We got the pick they always offered, which there was no problem with, because everyone knew we wanted him gone.
Im quitely confident Harley Reid was worth pick 1 last year.
I’m pretty confident Caddy was worth pick #10
I hope the cadster doesn’t have second year blues and keeps going.
I can’t believe Essendon may have actually won “Caddyfest” in the end.
Long game.
Iam a fan of making a club use two picks only to match a bid.
So if a player got bid on at 5 with the new points system it would have to match with for example 10 and 28 or some other combination to make 1700 points, it would stop them using 15 junks picks to make up the points and if a club has multiple players they would have to trade into the draft or up the board to get them instead of out of the draft.
They took Nick and Ed recently, I think getting Tom as a first negates them having to take it. May be wrong though.
They can also apply for exemption which they’d likely get with Tom coming in.
Check out the Father/Son thread and NGA threads in the trade area.
We should be using the successful model of the the northern academies and implementing it nation wide for all teams, all states and all kids. Return to the zones systems and we will see the quality of draftees improve more than they already are. (It will also help the development of girls footy too)
As long as the drafting is kept in balance and teams are paying the right price for the talent they bring in I see no real issues. IE having caps on the number of kids you can recruit in certain parts of the draft, not using junks picks to match top 10 bids, discounts should only apply to kids from proper non-footballing backgrounds, preventing clubs from hiding talented kids.
In Victoria it will especially help address the gulf in access to elite pathways for kids who haven’t gone down the private school system (which will obviously still exist.) and those who are in the more remote areas.
And will stave off any young talent being lost to other codes, whilst further encouraging kids from non football backgrounds to participate.
The real difficult talent pathway issue to address is the dwindling participation of indigenous kids, especially those from non urban/suburban areas.
There’s also a benefit financially for the junior clubs as having formal ties to clubland will bring more eyes and bums to seats whilst also opening more commercial partnership opportunities.
Basically I want to see a proper U19s Essendon team.
Those were the days…Zones, U/19s etc. were good but are not going to happen again.
And it costs 6d for kids to get into the games, adults 1/-
Footy Record is 3d
Sounds good sign me up
I thought the sticking point was GWS wanted us to pay some of his salary as well and we, quite rightly, refused.
And how much were the peanuts? lol
Shilling a bag! Peanuts!
Only just 20
What else is there?
Really good behind-the-scenes look just uploaded to the website (for members): Behind the Draft
From what I could pick up and put together, sounds like Gerreyn wasn’t our first choice at 37 but was the back-up. They’ve edited out the name which B Scott said twice but it’s a short name and would make sense for it to be a tall if Gerreyn was the backup, so I’m guessing either Jobe (Shanahan) or Jack (Whitlock).
It also seems we were planning on taking Day-Wicks with 70. Can only assume they thought Johnson would be gone or were certain by then that Day-Wicks would get through to us in the rookie draft.
So nothing many hadn’t already guessed but interesting nonetheless.
Could the Day Wicks 70 be along the lines of the Unwin thing. Ie if we’d kept the earlier pick we’d have taken Unwin, Johnson, Day-Wicks anyway…
Possibly, but either Day-Wicks was ahead of Johnson on our board or they didn’t expect Johnson to be there at 70 because RFK says before the Unwin pick “Unwin, then Day-Wicks”.
Also, assuming the video is in chronological order the St. Kilda trade for pick 45 was worked out before 37, and we were always taking Clarke with 39 so we knew we only had those two late picks.