List Mgmt. Thanks and good luck Matty Wright

[TheLeftFist8]

There would be zero good reason to rookie list Wright above any number of state league players or those speculative picks with upside.

Get one of the KPD's on offer and see how they develop, or maybe a state league ruck (as Lowden won't be there in 2017).

 

[adelaidecrows]

If they say the talent level in this draft drops off dramatically after pick 25 or so in the national draft then I'm not sure what sort of talent you'd get in the rookie draft.

Long term project players maybe on the cards. We have a really young list as it is now, we can afford to go down the project player path. Find an 18yo ruckmen that may need 4 years in the weights room to develop. Could take a punt on a pacy mid with poor skills that will slip down the order of the draft or miss out. Anyways I think we should look at development now.

 

[MRB37]

Long term project players maybe on the cards. We have a really young list as it is now, we can afford to go down the project player path. Find an 18yo ruckmen that may need 4 years in the weights room to develop. Could take a punt on a pacy mid with poor skills that will slip down the order of the draft or miss out. Anyways I think we should look at development now.

If they don't see anyone like that being available to them then there's no point bringing in a guy knowing that you're going to delist him the next year. At least Wright can keep playing well in the SANFL, which will help a bit there. We took a chance on the pacey mid with poor skills last year in Anthony Wilson, and his kicking really didn't get any better.

Anyway, I get the feeling that Carlton will nab him and it won't really matter.

 

[BACCS]

Why the hell would we rookie list Wright?

Seems like an idiotic move to me. Think of some of the gems we've picked up in the rookie draft. If we miss out on a player like Charlie Cameron because we decided to give Wright another year, I'll be pissed.

Is there a chance you'll learn to not go off at a BF rumour sometime soon like it is a set in stone fact?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Is there a chance you'll learn to not go off at a BF rumour sometime soon like it is a set in stone fact?

I wasn't really going off. At least not by my standards anyway.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Is there a chance you'll learn to not go off at a BF rumour sometime soon like it is a set in stone fact?

It's actually his manager Michael Doughty who said the Crows have offered a rookie spot if he doesn't get drafted

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Reported in the Advertiser today he's been offered a rookie spot with the Crows if he doesn't crack a senior list somewhere else

C'mon Carlton, you know you want him

God DAMN it

One step forward, two steps backwards

 

[Bacon8]

It's actually his manager Michael Doughty who said the Crows have offered a rookie spot if he doesn't get drafted

Wright’s manager, former Crow Michael Doughty, has fielded calls from one Melbourne-based club and one of the Queensland clubs while also forwarding an offer from the Crows of a rookie spot for next season.

There are no quotes in the article.

 

[1970crow]

God DAMN it

One step forward, two steps backwards

In isolation it's not a big deal. Whoever would have been rookied in his place would likely be delisted entirely next year as well anyway. But it does speak to our historical nice guy culture, be it at selection (don't want to upset loyal servants), the trade table, promotion of internal applicants and the lack of a hard edge on the deck.

 

[Bacon8]

In isolation it's not a big deal. Whoever would have been rookied in his place would likely be delisted entirely next year as well anyway. But it does speak to our historical nice guy culture, be it at selection (don't want to upset loyal servants), the trade table, promotion of internal applicants and the lack of a hard edge on the deck.

I wonder if re-rookieing Keeffe & Thomas are because Pies are being nice guys.

Or Freo with Deluca/Morabito
Or Port with Mitchell
Or North with Daw.
Or Gold Coast with Stanley
Or Brisbane with Paine
Or St Kilda with Saunders (well, he's contracted to 2017 so probably not)
Or West Coast with Waterman/Colledge
Or Essendon with Hams
Or Sydney with Marsh.

All players that their clubs have committed in the media to keeping as rookies. Something AFC hasn't done with Wright.

 

[Jack is Back]

I'd like to make two points;

1) We are not going to win the flag next year

2) If we are hit with a huge injury list and need to upgrade rookies, we are not going to win the flag next year.

The problem with our coaching panel ever since Blighty left is that if we have experienced marginal AFL players we feel compelled to play them. The slightest indication of good form in the twos (cough...DMac...Cough) and our selectors suddenly feel convinced that they will recapture their best ever form. Examples in recent years include Johncock, Porps, Truck, vB and DMac. The second last people on the planet to recognise when a player is past their used-by date are our coaches (the last people are Bickley and McDermott).

