Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2024 List Management discussion

Prediction- Who is delisted this year(not retirements).

  • Berry

  • McCluggage

  • Lyons

  • McCarthy

  • Answerth

  • Lane

  • Prior

  • Madden

  • Lester

  • Joyce

  • Zorko

  • Michael

  • Brain

  • Reville

Results are only viewable after voting.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
The players searching for new homes as Saint has medical at Pies

Most clubs, like Brisbane, are expected to wait until after the 2024 Telstra AFL Draft to assess what spots are left on their lists before looking to secure a player in the Rookie Draft or during the pre-season supplemental selection period (SSP).
The Lions are considering ex-Gold Coast key forward Sam Day – along with a handful of other options – to help cover the loss of Joe Daniher after his shock retirement.
...
Essendon has also openly been in the market for a recycled player and have held interest in West Coast's Josh Rotham and Brisbane's Jaxon Prior. Both are yet to re-sign at their current clubs.
Click to expand...
 
The "C" rating from Foxsports is probably about right.
However, the reason they gave for the "C" is a little strange.
The rating was supposed to be for trade period. But they included Jo.
I am sure if he was traded instead of retiring our rating may have changed.
Then Day was included but that has not happened yet.

The only trade was Sharp with no players in.
Sure, we increased our points for the national draft but that should be how we get rated in the national draft
................................................................
BRISBANE LIONS

Who left: Harry Sharp
Who arrived: Nil.
Draft picks owned: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 60, 66

Jon Ralph says: “It was a great trade period – apart from losing their best player (Joe Daniher to retirement). Sam Day is not Joe Daniher, but he plays in that same system – a key forward who can crash packs and also play some second ruck. My understanding is he’s the delisted free agent they’ll choose.”
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Section 5 said:
The "C" rating from Foxsports is probably about right.
However, the reason they gave for the "C" is a little strange.
The rating was supposed to be for trade period. But they included Jo.
I am sure if he was traded instead of retiring our rating may have changed.
Then Day was included but that has not happened yet.

The only trade was Sharp with no players in.
Sure, we increased our points for the national draft but that should be how we get rated in the national draft
................................................................
BRISBANE LIONS

Who left: Harry Sharp
Who arrived: Nil.
Draft picks owned: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 60, 66

Jon Ralph says: “It was a great trade period – apart from losing their best player (Joe Daniher to retirement). Sam Day is not Joe Daniher, but he plays in that same system – a key forward who can crash packs and also play some second ruck. My understanding is he’s the delisted free agent they’ll choose.”
Click to expand...

I reckon it’s harsh purely because in this trade period we went from just under 1000 points to most likely enough to get both Ashcroft and Marshall. It’s just not even mentioned which is really weird.

I’d give it a B-. We had a single day to organise before the window opened after Joe retired and trading for points isn’t considered difficult but we did the latter and at least conjured up a decent depth player.
 
I did a basic analysis of our list by position (midfielders, rucks, small/medium/tall forwards/defenders) to see how much depth we have in each position, to decide who among our out of contract players it's most important to keep. I've listed each player in their best position only. Of course some players can play in multiple positions, but I'll factor that in when addressing depth needs later.

I used the criteria of smalls being 184cm and below, mediums 185-194cm, talls 195cm and above. That does mean Logan Morris and Kai Lohmann are in the same category, but we have to draw lines somewhere.

In contract or incoming (41)
Small defenders - 6 (McKenna, Wilmot, Zorko, Coleman, Answerth, Brain)
Medium defenders - 3 (Starce, Lester, Doedee)
Tall defenders - 5 (Gardiner, Joyce, Andrews, Payne, ZZ)
Midfielders - 12 (Reville, Dev, Clug, Tunstill, Berry, Fletcher, Dunkley, Neale, Torrent, W Ashcroft, L Ashcroft, Marshall)
Pure rucks - 2 (Fort, Big O)
Small forwards - 4 (Ah Chee, Charlie, Linc, Bailey)
Medium forwards - 5 (Rayner, Kai, Morris, Lloyd, McLachlan)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 4 (Ryan, Hipwood, Smith, Day)

Out of contract (3)
Medium defenders - 2 (Prior, Beecken)
Small forwards - 1 (Craven)

I'd say the ideal 23 has a primary ruck, 7 defenders, and a total of 15 between midfielders and forwards, including a forward-ruck, so there's adequate depth to cover every part of the field. Let's go with 7 midfielders and 8 forwards.

