Draft Profile 2018 Mature Aged Prospects

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

It's not as if Boyd and English were doing anything around the ground.

wat.

I mean, that may be the conclusion from stats alone, but Boyd and especially English were far, far, far, far, far more impactful on the game outside of ruck contests than Campbell has ever been.

I think Campbell deserved more games, but his weaknesses are incredibly obvious. His ability to be productive outside of the centre bounce was far and away worse than any of our other options.

 

[Virgin Dog]

It's not as if Boyd and English were doing anything around the ground. Campbell may not be the greatest around the ground but by god he shits on them as a tap ruck.

Tom Campbell is 27 years old. His development years are behind him.

English is one of our best disposers, has a good mark, and is able to produce a decent output around the ground. Before his injury, he was being selected despite his poor ruck work because he offered enough around the ground to justify it. Boyd is basically a slightly better Campbell at this stage, but far younger, so of course we'd pick him first.

I feel based off this comment that you probably don't actually watch any Dogs games. Not sure how else you could get that impression

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...e/news-story/19916efe77446446b211bbe2a10009c0

Fox reporting that Essendon are expected to pick up Zac Clarke, although on face value there doesn't appear to be much more to the story than "Essendon need a ruck, Clarke is a ruck, therefore Essendon will draft Clarke".

 

[Virgin Dog]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...e/news-story/19916efe77446446b211bbe2a10009c0

Fox reporting that Essendon are expected to pick up Zac Clarke, although on face value there doesn't appear to be much more to the story than "Essendon need a ruck, Clarke is a ruck, therefore Essendon will draft Clarke".

So basically your typical piece of AFL journalism. Always using words like 'expected', 'sources close to the club without naming them', etc. Pretty sure it was Foxsports were the ones saying Dogs were expected to pick up Menzel, but there has been nothing linking us to him before or after that article. Sounds like they're just making shit up to generate clicks

 

[Suma Magic]

What pick might the Bombers need to use to take Clarke?

 

[Bastyy]

What pick might the Bombers need to use to take Clarke?

In all reality he could probably be a rookie pick. There's a few other rucks like Darcy Fort who would probs be taken earlier

 

[Suma Magic]

In all reality he could probably be a rookie pick. There's a few other rucks like Darcy Fort who would probs be taken earlier

Given that he can nominate whatever terms he wants (such as a 1 year 120k base salary to make himself attractive and less risk) I think that he will get picked up in the main draft, could be really good back-up for a contender next year. But I'm just guessing obviously, it will be interesting to see if/where he goes.

 

[eth-dog]

Honestly if I'm Clarke I'd sooner back myself of getting ahead of Tom Hickey and staying in WA, whilst still playing majority ruck in the WAFL, rather than move to Vic, being an almost guaranteed back up behind Bellchambers and play as a forward at VFL level since the club will prioritise Draper's development.

 

[Suma Magic]

Honestly if I'm Clarke I'd sooner back myself of getting ahead of Tom Hickey and staying in WA, whilst still playing majority ruck in the WAFL, rather than move to Vic, being an almost guaranteed back up behind Bellchambers and play as a forward at VFL level since the club will prioritise Draper's development.

Won't Clarke just nominate and be stoked to go anywhere?

 

[db26]

Campbell was handy going up forward in the past taken a few grabs kicking goals to.

 

[eth-dog]

Won't Clarke just nominate and be stoked to go anywhere?

Obviously that's the case, but I think there's a clear case of West Coast more likely to have better opportunities for him as a ruck given their current stocks for next year are Hickey (far from setting the world on fire), Vardy (more forward than ruck) and McInness (averaging 2 games a year). If I'm him I'd rather play for West Coast than Essendon. I wouldn't complain if we got him as he suits our needs though.

 

[Suma Magic]

Obviously that's the case, but I think there's a clear case of West Coast more likely to have better opportunities for him as a ruck given their current stocks for next year are Hickey (far from setting the world on fire), Vardy (more forward than ruck) and McInness (averaging 2 games a year). If I'm him I'd rather play for West Coast than Essendon. I wouldn't complain if we got him as he suits our needs though.

