to the rookie list, the prohibiting factor was more about list spots in general.
Looking back now, a lot should be clear, if you calm down enough to not be a puddle on the floor.
What's obvious is that Williams was the only one of our club-tied players the club rated above the rookie list. Hence didn't leave spaces on the main list for them - they weren't going to be drafted there. I was sad about Banfield for about a minute then moved on (some of you really need to move on).
If you think the list management team don't know exactly the mechanics to move players between lists, then you're being ridiculous. If they didn't move them they didn't want to. So likely it's to do with next year's crop. It's likely that we'll be bringing in another 8 more players (particularly if our NGAs next year are a step up) through trades and drafts, and we're not likely to be moving on all those kids that quickly - so not filling up spots with kids we don't rate that highly on two year contracts might be brutal, but the only real choice.
Yes, I think that Banfield or Evans might have been better long term than Barnett or Cripps - but what's the cost next year - who can't we get in a stronger draft?
On the bids for Addinsall - we were more than likely aware that GC had the points (you think that's not right there at every recruiter's fingertips?) - but rumours were that GC might let him slide, and we liked the look of him. So take a punt. But add in to that the fallback; clearly Lindsay was considered a clear best of what was remaining (by our recruiters anyway), and the Dogs at least were sniffing around that pick (and probably those campaignery Cats). Either we got in ahead of it, or we lost out both Addinsal and Lindsay.
(I'd guess that "shock" was probably more "****, they did want him after all" - followed up by right then, pick Lindsay then)
Who knows, maybe we tried to shop 29 around, but got no takers, so we ended up taking the player we rated best at that pick, but the cost was losing the spot for Banfield (and it sounds like Evans knew we weren't taking him anyway). Maybe we'd been approaching everyone for a few picks to move up on night one, but the Hawks were the first to take the bait?
Maybe St Kilda's F2 would have got us a champion - but history says it's more likely a spud, so perhaps the melting wasn't quite worth the extremity?
I'd like to see us take one of the sliders tomorrow in the rookie draft, but I can understand the method in the players we've used the extra spots on - they're AFL ready bodies that we can use for a year or two or three while some of all these kids grow into their AFL bodies.
What's obvious is that Williams was the only one of our club-tied players the club rated above the rookie list. Hence didn't leave spaces on the main list for them - they weren't going to be drafted there. I was sad about Banfield for about a minute then moved on (some of you really need to move on).
If you think the list management team don't know exactly the mechanics to move players between lists, then you're being ridiculous. If they didn't move them they didn't want to. So likely it's to do with next year's crop. It's likely that we'll be bringing in another 8 more players (particularly if our NGAs next year are a step up) through trades and drafts, and we're not likely to be moving on all those kids that quickly - so not filling up spots with kids we don't rate that highly on two year contracts might be brutal, but the only real choice.
Yes, I think that Banfield or Evans might have been better long term than Barnett or Cripps - but what's the cost next year - who can't we get in a stronger draft?
On the bids for Addinsall - we were more than likely aware that GC had the points (you think that's not right there at every recruiter's fingertips?) - but rumours were that GC might let him slide, and we liked the look of him. So take a punt. But add in to that the fallback; clearly Lindsay was considered a clear best of what was remaining (by our recruiters anyway), and the Dogs at least were sniffing around that pick (and probably those campaignery Cats). Either we got in ahead of it, or we lost out both Addinsal and Lindsay.
(I'd guess that "shock" was probably more "****, they did want him after all" - followed up by right then, pick Lindsay then)
Who knows, maybe we tried to shop 29 around, but got no takers, so we ended up taking the player we rated best at that pick, but the cost was losing the spot for Banfield (and it sounds like Evans knew we weren't taking him anyway). Maybe we'd been approaching everyone for a few picks to move up on night one, but the Hawks were the first to take the bait?
Maybe St Kilda's F2 would have got us a champion - but history says it's more likely a spud, so perhaps the melting wasn't quite worth the extremity?
I'd like to see us take one of the sliders tomorrow in the rookie draft, but I can understand the method in the players we've used the extra spots on - they're AFL ready bodies that we can use for a year or two or three while some of all these kids grow into their AFL bodies.
Trying really hard to get through this but Cooper Scooper makes it difficult
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
So we have a category A and a category B rookie spot left. We keeping one for a train on or taking some more 18 year olds tomorrow.
Some absolute space cadets in this thread.
Um, would you even care if he wasn't a Banfield?
That's literally the point you numbskull - he is a Banfield which means we don't need to use any draft capital to get him on our list.
Honestly, some of the apologist behavior in here would make Stalin blush
Um, would you even care if he wasn't a Banfield?
That's literally the point you numbskull - he is a Banfield which means we don't need to use any draft capital to get him on our list.
Honestly, some of the apologist behavior in here would make Stalin blush
Got to say, this board delivered in spades.
You know it's on the way
Last edited:
Sweet, it's not incompetence - just plain old stupidity
But to do it, we would have had to use a main list space (and given a two year contract).
What's blindingly obvious is that the club didn't rate either Banfield or Evans highly enough for that - or they would have made sure that the spaces were there. It's not like a team of AFL recruiters don't know exactly how to get the number of list spots they want. If they didn't make the spaces, they didn't want the spaces.
I'm going to invoke Occam's razor and say it's way more likely that an AFL recruiting team didn't want any more spaces than that they forgot how to engineer them.
If they rated Banfield and Evans they would've made list spots for them. They didn't so they didn't make it to the rookie draft. Clearly Brisbane and Saints rated them higher. If Batman Barnett can save his career and Williams can turn into a decent forward it might be worth the tough call.
Similar threads
