Both the drafts have been really underwhelming. Thank fark for McG.
Geez take a valium and chill out, both drafts were very focussed and most people think we did very well.
Massive fan of the main draft but the RD was ordinary IMO. Draper is a good prospect and I rate him but not happy with the other 2 charity cases.
McKernan was top 10 b+f in 2015! Charity???
Top 10 in a ordinary side and then was woeful this year. There is a reason why he was moved on from Adelaide. How many more chances do we keep giving him?
Just don’t see the penny ever dropping for him, I have no doubt there is talent in there but he just goes through the motions far too often
I've got mixed feelings about giving rookie spots to McKernan and Eades. McKernan is backup only, and I was very disappointed with what Eades showed this year. However, as I see it, we delisted both to make room for more picks in the main draft, without intending to completely cut them. So, as a strategy, it is ok, if the intent was always to keep them, but to get the most possible out of the main draft.
Draper is an interesting one. Definitely it was a good idea to rookie a ruckman. The question is was McInerney, or any other 20+ yr old, a better option than the best 18yo. An 18yo, no matter who he is, is going to be 3-4 yrs away from being ready, and so is inevitably a bigger stab in the dark than taking the best mature (but still young) guy.
I think Dedorio likes the idea of taking a stab at an unknown who hasn't been in the system long in the hope he could be an undiscovered champion in the making. And why not? Not much to lose in this case - it is not like we are using a first or second round pick on him. His highlights tapes seem to indicate he has really good raw ingredients.
If we don't play Luenberger and Belcho in the same team, then I hope it doesn't cost Draper ruck time in the VFL. If, for example, we had TBC in the VFL and doing most of the ruckwork, then I would like to see Draper play 1st ruck in the EDFL rather than just get a few minutes here and there in the VFL, as happened to Gach this year.
Agree 100%. Even Smack doesn’t seem to be the same player without a lot of ruck time, as well as needing to keep TBC or Leuey in shape and maybe even giving Stewart a pinch hit as he may be required if played in AFL.
At least Draper can compete with physicality in the ruck, which Gach couldn’t this year.
On that issue, I think a lot of tall forwards benefit from a run in the ruck. Even Joe, who people fear will get hurt if he rucks. benefits from the freedom of running around in the middle of the ground and participating in the play more. It can be a hard life for a forward who, as well as having relatively few opportunities to contest the footy, also has a defender hanging off him every time the ball comes near him. I distinctly remember Simon Madden at about 21yo having a very lean patch when he was playing forward. He had not graduated to the ruck at the time, but when he had a run early in a game, it got him into it, and he would go back to the forward line with renewed confidence having got himself going in the ruck. That inability to get into the game without a run in the ruck seems to happen to McKernan to some extent.
For a guy who is a ruckman only, spending a lot of time on the bench and then coming on briefly, is not a good way to run into any form, or to develop his game.
I’m fine giving Eades one last chance. As benfti said, when we drafted him, we should have considered him a two year prospect to show if he’s worthy of persevering with.
McKernan baffles me. I know he’s a last resort option, but are we honestly going to compete with him in the ruck should Bellchambers and Looney not be available? I just don’t see him as being of any value in three years time. It’s not like McKernan is going to be the difference between us finishing top 4 and outside the 8.
We badly need a number 1 ruck option now that we can spend four years developing.
I’m fine with Draper. Hopefully we give him two years to show what he can do at VFL level before reassessing.
In hindsight, we probably could have addressed our ruck problem during the ND with Darcy Cameron. But with Mutch and Clarke available, I think we had to go with sliders to look at covering midfield need in 3 years time.
We need to acquire another ruck prospect next year. Either by trade or draft.
Both the drafts have been really underwhelming. Thank fark for McG.
Geez take a valium and chill out, both drafts were very focussed and most people think we did very well.
Massive fan of the main draft but the RD was ordinary IMO. Draper is a good prospect and I rate him but not happy with the other 2 charity cases.
