Rookie Elevations

[sven_inc]

I have been thinking about the Hawks elevations of Webster and Willsmore off the rookie list and whether that might be a reflection of how good they may turn out. The idea being - why elevate them if you weren't expecting them to be a likely contributor.

So out of interest, I've had a look back at the last 5 drafts to get a gauge of whose been elevated and how they've gone in my opinion.

Without having time to list them all here individually atm, a quick count shows 107 rookies elevated in the last 5 drafts.

Just based on my own quick impressions of whether I feel they have become good solid AFL players or struggled/been delisted, I count 65 of them out of the 107 as being passable. Maybe not all superstars - although there certainly are some - but passable nonetheless.

Even more interesting is that Hawks are 4/4 so far in that 5 year period. Without hopefully being too biased, I think most would would agree that Suckling, Breust, Langford and Ceglar would universally be seen as at least solid AFL quality.

So it seems that one, if not both, of Webster and Willsmore have a good chance to graduate to at least a serviceable AFL player for the Hawks.

I hear good things about both but more so about Willsmore. Either way I find both their elevations to be pretty exciting. Good luck to them both.

If anyone has the time to source and list all the elevations so others can make a judgement call, thatd be interesting. It'd also be worth considering whose serviceable (Ceglar/Baguley-types), whose A-grade (Dahlhouse) and whose elite (Breust/Barlow etc).

Thoughts?

 

[WWSD]

Both Webster and Willsmore would have to be good chances of succeeding given our track record of developing rookie listed players. It's part of the reason as to why we are so successful is because our recruiters can find hidden talent and turn them into solid AFL players.

 

[Ordovician]

It is difficult to understand this decision.

Each of Breust, Langers and Suckling had a solid 3 years at Box Hill to show their meddle before being elevated. Ceglar had three years as a journeyman before his elevation at the Hawks.

Breust was a star prior to elevation making the VFL rep side. Langers was a stand out in the 2013 VFL finals series. Even Suckling had shown extraordinary skills at VFL before getting the nod. Ceglar was quite ok at VFL level but I am sure that the decision to elevate him was, at least in part, influenced by the offers other clubs made to him at the end of 2013, promising a place on their senior list. Anyway the club saw something in him that resulted in him playing two senior games in 2013 and were happy to take the punt on an elevation even though we had already traded in McEvoy.

To promote two first year rookies in the same year seems a little out of character for the hawks given their recent history of executing a conservative elevation policy.

Last year Webster showed a lot of promise but missed a fair bit of the season with injuries including a hammy that took him out of the finals. Willsmore got better as the year wore on but neither played the level of footy that demanded immediate elevation. I thought the club would definitely retain them on the rookie list and see how they developed in 2015 with an eye to possibly promoting them then it their efforts warranted it.

Clearly the club has its own specific reasons for these elevations so I would expect both of them to debut next year otherwise their elevations are somewhat lacking in purpose.

I like both players as they have a lot of potential and hope that they come good although competition for senior places for the young'uns will be very tight for the next two seasons.

 

[threesixpio]

They must at least think they're ready to go if needs be otherwise why elevate them. Think Wrighty said as much

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It's about speed

Clarko has often said you don't need to be the most talented, as long as you play your role

With the game evolving, these 2 will help us go forward, regardless of if they star or not

 

[Ordovician]

Willsmore is not quick. Webster is.

 

[Yuley95]

Even more interesting with Grimley basically being demoted to the rookie list at the same time

 

[threesixpio]

Is Willsmore a Gunner back up?

 

[DannyJ]

I thought it was due to our lack of high picks. Instead of guaranteeing Pick 68 and Pick 80 two year contracts we could sign Willsmore and Webster to one year deals. We must also believe they are as good if not better than the back end of this draft.

Otherwise, why wouldn't we just retain them as rookies ?

 

[Blaze Storm]

Here's an outlandish theory: what if the club strongly suspects that we'll need W&W and maybe Heatherly in 2016, but don't want to lose 3 draft picks next year, so would prefer to elevate these two and leave Heatherly on the list (outside salary cap)?

We're still turning over the speculative Rookies, without grabbing another low-pick primary list clogger.

 

[Dewnior]

I thought it was due to our lack of high picks. Instead of guaranteeing Pick 68 and Pick 80 two year contracts we could sign Willsmore and Webster to one year deals. We must also believe they are as good if not better than the back end of this draft.

Otherwise, why wouldn't we just retain them as rookies ?

There could be a few reasons. Blaze Storm offers one above. Another could be that both Willsmore and Webster were offered spots on another club's primary list and like Ceglar, the Hawks didn't want to lose them and hence elevated.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

I felt they were promoted for a different reason.

Obviously the club felt they deserved another few years, however I wonder whether the club felt that they would prefer to tie speculative picks (end of ND or RD) to the rookie list where you only have to keep them for one year, as opposed to picking them in the ND where you have to pay for them for two years, don't you?

 

[sven_inc]

I think whatever the reasons behind their elevation, they wouldn't have done it if they didn't deserve it. They may not have earnt it yet perhaps, but the Hawks generally have solid, considered approaches to their decision making it seems.

 

[sven_inc]

Here's the list I was referring too. 2009 pretty good for quality rookie elevations. Probably 9-10 very high quality players overall before this year by my count. Interestingly only about 17 I'd rate as an absolute fail without having much of a career at all. A lot of very serviceable players too. Odds in Webster and Willsmores favour!

