List Mgmt. 2023 List Management thread

[Snuffaluphagus]

Mod notice after Mr Bob did a lot of annoying work in moving days of posts out of here. As we are heading into offseason, this thread is for 2023 list management only. Getting upset on previous trades can be taken to the vent thread. Lets keep this thread on track in the part of the year it's actually relevant

 

[Superkoops]

Take away Corbett and that's basically our key forward depth gone, there's nothing wrong with having guys on the list that can fill a role when it's needed who otherwise play reserves.

I think he’ll play out his contract but might as well do so on the rookie list. Just not tall enough for the role he is playing and also barely wins any one on ones. Just too easy defend at all levels.

 

[CaseySibosadoHOF]

I watched bits of each quarter - not the whole game. I didn’t see Mannagh play wing. More on ball. He played one heck of a game though. Just wanted the ball and kicked some very goals.

Sharp wasn’t too bad. Nice goal he got after a side step. Also a couple of his i50 entries were really good kicks. Long and to the advantage of the forward like Chol marked one in the third. The games I’ve seen of Sharp today and during the season he isn’t particularly accountable at all but I didn’t see him lined up on Mannagh.

Pretty good description of Sharp. Was a little disappointed that his K:H ratio was so low coz usually he's one to always choose to kick first, but probably had something to do with where he got his touches. I do worry that his i50s are only as effective as they are because Gold Coast's talls just dominate state league opposition, but if that kick works every time, he's right to go for it every time.

Re defending, think he marks space reasonably and has shown the chops to be a decent interceptor, but the situation probably affects his hunger in man-on-man tracking. Unlike Henry who's held back defensively by obvious physical limitations, there's 0 reason for Sharp to not be at least decent defensively (don't think he'll ever be Acres level defensively tho).

 

[WilloTree]

This is how I see an AFL list structure for a team that strikes a good balance between depth and bringing in new talent.
There are only 23 AFL “games” to be handed out each week to the list.

Good list management means you have about 30 mature players, that are in year 3 or more of their careers. All of these guys should be serviceable AFL players.
Your top 15 should be automatic starters each week.
Then your next 10 should be in and out, based on form etc.
Then you have another 6 or so mature players that are solid AFL role players playing at peel. This is players 26-31 on the list. Banfield, Hughes, Colyer, Wilson, hamling - those types. For me, you want the minimum amount of these players that you can get away with for a season. Otherwise they become profession stoppers for the next group.

From approx player 32-44 you have your project players, new kids and draftees being developed and maybe one or two break glass in case of emergency depth players.
Most of these players probably won’t make it. You only need two or three a year to come on from this group.
At the start of 2023 the players in this bracket were:
Wagner
Emmett
Knobel
Reidy
Williams
Draper
Kuek
Worner
Stanley
Erasmus
johnson
Amiss
Treacy
Benning
Davies

Now clearly amiss, Treacy, Johnson and Erasmus have firmly jumped up into the top 24 or so players, and in the case of Jye, top 10. I would argue Wagner is very close to them too, and potentially Emmett is next to join.

This developing group should contain a mix of safe bets and ideally a few high risk, high reward types.
The issue is every extra year you keep a Corbett or Reidy type around, who will never be anything other than stopgaps at afl level if there’s an injury crisis, you lose the opportunity to have one more developing youngster.
Much depends on the injury profile of the players on the list. Tabs is an issue here - he’s no good to us if he’s injured.
I would hate to see us going to a place where we have a smaller group of developing players and more depth than we need. We only need a few depth players. Every extra depth player that doesn’t play much is taking the place of a guy like Ethan Stanley who was the last to join our list.

Bloody good post mate.

I'd also add you need a balance across the mid/def/for areas. Not in raw numbers either. e.g. There's a vast difference counting Kuek or Benning as a depth KPF to Davies or Hamling as depth KPD. It's about where you spent your currency.

Over supply of high currency players in our back 6 lead to Logue leaving for chump change. We turned a Pick 7. 24 year old with 50 games under his belt in to pick 20ish. Horrible.

Meanwhile, we spin our wheels in the front half with the same 3 blokes getting a handful of games every year - Sturt, Banfield and Taberner (hope Sturt has broken this cycle, but can't see it with the other two).

All this aside, if Freo can't stop losing players like Hogan and Acres to other clubs it won't matter. Can't keep making other teams stronger and weakening your own. It's insane how easily we could have kept Acres.

