Cogs and Lachie were our best two for the finals last year. (According to B&F votes ) both unavailable until round 6 and 8. Both will be sorely missed
List Mgmt. 2017 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy
- Thread starter coniglio_number1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Apologies for the intrusion lads, but how do you rate Zac Williams?
Very highly. That's why we re-signed him.
Very very good player. Cuts through traffic, uses the ball well.
Vital to the way we play, as we don't have much in the way of fancy ball movement through the wings, we rely heavily on Williams to break the lines coming out of D50 and create opportunities.
As opponent coach I'd think about playing a defensive forward on him
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #180
One of the bounties of having Shaw, Williams and Wilson in the backline at once is that they become impossible to shut down as a group, clamp one and the others are off the chain..
He is a vital cog in our machine for sure
Shaw is great but primarily a distributor rather than someone who moves through traffic. Wilson is good when he is on but not yet consistent.
IMO Williams the most important to our outcomes
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #182
Maybe the most damaging?
I get what you mean, he turns defence into attack almost at will sometimes, but the line doesn't work at all unless they work together.
- Nov 23, 2016
- 10,558
- 7,069
- AFL Club
- GWS
Think Wilsons problems were injury late in the season. Early in the season he was a devastating runner at times. Remember he was selected in front of Wilson who plays as the extra back. Not knocking Zac he's a great player.
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,965
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
GWS Giants to lose prized Albury zone as AFL shakes up process of drafting academy players
THE GWS Giants have lost a portion of their contentious academy zone while all northern teams could be subject to a radical change to recruiting zoned players through the draft beginning this year.
Under a revamped system which will impact all northern clubs, the ability to take academy recruits in the national draft would be tied to ladder position. Teams that finish in the top four would only be able to take one academy product in the top 20 of the draft.
While the details are still being clarified, Fox Sports understands the Giants will lose part of their southern NSW zone including Albury, which provided the club with three talented youngsters in 2016.
The territory lost is defined as the Murray area, but the specifics — besides Albury — have not been ironed out.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/gws...s/news-story/b055b73b60d1c52c33e9c767b73a4877
THE GWS Giants have lost a portion of their contentious academy zone while all northern teams could be subject to a radical change to recruiting zoned players through the draft beginning this year.
Under a revamped system which will impact all northern clubs, the ability to take academy recruits in the national draft would be tied to ladder position. Teams that finish in the top four would only be able to take one academy product in the top 20 of the draft.
While the details are still being clarified, Fox Sports understands the Giants will lose part of their southern NSW zone including Albury, which provided the club with three talented youngsters in 2016.
The territory lost is defined as the Murray area, but the specifics — besides Albury — have not been ironed out.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/gws...s/news-story/b055b73b60d1c52c33e9c767b73a4877
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,261
- 42,106
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,861
- 17,574
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #186
Surely not. That's traditional!
Must be frustrating for the juniors who have been in the system for 2-3 years and hopefully the local clubs can receive more funding from the AFL to ensure an elite development program can continue and we still see what the region can produce
It's come a tad late but here is an article highlighting how harder thing will be for some with no giants academy in certain areas now
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...r-western-sydney-academy-20170316-guzz1j.html
Sorry to intrude, and take this with a grain of salt as Damo is an absolute oxygen thief who'll regularly spew out anything for a headline but he reported earlier tonight that St. Kilda are into Whitfield big time - anyone heard anything about this before? And any thoughts?
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #190
Not heard before though we all know the story that saints have a salary cap warchest to spend at the end of the year.
Lachie would seem likely to stay at this point, depends how he feels the club has dealt with his latest issue I guess in terms of wanting out.
I think it's more that saints are very keen to land a big fish and so anyone potentially moving is going to be linked with them
Last edited:
Saints threw around some big numbers before he re signed last season, five years on very good coin.
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #192
Also contracted until the end of next year, so if a move at the end of this year is touted it would get expensive
It is a long way out but with the changes to the academy and how that effects the clubs trade and draft strategy
I would have put Brander as almost a lock with not much depth and I could see a need to spread the age profile with Lobb/Patton and Cameron all the same age and all deserving increased salary on the next contracts it may be a risk to the club although if Lobb moves to a full time ruck that would provide an opportunity to develop another tall.
I could see Spargo if he stayed with the academy with changes taking effect for the following draft (unlikely) being in a similar position to Macreadie in that although linked to the club for some reason he ends up somewhere else although rumours regarding Smith could open up an opportunity for a small forward
I would have put Brander as almost a lock with not much depth and I could see a need to spread the age profile with Lobb/Patton and Cameron all the same age and all deserving increased salary on the next contracts it may be a risk to the club although if Lobb moves to a full time ruck that would provide an opportunity to develop another tall.