McKernan was top 10 b+f in 2015! Charity???
Top 10 in a ordinary side and then was woeful this year. There is a reason why he was moved on from Adelaide. How many more chances do we keep giving him?
Just don’t see the penny ever dropping for him, I have no doubt there is talent in there but he just goes through the motions far too often
He was ordinary when the Crows cut him and hasn’t gotten any better.
I get a bit confused on how the rookie list works sometimes. Are we able to promote a player before the start of the year regardless of long-term injury, or is it dependant on our list numbers?
Because I’m fine with Smack being the backup. I think he is a moderately competent ruckman that’s better than he gets credit for around here. Not great, by any stretch, but certainly a good enough AFL back up, who could plug a hole for a few weeks if needed, and keep Joe away from the ruck.
But if Looney and TBell both get 2-3 week injuries (hell, even 1 week) at the same time, then our backup who is only there for backup, can’t actually play. So what’s the point of having him?
Happy enough with Draper, we needed to look long-term and he has plenty of upside obviously.
Eades joins the ‘run out the rest of your contract on the rookie list’ brigade, that so far has a success rate of 0%. Let’s hope he turns that trend around, but really, he is going to be lucky to even get the opportunity to play senior footy, regardless of form.
You can have 40 guys on your main list at the start of the season. Some teams therefore go with 38 or 39 senior players, and up to 6 rookies instead of the standard 40+4. These teams can upgrade at the start of the year to get to 40 senior players (we were 39+5 at the start of 2016, and could upgrade TIPPA, even before CAS struck their noses in).
As of last year (?) all teams can upgrade a single rookie mid-season, even if that temporarily takes them to 41 senior players. I think.
In 2017 we’ve gone 40+4 to maximise our good picks. Yes, we’re relying on a serious injury to make Smack useful.
You can have 40 guys on your main list at the start of the season. Some teams therefore go with 38 or 39 senior players, and up to 6 rookies instead of the standard 40+4. These teams can upgrade at the start of the year to get to 40 senior players (we were 39+5 at the start of 2016, and could upgrade TIPPA, even before CAS struck their noses in).
As of last year (?) all teams can upgrade a single rookie mid-season, even if that temporarily takes them to 41 senior players. I think.
In 2017 we’ve gone 40+4 to maximise our good picks. Yes, we’re relying on a serious injury to make Smack useful.
So if I’m reading this correctly, could we upgrade Smack mid season if we want to? It’d certainly make feel easier in the case of an injury to Belly or Leuey.
You can have 40 guys on your main list at the start of the season. Some teams therefore go with 38 or 39 senior players, and up to 6 rookies instead of the standard 40+4. These teams can upgrade at the start of the year to get to 40 senior players (we were 39+5 at the start of 2016, and could upgrade TIPPA, even before CAS struck their noses in).
As of last year (?) all teams can upgrade a single rookie mid-season, even if that temporarily takes them to 41 senior players. I think.
In 2017 we’ve gone 40+4 to maximise our good picks. Yes, we’re relying on a serious injury to make Smack useful.
So if I’m reading this correctly, could we upgrade Smack mid season if we want to? It’d certainly make feel easier in the case of an injury to Belly or Leuey.
Correct.
However…
The AFL Players Union is trying to make a deal with the AFL to wipe the rookie list altogether so that it just becomes an extended list and none of this upgraded rookie crap.
They are hoping to get some resolution by January sometime.
Can he provide short term back up if need be? Yes. Is he a long term prospect? Yes.
Define short term.
Could he be our number one ruck for a month if need be?
Could he fill the role that Giles and Jamar were brought in to play?
Like I said, I hope so. Seems a tad on the optimistic side to me.
And on the long-term thing, my point was that if he’s given the full three years on the rookie list, will we be ready to make that call before he’s 21?
Hell, maybe he was the best and most likely out there.
Maybe at 17 he’s a better stop-gap than the 25 year-olds running around in the state leagues.
