Past #37: Kyron Hayden - delisted end '22 - 12 NM games/ 0 NM goals - thanks Ronny

Remove this Banner Ad

King Corey said:
Would've thought roos_fanatic08 had a reasonable point. Menzel and Garner are both mercurial but injury prone talents. Menzel is the more proven player and if he is being left on the shelf despite DFA status then you might guess Garner would be too.

It's fairly obvious if Garner was on the park a lot then rf08 would not have made this same assessment (correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...

We know you hate Taylor Garner and you will be dealt with at the appropriate time for your Garnerism.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If my understanding of everything I've read here is correct then the club has made this move to better insure that we get both Thomas and Scott.

Imagine the outrage here if by chance we did not have enough points to pick up both of these boys!!! :eek:

I suspect that not only would Bigfooty melt , but maybe Arden street would be razed as well.
 
Horace said:
If my understanding of everything I've read here is correct then the club has made this move to better insure that we get both Thomas and Scott.

Imagine the outrage here if by chance we did not have enough points to pick up both of these boys!!! :eek:

I suspect that not only would Bigfooty melt , but maybe Arden street would be razed as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly, heads would be falling off all over the place......
 
King Corey said:
Would've thought roos_fanatic08 had a reasonable point. Menzel and Garner are both mercurial but injury prone talents. Menzel is the more proven player and if he is being left on the shelf despite DFA status then you might guess Garner would be too.

It's fairly obvious if Garner was on the park a lot then rf08 would not have made this same assessment (correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...
IMPEACH!!!
 
King Corey said:
Would've thought roos_fanatic08 had a reasonable point. Menzel and Garner are both mercurial but injury prone talents. Menzel is the more proven player and if he is being left on the shelf despite DFA status then you might guess Garner would be too.

It's fairly obvious if Garner was on the park a lot then rf08 would not have made this same assessment (correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...

Correct...it’s not based on what he can actually do on the field (because we know it’s good) it’s based on the fact that he can’t actually on the damn park.
 
Passmore said:
I hope so.

I don't not rate him, I haven't seen enough to have an opinion either way. I'm genuinely curious to know what it's based on.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Was one of the top few in the country at u16 level (along with LDU). Injury saw him fall far down the draft and affect his first year with us, but it suggests a fair bit of upside.
 
King Corey said:
Would've thought roos_fanatic08 had a reasonable point. Menzel and Garner are both mercurial but injury prone talents. Menzel is the more proven player and if he is being left on the shelf despite DFA status then you might guess Garner would be too.

It's fairly obvious if Garner was on the park a lot then rf08 would not have made this same assessment (correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...
Whether it's fair or not, Menzel also now has the reputation of not caring about forward pressure, not a problem TG has.
 
roos_fanatic08 said:
Correct...it’s not based on what he can actually do on the field (because we know it’s good) it’s based on the fact that he can’t actually on the damn park.
Click to expand...
Well, actually it is kinda based on what he can do on the field, or moreso cant, or won't do, which is do his part defensively. Geelong could happily plonk him in a pocket and get 30+ goals a year out of him but he is a liability when he doesn't have the ball. Yes, injuries play their part in that but people who are suspect defensively get moved on real quick these days.
 
B Tron said:
Well, actually it is kinda based on what he can do on the field, or moreso cant, or won't do, which is do his part defensively. Geelong could happily plonk him in a pocket and get 30+ goals a year out of him but he is a liability when he doesn't have the ball. Yes, injuries play their part in that but people who are suspect defensively get moved on real quick these days.
Click to expand...

Geelong happily plonk themselves in the pocket at TaxpayerFreebie Park and get their nine wins, but are then a liability in the finals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Concerns growing as rookie lists recycle talent
Peter Ryan - The Age, 14 November 2018

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...kie-lists-recycle-talent-20181114-p50g10.html

A record number of players will be "re-rookied" at next Friday's rookie draft, raising concerns about the way clubs are now using the rookie list to add depth rather than expose new talent.

Under the current system, clubs delist players post-season but promise them positions on next year's rookie list. This frees up spots on a club's primary list, allowing them to select untried young talent in the national draft.

