Healey and Hughes

[satyricon 267]

This is just a couple of thoughts re both players.

They are both on the rookie list, so there is 'no hurry', if after the three years, if they 'have not made it' then they can be released, if you haven't seen them play, how can you make a comment on their ability or otherwise as to whether they should be on the list

Hughes - have spoken to him and seen him in quite a few VFL games. Was rookied by Melbourne and then succumbed to a serious problem with his hips. Rerookied after he spent considerable time getting his hips right. He can take a mark, is fast and can kick goals (he kicked a few for Casey last year), he has spent considerable time and effort and so has the club getting him right so the club must see something in him, in last years review Sean Wellman was quoted as saying 'he is a difficult matchup' For people to judge off one practice game (his first against AFL players) is amazing. We have a few mid size forward, Miller, Bate, Petterd, so Hughes will have to perform really well at Casey to displace them in the side, and after a taste I am sure he will see the opportunity and go for it this season now he has his body right

Healey - again I have spoken to him and watched him in games, he came from the Bendigo Pioneers where he was the top possession getter, but his disposal was a bit iffy. He also succumbed to a serious quad injury last season. The club is builing him into a more rounded player, he has played midfied, defence and forward, so from a good inside mid with no disposal skills, he is becoming a utility who can play both defence (as in Last Friday) or a goal kicking mid as in the week before. As Bailey has stated they like building bodies and everybody has noticed that Healy's shape and core strength is changing, could be a ready made player with a couple of preseasons under his belt when the drafts become a bit thin in the next couple of years.

We have seen time and time again, good players coming off rookie lists, so as with everything about the club at the moment be patient

[Cranky Franky 1,482]

In my view both should have been delisted as they will not make it (along with Hughes).

The 2009 rookie draft contained a lot of talented players but we stuffed ourselves up by not being able to take anyone.

By my count 6 of those rookies have already been upgraded to the senior list.

Most rookie that succeed show ability do so very early on ie their first year.

[Inner Demon 1]

Those rookies at other clubs have only been elevated because there was space on their club's list due to that club having nobody on their Veteran's List.

Rookie listed players are project players and they take time to develop. Many don't make it, and that's why they were bypassed in both drafts before being rookied. We have a terrific recent record in rookie list picks including Robertson, McDonald, Davey, Wonaeamirri and next year you'll probably see McKenzie & Spencer join that list.

We haven't missed out on anything not being in last year's rookie draft, if we have spots next season there will be just as many project players for us to have a crack at.

[Cranky Franky 1,482]

Those rookies at other clubs have only been elevated because there was space on their club's list due to that club having nobody on their Veteran's List.

Rookie listed players are project players and they take time to develop. Many don't make it, and that's why they were bypassed in both drafts before being rookied. We have a terrific recent record in rookie list picks including Robertson, McDonald, Davey, Wonaeamirri and next year you'll probably see McKenzie & Spencer join that list.

We haven't missed out on anything not being in last year's rookie draft, if we have spots next season there will be just as many project players for us to have a crack at.

Pig's arze we haven't missed anything. Those rookies at other clubs were elevated because they played good footy in the pre season and showed they are capable of being on their Clubs senior list. We stuffed up our list management so that we could not pick up any more rookies in 09 because we had 3 or 4 list cloggers.

The 4 rookie players you mentioned all showed they could play in their first pre season at the club although I agree that ruckmen are the exception to the rule.

[Big Kev 340]

In my view both should have been delisted as they will not make it (along with Hughes).

The 2009 rookie draft contained a lot of talented players but we stuffed ourselves up by not being able to take anyone.

By my count 6 of those rookies have already been upgraded to the senior list.

Most rookie that succeed show ability do so very early on ie their first year.

We cleared 2 spots on our list by delisting contracted players Newton & Meeson with the assurance that we would rookie them if they were not selected by another club. So in affect we got Gawn and Fitzpatrick who would have been long gone by the rookie draft

[satyricon 267]

Hello,

Rather than lament what we potentially missed out on, could you actually comment on what I actually said in my original post, I was actually trying to put forward an argument as to why both players were retained on nthe rookie list.

