Is that an = or an ==?
= is a valid comparison operator in quite a few languages. It’s been a few years, but I think that’s just an ENDIF off being valid Basic. Well, at least valid Basic pseudocode.
1 Like
Unfortunately I think Cerra will be a gun. If the stories of his Carlton salary are true, I’m disappointed we didn’t get him.
I can’t read “draft bolter” without thinking “Callum Burgess”!
1 Like
Because they write the profile first, and then moved it around as they did a “mock” draft. Hardly worth complaining about
future third added. although lions need points for academy player next year so maybe not.
How many frees would he have given away in that clip if he was wearing the red and black.
Looks good though
Do the dogs have the open spots to use the additional picks?
He and Zac Taylor got a game in, Taylor another likely top 30 pick
1 Like
I suspect we’ll be trying to do something with 2022 picks to get into this 2nd round, rather than downgrading 11 this year.
5 Likes
Easton wood just retired, that frees up one more spot. so they can split 23.
might need to move another to rookie list for my trade to work.
2 Likes
Was just many hundred posts behind, but all caught up now, so can obviously declare the following:
If we get Goater he will be the Goatest Goat that ever Goated. 
Or something
Goater or Erasmus seem like types that we could work with.
NWM seems like he has plenty of upside. Sometimes sounds a bit Michael Long, sometimes sounds a bit Jake Long.
Rachele seems like he fills a need, but then again so does Motlop.
Anyway, I’d better get back to video watching…or work …nah video watching
1 Like
Yeah you have to be careful at draughts.
Right I’ve now watched all the videos (may not be true). Of course these comments are seriously uninformed but:
Rachele is too mark and kick to meet our small forward needs. I’d prefer Motlop for the role, not sure if others available later.
Horne looks like a Joel Reynolds clone, even the ball drop reminded me of him. 
NWM gives me massive Jake Long vibes, but without the hard edge. I would have serious concerns about the time it would take him to adjust to the speed of the AFL, and whether he ever would. I expect he’d be caught holding the ball a lot in the meantime. Jake never really was afforded the opportunity to get used to the speed thanks to Woosha. No idea whether after 50 games he’d have ended up adjusting. Early days I think NWM would worry me… But if he adjusts then he could be a weapon
Goater has some tools, but some rough edges. I’d certainly consider him
Matthew Johnson reminds me of Myers, but perhaps that’s just the WA jumper
Etc etc
Disclaimer: all opinions based on one or less than one highlight video and not in anyway valid as anything more than a “first impression” taken through the lens of my own biases
8 Likes
I thought draughts was taken with HAP’s reference to the draft, but he doesn’t have a Monopoly on words and it Boggles the mind to think he would.
If you want to go down that route. It’s a nice little trick for an extra list spot. But I wouldn’t be following the exact method we did with Johnson.
If we’re talking about a player unlikely to be drafted.
Take him with your last Rookie draft selection, not main draft. Then render him inactive. Then take an SSP, which I assume is the plan anyway.
We only took Johnson main draft to beat Brisbane to the punch.
1 Like
Last pick in the main draft gives you a crack at the player earlier, so less chance of another club picking him. You can then put him on the inactive list to open the same rookie draft or PSS spot.
Only reason to max out our main list spots is if there’s players we want to draft.
You are talking about a player unlikely to be drafted. Your words.
So what is the concern, for missing out? But you are giving him a 2 year contract, on extra coin.
You are also essentially taking all of our remaining picks, for the remaining players we want to draft (final ND selection + all rookie selections), later in the draft order (your model compared to mine) and increasing the likelihood another club takes those players. And given we are talking about players the club thinks are likely to be selected in the draft, this is both more likely and more concerning.
Give the bloke with a massive injury question mark a 1 year contract on minimum chips. Achieves the same outcome with reduced risk.
3 Likes
We’ve got two options at the draft
- 3 main list & 2 rookie list
- 4 main list & 1 rookie list.
Say we want to take the first option.
- we take 3 picks
- we take a player with a 12 month injury with the last pick
- we put that player on the inactive list
- we take 2 rookies
If you are playing the inactive loophole, you need to give them a 2 year contract. 1 year to recover, 1 year to play football. The contract length isn’t a downside. I’m pretty sure the inactive contract is outside the salary cap. A 1 year contract on minimum chips just pays for the rehab, you never see them play football.
I don’t see $$$ as a reason not to do this. The only downside is if the rehab doesn’t work out, but there’s no such thing as a guaranteed prospect at pick 70.
1 Like
You are completely ignoring my comment about risking other clubs take your other desired selections. Given they are players likely to be drafted, and your theoretical bloke is not, we should take those other kids first.
1 Like