Draft Crystal Ball

[theGav56]

Would Dunn have been offered for trade for Bradley? Would have thought Dunn's name must have been on the table.

 

[Nodgey]

I can't imagine we'd redraft Dunn in the draft proper. I reckon we'll only possibly take him in the rookie draft (if still available.)

He was contracted for another year. Why then would we delist him, then suddenly redraft him for 2 years?

If we really wanted to keep him, surely we wouldn't have gone through this risky process of delisting him.

 

[prattsta]

I can't imagine we'd redraft Dunn in the draft proper. I reckon we'll only possibly take him in the rookie draft (if still available.)

He was contracted for another year. Why then would we delist him, then suddenly redraft him for 2 years?

If we really wanted to keep him, surely we wouldn't have gone through this risky process of delisting him.

This is probably what annoys me the most about the whole system. Collard, Dunn & Mourish are all contracted players but in order to get them on the rookie list (assuming freo even want too) we need to delist them first.

Surely you should have enough flexibility to put contracted players on your rookie list if there is room. Elevating/demoting/delisting should all be done at the same time, it just makes for good list management. For instance why couldn't we-

Promote Foster to the senior list
Delist Copping
Demote Collard to the rookie list
Demote Dunn to the rookie list

Would this be such a bad thing for the AFL to introduce? What are the negatives?

The AFL would obviously need to put some regulations in place about existing contracts and also the salary cap. Also the players should still be given the option as to what they want to do before being demoted. If another club has a spot for them on the senior list, the player should be given the option rather than being rookied.

 

[Ysaye]

From what I understand though Kepler can forgo the national draft and just nominate for the Pre Season Draft. Is that correct?
If we think we are a better chance of getting him in the PSD than the ND then I reckon that's what we should do.

As to picks

7- Masten, Palmer or Ebert
24- McGinnity

And I don't know enough about too many other kids to predict late round picks

Yep thats correct.

 

[dominguez]

Surely you should have enough flexibility to put contracted players on your rookie list if there is room. Elevating/demoting/delisting should all be done at the same time, it just makes for good list management. For instance why couldn't we-

Promote Foster to the senior list
Delist Copping
Demote Collard to the rookie list
Demote Dunn to the rookie list

Would this be such a bad thing for the AFL to introduce? What are the negatives?

I guess if you don't think a kid is good enough to be on your senior list you shouldn't take him in the national draft. A lot of players and their parents wouldn't be too happy to be demoted to the rookie list.

The whole point of the draft is to plan for the future, not demote someone if they're not good enough to play senior footy at 19.

 

[theGav56]

I guess the purpose of the Rookie list is a bit fuzzy. Seems like it is about encouraging speculative pick on players who may need a bit of development. Why not just have bigger lists.

 

[stylor]

I met Jarrhan Jacky last night, he's a Broome boy (my hometown) and is staying with my family after the Draft Camp! Seems like he'd be a good pick up for Freo, hard, fast midfielder/forward and he's a great kid! Would love to see him get a chance at the club I love!

He was a fill in for us in indoor cricket last night and was really fast! Not that indoor cricket has anything to do with footy but it was fun!

 

[Bender571]

I guess the purpose of the Rookie list is a bit fuzzy. Seems like it is about encouraging speculative pick on players who may need a bit of development. Why not just have bigger lists.

So you can pay them less. Also I think the rookies are meant as a back up for players with long term injuries

 

[Roundhouse]

I met Jarrhan Jacky last night, he's a Broome boy (my hometown) and is staying with my family after the Draft Camp! Seems like he'd be a good pick up for Freo, hard, fast midfielder/forward and he's a great kid! Would love to see him get a chance at the club I love!

He was a fill in for us in indoor cricket last night and was really fast! Not that indoor cricket has anything to do with footy but it was fun!

I've seen a few phantom drafts that have us picking him up, but I'm not sure that he is really on the clubs radar.

Having said that, bombard him with Freo propaganda anyway!

