I was also looking at garner but my pick at 66 obviously a stretch. not sure about your shield there an option to delete your old when you load a new so it could still be there as long as the file path still exists
@fresh nice work grabbing a couple of the top 10 most under rated players in the draft in worpel and paton both ready to go. a long with @JPK coleman-jones and @insider crossley and @tyze1 ryan running out of quality to choose from
@JPK (c) All teams must have no more than 24 players prior to the draft, and must take a minimum of 4 picks in the PSD. Teams must continue to draft until their lists are at 28 players. Can we have a look at this rule please? There was a possibility this draft that I might have only taken 3 players in the draft due to swapping players for picks. I don't want someone dodgy (like myself) to manipulate any rules. Maybe it could read: (c) All teams must have no more than 24 players prior to the draft, and must draft a minimum of 4 players in the PSD. Teams must continue to draft until their lists are at 28 players.
Well, sort of. I think what @tyze1 is saying is due to trading through the draft that if you complete and uneven trade i.e. 1 player for two players while drafting is active then the team that gets the two players will only use 3 picks which is not in keeping with the rules so stated. Tyze is saying get a minimum 4 players through the draft regardless o how you get them @JPK
I don’t mind the mandatory 4 players being added through the PSD each year but with these list sizes it’s tough to make room for them. Can we have a vote on expanding 1-2 spots to 29-30 player squads. Some of these kids getting drafted will need to effectively be stashed for 2-4 years before we get any return from them. That’s very difficult to do with the current list size and draft / delistment rules.
100% agree with you @Mick but that was why the rule was brought in so the bottom teams had a chance to draft them. In effect this has not happened as players have been traded and draft has gone as per usual with top talent from this year been taken. Glad you have mentioned it as I thought I had been beating my own drum, watching your draftees grow is half the fun
Personally I think we should leave the list size as is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we’re only one season into the expanded list size and half a draft into the compulsory delistments, so imho it’s too soon to judge how these have affected the comp. I also think we don’t want to make list management too easy. I think it’s one of the more difficult and therefore enjoyable aspects of the game - balancing the tension between holding a developing youngster versus keeping an older veteran. Expanding list sizes reduces this tension.
I agree with you Damoh... Give it a chance to see how things work out. This year there were a lot of retirees and delistments from AFL clubs which probably made our lives fairly easy. Who knows what it will be like this year. I think it will be a challenge to delist those fringe players who you have been holding onto, but there is always a chance you can grab them back when it comes to your pick.
While we are at it, can someone run me through the exact benefits of drafting this early? Other than the old I need footy to fill my time...
I would even go as far as to say the list expansion has made things worse. I haven't done the stats but I reckon there was a lot less established players taken at the top end of this draft compared to previous years. The obvious reason for that is now we have bigger lists so any player who's shown a glimmer of potential is already on someone's list. There's no Jeremy McGovern's to draft any more and I think it hurts the lower teams with high draft picks and undoes the benefits of mandatory drafting. Bigger lists help the top teams stockpile talent to stay at the top longer, smaller lists force coaches to balance success now vs success in the future. The better the talent in the free agent pool, the more chance lower teams have of improving.
I concur with @Tylo, I was a strong advocate of mandatory delistment from the start of our league's inception and an advocate of only going up 2 players as a give and take to get mandatory delistment in.
I believe we do it to reward coaches for researching and not waiting to snag those players who play well during pre season games, plus I also need my footy fix
Like @bryzza said + I think the idea is that the earlier we have the draft, the less info we have on how these guys will fit in to the new club systems and the role that they’ll play - therefore we should have more quality players for ORFFU purposes being missed in the PSD and sliding through to the MSD