Prediction 2016 Rookie Draft

[ad victoriam]

Hence why we didn't use pick 90.

Passing on a rookie today is completely irrelevant to that though. If there's a free spot on the main list, it doesn't matter if we have one or ten rookies on the RL, we can upgrade one.

A Cat B rookie is outside the list of 44. I do know they can be upgraded for a LTI, but I am unsure if they can be promoted outside of that reason unless there is room on the main list and we have not exceeded a total count of 44.

 

[Sanders]

That's not an explanation on why we are going short on both lists.

I think sometimes the club should just make this their press release

 

[Sanders]

Theres a reason no one wanted Rory Laird in the main draft. There is a reason no wanted Gov in his first draft year.
Please, dont try that s**t here. Its a free hit.

Harrison Himmelberg was overlooked in 2014 altogether and then got 2 clubs prepared to spend a first on him

Sloane...

 

[dude316]

Adelaide at the Rookie draft today:

 

[Bicks]

If you said one of the players that actually were drafted after our picks (Junker, Hanrahan, Ronke etc), I'd agree with you.
Would like some clarification, nonetheless.

 

[Elite Crow]

Maybe we ran out of playing jumpers after BLKs collapse

 

[cmndstab]

I reckon this is the influence of Rendell shining through Hamish. Rendell was always hot on not taking players unless he felt that they could become AFL players, even if they were literally free hits like the NSW Scholarship scheme.

It can't be cap-related. We just lost Dangerfield and Lyons and replaced them with guys on their rookie contracts. We were chasing Gibbs as well. And I don't buy the "the AFL might change the rules next season so we don't want to have too many players" argument.

I reckon the Crows just think this is a draft with very little depth, but don't want to be caught with their pants down when one of the late rookie picks turns into a gun and they didn't even think the rookie draft was worth participating in.

I agree the lack of communication is an issue here. Would it really have hurt them to say "we're not intending to select any more players except Sam Shaw and Jarman?" I can see why they might have refrained from guaranteeing Jarman until it was confirmed no clubs would go to the PSD, but there's no point playing quiet buggers if they aren't going to participate anyway! It's not like a smokey was going to pop up in the final two days.

 

[Grenville]

I agree the lack of communication is an issue here. Would it really have hurt them to say "we're not intending to select any more players except Sam Shaw and Jarman?" I can see why they might have refrained from guaranteeing Jarman until it was confirmed no clubs would go to the PSD, but there's no point playing quiet buggers if they aren't going to participate anyway! It's not like a smokey was going to pop up in the final two days.

May have been hoping one of the guys picked before us slid through?

 

[Elite Crow]

I reckon this is the influence of Rendell shining through Hamish. Rendell was always hot on not taking players unless he felt that they could become AFL players, even if they were literally free hits like the NSW Scholarship scheme.

It can't be cap-related. We just lost Dangerfield and Lyons and replaced them with guys on their rookie contracts. We were chasing Gibbs as well. And I don't buy the "the AFL might change the rules next season so we don't want to have too many players" argument.

I reckon the Crows just think this is a draft with very little depth, but don't want to be caught with their pants down when one of the late rookie picks turns into a gun and they didn't even think the rookie draft was worth participating in.

I agree the lack of communication is an issue here. Would it really have hurt them to say "we're not intending to select any more players except Sam Shaw and Jarman?" I can see why they might have refrained from guaranteeing Jarman until it was confirmed no clubs would go to the PSD, but there's no point playing quiet buggers if they aren't going to participate anyway! It's not like a smokey was going to pop up in the final two days.

Nah this was a strategy before the drafts. We went in thinking we were going to be 2 short on the list and you'd would assume only 1 short on the rookies not 2 like we have.

You don't come up with a strategy like that based on lack of talent as you don't know who will slide. This was a deep draft, a lot deeper than when we've used all our picks in the past.

Something odd is going on.

 

[marty36]

Nah this was a strategy before the drafts. We went in thinking we were going to be 2 short on the list and you'd would assume only 1 short on the rookies not 2 like we have.

You don't come up with a strategy like that based on lack of talent as you don't know who will slide. This was a deep draft, a lot deeper than when we've used all our picks in the past.

Something odd is going on.

Hammish must think we have a top 2 list and no point in fixing it if it isn't broken

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Hammish must think we have a top 2 list and no point in fixing it if it isn't broken

You need to trust Hamish that he has a good read on the players not selected

Your not going to advance the list by adding list cloggers just for the sake of filling a spot

It's not difficult to see that we are positioning our list for next years list changes

 

[Elite Crow]

You need to trust Hamish that he has a good read on the players not selected

Your not going to advance the list by adding list cloggers just for the sake of filling a spot

It's not difficult to see that we are positioning our list for next years list changes

But we can sign rookies for one year and I don't think this was Hamish's call. A drafter doesn't pass up picks in a strong draft, this was a list management decision that makes no sense.

