Time For A Rookie List Rethink

Remove this Banner Ad

Derek talks about a couple of mature aged recruits that we already have on the list...Derek is a wizz picking these types and I'd love for him to be given even greater scope to pick mature aged players....

 

Log in to remove this ad.

I don’t pretend to know intricacies of various Cat designations, but if there was no incentives to pursue the overseas or non AFL candidates clubs wouldn’t bother.
As long as there are incentives/benefits, then clubs will go searching, as forlorn a quest as that may seem.
 
We need recruiting staff to swallow their pride and look at players in the lower leagues that missed out on being drafted initially. We need to dump out the cat B rookies and fill the rookie spots with kids rejected in their drafts, but who have gone on to play footy in the VFL, or the SANFL or the WAFL or the other state leagues.
Also would prefer we stop picking vanilla late picks in their draft year with little prospects of making it when you can get the same player from a state league who's further along in their development.
 
I don’t pretend to know intricacies of various Cat designations, but if there was no incentives to pursue the overseas or non AFL candidates clubs wouldn’t bother.
As long as there are incentives/benefits, then clubs will go searching, as forlorn a quest as that may seem.

The incentive is that they're not counted in list size if they are cat b. So it's seen as a free hit when the club is recruiting them. Of course all the resources spent in moulding them, nurse-maiding them etc isnt free. Experts can probably give a better reason
 
The main argument I can see against the OP is that players in the lower leagues can’t be put on the category B list.

Cox, the irish boys for the most part, Wilson, Roo when he’s even on a list… they are not taking up space that an overlooked VFL player could occupy.

I do agree that we’ve overrated athleticism in talls and underrated it in our smalls and mediums. Our big boys need to know how to mark, where to lead and how to impose themselves on a contest. Our smaller guys need to be able to spread and find space.

If you use a Category B list spot you potentially have less primary list or Category A list positions available.

Screenshot_20220420-174818_Drive.jpg

The big advantage is the salary is outside the cap - I think anyway.

If you can get a Will Sutherland like that you use it. You might also find a Tuohy or a Blicavs.

Like most things in recruiting it's about talent ID and then development. I don't think you want to be closed minded about any options.

That said I think our balance has been off and we invested too heavily in tall Cat B types (Cox, Keane, Tohill, Wilson, Madgen) in an effort to fix our key position hole and it's created a big list issue.
 
If you use a Category B list spot you potentially have less primary list or Category A list positions available.

View attachment 1379046

The big advantage is the salary is outside the cap - I think anyway.

If you can get a Will Sutherland like that you use it. You might also find a Tuohy or a Blicavs.

Like most things in recruiting it's about talent ID and then development. I don't think you want to be closed minded about any options.

That said I think our balance has been off and we invested too heavily in tall Cat B types (Cox, Keane, Tohill, Wilson, Madgen) in an effort to fix our key position hole and it's created a big list issue.
Sorry, but that's not correct! You can have 42 on your Primary List and Category A Rookie List combined. You can then have the 2 Category B Rookies outside of that, giving you a maximum of 44.
 
If you use a Category B list spot you potentially have less primary list or Category A list positions available.

View attachment 1379046

The big advantage is the salary is outside the cap - I think anyway.

If you can get a Will Sutherland like that you use it. You might also find a Tuohy or a Blicavs.

Like most things in recruiting it's about talent ID and then development. I don't think you want to be closed minded about any options.

That said I think our balance has been off and we invested too heavily in tall Cat B types (Cox, Keane, Tohill, Wilson, Madgen) in an effort to fix our key position hole and it's created a big list issue.
Without any cat b, the maximum list size is 42, rather than 44. They're an extra two players you can have on the list. Both cat A and B rookies have base wage sitting outside the cap.

Don't know why you wouldn't want them, unless your club is cash-strapped
 
Last edited:
The main argument I can see against the OP is that players in the lower leagues can’t be put on the category B list.

Cox, the irish boys for the most part, Wilson, Roo when he’s even on a list… they are not taking up space that an overlooked VFL player could occupy.

I do agree that we’ve overrated athleticism in talls and underrated it in our smalls and mediums. Our big boys need to know how to mark, where to lead and how to impose themselves on a contest. Our smaller guys need to be able to spread and find space.

It's true that we cant put footballers on the cat B list. But my point is that we're getting nothing much from the cat B's and it would be better to concentrate on the footballers in the lower leagues. I think a couple of people have made the point that the problem has been talent identification and if we dont identify the right footballers then it doesnt matter whether we use cat a or b
 
Sorry, but that's not correct! You can have 42 on your Primary List and Category A Rookie List combined. You can then have the 2 Category B Rookies outside of that, giving you a maximum of 44.
Without any cat b, the maximum list size is 42, rather than 44. They're an extra two players you can have on the list. Both cat A and B rookies have base wage sitting outside the cap.