Rookie lists are there to provide an opportunity for players who may or may not be capable of playing AFL footy, I suppose it was wrong for Geelong to rookie Podsliasdly.

I have not qualms about the List Management at the moment, as it is run by professionals who have a lot better idea than me what is required of any AFL footballer.

[Cranky Franky 1,482]

Hello,

Rather than lament what we potentially missed out on, could you actually comment on what I actually said in my original post, I was actually trying to put forward an argument as to why both players were retained on nthe rookie list.

Rookie lists are there to provide an opportunity for players who may or may not be capable of playing AFL footy, I suppose it was wrong for Geelong to rookie Podsliasdly.

I have not qualms about the List Management at the moment, as it is run by professionals who have a lot better idea than me what is required of any AFL footballer.

Your comments that you assume that list managements are run by professionals show that you have a lot to learn about footy. Some clubs do it well others do it badly. Ask why did the Freemantle "professionals" clear Lucas, Lloyd, Mcleod, Farmer & Bell (& took Polak ahead of Judd) sight unseen & you will understand why the club was a wreck for the first 10 years.

Richmond are not far behind in bad list management of the last 10 years.

It was noteworthy that Chris Connolly allegedly admitted he stuffed up when he had a chance to rookie Lewis Jetta in 2008 (& lets not mention Alwyn Davey)

We had first pick in the rookie draft we could have drafted Roberts, Barlow or Howlett all of whom would have been in this weeks team v Hawthorn.

As to Hughes - he might be a nice bloke but this is his 3rd year on the list & he is not going to make it - at Casey he is not much more than a solid contributor.

Healy virtually didn't play last year so statistically he has about a 5% chance of making the grade.

[jayceebee31 666]

Your comments that you assume that list managements are run by professionals show that you have a lot to learn about footy. Some clubs do it well others do it badly. Ask why did the Freemantle "professionals" clear Lucas, Lloyd, Mcleod, Farmer & Bell (& took Polak ahead of Judd) sight unseen & you will understand why the club was a wreck for the first 10 years.

Richmond are not far behind in bad list management of the last 10 years.

It was noteworthy that Chris Connolly allegedly admitted he stuffed up when he had a chance to rookie Lewis Jetta in 2008 (& lets not mention Alwyn Davey)

We had first pick in the rookie draft we could have drafted Roberts, Barlow or Howlett all of whom would have been in this weeks team v Hawthorn.

As to Hughes - he might be a nice bloke but this is his 3rd year on the list & he is not going to make it - at Casey he is not much more than a solid contributor.

Healy virtually didn't play last year so statistically he has about a 5% chance of making the grade.

And we let go players recently that played in premiership teams: Jolly, Armstrong,Bishop etc..

[Yokozuna 1,004]

How about we wait and see if any of these "upgraded" rookies from the other clubs are any good first.

You are claiming we missed out on these players this year, but I have yet to see them play well week in, week out. If that happens, then I may agree slightly with you cranky.

Also, are the players that are being upgradedgoing to be playing in our team? Are they filling the spots we require?

Back on the original topic. I dont really rate Healy, but have not seen much, so hard to judge.

I do rate Hughes, and have watched him closely for a whle, as I have known him since he was young (so I am a bit biased). He shows a lot, but will struggle to replace the players in his position, but I would like to see him given a few games this year.

[twist 0]

Ask why did the Freemantle "professionals" clear Lucas, Lloyd, Mcleod, Farmer & Bell (& took Polak ahead of Judd) sight unseen & you will understand why the club was a wreck for the first 10 years.

Im trying to work out what the hell you are talking about regarding Polak before Judd. Do you know what you are talking about? I dont think you do. You like to think you know what you are talking about, but you dont.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I think the reason why our rookie list looks a little light on in comparison to other clubs is:

I believe we made a commitment before delisting Danny Hughes to rookie him after coming back from injury. (I stand to be corrected on this?? I recall other demonlanders of repute stating this when we re-rookied him in 08 edit: actually it may have been a quote from CS stating this.)

