Prediction 2016 Rookie Draft

[Elite Crow]

We have three category A rookies: Beech, Hunter and Jarman. Shaw is also on there, technically increasing the number to 4.

Senior List = 39 players
Rookie List = 4 players (3 + Shaw) 1 Short
Cat B Rookie List = 2 Players
Total = 45 players

Ahh forgot about Jarman so we are 2 short.

 

[Scorpus]

Ahh forgot about Jarman so we are 2 short.

If you don't count Shaw we are 2 short. But we are actually 1 short with Shaw having effectively retired immediately at the start of the 2017 season

 

[Danger in Texas]

We're only one short. 39+4+2.

You're double counting the single vacancy. We passed in both the ND and the RD, but that's not two vacancies - it's one vacancy, passed twice. The RD vacancy would not have existed if we didn't pass in the ND.

No, I'm counting Shaw as one of the vacancies. Obviously there's a reason we've rookie listed him (welfare), but we're still down two players for the season.

 

[dogs105]

No, I'm counting Shaw as one of the vacancies. Obviously there's a reason we've rookie listed him (welfare), but we're still down two players for the season.

You could say that we're 2 short, but could have picked up a maximum of one more.

I kinda wish we had.

 

[Danger in Texas]

You could say that we're 2 short, but could have picked up a maximum of one more.

I kinda wish we had.

There's obviously a reason we (and a number of other clubs) didn't, who knows what that reason is though. Lot of different explanations being given out by Reid, Burtenshaw etc.

 

[ad victoriam]

No, I'm counting Shaw as one of the vacancies. Obviously there's a reason we've rookie listed him (welfare), but we're still down two players for the season.

Or we are up 1 as we are one of the few clubs that have 2 Cat B rookie capable of Playing AFL football in 2017. One can be Promoted straight away to the main list.
ie Greenwood gets promoted, Then we Have 40 on the main plus 4 rookies, a List of 44 plus 1 Cat B. And we can still chase another Cat B

 

[Danger in Texas]

Or we are up 1 as we are one of the few clubs that have 2 Cat B rookie capable of Playing AFL football in 2017. One can be Promoted straight away to the main list.
ie Greenwood gets promoted, Then we Have 40 on the main plus 4 rookies, a List of 44 plus 1 Cat B. And we can still chase another Cat B

In reality though, Cat B's should be a bonus. After all, every Cat B is on that list because they haven't played footy in three years.

We're very lucky we've got a very good prospect in Greenwood, and another potentially good prospect in Keath as Cat B's

 

[ad victoriam]

In reality though, Cat B's should be a bonus. After all, every Cat B is on that list because they haven't played footy in three years.

We're very lucky we've got a very good prospect in Greenwood, and another potentially good prospect in Keath as Cat B's

And a good reason why I reckon they are willing to go into the season short, They even have coverage for Shaw in Keath as a KPD if needed.
Be interesting to know the reason why they went short from the club, but I can understand why they are tight lipped about it. To pinch a Rowie quote "all I am hearing is crickets."
I do know one thing we have a few possible Cat B rookie getting closer next year from the academy. Would not surprise me if there is a plan in action around getting them.

 

[6BTS]

This is an amazing discussion. If the club came out and said "We didn't rate anyone remaining available at our second round rookie draft pick highly enough to add to our list" then we have our answer. Instead, one of the answers I got was that the Crows "Had to" pass on the 2nd round pick because Jarman had to be taken with the last pick. This was from the club itself. It's like they don't understand what we are asking. I tried to make it as clear as possible and have asked why we chose to not fill the remaining 1 Cat A rookie spot, I'll wait and see if I get an answer which isn't ambiguous, vague or unrelated to the specific nature of my question. I'm starting to think the AFC have real issues communicating to the public, would love to ask Fagan why it's so hard to get this simple question answered, why did we not use our 2nd round rookie draft pick to fill our Cat A rookie list to capacity?

 

[6BTS]

Okay, just got an answer from the club which makes sense (finally). By having one less spot filled on the rookie list, the club can upgrade any rookie, Cat A or Cat B to their senior list at anytime. For example, if they want to upgrade Keath, they can do this because we would then have 40 players on our senior list and as per the rules, if we have 40 players on our senior list we are only allowed to have 4 Category A rookies instead of 5 when the senior list capacity was at 39. This means we don't have to wait for the off chance that someone is put on the long term injury list.

I get the feeling the club thinks there is a chance they will want to upgrade Keath or Greenwood at some stage next season. They wouldn't be able to do this unless someone is put on the long term injury list and had filled all the Cat A rookie spots.