 

[macca69]

FWIW. We are one of 3 clubs who haven't interviewd Brad Ebert according to an article on the crows board

Hey mate have you got a link to that article?

Cheers.

 

[stylor]

I've seen a few phantom drafts that have us picking him up, but I'm not sure that he is really on the clubs radar.

Having said that, bombard him with Freo propaganda anyway!

Yeah I've been telling him how Fremantle is the only club worth going to but he 's had about 10 clubs speak to him so who knows!

 

[Docker Clint]

I'm keen on the re-drafting Dunn idea but it has to be a fit Ryley Dunn. What's the point in keeping a bloke that has taken this long to get on the track? He could be anything if his body was willing.

Really feel for blokes who have the talent but cant get on the park.

Interesting that the club is persisting with Browne but not Dunn. I'd have thought they're in similar positions.

 

[theGav56]

Interesting that the club is persisting with Browne but not Dunn. I'd have thought they're in similar positions.

I had thought the same thing, although Browne definitely has more pace, and the theme going through the delistings seems to be about commitment.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

Interesting that the club is persisting with Browne but not Dunn. I'd have thought they're in similar positions.

Based on last pre-season Browne is ahead of Dunn on talent, dedication and most of all speed.

I suspect, as others have already said, that Dunn's dropping is dedication determined i.e. he's got an attitude problem. There is nothing concrete about why he was de-listed but look at the company he was de-listed with and the comments from Harvey.

No one could ever say that Browne wasn't anything other that Mr 100% (and be credible IMHO.)

 

[pinkus maximus]

Hey mate have you got a link to that article?

Cheers.

here you go

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22676361-21543,00.html

 

[Roundhouse]

Based on last pre-season Browne is ahead of Dunn on talent, dedication and most of all speed.

I suspect, as others have already said, that Dunn's dropping is dedication determined i.e. he's got an attitude problem. There is nothing concrete about why he was de-listed but look at the company he was de-listed with and the comments from Harvey.

No one could ever say that Browne wasn't anything other that Mr 100% (and be credible IMHO.)

It still doesn't necessarily equate with Dunn having a bad attitude. Hadrill was in the delisted group as well, but I don't think his dedication has been questioned by anyone... ever.

Others who have been retained, such as Gilmore and Murphy have had their committment questioned in the past, but have avoided the axe or the trade table.

I don't think attitude, or a lack of dedication is a common theme among the delistings at all. If that was the reason given to the players themselves they would probably be scratching their heads. The decision to let Bell commute from Gero seems to contradict the hardline stance of demanding complete commitment from all players regardless of reputation.

The delistings of Dunn, Collard, Mourish make sense from a list management point of view, but if you are attributing these decisions (as well as all others list related) to attitude, then it becomes much harder to see the logic behind them.

 

[sinepari]

Here is my look at the crystal ball
7. Chris Masten / Rhys Palmer / Rance
24. Patrick McGinnity / David Myers
40. Steven Browne / Patrick Dangerfield / Tony Notte
56. Jarrhan Jacky / Harry Taylor
63. Kepler Bradely
66. PSD pick
I cannot see them using a pick to redraft Dunn they probably have someone in mind for the PSD.
Rookies may come from best available then Dunn, Mourish, Collard, Griffiths.

Myers will NOT be available at 24. No chance. At all.

Dangerfield will be gone IMO and Notte maybe too. Browne's a chance to slide but could be gone.

Unfortunately I think you're being unrealistic with these selections.

 

[Black Ball]

Myers will NOT be available at 24. No chance. At all.

Dangerfield will be gone IMO and Notte maybe too. Browne's a chance to slide but could be gone.

Unfortunately I think you're being unrealistic with these selections.

I think you are correct.

 

[dominguez]

The delistings of Dunn, Collard, Mourish make sense from a list management point of view, but if you are attributing these decisions (as well as all others list related) to attitude, then it becomes much harder to see the logic behind them.

