Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2013 DRAFT

  • Thread starter Thread starter HARKER
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Thought someone was taking the piss when you listed Colling, I mean Cameron, Wood. Lets hope he turns out better than that other Ruckman named Cameron we got from the Pies (insert shudder here). First seeds of doubt creeping in ....
 
Sublime said:
Wood isn't a bad insurance policy. Has All experience and a mature body. Better than having an 18 year old rookie ruck as backup. No point getting an 18 year old ruck just for the hell of it if we don't rate any. Wood can do a job, all we need.
Click to expand...

Suppose it's cheaper than the last 204cm+ ruck we sold the farm for.:cool:
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

A_McKay said:
Think Wood looked OK when I saw him playing on TV.

Stats

Not missing out on much after we passed in the PSD.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Second round pick in the rookie draft for a decent performed ruckman in the VFL.
Will only play if something happens to Kreuzer and Warnock.
 
HBF said:
Exactly.
Second round pick in the rookie draft for a decent performed ruckman in the VFL.
Will only play if something happens to Kreuzer and Warnock.
Click to expand...
Sincerely hope he is never required to play at the senior level.
 
Sin City said:
It's a very good pick. Blaine is a good player. Nice kick, good mark and goal sense. Kicked five goal in the reserves GF, had 18 touches, 3 goals and 4 tackles in his second WAFL seniors game. Is actually a Tassie boy so he's got some hardness about him.
Click to expand...
What are the knocks on Johnson after we picked him with our last pick?

It's interesting that we used our second pick on Wood. Another club may have been interested.
 
Sin City said:
What pick the changed man go at again? :D
Click to expand...

Looks like that nonsense is settled once and for all.
hallelujah.jpg
 
HARKER said:
The only reason we would have taken Wood is for us to have a competitive ruck-man at the NB's.

I know that may not coming off as much sense at face value but it's obvious that without a competitive ruck-man at this level, our mids don't get as much opportunity.

We're clearly not into building rucks as much as we are making sure that the mids get plenty of opportunity. For this reason it makes sense.
Click to expand...



So you are expecting Warnock and Kreuzer to be playing the majority of 2014 in the same team/only one of the two being available at any one time ???
 
Won't pretend to be thrilled with Wood, but in the break glass in case of emergency scenario he's not the worst we could be calling on.

Other two look handy enough. Good by foot, strong in the air and competitors.
 
No Kane Lambert........for anyone.

No Mitch Thorp............for anyone either.[/quote]

Can't believe that Kane Lambert could not grab a rookie spot. Do these guys even watch the ressies? We kept Collins for 2 years and he as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
 
What do we want dopey spud cam wood for?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Remove this Banner Ad

HARKER said:
The only reason we would have taken Wood is for us to have a competitive ruck-man at the NB's.

I know that may not coming off as much sense at face value but it's obvious that without a competitive ruck-man at this level, our mids don't get as much opportunity.

We're clearly not into building rucks as much as we are making sure that the mids get plenty of opportunity. For this reason it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Was just coming online to say the same thing.

This will allow Cripps, Graham, Temay.... and whoever else we have playing seconds a chance at first use of the ball. He plays in roughly the same manner as Robbie, so it will be great training and a solid insurance policy.

Considering nobody else selected a ruck in the rookie draft shows you there was no depth in that position.

Sin, got one of the men you were after I see. :)
 
Moody Blue said:
Can't believe that Kane Lambert could not grab a rookie spot. Do these guys even watch the ressies? We kept Collins for 2 years and he as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
Click to expand...
Collins has more AFL talent than Lambert. Don't see Lambert coming in and kicking three goals against the Swans, Dogs, Lions, etc.

Few small mids make it in the AFL. Ellard's VFL form was just as good as Lambert's. Yet he isn't a best 22 player. Plus Ellard is possibly more of an in and under player than Lambert. Another VFL superstar like Myles Sewell who had an online fanclub.
 
Kano :(

Lots of kids I expected to get a shot didn't. Tsitas, Hourigan, Gibbons etc. Gotta feel for the kids that missed out. Keep trying hard and you could become the next Barlow.
 
Was pretty surprised and shocked to see Wood in there. But lets be honest he is in there as insurance for the case if both Kruezer and Warnock go down with injury. He wont get a game before either Rowe/Casboult as the 2nd ruck/fwd role so will only play if the worst happens.

Has an AFL ready body so probably better than an under done young ruckman.

Other guys sound alright but maybe 3-4cms too short for my liking if we are going 3rd tall type forwards
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

These picks are potential and they potentially add flexibility to the team which is the current fad if you want to play AFL. These medium talls or utility sized players if you like give the coach a lot of player options between half forward and half back.

Plus the current 'formula' is that teams really only want to go in with two dedicated tall forwards (one being a back up ruck if you don't have a ruck who can play forward well) and a rotating ruck, so having medium forwards who can take a grab and kick long goals are good sidekicks to have (we all know too many smalls doesn't work and too many talls wont keep the ball in the F50), especially with Mick's long kicking game plan.

Pretty simple really; Mick is recruiting players who have the attributes to play to his plan.
 
BlueTongue said:
OK The Rookie draft confuses the crap outta me.
Can someone please explain why we passed on our first 2 selections before recruiting 6 more rookies? (I assume the 2 internationals don't count towards the rookie tally?)
Click to expand...


Self explanatory.

 
BlueTongue said:
OK The Rookie draft confuses the crap outta me.
Can someone please explain why we passed on our first 2 selections before recruiting 6 more rookies? (I assume the 2 internationals don't count towards the rookie tally?)
Click to expand...


primary lists can be 38-40 players. we had already had the minimum 38 players and didnt want additional players (probably salary cap reasons and in stead use rookie picks to select further players)
 
BlueTongue said:
OK The Rookie draft confuses the crap outta me.
Can someone please explain why we passed on our first 2 selections before recruiting 6 more rookies? (I assume the 2 internationals don't count towards the rookie tally?)
Click to expand...
You can have one international rookie outside the list of 44.

The 44 players can consist of 38senior/6rookies, 39senior/5rookies, 40senior/4rookies.

With 38senior you can have two nominated rookies and the rest can be added if there's a LTI.

Rookies cost less and can be delisted after a year...a better option in a weak draft.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom