If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I reckon there's been a change of strategy with the rookie draft this year.
Last year we took a heap of talls from the TAC comp, but as the AFL rules are quite restrictive most of them were cut after 12 months before they'd really had the chance to develp at AFL level.
This year the 2 TAC boys are both midfielders and won't need the extra few years in the system to see if they have got what it takes (hopefully).
It will be interesting to see how Wall develops at St Kilda with another 1-2 years in the AFL system.
I feel sorry for Josh Willoughby, he is still only 20 (if memory serves me correctly) and I thought he would have been a chance to get picked up in the rookie draft by someone. Back to Glenelg for him?
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time
Isnt that an inherent problem with drafting talls though? (ie that they are more speculative)
Why not persist with that in the rookie draft where we have much more flexibility. Reg and the loaf have been two good tall gets from the rookie draft over the past few years....
I think that maybe we have an explanation as to why we passed on our final (3rd local) rookie pick. They didn't know that they could pick anyone.
Check this out:
"Coach Paul Roos continues to place his faith in the Club's recruiting department as they will look to bolster their rookie list from its current three to the maximum of eight."
Um, no. There's a maximum of 9. For example, the 9 we had on our rookie list in 2006. Yeah, that's the one! In case you get confused, a dead giveaway is if there's a pick allocated to you-- that's a hint from the AFL that you can pick someone, if you like.
Originally posted by Marry me Goodes Isnt that an inherent problem with drafting talls though? (ie that they are more speculative)
Why not persist with that in the rookie draft where we have much more flexibility. Reg and the loaf have been two good tall gets from the rookie draft over the past few years....
Its a tough call and I can see where you are coming from.
The AFL's rookie rules arent conducive for taking talls as they only have 2 seasons (or 1 as seems to be common now) to show what they've got to make it.
Whereas with the ND they are guaranteed 2 seasons (99% of the time) and usually the swans give them a 3rd to see if they will make it or not.
Originally posted by stellation I feel sorry for Josh Willoughby, he is still only 20 (if memory serves me correctly) and I thought he would have been a chance to get picked up in the rookie draft by someone. Back to Glenelg for him?
Yep, and also Spriggs. Even afl.com.au failed to mention his passing in their validictory article, despite paying tribute to such immortals of the game as Tristan Cartledge and Luke Livingston.
"As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk
?Hawthorn hasn?t guaranteed anything but I don?t really want to move to Sydney. It doesn?t interest me so I?m going to take the chance and hopefully it pays off.
What a tossa,Maxfield tried to talk him round but he said stuff ya,well i say stuff you.Sydneys not good enough Pfffttt.
Now this is a thread that i would expect on the ego -centric, wank session that is redandwhiteonline.com...
Comment