 

[Carmo]

Okay, just got an answer from the club which makes sense (finally). By having one less spot filled on the rookie list, the club can upgrade any rookie, Cat A or Cat B to their senior list at anytime. For example, if they want to upgrade Keath, they can do this because we would then have 40 players on our senior list and as per the rules, if we have 40 players on our senior list we are only allowed to have 4 Category A rookies instead of 5 when the senior list capacity was at 39.

I get the feeling the club thinks there is a chance they will want to upgrade Keath or Greenwood at some stage next season. They wouldn't be able to do this unless someone is put on the long term injury list and had filled all the Cat A rookie spots.

They've also said that Beech and even Hunter is worthy of upgrade consideration as well

 

[6BTS]

They've also said that Beech and even Hunter is worthy of upgrade consideration as well

Because they would come from the Category A rookie list, that would automatically reduce the number of Cat A rookies we have in line with what is allowed. The added flexibility is so they can potentially upgrade a Cat B rookie specifically. They already had the flexibility with Cat A rookies regardless if they filled up our Cat A rookie list to capacity.

 

[cmndstab]

Rory Sloane was available in the 2007 rookie draft

No he wasn't. Back in 2007 the national and rookie drafts had different age restrictions, and Sloane was too young to be eligible for the rookie draft. I remember thinking it was stupid as hell that the so-called "rookie" draft had a higher minimum age than the national draft.

We were intending to take him in the ND but the way the draft unfolded, we ended up with a lot of smalls, so for the last live pick (not counting Walker since he was able to be selected with the final pick) Rendell went to the next tall on his talent order which ended up being Aaron Kite.

Fortunately, he slid through to us in 2008. Even then, it's not like he was a Pavlich case that went at #4 next year. Obviously plenty of clubs still didn't like him for whatever reason.

 

[Bicks]

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.

Are you serious??

Not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions Hamish is on record as saying this was a particularly strong and deep National draft, ask anyone that's taken even just a cursory glance at the proceeding over the last month or so.

 

[Paladin]

Are you serious??

Not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions Hamish is on record as saying this was a particularly strong and deep National draft, ask anyone that's just taken even just a cursory glance at the proceeding over the last month or so.

Yep I bet Hamish was itching for a rookie pick or 2. It's Telling that Reid has been doing the explaining (poorly) not Hamish.

 

[Vader]

Okay, just got an answer from the club which makes sense (finally). By having one less spot filled on the rookie list, the club can upgrade any rookie, Cat A or Cat B to their senior list at anytime. For example, if they want to upgrade Keath, they can do this because we would then have 40 players on our senior list and as per the rules, if we have 40 players on our senior list we are only allowed to have 4 Category A rookies instead of 5 when the senior list capacity was at 39. This means we don't have to wait for the off chance that someone is put on the long term injury list.

I get the feeling the club thinks there is a chance they will want to upgrade Keath or Greenwood at some stage next season. They wouldn't be able to do this unless someone is put on the long term injury list and had filled all the Cat A rookie spots.

They still haven't answered the question. They've explained why we went one-short on the senior list. There is still no explanation as to why we went one-short on the rookie list.

 

[6BTS]

They still haven't answered the question. They've explained why we went one-short on the senior list. There is still no explanation as to why we went one-short on the rookie list.

If they didn't go short on the Cat A rookie list, meaning we have 5 Cat A rookies then we couldn't upgrade a Cat B rookie. Example, if we upgrade Keath, we would then have 40 players on the senior list and when you have 40 players on the senior list you are only allowed to have 4 Cat A rookies. 38 senior listed players means you can have the maximum 6 Cat A rookies, 39 means you can only have 5 Cat A rookies and 40 means you can only have 4 Cat A rookies. If we have 5 Cat A rookies, we could only upgrade a rookie from our Cat A rookie list (1 player moves off the Cat A rookie list reducing the number of Cat A rookies by 1 and increasing the senior list to the maximum 40) and not one of our Cat B rookies who are separate from the rule that states how many Cat A rookies you can have dependent on how many senior list spots you have filled. Upgrading Keath means there is no reduction in our Cat A list from 5 to 4 and we can only have 4 (which we have now) if we upgrade a rookie.

If that has made sense, then the reason for going one short is to give them the flexibility to upgrade any rookie, Cat A or Cat B, at any time during next season. They want the flexibility to upgrade Keath or Greenwood, they clearly have the thinking that one of them might be at the stage to make their AFL debut next year and they'll have to upgrade them to the senior list, giving us the 40 capacity. This way they don't have to wait for a long term injury to a senior player.

Make sense or have I made that too confusing? Apologies if I made it too confusing.

