Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Rookies

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

PattyKwasagun

PattyKwasagun

Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran Ex-Moderator Brisbane Lions - 2013 Sam Mayes Player Sponsor Brisbane Lions - 2013 Mitch Golby Player Sponsor Ruby Brisbane Lions - Patrick Karnezis 2012 Player Sponsor
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Posts
5,883
Reaction score
13,210
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Well into the second half of the season now, just thought it'd be time to look at our rookies and who may get elevated/delisted.

Current rookies:
Justin Clarke
Jack Crisp (currently elevated)
Josh Dyson
Brad Harvey
Niall McKeever (currently elevated)
Sam Michael
Richard Newell
Steven Wrigley

Dyson and Harvey I'd say are both probably gone. Both shown some talent, but have been here a while now without really showing enough to suggest they could be AFL players.

Crisp, Clarke and McKeever are probably the only ones with a chance of being properly elevated. McKeever is probably going to be de-listed if he's not elevated, so I think he's a lock. Crisp and Clarke I'm unsure of - Crisp is probably the better chance due to playing a few senior games already.

The rest will probably stay on as rookies.

Thoughts?
 
McKeever has been a rookie for 3 years already, will need to be elevated or delisted. Same goes for Dyson
Harvey's had 2 years, all the rest 1 year.

I think McKeever will be promoted, particularly in light of thin key defensive depth. Dyson probably hasn't done enough, he'll be gone.

Crisp probably warrants a promotion, but with senior list space at a premium, we may opt to keep him as a rookie. I think Wrigley and Newell have shown enough definitely warrant a second year. While Michael hasn't been exactly tearing it up, his type (ruck/KPP) is in high demand and should be kept.

The only one I'm not sure on is Harvey - shown some promise, has some AFL attributes in his pace, strength, run and leap. In his 1.5 years here he has improved with time, I would keep him on.

So that's 1 rookie promoted, and 5 kept. This gives us 3 free spots on the rookie list to bring in fresh blood.
 
McKeever will be promoted.

Dyson and Harvey are gone.
 
I think normal time for a rookie is 2 years, and the only way Dyson got another year was because he was re-rookied. Would need to do the same with Harvey, and not sure if he's done enough to get that. Will depend on what the other rookie talents available are.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Regarding Harvey, the question I would ask is "is a kid rated the ~100th best kid in the year (say 80 picks in main draft, 20+ in rookie draft) likely to be better than Harvey, who's already had 2 years of development?"

I personally would keep Harvey. Has shown signs.
 
BigCat2 said:
Regarding Harvey, the question I would ask is "is a kid rated the ~100th best kid in the year (say 80 picks in main draft, 20+ in rookie draft) likely to be better than Harvey, who's already had 2 years of development?"

I personally would keep Harvey. Has shown signs.
Click to expand...
If you make a judgement he will never make it you are better off taking your chances on the 100th bloke in the draft I suppose.Note - I have not seen much of Harvey.
 
BigCat2 said:
Regarding Harvey, the question I would ask is "is a kid rated the ~100th best kid in the year (say 80 picks in main draft, 20+ in rookie draft) likely to be better than Harvey, who's already had 2 years of development?"

I personally would keep Harvey. Has shown signs.
Click to expand...

I would keep Harvey as well, just to see what he could potentially turn into with 3 years development combined with his athleticism. I just don't see what his position will be however, he is played as a medium defender sometimes CHB in the reserves, and although he could become a good defender, I feel he needs to use his pace much much better.

I would definitely keep Clarke and Michael on the rookie list as they have been solid KPD's in the reserves for us. Clarke in particular I think has the potential to be a very good player at CHB for us. Richard Newell I am a bit iffy on, he has very good athletic ability and has shown some good signs as a midfielder/tagger at NEAFL level yet he would be close to the chopping block. Wrigley has also shown some good signs as a HBF, yet he would probably be close to the bottom of the list as well.

Jack Crisp should definitely be kept on the rookie list for one more year purely for development as I think he will take a while to develop more fully and when he comes onto the senior list he will have an extra years development in him. McKeever should be given a one year contract on the senior list as he is our back up KPD at the moment and quite crucial to our structure.

Josh Dyson is probably gone, he shows a fair bit at reserves yet hasn't made an impact at AFL level, he might be re-rookied elsewhere but his time at Brisbane is probably up.

