Bombertalk

For selection 48


Good luck to him.

Good to just get it done. We upgrade our third round pick, another spot cleared.

Bye!!

Are we actually going to get anything of value with pick #48? Or pretty much a lucky dip?

Good luck to Monfries, but I think it's best for both parties moving forward. Would have thought we might have snared a higher draft pick though. All my chick mates will be shattered he is gone! They love him, obviously for the wrong reasons lol

sconsey wrote:Are we actually going to get anything of value with pick #48? Or pretty much a lucky dip?

Good luck to Monfries, but I think it's best for both parties moving forward. Would have thought we might have snared a higher draft pick though. All my chick mates will be shattered he is gone! They love him, obviously for the wrong reasons lol

It's a bit of a lucky dip once you get down to 50-odd, I suppose. I wonder if we'd use that to on-trade for another deal.

An extra kid on minimum wage.

now we have picks 32, 48 and 51.
(pick 10 being used on Daniher).

better than losing monfries for nothing.(we would have had Zero compo from the AFL given we purchased Goddard)

Anyone got any fairly good phantom drafts available? Im interested in having a look at what we may get with our picks

Take it we wont be getting Ben Jacobs...Would have been better than pick 48?

sconsey wrote:Anyone got any fairly good phantom drafts available? Im interested in having a look at what we may get with our picks

Take it we wont be getting Ben Jacobs...Would have been better than pick 48?

I reckon a bit more info will come out after the draft combine. I always read Shifter Sheehan's top 30. Hopefully we snag a good kid from his list with #32.

Given that he could have gone for nothing under Free Agency then I guess this is better than nothing. Reality is, Port have got a decent bargain there.

I think we got Alex Browne with pick 48 in the 2010 draft.

swoodley wrote:I think we got Alex Browne with pick 48 in the 2010 draft.

yeah and Nick O'Brien was in the 50's so they can be found

geez the talent is spread thin these days with 18 teams.... going to need to be savvy from now on if teams wish to stay near the top for any kind of period

As some sort of guide on draft picks, the recent premiership team consists of;

Rhyce Shaw # 18 f/s (via trade)
Ted Richards # 27 (via trade)
Martin Mattner rookie list (via trade)
Alex Johnson # 57
Heath Grundy rookie draft # 42
Nick Smith rookie draft # 15
Lewis Jetta # 14
Keiran Jack rookie list
Daniel Hannebery # 30
Craig Bird # 59
Sam Reid # 38
Ryan O'Keefe # 56
Jarrad McVeigh # 5
Adam Goodes # 43
Lewis Roberts-Thomson # 29
Shane Mumford rookie draft # 59 (via trade)
Josh Kennedy # 40 f/s (via trade)
Jude Bolton # 8
Nick Malceski # 64
Mike Pyke rookie draft # 57
Mitch Morton # 44 f/s (via trade x 2)
Luke Parker # 40

Looking at that list, way toooooooooooooo much is made of the top ten picks, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much.

uptick wrote:Looking at that list, way toooooooooooooo much is made of the top ten picks, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much.

And of the 26 #1 draft picks that have been, only 4 of them became premiership players (of course the more recent one's still have a chance as their careers will continue for some time).

Drew Banfield, Michael Gardiner, Des Headland and Luke Hodge.

I wonder how other picks fair in regard to success i.e does a player picked around #15 have more success in their careers than a # 1 or 2. Interesting

Very interesting set of figures there BD.

As has already been said, too much is made of high draft picks when what is really needed is a team of astute talent spotters and a recruitment manager who will listen to them.

Also, a lot needs to be said about the concept of drafting/trading for specific positions. Sydney have obviously mastered that process.

When teams get no 1 draft picks they are theoretically the worst team in the comp. So if you did a study you might find later picks are statistically more successful.

Sismis wrote:When teams get no 1 draft picks they are theoretically the worst team in the comp. So if you did a study you might find later picks are statistically more successful.

Need some study where "success" or otherwise of picks is weighted for ladder position

Sismis wrote:When teams get no 1 draft picks they are theoretically the worst team in the comp. So if you did a study you might find later picks are statistically more successful.

That's right, and that's what I would suspect.

Now if you're a super talented teenager, how would you go about playing in the under age comps? If you knew your own ability to be one of the very best (in your age group), I reckon you would "tank it" so that you don't become the No.1 choice. I'd play at 70% and be good enough to be recognised as a first rounder, but not good enough to be chosen in the first 5 or so picks.

What incentive is there to be the best of the best? You'll only be rewarded by landing at the bottom dweller who may take decades to climb up to the top.

=D> =D>

One less extremely overrated player to worry and argue constantly about.

j-mac31 wrote: =D> =D>

One less extremely overrated player to worry and argue constantly about.

thank f****** christ.