Do category B rookies need to go undrafted at ND or ND and rookie draft?
The latter.
Do category B rookies need to go undrafted at ND or ND and rookie draft?The latter.
Does that mean the first one or the last one?
I think we will take rioli. If he is there at 41. On the provisi we dont take long with 29. Cant see us getting both.
Would be good for tippa to be a mentor to new aboriginal recruits.
Muhammed saad is adam saads brother could be a good recruit. Just have to hope those category b rookies survive the rookie draft.
Magbegor is a exciting ruck prospect, but will take time. so may be a reason why gach is gone if we can develop this guy on rookie b list.
Also good a lot of these guys played together at calder cannons.
Probably part of reason we elevated mckenna as well is that we plan to take 3 category b rookies.
20 metre sprint: Ben Ronke – Calder Cannons 2.829
Ben Ronke’s kicking is the problem. Shocking ball drop. He gets that sorted (easier said that done) and he could be worthwhile.
Is GACH able to be redrafted as a Rookie B?
Our rookie list could be so unexciting next year with mckernan eades
Our rookie list could be so unexciting next year with mckernan eades
Geez, no need to feel so down about it.
For what it is worth, the rookie list may include
Long
Rioli
Eades
McKernan
That’s 3 exciting talented players, and 1 back-up in case of emergency ruckman. That’s a pretty good mix in my view.
Plus, you will have potentially 3 rookie B listed players to get excited about.
Our rookie list could be so unexciting next year with mckernan eadesGeez, no need to feel so down about it.
For what it is worth, the rookie list may include
Long
Rioli
Eades
McKernanThat’s 3 exciting talented players, and 1 back-up in case of emergency ruckman. That’s a pretty good mix in my view.
Plus, you will have potentially 3 rookie B listed players to get excited about.
I think Aaron Heppell deserves a spot on the rookie list.
Very happy with the list management decisions so far with the exception of the possibly picking up Smack and Eades as rookies.
Eades is just not up to it in my opinion. His ball handling, disposal and attack on the ball are all well below par. Picking up Smack as a rookie makes some sense as ruck cover however. The state league stocks for rucks must be pretty thin for us to contemplate this, though at least he provides some forward cover too.
Very happy with the list management decisions so far with the exception of the possibly picking up Smack and Eades as rookies.Eades is just not up to it in my opinion. His ball handling, disposal and attack on the ball are all well below par. Picking up Smack as a rookie makes some sense as ruck cover however. The state league stocks for rucks must be pretty thin for us to contemplate this, though at least he provides some forward cover too.
It’s a breath of fresh air to finally see us turning over the list. Players that are not up to it or don’t exhibit the professionalism and commitment required at this level have for too long been given chance after chance at the expense of potentially unearthing a talent in the draft.
Having said that, I agree that it’s disappointing we are continuing to use the rookie list as a lifeline for players who’ve already had an opportunity to prove themselves on the senior list and failed. We should be using it for mature players in State leagues or genuine under-age talents with raw natural ability that we feel we can develop.
I also feel like we are not active enough in the trade period. I would have liked to have seen us work harder to obtain more early picks, as well as chase harder for talented players who are looking for more opportunity.
Very happy with the list management decisions so far with the exception of the possibly picking up Smack and Eades as rookies.Eades is just not up to it in my opinion. His ball handling, disposal and attack on the ball are all well below par. Picking up Smack as a rookie makes some sense as ruck cover however. The state league stocks for rucks must be pretty thin for us to contemplate this, though at least he provides some forward cover too.
It’s a breath of fresh air to finally see us turning over the list. Players that are not up to it or don’t exhibit the professionalism and commitment required at this level have for too long been given chance after chance at the expense of potentially unearthing a talent in the draft.
Having said that, I agree that it’s disappointing we are continuing to use the rookie list as a lifeline for players who’ve already had an opportunity to prove themselves on the senior list and failed. We should be using it for mature players in State leagues or genuine under-age talents with raw natural ability that we feel we can develop.
I also feel like we are not active enough in the trade period. I would have liked to have seen us work harder to obtain more early picks, as well as chase harder for talented players who are looking for more opportunity.
but would you be happy to see us trade out quality players? Because thats how you get in high draft picks, we can’t just package 3 guys with no value and expect them to somehow be worth a top pick
Very happy with the list management decisions so far with the exception of the possibly picking up Smack and Eades as rookies.Eades is just not up to it in my opinion. His ball handling, disposal and attack on the ball are all well below par. Picking up Smack as a rookie makes some sense as ruck cover however. The state league stocks for rucks must be pretty thin for us to contemplate this, though at least he provides some forward cover too.
It’s a breath of fresh air to finally see us turning over the list. Players that are not up to it or don’t exhibit the professionalism and commitment required at this level have for too long been given chance after chance at the expense of potentially unearthing a talent in the draft.
Having said that, I agree that it’s disappointing we are continuing to use the rookie list as a lifeline for players who’ve already had an opportunity to prove themselves on the senior list and failed. We should be using it for mature players in State leagues or genuine under-age talents with raw natural ability that we feel we can develop.
I also feel like we are not active enough in the trade period. I would have liked to have seen us work harder to obtain more early picks, as well as chase harder for talented players who are looking for more opportunity.
but would you be happy to see us trade out quality players? Because thats how you get in high draft picks, we can’t just package 3 guys with no value and expect them to somehow be worth a top pick
You don’t have to trade quality players to get multiple early picks. Port have two first round picks without trading anyone, Brisbane have two first round picks without trading anyone (Hanley was traded for a future first round pick). Sure, you have to give up something, but it doesn’t have to be quality players.