We have 33 players who are ready to play AFL next season plus Wigg, Dear, McGovern, Reilly and Gore who may be ready to step up this year and 2 first round draft picks. Why do we need an extra, break-glass-in-case-of-emergency player. Based on the last 16 years we will have vB, DMac and an upgraded Wrighty running out against the Kangaroos in round one.

 

[1970crow]

I wonder if re-rookieing Keeffe & Thomas are because Pies are being nice guys.

Or Freo with Deluca/Morabito
Or Port with Mitchell
Or North with Daw.
Or Gold Coast with Stanley
Or Brisbane with Paine
Or St Kilda with Saunders (well, he's contracted to 2017 so probably not)
Or West Coast with Waterman/Colledge
Or Essendon with Hams
Or Sydney with Marsh.

All players that their clubs have committed in the media to keeping as rookies. Something AFC hasn't done with Wright.

Depends on the individual player and club circumstances. Just because it's not uncommon, doesn't mean it's the Wright move in our situation. If they genuinely think he can turn it around then fair enough. But the reality is that it's not a mindset, application, injury or intensity issue. He's been found out as not being worthy of a spot in a challenging teams midfield or fwd line.

 

[Bacon8]

Depends on the individual player and club circumstances. Just because it's not uncommon, doesn't mean it's the Wright move in our situation. If they genuinely think he can turn it around then fair enough. But the reality is that it's not a mindset, application, injury or intensity issue. He's been found out as not being worthy of a spot in a challenging teams midfield or fwd line.

So now it's individual circumstances, whereas before it was a club culture.

 

[1970crow]

So now it's individual circumstances, whereas before it was a club culture.

That's right. Our individual circumstances is that we'll rookie him due to our club culture. Daw will be rookied due to different reasons, same with Morabito, but different reasons again. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Geoffa32]

I'd like to make two points;

1) We are not going to win the flag next year

2) If we are hit with a huge injury list and need to upgrade rookies, we are not going to win the flag next year.

The problem with our coaching panel ever since Blighty left is that if we have experienced marginal AFL players we feel compelled to play them. The slightest indication of good form in the twos (cough...DMac...Cough) and our selectors suddenly feel convinced that they will recapture their best ever form. Examples in recent years include Johncock, Porps, Truck, vB and DMac. The second last people on the planet to recognise when a player is past their used-by date are our coaches (the last people are Bickley and McDermott).

We have 33 players who are ready to play AFL next season plus Wigg, Dear, McGovern, Reilly and Gore who may be ready to step up this year and 2 first round draft picks. Why do we need an extra, break-glass-in-case-of-emergency player. Based on the last 16 years we will have vB, DMac and an upgraded Wrighty running out against the Kangaroos in round one.

Is he a break glass in case of emergency player, or his last chance to improve and break back into the side. We sent Porps back to Westies and Rookie Listed him again and that worked out well. Back then we did not have our own SANFL team. Now with our own team Rookie Listing a delisted player means we have more control over his development than before.

I don't see Wright as an "Emergency Player". I see him as a talented footballer who has lost his way the last few seasons. Given the amount of coaches we have had in this period it is somewhat understandable. His best footy is very good and an asset. It is a cheap way to keep him on the list and control his further development. He will also be handy with our SANFL team.

 

[Bacon8]

Is he a break glass in case of emergency player, or his last chance to improve and break back into the side. We sent Porps back to Westies and Rookie Listed him again and that worked out well. Back then we did not have our own SANFL team. Now with our own team Rookie Listing a delisted player means we have more control over his development than before.

I don't see Wright as an "Emergency Player". I see him as a talented footballer who has lost his way the last few seasons. Given the amount of coaches we have had in this period it is somewhat understandable. His best footy is very good and an asset. It is a cheap way to keep him on the list and control his further development. He will also be handy with our SANFL team.

Porps went back to West as a 20 year old, and redrafted at 22.

Wright will be 26 this year.

 

[Geoffa32]

Porps went back to West as a 20 year old, and redrafted at 22.

Wright will be 26 this year.

That is true.

 

[Pugsley]

That's right. Our individual circumstances is that we'll rookie him due to our club culture. Daw will be rookied due to different reasons, same with Morabito, but different reasons again. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

That you change your argument to suit yourself ?

 

[1970crow]

That you change your argument to suit yourself ?