 

[DJ75]

Yep I bet Hamish was itching for a rookie pick or 2. It's Telling that Reid has been doing the explaining (poorly) not Hamish.

I really hope Reid is a lot better behind doors than he is in front of the camera, because his camera work is very ordinary.

 

[Vader]

If they didn't go short on the Cat A rookie list, meaning we have 5 Cat A rookies then we couldn't upgrade a Cat B rookie. Example, if we upgrade Keath, we would then have 40 players on the senior list and when you have 40 players on the senior list you are only allowed to have 4 Cat A rookies. 38 senior listed players means you can have the maximum 6 Cat A rookies, 39 means you can only have 5 Cat A rookies and 40 means you can only have 4 Cat A rookies. If we have 5 Cat A rookies, we could only upgrade a rookie from our Cat A rookie list (1 player moves off the Cat A rookie list reducing the number of Cat A rookies by 1 and increasing the senior list to the maximum 40) and not one of our Cat B rookies who are separate from the rule that states how many Cat A rookies you can have dependent on how many senior list spots you have filled. Upgrading Keath means there is no reduction in our Cat A list from 5 to 4 and we can only have 4 (which we have now) if we upgrade a rookie.

If that has made sense, then the reason for going one short is to give them the flexibility to upgrade any rookie, Cat A or Cat B, at any time during next season. They want the flexibility to upgrade Keath or Greenwood, they clearly have the thinking that one of them might be at the stage to make their AFL debut next year and they'll have to upgrade them to the senior list, giving us the 40 capacity. This way they don't have to wait for a long term injury to a senior player.

Make sense or have I made that too confusing? Apologies if I made it too confusing.

That doesn't make any sense, unless you have to promote a Cat B rookie to Cat A before promoting them to the senior list. This would require a vacancy on the Cat A rookie list, for the Cat B to pass through - albeit instantaneously.

Is there a rule saying that a Cat B rookie can't be promoted directly to the senior list? It's a seriously dumb rule if it does exist - but then again, the AFL specialises in monumental stupidity. Gil & Vlad both seem to have PhDs in monumental stupid decisions and poor judgement.

 

[6BTS]

That doesn't make any sense, unless you have to promote a Cat B rookie to Cat A before promoting them to the senior list. This would require a vacancy on the Cat A rookie list, for the Cat B to pass through - albeit instantaneously.

Is there a rule saying that a Cat B rookie can't be promoted directly to the senior list? It's a seriously dumb rule if it does exist - but then again, the AFL specialises in monumental stupidity. Gil & Vlad both seem to have PhDs in monumental stupid decisions and poor judgement.

Cat B and Cat A have different rules.
The number of Cat A players you can have are directly related to how many players you have on your senior list.
When you promote a Cat B player to your senior list you are not reducing the number of Cat A rookies you have.
If we promote a Cat B player to the senior list, giving us 40 senior listed players, the rule is that you can only have 4 Cat A rookies if you have 40 senior listed players.
The promotion of a Cat B player to the senior list doesn't reduce the number of Cat A players we have, we still have 4 Cat A players.
If we promoted a Cat A player to the senior list we would automatically have one less Cat A player which would fall in line with the rules.
In Keath and Greenwood's case, if one is promoted we wouldn't reduce the number of Cat A rookies we have because they aren't Cat A rookies.
The rule basically is you're allowed a maximum of 44 players on your Senior list and Category A list added together (with a maximum of 6 Cat A rookies). Cat B list is a maximum of 3 and operates outside of the 44 player rule while they remain on the Cat B list.
If we did pick the max number of 5 Cat A rookies we are allowed with our current 39 senior players, we would have a total of 44 senior + Cat A rookie players.
The promotion of a Cat B would blow that number out to 45.
We currently have a total of 43 because we went 1 short with our Cat A rookie capacity.
The promotion of Keath would make that number 44 which is the maximum allowed.
If we had 44 right now, we couldn't promote Keath and make that number 45.
Maxing out the capacity of Cat A rookies means we don't have the ability to promote Keath or Greenwood at any stage next season barring long term injury.

In other words, if we do promote Keath or Greenwood, the current number of 4 Cat A rookies would become the maximum number of Cat A rookies we are allowed to have because our senior list would increased from 39 to 40. You're not allowed to increase your senior list + Cat A number to over 44 just because you decide you want to promote a Cat B rookie. You need that extra space on the Cat A list (or 2 senior list vacancies instead of our current 1 vacancy) to possibly go from 43 total player to 44 if you promote a Cat B rookie.

I should point out here that I'm not talking about promoting a Cat B rookie to a Cat A rookie. If we did fill our Cat A rookie list to capacity of 5, we still have had the ability to promote a Cat A rookie to the senior list. We chose to have the flexibility to also possibly promote a Cat B rookie.