As for the small/medium/tall split, in defence I'd say 3/2/2 offers maximum flexibility. With forwards, 3/3/2 will be the default at least until Linc is fit again, with either Smith or Day being the second tall after Hippy.

So looking at contracted players only, this is how much we have in depth at full strength:

Small defenders - 3 (covers 100% of best 23)
Medium defenders - 1 (50%)
Tall defenders - 3 (150%)
Midfielders - 5 (71%)
Pure rucks - 1 (100%)
Small forwards - 1 (33%)
Medium forwards - 2 (67%)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 2 (100%)

On pure numbers, we're looking sparse for cover in medium defenders, pure rucks and small forwards. By percentage of the best 23 that can be covered like-for-like, medium defenders, small forwards and medium forwards have the least coverage. But we need to consider players who are flexible enough to cover these roles if required (as well as accounting for the fact ZZ isn't useful depth at this point, he's a project player who isn't ready for prime time).

Medium defenders - Gardiner
Pure rucks - Smith
Midfielders - Rayner, Bailey (rotating through)
Small forwards - Kai (he's borderline in this category anyway)
Medium forwards - Ah Chee (has the leap if not the height)

So the real depth cover looks like this:

Small defenders - 100% of best 23
Medium defenders - 100%
Tall defenders - 100%
Midfielders - 100%
Pure rucks - 200%
Small forwards - 67%
Medium forwards - 100%
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 100%

Ideally, we'd have at least 100% cover everywhere in case of an injury crisis at a specific position (like this season at tall defender when our three best were all injured at one point). So we're pretty set everywhere, except at small forward. And actually our depth there is worse than what I've listed because Linc won't be fit to start the season.

Fortunately, it just so happens we have a small forward who's out of contract that we can re-sign. We'll be fine if we let one of Prior and Beecken go, because we have depth at medium defender. We won't be fine if we let Craven go. We'd have to draft another small forward in that case.

TL;DR - Let's keep Craven for depth.
 
Johnny Bananas said:
I did a basic analysis of our list by position (midfielders, rucks, small/medium/tall forwards/defenders) to see how much depth we have in each position, to decide who among our out of contract players it's most important to keep. I've listed each player in their best position only. Of course some players can play in multiple positions, but I'll factor that in when addressing depth needs later.

I used the criteria of smalls being 184cm and below, mediums 185-194cm, talls 195cm and above. That does mean Logan Morris and Kai Lohmann are in the same category, but we have to draw lines somewhere.

In contract or incoming (41)
Small defenders - 6 (McKenna, Wilmot, Zorko, Coleman, Answerth, Brain)
Medium defenders - 3 (Starce, Lester, Doedee)
Tall defenders - 5 (Gardiner, Joyce, Andrews, Payne, ZZ)
Midfielders - 12 (Reville, Dev, Clug, Tunstill, Berry, Fletcher, Dunkley, Neale, Torrent, W Ashcroft, L Ashcroft, Marshall)
Pure rucks - 2 (Fort, Big O)
Small forwards - 4 (Ah Chee, Charlie, Linc, Bailey)
Medium forwards - 5 (Rayner, Kai, Morris, Lloyd, McLachlan)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 4 (Ryan, Hipwood, Smith, Day)

Out of contract (3)
Medium defenders - 2 (Prior, Beecken)
Small forwards - 1 (Craven)

I'd say the ideal 23 has a primary ruck, 7 defenders, and a total of 15 between midfielders and forwards, including a forward-ruck, so there's adequate depth to cover every part of the field. Let's go with 7 midfielders and 8 forwards.

As for the small/medium/tall split, in defence I'd say 3/2/2 offers maximum flexibility. With forwards, 3/3/2 will be the default at least until Linc is fit again, with either Smith or Day being the second tall after Hippy.

So looking at contracted players only, this is how much we have in depth at full strength:

Small defenders - 3 (covers 100% of best 23)
Medium defenders - 1 (50%)
Tall defenders - 3 (150%)
Midfielders - 5 (71%)
Pure rucks - 1 (100%)
Small forwards - 1 (33%)
Medium forwards - 2 (67%)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 2 (100%)

On pure numbers, we're looking sparse for cover in medium defenders, pure rucks and small forwards. By percentage of the best 23 that can be covered like-for-like, medium defenders, small forwards and medium forwards have the least coverage. But we need to consider players who are flexible enough to cover these roles if required (as well as accounting for the fact ZZ isn't useful depth at this point, he's a project player who isn't ready for prime time).

