2016-17 List changes

So the way I read it now with Mckenna placed on the primary list, the state of play is this:
  1. We take no delisted free agents = We are picking up to and including pick 68 on draft night

  2. We take 1 delisted free agent (i.e. Josh Green) = We are picking up to and including pick 41 on draft night

*This is on the assumption we go with the 40 (main)/ 4 (rookie) option.

Please correct if this is wrong.

Too hard to tell. Are we having a smaller rookie list? Is Smack completely safe yet?

So the way I read it now with Mckenna placed on the primary list, the state of play is this:
  1. We take no delisted free agents = We are picking up to and including pick 68 on draft night

  2. We take 1 delisted free agent (i.e. Josh Green) = We are picking up to and including pick 41 on draft night

*This is on the assumption we go with the 40 (main)/ 4 (rookie) option.

Please correct if this is wrong.

Too hard to tell. Are we having a smaller rookie list? Is Smack completely safe yet?

Yeah sorry, was doing the above making two assumptions; that we will have 4 on the rookie list instead of the 5 this year and secondly that Smack is safe. You are right though, both of those things are up in the air.

So the way I read it now with Mckenna placed on the primary list, the state of play is this:
  1. We take no delisted free agents = We are picking up to and including pick 68 on draft night

  2. We take 1 delisted free agent (i.e. Josh Green) = We are picking up to and including pick 41 on draft night

*This is on the assumption we go with the 40 (main)/ 4 (rookie) option.

Please correct if this is wrong.

Too hard to tell. Are we having a smaller rookie list? Is Smack completely safe yet?

Yeah sorry, was doing the above making two assumptions; that we will have 4 on the rookie list instead of the 5 this year and secondly that Smack is safe. You are right though, both of those things are up in the air.

No need to apologise. We are all speculating at the moment.

So the way I read it now with Mckenna placed on the primary list, the state of play is this:
  1. We take no delisted free agents = We are picking up to and including pick 68 on draft night

  2. We take 1 delisted free agent (i.e. Josh Green) = We are picking up to and including pick 41 on draft night

*This is on the assumption we go with the 40 (main)/ 4 (rookie) option.

Please correct if this is wrong.

I think that’s right

McKenna is interesting. I was an advocate of that a few months back but given our tight list spots this year I thought it might be kept until next year. I like it, although it will be even more interesting to see what we do from here.

I do like our list management decisions this year though.

Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument’s sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?

Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.

Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightn’t otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.

Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).

41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.

Or nah?

Would be in favour of getting in someone that can ruck

What does smack actually bring can’t ruck can kinda play forward

Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?

Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.

Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightn’t otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.

Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).

41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.

Or nah?

If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I don’t think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.

Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?

Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.

Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightn’t otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.

Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).

41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.

Or nah?

If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I don’t think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.

Fair call

McKenna is interesting. I was an advocate of that a few months back but given our tight list spots this year I thought it might be kept until next year. I like it, although it will be even more interesting to see what we do from here.

I do like our list management decisions this year though.

Part of Woosha’s strategy - work hard reap the rewards.
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?

Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.

Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightn’t otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.

Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).

41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.

Or nah?

There’s not likely to be many picks between 68 and our first pick in the rookie draft anyway, so I don’t think it really achieves much. It’s a bit unfair on smack too who has already been on the rookie list. Either keep him on the main list or delist him imo

Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?

Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.

Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightn’t otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.

Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).

41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.

Or nah?

There’s not likely to be many picks between 68 and our first pick in the rookie draft anyway, so I don’t think it really achieves much. It’s a bit unfair on smack too who has already been on the rookie list. Either keep him on the main list or delist him imo

Hawthorn have 4 hahahaha

Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?

Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.

Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightn’t otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.

Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).

41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.

Or nah?

Nah - What happens if Leunberger and Bellchambers have short term injuries at the same time ? How would you play McKernan if their are no rookie elevations available. Pick 68 will be around the last 10 selections in the ND and EFC have pick 1 in the Rookie Draft.

McKenna > josh green.

McKenna > josh green.
Agreed. And I don’t even know who Josh Green is.

