Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[Mercurial89]

Hawks delist three-time premiership player who is set to be re-rookied

Club veteran set to be re-rookied.

www.sen.com.au

Nothing against the Hawks as it is in the rules but this is really a joke. He is the furthest thing from a rookie you could find.
Something has to be done to get the rookie list back to having genuine rookies that have played limited or no AFL games.
Just give the clubs a few veterans spots with a max $500k 1 year deal.

Is the only issue that it's called the rookie list?

 

[eth-dog]

Is the only issue that it's called the rookie list?

Rookie list shouldn't exist

 

[Zach Package]

Former Essendon legends Marty Gleeson, James Stewart

17

James Stewart

Age

30

Ht

199cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.4

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.7

3star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.9

4star

MG

193.5

3star

No current season stats available

D

12.4

4star

K

7.0

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

0.8

3star

MG

200.4

4star

and Sam Grimley headline the VAFA prem team of the year.

Still of the opinion Gleeson was gone far too soon.

 

[Call Me Cake]

If that was the case another club would've picked him up.

 

[Rick Ross]

Former Essendon legends Marty Gleeson, James Stewart and Sam Grimley headline the VAFA prem team of the year.

Still of the opinion Gleeson was gone far too soon.

Constructive use of “legends”.

 

[Mercurial89]

Rookie list shouldn't exist

Why?

 

[eth-dog]

Why?

It no longer serves a function.

 

[ant555]

Is the only issue that it's called the rookie list?

The issue is it should be for rookies. There should be separate list spots for veterans on cheap contracts.
I do not agree with Eth. The rookie list once provided opportunity for players with no AFL experience. Even if it did not produce large numbers of players who made it there were a lot of guys who got a go .
Now it just gets exploited.
My view is there is a place for a proper rookie list. Remove Cat B and simply have 6 spots for guys who have played less than 10 AFL games down to players that have played no AFL games.
Have a veterans list of ? Spots .

 

[ant555]

It no longer serves a function.

Because it has become a joke. It would serve a function if the loophole was closed. For a start there are plenty of SSP selections that are genuine rookies.

 

[justlookingaround]

https://archive.md/GKKr4

Jesus, what a read (Tuohy on being coached by Brendon Bolton)

 

[Yoda_]

Why?

260 AFL game, 3 x premiership player Jack Gunston is going to “re commit to Hawthorn via the “rookie list”


Let that sink in

 

[eth-dog]

Because it has become a joke. It would serve a function if the loophole was closed. For a start there are plenty of SSP selections that are genuine rookies.

What would change if we added the rookie list subsidy to the salary cap and only had Category B rookies? Structure the draft so that as soon as you reach the end of the third round all other draftees are one year deals. All SSP signings simply go on the main list. All MSD draftees go onto the main list.

Don't change the Cat B rules. Just refer to them as the rookie list.

 

[ant555]

What would change if we added the rookie list subsidy to the salary cap and only had Category B rookies? Structure the draft so that as soon as you reach the end of the third round all other draftees are one year deals. All SSP signings simply go on the main list. All MSD draftees go onto the main list.

Don't change the Cat B rules. Just refer to them as the rookie list.

There was nothing wrong with how it was before.

 

[eth-dog]

There was nothing wrong with how it was before.

I agree, but I doubt it ever changes back to that.

 

[Mercurial89]

It no longer serves a function.

It seems to be though?
It's not serving the function it appears you guys want, it's called the rookie list so you want actual rookies taking those spots. Correct?

Let's for instance say it was called the "practice squad spot" and it had the same rules you could place no name rookies or close to the end veterans to assist with managing your list.
Does the issue still remain?

The issue is it should be for rookies. There should be separate list spots for veterans on cheap contracts.
I do not agree with Eth. The rookie list once provided opportunity for players with no AFL experience. Even if it did not produce large numbers of players who made it there were a lot of guys who got a go .
Now it just gets exploited.
My view is there is a place for a proper rookie list. Remove Cat B and simply have 6 spots for guys who have played less than 10 AFL games down to players that have played no AFL games.
Have a veterans list of ? Spots .

It seems it's the naming of it that's the issue for you then?
It seems it's only seen as an 'exploit' because of the way clubs are using it. If the value in it is seen by clubs in mainly using it on veterans to assist with the management of that but they still have the option of using it for proper rookies then what does it matter?

260 AFL game, 3 x premiership player Jack Gunston is going to “re commit to Hawthorn via the “rookie list”


Let that sink in

I don't see an issue with it, it assists clubs with managing list spots.
If they change the name of it it appears there wouldn't be a problem?

 

[Old Campaigner]

https://archive.md/GKKr4

Jesus, what a read (Tuohy on being coached by Brendon Bolton)

It’s amazing how much a person can differ from the way they present publicly. I’d have never thought he’d be like that as a coach

 

[ant555]

It seems to be though?
It's not serving the function it appears you guys want, it's called the rookie list so you want actual rookies taking those spots. Correct?

Let's for instance say it was called the "practice squad spot" and it had the same rules you could place no name rookies or close to the end veterans to assist with managing your list.
Does the issue still remain?




It seems it's the naming of it that's the issue for you then?
It seems it's only seen as an 'exploit' because of the way clubs are using it. If the value in it is seen by clubs in mainly using it on veterans to assist with the management of that but they still have the option of using it for proper rookies then what does it matter?



I don't see an issue with it, it assists clubs with managing list spots.
If they change the name of it it appears there wouldn't be a problem?

It is not the name that is the issue. It is the fact that it gets exploited and experienced players end up in list spots that were supposed to give inexperienced players outside the ND a shot . That is what it is eroding. Close the loophole. If you want to keep Gunston types then fit them on your primary list.

 

[Mercurial89]

It is not the name that is the issue. It is the fact that it gets exploited and experienced players end up in list spots that were supposed to give inexperienced players outside the ND a shot . That is what it is eroding. Close the loophole. If you want to keep Gunston types then fit them on your primary list.

A lot of sports have supplemental list spots that are used for both veteran depth and rookies.

This arrangement allows for both, it's up to clubs to choose how they want to use it. I don't get the exploit issue, it's not an exploit.
It's not how you want it used, it doesn't make it wrong.

I don't see an issue with it aside from it being called the rookie list if it was called the supplemental list spot and had the same function and clubs used it the same way no one would complain seemingly. So if it's only in name then it doesn't matter.

If you want more rookies on lists expand how they can be obtained instead of cutting of list management methods for clubs on veteran depth players.
Just make it so players from any bush league can be signed in the first 5 rounds of the year to the rookie list if a club and that player want.
Done.
Then you have the list management juggling career extension function and an enticing easy to use rookie angle and it's up to clubs to decide what works for their list.

 

[jmoo wan]

https://archive.md/GKKr4

Jesus, what a read (Tuohy on being coached by Brendon Bolton)

that was really well written too, very engaging - 4 and a half starts on goodreads for me