 

[Retzlaff]

Biggest list management question is are we still rolling with the no d*heads policy? After seeing some well known d*heads light up the finals I'd really like to see onfield performance being the be all and end all of recruiting discussions.

Draft gurus- Who is the biggest dickhead available at our first draft pick?

 

[Joao]

Draft gurus- Who is the biggest dickhead available at our first draft pick?

Not a guru but I'd say most West Coast fans will still be on the board.

 

[Ysaye]

Draft gurus- Who is the biggest dickhead available at our first draft pick?

I presume you also mean to ask these gurus the most talented as well?

I think these gurus would need to consider what we mean by the derogatory terminology (conscious that that is a term that was used in reference to myself by bullies at both high school and by some in a "professional" context over the last ten years of my working career so aware that others who have been in a similar position might be offended); for example, are we talking about:

(1) Struggles to respond in their combine interview, as in they struggle to process and respond the question (this can be for a variety of reasons)?
(2) Responds in their combine interview but said response explicitly or implicitly implies weak drivers (eg. easily manipulated, potentially by the "wrong crowd" or lacks drive)?
(3) Responds in their combine interview but said response explicitly or implicitly implies destructive behavioral drivers (eg. actively seeking gain at other people's expense)?

*The reason I am emphasizing the interviews above as the reference point is because they (amateur YouTube interviews) are about the only thing that the watchers out there can make a judgement on; I doubt any of us are there at training and see how they react in certain situations or speak with the draftee's coaches on a regular basis.

With respect to (1) I am concerned that PLAYERZ from WA may struggle with his interviews from a communicative perspective, which will be of concern to clubs with respect to their perceived ability to communicate with him in terms of being coached. However, when it comes to football, PLAYERZ in an incredibly quick thinker, as well as fast by foot, so what we are talking about is communication barriers. In some senses, I can see PLAYERZ succeeding with particular coaches who have strong skills in communicating in a variety of ways that PLAYERZ may be able to comprehend and successful respond to but equally they may potentially fail spectacularly with others that perhaps are more wired for other styles of communication. The environment and potential mediator-players that he is around may also have an influence on the level of success.

With respect to (2), I am concerned that whilst PLAYERY from WA may have the communication skills to understand what coaches are asking of him, his drive to get the best out of himself is not there. Listening to the interviews, he is in it to have "fun" on gameday but training is a bit of a bore (which it is for most people) and may easily get distracted. A coach may play to gameday drive to try and get him to train harder on the track, but I am concerned about how far that approach might go, and what other influences might be tempting.

With respect to (3), my watching of the interviews, I think PLAYERX from SA is a clever, communicative individual and can and will answer the questions with a level of depth. However, I am concerned about his main reasons/drivers for being in football and life, the level of truthfulness that will be communicated (based on some of what he has said, and then contradictory behaviors and/or contradictory things he has said) and the level of trust that might be able to be formed between him and a football club. From a coaching perspective, where can you go with someone whose nexus of drive seems to be located well outside of football in areas potentially detrimental to both footy output and to the individual themselves, and whose potential career lives on mainly prodigious talent?

IMO PLAYERX, PLAYERY and PLAYERZ all have the talent in spades to be worth picking their consideration at our first pick.

Please note though, these are my probably erroneous thoughts listening to these amateur interviews, I hope all the above players prove me wrong and that they succeed in both life and football.

 

[Carnthedockers]

Liked the look of AoD in the colts GF today i believe he ran 10.9 in the hundred meters couple of weeks ago he’s seriously quick which is what we need on our wings, i wonder what pick we’ll need if we go down that path.

He stood out to me too.

 

[freo1997]

Shaun Mannagh kicked 6 goals in the VFL GF. Need more small fwds. 26 yo.

 

[Carnthedockers]

The No Dickhead policy IS a myth. Those players who were dickheads that we got rid of were dickheads AND weren’t performing on field. There was no benefit to them staying at the club. Is there really any player who was good who we got rid of bc they were dickheads? Hogan was never going to get back to the level he’s at now if he stayed in WA.

It isn’t a myth. If the players aren’t of perceived strong character we won’t have them. I know that why we steered clear of zurhaar. I can see why, but I think we have over corrected

 

[JammoMonty]

So about that pick 21 yeah?


It’s going to be nearer 30 on draft night. These priority picks hurt us as they take players from the open draft pool. The players from the academies were never available to us.

