Dunkley

[bloodsbigot]

Doesn't the father-son picks now require us to give up draft selections?

We already gave up a bunch for Mills.

[ugg]

There were a lot of factors that went into the decision not to match the Bulldogs's bid for Dunkley. The official line trotted out on the night was that we had similar types of players already at the club (inside midfielders) and we were looking for players who had good kicking skills and provided outside run - the players we drafted after the Dunkley bid in Leonardis and Dawson fitted this mould.

However I'm sure all the other reasons posted above would have come into play as well.

[Maltopia]

I also read on this site somewhere that there were some concerns about dad being bitter and twisted and us not wanting him around. Can't remember who posted that.

[jono2707]

You can't have everyone.

[barry]

Probably agree with Benny as the probable out but I can't agree with your assessment of our drafting. They seem to get more picks right then wrong

Just because we get most right doesn't mean we get none wrong.
Dunkley just played a blinder in a final. 1st year player that we could have got. Imagine mills and Dunkley this year.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[robamiee]

unfortunately thanks to Eddie's whinging clubs lose that ability now to take the father and sons and never mind the fact how much time and effort not to mention $$$$ we put into our academies, and ahve to use multiple picks to get a kid.

mind you i think the club making the bid should have to give up the same to acquire the academy or father son bids...

[Faunac8]

Just because we get most right doesn't mean we get none wrong.
Dunkley just played a blinder in a final. 1st year player that we could have got. Imagine mills and Dunkley this year.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

I agree we don't always get it right but the general consensus on this forum is that we have a surfeit of midfielders currently and don't really need another.
I still prefer to look forward to see how who we do draft performs rather than looking back wistfully and analysing who we could have got.

[undy]

I didn't think he was that good for most of the game, seemed to get pushed off the ball pretty easily. Was good at the end, when it was all over red rover. Was happy we let him go, but he will get better.

They played a great game but.

[Plugger46]

Just because we get most right doesn't mean we get none wrong.
Dunkley just played a blinder in a final. 1st year player that we could have got. Imagine mills and Dunkley this year.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

That was not a blinder. Not even close.

[snajik]

We can't recruit everyone, some will slip through the net. However, I just glanced at the ladder and we seem to be travelling alright regardless.

[mcs]

Mcglynn.

We failed to match the bid because we didn't think he was worth it. We was wrong and you should always pick players with a lineage to the club.

You can not possibly make a judgement on how good a players career will be on the basis of 1 single season. Lets come back to the question in 10 years time and see how Dunkley's career has unfolded.

Given our outstanding ability in general to do very well out of the draft under Beatson, I'd favour his judgement over some sort of pre-defined notion that we must pick players that have previous links to the club.

[mcs]

Just because we get most right doesn't mean we get none wrong.
Dunkley just played a blinder in a final. 1st year player that we could have got. Imagine mills and Dunkley this year.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

He played well (as did all the bulldogs) but it was hardly a 'blinder' - a 'blinder' was the game Caleb Daniel put in. Dunkley did very well in his first final, but it was not some extraordinary performance by any stretch.

[Jewels]

Agree, I think there was a handshake agreement that Swans would take him if he were to be first picked by a non-Vic club, but if a Vic club (Bulldogs) we would let him go. Presumably Swans thought there was a risk if they took him before a Vic club, he would walk after two years anyway.

My recollection of events also

Just because we get most right doesn't mean we get none wrong.
Dunkley just played a blinder in a final. 1st year player that we could have got. Imagine mills and Dunkley this year.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

If thats your idea of a blinder, than we have very different definitions of that word.
He is a good young footballer, but I don't think us not drafting him is going to be a decision we will really regret, except for the sentimental reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

He played well (as did all the bulldogs) but it was hardly a 'blinder' - a 'blinder' was the game Caleb Daniel put in. Dunkley did very well in his first final, but it was not some extraordinary performance by any stretch.

Yep, if we had been in the same position with Daniel as we were with Dunkley, then we'd be feeling a bit more regretful.

[caj23]

With 20/20 hindsight, if Mitchell ends up departing at the end of the season, he would have been the perfect replacement

I don't think there would have been a problem with Josh leaving if we had drafted him, from all reports he's a real professional. Without knowing the full details of what went on behind the scenes I suspect it's probably one that we'll end up regretting, he looks like he's going to be a very good player

[Beerman]

Hypotheticals like this are difficult. Had we drafted him, he may have been playing as well as he is...or he may have been a demotivated underachiever who spent two years in the ressies before being traded back to Melbourne.

I suspect that after speaking to him, the Swans decided that the second scenario was likely enough that he wasn't worth the pick.

Being a professional sportsman (or sportswoman) is very hard work. If a player is not 100% committed, they won't achieve much, and being forced to live and work somewhere you really don't want to be is going to affect that.

Either that or the recruiters stuffed up. [emoji3]