Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

[westdog54]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Don't rookies get automatic 2 years on list and either way we will know what minsons doing long before we have to elevate him.

There is no reason in the world we should promote Campbell at this stage unless Minno chases the $$$$ and leaves. It would leave our list very unbalanced, with 2-3 very inexperienced ruckman all competing for a spot.

Campbell has potential, but he is a fair way off being an AFL Player. To me he is the perfect rookie candidate - someone who has shown glimpses of potential, but needs to build a tank, hone some skills before he is ready. 1 more year on the rookie list would enable him to do that.

In terms of the others mentioned, Austin depends very much on Morris and whether he comes back at all. JJ, has probably done enough to get a spot, but again its a 1-2 year contract I would like to see him offered. Jong, I like the look of, but another year on the rookie list is not going to hurt him.

We need to ask ourselves 2 simple questions on each of the Rookies:
1) Have they earned a senior spot on their own merits?
2) If yes, Will another club draft them if we keep them on the rookie list? or
3) if no, Have they earned another season on the rookie list?

If 1 is a no then 2 is irrelevant.

IMO, JJ is a Yes and a Maybe, Jong is a no and a yes, Campbell is Yes and no, Redpath is no and no, Austin is no and Yes.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

We need to ask ourselves 2 simple questions on each of the Rookies:
1) Have they earned a senior spot on their own merits?
2) If yes, Will another club draft them if we keep them on the rookie list? or
3) if no, Have they earned another season on the rookie list?

If 1 is a no then 2 is irrelevant.

IMO, JJ is a Yes and a Maybe, Jong is a no and a yes, Campbell is Yes and no, Redpath is no and no, Austin is no and Yes.

I see where you are coming from but I think the 2nd question should be

Are they more likley to merit a senior game than a new draftee or an existing retained player.

JJ looks a definite yes
Jong is a maybe (needs to improve disposal)
Campbell a yes (more natural strength and takes a good grab)
Austin looks like back-up as Talia/Roberts/Morris cover what he provides.

Would not mind Redpath being retained as a rookie as I think he does offer that power forward option if we can get him to produce.

Greenwood also to be retained as a rookie

[Maddog37]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I have doubts on Austin being able to stay healthy.

JJ looks good to go as does LJ.

Can other clubs draft Campbell if we leave him on the rookie list?

[Mofra]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Who rates Austin over Marko? Marko seems stronger, but Austin a bit more agile, with perhaps better footy smarts.

I rate Austin as being more versatile than Marko, as in we could feasibly play Austin with a fit Lake & Williams in the backline.

Marko does use the ball well.

It's going to be the most interesting off-season we've had for a long time.
The success of our rookie picks in pushing for selection gives us a somewhat pleasant headache (if there can be such a thing).

[Mofra]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Answer me why we would we would need Minson, Roughead, Cordy and Campbell on the list?
The sub rule is likely to go to 2 with 2 interchange.
Playing 3 of the those under the current rule gives us little run and has resulted in heavy losses.
The only reason I see we need Campbell listed is if Minson is going and that will just stamp the incompatence of the list manager.

We do need to seperate the no 1 and no 2 ruck role though - I don't believe they are the same thing.

Campbell & Minson are both no 1 rucks.

Cordy is not a no 1 ruck.
Roughy is also being developed as a backman/no 2 ruck. He is a natural mesomorph though and could become a no 1 ruck type - the question is how his pre-season has been planned.
If he his weight macros are set for key position type, we may well need Campbell on the main list as the only player who can cover the ruck if Minson is injured/suspended.

We have a bunch of possible rookie upgrades and a stated desire for 5 picks in the top 50 which muddy the waters - JJ, Jong & Austin also have legitimate upgrade claims.

[Mofra]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I would promote Austin and keep Jong as a rookie. Johannisen probably has done enough to be promoted but you never know.

FWIW I think JJ should be promoted - he has arguably shown as much as the others, but what he brings to the team is sorely lacking since Harbrow's departure.

Rose coloured glasses perhaps, but he is someone who could stake a serious claim for best 22 in 2013 given his pace out of the backline.

[Bornadog]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

We do need to seperate the no 1 and no 2 ruck role though - I don't believe they are the same thing.

Campbell & Minson are both no 1 rucks.

Cordy is not a no 1 ruck.
Roughy is also being developed as a backman/no 2 ruck. He is a natural mesomorph though and could become a no 1 ruck type - the question is how his pre-season has been planned.
If he his weight macros are set for key position type, we may well need Campbell on the main list as the only player who can cover the ruck if Minson is injured/suspended.