 

[adelaidecrows]

You need to trust Hamish that he has a good read on the players not selected

Your not going to advance the list by adding list cloggers just for the sake of filling a spot

It's not difficult to see that we are positioning our list for next years list changes

There was definitely a massive eye on the future this year. The Crows probably took an unexpected approach to this off season. Where most teams in our position would have stocked up on mature age talent to try and fill holes in the best 22 to make a play for a Premiership in the next two seasons, the Crows have almost signalled they are playing the long game by stocking up on young talent to dare I say it, sure up a long sustained run at achieving success in the coming years. Nothing is guaranteed however with draftees and the approach could be a symptom of missed opportunity. But if it pays off, we could be in for one hell of a ride.

 

[marty36]

You need to trust Hamish that he has a good read on the players not selected

Your not going to advance the list by adding list cloggers just for the sake of filling a spot

It's not difficult to see that we are positioning our list for next years list changes

Hahaha premiership here we come thank god I am struggling to remember 1998

I'm sure Sydney weren't resting on their list picking Toby Pink at pick 55 in the rolokie draft

But yes let's trust hamish, he is the best man in the land to have a list capable of winning a premiership after all he has provided a bunch of superstar midfielders capable of being the next hawthorn, Geelong or Brisbane which dominated for years. Wonder where those recruiters that developed those lists are, probably sacked, not good enough

 

[Geoffa32]

Would have thought you don't pick a kid if you don't rate them. Seems all of the guys on our talent list were taken. So why bother taking someone you don't want just to fill a spot and waste resources....

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

Hahaha premiership here we come thank god I am struggling to remember 1998

I'm sure Sydney weren't resting on their list picking Toby Pink at pick 55 in the rolokie draft

But yes let's trust hamish, he is the best man in the land to have a list capable of winning a premiership after all he has provided a bunch of superstar midfielders capable of being the next hawthorn, Geelong or Brisbane which dominated for years. Wonder where those recruiters that developed those lists are, probably sacked, not good enough

You won't get that superstar mid in the Rookie Draft.....

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[GreyCrow]

I reckon the Crows just think this is a draft with very little depth.

Just wanted to query this. From all I read this was a very deep draft. Or was the depth only to a certain level?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Did other clubs not use their full quota of rookies?

 

[aneale]

Did other clubs not use their full quota of rookies?

A lot of Clubs are not going in to 2017 with a full list.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[baldandbroke]

Nah this was a strategy before the drafts. We went in thinking we were going to be 2 short on the list and you'd would assume only 1 short on the rookies not 2 like we have.

You don't come up with a strategy like that based on lack of talent as you don't know who will slide. This was a deep draft, a lot deeper than when we've used all our picks in the past.

Something odd is going on.

Agree EC. This is not just some whimsical seat of the pants decision.

I think the club's communication getting called out is a bit rich... Of all areas of business we might expect some secrecy around: the draft and the players we are into, and our plans around those things - should be kept in-house imo. That planning usually covers multiple years.

Something is definitely going on, and we shouldn't expect everything the club does to be an open book.

You need to trust Hamish that he has a good read on the players not selected

Your not going to advance the list by adding list cloggers just for the sake of filling a spot

It's not difficult to see that we are positioning our list for next years list changes

I think I read somewhere that Sydney would have got Davis in the rookie under an academy pick of we hadn't grabbed him in the ND... So maybe he was the other rookie pick we were going after?

Still doesn't explain the empty spots, so something is being planned that the club obviously doesn't want to discuss.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

A lot of Clubs are not going in to 2017 with a full list.

I know

Did any clubs not use their full quota of rookies though?

 

[Elite Crow]

Would have thought you don't pick a kid if you don't rate them. Seems all of the guys on our talent list were taken. So why bother taking someone you don't want just to fill a spot and waste resources....

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

This was a decision taken before the drafts started though

 

[Sanders]

You won't get that superstar mid in the Rookie Draft.....

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

Rory Sloane was available in the 2007 rookie draft

 

[aneale]

Agree EC. This is not just some whimsical seat of the pants decision.

I think the club's communication getting called out is a bit rich... Of all areas of business we might expect some secrecy around: the draft and the players we are into, and our plans around those things - should be kept in-house imo. That planning usually covers multiple years.

Something is definitely going on, and we shouldn't expect everything the club does to be an open book.


I think I read somewhere that Sydney would have got Davis in the rookie under an academy pick of we hadn't grabbed him in the ND... So maybe he was the other rookie pick we were going after?

Still doesn't explain the empty spots, so something is being planned that the club obviously doesn't want to discuss.

The Club is already on record as saying that Davis changed their strategy. We were going to stop at 4 and went with 5. We weren't going to pass on second round RD at that point.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

Rory Sloane was available in the 2007 rookie draft

And needed an extra year to be draft ready. As per the action of all 16 AFL teams .

Then taken pick 44 the following year.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk