List build - where are we? Where are we going next


#2656

At the very least, he gives us someone who can provide depth forward and through the ruck, whilst we develop Draper, Lavender and anyone else we draft.

I happen to think that what he has shown as the No1 Forward is enough to suggest that he is a best 22 lock. Now picture what he could do as the 2nd forward behind Joe. He is also a genuine 2nd ruckman, that should beat most other clubs 2nd and perform well against the primary ruckman.


#2657

I haven’t read any previous posts which will probably conspire to show my ignorance, but do we need a rebuild? We’ve got the third oldest list in the league, good kpps, a few gun mids established or on the way up and some irritating little small forward types that can pinch hit through the middle. One more awesome midfielder would probably top us off. If the mindset and the game plan (whatever that is, not taking the piss but I’m not savvy enough to understand it) is sound then next year should be fun to watch.
My only concern is the saga crap just still seems to linger. Even that bloke that’s taking AFL to court brings it to the surface again just when you thought it was buried, and it must still be pretty traumatic for those left on the list involved. But that’s the pessimistic and psychologicaly broken side of me.
I just want us to be good at footballing again.


#2658

Would be a good get as a development coach, wouldn’t go near him as a player though.


#2659

From memory he was in his early 20s when he was drafted.


#2660

If anyone is interested in a podcast to pass some time:

These guys try to discuss AFL lists…the Essendon edition went up last week…they’re not Essendon supporters, so you need to overlook some errors.


#2661

Colyer has 1 year left the rest are finished, best 22 if picked would not contain any of the list, May has 1 year to go, so let’s go get him.


#2662

The thread isn’t “List rebuild”, its just “List build”. Although discussions certainly sometimes veer into if we need to do a rebuild (especially after the loss to Carlton), I don’t think anyone is pushing that right now. That said, when most say “full rebuild” they’re talking about delisting the depth players you need when making a push, playing the kids more, and possibly trading out some of the valuable assets.

How much of a clearout we do is another story. @bombers1 above has obviously said he wants about a quarter of the list to go. I’m thinking it could be closer to 4-5 (Leuy, Jerrett, Long, Goddard, McNiece).


#2663

Critical analysis has never been a strong point. Cheers for that.
Yep I was thinking not many changes are nessecary. the window may be a closing for this current group however.


#2664

I reckon if McNeice stays in this week (and it wouldn’t surprise me, even if McKenna is back), there’s a fair chance they rate him much higher than most of us do and he might get another year.
If he backs up the Fremantle form for the next 5 weeks he probably will go around again.


#2665

Of those 5 Ant I could see 3 easily staying

McNeice and Long have both shown enough in their limited games this year now to be retained as competent depth. Goddard will play another year.

Jerrett and Leuey are certainties to go however then it comes down to pruning the list in areas we probably do have depth in / can get something for/upgrade our draft position etc

People may jump up and down over some of these but they all would not affect us significantly if moved on, especially as we’d have other incoming trades/picks coming in.

Colyer. Hartley. Dea. Stewart. Clarke. Ridley… can also add Houlahan but he’s only 1st year so unless requested trade himself he will be kept. Obviously we’d not cut that hard but some may be value to other clubs there & be more likely to get opportunity than with us.


#2666

I reckon they do rate McNeice, and it’s a fair bet he’ll be on our list next year. Regardless of what Blitz may think, he’s quick, reasonable overhead for a shortarse, and a beautiful kick. He’ll get time to adjust to senior footy in my opinion. If we want another small defender, he’s probably it. The bloke has played the grand total of eight games. Way too soon to make the “delist he’s useless” calls you hear around here.


#2667

If the club rates McNiece, then yep he’ll stay. I agree Leuy and Jerrett are the certainties.

However, after that it all becomes a lot more grey. If the club really does think we’re threatening for next year, you don’t necessarily want to cut your depth. Especially youngish depth. There are a handful of areas we have depth, or a number of players with question marks:

Half-forward flanker/small forward
Bags, Long, Colyer, Green, and Begley are the players in this group fighting for one position in the side (ignoring injuries, assuming Walla and Raz are locks :thinking: ). All have question marks for one reason or another (yes, even Begley - he’s not proven yet). The reality is Bags is the oldest, but also the best current performer in the side, Green is probably the next best and was a lock last year, Colyer is contracted and hence safe, Begley is safe because of his promise, and Long hasn’t shown a great deal yet.

