No Oppo Supporters 2025 AFL General Discussion

[LukeParkerno1]

Again, we are talking about DRAFTING quality. Unless you say that Cameron isn't quality, then my counter-point is valid.

Didn't the Eagles knock back Pick 2, and 2 late firsts from North, for 1 and 23?

They also knocked back an offer from the Dees which included 6 and 11, and a future 1st.

I think these are reasonably fair for a player looking likely to want to leave.

May have even been able to swing some future swaps as well.

Eagles reject three first-rounders and huge FOUR-pick offer as Pick 1 trade talks ramp up

Pick 1 trade talks ramp up as Eagles reject three first-rounders, huge FOUR-pick offer

www.foxsports.com.au

Pick 2 was never really on the table for starters it ended up being their 3 late first rounders, I don't blame North but you can't blame WCE from not taking that. No way should WCE have had to give back 23, that was half the issue with the deal even if 2 was on the table.

The issue with the Melbourne one was at the time it was seen as a huge risk that Curtin would get through to there, that was the deal that was closest, it still wasn't fantastic though, the f1 only looks great as they fell off a cliff, I wouldn't have been betting on Melbourne flopping that hard though. The Dees deal was the closest though but it came with a risk.

 

[Bloods86]

What on earth are you on about? You handpicked several players which someone else pointed out were predominantly trades in from other clubs (for high draft picks) and ignored a number one pick they had in their side who was one of their best performers. No one is suggesting that all your players need to be extreme quality but that having extreme quality complemented by other players wins premierships. All you've proved is you haven't understood the point being made.

The claim was you need extreme quality (being connected to high picks) to win premierships.

If someone specifically mentions a player (Rayner) as a high pick, which LP1 had done in the post I was responding to (!), and is using him to tout the need to have high picks to win premierships, then:

a) why would I bring up the same player when I am countering that claim (bizarre)

b) showing that high quality, even better quality imo, can be found with later picks, undercuts the argument that I was countering.

Nowhere have I suggested that having extreme quality doesn't help, that's your invention, I am however suggesting (if you read) that such quality isn't only found with the highest picks. LP1 themselves "handpicked" some players for the Lions that were high picks, so I brought up other players, including a late 1st (a pick range which he had been scoffing at shortly before), who are high quality and played at least an equal role in the Lions flag.

 

[SM]

The claim was you need extreme quality (being connected to high picks) to win premierships.

If someone specifically mentions a player (Rayner) as a high pick, which LP1 had done in the post I was responding to (!), and is using him to tout the need to have high picks to win premierships, then:

a) why would I bring up the same player when I am countering that claim (bizarre)

b) showing that high quality, even better quality imo, can be found with later picks, undercuts the argument that I was countering.

Nowhere have I suggested that having extreme quality doesn't help, that's your invention, I am however suggesting (if you read) that such quality isn't only found with the highest picks. LP1 themselves "handpicked" some players for the Lions that were high picks, so I brought up other players, including a late 1st (a pick range which he had been scoffing at shortly before), who are high quality and played at least an equal role in the Lions flag.

Yes, this is bizarre.

"Why would I bring up a player who defeats my argument?" Have a think about that one.

 

[Bloods86]

Your argument seems to use a healthy dose of hindsight to make it work. You're essentially arguing that Cameron as a quality pick up late in the draft is the rule not the exception and WCE should have been happy to take late picks because they can be confident of picking up a player of Cameron's quality.

Which is rubbish.

That's not what I'm arguing, or more specifically, arguing against, but ok.

I'm not arguing that the Eagles should trade Pick 1 for a single rookie draft pick (if that were possible), because hey you can find value anywhere.

What I am saying is that a rebuilding team with needs everywhere, and their focus player looking like a flight risk, may not be making the best decision to outright refuse some very good offers which allow them to still use pretty high picks and get players more likely to be in in for the long haul and not set you back to drafting again when you trade them.

LP1 has also said there's simply no debate about Reid and presumably we should all just accept his opinion, so pardon for bring up other factors to consider.

 

[SM]

That's not what I'm arguing, or more specifically, arguing against, but ok.

I'm not arguing that the Eagles should trade Pick 1 for a single rookie draft pick (if that were possible), because hey you can find value anywhere.

What I am saying is that a rebuilding team with needs everywhere, and their focus player looking like a flight risk, may not be making the best decision to outright refuse some very good offers which allow them to still use pretty high picks and get players more likely to be in in for the long haul and not set you back to drafting again when you trade them.

LP1 has also said there's simply no debate about Reid and presumably we should all just accept his opinion, so pardon for bring up other factors to consider.

I'm not suggesting you did, you're suggesting that quality can come later in the draft so they should have given up on Reid because of course you can guarantee that those later draft picks will be able to pick up players you want to target, ignoring the fact other clubs get to pick before you.

