IvanBartul13

Yeah Dees were keen on Tippett, but the jungle drums beat loud that North were going to take him, which happened, and if not them, then Freo in the first round, so they were obviously happy to take Harmes and get another defender later on, which happened to be Georgiou. I think a few are bypassing the fact that the attributes that Georgiou brings to the table aren't necessarily going to be captured on a highlights tape. His best quality is he nullifies opponents and that's what he's been drafted to do. If we get into a predicament with defensive injuries, he could be handy in that capacity. They obviously think he can compete with AFL level forwards.

I certainly did. I didn't want Templeton coming to the club. From my sources, he interviewed extremely badly. Some clubs didn't have him on their boards for personality/attitude reasons and many disliked him. There are question marks on Hourigan's ability to get separation at the next level. Cavarra is not good enough at that size/speed combo at this stage to make an impact at AFL level and if he's not in the midfield what can he do. Battersby probably thought of as one-paced/vanilla by some clubs - does he enough tricks? All of these players bar Templeton, who slipped I'm guessing for the above reason, are your stock types who tend to perform well at junior level or at state league level but don't have the athleticism or X-factor clubs are looking for. Remember clubs want players they perceive can play 200 games, not guys that can play 3 or 4 average games. A key theme in our drafting is speed and athleticism. You've mentioned some moderately paced players who have dominated some junior footy but don't have attributes that will see them have a likelihood of success at the next level, or have 'vices', to use a racing term.

Projects to be a big bodied midfielder/utility once he he fills out. Good in close and feeding the ball out - constructive and creative handball ability. More of a handball first guy.

How much of Jayden Hunt have you seen?

As for the topic. It really depends on the purpose of the practice. Without putting any effort into studying it, I would say the majority of players delisted and then rookied are long-term injured players or players who have been unable to get their chance due to injury or who's careers and or upcoming seasons are likely destroyed by serious injury. Obviously the success rate of this type of move are going to be low, as most never overcome their injuries or there injuries have diminished their playing ability. Meesen, Molan obvious examples. Jarryd Allen, Fergus Watts, Luke Webster et cetera. Occasionally you will get players who clubs basically want of the list but they're contracted so they delist and rookie them to enable them to have a better list. Michael Newton, Toby Stribling. If Jetta comes, I think it is a different scenario. It will be they obviously not that keen to let him go but want to get a better pick and happy to risk another club taking him. You really need to compare the success of this type of move anyway, Clancee Pearce is an example, though he has been rookie drafted exclusively, but it's the same premise in play. The Luke Molan situation is so different to the Jetta, its not the same thing.

The rookie draft and pre-season drafts were held a lot later back then. From memory we needed to clear space, because all of a sudden the club really wanted Leigh Newton.. Balme always loved and wanted to get Pyman from his Woodville-West days and he must have become available somehow in the interim and Woewodin trained the house down. Obviously the new rules prohibit it. But it was probably shrewd list management in the day.

Yep spot on, but he never was on the senior list in a season before being delisted. He and Duncan O'Toole were delisted after their first pre-season training after being drafted at the National Draft to make way for Leigh Newton, Shane Woewodin and Robert Pyman. Some names from the past. In effect Robbo and O'Toole's first seasons were on the rookie list. That season - when Pyman was one of our premier midfielders - is probably the third worst I can remember well, behind the Neeld years. My father speaks of great misery with regards some of the seasons of the late 70s.

Ryan Crowley certainly fits the criteria. Matthew Febey is a similar situation.

Can pay rookies less.

It's Maia Westrupp

Don't necessarily agree. APS footy has provided many, many drafted players and as such is watched pretty closely. It's just rare for a good APS player to not have made it to a TAC Cup squad. James Gwilt played suburban footy, St Kilda picked up a forward from Tyabb a few seasons ago. I think clubs aren't scared to pluck players from obscurity, they just need to be lucky enough to have gotten their eyes on them.

Club drafts the best two key forwards, the best midfielder, or close to, and one of the best ruckmen and they are recruiting hacks. Silly stuff. If they keep their list together, they are in very good shape.

