Hams>EadesAs a forward, sure.
Everything else… oh I give up.
HAMS 
@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.
I was on record saying I would have taken Lebois
Demoti Eades and McKernan to the rookie list so we could take another 2 selections in the ND is actually genius A horrible abuse of the rookie list, but genius nonetheless I shall dub thee "the Essington list manoeuvre"Half genius. It would have been completely genius if we hadn’t picked them up today.
It’s clear the club wanted to keep both players
This way we have done so whilst also managing to pick up another 2 players considered in the top 63 available, rather than 2 guys in the 100+ range
Hams>Eades
Hams was not contracted. Eades is younger and has more talent. That said I’d be very surprised if Eades makes it.
I think the problem is with our 2nd and 3rd picks in the ND. I don't think they were clear best or fitting a need. We could have addressed a ruck or crumbing gap but didn't.Given that’s in the past, I think the strategy today was ok. We took a project ruckman and we needed to do this. We kept Smack as backup knowing the project ruckman would not be ready this year. I just hope we give him a reasonable go and don’t delist him after 1 season.
Re Eades we took him and contracted him for 2 years knowing his background was difficult. We are honoring the contract which also seems correct.
That’s because you are not inside the club and do not have a clue what the strategy was. You have applied your strategy and declared the club failed because they didn’t do what you wanted.
From outside, it appeared that the club did not know what the strategy was because they were clearly caught with their pants down, asked for 2 time extensions and went into a huddle to work it out. But hey, its no big deal .
What a strange concept you have. The way I see it is they had a particular player they wanted but he was taken, then they spent time working out if they took player x then would player y make it to the next pick. They ummed and arrd about which one was the most important to their needs and finally made the call on which one they would take first.
I don’t take it is “oh my god I have no idea what to do and haven’t planned for any of this” like you. But then I don’t take the position of bagging the club every chance I get.
Hurt seeing Lebois go to Carlton and Stengel go to the Tigers it must be said.Richmond have more indigenous players than we do. I’m finding that hard to process.
Every chance that won’t be true by the end of the year, the rate Richmond go through them.
Was going to post the same thing but with a shorter time frame.
I meant this year.
Yep. Shorter than that.
I think the problem is with our 2nd and 3rd picks in the ND. I don't think they were clear best or fitting a need. We could have addressed a ruck or crumbing gap but didn't.Given that’s in the past, I think the strategy today was ok. We took a project ruckman and we needed to do this. We kept Smack as backup knowing the project ruckman would not be ready this year. I just hope we give him a reasonable go and don’t delist him after 1 season.
Re Eades we took him and contracted him for 2 years knowing his background was difficult. We are honoring the contract which also seems correct.
That’s because you are not inside the club and do not have a clue what the strategy was. You have applied your strategy and declared the club failed because they didn’t do what you wanted.
From outside, it appeared that the club did not know what the strategy was because they were clearly caught with their pants down, asked for 2 time extensions and went into a huddle to work it out. But hey, its no big deal .
Is that to do with strategy or tactics?
So XRichards & Mitch Brown (WC) both offered contracts but chose to look at options in Melb.
Neither selected.
And Demps wasn’t either.
Aside from any off-field\preparation issues that Eades may have had - the main problem is his kicking. IMO it is very ordinary even under little pressure.
Demoti Eades and McKernan to the rookie list so we could take another 2 selections in the ND is actually genius A horrible abuse of the rookie list, but genius nonetheless I shall dub thee "the Essington list manoeuvre"Half genius. It would have been completely genius if we hadn’t picked them up today.
It is clear the club has/was committed to retaining the two.
By demoting them to the rookie list we got a crack at 2 extra kids considered in the top 63 available draftees rather than 2 who weren’t considered in the top 100
Well that was most likely the last ever rookie draft.
The new CBA looking to abolish the rookie list.
So we basically just got two extra picks in the ND and McKernan and Eades will be considered primary listed players again by round 1.
Interesting what Dodoro said on the post rookie draft wrap about Eades. Said he had a bad second half of last year, hence the demotion and kick up the bum he needed. Has come back with some real fitness and appears to be going well.
“Rookie Draft” needs a name change: how can Drew Petrie possibly be a “Rookie”?
Instead call it “the Ruckman’s draft” and anyone 190cm or above (see: Nathan Lovett-Murray) can register their names…
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.
Thanks. So could that be for 2017 season or would it probably have to wait until 2018?
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?It doesn't have to be Looney or TBell but all it takes is to have 1 long term injury. We can leave that spot open for when we need it. So if both ruckman went down short term, Smack can be elevated. There's a fair chance we will have at least 1 player out long term throughout the year.
I hope if they get rid of the rookie draft that they keep 1 year contracts for late picks in some form. Mandatory 2 year contracts for the very bottom end of the draft is just going to push risky players further out of recruiters’ minds. It’ll be 24/7 solid citizens who can’t play football for ■■■■.
Agreed. Just give them 10k payrises so they’re not living in poverty and abolish the LTI rule limiting when they can play.
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.
Well they should have just listed 1 player then.
Demoti Eades and McKernan to the rookie list so we could take another 2 selections in the ND is actually genius A horrible abuse of the rookie list, but genius nonetheless I shall dub thee "the Essington list manoeuvre"Half genius. It would have been completely genius if we hadn’t picked them up today.
It is clear the club has/was committed to retaining the two.
By demoting them to the rookie list we got a crack at 2 extra kids considered in the top 63 available draftees rather than 2 who weren’t considered in the top 100
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?It doesn't have to be Looney or TBell but all it takes is to have 1 long term injury. We can leave that spot open for when we need it. So if both ruckman went down short term, Smack can be elevated. There's a fair chance we will have at least 1 player out long term throughout the year.
It’s also a fair chance we won’t.
It’s also a fair chance we will, but that player won’t be put on the LTI, which is a bad habit we’ve developed over the last few years.
Hopefully the rookie list gets abolished and this is a non issue, but that is still just a maybe.