Very happy with the list management decisions so far with the exception of the possibly picking up Smack and Eades as rookies.Eades is just not up to it in my opinion. His ball handling, disposal and attack on the ball are all well below par. Picking up Smack as a rookie makes some sense as ruck cover however. The state league stocks for rucks must be pretty thin for us to contemplate this, though at least he provides some forward cover too.
It’s a breath of fresh air to finally see us turning over the list. Players that are not up to it or don’t exhibit the professionalism and commitment required at this level have for too long been given chance after chance at the expense of potentially unearthing a talent in the draft.
Having said that, I agree that it’s disappointing we are continuing to use the rookie list as a lifeline for players who’ve already had an opportunity to prove themselves on the senior list and failed. We should be using it for mature players in State leagues or genuine under-age talents with raw natural ability that we feel we can develop.
I also feel like we are not active enough in the trade period. I would have liked to have seen us work harder to obtain more early picks, as well as chase harder for talented players who are looking for more opportunity.
but would you be happy to see us trade out quality players? Because thats how you get in high draft picks, we can’t just package 3 guys with no value and expect them to somehow be worth a top pick
You don’t have to trade quality players to get multiple early picks. Port have two first round picks without trading anyone, Brisbane have two first round picks without trading anyone (Hanley was traded for a future first round pick). Sure, you have to give up something, but it doesn’t have to be quality players.
Port gave up next years 1st rounder
Hanley is a star
We lost Hibberd for pick 29.
Very happy with the list management decisions so far with the exception of the possibly picking up Smack and Eades as rookies.Eades is just not up to it in my opinion. His ball handling, disposal and attack on the ball are all well below par. Picking up Smack as a rookie makes some sense as ruck cover however. The state league stocks for rucks must be pretty thin for us to contemplate this, though at least he provides some forward cover too.
It’s a breath of fresh air to finally see us turning over the list. Players that are not up to it or don’t exhibit the professionalism and commitment required at this level have for too long been given chance after chance at the expense of potentially unearthing a talent in the draft.
Having said that, I agree that it’s disappointing we are continuing to use the rookie list as a lifeline for players who’ve already had an opportunity to prove themselves on the senior list and failed. We should be using it for mature players in State leagues or genuine under-age talents with raw natural ability that we feel we can develop.
I also feel like we are not active enough in the trade period. I would have liked to have seen us work harder to obtain more early picks, as well as chase harder for talented players who are looking for more opportunity.
but would you be happy to see us trade out quality players? Because thats how you get in high draft picks, we can’t just package 3 guys with no value and expect them to somehow be worth a top pick
You don’t have to trade quality players to get multiple early picks. Port have two first round picks without trading anyone, Brisbane have two first round picks without trading anyone (Hanley was traded for a future first round pick). Sure, you have to give up something, but it doesn’t have to be quality players.
Port gave up next years 1st rounder
Hanley is a star
We lost Hibberd for pick 29.
Yes, you’re right, I messed that up.
Hanely is a star, but neither of Brisbane’s first round picks this year have anything to do with the Hanley trade.
I don’t know what you’re saying about Hibberd. Unless you think pick 29 is an early pick, which I don’t.
So basically if Eades AND Smack get rookied we will just have the 1 live rookie pick.I’d rather drop Eades and pick up Hepp or Holmes. I know it’s harsh, but they have shown they want it, Eades has not.
I may be wrong, of course.We get Green as a DFA and pick up Rioli in draft, both likely, and Eades will be cut IMO.
So basically if Eades AND Smack get rookied we will just have the 1 live rookie pick.I’d rather drop Eades and pick up Hepp or Holmes. I know it’s harsh, but they have shown they want it, Eades has not.
I may be wrong, of course.We get Green as a DFA and pick up Rioli in draft, both likely, and Eades will be cut IMO.
Err did I miss the bit where it’s likely we are picking up Rioli in the draft?
Benfti said so. In fact he said something along the lines of it being a complete failure of the club if we miss him.
Plus as if it wouldn’t be likely… given he’s a Rioli, and highly rated small forward of which we are not flush with.
Oh right, Benfti. The guy who hoodwinks people every year? Aside from Tippa, has he actually had any good info recently?
So basically if Eades AND Smack get rookied we will just have the 1 live rookie pick.I’d rather drop Eades and pick up Hepp or Holmes. I know it’s harsh, but they have shown they want it, Eades has not.
I may be wrong, of course.We get Green as a DFA and pick up Rioli in draft, both likely, and Eades will be cut IMO.
So basically if Eades AND Smack get rookied we will just have the 1 live rookie pick.I’d rather drop Eades and pick up Hepp or Holmes. I know it’s harsh, but they have shown they want it, Eades has not.
I may be wrong, of course.We get Green as a DFA and pick up Rioli in draft, both likely, and Eades will be cut IMO.
Err did I miss the bit where it’s likely we are picking up Rioli in the draft?
Benfti said so. In fact he said something along the lines of it being a complete failure of the club if we miss him.
Plus as if it wouldn’t be likely… given he’s a Rioli, and highly rated small forward of which we are not flush with.
Oh right, Benfti. The guy who hoodwinks people every year? Aside from Tippa, has he actually had any good info recently?
Did you miss last year. Ben was on fire. Benfti specials getting selected everywhere.
Oh, and somewhere Puopolo will get mentioned.
Poppycock
I suppose the rookie list has two purposes. It will be interesting to see how the club view it in the upcoming draft. Either fill it with ready made players who could play with a weeks notice due to injury and their own good form, or use a way to develop youngsters who need time to physically and mentally develop to the rigours of AFL. Ideally you’d have a smattering of both. That’s where McKernan fits in. You know what you’re getting and he’s ready to go. To an extent Long is the same as he’s had a few pre seasons now and has exposed form. One or two developing types are always exciting too.
Do category B rookies need to go undrafted at ND or ND and rookie draft?The latter.
Does that mean the first one or the last one?
The latter.