Medium defenders - Gardiner
Pure rucks - Smith
Midfielders - Rayner, Bailey (rotating through)
Small forwards - Kai (he's borderline in this category anyway)
Medium forwards - Ah Chee (has the leap if not the height)

So the real depth cover looks like this:

Small defenders - 100% of best 23
Medium defenders - 100%
Tall defenders - 100%
Midfielders - 100%
Pure rucks - 200%
Small forwards - 67%
Medium forwards - 100%
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 100%

Ideally, we'd have at least 100% cover everywhere in case of an injury crisis at a specific position (like this season at tall defender when our three best were all injured at one point). So we're pretty set everywhere, except at small forward. And actually our depth there is worse than what I've listed because Linc won't be fit to start the season.

Fortunately, it just so happens we have a small forward who's out of contract that we can re-sign. We'll be fine if we let one of Prior and Beecken go, because we have depth at medium defender. We won't be fine if we let Craven go. We'd have to draft another small forward in that case.

TL;DR - Let's keep Craven for depth.
Click to expand...
This is good analysis but the only thing is I would put McLaughlan by your own reckoning as a small forward as he's listed at 181cm on the lions website and the snippets I've seen of him he seems to play like a crumbing player, but i dont watch much ressies.

I think we are more likely to keep Beecken over Craven, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Coleman or Wilmot play more wing then half back next year. I was big wraps on Brain across the half back line too, but we are definitely stacked back there with quality. Zorko could also be a surprise packet to play as a pure forward pocket again, to help with that small forward issue too and open space up down back.
 
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
 
spotthedog1 said:
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
Click to expand...
Jack Hayes??
 
spotthedog1 said:
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
Click to expand...
Stick with Day out of those names please 🙏
 
Brizzys Squizzy said:
Jack Hayes??
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, still uncontracted with St Kilda. So depends whether they delist him.

A few defenders around... but we already have a glut of defenders. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if with Payne, Harris, Gardiner, Doedee, Lester all best 22 quality... one of them doesn't volunteer to shift.

Otherwise, Jack Hayes... footy wire says Rhys Stanley is still uncontracted. Alex Keath, Denver Grainger Barrass... Sam Weideman... options for DFAs could grow soon.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Dalions said:
Stick with Day out of those names please 🙏
Click to expand...
I'll trust the club when looking at the injury concerns. I obviously don't have access to Day or Krueger's medical records to make any call at all.

We have had success bringing injury prone guys up from the cold winters of Melbourne. But the Pies have the money to throw around, so who knows about Krueger, and Gold Coast are up here, but I'd back our medicos over theirs. So I don't know.
 
buttermuffs said:
I reckon it’s harsh purely because in this trade period we went from just under 1000 points to most likely enough to get both Ashcroft and Marshall. It’s just not even mentioned which is really weird.

I’d give it a B-. We had a single day to organise before the window opened after Joe retired and trading for points isn’t considered difficult but we did the latter and at least conjured up a decent depth player.
Click to expand...
buttermuffs, we have not got that depth player yet and not sure what is happening to Prior.

Regarding ratings i look at things differently.
I don't think you can count pick swaps in the trade period and also consider that again when the draft comes around.
You can't count the same thing twice in my view.

Trade period for me is just that, who you trade out and who you bring in. Is the list better/same/worse.

The draft is purely who you get in the national draft. Did the club do well/average/poorly.
People will rate that at the time as will i, but it is more important how good those players turn out to be after 2/3 years in the system.

At the end of November 2024 i look at who we had on our list in 2023 compared to who we have now.
 
Day is a solid option, if fit, will be dangerous with a rampant midfield and rebounding defense. Can't see Day filling the second ruck void, would think Hipwood will be trained in that role for 2025 and beyond.
 
spotthedog1 said:
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
Click to expand...

I really like Krueger if he could get his body right. He has that mongrel and will compete hard.

I am a bit meh about Day. He's 32, not sure if his body will hold up - but that would be the same type of concern as Kreuger. Won't be fussed if he gets selected by us as we can quickly get him rolled off the books when next year targets become clear

Tomlinson - a flat no. He just does not have the mongrel and for some reason always looks unsure. Peak of his career was 2021 as Dees defender but unfortunately he got injured and missed out on that Premiership. No thanks.
 
Sanchez365 said:
This is good analysis but the only thing is I would put McLaughlan by your own reckoning as a small forward as he's listed at 181cm on the lions website and the snippets I've seen of him he seems to play like a crumbing player, but i dont watch much ressies.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I used Footywire as my reference which had him as 185cm, and while they could certainly be wrong, Rookie Me Central seems to back up that stay. So who knows.

