Delistings

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by ScottH
Stop blowing your own trumpet!!!

We all new LRT would be a superstar!!!!

Nah let's blow our trumpets. The BEB has now recruited the 2005 RWO tipping comp minor and major premiership winner Jeffers1984.

My tipping expertise predicts that the Big Earl will be a hit on the field and with the ladies with his gangly frame.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Sorry, I think it's more boredom than bragging. When's the bloody draft anyway?
And I am well aware of your thoughts on LRT, and we shall never mention them again.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
My tipping expertise predicts that the Big Earl will be a hit on the field and with the ladies with his gangly frame.

They like a big guy that's good with his hands!

[Charlie]

Originally posted by DST
Very hard to say, but if Fixter manages to get through a pre season with the Lions then maybe with our last pick we will be happy enough to take him back over a long shot 18 year old. Especially since we have promoted 3 off the rookie list already.

DST

Fixter is a long-shot himself. Unlike Heath last year, he hasn't played a majority of a season in three years.

As much as I rated Benny three years ago, I'd rather go with a 17 year old at pick 61, if that 17yo is seen as a likely top 20 pick in 2006.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Sorry, I think it's more boredom than bragging. When's the bloody draft anyway?
And I am well aware of your thoughts on LRT, and we shall never mention them again.

Nov 26th - I believe they made the decision a couple of years ago to put it after year 12 exams for all states.

Whether that actually helps the kids to focus or not is debatable... should perhaps be accompanied with a blanket media ban on contacting school age draft prospects, for the month before the draft.

[DST]

Originally posted by liz
I'd be surprised if he gets another year. Methinks it will be bye-bye to Hayes, Clark, Potter and Campbell.

Potter has something but it's probably not quite AFL standard. He'd struggle to get a senior game ahead of the other young midfielders in the squad.

With the promotion of three off the rookie list, I would be very surprised that they would cut all the rest of the rookie listed players.

Clarke was rated very highly footy smarts wise (saw hiom play at state level and he has a very good footy brian) but lacked the overall fitness and leg speed to be taken in the draft. He would benefit from another in our system to see if they were able to improve those issues re fitness and leg speed.

If he could then would be a steal re his footy ability.

DST

[Charlie]

I'm assuming that Garrubba will get another year. Clarke will be the interesting one. Liz, taking into account raw ability, fitness and performance, who showed more: Potter in 2004 or Clarke in 2005?

[TheHood]

Originally posted by liz
I'd be surprised if he gets another year. Methinks it will be bye-bye to Hayes, Clark, Potter and Campbell.

Potter has something but it's probably not quite AFL standard. He'd struggle to get a senior game ahead of the other young midfielders in the squad.

I reckon you're right about Potter. He does have a good footy brain but maybe not a body for AFL.

Though you never know. Kirky is an inspiration for any bloke thinking he might be on the footy scrapheap. However you do have to be an inspired, fearless and somewhat intelligent type to climb out. That is some of what our Kirky is about!

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie
I'm assuming that Garrubba will get another year. Clarke will be the interesting one. Liz, taking into account raw ability, fitness and performance, who showed more: Potter in 2004 or Clarke in 2005?

Very hard to compare them because they have such different attributes. It's also a little difficult to remember what I thought of Potter last year, having also watched him for bits of this year.

Clark is more naturally skilled and looks far classier when he has the ball. His work off the ball lacked a bit this year at times - whether that's a fitness issue, attitude or experience I don't know. And maybe I'm being harsh on him, for it's hard to watch everything going on in a game. He played one corker of a game about half way through the season, but apart from that I thought he struggled to get involved other than for fleeting moments.

Potter, on the other hand, is all intensity. He knows where to go to get the ball (admittedly he was generally played more "in the midst of it" than Clark). His disposal almost never looks clean but more often than not seems to be effective.

I remember one game early in 2004 against Queanbeyan down in Canberra (the Sat before the Swans Roos game at Manuka) where the whole Swans reserves team was very ordinary but he and Buchanan stood out as two willing (even desparate) to put their head over the ball.

There are certainly parallels between Potter and Kirk. Kirk was more of a ball magnet when he arrived on the rookie list than Potter has been thus far, However, this is also an unfair comparison given Kirk was 21 or 22 when he was placed on the rookie list and Potter is still a teenager.

If there were one rookie list spot available and there was a direct choice between Potter and Clark, my vote would go to Potter.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Charlie
I'm assuming that Garrubba will get another year.

I hope so, because he really improved a lot last year, he looked lost during the North Sydney game but by the time he did his arm be was definitely sining in the 2's.

Originally posted by Charlie
Clarke will be the interesting one.

With the ball in his hands early on he looked quite good, he just didn't get enough of it. Can he develope some fitness and intensity?

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Ruckman
I hope so, because he really improved a lot last year, he looked lost during the North Sydney game but by the time he did his arm be was definitely sining in the 2's.

sining?

[SimonH]

Anyone noticed how brutally efficiently Sydney has updated its senior list?

However, if you follow through to the rookie list, Guy Campbell (and all of the other dudes) are still on it. The word is that Campbell just ain't allowed to survive on the rookie list... but is that true? I think it's generally agreed that 23 is the cutoff-- he'll still be 23 (just) at the start of the 2006 season (and obviously the AFL isn't going to force you to dump rookies half-way through the season).

Given that the Swans have broken the bad/good news to everyone else, there's no logical reason why they would keep the remaining rookies in suspense for a couple more weeks. I suspect (if I'm right about Sydney being allowed to keep Campbell) that this is it, and all 5 of them have been given a ticket to 2006.

I won't even pretend to know how many this allows us to pick up in the rookie draft.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by SimonH
The word is that Campbell just ain't allowed to survive on the rookie list... but is that true?

Lose the GF sprint and you are gone.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
Anyone noticed how brutally efficiently Sydney has updated its senior list?

However, if you follow through to the rookie list, Guy Campbell (and all of the other dudes) are still on it. The word is that Campbell just ain't allowed to survive on the rookie list... but is that true? I think it's generally agreed that 23 is the cutoff-- he'll still be 23 (just) at the start of the 2006 season (and obviously the AFL isn't going to force you to dump rookies half-way through the season).

Given that the Swans have broken the bad/good news to everyone else, there's no logical reason why they would keep the remaining rookies in suspense for a couple more weeks. I suspect (if I'm right about Sydney being allowed to keep Campbell) that this is it, and all 5 of them have been given a ticket to 2006.

I won't even pretend to know how many this allows us to pick up in the rookie draft.

Campbell is too old for the rookie list. Potter must be delisted and, if the club wishes to persist, redrafted. Hayes, Garrubba and Clarke are eligible for a second season.

We are allowed to have up to nine rookies - though three of that total have to be from NSW/ACT.

[SimonH]

Lawks-a-lordy, it makes me cross that the AFL Player Rules aren't available online (only the collective bargaining agreement, which is handy but obviously leaves a lot of questions unanswered).

Absolutely typical of the AFL that you can enter competitions to win 68 packs of Nutrigrain and a night in the hotel of your choice with Wayne Carey on its website, but you can't find out the rules under which the freakin' organisation and its clubs operate.

Presuming you're right Charlie (and, of course, you always are), the strangeness remains: why not announce all of our dumpings at once? The news ain't gonna get any better.