Logue still letting the club down 12 months after moving on.

 

[Joao]

It isn’t a myth. If the players aren’t of perceived strong character we won’t have them. I know that why we steered clear of zurhaar. I can see why, but I think we have over corrected

I don't think its a problem to have only good blokes on your list, it just reduces your recruitment options. I think this is ok given we have a near complete list.

 

[Tundrawolf]

We've all either played sport, worked or went to school with dickheads and let's face it, no one really likes having them around.

 

[Cobbler]

If we were to look at some DHs I’d throw the book at Tarryn Thomas

26

Tarryn Thomas

Age

25

Ht

190cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.0

3star

K

5.3

2star

HB

5.7

4star

M

2.1

2star

T

3.3

5star

CL

0.9

3star

D

7.8

2star

K

4.0

1star

HB

3.8

3star

M

1.3

1star

T

3.2

4star

CL

0.2

2star

D

12.8

4star

K

6.2

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

0.4

3star

from north. Absolute gun. Fits the need of speedy mid, half forward type guy.

But we won’t and North wouldn’t consider it. Had an outstanding finish to the year.

 

[Bicco]

We've all either played sport, worked or went to school with dickheads and let's face it, no one really likes having them around.

Except when they’re on your team and they win the game for you you.

 

[s_wd6]

It isn’t a myth. If the players aren’t of perceived strong character we won’t have them. I know that why we steered clear of zurhaar. I can see why, but I think we have over corrected

Yeah but drafting guys with strong character isn't the same as a hard and fast no dickhead policy. Is there evidence of us actually passing or getting rid of elite talent who were performing on field because they were dickheads? It's different when you're not taking a chance at someone in a rookie draft because of poor character. Zurhaar was pick 11 in the rookie draft.

 

[Rockmelon]

We've all either played sport, worked or went to school with dickheads and let's face it, no one really likes having them around.

Some of us are the dickheads

 

[Taylor]

Yeah but drafting guys with strong character isn't the same as a hard and fast no dickhead policy. Is there evidence of us actually passing or getting rid of elite talent who were performing on field because they were dickheads? It's different when you're not taking a chance at someone in a rookie draft because of poor character. Zurhaar was pick 11 in the rookie draft.

Zurhaar was recently out of contract for a long time prior to extending with North. I think that is the point being referred to as passing on him rather than at the draft.

 

[s_wd6]

Zurhaar was recently out of contract for a long time prior to extending with North. I think that is the point being referred to as passing on him rather than at the draft.

Oh right fair enough. Think there's different levels of dickhead though. Like Zurhaar seems like the sort of guy that could have very poor relationships with other players (just based on his response to everything JHF related last year) and cause division between the group, so I understand not wanting someone like that.

 

[Retzlaff]

I presume you also mean to ask these gurus the most talented as well?

Nah, we've tried kids with talent, work ethic and drive and that hasn't landed us a flag.

I want to Walls to just focus on dickheads for this draft. Kids who don't cover their mouth when coughing, park in disabled bays, talk loudly at the theatre etc

 

[Docker82]

This is how I see an AFL list structure for a team that strikes a good balance between depth and bringing in new talent.
There are only 23 AFL “games” to be handed out each week to the list.

Good list management means you have about 30 mature players, that are in year 3 or more of their careers. All of these guys should be serviceable AFL players.
Your top 15 should be automatic starters each week.
Then your next 10 should be in and out, based on form etc.
Then you have another 6 or so mature players that are solid AFL role players playing at peel. This is players 26-31 on the list. Banfield, Hughes, Colyer, Wilson, hamling - those types. For me, you want the minimum amount of these players that you can get away with for a season. Otherwise they become profession stoppers for the next group.

From approx player 32-44 you have your project players, new kids and draftees being developed and maybe one or two break glass in case of emergency depth players.
Most of these players probably won’t make it. You only need two or three a year to come on from this group.
At the start of 2023 the players in this bracket were:
Wagner
Emmett
Knobel
Reidy
Williams
Draper
Kuek
Worner
Stanley
Erasmus
johnson
Amiss
Treacy
Benning
Davies

Now clearly amiss, Treacy, Johnson and Erasmus have firmly jumped up into the top 24 or so players, and in the case of Jye, top 10. I would argue Wagner is very close to them too, and potentially Emmett is next to join.

