The Offseason: Essendon

[jdwood]

Spose some people tried to justify Richmond picking up Andrew Moore last year because he replaced Matt Thomas on the list.

I don't buy the retread theory of picking up a player only because he's better than one that was delisted.

When there are clubs who de-list guys like Matty Dea, it is always prudent to be on the lookout.

 

[eth-dog]

When there are clubs who de-list guys like Matty Dea, it is always prudent to be on the lookout.

The Dea delisting was the right call. His form at Richmond wasn't AFL standard.

 

[Rich01]

When there are clubs who de-list guys like Matty Dea, it is always prudent to be on the lookout.

Yeah, Dea is the perfect example of a delisted player player being best 22 in a non-contending side.
Don't think Green or Richards do the same.

 

[rusman]

Yeah, Dea is the perfect example of a delisted player player being best 22 in a non-contending side.
Don't think Green or Richards do the same.

Didn't Richards just play in a grand final side? Not too bad for a key position player of his age surely.

I should of started with I haven't seen enough to know

 

[Andronicus]

Warming to the idea of Setterfield, but I think if we did that, I'd be lamenting the fact we let both Mc's slip away.

 

[Capt Hindsight]

If Essendon weren't getting Green and Richards (Assumed based on training at the club) they would of used picks 68 and 95 in the draft.
Club has just prioritised depth over some very speculative draft picks especially as we already have Picks 1, 20, 29, 41. So still getting 4 reasonable kids in.
So not really missing out any youth.

 

[Donakebab]

Yeah, Dea is the perfect example of a delisted player player being best 22 in a non-contending side.
Don't think Green or Richards do the same.

I know this will seem a foreign concept to a Richmond supporter, but it's called depth.

 

[Rich01]

I know this will seem a foreign concept to a Richmond supporter, but it's called depth.

It's good that we both agree they werent recruited to be best 22.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

If Essendon weren't getting Green and Richards (Assumed based on training at the club) they would of used picks 68 and 95 in the draft.
Club has just prioritised depth over some very speculative draft picks especially as we already have Picks 1, 20, 29, 41. So still getting 4 reasonable kids in.
So not really missing out any youth.

It's going to be the deepest draft in some time. There will be genuine stars coming from 70 plus. Green is an ok decision but I'd certainly overlook Richards for a Larkey or McLarty who will feature around that position.

 

[rusman]

It's going to be the deepest draft in some time. There will be genuine stars coming from 70 plus. Green is an ok decision but I'd certainly overlook Richards for a Larkey or McLarty who will feature around that position.

Genuine stars 70+.....big call

 

[Skipper_]

Doesn't matter if they're busts since they're free. If we had to give up something you'd hope they'd turn out pretty well but we're giving up absolutely nothing.

 

[Donakebab]

Doesn't matter if they're busts since they're free. If we had to give up something you'd hope they'd turn out pretty well but we're giving up absolutely nothing.

Except places on the list.

 

[Capt Hindsight]

It's going to be the deepest draft in some time. There will be genuine stars coming from 70 plus. Green is an ok decision but I'd certainly overlook Richards for a Larkey or McLarty who will feature around that position.

Next years draft finding gems with late picks is more likely as the rookie list (or at least the category A rookie) won't exist anymore and clubs will just have bigger senior lists and take more picks in the draft with later picks being the VFL, SANFL, WAFL stars.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Next years draft finding gems with late picks is more likely as the rookie list (or at least the category A rookie) won't exist anymore and clubs will just have bigger senior lists and take more picks in the draft with later picks being the VFL, SANFL, WAFL stars.

Sounds like rookie listed players will be able to play this year anyway.

EVERY AFL rookie could be eligible to play from Round 1 under a move that would provide a massive boost to around 100 players next year.

The league and AFL player union are working on a proposal that seems likely to be ratified as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

Each club has a maximum of six rookies, but many need to wait until a long-term injury to be elevated and eligible to play senior football.

By 2018 AFL clubs could have no rookies, with senior lists expanded from 38 to 44 and all of those players available for every game.

But as a transition a move to make all rookies eligible by Round 1 next year would give them real incentive to prove their worth in the pre-season competition.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...8/news-story/4b9f814f27debec43c03fcf969477483

 

[King Patty]

Would be great if could scrap Rookie draft this year.
would mean we could just keep picking at 68 instead of first rookie pick, and get ahead of Hawks first pick etc.
It does signal the end of the pre season draft though.

Then the only real rookies are Category B rookies - remote and international rookies plus guys from other sports like Blicavs.

 

[Tiger2709]

When there are clubs who de-list guys like Matty Dea, it is always prudent to be on the lookout.

Sometimes that last chance at something drives a person to better themselves, he just didn't cut it at Richmond although to be fair our development of players has been terrible.

 

[Tiger2709]

Doesn't matter if they're busts since they're free. If we had to give up something you'd hope they'd turn out pretty well but we're giving up absolutely nothing.

You are giving up a spot for someone that may be better that's why these types are called list cloggers, we have had enough of them in recent years to know that they do cost.