Sorry mate but bringing up Charlie Cameron as a rookie pick as some sort of justification that because he was one of the Lions big contributors they didn't also need Rayner, McLuggage, Daniher, etc. is more than a bit silly, and not bringing up Rayner just because it doesn't suit your argument undoes your position more than a little.

 

[Bloods86]

Yes, this is bizarre.

"Why would I bring up a player who defeats my argument?" Have a think about that one.

"Defeats" is your word and not one I accept.

I suggest you read back over what I've actually said and the claims I'm arguing against.

It seems your want for an argument and maybe not liking some of our other engagements, is clouding your ability to understand what is written.

If I'm offering a set of players to counter the overreaching claim LP1 was making about players they had named and what that means, then why on earth should I have to name the players they've already named, when my argument ISN'T that you can't find extreme quality at the top end of the draft! Truly weird.

 

[SM]

"Defeats" is your word and not one I accept.

I suggest you read back over what I've actually said and the claims I'm arguing against.

It seems your want for an argument and maybe not liking some of our other engagements, is clouding your ability to understand what is written.

If I'm offering a set of players to counter the overreaching claim LP1 was making about players they had named and what that means, then why on earth should I have to name the players they've already named, when my argument ISN'T that you can't find extreme quality at the top end of the draft! Truly weird.

I have no idea who you are, when have we engaged before?

I have no 'want' for an argument, I saw Caesar make a point, LP1 counter it, and you make a weird counter claim that Brisbane had no top draft picks in their side which was false.

 

[Bloods86]

I'm not suggesting you did, you're suggesting that quality can come later in the draft so they should have given up on Reid because of course you can guarantee that those later draft picks will be able to pick up players you want to target, ignoring the fact other clubs get to pick before you.

Sorry mate but bringing up Charlie Cameron as a rookie pick as some sort of justification that because he was one of the Lions big contributors they didn't also need Rayner, McLuggage, Daniher, etc. is more than a bit silly, and not bringing up Rayner just because it doesn't suit your argument undoes your position more than a little.

I did not say an equivalent talent is guaranteed later in the draft. Maybe don't invent things.

I brought up Cameron and others, for the umpteenth time I have to say this, because LP1 was making a claim about needing extreme talent to win flags, after banging on about Top 5/6 picks, and he "handpicked" (to use your jibe) players taken with top picks to connect his points. My point was to show that quality CAN come later, and in the Eagles case, with SEVERAL high picks, you can still get quality, you may have less risk of having a rebuild setback 3 years later, and you may even cover off several needs for a rebuilding side.

 

[SM]

I did not say an equivalent talent is guaranteed later in the draft. Maybe don't invent things.

I brought up Cameron and others, for the umpteenth time I have to say this, because LP1 was making a claim about needing extreme talent to win flags, after banging on about Top 5/6 picks, and he "handpicked" (to use your jibe) players taken with top picks to connect his points. My point was to show that quality CAN come later, and in the Eagles case, with SEVERAL high picks, you can still get quality, you may have less risk of having a rebuild setback 3 years later, and you may even cover off several needs for a rebuilding side.

This is going round in circles. It's just clocked you're the guy who didn't understand what a form table was which makes sense now.

 

[Bloods86]

I have no idea who you are, when have we engaged before?

I have no 'want' for an argument, I saw Caesar make a point, LP1 counter it, and you make a weird counter claim that Brisbane had no top draft picks in their side which was false.

I have to assume trolling at this point.

I did not claim that Brisbane had no top draft picks in their side.

We've had several recent arguments e.g. GWS list being better than ours.

 

[Bloods86]

This is going round in circles. It's just clocked you're the guy who didn't understand what a form table was which makes sense now.

Again, maybe don't invent things.

 

[SM]

Again, maybe don't invent things.

Yeah ok mate once again, time to let this one go. I know you get desperate to have the last word so go for it I guess.

 

[Olian]

The Crows offered three first round picks to North to gain access to pick 1, which presumably they would have used on Horne Francis.

Crows were willing to offer pick 4 in the 2021 and picks 5 and 17 in 2022.

North said no and wasted a year developing a player who left for Port.

Crows drafted Rachele, and traded in Rankin and Dawson with those picks (and others).

A number 1 draftee is great but multiple players of quality makes up for it.

 

[Bloods86]

Pick 2 was never really on the table for starters it ended up being their 3 late first rounders, I don't blame North but you can't blame WCE from not taking that. No way should WCE have had to give back 23, that was half the issue with the deal even if 2 was on the table.

The issue with the Melbourne one was at the time it was seen as a huge risk that Curtin would get through to there, that was the deal that was closest, it still wasn't fantastic though, the f1 only looks great as they fell off a cliff, I wouldn't have been betting on Melbourne flopping that hard though. The Dees deal was the closest though but it came with a risk.

I mean, it was reported that it was offered, which is what we have to go on. Eagles were getting a later first rounder and an upgrade from 23, for a switch from 1 to 2, where their pick for 1 was/is a flight risk, that even if they get a good or better deal if he leaves, sets them back in time.

