Pretty sure rookie promotions count as draft picks, so to promote Spencer and McKenzie will eat into our late picks. Might wind up with only 12, 32 and 49 or something?

Just read an article in the age on each teams lists and it lists Hughes and Newton as elevated rookies in addition to Spencer and McKenzie.

Then they don't have Meeson as a retiree.

I think though they just listing all rookies that were elevated during the year. Either that or this article does not has all the facts right.

I'd cut Healy and Hughes... leaving only Newton on the rookie list. He's not a great player, but he's a semi-solid option considering Jamar's our only fully developed ruckman and the new interchange rule only allows for 3 players on the bench.

drafting 5 rookies this year is plenty, and hopefully we can unearth 1 or 2 absolute gems

Newton is garbage, an embarrassment to the MFC and every player out there trying to make it. I'm sick and tired of rubbish players the club holds on to year after year after year.....and the club has the nerve to keep asking us supporters for money every year. How about just ending the Michael Newton charity fund....sick of this crap

Newton is garbage, an embarrassment to the MFC and every player out there trying to make it. I'm sick and tired of rubbish players the club holds on to year after year after year.....and the club has the nerve to keep asking us supporters for money every year. How about just ending the Michael Newton charity fund....sick of this crap

I think any player that pulls the jumper on and gives 100% is a long way from an embarrassment to the MFC. I'm far more embarrassed by your comments than I am about Newton.

Rubbish players we hold onto year after year after year.... Not happy with the turnover of players in the last 3 years mate?? Or should we have got rid of them all in the year after Daniher and replaced them all from the one draft with some brilliant picks after 60 in the draft?

I think though they just listing all rookies that were elevated during the year.

That's what they've done and it's deceptive. They've listed Hawthorn as "elevating" Moss, Peterson, Stokes, Kayler-Thomson and Skipper, and they were all delisted last week.

PJ stays. Not as a rookie. The talk of him being moved on or shifted on the list is 100% supporter garbage, as usual.

I was going to say all three rookies get the chop, but the noise coming from the club makes it seem like Newton will get another year. If so, then it's as a rookie. The other two should go...

So how many spots does that leave? Is it 5 (with the extra two added recently?) Do we gave any veterans now?

PJ's touch and go, but I think it's a big call to label it "100% supporter garbage". You're risking getting a lot of egg on your face.

I guess we'll see though.

That's what they've done and it's deceptive. They've listed Hawthorn as "elevating" Moss, Peterson, Stokes, Kayler-Thomson and Skipper, and they were all delisted last week.

It's most unlike the Age to be deceptive...generally a good read.

It's most unlike the Age to be deceptive...generally a good read.

Huh? You must be kidding, right?

On 2nd thoughts, I suppose it depends on what you define as "deceptive" or a "good read"

Newton should only be retained as a rookie if the FD think he will make a solid forward. I'd be looking for 5 goals per game in VFL, translating to 2 goals per game in AFL. I haven't seen any sign of this rate of scoring happening. His ruck skills, if any, are purely bonus. An almost unoticable bonus imho, but others may think he has something there. But if he is not going to make it as a forward, he should be let go.

Meesen, Healey and Hughes are no brainers. McKenzie and Spencer have been promoted to the main list. Note that rookie promotions DO NOT use any of our draft picks, but they DO count towards the minimum number of picks we have to use. We currently therefore have our full set of picks plus pick 52 we got from Hawthorn for Cheney. We must use one pick, and are able, with our current delistings/retirements to use two picks.

The number of rookies plus veterans has been increased this year to 8. As we will have two on the Veterans List (Bruce and Green) and have cleared out our rookies (by promotiom, retirement and delisting), we can take 6 rookies (6 rookies plus 2 veterans = 8). If we want, we can delay selecting one of these 6 until after the NAB cup.

We could look for a recycled mature bodied ruck as insurance for Jamar. Doesn't have to play a game unless Jamar is injured. Otherwise we will be relying on PJ and the youngsters (who aren't ready yet) if the Russian goes down. I fancy Orren Stephenson of North Ballaraat in this role.

For the rest, rookies are where you pick young hopefuls or players who missed previous drafts and have matured late. Best bet in my view is rookie the talls - Ruckmen, Forwards or Defenders. They always take longer to develop, and may therefore not be showing enough to be drafted this year. Maybe one or two of the six will ever make it, and they won't be getting regular games until 2014/15, but we should keep the pipeline fed. Take one beanpole (200cm+) and the best four 193-197 forward or back long term prospects. Don't go for midfielders or small defenders/forards - if they are any good they will have gone in the draft. Only exceptions to this should be players the FD has spotted as late bloomers.

