Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Rookies

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ImperialPurple

ImperialPurple

In it for the long haul
Veteran 10k Posts
Joined
May 26, 2003
Posts
25,429
Reaction score
21,715
Location
Beaconsfield
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SFFC, Aussie Women's Cricket, HNK
Duffield at pick 7, Stribling at pick 23.

I expect to see The Duffman elevated for one of the retirees (of which there will be a few) at the end of next year. He only has one year on the rookie list the second time around.

Good to see the club stick by Stribling...
 
RIPPER_46 said:
Gee, that was big surprise.

First time in history we have gone into a season with minimal changes.

The Club have put their faith in this group , now it is payback time.
Click to expand...

Very true, seems weird to have so little changes for once! Hope Duffy & Stribling can prove their worth next year, they may get a bit of a chance in the preseason cup! :)
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

RIPPER_46 said:
Gee, that was big surprise.

First time in history we have gone into a season with minimal changes.

The Club have put their faith in this group , now it is payback time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No turnover, no great changes. Now they have to return the favour. There's enough talent there to be Top 4 and (I know I'll get lynched for my optimism) have a shot at the premiership.
 
Kapow!!! said:
Exactly. No turnover, no great changes. Now they have to return the favour. There's enough talent there to be Top 4 and (I know I'll get lynched for my optimism) have a shot at the premiership.
Click to expand...


Don't be scared saying we have the talent. We do. Take a quick look at our injuries from last season:

Peter Bell (no preseason and recovering from surgery)
Andrew Browne (injured the majority of season)
Matthew Carr (fractured leg)
Steven Dodd (missed the odd round from injuries)
Robert Haddrill (missed season)
Daniel Haines (missed season)
Paul Hasleby (played with an injury)
Roger Hayden (missed season)
Byron Schammer (broken wrist at beginning of season)
Jarrod Schofield (back surgery and no preseason)
James Walker (fractured leg)
Michael Warren (fractured foot)

Players who didn't have a big impact and will develop in the preseason:
Ryley Dunn
Ryan Murphy
Adam Campbell
etc. Most of our young players could be listed here.

The only players on our list who won't push for selection IMO are:
Robert Warnock
Adam Campbell (hope he proves me wrong)
Benet Copping
Garrick Ibbotson
Everyone else should push for selection at one point during the year.
 
RIPPER_46 said:
First time in history we have gone into a season with minimal changes.
Click to expand...
Nope, 2nd time.

Neesham did the same in 97. In response to a decrease in the playing list from 46 to 43 he dumped the experienced, but fringe players in Edwards, Ridley, Gilbert, Rowe, Muir & Burton, Jay; picked up the minimum in Black, Clucas & Sinclair and our first rookies (none played for us). No trades.
We then fell 1 game short of the finals. He went the quick fix route after that, didn't work, we started again with Drum. Didn't work, we started again with CC. Peaked ahead of expectations, stagnated for 2 years... we've now regrouped, not gone crazy with quick fixes or cleanouts... 2006-07 have to be our years.
 
dasler said:
Re-listing Duffield was a good decision. I'll keep my Stribling opinion to myself.
Click to expand...

I don't think that too many people are worried about Stribling, if it works great, but I for one am not basing the teams future on him.

The rookie listing of him would appear to be courtesy after dropping him from the senior list.

Maybe he and Copping will be gone at the end of the season?.
 
masai said:
I don't think that too many people are worried about Stribling, if it works great, but I for one am not basing the teams future on him.

The rookie listing of him would appear to be courtesy after dropping him from the senior list.

Maybe he and Copping will be gone at the end of the season?.
Click to expand...
CC has a huge opinion of Copping, talks him up like he used to with Thornton. I think Stribling will be OK as well. I'm sure Dasler would be basing his opinion on a few games of WAFL this year.
Given some time i'm sure he'll turn out very well.
 
Sorry folks to spoil party and the warm fuzzies. armstrong would have been a far stronger prospect then stribling. Dockers should not have made any promises to either duffield or stribling. Train with us and we will see how it goes.

Armstrong is a ready made footballer, 21 more mature body than stribling duffield, kreiger or juniper.

If there is a long term injury, then armstrong would have been the one to go up and ready to rock an roll. Has played finals footy with the demons.

I suppose that duffield(been a rookie for 2 yrs) will be the one now but is he ready to step up into the big time
 

Remove this Banner Ad

wehavethepassion said:
Sorry folks to spoil party and the warm fuzzies. armstrong would have been a far stronger prospect then stribling. Dockers should not have made any promises to either duffield or stribling. Train with us and we will see how it goes.

Armstrong is a ready made footballer, 21 more mature body than stribling duffield, kreiger or juniper.

If there is a long term injury, then armstrong would have been the one to go up and ready to rock an roll. Has played finals footy with the demons.

I suppose that duffield(been a rookie for 2 yrs) will be the one now but is he ready to step up into the big time
Click to expand...
Get a grip. The club knows just about everything they can about the two players they rookied, and prefered Duffield to Armstrong. Me too.
 
We have to pay Striblings wages for next year whether we rookie listed him or not, so we might aswell have him available if his form warrants a call up. If we were paying him to play in the SANFL and he turned out to be a good player there would have been a mountain of criticism.
 
theGav56 said:
Get a grip. The club knows just about everything they can about the two players they rookied, and prefered Duffield to Armstrong. Me too.
Click to expand...