The Dees offer was very good. Even if they don't get Curtin, you get 3 first rounders, including pick 6 (just outside the Top 5 "requirement"). Maybe others would end up wanting to leave, but Reid was a known risk.

 

[SM]

The Crows offered three first round picks to North to gain access to pick 1, which presumably they would have used on Horne Francis.

Crows were willing to offer pick 4 in the 2021 and picks 5 and 17 in 2022.

North said no and wasted a year developing a player who left for Port.

Crows drafted Rachele, and traded in Rankin and Dawson with those picks (and others).

A number 1 draftee is great but multiple players of quality makes up for it.

Definitely agree with that. I think this is LP1's and my point that the picks offered up for the number 1 pick have to be high enough to be worth it. Pick 4 and a future first rounder is arguably justifiable as this case study shows. Late first round picks bundled together with lower picks doesn't feel like it.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I feel like you've just ignored much of the post you're responding to, and then just stated there's no debate.

Personally if I'm rebuilding from a low point, with needs everywhere, and I have any faith in my draft analysts, I'd consider getting a bunch of later first rounders instead of betting big on 1 guy who is widely expected to want to go home in a few years, thus delaying the rebuild.

Yup. One vs many. See LPs point about what was offered and whether the players available at those picks were good enough but as a principle better to get three very good than one excellent under the circumstances.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yup. One vs many. See LPs point about what was offered and whether the players available at those picks were good enough but as a principle better to get three very good than one excellent under the circumstances.

Problem is look at that draft, it thinned out massively, think I said it at the time, called it a bell curve draft, extreme top end but plateued and you were going to be punting after the middle teens, I certainly would want one inside the top 10 to 'punt', and WCE were very open they wanted access to Curtin or Colby McKercher for them to move the pick (or at least think about it). Three picks 18 plus onwards doesn't do that. Melbourne's deal was the best one for sure, but it was a bit of a surprise Curtin was there at the GWS pick

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I mean, it was reported that it was offered, which is what we have to go on. Eagles were getting a later first rounder and an upgrade from 23, for a switch from 1 to 2, where their pick for 1 was/is a flight risk, that even if they get a good or better deal if he leaves, sets them back in time.

The Dees offer was very good. Even if they don't get Curtin, you get 3 first rounders, including pick 6 (just outside the Top 5 "requirement"). Maybe others would end up wanting to leave, but Reid was a known risk.

The only deal that was remotely near par and you usually need way over par is Melbournes. North were never trading a top 3 pick. You seem to think teens picks are the greatest yet you haven't even looked at that draft, the picks that would have been given bar Logan Morris it's slim pickings barely any have even played. Melb is slightly different least one was in the range with a side of risk

 

[Bloods86]

The only deal that was remotely near par and you usually need way over par is Melbournes. North were never trading a top 3 pick. You seem to think teens picks are the greatest yet you haven't even looked at that draft, the picks that would have been given bar Logan Morris it's slim pickings barely any have even played. Melb is slightly different least one was in the range with a side of risk

Ok, so you're just claiming that AFL media, Fox etc were wrong about North's offer to include Pick 2. Maybe they were, but it's what we have to go on.

There was risk to picking Reid, which I've pointed out several times, there's risk with everything.

 

[Bloods86]

The only deal that was remotely near par and you usually need way over par is Melbournes. North were never trading a top 3 pick. You seem to think teens picks are the greatest yet you haven't even looked at that draft, the picks that would have been given bar Logan Morris it's slim pickings barely any have even played. Melb is slightly different least one was in the range with a side of risk

And we're now at the point where it sounds like the Dees offer is at least worth considering, which is a bit different to there being no debate possible over the Eagles taking Reid with #1.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Being reported that Oscar Allen addressed the players at WCE earlier and is remorseful and ashamed but will continue on as co-captain.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

And we're now at the point where it sounds like the Dees offer is at least worth considering, which is a bit different to there being no debate possible over the Eagles taking Reid with #1.

Considering yes but no I wouldn’t as Reid is generational. Still would take 1 other draft. If it was 6,11 and f1 for 1, then yes possibly assuming nothing else is sent with the 1

 

[caesar88]

 

[Bloods86]

Considering yes but no I wouldn’t as Reid is generational. Still would take 1 other draft. If it was 6,11 and f1 for 1, then yes possibly assuming nothing else is sent with the 1

Generational is no good if the player leaves, which is yet to be seen, but not looking ideal for the Eagles. And there's been generational players before without enough support in teams, so if he does stay we'll see if the Eagles have drafted (and developed) well enough elsewhere.

 

[SM]

Generational is no good if the player leaves, which is yet to be seen, but not looking ideal for the Eagles. And there's been generational players before without enough support in teams, so if he does stay we'll see if the Eagles have drafted (and developed) well enough elsewhere.

The last time the Eagles lost a generational player they got a 700+ goalkicker in return, not too shabby.