Port 2002

[Tredders#16]

How do think Port will fare in season 2002?
With the addition of the two off the rookie list (Brogan and Hall), and the pick-up of Hardwick, I can only see positives for next season. When U consider that Lade, Wilson, Bond (if not delisted), Lockwood (who knows!), French fully fit and what happened to Hollands?, surely Port can consolidate itself as a Power in the top four for the next three years at least!
I'd say that Lyle, although a favourite of mine, could be shown the door this year, along with Harwood, Koulouriotis, Poulton, S.Bond (possibly), Steinberner, perhaps Morgan. Obviously Port would decide whether it is worth a pre-season draft pick with our lowly position, to drop 7 instead of the six required.
Do any of u think Tony Brown is worth another chance? He's only, what, 25 or so, has played at AFL, and obviously in form in the SANFL (though that doesn't always translate!). I would be looking at either him or Hollands, but not both.
Signing off,
Tredders#16

[Grave Danger]

There's no reason why we can't be a top four side again in 2002. You can't say we played above ourselves this year, in fact the finals performances were an underachievement after being in the top four most of the season.

With the addition of Hardwick and hopefully Brendon Lade having a full season, plus the further development of young guys like Guerra and Kane Cornes, there will be no excuses.

We will sure miss Packo for the best part of the season, but Scotty Bassett performed well at the end of 2001, add Hardwick, the return of Wilbur and perhaps the emergence of Thurstans (if he survives the cull) and our defence should be okay.

And hopefully we won't have as many bloody long haul road trips in 2002!

[Porthos]

Thurstans only re-signed just before the finals...he's safe now that trading is over.

As for road trips, we've had every possible road trip for the last three seasons....they can't do it again. Also, now that Port are a decent team in Victorian eyes, the AFL would be happy to give us games there next year.

I reckon we'll get about 8 in Victoria next year.

[Macca19]

I can see some positives. A few negatives could be if our young defenders like Thurstans and Morgan show they arent up to AFL standard when they finally get some games this year. If we continue to play Mead and Paxman i think we will be in some trouble.

However i can see us finishing top 4 this season hopefully

Tony Brown is only 23 and i reckon he might be picked up in the draft

[Porthos]

Stuff Thurstans and Morgan, I like Bishop and Bassett :)

Paxman had a great year last year, I'd keep playing him until he drops.

[PowerGirl36]

ben hollands said on the radio he thought he might be delisted, and seeing Hall promoted would increase the chances for that a lot. maybe the club will pick up tony, but i'm not too sure we really need him. but next year looks very promising :cool:

[Eago77]

Port look good at this stage for next year.
Lade, Hardwick and Wilson will add a great deal.
Our defence could struggle a little early, although i think Bassettt has shown enough, and by the sounds of things Thurstan will most likely start the year in the first 22. I would think these two will be able to (with the help of Wakelin) cover the potential of Mead and Paxman struggling. Both Mead and Pax when fit could be given reduced duties in defence and perhaps some time in the forward line to stretch opposition defences. I think the emergence of Thurstans will be a god send for Meady who always looks like he needs a couple of weeks off during the season.
All in all a top two finish should be where we are aiming.
Also hopefully a few less trips to the ends of Australia and some more games at the MCG would be great.

[Porthos]

The AFL can't send us to every non-Melbourne stadium for 4 years in a row....although going to Sydney would be good :)

As for top 4....we've got the cattle, but will the motivation be there? Certain wingmen (both of them) need to improve a lot for us to go further, as well as a certain full-forward kicking more goals. :)

[blackdiamond]

I think we are all being a little hard on Meady!

Perhaps we should all remember how long the season was for the Port Adelaide Football Club. We did go out there to win the Ansett Cup, Meady played all of these games, its not as if we played our youngsters. Im sure after a good pre-season which is done to benefit his needs will keep him in fine form for the start of the season. Sure the likes of Thurstans and Morgan will get there chance next year but I doubt it will be right from the start. We don't want to throw these young players to the wolves, they must be slowly eased in.