No, my argument is that there is really isn't any value in rookie listing Matthew Wright. He's 26 and has been average/poor over recent seasons. His lack of performance can't be explained away through factors such as work ethic, lack of experience, injury or any of the other many reasons that players aren't performing at AFL level. He's an honest battler, with no weapons, who seems to not have the ability to provide value to a team who is hopefully developing towards success. You will no doubt disagree, but as an example, I would have re-rookied Smack because he's a guy that hadn't played a heap of games to gain continuity, he's a player of a size that takes longer to develop, he can provide cover in roles that generally don't have a lot of depth. There's a chance that it will click and that player will provide something greater than he was when it was decided that he didn't warrant a senior list spot. I don't see that with Matty Wright and my view is that it is typical of the same underlying culture that saw him (and a couple of others) continually selected despite being in their worst form. You disagree, that's fair enough. But my argument hasn't changed. Each and every one of those clubs will decide to delist the player from the senior list and re-rookie them for a variety of reasons. I suggest that the only reason that we would re-rookie Matty Wright is because of our underlying culture of being nice guys.

 

[Pugsley]

No, my argument is that there is really isn't any value in rookie listing Matthew Wright. He's 26 and has been average/poor over recent seasons. His lack of performance can't be explained away through factors such as work ethic, lack of experience, injury or any of the other many reasons that players aren't performing at AFL level. He's an honest battler, with no weapons, who seems to not have the ability to provide value to a team who is hopefully developing towards success. You will no doubt disagree, but as an example, I would have re-rookied Smack because he's a guy that hadn't played a heap of games to gain continuity, he's a player of a size that takes longer to develop, he can provide cover in roles that generally don't have a lot of depth. There's a chance that it will click and that player will provide something greater than he was when it was decided that he didn't warrant a senior list spot. I don't see that with Matty Wright and my view is that it is typical of the same underlying culture that saw him (and a couple of others) continually selected despite being in their worst form. You disagree, that's fair enough. But my argument hasn't changed. Each and every one of those clubs will decide to delist the player from the senior list and re-rookie them for a variety of reasons. I suggest that the only reason that we would re-rookie Matty Wright is because of our underlying culture of being nice guys.

I'm totally against re-rookieing any of our guys unless there is a vast amount of scope for improvement.


Wright, I think showed he had stagnated and there'd be little or no improvement what is required to sustain it at AFL level but I still hope he can make it onto another list and hopefully rediscover some semblance of his 2012 just not against us if he gets that opportunity.


McKernan, I do understand talls take longer to develop but I am of the belief that his heart was never in it while he was here or its just the perception he gave me but he didn't really give us much. We placed belief in him and it felt as though we came up empty.


Porplyzia, rookie listed whilst under Ayres. I don't think anyone could get close to their best under the mullet with his stand-offish personality but under the right conditions was given the chance to thrive which he did. Got the best out of himself given his injuries.

 

[King Elvis]

No point rookie-ing him, and I'm disappointed that we'd even float it as a possibility.

 

[spenze]

Can't we just make him Claude the Crow next year instead of giving him a rookie contract

 

[FR0GGY]

Can't we just make him Claude the Crow next year instead of giving him a rookie contract

Great non statistical role, Matt we need you to do 1 lap of the oval, sorry can't do numbers.

 

[1970crow]

Great non statistical role, Matt we need you to do 1 lap of the oval, sorry can't do numbers.

In all honesty and partial soberness (partial) he can run water and provide a similar on-field performance to his 2015. However, would be a great role model and decent midfielder in a shitful team. Still is a bit unlucky, would be more useful than Dmac if we were reduced to it. But that's not a lot to hang your hat on at AFL level. It still astounds me how keen Campo etc were to get Dmac back in the team. Especially considering our diminishing clearance fortunes.

 

[King Elvis]

In all honesty and partial soberness (partial) he can run water and provide a similar on-field performance to his 2015. However, would be a great role model and decent midfielder in a shitful team. Still is a bit unlucky, would be more useful than Dmac if we were reduced to it. But that's not a lot to hang your hat on at AFL level. It still astounds me how keen Campo etc were to get Dmac back in the team. Especially considering our diminishing clearance fortunes.

Neither of them are up to it, neither should play.

There is zero reason to rookie list Wright; we shouldn't be playing him no matter what our injury situation is, so use the rookie spot to gamble on a kid.