When I've watched him in the VFL he isn't what I'd describe as a pressure forward, he's more of a high marker who knows the way to goal. His statistics this season back this up, as he regularly has 7-9 marks a game and multiple goals, but never more than two tackles. I think pressure is the biggest thing he needs to work on. Craven doesn't have the same marking or scoring ability but has much better pressure.

Sanchez365 said:
I think we are more likely to keep Beecken over Craven,
Click to expand...
I would agree, but we could keep both and let Prior go. Or even keep all three if we don't want any other draft prospects or academy players this time.

Sanchez365 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Coleman or Wilmot play more wing then half back next year.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it's worth considering how little we get our wings involved in the play, and how much we use them as a place for our extra inside midfielders to cover. Maybe that needs to adapt this year since teams will focus on countering our strengths more.

Sanchez365 said:
I was big wraps on Brain across the half back line too, but we are definitely stacked back there with quality. Zorko could also be a surprise packet to play as a pure forward pocket again, to help with that small forward issue too and open space up down back.
Click to expand...
I agree with others here, I'd leave Zorko where he is, he's doing well there. Maybe Brain needs to try playing small forward.
 
Sam Weideman
delisted, 27, has experience up forward? Maybe?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mpal6 said:
I really like Krueger if he could get his body right. He has that mongrel and will compete hard.


I am a bit meh about Day. He's 32, not sure if his body will hold up - but that would be the same type of concern as Kreuger. Won't be fussed if he gets selected by us as we can quickly get him rolled off the books when next year targets become clear

Tomlinson - a flat no. He just does not have the mongrel and for some reason always looks unsure. Peak of his career was 2021 as Dees defender but unfortunately he got injured and missed out on that Premiership. No thanks.
Click to expand...
Krueger is one of them tall forwards who goes for chest marks only, taking the ball at the lowest point as a tall forward is a no for me.
Day can take overhead grabs which is better for making contests at the least
 
iBeng said:
Sam Weideman
delisted, 27, has experience up forward? Maybe?
Click to expand...

Makes Schache look like a fierce competitor. No thank you.

My #1 criteria for whoever we get as tall forward/ruck backup is that they have to compete in the air. We need someone who can sit under a high bomb up the wing and not just get out-positioned or out-toughed immediately.
 
Last edited:
jasonrampage2010 said:
Krueger is one of them tall forwards who goes for chest marks only, taking the ball at the lowest point as a tall forward is a no for me.
Day can take overhead grabs which is better for making contests at the least
Click to expand...
Kreuger also super injury prone.

He does have some good attributes so if you could be guaranteed of fitness I'd be slightly interested, but agree with you generally.
 
iBeng said:
Sam Weideman
delisted, 27, has experience up forward? Maybe?
Click to expand...

He couldn't break into Melb or Essendon best side. Would be a downgrade on Brandon Ryan and IMO a fit Sam Day. Gives me Schache vibes and offers little imo. In essence, list spots are tight and we don't need a second Ryan.
 
jasonrampage2010 said:
Krueger is one of them tall forwards who goes for chest marks only, taking the ball at the lowest point as a tall forward is a no for me.
Day can take overhead grabs which is better for making contests at the least
Click to expand...
I feel that if the club is not looking at anyone other than, or younger than Day, it really makes me feel we have someone on the hook for the end of next year.

We don’t want to get caught with someone who is going to take money out of the cap for a Longer period of time.
If we are trying to tempt a Kreuger or Weideman to leave VIC to come up here for 1 year, we are probably kidding ourselves.

.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

P
List Mgmt. 2026 List Management Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
7K
briztoon
briztoon
Jivlain
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion
344 345 346 347 348
Replies
9K
Views
439K
Proeagle
Proeagle
PerthBoy86
  • Poll
2024 vs 2025 Premiership, which is a greater achievement?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Dalions
Dalions
JasRulz63
List Mgmt. List changes, contract status and key dates - 2024 🏆
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Sproj
S
JasRulz63
  • Sticky
List Mgmt. List changes, contract status and key dates - 2025 🏆🏆
Replies
23
Views
3K
JasRulz63
JasRulz63
McIvor
Unofficial Preview Lions 2024 B&F Discussion
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
8K
Ironmonger
Ironmonger
B
Women's Footy Non Lions AFLW discussion 2024
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
7K
The Flying Belgian
The Flying Belgian

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top