As for the draft I won't be surprised if Port only use their 1st pick (15). Port may use pick 63 but only if there is anything good left, no use wasting a pick. I think they might use this for an experienced player, somebody that may add something to the club rather than waiting for the Pre-Season draft. I don't expect them to use their last pick in either of the drafts. Im sure they will go into the season one player short so to encourage those on the rookie list.

With Ports first pick in the draft I expect them to pick up a tall young defender/forward. Any idea of any tall 17 year olds that we may look at?

[Macca19]

we were dumb enough to trade our father/son pick, which should of been kept to pick up Brett Ebert.

We gotta pick him up at pick 17 now. With our pick at number 63 or whatever, i reckon we should go for a young forward from the SANFL...maybe a Matthew Lokan from Port or something...i dunno

we should get Brett Ebert

[Porthos]

Brett Ebert isn't his dad.....he's small, and not ready developed...if fancy his chances of being around at #63 if we want him.

[Tredders#16]

I might be mistaken, but I thought the AFL has a rule saying clubs must use 3 draft selections? Anyone know?

[Grave Danger]

Originally posted by Tredders#16
I might be mistaken, but I thought the AFL has a rule saying clubs must use 3 draft selections? Anyone know?
I reckon you're right - that's why all teams have to get their main lists down to a maximum of 35 before the National Draft. That's why Port have to delist at least six players. If we want a selection in the pre-season draft we'll need to delist more than the six :(

[Eago77]

Originally posted by Grave Danger

I reckon you're right - that's why all teams have to get their main lists down to a maximum of 35 before the National Draft. That's why Port have to delist at least six players. If we want a selection in the pre-season draft we'll need to delist more than the six :(

That is correct.

[blackdiamond]

Yes we do have to delist 6 players to participate in the draft, 3 picks are needed however we do not need to use all three picks. However we can pass on these picks when our turn comes up and they don't have to be used in the Pre-Season draft. It is up to us if we want to start the season a player short on our list. Many sides have done this before.

[Satay Mat]

actually I thought that we must draft 3 players. This is why Geelong delisted those 2 guys last year and then redrsfted their own players back.

I not altogether with our trading performance because of this. We must use a pick in the 70's when every other club will be passing. It is not a good strategy. If you are right Scott and we can use 15 and then pass...pass then OK.

If we draft someone he must be paid and stay on our books at least a year. I know some good players have been drafted that low but so have umteen more duds.

Satay Mat

[Porthos]

Not every draft pick needs to be a star....some can get by by just being solid players.

Matthew Pavlich was overlooked in his first year in the draft...

[blackdiamond]

Satay Mat!

The situation with Geelong last year was that they had to make sure there was 3 draft picks available. However in this case Geelong never really wanted to delist them but rules being rules they had too.

Geelong did say to these players that if they were still available later in the draft they would redraft them. You see this happen all the time, Im sure you will see players in the upcoming draft be redrafted after only just being delisted.

As you say there is no use drafting a player if in end they have no real future at the club. Its a waste for the club and also the player. With all the draft camps these days I think gone are the days when you will see someone drafted in the 70-100 bracket become a star. This may have been the case in the James Hird/Chris Grant era but clubs have a fair idea of what they are getting.

Im sure Port will go into the season one player short on their list, this should keep the Rookie Listed players very hungry to grab a spot and should help the salary cap a little. The fact that Port have done quite well with their Rookie Listed players in the past should be encouraging enough to leave one spot blank.

[Porthos]

Of course, if we can do well with our rookie listed players, there's no reason why we can't do well with picks #63 and #79......after all, they're like rookie picks, but with more priority.

And we will get injuries during the year, if we need to bring a rookie up.

[blackdiamond]

I think if we all remember back correctly, although Matthew Pavlich did nominate for the 1998 draft he was overlooked mainly because he stated to the clubs that he wanted to study in 1999 and would not be moving away from home.

Each club basically only had one shot at him anyway because you could only pick one 17 year old. In the 98 draft Port picked Adam Morgan and the Crows Ken McGregor.

So it wasn't as if Pavlich was overlooked because of his ability, more his availability.

