-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Welcome to Tiger land Riley Collier’Dawkins
- Thread starter rinso17
- Start date
Under my 'rookie list is for rookies' reform;
1. If he was any good, they keep him on the main list (and make the list room by cutting someone)
They could make a list category called FODACG
Fear of delisting and he comes good
Debates like these, i really miss having L2R2 around.
Id love stats on average unproductive career length (years on lists without really doing anything) correlated with draft position.
I.e the higher a bloke is picked, the longer he gets, without playing decent footy.
Lets use josh schache as an example - hes drawn a cabinet ministers wage as a KPF for 7 years at 10 goals a year, and now hes got another 2-3. Hell kick 100 goals ...... in a decade!
Largely, i reckon, cause he was pick 2.
If he was pick 52, he'd have 4 years experience as a financial planner.
Surely theres dozens of big blokes whose afl dream slowly slipped away, who could have doubled schaches output and kicked a ton in 5 years?
Id also have asked L2R2 for an average number of games from listed blokes who get rookied, compared to actual rookies.
I guess what im saying in a convoluted way is,
Cut your losses. Move blokes on. Turn lists over
And to bring it back,
Cut RCD loose. He'll be a great get for Wangaratta Rovers
Id love stats on average unproductive career length (years on lists without really doing anything) correlated with draft position.
I.e the higher a bloke is picked, the longer he gets, without playing decent footy.
Lets use josh schache as an example - hes drawn a cabinet ministers wage as a KPF for 7 years at 10 goals a year, and now hes got another 2-3. Hell kick 100 goals ...... in a decade!
Largely, i reckon, cause he was pick 2.
If he was pick 52, he'd have 4 years experience as a financial planner.
Surely theres dozens of big blokes whose afl dream slowly slipped away, who could have doubled schaches output and kicked a ton in 5 years?
Id also have asked L2R2 for an average number of games from listed blokes who get rookied, compared to actual rookies.
I guess what im saying in a convoluted way is,
Cut your losses. Move blokes on. Turn lists over
And to bring it back,
Cut RCD loose. He'll be a great get for Wangaratta Rovers
One of the player managers said that the delist then back onto the rookie list was a good way to take pressure off a borderline player. If he stays on the main list he is looking over his shoulder all the time and performance can be adversely affected. Put him on the rookie list with 2 years to play out the player can relax and concentrate on improving.
I am not too far away from what you are saying, just giving an alternate view.
I would do away with the rookie list altogether and increase the list size
IF he has decided to do some extra work on his own to improve his game then that can only be a good thing. I had really high wraps and hopes for RCD when he first came. Still reckon the kid can play just didnt have the right attitude or didnt seem to put in the hard yards required. Perhaps the penny has finally dropped.
Blokes his size that can play as mids are hard to find.
Id give him another year. Bottom line is either RCD makes it at Richmond or he plays country football. There is no chance he goes to another AFL club and makes it ala Stengle
Blokes his size that can play as mids are hard to find.
Id give him another year. Bottom line is either RCD makes it at Richmond or he plays country football. There is no chance he goes to another AFL club and makes it ala Stengle
I had high hopes when we drafted him. But…. It shouldn’t take 4 years for the penny to drop. A year or two? Maybe? But 4? Would prefer to keep Stack who has demonstrated he can play whereas Riley really hasn’t. OK at VFL level spasmodically. Think he is goneski and will be surprised if he is retained.
Riley’s last month or so of VFL this year was very good. Averaging around 30 possessions. The big knock on him earlier was that he couldn’t find the ball - remember Miller‘s early VFL? He couldn’t find the ball at all then suddenly started getting high 20’s possessions. Maybe Riley has just got to that point now. I would cut him a little slack as he was a project player originally and with Covid his development was slowed dramatically. One more year I reckon as a rookie.
Greenwood was definitely contracted for 2022 when he was delisted by the Suns. Whether that means he had to go to the ND instead of the RD I'm not sure and thats where we wouldn't be making that call if they were forced to the ND as delisted players.
One huge question for Gold Coast: Why Hugh?
If you're scratching your head wondering how did this happen, you're not alonewww.afl.com.au
It absolutely can be done, North did it with Polec last year to give them points to take a father son in the draft.
Yep the higher they're picked, and those with a few extra inches always seem to be held onto a bit longer.
Do you know if they are contracted, does that determine which draft they are required to be picked in? Ie. I assume the PSD is not an option, but do they need to be picked up in the ND or can they be picked up in the RD?
posters keep pointing to RCD's last few games- reality is he got kicks against suburban standard teams.
over his last 8 games of the year he got 25+ against the 21st, 20th, 19th, 18th and 17th placed VFL teams. he got 20 or less against the 2nd, 6th and 14th placed teams.
Not sure, but I'd imagine it would have to be the rookie draft because otherwise you wouldn't be a rookie.
RCD is seeing a strength and conditioning coach.
No reports that I’ve seen on extra running training
Not sure why we even have a rookie list any more. Just make it a list of however many players is appropriate, 40, 42, 45, whatever, and be done with it.
Rookies are identical in every respect to players on the main list.
Rookies are identical in every respect to players on the main list.
Yeah, but it’s a circular motion. If the AFL just increase the list size to say a straight 45 then soon the clubs say “but we need a list for the untried young uns”. So a rookie list is introduced then the clubs rort it and then the list size goes to 50 then the clubs say “but we need a list for the untried young uns” and so on.