All up I would rate them:

1. Crisp
2. Clarke
3. McKeever
4. Harvey
5. Michael
6. Newell
7. Wrigley
8. Dyson - but gone as last year on list
 
Wrigley-Coming into the season and watching highlights of intra-club matches Wrigley stood out a fair bit. Would have expected him to get a game based on that form, but their are a few ahead of him. Plently of depth in that part of the ground.
Crisp-Has been a really good pick up. I can see him playing as a half forward in the future. Needs to build his tank and have another good pre-season.
Dyson & Harvey are almost certains to be let go.
 
Thoughts on Scott Clarke getting rookied next year? Has apparently looked good playing for us in the ressies.

I get the criticisms of Newell, but think it'd be really unlikely for him to go considering he was BOG recently and the club has put a lot of work into him as a NSW/ACT scholarship player.
 
PattyKisagun said:
Thoughts on Scott Clarke getting rookied next year? Has apparently looked good playing for us in the ressies.

I get the criticisms of Newell, but think it'd be really unlikely for him to go considering he was BOG recently and the club has put a lot of work into him as a NSW/ACT scholarship player.
Click to expand...

I don't think where they have come from is a factor. It will just be about what they offer in the future.

And on Scott Clarke, he seems to be playing as an undersized ruckman. Don't think that role in the NEAFL will translate to the top level.
 
IMO:

Justin Clarke - retained as rookie
Jack Crisp - elevated
Josh Dyson - delisted
Brad Harvey - delisted
Niall McKeever - delisted
Sam Michael - delisted
Richard Newell - retained as rookie
Steven Wrigley - elevated
 
Grimreepah said:
IMO:

Justin Clarke - retained as rookie
Jack Crisp - elevated
Josh Dyson - delisted
Brad Harvey - delisted
Niall McKeever - delisted
Sam Michael - delisted
Richard Newell - retained as rookie
Steven Wrigley - elevated
Click to expand...

Really interesting that you've elevated Wrigley and Kept Clarke as a rookie. Most would probably have done it the other way around. I'm guessing from that you're expecting Stiller to get cut? Can't imagine any other reason really that Wrigley would be elevated.

I also hold fears for Michael. He really just doesn't show what's needed to be a successful big man in the AFL by any means. A long way off the main comp. I'm not really sure if he was ever recruited to make it that far anyway, or if it was just to help the spine of our NEAFL team and give us some support if everything else fell over in terms of rucks. Wouldn't be surprised to see him cut.

As for McKeever, the club would have to be pretty confident with the KPD talent they're trading/drafting in to cut him. Apart from him, we've only really got Goose, Patfull and Merrett who can play as a KPD. Stakes can probably do it, but I wouldn't say it's his best spot, and Clarke's the other option but he's not being elevated in this scenario. Really hoping this off season could be the one that we finalise our side's spine for the next 8+ years.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

PattyKisagun said:
Really interesting that you've elevated Wrigley and Kept Clarke as a rookie. Most would probably have done it the other way around. I'm guessing from that you're expecting Stiller to get cut? Can't imagine any other reason really that Wrigley would be elevated.

I also hold fears for Michael. He really just doesn't show what's needed to be a successful big man in the AFL by any means. A long way off the main comp. I'm not really sure if he was ever recruited to make it that far anyway, or if it was just to help the spine of our NEAFL team and give us some support if everything else fell over in terms of rucks. Wouldn't be surprised to see him cut.

As for McKeever, the club would have to be pretty confident with the KPD talent they're trading/drafting in to cut him. Apart from him, we've only really got Goose, Patfull and Merrett who can play as a KPD. Stakes can probably do it, but I wouldn't say it's his best spot, and Clarke's the other option but he's not being elevated in this scenario. Really hoping this off season could be the one that we finalise our side's spine for the next 8+ years.
Click to expand...

Clarke has been playing full back in a dominant side. I question how much he has really been tested. For me he is almost like an Irishman considering his limited exposure to the game before he got drafted. His age is also a factor - he is only 18 and probably not ready to play against the bigger bodies in the AFL. The BigFooty reports on him have been great, while the official reports on him have been encouraging but a little more subdued. I think a 2nd year rookie is the likely outcome for him.

