Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Super-mega-ultrathread

[bodazoka]

so people think that a player delisted from a club way down the ladder is good enough for us? good players dont get delisted.

David Rodan got cut from Richmond.

 

[ausbacker]

It must be his body. Because Surjan is a good player.

Or it could be the incompetence of Rohde.

And the idea that good players don't get delisted is fallible. I'm sure we could trawl through some examples of players who have come back better after being cut. Tom Lee, for example.

If you follow Port Adelaide's timeline of events and engage in discussion with their supporters, the bigger body of work suggests Peter Rohde. It's unfortunate for Port Adelaide fans but it appears that failure accompanies that man in the AFL. Most can't wait to see the back of him.

If he gets picked up, 2013 will provide us with a definitive answer. He's a very good player.

 

[eagles rule]

so people think that a player delisted from a club way down the ladder is good enough for us? good players dont get delisted.

agree no point adding used spuds to the team..

 

[salo]

I don't like the idea of a specialist sub. There are many problems with the theory.

i don't like the sub rule... period.

and a specialist sub is very unlikely - i guess i'm drunk and just thinking out loud. in reality, due to injuries, fitness, list management etc noone gets used as a sub more than a few times in a row once they're up to afl-standard. i just think you need to name someone who can make an impact when they come on the field, rather than send on a mcginnity or a.selwood-type. (eg. if you were down 3 goals in a final at the start of the fourth quarter, i'd rather send out rodan than mcginnity)

 

[swannies]

It must be his body. Because Surjan is a good player.

Or it could be the incompetence of Rohde.

And the idea that good players don't get delisted is fallible. I'm sure we could trawl through some examples of players who have come back better after being cut. Tom Lee, for example.

Hasn't proven jack yet.

 

[greennick]

mcginnity is an honest-to-god trier who i've grown to love. brings toughness, pressures hard and has bagged the occasional goal but geez, my heart's often in my throat when he's involved. he doesn't quite look like a top-22 player in a premiership team to me and he probably needs to add a little bit of polish or be replaced but someone with a bit more.

if we could make a specialist sub out of someone with some attacking flair (like rodan, or dick?) than i would think they would easily displace a mcginnity, hams, a.selwood(?) from the team.

Did you feel any different when Rowan Jones had the ball? I always shat myself when he had the ball, but he was still so important to the team.

In regards to having Rodan. No. As has been said before, he has not defensive ability. Why would you think about taking out someone with awesome defensive ability and medium offensive ability and replacing it with someone with no defensive ability and better than average offensive ability? Rodan isn't an absolute gun that will win most contests and kick goals left, right, and centre. As with McGinnity, he's a good honest trier, but just doesn't have the ball handling or getting skills.

 

[greennick]

i don't like the sub rule... period.

and a specialist sub is very unlikely - i guess i'm drunk and just thinking out loud. in reality, due to injuries, fitness, list management etc noone gets used as a sub more than a few times in a row once they're up to afl-standard. i just think you need to name someone who can make an impact when they come on the field, rather than send on a mcginnity or a.selwood-type. (eg. if you were down 3 goals in a final at the start of the fourth quarter, i'd rather send out rodan than mcginnity)

But McGinnity wouldn't be a sub. He's actually too important for that.

 

[Patron]

so people think that a player delisted from a club way down the ladder is good enough for us? good players dont get delisted.

Wasn't Giles delisted from port at some stage?
You should never put a line through any player just because they have been delisted by one club.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

It must be his body. Because Surjan is a good player.

Or it could be the incompetence of Rohde.

And the idea that good players don't get delisted is fallible. I'm sure we could trawl through some examples of players who have come back better after being cut. Tom Lee, for example.

Comes down to need though. We don't need him. GWS on the other hand might consider him.

Rohde knows Surjan isn't going to be their in 2-3 years, he's had injury problems and small defenders are a dying breed.

 

[ausbacker]

Comes down to need though. We don't need him. GWS on the other hand might consider him.

Rohde knows Surjan isn't going to be their in 2-3 years, he's had injury problems and small defenders are a dying breed.

Everyone is a dying breed until you need them, then you remember why you need that position. As long as there are small forwards, you'll need a small defender.

 

[Marlin01]

Everyone is a dying breed until you need them, then you remember why you need that position. As long as there are small forwards, you'll need a small defender.

The reason small defenders are a dying breed is zone defence.

 

[pantskyle]

Rodan and Surjan would be cheap depth pick ups.

I'd go for them and Cruize Garlett as well.

Rodan one year and two years for the other two. Depending on squad list would depend on who.

 

[ausbacker]

The reason small defenders are a dying breed is zone defence.

I don't agree, but you're welcome to that opinion.

Zone defences, despite their slant toward coverage marking still depend on match ups and successfully executing those match ups.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

The reason small defenders are a dying breed is zone defence.