Don't know why you wouldn't want them, unless your club is cash-strapped

I stand corrected!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's true that we cant put footballers on the cat B list. But my point is that we're getting nothing much from the cat B's and it would be better to concentrate on the footballers in the lower leagues. I think a couple of people have made the point that the problem has been talent identification and if we dont identify the right footballers then it doesnt matter whether we use cat a or b
We'll continue to aim for 36 primary, 6 rookie A and 2 rookie B. Most players that costs the least under the cap. We'd only change from that if there's someone we really rate still available in the draft when our pick for the 37th on the primary list comes around. Or we haven't yet found 2 suitable for cat B list.
 
well i still wouldnt bother about the irish and i think the other cat b's arent worth it either.... and i'm not thinking about the list spot only, I'm thinking about the admin and the development and all the other crap. Its a complication that doesnt deliver
 
It's true that we cant put footballers on the cat B list. But my point is that we're getting nothing much from the cat B's and it would be better to concentrate on the footballers in the lower leagues. I think a couple of people have made the point that the problem has been talent identification and if we dont identify the right footballers then it doesnt matter whether we use cat a or b
An exception to this is you can pick up NGA players as Cat. B Rookies as long as no-one takes them in earlier drafts. I believe you have to nominate them prior to the drafts. We could have taken Youseph Dib (multicultural) after he had done rather well for our Reserves side last year, but chose not to. St Kilda have filled their Cat. B spots with two indigenous lads from their NGA.
 
Mason Cox has won us 2 finals. Stynes won a bronwlow. Kennally a premiership. lots of other cat Bs have been all australian

cat B's are a separate strategy to overall drafting. if you can get a free hit great. We currently have Magden, Wilson, Cox from last game.

As for Rookies it is about what you think is best at the time. Stupid to define it.

Lists evolve. 2002-03 made gfs. 2010-11 made gfs 2018 made gf and should have in 2019. 5 GF's in 20 years in pretty good.

We made the right call to cut our losses early and start a mini rebuild last year while we have established talent to mould the side around.

There are times a mature aged rookie maybe a list clogger other times they are a piece in the puzzle.
 
One advantage as I see it with mature aged rookies is that you could turn them over quicker than the cat b's and many of the players on the main list. Just look at tyler brown who has been training for 5 years and still cant play football. The cat B guys take ages to get up and running. At least with Johnson and Begg and Dean we will know within a year or so if they are up to AFL footy....and if not, we can try someone else.

There was a period leading up to the 2020 draft when the list hardly moved for a few years. No one was getting dropped off the list. We need to get more turnover into it and see more players.
 
We need to go all-in on the pursuit of a future champion full forward. Everything else is secondary.

To achieve that, we need to finish in the bottom four this year - but with lots of very narrow losses and heaps of player, coach and game plan development - and then use that pick and our repaired salary cap to draft/trade-in the very best strong-bodied full forward that we can possibly obtain.

The rest of our list is now developing really well but our attempts over the past decade to find a bargain priced, experimental, recycled, cross-code or international convert has been an utter failure. It’s time to get real and pay the necessary price in picks and dollars to properly fill this vital role.

Imagine a future version of Lance Franklin, Josh Kennedy, Tom Hawkins, Max King, Jeremy Cameron, Jack Reiwoldt, Tom Lynch, Harry McKay etc on the end of countless lace-out F50 entries from the Daicos brothers, DeGoey, McInnes, Poulter and Co, with Mihochek, Krueger, Henry, McCreery and Ginnivan feasting on the scraps. It would be glorious.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
The incentive is that they're not counted in list size if they are cat b. So it's seen as a free hit when the club is recruiting them. Of course all the resources spent in moulding them, nurse-maiding them etc isnt free. Experts can probably give a better reason
I think the issue for me is AFL offering incentives that effectively are leading clubs down blind alleys, and as you say to waste resource.
All in the name of PR, so that the AFL can brag about the athletes their program is poaching from other sports.
Pathetic really.

If there truly was a gold mine of talent in other sports, the Clubs would not need incentives to do the mining.
They’d be there with Caterpillar excavators.
 
thank god derek can identify the ones that are good enough....
You aren’t going to be finding players in local footy who are good enough for the AFL. Everyone potted Sier for his lack of work rate and desire but what do you expect from local players? Players who are so committed to getting the best out of themselves they stay down in third tier comps instead of trying to get the best out of themselves at state league level
 
well i still wouldnt bother about the irish and i think the other cat b's arent worth it either.... and i'm not thinking about the list spot only, I'm thinking about the admin and the development and all the other crap. Its a complication that doesnt deliver
It'd be interesting to see games played per cat b rookie versus category a rookie. I'm not sure there would be much difference.

The battle of the Jacks - Frost vs Madgen.
 
It'd be interesting to see games played per cat b rookie versus category a rookie. I'm not sure there would be much difference.

The battle of the Jacks - Frost vs Madgen.

probably a useful suggestion for the pre grand final entertainment.... i hear they are going to drive meatloaf around the oval this year in a hearse
 
You aren’t going to be finding players in local footy who are good enough for the AFL. Everyone potted Sier for his lack of work rate and desire but what do you expect from local players? Players who are so committed to getting the best out of themselves they stay down in third tier comps instead of trying to get the best out of themselves at state league level

so sier was local because he was from bulleen, i think....
 
I think the issue for me is AFL offering incentives that effectively are leading clubs down blind alleys, and as you say to waste resource.
All in the name of PR, so that the AFL can brag about the athletes their program is poaching from other sports.
Pathetic really.

If there truly was a gold mine of talent in other sports, the Clubs would not need incentives to do the mining.
They’d be there with Caterpillar excavators.

well you can lead a club to water but you cant make em drink.....oh no oh no oh no.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top