In this poll we have 16 cast votes, but I can only count 13 coaches who have indicated that they've voted (and one who has commented on the thread but didn't actually say that he's voted, so I can only assume that he actually has). Either way we're short of everyone voting (although voting was the best part of compulsory, especially when it concerned rules and rule changes), and may have had some non-FU people vote. Before I call this poll closed, I'd like to give the final few coaches until lockout this weekend (round 10) to have their say. This poll is especially close, so it would be really nice to see everyone have their say. Please get to voting if you haven't already.
I've changed my vote. Thought about it and I can't see why if people want extra trade periods it shouldn't happen; it'll be tough for me not to trade if there's a window but ultimately it's my decision so why should I decide if others can or can't trade.
@eagle_eyed Cheers mate, i guess now based on the votes we can have a discussion on trading during the whole year or adding extra trade periods or another poll @JPK
im all for trading during the whole year. You could plug holes / cover lti's with a trade. During trading periods ive found not everyone is available or checks the website for updates, so for those people they might actually get a deal done.
I've ummed and ahhed for the past few weeks over this and I was asked to leave it til the end of the year to come to a decision, but found I need to say something now. Here's my 2 bobs worth. And my opinion stems from being in the bottom 4 the last 2 seasons and heading down that way this season as well. I don't place a lot of emphasis on trading so it doesn't concern me too much as to when trading occurs. As has happened in the past, I'm sure I will be asked again about the availability of some of the Barcrawlers but it will only be players whom I can't afford to trade if I want to improve. Nobody will want to trade any of my players who can't get on the field and I don't blame them. That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things I know, and I'm sure there will be exceptions, but on the whole that is what is facing the bottom teams So how do any of the bottom 5-6 teams improve, if trading is unproductive. They have to go to the draft and select from a pool of players that aren't already on the 18 ORFFU lists. I've just checked that list and the highest average there is 88. So Pick 1 gets an 88 av player while 17 picks later, whoever is leading the comp, gets a player averaging 72. Thats 16 points difference so if that happens all the other rounds over 4 rounds the difference will be in the vicinity of 60-70 pts maybe. I can't see that helping the bottom teams climb the ladder. Obviously injuries and luck also plays a big part in this as well. Now there's talk of delisting 2 players prior to the PSD......I just can't see the sense in that. The 2 players to be delisted will be the retirees, the injured, or those who are just no good. So the player pool will only be increased by the 18yos coming onto AFL lists for the first time, or there may also be some Free Agents from 2016 who put in a good 2nd half of the year and are available IE: Hall Hunter from this year. But if you want this league to be more competitive then your delistments must total more than 2. The player pool needs to have players added to it that are actually worth something. Now I also think that half the Coaches have voted for NO Changes to the league, which is obviously their right to do so, and I can understand that sentiment ie: I've traded well, I've drafted well so why should I have to delist some of my players. I can see that. And if I was in their position I would probably think that way too But for the betterment of all 18 teams, and not just the top 10-12, I believe all teams need to delist a min of 4 players if there's to be a more competitive league. That's my opinion and you'll need a good solid argument for me to change my mind. However if the vote goes to keep changes to a minimum, then I will need to re-assess my commitment to this league. I'm getting too old to commit to something that I'm enjoying less every week, because as much as I plan and I try, I don't believe we have rules in place at present,that allows the bottom teams the challenge to get better, and the more I check the polls the more I see that about half are happy with the way things are. From my personal viewpoint, I don't need to win, but I need the challenge to be better, and I'm not getting that, under the system we have in place now. Maybe if I had the attitude that @fresh possesses, I might look at things differently, but unfortunately I don't have the time left for that. I've said my piece now its up to everyone to decide whats right for them.......
We can have that discussion, for sure, but seeing as the majority agreed that no changes should be made during the season, it'll only be implemented for the 2017 season. I'm generally with Choppers on this one. Originally I had the viewpoint that if you're good enough to put together a perfect 26 players, you should never be forced to make any changes. As time goes on however, I've come to realise that the more competitive this league is, the better. Also the most fun I have (aside from the banter) is the trading and drafting - hence my desire to have more of it. I, personally, am all for "wholesale" changes to each team during / at the end of each year (like me with my charity of giving up Lachie Hunter - bastard!) to introduce more of the fun bits, keep everyone involved, and help to promote a competitive league where everyone has a chance of winning the premiership every couple of years. Obviously though, this isn't a dictatorship, and I can't force my will onto others (...or can I??? ), so its up to the majority of coaches to agree on what they feel is best for the long-term success of the ORFFU.
@choppers I hope this attitude that I have isn't bad attitude haha I do remember the beginning, before 'FU was created. The 'FU was without name, form, and rules. Polls were created, votes were cast. We saw the collated votes, that they were good, and we called this collective the 'FU. IIRC there was one poll on mandatory delistments which was a close one. I was always in favour of delistments and that has been the reason I have been opposed to an increase in list sizes over the past couple of seasons. I agree with you chop that generally trading for those down the bottom gets to a stage where it's unproductive and I feel I'm at that stage now where the draft will be my focus here on. We've had around 50 picks in each of the PSDs so I see your point that mandatory delistments of 1-2 would be maintaining the status quo. There isn't a lot on offer generally past the 2nd round as it is so I wouldn't be against the idea of having more than 2. If delistments gets voted down then I've got no choice but to ride out a rebuild that's going to take longer than it otherwise would. Do I have the patience for that? Maybe, maybe not, my interest wavers more so in the offseason...one good consequence of having these early draft picks is I've developed an interest in following the U18s that I never really had considered in the past. I tell you what, the time between the AFL draft and waiting for the start of the FU PSD is torture.
@choppers you said " I've just checked that list and the highest average there is 88. So Pick 1 gets an 88 av player while 17 picks later, whoever is leading the comp, gets a player averaging 72." ( Unfortunately we have no standout players this time )This may be true, but that 88 points will be an extra 88 points per game to cover probable donuts the coach has been getting. The coach leading the comp may get a player avg 72 but this player probably wont be in his top 15 and may also be a more speculative pick, if mandatory delistments come in that player may probably make it back into the pool or be trade bait. Choppers we are both fighting for top 8 this year on 20 points each, last year we were both wrangling down the bottom i am enjoying this season much better. Improvement is better than no improvement
The trading during the year debate can continue - it won't be implemented in 2016. This will likely become a hotly discussed topic between now and the start of the 2017 season. Everyone has time to form their opinions... but to avoid utter confusion right now, we'll address this one later.