- - - -

Port would be silly to just pick up a player at 63 and 79 unless they had some kind of special quality. At this stage of the draft teams are passing and the players we may chase at this time of the draft have a good chance of still being there come Rookie selection time. The Rookies get paid less so we might as well wait. As I have said before, we might as well leave one spot on the list free so the Rookies can fight for it. One great thing about our side this year has been the depth of the side with others pushing for a spot through the SANFL, to have some Rookies hungry for a vacant position can only be good. As for just topping up the side because we might get some injuries is ridiculous, didn't we use the least amount of players this year? I know this can change quickly but this is one of the main reasons why the Rookie list exists, for long time injuries. We should be making as much use of the Rookie list as possible.

[Porthos]

I think if we all remember back correctly, although Matthew Pavlich did nominate for the 1998 draft he was overlooked mainly because he stated to the clubs that he wanted to study in 1999 and would not be moving away from home.
---------------

16 clubs still overlooked him.

---------------
As for just topping up the side because we might get some injuries is ridiculous, didn't we use the least amount of players this year? I know this can change quickly but this is one of the main reasons why the Rookie list exists, for long time injuries. We should be making as much use of the Rookie list as possible.
---------------

Exactly. So instead of a four person rookie list, lets have four rookies, and two players on the list....maximise your rookie list. An empty spot on the list can't play for you.

This year we had no free spot for rookies on the list, and hey, Brogan still got games, the rookies still played hard. Every club will have a long-term injury, so why do you need an empty spot on the list?

I think at this stage we can afford a full squad, so we might as well have one....every extra player you have increases the odds that some of them are going to be good.

[Tredders#16]

Porthos, u said it beautifully mate, I'm not sure totally though if salary considerations then come into it? Would we be obligated to pay a player more if we picked them up initially, or is the base salary the same as for Rookie list promotions? Not sure if salary cap concerns then come into it or not. Does anyone know?
Tredders#16

[Porthos]

I believe that starting draftees have a minimum contract based on what round they're drafted in. Rookies are only slightly less than a regular list player.....or put another way, 4th and 5th round picks would only be slightly more than a rookie :)

[Porthos]

Ah, but now I recall that rookies are outside of the salary cap....so yes, if we were really tight with the salary cap (which I serious doubt we are....if we are, we're hosed next year), then it would be a problem.

[Eago77]

I really think that we should just use pick 15 to start with. If there is anyone of value later then you might as well grab them but if not just leave the spot free.
Look at this year we have elevated Brogan and Hall most clubs would be happy to have picked such quality players up in the draft (along with pick 15). We have used the rookie list well in the past with Bassett and French coming off it plus Hollands if we want him. There is no need for early draft picks as long as you draft well a player who is picked late can be just as good if not better than the first draft pick, it all depends on our recruiting staff. I think they have done a pretty good job so far.

[Porthos]

Bassett is a bit of an exception.....he was on our foundation list, got delisted, then redrafted as a rookie...

[Eago77]

Originally posted by Porthos
Bassett is a bit of an exception.....he was on our foundation list, got delisted, then redrafted as a rookie...
Still it helps my agrument that our rookie list has been used exceptionally well.:)

[Porthos]

Well, until the 2000 rookie draft, we'd done pretty poorly :)

[Eago77]

What about Tim Majerajajackski?
He could of been anything!

[Eago77]

Also porthos(correct me if im wrong) but i don't think we had a rookie/sup list in 1997. In 1998 the only one i remember is Antony Sheehan. 1999 we had Bass, the maj and big Don Webb. 2000 - Brogan, Burton, Tommy Carr and Scotty Hahn and the year Brogan, Hall, Brosnan and Hollands.
Ok that is 11 players and 3 are now on our list plus Hollands who should be that isn't that bad i'm pretty sure other clubs would be happy with that but in true Port style we are still wanting more!!:)

[Porthos]

I seem to recall we had Luke Ottens picked up in the 97 rookie draft.

Other clubs have definitely done better with their rookie lists, Melbourne the most notable.