I could see Spargo if he stayed with the academy with changes taking effect for the following draft (unlikely) being in a similar position to Macreadie in that although linked to the club for some reason he ends up somewhere else although rumours regarding Smith could open up an opportunity for a small forward
Spargo is a likely type and an academy boy so of course I want him. But if we can't then I would love to see him at North. There shouldn't be a game limit on father sons.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,861
- 17,574
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #195
My view would be that Brander should have been the standout first selection for GWS in the 2017 draft, unless he absolutely crashed in the recruiters' opinion (such as Sproule did in 2016). We need to start looking to the next KPF after Jezza and the General - in a normal environment (i.e. not GWS 2012-215), it will take them several years to develop to first grade standard. While GWS would have naturally wanted Charlie Spargo also (and especially if Dev Smith were to leave), I should think that there are other small forward options such that he would have been the second priority.
This decision certainly changes how GWS approaches the draft this year and in future. Limiting us to one academy selection even if we have more first round picks is dumb in my opinion (fair enough if we only start with a single first round selection), and is an unnecessary constraint to drafting NSW/ACT talent when other constraints could have been applied. In some years we might be better to completely ignore local talent to go for 'best available' across the whole draft.
We will have to see how the academy crop develops throughout this year for the 2017 draft. With Brander & Spargo out, the other known/rated Giants Academy kids thus far include Jack Powell (Canberra, so he should stay in - a small midfielder/forward), Nathan Richards (Griffith - have to see if that's in or out but hopefully it's far enough north to remain in - ruck/forward) & Alex Paech (Walla Walla - have to see if that's in or out - a KP prospect). Hopefully some other options show some worth, but given the 1000 point draft penalty, we might actually take somewhat of a back seat in the draft and just try to retain our current guys. Suspect Powell, Richards & Paech are no higher than second round picks but obviously we'll have to see how everyone goes throughout 2017.
This decision certainly changes how GWS approaches the draft this year and in future. Limiting us to one academy selection even if we have more first round picks is dumb in my opinion (fair enough if we only start with a single first round selection), and is an unnecessary constraint to drafting NSW/ACT talent when other constraints could have been applied. In some years we might be better to completely ignore local talent to go for 'best available' across the whole draft.
We will have to see how the academy crop develops throughout this year for the 2017 draft. With Brander & Spargo out, the other known/rated Giants Academy kids thus far include Jack Powell (Canberra, so he should stay in - a small midfielder/forward), Nathan Richards (Griffith - have to see if that's in or out but hopefully it's far enough north to remain in - ruck/forward) & Alex Paech (Walla Walla - have to see if that's in or out - a KP prospect). Hopefully some other options show some worth, but given the 1000 point draft penalty, we might actually take somewhat of a back seat in the draft and just try to retain our current guys. Suspect Powell, Richards & Paech are no higher than second round picks but obviously we'll have to see how everyone goes throughout 2017.
Determinant
Moderator
- Jan 9, 2012
- 7,454
- 6,807
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #196
Tend to agree, but is it known that we can only take one academy selection? My belief was that it would be one at a discount, and that we were as entitled as anyone else to pick them, just using a live pick and not matching a bid, effectively we would have a far greater insight to the kids and know if picking them at a certain point was a vaule selection or not.
Ongoing salary cap and list balancing, lack of opportunity etc will mean we should be trading in first round selections for a while yet.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,861
- 17,574
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #197
OK, thanks Determinant, I wasn't thinking that way when I posted my comment so you are right. We could still lose a guy by one place and be forced to choose an interstate draftee - but that's what everyone else has to deal with. I get the angst of the rest of the comp, so don't have any qualms about making the academies be more equalised, but still think that GWS needs to build its percentage of local talent to be viable long term. As you say, we'll just have to work out whether players left at our choices are value selections or not - which is what SA & WA clubs have to do now.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...r-western-sydney-academy-20170316-guzz1j.html
Interesting read and I will add my own opinion that the article seems sensationalised although it will be interesting to see what happens in the area with the players who have been tied to the academy and if it is changed immediately or rolled out over 2 years. From the article it does seem to be an immediate change
Interesting read and I will add my own opinion that the article seems sensationalised although it will be interesting to see what happens in the area with the players who have been tied to the academy and if it is changed immediately or rolled out over 2 years. From the article it does seem to be an immediate change
Look I think we have brushed the Whitfield rumor off quite quickly... ordinarily I would say currently contracted and playing ones (when available) so no dramas. And when I look at other instances (pies and bombers) the majority of players re sign with the club after drama like this but the thing that has me stuck is the part that suggests he is dis-satisfied with the clubs handling of it and that would suggest he might walk come season end
Lot of water to go under the bridge yet but I would be keen to see whether this gathers momentum or not
Lot of water to go under the bridge yet but I would be keen to see whether this gathers momentum or not
- Status