We downgraded Meeson and Newton to the rookie lists to make the most of our 09 ND draft picks. This allowed us to draft Gawn and Fitzpatrick who were obviously ahead of any potential rookies.

As for Healy he has hardly been able to fire a shot but will get his chance this year. Hughes will need to have a huge start to the year to give himself any chance.

I would say that the odds are weighed heavily against both at this stage, but if they are good enough.......

[Inner Demon 1]

I don't think our rookie list looks light at all.

We've got 4 out of 6 who can and have played at AFL level.

One is only now getting an injury free run so shouldn't be judged until he's had this year.

The other had an injury interrupted first season and hasn't had a chance yet.

I would love to see a better rookie list out there with an explanation that doesn't fall back on - "I saw this guy's YouTube highlights tape and he will be a star".

[satyricon 267]

I think the reason why our rookie list looks a little light on in comparison to other clubs is:

I believe we made a commitment before delisting Danny Hughes to rookie him after coming back from injury. (I stand to be corrected on this?? I recall other demonlanders of repute stating this when we re-rookied him in 08 edit: actually it may have been a quote from CS stating this.)

We downgraded Meeson and Newton to the rookie lists to make the most of our 09 ND draft picks. This allowed us to draft Gawn and Fitzpatrick who were obviously ahead of any potential rookies.

As for Healy he has hardly been able to fire a shot but will get his chance this year. Hughes will need to have a huge start to the year to give himself any chance.

I would say that the odds are weighed heavily against both at this stage, but if they are good enough.......

Exactly what I was trying to say, let's give them both a go, on another point it was Barry Prendergast who had Lewis Jetta sitting in front of him whiles he was waiting to interivew Neville before drafting, it was Neville's mum who was pumping up Lewis's tyres to Barry. But because he was sight unseen and hadn't really got any form on the boards, Barry had to bypass, lo and behold he has a break out year in the West and pops up on everybody's radar.

As for the other rookies, agree let's see how many stand out in the 'real' footy.

[Cranky Franky 1,482]

Im trying to work out what the hell you are talking about regarding Polak before Judd. Do you know what you are talking about? I dont think you do. You like to think you know what you are talking about, but you dont.

Its not clear cut but thats effectively exactly what they did. In 2001 Freo had the no 1 Pick which they could have used to select Judd, Luke Ball or Luke Hodge instead they traded the pick to Hawthorn for Trent Croad and threw in pick 36 (Sam Mitchell).

My point is that after 2 wooden spoons & the last decent draft for a few years we should have cleared out the dead wood & taken a punt with a few new rookies - we may have unearthed another Jurrah.

[e25 5]

uh... who took Polak instead of Judd??

Polak went at 4. One pick after Judd.

Get your facts right for a start.

But hey, I think we should have kept Newton & Meesen on the senior list so we had more rookie spots for all those superstars we missed out on. I'd have even delisted Davey and Grimes - why keep those guys when we could have rolled the dice in the rookie draft..?

All on the back of a few preseason games.

... I'm tempted to call you an idiot, but that would just be rude & uncouth.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Gotta correct you, it's Rhys Healey. I'd be so happy if it was Healy though, considering that that's my surname

[Courtney_Fish 183]

I feel the biggest problem with our list management has been the holding on to players for too long. If there was a draft next week, I think we'd have little trouble in working out who we could get rid of. Some players we just keep thinking they'll come good - but what's good mean. It means they'll go from no games a season to a career total of 15. Big deal. Some of these guys would need a near miraculous improvement to be a 100 gamer.

[Roger Mellie 3,486]

I've seen a bit of Hughes and nothing of Healy.

I saw Hughes play a blinder for half a game with Casey last year. His first half was unremarkable and his second was sensational (Can't remember who it was against). On that half game I thought he might have a chance at AFL level - particularly at this time when our forward line is so thin. He is an excellent mark but I'm not sure why people think he's a good kick (in front of goals that is) As a goal kicker he's not far ahead of Newton for accuracy. Having said that, I don't think Newton's a bad kick - he just has no confidence and it's all between the ears for him.