We have a bunch of possible rookie upgrades and a stated desire for 5 picks in the top 50 which muddy the waters - JJ, Jong & Austin also have legitimate upgrade claims.

But do we need four ruckman?

[stefoid]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Ive got no problem with Cambell being on the list and serving as long apprenticeship as neccessary. He reeks of old school ruckman allready at the age of 21 - a big bruiser with presence who can clunk marks around the ground and up forward. Minson may have a bunch more years as our first ruckman or he may not, but I just think Cambell is a decent prospect and we should bank him.

Having 4 rucks on the list is about right, it means we are OK for the inevitable injuries when they happen and we dont have to worry about drafting any more either.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

How is it we have so many tall guys and not one who has helped us in the f50 this year??

[Mofra]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

But do we need four ruckman?

Are you taking the piss

Sarcasm meter is off today

[The Pie Man]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

We do need to seperate the no 1 and no 2 ruck role though - I don't believe they are the same thing.

Campbell & Minson are both no 1 rucks.

Cordy is not a no 1 ruck.
Roughy is also being developed as a backman/no 2 ruck. He is a natural mesomorph though and could become a no 1 ruck type - the question is how his pre-season has been planned.
If he his weight macros are set for key position type, we may well need Campbell on the main list as the only player who can cover the ruck if Minson is injured/suspended.

We have a bunch of possible rookie upgrades and a stated desire for 5 picks in the top 50 which muddy the waters - JJ, Jong & Austin also have legitimate upgrade claims.

Despite the MC's intentions, do you think Cordy could be a No. 1 ruck?

It's the only role I can see him being any good at, and was in the best for Williamstown recently in such a capacity.

I'm way more positive about Roughead making it down back than I am about Cordy at FF

[mjp]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

There is a bit more too it than 'do we need 4 ruckman' though.

I like Campbell fine - but I cannot see what we gain by putting him on the senior list. Basically, if Minson plays then Campbell shouldn't...and if Minson is injured (long-term) then we will need Campbell - which sounds like the perfect player for the rookie list.

We should be thinking seriously about what we need in a second ruck. To me, the best couple in this role right now are Natanui and Ryder - for different reasons. Natanui does 'something different' whilst Ryder is a legit 1st choice defender / kpf who demands the ball. Our rucks are too much the same...

I still believe Roughead is a number 1 ruckman AND if Cordy could show any capability of providing a forward target (rather than being a forward line sign-post) then those two would work the best...but who knows what happens with Cordy. I don't know any of the answers to be honest but if we are keeping Minson then I think we should be seriously trying to turn Roughead into an asset through a trade. If we are not keeping Minson then we need to try and trade him before free agency bidding opens and he leaves for nothing. Maybe this means we have to sign him first (sorry, I haven't read all of the rules) but I just cannot see the point of having Minson, Roughead and Campbell all on the list and needing to play games...One should go + we should rookie another young ruckman and hopefully get ourselves another Campbell and hence another asset.

Assuming we keep Minson, would Gold Coast give us McKenzie for Roughead + 2nd rounder? Would St Kilda do a straight swap for Cripps?

[Mofra]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Despite the MC's intentions, do you think Cordy could be a No. 1 ruck?

Possibly - but then where do we play Campbell or Roughead in a few years?

If Roughy is a key defender then fine, but the whole "he's the back-up" argument then means we meander through games with a height disadvantage down back (although if Austin proves flexible enough to play tall and medium it negates that argument).

If someone could confirm the rookie rules re: upgrades that ould have a big argument on Campbell as well - without LTI is it no upgrade before round 11?

It's a risk to assume Minson wont miss games for the first half of a season; hopefully Cordy gets used to his new size (considering he's had less than 12 months at it).

[Bornadog]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Are you taking the piss

Sarcasm meter is off today

Not sure what you are talking about Mofra?

We have Minson and Campbell is no one rucks and Roughead and Cordy as second rucks? Unless you are saying Cordy or Roughead should never ruck, so we don't have four?

what I am saying is leave Campbell on the rookie list for 2013 as a backup.

[always right]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

One should go + we should rookie another young ruckman and hopefully get ourselves another Campbell and hence another asset.

Why would you delist a ruckman who appears to have ability and then rookie another ruckman? Why not just rookie Campbell......although I gather you are saying we should look at getting a different type of ruckman.