The end of year cannon - who should be fired into the sun?

[WindsockBoy]

Sounds to me like Amazon is a sh*t company run by psychopaths who think they’re geniuses

You could be right about the Norf exodus - I think Frosty has defined the Scott coaching technique to a tee.

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

Getting Guelfi and Zerk-thatcher late in the ‘worst draft ever,’ shows you can find players at any stage of any draft.

Agree with the bulk of the post re- number of defenders.

but I think a more broad view is realistic regarding late/later picks.
BZt and Guelf are likely hits.
Clarke???
Brown. Eades. Hartley.
Kommer, gregory, Will Hams.

There’s often players there. And the superdraft/worst draft ever calls are almost always based on the U18s only, not the mature agers, even if you pay any attention to it at all.

[Houli_Dooley]

So with Lav, Stewart, Smack and Brown signing on in the last week or so, who is left unsigned at the moment?

Bags and Hartley seem to be borderline whether they will be on the list next year. One a possibility to be cut and the other a possibility to be floated for trade given our depth of tall defensive stocks.

Dea probably in the same boat as Bags as far as guys who have played plenty of footy for us in the last couple of seasons but who may be squeezed out depending on who comes in the other way. Both of these guys would be waiting anxiously I reckon as it could be a 50/50 proposition for them at present.

Leuenberger- Gone
Jerrett- Gone

The rest are rookies in Mynott, Long and McNiece.

Mynott should get another year to show his wares. Long has had his chances and will go as well.

McNiece may get another year moreso due to a lack of genuine back pockets than any reflection on how well he is tracking. If Jackets and the team are confident of picking a mature age small defender perhaps in the draft or via trade then McNiece may be out the door as well.

[youngbarry]

So we’re going to have 2 or 3 draft picks in one of the best drafts in recent times. Great

[Houli_Dooley]

So we’re going to have 2 or 3 draft picks in one of the best drafts in recent times. Great

I think we’ll take at least 3 but most likely 4.

Green, Goddard, Jerrett, Leuenberger (IMO), Hartley (trade area of depth), move on one of Dea/Bags.

That’s 6. We will upgrade Smack which takes it down to 5. We likely get 1 player through the trade period. Takes it down to 4.

If we get a couple of players through the trade period we may be content with taking 3 but if there is someone we rate who Jackets and co believe will be there in the later rounds of the draft that would encourage us to want to take 4 picks to the ND, they may transfer someone to the rookie list, to open that up.

[SCarey]

I wonder if McNiece can return to the Category B rookie list?

[G-Unit]

You forgot about Long. Surely time is up.

[Houli_Dooley]

You forgot about Long. Surely time is up.

Is he on the Senior List or Rookie List at the moment? Serious question.
I mentioned him in my previous post as being almost a certainty to be moved on when talking about the rookies as that’s what I thought he was but was he on there too long and had to be upgraded to the senior list at the end of last season?

[Clark_Griswold]

My understanding is that Long is on the main list.

Rookies = McKernan, Draper, McNiece, Mynott
Rookie B = Lavender

[localbomber]

Long is NOT a rookie. He was elevated to senior list for this year.

[Houli_Dooley]

Sweet.
To youngbaz, we won’t have any trouble taking at least 4 picks then if we think the depth in the draft this year warrants it.

Green, Goddard, Jerrett, Long, Leuenberger, Hartley (trade), one of Dea/Bags = 7 Senior List outs before Smack’s elevation and a player or two coming in via trade.

[Speedy_Gonzales]

When they talk about it being a strong draft it’s not to do with all the way out to pick 100

More that the top end is deep. Was noted in an article by someone following the under 18 talent that down to say top 12 or so could be getting a top 3 worthy selection.

Also means our pick 8 has greater currency at trade table which is likely where it’s headed.