I'm not sure if Hughes is a dud kick or is just nervous in front of goals - his action is unusual.

I also think he needs to get on the park for long enough to make a case for himself and start to routinely impose himself on games.

If we promote a forward rookie it will be him v Newton. Bailey (to me) gives every indication he's not interested in Newton so Hughes is a show.

I'm not hugely excited but he's got an excellent opportunity with our injury list ATM.

NB> I'm not sure how many rookies we can afford to promote. On the one hand McKenzie and Spencer would be at the top of the list but Newton (and Meesen) would cost nothing to promote. It could all be down to bucks $

[Inner Demon 1]

Money will have absolutely no bearing on which player/s we promote from the rookie list. Bailey will promote whoever he wants to use on the weekend.

[Cranky Franky 1,482]

uh... who took Polak instead of Judd??

Polak went at 4. One pick after Judd.

Get your facts right for a start.

But hey, I think we should have kept Newton & Meesen on the senior list so we had more rookie spots for all those superstars we missed out on. I'd have even delisted Davey and Grimes - why keep those guys when we could have rolled the dice in the rookie draft..?

All on the back of a few preseason games.

... I'm tempted to call you an idiot, but that would just be rude & uncouth.

Well I'm tempted to call you a moron but I'm too polite for that.

I'll try and keep it simple. Freo had picks 1 and 4. Instead of using pick 1 to recruit Judd, Hodge or Ball they traded pick 1 to Hawthorn for Croad. They then used pick 4 on Polak.

[e25 5]

Well I'm tempted to call you a moron but I'm too polite for that.

I'll try and keep it simple. Freo had picks 1 and 4. Instead of using pick 1 to recruit Judd, Hodge or Ball they traded pick 1 to Hawthorn for Croad. They then used pick 4 on Polak.

You do realize that still doesn't constitute "taking Polak ahead of Judd"...?

You're just changing your argument so you don't look like a fool, but I fear it's too late...

[satyricon 267]

I have only just returned to posting on this board, after leaving because a lot of the posts actually got away from the actual topic and arguements and name calling started.

I thought I would start a contentious topic to see if a discussion could be held were all points of view were aired and a healthy robust discourse took place, minus the insults, name calling etc...

it lasted two days.

If you chat to the players, you will find they are actively discouraged from reading any of the boards, as they are told that a lot of it is only destructive.

[Rogue 585]

If you chat to the players, you will find they are actively discouraged from reading any of the boards, as they are told that a lot of it is only destructive.

I'm sure they're also discouraged from listening to what the crowd yells out from the boundary, what fans chat to them about and what is discussed on radio, etc.

[Keyser Söze 0]

I have only just returned to posting on this board, after leaving because a lot of the posts actually got away from the actual topic and arguements and name calling started.

I thought I would start a contentious topic to see if a discussion could be held were all points of view were aired and a healthy robust discourse took place, minus the insults, name calling etc...

it lasted two days.

If you chat to the players, you will find they are actively discouraged from reading any of the boards, as they are told that a lot of it is only destructive.

To be honest, I can't see how an intelligent discussion on the merit of Hughes and Healey's position on our list would be anything better for them to read.

In fact, I think reading posters abuse of each other is less likely to destroy their confidence than reading a thorough assessment of their ability and shortcomings.

I'm happy for a bit of banter as long as it doesn't completely hijack a thread.

There's always room to get back on topic...

I think they'll both be gone this time next year.

[Courtney_Fish 183]

I have only just returned to posting on this board, after leaving because a lot of the posts actually got away from the actual topic and arguements and name calling started.

I thought I would start a contentious topic to see if a discussion could be held were all points of view were aired and a healthy robust discourse took place, minus the insults, name calling etc...

it lasted two days.

If you chat to the players, you will find they are actively discouraged from reading any of the boards, as they are told that a lot of it is only destructive.

You're off topic. Go start another thread.