If you’re really competing next year, the temptation is to stay with Bags & Green, cut Long, and hope Begley knocks them out of the side sometime in 2019. Colyer either gets better again or is delisted end of 2019.

But that’s only one gone. And some would argue youth over Bags/Green.

Tall/medium defenders
We have Hooker, Hurley, Hartley, Ambrose, Goddard, Dea, Francis, Zerk and Gleeson. Nine guys, it’s feels like a lot. But given the way we play 7 backs nowdays (including the bench), usually 4-5 are from this group. You then add we must be planning for life post Hooker/Hurley and Goddard is on his last legs, then you really saying that in a post 2020 world, its six players to fill 4-5 roles. Which suddenly, with injuries, feels about right. It means after Hurley & Hooker go you will have a pool of Hartley, Ambrose, Zerk and Francis as your talls, and as mediums you will have Gleeson, Dea and Francis (again). I’m reasonably comfortable with that, especially given there are plenty of question marks on Zerk and Francis still.

So who can we afford to cut for 2019? Well, probably only Goddard.

Third tall/marking medium forward
Stringer, Laverde and Stewart fall into this bucket, and frankly we probably only need one in the side. Which is Stringer. But you can play more if they’re good enough, and Stewart and Laverde both have a heap of promise. Add in that Stewart could step up to “full” KP player, and Laverde has potential upside as a big bodied mid, and I think all three stay.

Tall Forwards
We have JD, Stewart, McKernan and Brown. I can’t see any of them going anywhere. All were necessary this year.

.

On a side note, Smack will almost certainly be upgraded to the main list. So theoretically we could go in with 2 draft picks as a minimum in the national draft. McNiece staying or going doesn’t effect this as he’s a rookie anyway.

In summary
So that leaves us with 2 definite outs, and then a few possibles. If we bring in a FA or trade, we have to delist for that player plus two more. I don’t think it will be a heap, and I think the most vulnerable are Goddard and Long.


#2668

Ignoring anything else, Colyer, Clarke, Ridley and Houlahan are all contracted. So unlikely (although not certainties) to be cut.

Dea is one of our few actually defensive backs, and has been in the side throughout the period we’ve been winning games. Stewart is a KP forward/3rd tall forward, and although he’s not currently firing, you just can’t replace them easily.

So I don’t really see anyone on that list going.


#2669

We need him to replace Francis.


#2670

I don’t know if there is a closing window
We cleared a bunch of the oldies last year

Goddard and Bags (and Leueny) go this year or next.
Hurley, Bellcho and Hooker (and Myers) go after 2020 or so.

Going and getting 3 x 23 year olds last year changed the dynamic a fair bit.


#2671

Valid points but I’ll counter.

I’d rather they be kept but I’m also saying they are far from untradeable.

Those players being contracted irrelevant. If another team offers them opportunity / we indicate opportunities limited if at all then may look to move.

Dea was always out of the side when Gleeson was fit and also has Francis bearing down on him for that 3rd tall position.

Stewart right now is behind Brown as a kpf, and Brown probably would be out of side himself once JD is back. Brown however can play both fwd/back. Francis can also play fwd & would be better contested mark than Stewart.

Stewart is fairly average as pinch hit ruck also. And we have both JD and Smack who can do it.

But talls aren’t so easy to get and should be retained where they can & we’d try hold him I expect.


#2672

But you won’t get anything for them. We got Stewart for 78. The Bulldogs premiership FB got little. Miles is available for free. Same with Menzel last year.

None of those guys are worth a bag of chips.

Dea might be at risk, Bui know I’d be peeved as he’s played in almost all our wins and only one loss. I was saying he should be in the side all last year as well.


#2673

I think Long has to be gone. He’s been on the list for a while now and has never really demanded a game with dominant VFL performances. There’s been some snippets of promise at AFL level but given the reasonably strong nature of our list right now, we can’t just go and gift him 20-30 games to see if he’s made of the right stuff. Especially when there are young but ready-made state league players like Guelfi running around out there.


#2674

If Long stays, I’d be staggered if they didn’t move him to the rookie list. Frees up a senior spot, nobody is poaching him.


#2675

I agree with @Ants, those guys would be worth stuff all.
Of the ones you’ve listed to get rid of, the only one who might have some trade currency is Ridley, but I reckon he’s a far better player than what we’d get for him
We’d be better offf trading Gleeson imo.
But both Gleeson and Ridley have signed 2 year contracts this year, so neither of them is going anywhere.