Absolutely, and I'd much rather back in the judgment of an AFL recruiting network and a Derek-Hine acolyte than Ryan O'Connor, and I'm not suggesting he is a bad operator, it just makes sense to hold that view at this stage. Like you suggest, the building of TAC Cup lists is similar in a way to the building of AFL clubs in that there is a recruiting aspect/talent identification aspect to it. I'm not sure if it's seen that way, but it would be a bit embarrassing for the Dragons to miss a drafted kid in its zone for whatever reason, but hopefully that's been to our advantage. I love the concept of the pick and the fact that it was made and its a bit of statement from our new recruiting manager. My only query and we won't ever know I suppose, was whether any other club had him on their radar and could he have been safely taken as a rookie. His young guns selection suggests maybe he was liked by a few other clubs.

There is no doubt there is umpteen players who it would be better to have on the list, from a future prospect standpoint. I wasn't suggesting that wasn't the case, just that I would rather have Byrnes than one of the more fancied non-drafted names out there, but I won't get into that on this forum. I agree Byrnes has been a very ordinary player for us, though he did have some constructive games, amidst many bad/invisible ones and some horror moments. I don't think he is completely useless and am happy to cop no games out of him in 2013 or the likely five game (3 crap ones, 2 OK ones) and five goal season he will produce in the understanding he will provide some leadership and is a positive influence for the younger players. In principle, I think it would be OK to tell him where he stands in terms of games played likelihood and see if maybe he will drive a retirement scenario. But I'm very uneasy about the future impacts of the club in any way trying to manipulate players, massage them off the list et cetera. I really think this is year zero for the club, just do everything 100% right from now. Not that your idea is of bad intention but some could perceive it to be devious and if the player wants to keep being in the AFL system, it can't fly anyway. The third option is obviously: This is your last year at the club, we want you to compete hard for a spot and help teach and give value-add to our younger players. I know you manifestly dislike Byrnes as a player, which is fair enough, not sure your thoughts on Cam Pedersen. The problem is where does it end? Pedersen has two years to go and if he doesn't improve this year, most will want to cut his contract at the end of next year. What do we do? One things for sure there seems to have been some contract length misjudgments being made, along with some experienced player assessment miscalculations.

I'm not knocking the pick. I can't as I have never seen him play and had only seen his name on a list and thought nothing of it, just suggesting it's the much braver pick

I don't think it's on a par. If Marsh succeeds at Collingwood, I think most people will be saying in theory how did that highly exposed, well-credentialled athletic young footballer last that deep in the draft and congratulate Derek Hine once again for a good opportunistic pick. I'm not sure it's a huge challenge for the Pies. If Hunt becomes a beauty, I think it will considered a tremendous recruiting pick. I know Ryan O'Connor of the the Sandringham Dragons is astonished that he got drafted and that a large number of AFL clubs had not heard of him.

Agree. And most of them were lamenting Brisbane's loss of five players, most of whom struggled to get a game or had made little impact. It was the death of their club. Now they laud them for having a strong draft and getting Aish, Taylor and Cutler and Co.

Shaw situation is not analogous. They were happy to move on Shaw when they got their price back in a trade. Shaw is a quality player suddenly deemed a cultural misfit by, in my opinion, a club that's a bit confused at where it is at the moment. Byrnes - given you want to him to be a coach and a mentor - is clearly a very positive influence. Wouldn't you rather him at MFC training helping teach Kennedy-Harris, Kent, Blease about the craft and the way Geelong small forwards are tought to play. Isn't that valuable. The many problems I have with your idea start with the fact that in the position Byrnes plays we aren't deep and playing as a forward pocket I don't think he is that much worse than Bail, Evans and is arguably better, so he can sit at number three on the forward pocket depth chart. I agree he is very ordinary, but is it worth telling the football world that our club will happily burn a player to free a spot on the list for a player who went undrafted in a draft where clubs barely wanted to participate in at the middle and lower levels and from where we plucked a schoolkid from veritable obscurity. What message does that send players and management companies when we are trying to lure free agents? If there is a half-decent player in the PSD we will end your player's AFL career. Trying to weasel out of contracts, unless its completely necessary, is pathetic and I think you're plan would cost us in the cap next year as well, though I would probably need Baghdad Bob to confirm that. Ignoring the hypocritical concept of getting him off the list to play him as a Casey player-coach, If you think he's [censored] just break his contract and [censored] him off. That's ruthless. Not we really like you but don't want you on our list anymore, because there is a player we like better than you, but not as much as Jayden Hunt. But we'd love you to go play at Casey and help us. I find it complete nonsense to be honest. The decision to give him the two year deal is a mistake, but was probably the only means to get him, another mistake. But to break his contract should only be done done for significant material gain - i.e Tom Bugg is available PSD. Because it comes at significant cost. It should not be done for a PSD pick, which is basically in effect, as mentioned above draft, pick 80. I also agree with RPFC that having his spot freed up at the end of 2014 is advantageous, given our penchant for acquiring delisted free agents, having seven or eight come off the list is a good fit. He also helps fill an experience/age bracket vacuum at the club - a reason so many are so buoyant about the decision to get Cross, admittedly a far better player. I know you heart the PSD but at some stage your going to have to reconcile yourself to the fact it is a dying mechanism. I can also tell you that the player most would want at that spot, I wouldn't want coming anywhere near our club. I'm happy to cop Byrnes for one more year and hopefully Kent and JKH are all the better for it, whilst the prestige of our club continues to build amongst the football world.