I wrote a very long post in the draft strategy thread yesterday, but thought I would update to include all of the post Sheedy recruiting and summarise it here, given it shows a very clear pattern which is relevant to our draft picks.

At what draft pick do TAC Cup only players stop paying off compared to players with experience in state leagues?

Going by the AFL draft history (from Wiki) which indicates which club players were drafted from:
ie: recruited from TAC Cup vs Senior Competitions from various State Leagues
(not including players drafted/traded directly from another AFL club)
This lead to the following division:
Out of 65 EFC draft picks from 2007 to 2015:

31 listed as TAC Cup recruits
and
34 from various senior competitions around the country not including the AFL.

Out of these 65 players recruited by EFC since the end of the 2007 season, there are 30 remaining on an AFL list currently:

13 out of 31 listed as coming from the TAC

17 out of 34 from the various State Leagues

I have not included non drafted players or players drafted directly from an AFL club like Goddard, Leuey, Bird and McKernan

13 TAC recruits - all picks were below 30 except the 2 bolded

Parish
Morgan
Langford
Laverde
Zerrett
Daniher
Gleeson Pick 53
Jerrett Pick 31

Heppell
Melksham
Carlisle
Hurley
Zaka

17 State League Recruits - all were 30 or above except the 3 bolded

Francis pick 6
Redman
Brown
Hartley
Walla
Long
Fantasia
Ambrose
Baguley
Hibberd
Jenkins
Colyer pick 26
Howlett
Crameri
Myers pick 6
Hooker
Bellchambers

While it looks a little artificial separating Parish and Francis in this way, I think it becomes much more striking way of looking at TAC picks above 30, being Jerrett and Gleeson, compared to the 14 players who had state league experience who came from picks 30 and above.

While it is quite clear the cream comes from the TAC below pick 30 in general, above pick 30 the pendulum swings firmly in favour of players with Senior State league experience.

Things were obviously a bit more erratic under the later reign of Kevin Sheedy, so I decided not to go back further than 10 years, which misses Jobe (p 40 FS) , Stants (p 13), Heater (rookie p 20), Houli (p 42) (all TAC) , and Ryder (p 7) and Monfries (p 14) (WAFL and SANFL respectively) - perhaps unsurprisingly, everything was upside down when Sheedy was involved, however the trend to concentrating on senior experience at state league level holds up if you discount Jobe as a 3rd round Father son pick, leaving only Heater and Houli as pick 30 + anomolies.

I would argue that out of all the players in our best 22 which came from 30+ draft picks, all had state league experience, bar arguably Heater and Gleeson (not counting Jobe as a F/S 3rd round free hit).

Its pretty interesting stuff…i can see SMACK’s future hinging on if we can pick up an up and coming 21-22 yo State league ruck (200 cm and 95+ kg) via a late pick. If we can, then I am not sure there is a place for SMACK. These blokes are about too…

Considering we have numerous forward/midfield types do we really need Green, I think not. Also why pick up Stewart and keep Smack. I don’t know Stewarts ability but every team seems to be going with a third up so could he do that.

Its pretty interesting stuff....i can see SMACK's future hinging on if we can pick up an up and coming 21-22 yo State league ruck (200 cm and 95+ kg) via a late pick. If we can, then I am not sure there is a place for SMACK. These blokes are about too...

Not sure if you’re saying this but I think Dunlop has said that you can’t delist people after the draft. In other words we can’t have Smack as insurance, go to the draft, get the happy surprise of having a ruck we like available, pick him, then delist Smack the next day. That way Smack gets left without a home and no chance/opportunity to get to a new club which makes sense.

Considering we have numerous forward/midfield types do we really need Green, I think not. Also why pick up Stewart and keep Smack. I don't know Stewarts ability but every team seems to be going with a third up so could he do that.

Number of genuine small fwds on our list with significant AFL experience. Zip.

Raz has had half a season. TIPPA has had a quarter of a season. Cover for them if they get injured. Zip besides moving Bags fwd!

We just delisted Kommer and Eades will be rookied and still miles off it.

Absolutely have a need for Green