Jump to content

Featured Replies

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

In other words we'll get 5 new players through the draft/Rookie selections..?

Yes, if we fill all the spots.

 
7 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Yes, if we fill all the spots.

Cheers LH.

  • Author
14 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

 

The Age have it wrong!

 

Edit:

Rookies – time on list

The AFL will introduce a trigger for an additional fourth year on the Rookie List where the Rookie has played less than ten career AFL matches, which will then apply in same way for access to an additional fifth year.  Total aggregate years on the Rookie List will be capped at five years (5.5 years for Mid-Season Rookie Draft).

player-movement-and-list-management-changes

I'm sure I've read elsewhere that AMW will need to promoted to the cat-a list but can qualify for a 4th year as highlighted above. That link unfortunately doesn't clarify cat-b vs cat-a.

Regardless we'll have two rookie spots. Either 2x cat-b or one of each.

 
1 minute ago, Nascent said:

I'm sure I've read elsewhere that AMW will need to promoted to the cat-a list but can qualify for a 4th year as highlighted above. That link unfortunately doesn't clarify cat-b vs cat-a.

Regardless we'll have two rookie spots. Either 2x cat-b or one of each.

Trust me, it applies to both.  If it applied to only one it would have said so.

 

 


  • Author
26 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Trust me, it applies to both.  If it applied to only one it would have said so.

 

 

Thanks Luci.

That's a better spot for us to be in to add to our list.

46 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

Hopefully one of each - given we've finished this low, we actually have a decent position in the rookie draft (and midseason draft)

Mid season draft is based on midsession position…. So hopefully we will be last. But correct re the rookie draft

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

 

The Age have it wrong!

 

Edit:

Rookies – time on list

The AFL will introduce a trigger for an additional fourth year on the Rookie List where the Rookie has played less than ten career AFL matches, which will then apply in same way for access to an additional fifth year.  Total aggregate years on the Rookie List will be capped at five years (5.5 years for Mid-Season Rookie Draft).

player-movement-and-list-management-changes

Again, that doesn’t specify anything about cat B’s staying as cat B. I suggest you’re right but it’s not unreasonable to think there’s still a 3 year limit on cat B after which they transfer to cat A for up to 2 more years.

We’ll soon find out.

 
13 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

It doesn't matter if it is pick 79 or 83. 

Then there will be a couple of rookie draft picks which are taken after this..... we will be selecting at the absolute dregs end of the draft. 

We only have 2 decent picks, no way to build for the future.

Love the pessimism GOTO. Who’s to say JT does not pull another McVee or we take a quality mature from the VFL,SANFL,WAFL that fits a role? We dont need a bunch of mid range picks we need elite additions which 5 and 9 offers.  I would not be surprised if our third pick is on a kid we think has the right attributes to play key defence in the future.  

  • Whispering_Jack changed the title to Welcome to Demonland: Round 5 Draft Pick
14 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

It doesn't matter if it is pick 79 or 83. 

Then there will be a couple of rookie draft picks which are taken after this..... we will be selecting at the absolute dregs end of the draft. 

We only have 2 decent picks, no way to build for the future.

Good thing we don't have to then.


There's an assumption that AMW has been 'promoted' from B to A rookie. 

It wouldn't be a 'promotion' per se as there is no difference in A and B except how they were recruited.  Senior game eligibility and salary rules are the same for both.

And, I'm not sure such a 'promotion' is even allowed under the rules as 'promotions' are to/from the Senior list. 

If a rookie list change is allowed for AMW, the only benefit I see is the club can recruit 2 B rookies eg Andrew and Mentha.  But the downside is it looses the ability to take an A-rookie (assuming we fill the 3 senior spots). 

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Good thing we don't have to then.

I'm feeling tensions with the podcast crew....🤣

14 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

There's an assumption that AMW has been 'promoted' from B to A rookie. 

It wouldn't be a 'promotion' per se as there is no difference in A and B except how they were recruited.  Senior game eligibility and salary rules are the same for both.

And, I'm not sure such a 'promotion' is even allowed under the rules as 'promotions' are to/from the Senior list. 

If a rookie list change is allowed for AMW, the only benefit I see is the club can recruit 2 B rookies eg Andrew and Mentha.  But the downside is it looses the ability to take an A-rookie (assuming we fill the 3 senior spots). 

 

It would be nice if the AFL/club provided greater clarity on these matters.

Even if we can't move AMW we could still take one of Mentha or Andrew as a Cat A rookie.

I also believe we can have 3 Cat B rookies, which I assume means we would have to have 5 Cat A rookies.....

Edited by DistrACTION Jackson

If we pick Legweak I'll SPEW UP

🤮

20 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

It would be nice if the AFL/club provided greater clarity on these matters.

Even if we can't move AMW we could still take one of Mentha or Andrew as a Cat A rookie.

I also believe we can have 3 Cat B rookies, which I assume means we would have to have 5 Cat A rookies.....