Given Taylor's pedigree you would expect an astute and thorough choice and Todd seemed to do quite a good job last year. There seems a lot of faith that Roos will wave a wand and that we will definitely get Pick 9 right. Historically that can't be further from the truth. Sydney's record in the 8-16 range was absolutely atrocious when Roos was at the helm.

Most of these journalists would have lauded Richmond endlessly for a masterstroke had they been able to prize Tyson away from GWS at the end of last 2012. The annoying thing is Barrett and Denham, in particular, can't even get there head around the fact that that the trade wasn't a straight swap of Tyson for Pick 2, nor do they even go close to examining where Tyson would be drafted in this year's draft pool if he was in it, which is one of the the important considerations when assessing the trade before the materials of it have had a chance to play. Tyson could very easily have been picked high in the top 10 given his attributes in this draft pool. Kelly is class so the likelihood is a win-win for both clubs.

Agree he is talented but there is no chance I would have thought. We don't need a high-leaping half-forward, so doesn't make sense from that aspect, to speak nothing of his troublesome past.

That strategy is analagous to trading up from Pick 80 to Pick 72 in the main draft in the hope that our 45th ranked player will be there at pick 72. If it was that crucial to obtain such a player, you would take them at Pick 57. This kind of thinking would have you constantly trading manically upwards in paranoia.

Freeman is a not a great kick, but he's not a complete ball butcher either. If you're assessing Salem v Freeman. You're looking at Salem's versatility ( he can probably play in defence/run with roles) his kicking, probably a more consistent player, up against an outstanding physical specimen in Freeman, who loves to take the game on, has tested sensationally all through his junior career, but is more of a haphazard but destructive player, with an OK, but not piercing kick. Its an interesting conundrum, you could argue that getting Cross, Michie, Vince, Tyson, Riley gives you the freedom to swing for the fences and take Freeman. But then again Salem probably fits the mould of the player Paul Roos has historically used, with the more rounded game.

It is based on the number of players on your primary list. AFL clubs must have a minimum of 38 players on their senior list and a maximum of 40. Technically you are allowed then to top up with rookies up to a maximum overall list size of 47. But player 45 to 47 (any players above 44 players on the list) must be what are called category B rookies (academy players, international rookies, players who've been unregistered in football for 3 years et cetera) In relation to Melbourne we will have a list of 40. Which enables us a maximum of 7 rookies - four rookies proper and 3 category B rookies. Likely we will have 4 rookie picks in the rookie draft and perhaps add Maia Westrupp as a category B rookie. If a club has a senior list of 38 they can have 6 rookies and 3 category Bs. Some clubs could do this to massage its total player playments under the salary cap as rookie list contracts are less burdensome on TPP. That is why we see different rookie sizes. Brisbane and Sydney's are usually larger because they can add their local state academy players as catagory B players. Other teams who have international rookies on their list will have larger rookie list sizes. Some clubs with one Irishman will have 5, clubs without 4 et cetera et cetera. Gold Coast and GWS have different list sizes rules altogether at the moment as well.

Waylon Manson?