Jump to content

Featured Replies

 
On 24/10/2017 at 8:10 PM, hillie said:

we have no picks in the rookie draft

Why not?  We have 4 Rookies and can have up to 6. We have the list room for 6if we choose to. 

Yes you can have 6 category A rookies if the main list is 38, the total of the main list and rookies cannot exceed 44.

Thus if Melbourne uses only 3 picks the it can pick a category A rookie.

Edited by durango

 
8 hours ago, It's Time said:

Why not?  We have 4 Rookies and can have up to 6. We have the list room for 6if we choose to. 

Wrong, we will use 4 picks in the draft & if any more rookies are picked up they'll have to qualify for Cat B status.

Season Grade Games Kicks Handballs Disposals Marks Goals Points Tackles Hitouts Frees For Frees Ag.
expand_icon.gif 2017 League 23 255 56 311 108 73 35 39 0 22 18


Table doesn't come up very well and is out by a column but it's 23 games, 255 kicks so about 10 a game, 108 marks so 4 a game, 73 goals which is very impressive but only 39 tackles.

Under 2 tackles a game when surely he would've been told time and time again that to play AFL he has to impart forward pressure isn't a good sign. 

That said, the counterpoint is at over 3 goals a game he was most likely the focal goal scorer so it's harder to tackle when your job for the team is to kick goals. And the WAFL footy is more open anyway, it's not the same style of game as AFL.

Having just turned 21 I think he's too good a goal kicker not to have a go in the AFL system but from the reviews on here and the stats I'd rather use our 4th pick than any of the first 3.


3 hours ago, thevil1 said:

Wrong, we will use 4 picks in the draft & if any more rookies are picked up they'll have to qualify for Cat B status.

There's 36 on the list now including Smith. Plus 4 draft picks makes 40. Plus 4 Rookies makes 44. A list can be up to 47 with a maximum of 6 rookies which means there's still room for 2 more rookies. So stop being your namesake and check your facts before blasting away saying "Wrong" when you don't know what you're talking about. 

For 2013, all clubs (*except Gold Coast and GWS Giants) now operate under the following list sizes.

Primary List Size Category A Rookies Category BRookies Total Rookies (Maximum) Total
38 (Minimum)
6
3
9
47
39
5
3
8
47
40 (Maximum)
4
3
7
47

* Gold Coast Suns: Primary List 42; Rookie List 9
* GWS Giants: Primary List 44-50; Rookie List 9
 

So that all arguments re-list sizes I have extracted the above from the AFL web site the Suns and Giants now operate under the same rules as all the other AFL teams?

There's 36 on the list now including Smith. Plus 4 draft picks makes 40. Plus 4 Rookies makes 44. Yes we will be able to recruit 3 Category B rookies. If a player has played a sport other than Australian Rules in the last 3 years then they are eligible to be listed on the Category B rookies list like the international converts and basketball players but category B players cannot play unless a player on the main list is placed on the Long Term Injury list. Whereas 1 Category A rookies can be nominated after round 11.

On 03/11/2017 at 10:49 PM, It's Time said:

There's 36 on the list now including Smith. Plus 4 draft picks makes 40. Plus 4 Rookies makes 44. A list can be up to 47 with a maximum of 6 rookies which means there's still room for 2 more rookies. So stop being your namesake and check your facts before blasting away saying "Wrong" when you don't know what you're talking about. 

How did I 'blast' away? 

What you said was wrong.....

On 03/11/2017 at 11:06 AM, It's Time said:

Why not?  We have 4 Rookies and can have up to 6. We have the list room for 6if we choose to. 

 
15 hours ago, thevil1 said:

How did I 'blast' away? 

What you said was wrong.....

I stand corrected. Didn't realise number of rookies decreased between 38 to 40 on primary list. Unlikely we won't use all 4 draft picks although if there's not anything much around at 47 and there's someone like a ruck who needs to be developed as a rookie or a delisted free agent eg if Spencer doesn't get picked up, we might not use it and go the extra rookie. I get the feeling they had planned to do a deal with some of our picks for an upgrade and didn't make it happen. 