The process carries some risk for the club, which might lose the player to another club, but it also creates some uncertainty for the player who has to wait until the rookie draft, which is to be held hours after the draft is completed this year at 6pm on November 23, to be have his future secured.

At next Friday's rookie draft there are likely to be 16 players re-rookied to the same club that had them on their primary list in 2018.

At this stage, Brisbane Lions, Collingwood, Fremantle, Gold Coast, North Melbourne and Richmond have all indicated they will re-rookie players who were on their primary list in 2018, while Port Adelaide will re-rookie Cameron Hewett who has been on their rookie list for three seasons.

Use of the process has grown in recent seasons as clubs, knowing rookies can play at any time through the season, increasingly use the rookie list to add depth to their squad as much as a way of giving opportunities to young players who may have been overlooked in the national draft.

The AFL is aware of the shift and understood to be open to reviewing the way the rookie list operates as part of their ongoing assessment of player movement rules, while the AFLPA unsuccessfully argued for the rookie list to be removed during the most recent CBA negotiations.

The strategy has also changed the age and experience profile of players who now sit on rookie lists with 32-year-old Gold Coast veteran Michael Rischitelli, who has won a best and fairest and played 236 games, set to be selected through the rookie draft next week, as will Richmond's Jacob Townsend who has played at two clubs and was part of the Tigers' 2017 premiership team.

The Suns, which will re-rookie four players, are understood to have had their hand forced to some extent when they were given priority access to mature-aged players but were not given any extra list spots to accommodate their inclusion.

In another quirk this season, Hawthorn and Sydney will retain retired pair Will Langford and Kurt Tippett on their rookie list as part of their renegotiated contract is absorbed in next year's salary cap.

Some players and clubs are also understood to be frustrated that delisted free agents can't be added to a club's rookie list before the draft is held but are instead made to wait until next Friday's rookie draft creating uncertainty for all parties.

The first rookie draft was held in 1997 and has paved the way for great players such as Brett Kirk, Dean Cox, Nick Maxwell, Matthew Boyd, Dale Morris and Aaron Sandilands to establish their AFL careers and continues to throw up gems such as Geelong's Jack Henry, Sydney's Ben Ronke and Collingwood's Brody Mihocek.

The AFL is also set to provide all clubs the rookie replacement guidelines by the end of the week, which will determine whether Greater Western Sydney can add Shane Mumford to their rookie list under new rules the Commission introduced in October that allow clubs to add players previously nominated for the national draft or on an AFL list between December 1 and March 15 to their rookie list.
 
Firestarter said:
I don't want to criticise the club. I just wish I was smart enough to have a better idea of how everything will fall into place on draft night.
Click to expand...
Many clubs this year have no idea how things will pan out ??? And every year will be different, the variables will be too great now.

there's talk of GC swapping 2 and 3 picks for the No.1 pick as an example.
 
Any player delisted in a previous year qualifies to sign with any club in the SSP, but teams cannot cut a footballer then re-recruit them via this method in the same year.

The only scenario where that could happen is if that player goes undrafted before the SSP.

That means clubs still risk losing a player when they delist them with a promise to re-rookie them.
 
andana said:
Any player delisted in a previous year qualifies to sign with any club in the SSP, but teams cannot cut a footballer then re-recruit them via this method in the same year.

The only scenario where that could happen is if that player goes undrafted before the SSP.

That means clubs still risk losing a player when they delist them with a promise to re-rookie them.
Click to expand...

This makes it a lot easier to take VFL players you have helped develop, as long as they have previously nominated for the draft, which most of the decent VFL players have.


We could sign Nash Holmes to the rookie list on Dec 1 as an example.
 
Firestarter said:
Geelong's Jack Henry

Who?...
Click to expand...

Based on this year's debut season, he is an excellent young footballer. More or less pushed Harry Taylor out of his favoured CHB position and if he continues in the same vein, he will have a very good career.
 
Selected with pick 27 in the RD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

giantroo
Past #15: Daniel Howe - #31 in '14 ND to HFC - delisted end '22 - #33 in '23 RD to NM -retires from AFL & NM end '23 - 107 AFL games / 11 NM games
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
399
Views
28K
r00boy96
r00boy96

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top