 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | E wrote: | | Based on the posts above (which I was careful not to "quote" - credit please mods) it sounds like the bidding rules have changed. will bids come in real time? If so, that's really cool. we will be sweating the number 27 pick pretty badly if it gets to that. |
didn't they bid in real time last year? i am fairly certain that is how dunkley got to the welfare and not the swans. actually:
| Quote: | | After nominating the Swans as his preferred destination under the father-son rule, his father's old club declined to match the Bulldogs' bid of pick No.25 in last year's NAB AFL Draft, much to the Dogs' joy. |
|
The Dogs have form selecting players who have been nominated by other clubs as father/son selections. They selected Darcy Moore, forcing us to use our next pick. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see them nominate Brown and/or Daics, simply to force us to use a higher pick. |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
They didn't "force us to use a higher pick", RB. They actually wanted Moore. So did we. Thus, we took the chance to get a player who would have gone at pick 5 (eventually 6) with our pick 8 (eventually 9).
As I posted in advance of that draft, a team that selected another team's nominated F/S player they didn't really want always ran the risk of being stuck with that player if the nominating team decided not to use their next selection on them.
Footscray bid pick 5 (eventually 6) for Moore and we used pick 8 (eventually 9). Ultimately, Footscray gave up its pick 5 (by then, pick 6) along with Griffen to get Tom Boyd. They wanted to use their pick on a highly-rated tall and they did - in fact, given what an over-hyped player Griffen always was, they probably got Boyd (admittedly then an over-hyped former-pick-1) for under value.
The problem was worse in those days, of course, both because the use of matching points wasn't possible and because the F/S bidding process happened nearly two months before the draft and on the day the free agency and trade period started - at least this time Collingwood will know by the time any other club selects one of our F/S nominations who is actually left to be selected in place of Brown or Daicos. Presumably, if we don't think they're worth what the pick or points we're going to give up, we won't give those up and we'll take someone else, instead. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | They didn't "force us to use a higher pick", RB. They actually wanted Moore. So did we. Thus, we took the chance to get a player who would have gone at pick 5 (eventually 6) with our pick 8 (eventually 9).
As I posted in advance of that draft, a team that selected another team's nominated F/S player they didn't really want always ran the risk of being stuck with that player if the nominating team decided not to use their next selection on them.
Footscray bid pick 5 (eventually 6) for Moore and we used pick 8 (eventually 9). Ultimately, Footscray gave up its pick 5 (by then, pick 6) along with Griffen to get Tom Boyd. They wanted to use their pick on a highly-rated tall and they did - in fact, given what an over-hyped player Griffen always was, they probably got Boyd (admittedly then an over-hyped former-pick-1) for under value.
The problem was worse in those days, of course, both because the use of matching points wasn't possible and because the F/S bidding process happened nearly two months before the draft and on the day the free agency and trade period started - at least this time Collingwood will know by the time any other club selects one of our F/S nominations who is actually left to be selected in place of Brown or Daicos. Presumably, if we don't think they're worth what the pick or points we're going to give up, we won't give those up and we'll take someone else, instead. |
The point is they knew we would pick Darcy, so they forced us to use an earlier pick than would otherwise have been the case. Of course they wanted him, but my point is that they knew very well that we were committed to taking him, so all they did was force us to our first pick. |
|
|
|
|
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
20 days away.
I've heard Brennan Cox' name mentioned a few times.
| Quote: | Brennan Cox
Key Position Utility | Woodville-West Torrens/South Australia
13/08/98 | 194cm | 90kg
Player Comparison: Cale Hooker
Snapshot:
One of best key position players in the draft has shown his strength this year after a strong u18 Championships. After playing Under 16 championships last year as an overager, Brennan Cox has taken his game to a whole new level as a tall prospect this year. This year he has split his time between the South Australian state side, the WWT Reserves and the WWT u18’s. |
https://afldraftcentral.com.au/player/brennan-cox/
But again, it says his foot skills need work.
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | my understanding is that we won't bust a gut to get brown or daicos if we're seriously challenged. |
That would no Shock Me.
Hine would not Bid on them just because of who there Father is
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WhyPhilWhy? wrote: | | If we take J Scharenberg, we will then face 2 related "go home" issues in a few years? |
May I have your Crystal Ball??
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | They didn't "force us to use a higher pick", RB. They actually wanted Moore. So did we. Thus, we took the chance to get a player who would have gone at pick 5 (eventually 6) with our pick 8 (eventually 9).
As I posted in advance of that draft, a team that selected another team's nominated F/S player they didn't really want always ran the risk of being stuck with that player if the nominating team decided not to use their next selection on them.
Footscray bid pick 5 (eventually 6) for Moore and we used pick 8 (eventually 9). Ultimately, Footscray gave up its pick 5 (by then, pick 6) along with Griffen to get Tom Boyd. They wanted to use their pick on a highly-rated tall and they did - in fact, given what an over-hyped player Griffen always was, they probably got Boyd (admittedly then an over-hyped former-pick-1) for under value.
The problem was worse in those days, of course, both because the use of matching points wasn't possible and because the F/S bidding process happened nearly two months before the draft and on the day the free agency and trade period started - at least this time Collingwood will know by the time any other club selects one of our F/S nominations who is actually left to be selected in place of Brown or Daicos. Presumably, if we don't think they're worth what the pick or points we're going to give up, we won't give those up and we'll take someone else, instead. |
Moore could of Been the Number 1 Pick IF he was in the Open Draft
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
cityslick1
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
any phantom opinions on here re our draft picks...?
All comes down to whether Brown will be nominated prior to pick 28... which the club is not doubt hoping that he isnt.
What are the chances of him slipping through, and who are the ones that would be a great pick up at this pick?
All of the notable phantoms have us going for tall interstate defenders, which sounds like a good call to me... assuming the quality is there.
Dream scenario is that with all of the quality mids being highly touted fill up the places before us, and a gun tall forward or defender slips through who is a 10+ year player.
Battle, Rotham or Brennan Cox look like they'd be great gets here |
|
|
|
|
dalyc
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| cityslick1 wrote: | any phantom opinions on here re our draft picks...?
All comes down to whether Brown will be nominated prior to pick 28... which the club is not doubt hoping that he isnt.
What are the chances of him slipping through, and who are the ones that would be a great pick up at this pick?
All of the notable phantoms have us going for tall interstate defenders, which sounds like a good call to me... assuming the quality is there.
Dream scenario is that with all of the quality mids being highly touted fill up the places before us, and a gun tall forward or defender slips through who is a 10+ year player.
Battle, Rotham or Brennan Cox look like they'd be great gets here |
Fwiw, the trial run for the big footy phantom draft has Brown going 40 odd and Daicos at 70 something.
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
70 something??
Dont know how much I'd trust a Big Footy phantom draft. I do check them out, but I cant think of one phantom draft thats ever come close to being correct.
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
Tubewayarmy
Joined: 04 Oct 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Brendan Cox would be a steal at 28, predicting a massive future for this kid, would be over the moon if we get him.
_________________
Godfather of Syn |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Presti35 wrote: | 70 something??
Dont know how much I'd trust a Big Footy phantom draft. I do check them out, but I cant think of one phantom draft thats ever come close to being correct. |
A search of the net reveals a couple phantom drafts. Brown was anywhere from 28-44 and Daicos anywhere from 30-56 which would appear to be about right really. |
|
|
|
|
dalyc
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Neither great nor big yet!
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
themonk
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Giants may lose picks 15 & 37 due to Whitfield saga, increases our chances of landing a key position player.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
