Would be about the only logical explanation.
1 Like
Would be so we can play him immediately as required rather than needing an LTI i assume now that rules changed for primary rookie list.
Yeah primary rookies can play at any time now, unsure if rules have changed for Category B rookies?
Really feel for Jonty Scharenberg.
One, as we took all 3 in the draft. If we only took the two then we would of had two for the rookie draft.
Isn’t Sambono still available too?
1 Like
Anyone know how many category B rookies you can have on your list simultaneously? McNeice may be a normal rookie given we have signed Lavender as a Cat B rookie?
AFAIK we will only take one rookie pick on Monday & as The Don above has pointed out, there are still some good players available. Mynott from Eastern is a very handy player & IMO his skills will translate well into AFL. Sandover Medalist is still undrafted. Still some quality available in a so called shallow draft.
Yeah I was just puting a list of 18 year olds which personally I’d rather take after grabbing a 19 and 20 year old in the main draft
Pretty sure we can have 3 Cat B rookies at any time
4 Likes
We must get inside mids
Let’s take a look at the top 8 last year
Crows - crouch brothers and sloane
Geelong - dangerfield and selwood
Richmond - cotchin, prestia , martin
GIants - shiel etc
…
…
Essendon - Heppell? Parish? Zerrett? (small bodied weak inside mids)
But Adelaide lost the grand final easily. Imagine if they had a bunch of skinny little guys in the midfield, the story might’ve been very different. And other utter nonsense that I might find easy to write because I don’t have to think too hard!
There must be loads of good players left, this was supposed to be a weak draft, but everyone is raving about the great players they picked up n the 40s 50s and 60s
Example: Hawthorn: “They have done it again! Hawthorn succeed in securing Worpel at pick 43… bla bla bla.”.
1 Like
They managed to get Worpel in the 40s because a bunch of other teams had knocks on him
The reason is was a “weak draft” is that after the top few there were knocks on everyone. Each team has different ways of seeing players and requirements and desires, so each team looks at the knocks differently. Then they take the player who, for them, appears a great get, but who for someone else might be undraftable.
Then they are all happy and talking up what a great bunch of players they got.
And other recruiters might think “I’d have never taken player x,y and z who were all taken in the top 20, even if I’d had 1,000 draft picks”
The remaining players have some good qualities, and also some knocks. We’ll hear the good qualities talked up, but the knocks generally won’t be revealed until they’ve been in the system. (at least not beyond a very superficial level of discussion). We all know Cassidy Parrish has a knock on his disposal. We all think we know what that means and that we can fix it. The assumption we make (in the absence of any additional knowledge) is that the rest of his game is “perfect”. Of course that’s not true, but we don’t have anything else (@THE_DON1 excepted!). So anyway Parrish’s (And I’m just using his name, I don’t actually know anything more than the superficial) disposal may be bad. It may get worse under pressure and at higher levels, or it may get better. His reactions or peripheral vision or something else may be poor that affects his ability to find time (or they may not be), his decision making may be a knock, his acceleration and running may have some questions, his hands may be good sometimes and dodgy sometimes. And each of these little questions gets added up in the recruiters minds, and they come to a conclusion about whether the player can make it at AFL level. We, the uninformed masses, hear “He is a contested beast, but needs to work on his kicking”, and think “there’s plenty of quality players left.”
People who watch this draft have said over and over that the quality depth of this draft is worse than next year. I think we can assume it’s true, and that there’s probably 25 vs 15 in the “we’d all agree they’ll be good”, and another 40 vs 15 in the “enough of us like their chances” category. Post 30 yesterday, and to about 500 will be the same as post 65 next year to about 500. ie there will be guys with good traits, and weaknesses, and we all see them differently.
So we’ll get someone in the rookie draft who we think is decent enough. And we got 3 players last night who we thought could make it (as evidenced by taking 3 picks instead of 2). This doesn’t mean there are 100 players who will be AFL long term successes out of the draft, just that we were happy enough with the skillsets of those available to us at our picks,
I don’t think we will take Parish as our rookie
Just picked up Guelfi for midfield grunt whose got beautiful foot skills. And also taken another who won kicking test. It’s a key criteria & rightly so.
Hoping to see us get:
Rookie pick 11 - kpf coverage
Rookie B list - indigenous excitement machine*
Edit: *from our next generation academy
How does that work?
Everyone in the football world thinks we desperately need inside midfielders, except the Essendon football club.
3 Likes
Do we not have ability to take some indigenous players external to the main and primary rookie list now?
I thought we did. In its own section outside of Cat B perhaps??
Yes.
But that’s been obvious for awhile right. Worsfold’s game plan has no place for purely inside guys, and everything that’s come out of the club has been about a gameplan that is more Knights + defence than Hird.
1 Like
So despite our apparent reluctance to draft any that actually play football, & play well, you think we might rookie B an Indigenous lad who hasn’t played the game for 3 years? 
How’s Rowan Bonson going?