Note that rookie promotions DO NOT use any of our draft picks, but they DO count towards the minimum number of picks we have to use. We currently therefore have our full set of picks plus pick 52 we got from Hawthorn for Cheney. We must use one pick, and are able, with our current delistings/retirements to use two picks.

You have to use your draft picks for rookie promotions. Teams of course usually save this for their last available pick. Considering we have elevated two, we will need to reserve our last 2 available picks for Spencer and McKenzie.

Huh? You must be kidding, right?

On 2nd thoughts, I suppose it depends on what you define as "deceptive" or a "good read"

I define deceptive in this case as in reporting the wrong information or information that has been superseded, and a good read as just that.

No, I'm not kidding either.

I'd delist Meesen and upgrade McKenzie, which I believe we'll do (if we haven't officially done so already). We're keeping Spencer, and thus upgrading him, which is fair enough.

I imagine we might find better players than Healey and Hughes, so they'll probably go. That said, I don't see much VFL so I'm not really qualified.

I'd keep Newton - his form at VFL level as a ruck/forward has been good this year and given his competitors (Martin, PJ) he's worth retaining.

Newton should only be retained as a rookie if the FD think he will make a solid forward. I'd be looking for 5 goals per game in VFL, translating to 2 goals per game in AFL. I haven't seen any sign of this rate of scoring happening. His ruck skills, if any, are purely bonus. An almost unoticable bonus imho, but others may think he has something there. But if he is not going to make it as a forward, he should be let go.

I completely disagree. He has a future only as a second ruck/forward IMO (a role more important given the introduction of a sub).

Looks as if my source was correct. Also JCB was right too in regards to PJ & TMAC

Looks as if my source was correct. Also JCB was right too in regards to PJ & TMAC

You're kidding, right?

In spite of most semi-intelligent posters expecting those exact same moves, you still want to try to take credit..?

Have at it, Hoss.

PJ must be your illegitimate son, honestly...

No. I just like to even out the abuse he got on here while he was with us. The fact that a fair few people on here felt the same way shows I wasn't being delusional or unreasonable. I go to the footy with a half a dozen mates and every one of them liked PJ. I thought he was certainly worth keeping for another year, but given where our list is at, someone had to go, and it didn't shock anyone.

Noises about Newton, huh?

We'll see...

Do I detect a hint of knowledge there? Did you know something about Newton's retention beforehand?

PJ's touch and go, but I think it's a big call to label it "100% supporter garbage". You're risking getting a lot of egg on your face.

And this would be different from my usual behaviour, how?

I was a staunch supporter of PJ's. And proud of it. I support my players to the hilt, and no amount of sooky old grandmothers on here who like to abuse from the comfort of their screens are going to make me think otherwise.

You're kidding, right?

In spite of most semi-intelligent posters expecting those exact same moves, you still want to try to take credit..?

Have at it, Hoss.

yeh,pretty much

Would think we are going to be pretty speculative with our 5 rookie picks this year, given our pretty deep talented list. If we fill our needs with the 4 ND picks, some left field roughies could get a rookie run which is always exciting I think.

Some names to throw around with some "X" about them that interest me (if any of them last that long);

Kirk Ugle

Isiah Stevens (my personal favorite of the group)

Jarrod Ninnyette

Leif Cope

Jimmi Savage

Tyler Chalwell

One thing I don't understand is why Meesen would get delisted from the rookie list when he was never was going to play last year? Was this to do with the fact he still had a contract? Pretty hard luck for him to loose his last chance at a long AFL career because of a drought. Although ruckmen who can't play forward will become a rarity.

On a related note I think that we will see less stress fractures with this great winter / spring rain. The grounds will be a lot softer this summer.

I also expect to see more speculative rookies like:

NQR forwards who can ruck;

NQR midfielders who have exceptional endurance (think like Woewodin);

NQR ruckmen who can take a contested mark;

NQR backmen who can play forward;

NQR forwards who can play back or midfield and have good endurance.

There will be less emphasis on speed as the game will slow (somewhat).

The departure of Cameron Bruce opens up a place on our lists which can be taken by a rookie. Because we will now have only one veteran on the primary list, the rules enable us to promote one rookie straight into the senior team without waiting for a LTI to happen. This will enable the club to sharpen its focus on rookie selections knowing that if it makes the right choice (and you can take mature age rookies these days) the player in question could go straight into the team from day one. Here's hoping that there's another Michael Barlow waiting in the wings.