"2009 Official PRE Draft thread' | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

"2009 Official PRE Draft thread'

Tigers of Old said:
Interesting one. There's still grey areas there but I see what you are saying a current 23 year old is likely more able than a 31 year old?

you could have all sorts of rules - but i didn't want to complicate it all with injuries and such.

a player is as good as any person judges him in 2009 - injury free.

age doesn't count as injuries.

it would be to complicated IMO to count everybodies injuries into this.
 
Tigers of Old said:
Interesting one. There's still grey areas there but I see what you are saying a current 23 year old is likely more able than a 31 year old?

Judging by the selections people have made, everyone has a pretty similar understanding to me or the outcome is the same, so not sure it matters lol.

I should preface by saying I didn't write or determine the rules, I'm merely giving my interpretation and helping U2 and Pharace out while they are busy. We were all given opportunity to discuss them before starting, but you are always going to have people read/interpret and think about things differently. That's exactly how you get loopholes in the law.

It's a just a fun mental exercise that everyone agrees on in a general spirit, we've tried to stay away from exhaustive rules or salary caps etc as we are all busy and just want something light to think about, entertain us in the off season.

Take your question for instance, I would say to you...define able? That is a very broad stroke.

I would say mate, that at 31 Craig Bradley and Robert Harvey were more "able" than Colin Sylvia now at 23.

No I am not saying a 23yr old is more able, in a nutshell, the best way to view it is....

Any player currently on a list...as fit as they possibly could be...given their age, experience and history to enable them to be able to play/contribute again.

It would be simplistic to argue, well....to contribute it must be at a high level....elite level, not so...

Tredrea/Egan is a great example...The former is "contributing" as best as he can, but certainly not to the extent he previously could and never will again I doubt. Egan cannot even get out on the park.

Now you could say well Egan is a goner then, but not so if we are stroking the magic brush on him and at least getting him back on the park, Hird had a similar injury and "contributed" after it.

These things are never simple. Let's keep in mind this is fantasy here, a lot of imagination and speculation. It's very hard to nail down a distinct definition and have everyone agree on it or what the outcome would be.

Always going to be a lot of verified opinion on that, all that has to be considered when selecting players while keeping in mind we are not playing for sheep stations.

Just to pass time while we are chomping at the bit for the new season. :hihi
 
U2Tigers said:
you could have all sorts of rules - but i didn't want to complicate it all with injuries and such.

a player is as good as any person judges him in 2009 - injury free.

age doesn't count as injuries.

it would be to complicated IMO to count everybodies injuries into this.

Likewise though, we are not surely saying past injuries didn't happen are we?

It would be impossible/even more complicated to speculate how a player might play at 31 if he didn't have two knee injuries by the time he was 28, if that were true, in a made up example no?

Players fade with age for a lot of reasons, general wear and tear on the body is never classed as a "injury" but has to be greatly considered when they wake up at 29 and can barely walk and decide...I can't do this anymore.
 
Dyer Disciple said:
Always going to be a lot of verified opinion on that, all that has to be considered when selecting players while keeping in mind we are not playing for sheep stations.

Just to pass time while we are chomping at the bit for the new season. :hihi

Indeed. Just wondering. 8)
 
pharace said:
You bustard bird Colonel Klutz!

I echo those sentiments about Boak.

Was the young gun I mainly wanted. He is a beauty in the same class as Selwood, Cotchin etc.

I am really hurting, thought he would last till my next round of picks.
 
Tigers of Old said:
Indeed. Just wondering. 8)

As I've said we are much alike in some things, lol. Totally understand where your coming from mate. I would go over the top if I did this and make it a lot more in depth and advanced/complicated and then it would have no participants LMAO.

I think the way it has been done by the guys is best, nice and simple. One thing I have always been strong on in my own opinion that I've mentioned to U2, is you have the more defined/rules heavy/complicated ones (ala salary caps) in commercial ones in the season. We really wanted to keep this just a light mental exercise, it's hard enough as it is with our individual time demands.

Pros and cons to everything but crude and simple is best for this one.
 
Dyer Disciple said:
I should preface by saying I didn't write or determine the rules, I'm merely giving my interpretation and helping U2 and Pharace out while they are busy. We were all given opportunity to discuss them before starting, but you are always going to have people read/interpret and think about things differently. That's exactly how you get loopholes in the law.

Aaaah, no. I'm just helping U2 too. I prefer the Supercoach model myself, where actual game results determined outcomes, not a handful of opinions, irrespective of my resepect for them. This is a game, and it gives an appreciation of the difficulties faced by coaches and footy managers alike. It is exactly why I would have liked Claw and Craig to play ;) Then they might be able to understand things through another's terms of reference >:D
 
Sorry for not being on for the picks guys.
Spent a long day in the sun at the cricket, didnt think my pick would come up so soon.
 
checkside said:
I take

Adam Hunter - WC

Tannerz pick soon.

I dodged a bullet there, considered him strongly in my need for backs but then passed and not looking back. I rate him highly, but been a bit disappointed with his consistency of late. Not sure if he has been injured a lot (not talking about the games he didn't play).

His versatility is great though in his that type of key position player i love that can play equally well either end of the ground and he has some mongrel in him.
 
pharace said:
Aaaah, no. I'm just helping U2 too. I prefer the Supercoach model myself, where actual game results determined outcomes, not a handful of opinions, irrespective of my resepect for them. This is a game, and it gives an appreciation of the difficulties faced by coaches and footy managers alike. It is exactly why I would have liked Claw and Craig to play ;) Then they might be able to understand things through another's terms of reference >:D

As fair enough mate, sorry wasn't sure who "started" it so to speak. As I said in one of my posts, more complicated models are always going to be better, but i don't want complication in the off season, intense enough in season thanks. :hihi
 
Dyer Disciple said:
I dodged a bullet there, considered him strongly in my need for backs but then passed and not looking back. I rate him highly, but been a bit disappointed with his consistency of late. Not sure if he has been injured a lot (not talking about the games he didn't play).

His versatility is great though in his that type of key position player i love that can play equally well either end of the ground and he has some mongrel in him.

I thought he got pantsed a bit when we played them- admittedly we had a dominate midfield
 
Dyer Disciple said:
I dodged a bullet there, considered him strongly in my need for backs but then passed and not looking back. I rate him highly, but been a bit disappointed with his consistency of late. Not sure if he has been injured a lot (not talking about the games he didn't play).

His versatility is great though in his that type of key position player i love that can play equally well either end of the ground and he has some mongrel in him.

Agree with that. Another with an average 2008 season - but was thrown around alot more than usual. Seemed that was done with a few Weagles eh? What was Worsfold thinking >:D Like you, i reckon his mongrel and agitation is gold, but maybe he shoudn;t have got Big Bag Barry stirred - cos someone else paid!
 
Col.W.Kurtz said:
I thought he got pantsed a bit when we played them- admittedly we had a dominate midfield

That's why I am working hard on my midfield, to me it's the most important area of the ground. Realistically you need a good spine, but in fantasy land. You have to make sacrifices. Besides Ihave a few tricks up my sleeve yet. ;D

pharace said:
Agree with that. Another with an average 2008 season - but was thrown around alot more than usual. Seemed that was done with a few Weagles eh? What was Worsfold thinking >:D Like you, i reckon his mongrel and agitation is gold, but maybe he shoudn;t have got Big Bag Barry stirred - cos someone else paid!

:rofl

Too true.