That's one part for sure, defenders as asked to press up when the ball is in attack.

Forwards push up the ground and run back hard, everyone is rotated more and defenders are exposed for height, or speed.

Everyone is a dying breed until you need them, then you remember why you need that position. As long as there are small forwards, you'll need a small defender.

Yet we don't have a genuine defender under 186cm.

 

[ausbacker]

That's one part for sure, defenders as asked to press up when the ball is in attack.

Forwards push up the ground and run back hard, everyone is rotated more and defenders are exposed for height, or speed.

Yet we don't have a genuine defender under 186cm.

Yet approximately one third of the list is under the nominated height category.

 

[mattyc75]

Wasn't Giles delisted from port at some stage?
You should never put a line through any player just because they have been delisted by one club.

and i think with port having a new coach they are making a statement that the rot stops here.Maybe rodan and surjan didnt fit into their plans going forward but like patronij1 i dont think you could discount having a mature body,experienced guys come in,in many cases a rodan type would have more of an impact than a first/second year player

 

[eaglenut]

and i think with port having a new coach they are making a statement that the rot stops here.Maybe rodan and surjan didnt fit into their plans going forward but like patronij1 i dont think you could discount having a mature body,experienced guys come in,in many cases a rodan type would have more of an impact than a first/second year player

disagree with that a 1st and 2nd year player is a unknown commodity to other sides where a mature experienced player is well known to other coaching panels strength's and weakness.I cant see how these 2 players would help our group,more of a detriment than a advantage. You said it yourself ",making statement that the rot stops here" do we need rot do we ????.I'm not discounting mature body players coming in but must have at least 5 good seasons left in them.(eg: chick ,stenglin)

 

[Galileo9]

and i think with port having a new coach they are making a statement that the rot stops here.Maybe rodan and surjan didnt fit into their plans going forward but like patronij1 i dont think you could discount having a mature body,experienced guys come in,in many cases a rodan type would have more of an impact than a first/second year player

or maybe he is just past it and time to let him go.

Giles and Rodan are completely different situations. one was delisted as a 21year old tall, the other 29 with knee reconstructions who could barely get a game last year because he didnt do enough.

 

[Coledinho]

Cruize Garlett >>>>> Rodan

Stevens for Garlett + upgrade of picks. Pick 30 odd for Jamie Cripps

 

[ziad]

or maybe he is just past it and time to let him go.

Giles and Rodan are completely different situations. one was delisted as a 21year old tall, the other 29 with knee reconstructions who could barely get a game last year because he didnt do enough.

This isnt selling me on Rodan although I have been a fan. We can not take such a risk.

 

[West123]

On the Rodan or Surjan etc.

It's where the clubs are at. Port want as many kids as possible to broaden their chances of getting a good one. Rodan & Surjan wouldn't be coming to the club to make our 22 better, they'd becoming to make our 32 better. When things got really bad we had the likes of Murray Newman etc play. I'd think we are better off playing a Rodan than a Newman. While this hurts us long term as some players don't get the opportunity to develop we aren't at that stage. The next 3 years is about getting as many premierships as possible while Glass & Cox are around.

 

[larrikin]

I'd hate to think we would go down the path of using Senior list spots for backups. Everyone we put on our list should be done so with the view that they will make the team better now or in the future.

I'm not against rookie listing 1 or 2 covers for specialist positions (eg Ruck), but that's be where I'd draw the line.

 

[eaglenut]

On the Rodan or Surjan etc.

It's where the clubs are at. Port want as many kids as possible to broaden their chances of getting a good one. Rodan & Surjan wouldn't be coming to the club to make our 22 better, they'd becoming to make our 32 better. When things got really bad we had the likes of Murray Newman etc play. I'd think we are better off playing a Rodan than a Newman. While this hurts us long term as some players don't get the opportunity to develop we aren't at that stage. The next 3 years is about getting as many premierships as possible while Glass & Cox are around.

From what I've seen of Newman I'd have him hands down to Rodan .These no way rodan will get 3 more season out of his knee's

 

[West123]

I'd hate to think we would go down the path of using Senior list spots for backups. Everyone we put on our list should be done so with the view that they will make the team better now or in the future.

I'm not against rookie listing 1 or 2 covers for specialist positions (eg Ruck), but that's be where I'd draw the line.

Absolutely. If veterans are willing to take bad salaries and sit on a rookie list waiting for injuries I think they are worth grabbing. 2012 taught us depth can't be underestimated. We were smashed by injuries but weren't that far off a premiership.

 

[West123]

From what I've seen of Newman I'd have him hands down to Rodan .These no way rodan will get 3 more season out of his knee's

Probably true. The club will have a far better assessment of Newman than me. But still as I've stated above. We are in the veteran top up cycle of recruiting.