It probably makes more sense to think of it the way you described it, a Cat B rookie must be promoted to a Cat A rookie before they can be promoted to the senior list. However, the actual rule is that Cat B rookies can be promoted directly to the senior list, but a club can't have over 44 senior listed + Cat A rookie listed players.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm able to explain this better than I have. Also, this rule makes sense to me, AFL club's are not allowed to have more than 44 players total on their senior list and Cat A rookie list added together. You don't get to increase your list numbers above 44 by promoting Cat B rookies to the senior list, it's the reason they have this rule.

 

[Crowfoot]

Cat B and Cat A have different rules.
The number of Cat A players you can have are directly related to how many players you have on your senior list.
When you promote a Cat B player to your senior list you are not reducing the number of Cat A rookies you have.
If we promote a Cat B player to the senior list, giving us 40 senior listed players, the rule is that you can only have 4 Cat A rookies if you have 40 senior listed players.
The promotion of a Cat B player to the senior list doesn't reduce the number of Cat A players we have, we still have 4 Cat A players.
If we promoted a Cat A player to the senior list we would automatically have one less Cat A player which would fall in line with the rules.
In Keath and Greenwood's case, if one is promoted we wouldn't reduce the number of Cat A rookies we have because they aren't Cat A rookies.
The rule basically is you're allowed a maximum of 44 players on your Senior list and Category A list added together (with a maximum of 6 Cat A rookies). Cat B list is a maximum of 3 and operates outside of the 44 player rule while they remain on the Cat B list.
If we did pick the max number of 5 Cat A rookies we are allowed with our current 39 senior players, we would have a total of 44 senior + Cat A rookie players.
The promotion of a Cat B would blow that number out to 45.
We currently have a total of 43 because we went 1 short with our Cat A rookie capacity.
The promotion of Keath would make that number 44 which is the maximum allowed.
If we had 44 right now, we couldn't promote Keath and make that number 45.
Maxing out the capacity of Cat A rookies means we don't have the ability to promote Keath or Greenwood at any stage next season barring long term injury.

In other words, if we do promote Keath or Greenwood, the current number of 4 Cat A rookies would become the maximum number of Cat A rookies we are allowed to have because our senior list would increased from 39 to 40. You're not allowed to increase your senior list + Cat A number to over 44 just because you decide you want to promote a Cat B rookie. You need that extra space on the Cat A list (or 2 senior list vacancies instead of our current 1 vacancy) to possibly go from 43 total player to 44 if you promote a Cat B rookie.

I should point out here that I'm not talking about promoting a Cat B rookie to a Cat A rookie. If we did fill our Cat A rookie list to capacity of 5, we still have had the ability to promote a Cat A rookie to the senior list. We chose to have the flexibility to also possibly promote a Cat B rookie.

It probably makes more sense to think of it the way you described it, a Cat B rookie must be promoted to a Cat A rookie before they can be promoted to the senior list. However, the actual rule is that Cat B rookies can be promoted directly to the senior list, but a club can't have over 44 senior listed + Cat A rookie listed players.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm able to explain this better than I have. Also, this rule makes sense to me, AFL club's are not allowed to have more than 44 players total on their senior list and Cat A rookie list added together. You don't get to increase your list numbers above 44 by promoting Cat B rookies to the senior list, it's the reason they have this rule.

Thanks 6BTS.

Now why couldn't the club have said this and saved all of the confusion? Communication hasn't been great from the Crows lately.

 

[GreyCrow]

Do we all agree that:

1. this is a definite strategic path

but I am more intrigued than outraged at this stage.

My birthday is close to xmas. One year I got a smallish birthday present , and while I am happy to get something it didn't feel the same. UNTIL XMAS DAY WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO baby did I get the goods. 10 speed racer with all the trimmings.

So I am intrigued to see whats coming up.

 

[GreyCrow]

If you don't count Shaw we are 2 short. But we are actually 1 short with Shaw having effectively retired immediately at the start of the 2017 season

As long as Thompson doesn't join him in the 1st 6 weeks

 

[6BTS]

Thanks 6BTS.

Now why couldn't the club have said this and saved all of the confusion? Communication hasn't been great from the Crows lately.

Agreed

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So is that the reason?

Leaving our list as is means that we can promote Keath/Greenwood onto the senior list during the season, whereas if we'd taken an extra player in the rookie draft we couldn't?

If so that does make sense.

Although it then paints the Shaw decision in a different light. When it was a compassionate use of a list spot we weren't planning on using that's one thing but if it prevents us from taking a rookie...?