The info is out there but not collated ... hence why the great work by @red and blue forever in the Contracts thread is a handy reference

Yes, we can draft either as an A rookie or as a senior player.

Only 2 B rookies since covid list rule changes.


16 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The info is out there but not collated ... hence why the great work by @red and blue forever in the Contracts thread is a handy reference

Yes, we can draft either as an A rookie or as a senior player.

Only 2 B rookies since covid list rule changes.

The AFL website says it's 3.... but wouldn't surprise me if they just didn't bother to update it

3 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The AFL website says it's 3.... but wouldn't surprise me if they just didn't bother to update it

Thanks, could you post a link please ... it isn't the easiest of sites to trawl through!

2 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Thanks. 

Unfortunately the article isn't dated.  Given the players in the pic and the sponsors on our jumper I would say that is pre covid list size/rule changes.

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

There's an assumption that AMW has been 'promoted' from B to A rookie. 

It wouldn't be a 'promotion' per se as there is no difference in A and B except how they were recruited.  Senior game eligibility and salary rules are the same for both.

And, I'm not sure such a 'promotion' is even allowed under the rules as 'promotions' are to/from the Senior list. 

If a rookie list change is allowed for AMW, the only benefit I see is the club can recruit 2 B rookies eg Andrew and Mentha.  But the downside is it looses the ability to take an A-rookie (assuming we fill the 3 senior spots). 

 

I believe that Rookie B are outside the salary cap? 


4 minutes ago, durango said:

I believe that Rookie B are outside the salary cap? 

A and B rookies have a portion of their sal outside the cap.

It was the first $80,000.  Not sure what that is now.

 They've shown some interest in Werribee mature-aged small forward Jack Henderson, who dominated this season averaging 22 disposals and booting 15.3, and the same for Oakeligh midfielder Zane Cochrane, Bendigo forward Archer Day-Wicks and speedy small Mitch Kirkwood-Scott. The Demons are also expected to grab NGA prospect Ricky Mentha jnr, most likely as a category B rookie consideration, while they can match a bid on intercept defender Riak Andrew, younger brother of Gold Coast's Mac

Anyone got any strong opinions here:

Riak's got a thread, Mentha seems strong odds to be a Cat B.

The other 4 seem an eclectic mix.

Jack Henderson - 25 year old - half forward flanker/mid.

Zane Cochrane 187cm Oakleigh mid, played good games when the Vic Metro guys weren't playing for Oakleigh. Played one VFL game for Collingwood.

Archer Day-Wicks 186cm Bendigo forward/mid who didn't put the year together that he was hoping for. Looks a bit messy but he's aggressive powerful kid who might be something

Mitch Kirkwood-Scott 178cm Sandringham/Haileybury half back with a booming kick

From my Coates League grand final write up … 

 

  •  
  • Dragons lead easily from start to end. Clearly the guns Ashcroft and Marshall were equal BOG in today’s GF. Marshall showed he’s definitely a round 1 draft pick and the Lions are blessed to get both for 2025 and beyond.
    Armstrong impressed in bursts. Top 12-13 ranking confirmed for him. 
     I really liked Harry Oliver’s game.  Solid.  Composed.  Brave. Classy left footer.
    Mitch Kirkwood-Scott across half back also impressed. Great kick.  Setup several rebound attacks. Captains Haileybury and has leadership.  He’s just 178cms so that’s hard to judge where clubs could place him.
    Ollie Hannaford clearly best for Rebels and will have impressed recruiters. 
 

 

  • it’s a shame that the Chargers lost (8.18.66 to 10.10.70) because they were the only team capable of challenging the Dragons imv. I only saw the first half of Rebels v Dragons but will try to catch the game highlights or replay   

️Jagga Smith.  He’s small but classy and evasive.  Quick hands.  Think he’s probably getting closer to being the number 1 pick.  
️Finn O’Sullivan. Not at his best again ,  but still won the footy and his disposal was elite by foot.  Also nice to see his tackling and contest work.  He kicks goals as a mid. As per prior, slightly smaller LDU.  
👏Zane Cochrane. Yes he’s now more than likely going to get drafted. Saw him in a half at Carey and he stood out. Then he played a great game versus dragons earlier in the year.  He’s very good tall mid who can play inside/outside.  Excellent skills. Thought he’d be early 4th round.  Might drift into high 40s now.  Dees should be looking at him definitely.  
 

  •  

Zane Cochrane 

https://central.rookieme.com/afl/player/zane-cochrane/

Oakleigh Chargers midfielder Zane Cochrane was pegged as an emerging prospect during preseason and did enough during season proper to warrant a state draft combine invite. The 187cm contested bull regularly imposed himself at the contest with his size and stoppage nous, playing his best games when getting stuck in going both ways.

 

 

Edited by BAMF


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: 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.

    • 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? 

      • Haha
    • 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?

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 150 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Sad
    • 42 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 327 replies
  • VOTES: St. Kilda

    Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

      • Like
    • 31 replies