Smart drafted stribling(assuming he had studied him during 2004??) and by year's end he's been delisted? Dud selection?
 
My choice would have been Duffield with our first selection and Armstrong with the second. Unfortunatley Armstrong was gone by our second selection... and with rookies being a fair lottery, better that they keep Stribling on as they a) already know loads about him, and b) have to pay him anyway.

He could turn out to be a good servicable player for us, or he could end up being delisted. He was pick 67 last year, which in reality is not that much different in quality to someone on the rookie list, but the club was hamstrung by having to take the mandatory 3 picks (Copping, Stribling and Haines) in the draft. They chose to stand by him and keep him on as a rookie. I, for one, am happy with that.
 
wehavethepassion said:
Smart drafted stribling(assuming he had studied him during 2004??) and by year's end he's been delisted? Dud selection?
Click to expand...
AFL rules said that we had to make room for have 3 picks at the AFL draft. They also said that Duff couldn't remain on the rookie list having been there for 2 years. Also, Stribling was only 17 last year, so COULD NOT have been rookie listed last year, only drafted in the national draft.

So the questions are:
Should someone else have been selected instead of Copping/Stribling/Haines last year?
Should someone who's remained on the list have been dropped/traded before Stribling was delisted?
Should someone else on the main list been dropped/traded to allow Duff to be elevated?
Should Krieger or Juniper have been dropped to open up another rookie list spot?
Should McManus have been retired to open up another rookie list spot?

My answers are possibly, no, no, no and no. Due to the big clean out a few years ago, and the resulting young list, we haven't had the natural retirements openning up a few spots, and our kids haven't crashed and burned to be delisted quickly.

Maybe they need to introduce a rule to allow under 20-year-old, yet-to-debut draftees to be moved to the rookie list without having to be delisted first? It will effectively mean that you have "wasted" a draft pick on a rookie (maybe make you skip the 1st round of the rookie draft?), but surely it's better than the uncertainty of being delisted and re-drafted (or stolen by another club?).

Given that we've only turned over 3 players, I'd say that the coach and recruiters are fairly happy with the squad... now we have to wait and see if they can perform to their potential. If we have another crab year moving sideways, then you can imagine an axe being used through both the playing list and the coach/recruiting staff as well... but lets see how we go first.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Given that the Dockers have played only a bit part in the trading period, I can only assume that the hierarchy has supreme faith in the depth of of your squad.

Hope it's not misplaced faith.
 
I am amazed at the criticism the club is receiving re drafting this year, and continued in some areas in this post for Rookie selections.

Drum; the main criticisms seem to be that he is like Mundy, and that he is a backman who is a little too short for KP. Man. A player who is like Mundy. What a tragedy that would be. After all, Mundy only came third in the Rising Star, has footy smarts, and has the ability to play a range of positions. As for size for KP, give me a break. If he is the best backman in the draft then being 2cm short is not going to be a major handical. In addition, like Mundy he may well be still growing. Finally, CC has clearly articulated that he wanted us to get another backman, which we have.

Ibbotson; the criticism of him seems to be that he is not a backman and that he is not fast. Both of these criticisms are a product of the "footdraft" mentality where fans try and play recruiters using players they know little about. It causes little spirals of misinformed popularity. From what I have read he does have pace, and he does have te potential to play midfiled as well as back, which is the type of player we should have been seeking. Plus, Smart knows more about him than any other recruiter going. Another criticism I've read is that we could have got him as a rookie. Well, in truth, it seems like he was the one we wanted and we did not want to risk him

Warnock; Unbelieveable that there could be any criticism of someone taken at this stage of the draft, especially one who fitsour requirement of having a developing ruckman on the list.

ROOKIES
Duffield and Stribling. Duffield a good pick and Stribling may or not work out. We could have chosen Armstrong before Duffield, but not instead of Stribling. Big deal. Definitely happy with the choices, and think we have a very good record with rookies.

And in context, the club has pretty well asserted that they think we have a list they want to perservere with. I look forward seeing if they have it right next year.
 
theGav56 said:
Get a grip. The club knows just about everything they can about the two players they rookied, and prefered Duffield to Armstrong. Me too.
Click to expand...


You prefer a WAFL player who may never make it to a young proven AFL player not to mention a Larke Medalist? You may as well join Smarty and the other duds he has working for him and you can help them make some more ****** ups like the Stribling blunder.
 
YAKUZA said:
You prefer a WAFL player who may never make it to a young proven AFL player not to mention a Larke Medalist? You may as well join Smarty and the other duds he has working for him and you can help them make some more ****** ups like the Stribling blunder.
Click to expand...

Just because a player does brilliant in a lower league doesn't equal autmotatic succes in the AFL. Duffield has never had a game at AFL so we can give him the benefit of the doubt.Armstrong has already played in the AFL at the Demons and obviously he didnt impress that much.

Our first pick in the 2004 draft was in Round 5 and at this stage of the draft its pure speculative pics. Smart has been a great evaulator of talent and has done well over time.
 
YAKUZA said:
You prefer a WAFL player who may never make it to a young proven AFL player not to mention a Larke Medalist? You may as well join Smarty and the other duds he has working for him and you can help them make some more ****** ups like the Stribling blunder.
Click to expand...


Which young proven AFL player not mention a Larke medallist was taken after Stribling was picked? I can't seem to find one. The only player who seems to fit that description is Armstrong, but it can't be him because he was taken before Stribling.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom