It's probably too late for poor Sam Siggins now but I hope he is getting the help and treatment he needs to recover as well.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Sam Shaw still at AFC
- Thread starter SellarStardom
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
WaynesWorld19
Post-Human
Sam Shaw, a Rookie ? ........so you're telling me, there's a chance?
Actually we're only one player short. We have 39 on the senior list, 4 cat A rookies, plus 2 cat B rookies.
Saying that we went one short in both drafts is double counting the same vacancy. The pick we passed on in the RD only existed because we passed in the ND. It's the same pick, passed on twice.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Who are our 4 category A rookies? Hunter and Beech, you can't count Shaw.
And you make no sense, the picks in the ND and Rookoe draft are not related to each other.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Ok I was wrong about not being related but he is wrong with his numbers and we are not double counting.
We have 39 on our senior list meaning we could have 5 category A rookies. We have 2 category A rookies plus Shaw, so we are effectively 3 players short.
It's odd. Can only assume they saw nothing worth while in the draft. Next seasons draft is supposed to be really good isn't it? plus next years FA. keeping list spots for the future is my guess.
That can't be it, we made the call to go in short before the draft, originally was going to be 2 short and I dare say we would have taken 1 rookie if we did.
This is all about the numbers and not about the quality.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 95,601
- 105,149
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
We could have had another Cat A rookie on top of Shaw (or used our last spot in the national draft) & we could have another Cat B rookie.
dogs105
Sweet Kennels Proprietor
A: Hunter, Beech, Jarman, (Shaw)
B: Keath, Greenwood
We would/could have one category A vacancy.
You prove my point overtime! Love it!Says the jerk who brought no new information to the table and clarified nothing
Really cleared things up
Thats a good thought Ozzie - its possibly not - and is worth looking at if Sam Siggins is still needing support.
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,648
- 3,468
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood
How can it not have an impact - we were always going 2 short? Why plan for a reduction in list size that may not happen. Shit call by Reid.
Is it really? Roughly half the clubs in the competition have taken the same approach, including powerhouse clubs such as Sydney & Hawthorn. Only 6 of 18 clubs have full senior lists, and only 10 of 18 have full lists (44 players) if you count senior + Cat A rookies.
You would assume that the clubs would have a reasonable idea of what's coming in the new CBA... if/when it ever arrives. They don't know for certain, but they've been given a general idea. They've obviously been told to expect the merging of the rookie & senior lists, with a reduction in overall player numbers. They also know that it's going to contain improved welfare provisions for ex-players (hence the decision to rookie list Shaw).
If the lists are merged, then they will presumably go to a single draft. No more PSD & RD. I'm assuming that they would also increase the minimum number of draftees to be taken by each club - currently this stands at 3, and includes rookie upgrades. Rookie upgrades will no longer exist, so we're probably looking at a minimum of 4 brand new draftees every year, possibly 5. In the first year of the reduced list sizes we'd have to cull the list by more than 4 players. For example, if they reduce list sizes from 44 to 42, with a minimum of 4 draftees, then we would have to remove 6 players from the list. Going into the year with 1 vacancy already created reduces that to 5 players delisted/retired/traded.
It could prove to be a very smart call, or it could prove to be a very dumb call. Depends on what's in the new CBA.
Not a shit call by Reid, if he even made the call.
The Crows can only start the year with 44 players on the list. Cat B are outside the count.
They currently have 43, this allows them to upgrade a Cat B rookies without waiting for a Long term injury (LTI) and not exceed the count of 44.
Crows are one of, if not the only AFL club with 2 Cat B rookies capable of Playing AFL football in 2017. (most have 1 capable of playing AFL)
They can start the season with a list of 44 by adding Greenwood, and also in Keath they have a very good backup if the Crows need to cover KPD as Shaw can be classed as a LTI even on the rookie list allowing Keath to return to the Cat A list when the LTI returns.
And I have been informed there are different rules regarding upgrading Cat B rookie.
Its very rare to see 2 Cat B rookies Upgrade in one season, the Crows have left the door open for two to be Upgraded without the need of a LTI on the main List. ie mid-season rookie upgrade for the 2nd one.
In simpler terms the Crows by going 1 short have brought into play every rookie on the List for selection in round 1 that's 5 players. and they can add 1 more mid-season.
Looking at Both Greenwood and Keath is that a bad move or a very good move.
Niximus
Brownlow Medallist
Crows do nothing and it happens.
"They knew it was likely, why didn't they plan for it??"
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
The Club is still in contact with Sam and providing assistance when needed.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
Also what isn't being mentioned by Reid and would never be mentioned to the media is who is out of contract this coming year. I bet we are planning for increases in TTP for next year due to new contract signings.
Why not keep Ramsey on for another year? What's the downside?
What possible reason do we have for not giving a young guy a 12 month rookie contract?
The list size might change in 2018? That's a joke - either you cut the rookie if he hasn't impressed or best case he has impressed ala a Laird or Cameron and you cut someone else.
It's been explained by 6BTS in the 2016 Rookie Draft thread.
Put simply, if we filled the rookie list (i.e. not passing), then we couldn't upgrade a Cat B rookie to the senior list next year. Given that many people (myself included) think Greenwood has a very good chance of playing in 2017, it would appear that they made a wise decision.
The maximum number of players you can have on the list is 40 senior + 4 Cat A rookies, total 44 players. We currently have a total of 43 (39+4). Upgrading a Cat B rookie (i.e. Greenwood) takes us to 40+4, which is permitted. If we'd taken that 5th rookie, we'd be at 39+5, with no positions free for the Cat B upgrade.
If that is the reason fair enough. Has it been confirmed by anyone?
WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THE CLUB JUST SAY THAT THEN INSTEAD OF WAFFLING ON ABOUT LIST SIZES IN 2018 AND WE WERE ALWAYS PASSING?