Edited by It's Time

This gives an insight into a more rounded player than the previous 'hanger' highlight reel.


20 hours ago, Goodvibes said:

This gives an insight into a more rounded player than the previous 'hanger' highlight reel.

Again, not a single tackle in the entire reel.  I'd love to hear from someone who's seen him play whether he puts in defensively. 

9 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Again, not a single tackle in the entire reel.  I'd love to hear from someone who's seen him play whether he puts in defensively. 

To say nothing about whether Ryan tackles or not, it's not entirely uncommon that tackles are left off the highlight reel. Unless you're the PAFC and putting together a propaganda package, in which case some poor intern has to sit through nine years of footage to piece together a minute's worth of cuddles.  

Ok he looks good overhead on the lead which is nice. And his kicking and decision making seems decent.

Better at pack hangers but he actually reminds me more of Luke Breust than of Cyril. More of a goal kicker who can gather possessions up the ground as well than a pressure player.

For general info:  Since the latest CBA, all Category A rookies can be selected to play from round 1 regardless of injuries, promotions etc.  The difference between a Cat A rookie and a senior player is now length of tenure, termination conditions and pay scale. 

It is the reason we reclassified Maynard from a B rookie to an A rookie.

It was a good move by the AFLPA as it gives clubs more flexibility.  For example, if it was in place this year we could have played one or more of the rookies when Lumumba's departure left us an AFL player short.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

  • 2 weeks later...
On 04/11/2017 at 11:33 PM, thevil1 said:

How did I 'blast' away? 

What you said was wrong.....

I didn't realise we don't have a pick after 47. We have 36 on the primary list now including Joel Smith who we have to use pick 47 on to upgrade as it's our last pick. That means we can only draft 3 players which means we will only have a primary list of 39 so we can draft another Rookie. 

It indicates to me that a few things went wrong in draft week otherwise why would have we held out pick 47 from Freo for Balic when we could have given it to them and just used 66 to upgrade Smith which wouldn't have made any difference to us. We must have held out for that deal because we wanted to use 47 in another trade that never happened. I suspect it was going to be the deal West Coast did on the last morning with Gold Coast where they gave up their first rounder next week and this year's pick 50 in return for Gold Coast's picks 21, 26 & 37 and a future second round pick.  We could probably have made that happen if we'd got a pick in the top 25 for Watts but without that, didn't have enough to offer. Mahoney was in the trade room that morning but ended up not doing anything.


Smith will be upgraded with a pick 64 beyond 47 which we still have.  We will be drafting 4 players along with Smith.

6 minutes ago, It's Time said:

I didn't realise we don't have a pick after 47. We have 36 on the primary list now including Joel Smith who we have to use pick 47 on to upgrade as it's our last pick. That means we can only draft 3 players which means we will only have a primary list of 39 so we can draft another Rookie. 

It indicates to me that a few things went wrong in draft week otherwise why would have we held out pick 47 from Freo for Balic when we could have given it to them and just used 66 to upgrade Smith which wouldn't have made any difference to us. We must have held out for that deal because we wanted to use 47 in another trade that never happened. I suspect it was going to be the deal West Coast did on the last morning with Gold Coast where they gave up their first rounder next week and this year's pick 50 in return for Gold Coast's picks 21, 26 & 37 and a future second round pick.  We could probably have made that happen if we'd got a pick in the top 25 for Watts but without that, didn't have enough to offer. Mahoney was in the trade room that morning but ended up not doing anything.

Nope you're wrong. 

Joel Smith is part of the 36 on the senior list. Rookie upgrades just get assigned a late pick and upgraded now, they don't have to go through the draft process. We wouldn't have to use 47 on him anyway, we had a pick in the 80's or 100's available if needed.

We can and should use all 4 picks on Friday night.

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nope you're wrong. 

Joel Smith is part of the 36 on the senior list. Rookie upgrades just get assigned a late pick and upgraded now, they don't have to go through the draft process. We wouldn't have to use 47 on him anyway, we had a pick in the 80's or 100's available if needed.

We can and should use all 4 picks on Friday night.