McKeever is more of a 50/50 call. I would throw in Lisle as a key defensive option as well. And Lester can play as a third tall. There are a few variables in play, eg. where will Merrett play, so I can see it going either way.
 
Grimreepah said:
Clarke has been playing full back in a dominant side. I question how much he has really been tested. For me he is almost like an Irishman considering his limited exposure to the game before he got drafted. His age is also a factor - he is only 18 and probably not ready to play against the bigger bodies in the AFL. The BigFooty reports on him have been great, while the official reports on him have been encouraging but a little more subdued. I think a 2nd year rookie is the likely outcome for him.

McKeever is more of a 50/50 call. I would throw in Lisle as a key defensive option as well. And Lester can play as a third tall. There are a few variables in play, eg. where will Merrett play, so I can see it going either way.
Click to expand...

There's every chance McKeever's recent burst of games (that ended with the Swans match) may have been his last role of the dice. But despite a few poor performances, I think he's shown enough to stay on. As others have commented, though, delisting will be a much more cut-throat and ruthless job now with the overall quality/upside of our list improving.
 
with our finals chances now all but gone, i would use the rest of the year to play as many of our rookies & listed newbies as possible in senior match situations to see if they 'cut the mustard' at the top level with the end of season list review in mind. so that we can draft and/or trade for the best available, where our needs are the greatest.

i wouldn't play them as the sub either, kep the sub for a player that is not under review.

would seem to be a logical course of action to take to me.
 
I would go:

Justin Clarke, retain as a rookie
Jack Crisp (currently elevated), retain as a rookie
Josh Dyson, delist
Brad Harvey, delist
Niall McKeever (currently elevated), elevate
Sam Michael, retain as a rookie
Richard Newell, retain as a rookie
Steven Wrigley, retain as a rookie
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lace Out said:
If you make a judgement he will never make it you are better off taking your chances on the 100th bloke in the draft I suppose.Note - I have not seen much of Harvey.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it works both ways. Being on a list substantially improves your prospects of having a senior career but it also means that your faults and weaknesses are on display daily. Unfortunately for Harvey, he's going to miss his best opportunity to play his way onto the list in 2013, by virtue of his injury. And, without knowing a lot about his progress, it isn't as though he has set the world on fire thus far.

He might be a bit unlucky but the club has to make decisions on the rookies. If the plan is to delist Dyson and elevate only McKeever, then we'd only have 2 picks in the rookie draft in 2012 without further cuts. That's OK, if we're entirely comfortable with the structure of our list - eg if Hudson retires, we may want to rookie list on older State league ruckman as insurance.
 
POBT said:
Yeah, it works both ways. Being on a list substantially improves your prospects of having a senior career but it also means that your faults and weaknesses are on display daily. Unfortunately for Harvey, he's going to miss his best opportunity to play his way onto the list in 2013, by virtue of his injury. And, without knowing a lot about his progress, it isn't as though he has set the world on fire thus far.

He might be a bit unlucky but the club has to make decisions on the rookies. If the plan is to delist Dyson and elevate only McKeever, then we'd only have 2 picks in the rookie draft in 2012 without further cuts. That's OK, if we're entirely comfortable with the structure of our list - eg if Hudson retires, we may want to rookie list on older State league ruckman as insurance.
Click to expand...

Are you really ready for the "recruit Mitch Brewer" campaign this early?:eek:
 
I don't see McKeever as being any more likely to succeed at AFL level than Harvey or Dyson. He's been given more chances than both of them and has shown improvement, but still looks well out of his depth with regards to footballing ability. His athleticism and height has kept him in the side though. His future will probably heavily depend on the future of our forwards. If Ace and Retzy stay on the list, I'd say he'll lose his spot.
 
Nick Lions said:
I don't see McKeever as being any more likely to succeed at AFL level than Harvey or Dyson. He's been given more chances than both of them and has shown improvement, but still looks well out of his depth with regards to footballing ability. His athleticism and height has kept him in the side though. His future will probably heavily depend on the future of our forwards. If Ace and Retzy stay on the list, I'd say he'll lose his spot.
Click to expand...

Depending on operation Tippett...I'd be surprised if we do anymore than the mandatory list culling.. IMO, without naming them, they'll be the senior players who have been on our list 3 years and up...who only seem to get reserve gigs for the past 2-3 seasons..
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom