Something doesn't make sense??

[swannies]

OK, we've all been told how shallow the draft is and how players lower than 30 or 32 are abjectly useless.

So then, if this is the case, why are teams cutting large numbers of players? Brissie just cut 12, everyone seems to have cut more than their mandatory 3 to participate in the draft. What does this all mean?

 

[goodie23]

Lions might not be the greatest example, they delisted seven from their senior list as well as traded away two and one retiree for a grand total of ten (the twelve you mentioned included five rookies), but they also traded in five players.

Given their draft picks are 27, 47, 76, 92, 108, 124 and 140, they'll probably look at upgrading some rookies to fill some of those slots. They've already elevated one (Pearce Hanley).

One other consideration, the kids available at 30+ are of dubious quality. There will still plenty of mature agers available, Voss might be willing to gamble on a few of them.

And it's not mandatory three picks any more. Upgrade a rookie, and you can take as few as two.

 

[doug85]

This is something i have also pondered. With the draft picks that both Collingwood and Brisbane have traded away, i think both these clubs are going to have to use some very late picks due to the rule of three mandatory picks being used in the national draft. The one saving grace for these teams is that i believe that only a handful of clubs are going to use more than their three picks in the draft, so in effect they will only be taking players in the 50's due to other clubs passing. From all reports it sounds as if these clubs are going to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with these picks.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It still doesn't make sense what Brisbane did, especially since they have really no rookies to upgrade (all delisted) so they'll have to use 92...I can only assume they think there will be lots of passes so 92 might be the equivalent of 60. Even so it's strange.

 

[keviewiggle]

It still doesn't make sense what Brisbane did, especially since they have really no rookies to upgrade (all delisted) so they'll have to use 92...I can only assume they think there will be lots of passes so 92 might be the equivalent of 60. Even so it's strange.

Expect Brisbane to be very active in the PSD.
Players like Nicoski could be a very atractive option for the Lions.

 

[ben_cats_fan]

It still doesn't make sense what Brisbane did, especially since they have really no rookies to upgrade (all delisted) so they'll have to use 92...I can only assume they think there will be lots of passes so 92 might be the equivalent of 60. Even so it's strange.

Don't forget passing on a pick gives them the opportunity to use a pick in the PSD

 

[Tranquilli37]

Expect Brisbane to be very active in the PSD.
Players like Nicoski could be a very atractive option for the Lions.

Yeah true that. With the way Voss has been recruiting so far, i wouldnt be surprised if players like Nicoski and other delisted players made it on the Brisbane list.

 

[bodazoka]

I think it makes sence what Voss is doing and it relates to the draft being shallow. IMO He knows it is a shallow draft and so would prefer to try and target players from other teams rather then use his picks in the draft.

It was also sudgested that this year would be the greatest for rookie elevations so far, and I remember reading that before the rule changed so that rookies became part of the mandatory changes. So with the changes to the rules I would assume that people who are cutting there list aernt doing so to participate in the draft. They are going to upgrade 1-2 rookies instead.

 

[cmndstab]

Clubs can't afford to opt totally out of this draft since they'll miss oppurtunities in the next few. I imagine clubs that have delisted lots of players will attempt to draft a mixture of potentially good youth and mature-aged (say 21+) players to tide them over the next few years of GC17 and West Sydney-impacted drafts.

 

[Alfonz]

I would have thought it has a bit to do with the salary cap. You don't have to pay draftees that much. Not that most of the guys that have been cut would have been on much anway, but it might still make a difference.

 

[zest88]

Players mite play for less for another chance at AFL

 

[HFF]

This is something i have also pondered. With the draft picks that both Collingwood and Brisbane have traded away, i think both these clubs are going to have to use some very late picks due to the rule of three mandatory picks being used in the national draft. The one saving grace for these teams is that i believe that only a handful of clubs are going to use more than their three picks in the draft, so in effect they will only be taking players in the 50's due to other clubs passing. From all reports it sounds as if these clubs are going to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with these picks.