If those 3 have been de-listed with the intention of placing them on the rookie list because they are unlikely to play senior footy next year that's fine. But it is unlikely that the kids we draft in a couple of weeks will see much senior footy next season either, so there must have been another reason behind it.

 

[Cameron_K]

I met Jarrhan Jacky last night, he's a Broome boy (my hometown) and is staying with my family after the Draft Camp! Seems like he'd be a good pick up for Freo, hard, fast midfielder/forward and he's a great kid! Would love to see him get a chance at the club I love!

He was a fill in for us in indoor cricket last night and was really fast! Not that indoor cricket has anything to do with footy but it was fun!

Where you play??

 

[Roundhouse]

If those 3 have been de-listed with the intention of placing them on the rookie list because they are unlikely to play senior footy next year that's fine. But it is unlikely that the kids we draft in a couple of weeks will see much senior footy next season either, so there must have been another reason behind it.

I don't get what you don't get.

Delisting players and then picking them up on the rookie list frees spots on the main list which can be used in the National and Preseason draft.

It's a risky move, but if it works it will mean more underage/young talent can be put onto the list without having to delist too many mature players.

 

[Ysaye]

I don't get what you don't get.

Delisting players and then picking them up on the rookie list frees spots on the main list which can be used in the National and Preseason draft.

It's a risky move, but if it works it will mean more underage/young talent can be put onto the list without having to delist too many mature players.

Are you saying that draft picks round 4 and after in this draft are going to provide more talent and worth that someone like a Collard or Dunn on our list?

I don't know, but I still think this is a relatively shallow draft and I would imagine 95% of the players that are long term AFL players will be taken well within the first two rounds. In which case the players in rounds 4 and after are probably going to be more the developmental experimental types that you would normally put on a Rookie list.

I agree with Dom, the club must have been trying to make a statement, not clear space on the list.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Are you saying that draft picks round 4 and after in this draft are going to provide more talent and worth that someone like a Collard or Dunn on our list?

I don't know, but I still think this is a relatively shallow draft and I would imagine 95% of the players that are long term AFL players will be taken well within the first two rounds. In which case the players in rounds 4 and after are probably going to be more the developmental experimental types that you would normally put on a Rookie list.

I agree with Dom, the club must have been trying to make a statement, not clear space on the list.

Agree 100%. I believe that considering CC's comments, and now this delisting of players who are still contracted - that it's a very clear message. If you want to play AFL, you bust your gut to do it...

Good list managment would have meant delisting the uncontracted players. This is risky list managment that may or may not come off. But it appears they are willing to take that risk in order to "send a message".

 

[Roundhouse]

Are you saying that draft picks round 4 and after in this draft are going to provide more talent and worth that someone like a Collard or Dunn on our list?

I don't know, but I still think this is a relatively shallow draft and I would imagine 95% of the players that are long term AFL players will be taken well within the first two rounds. In which case the players in rounds 4 and after are probably going to be more the developmental experimental types that you would normally put on a Rookie list.

I agree with Dom, the club must have been trying to make a statement, not clear space on the list.

If you find a way to put players picked in the National Draft straight onto the rookie list then let me and the club know.

Mourish, for example, was a pick 77 project player last year. If we could have picked him up on the rookie list, we would have. We couldn't.

 

[Roundhouse]

Agree 100%. I believe that considering CC's comments, and now this delisting of players who are still contracted - that it's a very clear message. If you want to play AFL, you bust your gut to do it...

Good list managment would have meant delisting the uncontracted players. This is risky list managment that may or may not come off. But it appears they are willing to take that risk in order to "send a message".

What message has been sent by letting Bell put his business interests ahead of some of his football obligations I.P?

If you are going to attribute all list management decisions as being a clear "message" to the player group about the commitment required then more questions than answers spring up.

If you say Bell decision was all about doing what is necessary to keep a strong, competetive playing list, then this rationale makes sense as a basis for the other delistings.

If you say both decisions were made in light of the relative commitments of the players involved then you'll have a hard time convincing me that the message sent is a consistent one.