Yeah he could potentially compete with Hickey.

But an injury to Bellchambers could put him in the frame for a game?

 

[TheGrizz]

Yeah he could potentially compete with Hickey.

But an injury to Bellchambers could put him in the frame for a game?

Absolutely it would.

And this year and 2013 aside, there is a good chance that might happen at some point next season.

 

[the flying ham]

Jye Bolton???

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yep, fordham over bolton is very puzzling. Fordham isn't top 3 inside mid

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Thetrader15]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...e/news-story/19916efe77446446b211bbe2a10009c0

Fox reporting that Essendon are expected to pick up Zac Clarke, although on face value there doesn't appear to be much more to the story than "Essendon need a ruck, Clarke is a ruck, therefore Essendon will draft Clarke".

Now that's what I call journalism! (Note, information may have also come from facebook)

 

[Thetrader15]

Won't Clarke just nominate and be stoked to go anywhere?

Happy to have him at Adelaide TBH

 

[Great8]

Another article tonight suggested we are awaiting the AFL clarifying a ruling to determine if we can take Clarke as a Cat A rookie similar to GWS and Mumford.

 

[Peel67skin]

Another article tonight suggested we are awaiting the AFL clarifying a ruling to determine if we can take Clarke as a Cat A rookie similar to GWS and Mumford.

Link ? Article from where ? Can I google search it .

 

[Great8]

Link ? Article from where ? Can I google search it .

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-13/bombers-closing-in-on-signing-former-dockers-ruckman-clarke

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Another article tonight suggested we are awaiting the AFL clarifying a ruling to determine if we can take Clarke as a Cat A rookie similar to GWS and Mumford.

Not sure we'll take Mummy as a rookie. The free agalency rules also change and that might be the mechanism. Doubt if Mummy's manager so would have said he can come straight to us if there wasn't a way.

 

[Suma Magic]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-13/bombers-closing-in-on-signing-former-dockers-ruckman-clarke

That's very interesting.

It doesn't seem to align with the intent of the rule to be able to take Mumford and Clarke this way. But this is the AFL and they make it up as they go along, so it will be interesting to see what they decide.

 

[Peel67skin]

 

[Bulldocker]

Um..... but Clarke didn't retire? He was dumped (about 3 years later than he shoulda been). He nominated himself for last year's draft. How is that in any way 'retired'??
Mumford fits the profile but Clarke should be made to go through draft. AFL has opened a can of worms now. Players like Grigg, Jye Bolton and several others should also be permitted to go to a club that is thinking of drafting any mature ager that's been on a list prior to 2018 straight away. I guarantee there is enough interest in Grigg and Bolton right now for that to happen. The smart clubs that are shaping up for them would surely be making application today without risking missing them in draft.
The ruling on Clarke is bulls***.
We'll wait and see what happens next.

 

[UYD 4 Life]

"Clarke, 28, doesn't qualify as a delisted free agent because he spent a season out of the AFL, but the new rules are effectively an extension of that status.

Any player delisted in a previous year qualifies to sign with any club in the SSP, but teams cannot cut a footballer then re-recruit them via this method in the same year."

So i suppose the question would be:

Is the cutoff for free agent status one season or does it apply to players delisted/retired more than 1 season ago?

I read it as only 1 season but who knows

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

"Clarke, 28, doesn't qualify as a delisted free agent because he spent a season out of the AFL, but the new rules are effectively an extension of that status.

Any player delisted in a previous year qualifies to sign with any club in the SSP, but teams cannot cut a footballer then re-recruit them via this method in the same year."

So i suppose the question would be:

Is the cutoff for free agent status one season or does it apply to players delisted/retired more than 1 season ago?

I read it as only 1 season but who knows

"Delisted in a previous year" suggests that it could apply to anyone that's previously been on a list.