Collingwood have hardly traded away or out of this draft. It is just a case of Hine not rating it as deep or as quality ala 2007.

We will only take 2 players from this draft IMO and elevate a rookie as the draft rules have changed for this season. You only need to take the mandatory 3 selections if you do not promote anyone from the rookie list.

 

[adagio]

IMHO, if your club has enough faith in its recruiting and especially development staff, there's no problem with using late picks.

There seems to be just as much potential talent in this draft as any other. The ceiling is just as high. The difference is, aside from the top 4 or 5 players, there are bigger questions marks over every prospect. And if you get this draft wrong, you're screwed for quite a while.

Just a few case-in-examples to demonstrate my point.

Gary Rohan - all the tools, BUT lacks consistency
John Butcher - athletic, great hands, BUT can his kicking and fitness be sorted out?
Nicholas Winmar - tall, quick, clean BUT will he ever have the tank?
Lewis Jetta - quick, clean, skilful BUT does he have the character and will he bulk up enough?
Jack Fitzpatrick - rare athleticism, clean hands BUT can his kicking be sorted out?
Jesse Crighton - clean, smart, athletic BUT can he bulk up enough and consistently impact AFL games?

The list goes on, and that's before even getting onto the unusually high number of talented short people running around.

 

[Mr_Vedder]

OK, we've all been told how shallow the draft is and how players lower than 30 or 32 are abjectly useless.

So then, if this is the case, why are teams cutting large numbers of players? Brissie just cut 12, everyone seems to have cut more than their mandatory 3 to participate in the draft. What does this all mean?

That a lot more players were traded, a lot more players will go into the draft and PSD this year. A lot of rookie are going to be upgraded onto primary lists. The draft is not very deep but clubs are still going to go into the 60s with it as GC will raid it next year and wont be much easier then.

Clubs were much happier to trade picks in the late first round/early 2nd round. The very early picks were untouchable this year even if you offered 2 late 1st rounders to get one.

 

[keviewiggle]

That a lot more players were traded, a lot more players will go into the draft and PSD this year. A lot of rookie are going to be upgraded onto primary lists. The draft is not very deep but clubs are still going to go into the 60s with it as GC will raid it next year and wont be much easier then.

Clubs were much happier to trade picks in the late first round/early 2nd round. The very early picks were untouchable this year even if you offered 2 late 1st rounders to get one.

I suspect that Clubs are just coming to grips with a changed environment with the addition of 2 new clubs.
With the weak draft and comprimised position clubs are definately looking to keep their rookies rather than participate in the latter part of the draft.
Other clubs are feeding off other teams lists. Yet other clubs seem to be grooming players to trade to the Goldcoast for top picks in 2010.
It's a whole new ball game.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

The PSD will be a big one. I would be tempted to use picks 7,22 and 23 and elevate one less rookie just to have pick 6 in the the PSD.

 

[Dawson]

Maybe its because no one has ever said picks beyond 30 are "abjectly useless"

 

[Vader]

For all those massive delistings, there are still just 58 senior list positions currently vacant.

As has been pointed out, Brisbane have announced 21 changes to their lists this year - yet for all that activity they currently have just 4 selections at the ND (5 when Bradshaw is delisted).

By my maths, there have been 22 senior listed players retire and 41 have been delisted to date this year. Countering this have been 5 players upgraded from rookie lists (including Mumford who got promoted via trade). That leaves a National Draft of just 58 players at this stage - and it's a safe bet that some of those picks will remain unused, saved for use in the PSD.

*** Note that not all clubs have finished cleaning out their lists, promoting rookies and veterans etc. Port's press release indicated that they were waiting on the AFL's ruling on 3rd year rookies. Geelong's press release indicated that more delistings were likely to follow. From memory there were one or two others who said similar things.

In contrast, the 2008 ND had 85 vacancies - only 6 of which were saved for the PSD.