I'm not saying he has to go to the draft but we have to assign a draft pick to upgrade him. According to the afl.com.au website which has listed all draft picks for all clubs in this draft our last pick is 47. We have to use our last pick to upgrade. What am I missing. 

Back on to Liam Ryan  - still seeing him mocked to the Eagles in the 20's. I think they'll get him in the 30's. 

I don't think we can risk it for a player with a strong go home factor and doubts over his defensive game. 

I'd love to have him and move the ball in quick to him one on one and see what he can do but too much of modern footy isn't played one on one anyway

1 minute ago, It's Time said:

I'm not saying he has to go to the draft but we have to assign a draft pick to upgrade him. According to the afl.com.au website which has listed all draft picks for all clubs in this draft our last pick is 47. We have to use our last pick to upgrade. What am I missing. 

The AFL website list is after rookie promotions. They've already assigned a pick 80 (for example) to him and done that. 

They changed the rules a year or so ago to stop the charade of reading out promoted rookies on draft night and made that process complete before the draft.


Just now, DeeSpencer said:

Back on to Liam Ryan  - still seeing him mocked to the Eagles in the 20's. I think they'll get him in the 30's. 

I don't think we can risk it for a player with a strong go home factor and doubts over his defensive game. 

I'd love to have him and move the ball in quick to him one on one and see what he can do but too much of modern footy isn't played one on one anyway

From what I've read a very high go home factor and question whether he can hack afl environment. 

Still interested in this issue of our picks. I was very surprised that our last pick was 47. Do you have any other information that we have a later pick. That's not what afl.com.au are indicating. Pretty disappointing if we don't.

31 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The AFL website list is after rookie promotions. They've already assigned a pick 80 (for example) to him and done that. 

They changed the rules a year or so ago to stop the charade of reading out promoted rookies on draft night and made that process complete before the draft.

Yeh you must be right. Apparently an interview has just gone up on the club website with Jason Taylor and he says no rookie picks and will use all 4. I don't know how this new mechanism works for upgrading rookies but obviously that's what happens somehow.

 

On 11/7/2017 at 6:47 PM, RalphiusMaximus said:

Again, not a single tackle in the entire reel.  I'd love to hear from someone who's seen him play whether he puts in defensively. 

Exciting player with great Jurrah-type skills yet too finely built for tackling and forward pressure, I'd say. A fair way off that required level of physical development and if achieved, would possibly reduced his aerial 'lift' and flight opportunities as seen in the current reels. 

 
32 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Yeh you must be right. Apparently an interview has just gone up on the club website with Jason Taylor and he says no rookie picks and will use all 4. I don't know how this new mechanism works for upgrading rookies but obviously that's what happens somehow.

 

Correct. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-11-22/taylor-has-list-of-names-ready-to-go

States no rookie picks and will use 4 picks in the draft.

As for Liam Ryan, I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread. He'll go as a late/rookie pick to a WA club. I'd hope the club don't bother with  a 21 year old who has serious attitude and application issues. He would not suit the modern AFL game where defensive pressure and hard running both ways are now a requirement. He'll never make it at AFL level IMO.
 

On 24/10/2017 at 6:20 PM, Lord Travis said:

Saw him play mid year, was match against Peel. He would've had maybe 7-8 touches, kicked a run of the mill set shot goal and doubt if he laid a tackle. Wouldn't have even known who he was if it weren't for the chatter surrounding him as he'd booted a ton of goals to that stage of the season. He was seriously unremarkable that day. Based on that match I saw of him, he'll be a rookie pick at best and likely never make it AFL level. He has seriously poor work ethic. He refused to work up the ground when it wasn't working up forward, he didn't chase or put on any pressure at all when his opponents won the ball, he stood around hands on hips and not bothering to lead if a defender went anywhere near him. He makes Jack Watts look like Nick Reiwoldt on steroids in terms of work rate, effort and hunger. Not surprised to read Pennant St Dee's post saying his club Subiaco had to send someone to pick him up or he wouldn't rock up to training etc. I'll be disappointed, shocked and disgusted if the club drafts him after weeding out players with poor attitude and work ethic over the past few years. He's already 21 too, so as a mature age player you'd hope he had developed that work ethic and desire to make it.

 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 528 replies