No i mean from the current season.
For example if this season you had to play the 3 or 4 of the top coaches twice you are at a distinct disadvantage to another coach that maybe only plays one or two of them twice.
It’s a purely luck based outcome that can very easily decide your ladder position. It’s a variable that would be good if we could get around it.
If not possible to get around in season then from the previous year would be a reasonable, but not as good, outcome.
30 being the ultimate list size still plus lti
We’ve discussed this pretty much every season Ivan :).
The counter-argument is that by forcing such large list turn-overs, it means the better teams have to trade out or delist more quality players. If you can keep 25 players (for instance) that means your starting 18 and bench all stay, plus 3 more as injury cover. Ironically it would probably mean that the stronger teams could actually afford to gamble with speculative high risk/reward picks earlier than the lower teams as they wouldn’t really need to worry about drafting experienced campaigners to cover injuries.
Yeah I get that but 1 never got to enjoy the debate and 2 I’m in total rebuild mode so want to maximise draft value and make investing very difficult when you have to cut 10 basically new throats every year
Yep, happy to have the debate again, I’m personally in favour of finding a way to balance both needs but we’ve never managed to before 
Two points - we only play 2 sides twice so the issue isn’t massive. Secondly I like the idea but think it would have to be based on the previous season results.
Maybe we could introduce a rookie list of sorts within the 30 man list so going into the draft you could have 20 plus 3 with 7 live picks. To be eligible for the rookie list the player would have to be a 1st to 3rd year player in the real world. Listing rookies would be optional and coaches could go in with 7 to 10 picks
I had been banging on about it for a couple years, so fat load of good it is for me now that I dont have prospects.
I vote for the status quo, I want some of Ivan and Saladin fringe-prospect offcuts. Could get a juicy delistee at pick #15
Yeah and I want to trade them to you rather than delist them for nothing. Basically the entire comp is stacked against the rebuild lists because you can’t hold your investments. I agree though there needs to be mid ground to encourage player turn over and prevent hoarding. Right now though guys are sitting on lists of minimum 12 A+ players while I’m lucky to have 2 with a few prospects. I have to go the draft but boy it makes it hard if I have to knife half my draft crop each year
Then don’t draft a heap of kids.
Balancing your list is a part of being a coach. It isn’t easy and hard decisions need to be made and i doubt there is a coach that hasn’t delisted a player, only to see him go on to be a good to great player elsewhere.
Keeping lists at 20 has been done to keep the draft pool strong with senior players to give everyone a decent chance but it’s up to you to make it work.
Unfortunately the rebuild takes time. But as Birch points out the 20 keepers makes sense to ensure the top teams come back to the pack rather than striding away. I will speak to my personal experience.
I made the decision in 2012 to bottom out. Basically I traded all my old players for picks or younger versions over the next couple of years. The key IMO is getting the balance right between picking kids and recognising that you only have 20 keepers. It was only in the last few seasons that my strategy changed to targeting individual decent players to improve my scoring. Then at the end of last season I basically made the decision it was time to load up. Not saying my method has been perfect but I think it shows that a rebuild within the constraints can work - or at least take a wooden spooner to a Grand Final.
Just for some additional context my seasons as a BBFFL#2 coach are as follows:
2012 - 9 wins 10 losses - 12th
2013 - 3 wins 16 losses - 18th
2014 - 3 wins 16 losses - 17th
2015 - 7 wins 12 losses - 14th
2016 - 10 wins 9 losses - 9th
2017 - 15 wins 4 losses - 2nd post finals
All valid and reasonable arguments but 5 years is a long long time to build and two or 3 rookie spots could be a really good way of throwing a bone to the developing lists and increase the incentive for established teams to try and secure the odd high draft pick knowing they can hold a kid for 3 years without compromising The core list.
I also agree that we should stick to 20 keepers, but I can see where ivan’s coming from. Paz (what’s he up to these days btw? Doesn’t appear to have logged in to New Blitz) left the team in a bit of a mess.
That said, I have no doubt that you’ll be able to turn it around with time ivan - like the rest of us, you’ll find a better balance between picking kids with potential and best 22 players. I think some draft concessions last year would have been useful, but the number one pick this year will certainly help too.
Edit: it might be a pretty long time, though, as you say.
I suspect Pazza is stuck on Bigfooty
I know we discussed concessions last year but it was knocked back given other new coaches inheriting problems lists missed on on any assistance.
@Ivan the reason you got the team was because we knew one else was up for the challenge!
Fwiw I think my proposal is reasonable and I don’t resent whatever the consensus is. It would be good to hear from other coaches who may be in favour of a rookie list though. I consider this lobbying all part of the game.
I think there is a potential win win here for all coaches and it would be good if a few other suggestions or proposals could be tossed around
I’m a strong believer that allowing additional keepers would benefit the strong teams more than the weak. I definitely wouldn’t change it.
Also, I’m OK with the suggestion that multi-positional players can be shuffled to allow you to cover zeroes. I think this does change the value of those players though.
My thoughts echo Eggs’
I’d be against the ruck hotswapping. I think it’s just tough luck.
The suggestion isn’t just ruck hotswapping though, right? It would apply to any dual position player?
If it was rucks only I’d be against it, as it’s a change that advantages too few coaches. If it applies across all dual position players I think it benefits most if not all squads? I’ve done no research to back up that thinking.