list pruning

[gazza]

who creates the first 4 vacancies?
imho williams retired
chambers retired
spriggs delist
m davis delist
that allows for mandatory draftees,if we want to promote rookies or take part in trade,then others have to go.
i feel it is important that we retain the FRINGE.....schmidt,moore,willoughby,vogels,grundy, phillips.

a problem isn't it??

[Bart]

Re: list pruning

Originally posted by gazza
who creates the first 4 vacancies?
imho williams retired
chambers retired
spriggs delist
m davis delist
that allows for mandatory draftees,if we want to promote rookies or take part in trade,then others have to go.
i feel it is important that we retain the FRINGE.....schmidt,moore,willoughby,vogels,grundy, phillips.

a problem isn't it??

MOL to veterans list

[Layby]

Re: list pruning

Originally posted by gazza
who creates the first 4 vacancies?
imho williams retired
chambers retired
spriggs delist
m davis delist
that allows for mandatory draftees,if we want to promote rookies or take part in trade,then others have to go.
i feel it is important that we retain the FRINGE.....schmidt,moore,willoughby,vogels,grundy, phillips.

a problem isn't it??

Yep sure is, always the case with a winning side

You would think another one of the talls will go especially with Doyle fit & Everitt on the horizon. So Shaw or Erikson maybe, or even both

[goswannie14]

I thought it was only 3 vacancies, in which case it is Willo and Chambers retired and MOL to the Veterans list.

[ScottH]

Why delist the best reserves player?

[hammo]

Originally posted by ScottH
Why delist the best reserves player?

If you mean Spriggs I'd say because he doesn't fit into Roos' plans.

Despite being the best reserves player all year he couldn't crack it for a seniors game.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by hammo
If you mean Spriggs I'd say because he doesn't fit into Roos' plans.

Despite being the best reserves player all year he couldn't crack it for a seniors game.

But surely that means he is ready Seniors or at least showing his intentions to play Senior footy are real.

[dendol]

yes, he's just waiting for a few of our midfielders to break down before he gets a chance. He's not Mathews when it comes to selection.

[chammond]

Originally posted by ScottH
Why delist the best reserves player?

Winning the award for best reserves player is frequently the kiss-of-death in the AFL.

[chammond]

Originally posted by goswannie14
I thought it was only 3 vacancies, in which case it is Willo and Chambers retired and MOL to the Veterans list.

Chambers?

Surely, he must have at least one more year on his contract. Why would he retire?

[liz]

Originally posted by chammond
Chambers?

Surely, he must have at least one more year on his contract. Why would he retire?

Cliff - where have you been for the last week? He's already called it quits for this year, citing lack of enthusiasm.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by chammond
Chambers?

Surely, he must have at least one more year on his contract. Why would he retire?

Because he is sick and tired of all the bagging he cops on RWO.But its all true.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by chammond
Winning the award for best reserves player is frequently the kiss-of-death in the AFL.

I guess so, a good 2nds player, that will never amount to anything. There was a snippet in the HS saying that he was a likely candidate.

[Rob-bloods]

Who would be the unluckiest player this year who needs to breakthrough?

Vogels, Moore, Spriggs, Schmidt Willoughby...

Who will be less assured of a posi next year?

Matthews, Crouch, Davis, Bevo..

Who has jumped the queue?

Grundy, Phillips?

Very interesting this season and with a supposedly 'fat' draft and us perhaps not needing to trade specifically our first pick could be a beauty in the late teens!

[SimonH]

There are few greater myths than the idea that all clubs should prize their picks more dearly because they're entering a 'genius' (or 'fat' etc) draft: if anyone means by the term that a pick 20 (or 30 or 40 or 50) in this draft is worth more than a pick 20 in any other draft.

Imagine a bell curve, distributing hundreds of talented young players by their ability to become successful AFL footballers. A very small number are miles away from ever getting on an AFL list, and might as well be doing it for a laugh, and a very small number are gunna be Judds, i.e. unquestionably elite players who are the absolute top of the pile-- have the ability to walk in anywhere and start playing 200+ games. We don't care whether there's variation at the 'no hope' end of the draft; but there will definitely be some variation in the 'genius' end. Some years there might be one or two (perhaps even none); some years there might be as many as 5 to 7. You can't expect that to remain constant, because by its nature it's anomalous.

But the closer you get to the fat part of the bell curve, the lesser the variation is. Sheer weight of numbers sees to that. There are simply too many kids playing football in Australia to ever say 'your average kid born in 1989 is a 5% better footballer than the average kid born in 1988'. Youth coaching techniques change in an incremental (and uneven) way across long periods, and also couldn't account for meaningful variation across a 1 year period.

What I'm saying is that there may well be more talent in picks 1-8 of the 2006 draft than there was in picks 1-8 of the 2005 draft. But we don't have any of picks 1-8, and the further you go down, the less likely it is that any advantage will be sustained. By the time you get to picks in the mid to late teens, the difference will effectively be nil.

The relevance of the above is twofold:
a) We shouldn't be afraid to trade, including trading draft picks, simply because the draft is hyped; and
b) We shouldn't utilise a 4th (or 5th) pick merely because there's enormous strength at the front end of the draft. It remains a question of asking 'is the player we would take with pick 60-something, a better prospect than the bloke we're thinking of cutting from our list to create that 4th slot?'