[WindsockBoy]

That matches what I’ve heard “the TAC experts” say about this draft - strong top dozen, then falls away quickly in quality.
So loading up on third, fourth and fifth rounders is not an essential.
Barring the usual late draft smokie of course.
If we traded in for an extra third round pick I’d be happy with that.
Pick 8, a name arrival, and two other draft picks would keep our list ticking over nicely.

[Ants]

It’s an old management technique where you rank all your workers every year and fire the bottom 10%. Amazon do/did a version of it.

And I’m reasonably sure it’s been shown to have a detrimental effect.

[Ants]

always remember you have to keep in mind who you might want to delist next year . Have to have 3 to cut then.

Is that ever a problem anyone has had?
If you develop your list to the point where you think your worst 3 blokes are pretty good. Well that is an excellent thing, not a problem. But you still cut them, because they are still your 3 worst blokes and won’t be getting a game anyway.
But better yet, if that actually ever happened (it won’t), you could trade rather than delist your 3 worst blokes, cos someone will want them.

It was suspected as one of the reasons Jerrett and Long were kept last year. That it was better to keep guys who had been in the system and new our game plan than to get 1 year players with the intention to cut them next year.

And you should only cut players if you think what you’re getting in will be better. Just delisting the bottom 3 players “because” is a ridiculous move.

??
Who said delist the bottom 3 players just because? You have to delist 3, there’s no “because” about it. Pretty reasonable to start with your worst 3.

If you’re talking about only delisting players, if you’re confident you can bring in something better in their place. Then I couldn’t agree more, this should be the over-arching philosophy every off-season.

But that’s very different to keeping someone an extra year, just so that you have someone to delist next year, which is the premise I disagreed with and responded to.

you said “If you develop your list to the point where you think your worst 3 blokes are pretty good. Well that is an excellent thing, not a problem. But you still cut them, because they are still your 3 worst blokes and won’t be getting a game anyway.”

Which seems to ‘because’. And ignore you may not be able to get better talent in.

[SplitRound]

It’s an old management technique where you rank all your workers every year and fire the bottom 10%. Amazon do/did a version of it.

And I’m reasonably sure it’s been shown to have a detrimental effect.

Probably. It was just some bants.

[Ants]

But, hanging onto Jerrett was a hardly great move this year.

We literally had a spot on the list for a guy who we knew wasn’t good enough, we knew we were getting rid of, and provided zero depth for anything.

Hanging onto guys for the sake of it is far more ridiculous imo.

But that is partly hindsight. And depending on who we delist it might have been important.

[Paul_Peos]

It’s only hindsight for anybody who totally missed his previous two seasons of footy. In fact, I’d say it played out exactly as most predicted.

It was a waste of a list spot.

I’m confused about what you mean about the ‘important’ bit.

[Ants]

Yep, I’m with you on this one.

Our list currently has far, far too many options for the Key Defender and Medium defender roles.

Hurley, Hooker, Hartley, Ambrose, Francis, Gleeson, Dea, Ridley, Redman, Zerk-thatcher and Mitch Brown if needed. That’s 10-11 guys to fill a maximum of 4 senior spots.

Dea and Hartley are decent enough role-players, who would be fine if they weren’t on a list with this much quality depth in their roles. But on that list? They are expendable. Hartley could get a third-rounder imo. Dea we’d have to delist, and most likely will.

I have no issue going late in the draft, even if it’s just to get some State league role players. Now sure, that’s essentially what Dea is, but we could replace him with a role we actually need.

Getting Guelfi and Zerk-thatcher late in the ‘worst draft ever,’ shows you can find players at any stage of any draft.

I think this idea we have too many defenders and the list is unbalanced is a bit of a furphy. You listed 11 guys. Add Saad, NcKenna and McNiece and that’s 14 players, or 33.2% of the list.

Our best 22 this year usually played 7 defenders. Out of 22 that is … 32%.

So it’s almost perfectly balanced in defence. Even before considering some of those guys can/do play forward, and we (Blitz) think Redman or Ridley could play midfield.

[Paul_Peos]

So you’ve listed 14 defenders, only 3 of them small, and you can’t see the imbalance?