This developing group should contain a mix of safe bets and ideally a few high risk, high reward types.
The issue is every extra year you keep a Corbett or Reidy type around, who will never be anything other than stopgaps at afl level if there’s an injury crisis, you lose the opportunity to have one more developing youngster.
Much depends on the injury profile of the players on the list. Tabs is an issue here - he’s no good to us if he’s injured.
I would hate to see us going to a place where we have a smaller group of developing players and more depth than we need. We only need a few depth players. Every extra depth player that doesn’t play much is taking the place of a guy like Ethan Stanley who was the last to join our list.

Most of this is spot on but I’d say most good lists have a journey man level ruck outside their top 30 players. AFL list managers love them despite seemingly being dead against similar level players that play other roles. We aren’t going to get much better than Reidy, especially after a pre season or two, to fill this gap.

Honestly think you can start the season with less than 30 AFL ready players but only if you’ve got youngsters coming up from underneath ready to step up.

The wing concerns me depth wise but other than that I think our depth is fine. I’m more concerned about whether we have enough A Grade potential in certain areas of the field tbh. As it stands we’ve got enough depth to win a flag but we probably had about 3-4 A Graders on our list this season. We need closer to 8-9.

 

[Purple Suit]

Bloody good post mate.

I'd also add you need a balance across the mid/def/for areas. Not in raw numbers either. e.g. There's a vast difference counting Kuek or Benning as a depth KPF to Davies or Hamling as depth KPD. It's about where you spent your currency.

Over supply of high currency players in our back 6 lead to Logue leaving for chump change. We turned a Pick 7. 24 year old with 50 games under his belt in to pick 20ish. Horrible.

Meanwhile, we spin our wheels in the front half with the same 3 blokes getting a handful of games every year - Sturt, Banfield and Taberner (hope Sturt has broken this cycle, but can't see it with the other two).

All this aside, if Freo can't stop losing players like Hogan and Acres to other clubs it won't matter. Can't keep making other teams stronger and weakening your own. It's insane how easily we could have kept Acres.

The Logue trade got us Darcy & Ryan as well for pick 3. We still are miles in front if pick 21 is a bust.

He also did his knee, we keep him and he’s could be on our list for 2 season with the same injury taking up more cap space than Davies.

 

[Bender571]

Nah, we've tried kids with talent, work ethic and drive and that hasn't landed us a flag.

I want to Walls to just focus on dickheads for this draft. Kids who don't cover their mouth when coughing, park in disabled bays, talk loudly at the theatre etc

That sounds more like an arseh*le

 

[MadMundy]

We've all either played sport, worked or went to school with dickheads and let's face it, no one really likes having them around.

We don't like working with them sure, when I was doing management in retail there were plenty of people that asked to be moved to different shifts so they wouldn't have to work with people they didn't like. I just told them "You don't have to like them, but you sure as hell need to learn to work with them."

You're going to have to work with idiots at some points in life, the solution isn't getting rid of them, it's learning to keep your head down and just get on with things.

 

[mightymouse75]

Bloody good post mate.

I'd also add you need a balance across the mid/def/for areas. Not in raw numbers either. e.g. There's a vast difference counting Kuek or Benning as a depth KPF to Davies or Hamling as depth KPD. It's about where you spent your currency.

Over supply of high currency players in our back 6 lead to Logue leaving for chump change. We turned a Pick 7. 24 year old with 50 games under his belt in to pick 20ish. Horrible.

Meanwhile, we spin our wheels in the front half with the same 3 blokes getting a handful of games every year - Sturt, Banfield and Taberner (hope Sturt has broken this cycle, but can't see it with the other two).

All this aside, if Freo can't stop losing players like Hogan and Acres to other clubs it won't matter. Can't keep making other teams stronger and weakening your own. It's insane how easily we could have kept Acres.

It doesn't hurt making north stronger, but to actively bolster Melbourne and Carlton's stock in a considerable way could really burn us if we start playing finals.
Dumb strategy Freo.

 

[apuchar]

We don't like working with them sure, when I was doing management in retail there were plenty of people that asked to be moved to different shifts so they wouldn't have to work with people they didn't like. I just told them "You don't have to like them, but you sure as hell need to learn to work with them."

You're going to have to work with idiots at some points in life, the solution isn't getting rid of them, it's learning to keep your head down and just get on with things.

Why do you have to work with them. You spend a lot of time at work so it should be made as pleasant as possible. Instead of promoting arseholes they should be weeded out.