It just seems odd. In a league where teams don’t do this anymore, we’ve done it twice in two years.
I get what you're saying, totally. I think at best he'd be 4th in line (Mckernan) as backup and i cant recall an 18yo carrying the ruckload in a long long time. So short term? I think itd be a "break glass in emergency" scenario for a week or two.
But if/once you decide to buck the League trend then the place to do it is probably via the RD. Yeah, in three years max you have to make a call on a 21yo. But even if he’s on the main list, you still have to make the same call on the same kid. Is having the flexibility to drop him to the rookie list after 2 years -and therefore potentially extending his stay to 5 years before a definitive call - a better outcome than having a main list spot free to use elsewhere for the next three years? Not sure. Probably not much in it. Cheaper in the short term on the rookie list.
I like the idea that we may be the club who turns back to sticking with young developmental ruvkmen. But we absolutely have to see it through (unless hes total rubbish or big trouble) or it makes no sense at all to even bother.
Bit odd to say this when two thirds of the AFL teams rookied a ruck, most of whom are unproven. I think this is actually how clubs will do it more often from now on.
You can have 40 guys on your main list at the start of the season. Some teams therefore go with 38 or 39 senior players, and up to 6 rookies instead of the standard 40+4. These teams can upgrade at the start of the year to get to 40 senior players (we were 39+5 at the start of 2016, and could upgrade TIPPA, even before CAS struck their noses in).
As of last year (?) all teams can upgrade a single rookie mid-season, even if that temporarily takes them to 41 senior players. I think.
In 2017 we’ve gone 40+4 to maximise our good picks. Yes, we’re relying on a serious injury to make Smack useful.
So if I’m reading this correctly, could we upgrade Smack mid season if we want to? It’d certainly make feel easier in the case of an injury to Belly or Leuey.
Correct.
However…
The AFL Players Union is trying to make a deal with the AFL to wipe the rookie list altogether so that it just becomes an extended list and none of this upgraded rookie crap.
They are hoping to get some resolution by January sometime.
One might think we believe it’s a very good chance of eventuating.
You can have 40 guys on your main list at the start of the season. Some teams therefore go with 38 or 39 senior players, and up to 6 rookies instead of the standard 40+4. These teams can upgrade at the start of the year to get to 40 senior players (we were 39+5 at the start of 2016, and could upgrade TIPPA, even before CAS struck their noses in).
As of last year (?) all teams can upgrade a single rookie mid-season, even if that temporarily takes them to 41 senior players. I think.
In 2017 we’ve gone 40+4 to maximise our good picks. Yes, we’re relying on a serious injury to make Smack useful.
So if I’m reading this correctly, could we upgrade Smack mid season if we want to? It’d certainly make feel easier in the case of an injury to Belly or Leuey.
Correct.
However…
The AFL Players Union is trying to make a deal with the AFL to wipe the rookie list altogether so that it just becomes an extended list and none of this upgraded rookie crap.
They are hoping to get some resolution by January sometime.
One might think we believe it’s a very good chance of eventuating.
We thought they were changing the veterans rule in 2001, as well as bumping the salary cap.
@benfti Who would you say has the highest ceiling out of Eades, Stengle or Lebois? Prior to being fark carltoned or sent to the salt mines of ninthmond of course?
Sorry if you have posted similar thoughts elsewhere?
I would be pretty happy for HM, Ants or anyone else who has watched much of the three to answer this too.
Why bother even listing the category b players if we had no intention of drafting them?
I could well be wrong on this but I really feel that had Ben Ronke gone un-drafted today in the traditional rookie draft, that we would have signed him onto our Category B list.
Whilst I’m aware the knock on him is his kicking (which did improve as the season wore on by all reports) he simply has way too many elite and exciting traits to work with, to not accept a ‘free’ crack at developing him, as this video shows:
Him being a local boy and winning the Calder B&F, I’m going to watch with interest how he progresses at Sydney.