2009
Jeremy Laidler
Matthew Suckling
Sam Jacobs
Brodie Martin
Greg Broughton
Cruize Garlett
Daniel Stewart
Aaron Joseph
Liam Picken
Zac Dawson
Wade Thompson
Robin Nahas
Kristin Thornton
James Mulligan
Luke Miles
Andrew Browne
Pearce Hanley

2010
James Podsiadly
Claye Beams
Cameron Hitchcock
Lewis Stevenson
Jordie McKenzie
Ricky Henderson
Danny Meyer
Callum Wilson
Jeff Garlett
Michael Barlow
Jarryd Blair
Lachlan Keeffe
Andrew Strijk
Jake Spencer
Matthew Jaensch
Ben Speight
David Ellard
Matt de Boer
Mike Pyke
Brodie Moles
Ben Howlett
Luke Thompson
Simon White
Alex Silvagni
Andrew Hooper
Tom Simpkin
Jay van Berlo

2011
Ashton Hams
Mitchell Golby
Luke Dahlhaus
Matthew Panos
Luke Delaney
Stewart Crameri
Luke Breust
Alik Magin
Matthew Wright
Nick Lower
Cameron Pedersen
Nathan Gordon
Aidan Riley

2012
Kyal Horsley
Daniel Nicholson
Michael Evans
Sam Gibson
Clancee Pearce
Brad Dick
Sam Frost
Tom Jonas
Jack Crisp
Levi Casboult
Sam Dunell
Aaron Mullett
Jesse Stringer
Lee Spurr
Marley Williams
Ian Callinan
Andrew Phillips
Tom Campbell
Niall McKeever
Zach Tuohy
Majak Daw
Jason Johannisen
Mark Baguley
Harry Cunningham

2013
Josh Walker
John Ceglar
Jamie Bennell
George Burbury
Lauchlan Dalgleish
Matt Taberner
Will Langford
Jeremy McGovern
Justin Clarke
Kyle Hartigan
Brandon Jack
Mitch Clisby
Tom Curren
Brett Goodes
Simon Tunbridge
Rory Laird
Sam Dwyer
Ed Curnow
Dane Rampe
Adam Oxley
Ricky Petterd
Tom Bell
Zachary Williams

2014
Anyone have a full list of those already scheduled for an elevation?

From memory I've got:
Zac Webster
Dallas Willsmore
Jack Frost
Kyle Martin (gone back to Noble Park)
Joel Tippett
Kayne Turner
Neville Jetta
Kayne Mitchell
Anthony Miles
Eli Templeton
Andrew Boston (??)
Charlie Cameron (??)
Cameron Wood (??)
Patrick Ambrose
Missed anyone?

 

[Blaze Storm]

Here's the list I was referring too. 2009 pretty good for quality rookie elevations. Probably 9-10 very high quality players overall before this year by my count. Interestingly only about 17 I'd rate as an absolute fail without having much of a career at all. A lot of very serviceable players too. Odds in Webster and Willsmores favour!

-Clipped-
Aaron Joseph
Liam Picken
Zac Dawson
Wade Thompson
Robin Nahas
Kristin Thornton

-Clipped-

*Cough*

 

[Steven Tyler]

There could be a few reasons. Blaze Storm offers one above. Another could be that both Willsmore and Webster were offered spots on another club's primary list and like Ceglar, the Hawks didn't want to lose them and hence elevated.

Can another club offer a contracted rookie a primary list contract?
Wasn't Ceglar's rookie list contract up, but we were going to re-rookie him before we promoted him to the senior list?

 

[PenAndPaper]

I'd say the main reason we elevated them was for not wanting to use a pick later than our third in the ND. Elevating them lets us pick up two more than likely mature agers on a single year contract as rookies rather than a two year contract for 5 ND picks. Gives us more room to move at the end of next year with the ability to lose the rookies at the end of one year without it affecting our salary cap for the next year.

 

[lyger]

Can another club offer a contracted rookie a primary list contract?
Wasn't Ceglar's rookie list contract up, but we were going to re-rookie him before we promoted him to the senior list?

I think you are right. I think you get to keep a rookie for three years before upgrading or delisting?

 

[Dewnior]

Can another club offer a contracted rookie a primary list contract?
Wasn't Ceglar's rookie list contract up, but we were going to re-rookie him before we promoted him to the senior list?

Technically no, however another club can tell a rookie listed player that they will draft them in the National Draft if they register for the draft.

My understanding is rookie listed players are only contracted for one year and hence only bound to the club for one year. If the club wants to nominate the player for second year on the rookie list, that player needs to consent.

Ceglar is a case in point where he did not consent to remain rookied (he may have been told he will picked up by another club in the national draft) and was elevated as the club chose not to lose him to another club.

Wayde Skipper is an example of a 1st year rookie exercising his right to nominate for the national draft (rather than remain on our rookie list) but unfortunately for that player, things didn't turn out the best for him.

 

[Steven Tyler]

Technically no, however another club can tell a rookie listed player that they will draft them in the National Draft if they register for the draft.

My understanding is rookie listed players are only contracted for one year and hence only bound to the club for one year. If the club wants to nominate the player for second year on the rookie list, that player needs to consent.

Ceglar is a case in point where he did not consent to remain rookied (he may have been told he will picked up by another club in the national draft) and was elevated as the club chose not to lose him to another club.

Wayde Skipper is an example of a 1st year rookie exercising his right to nominate for the national draft (rather than remain on our rookie list) but unfortunately for that player, things didn't turn out the best for him.

Ok,
I thought you could give a rookie a multiple-year contract (up to 3 years) and they were tied to that club for the length of that contract!
Many thanks!

 

[Hawkas1988]

It's about speed

Clarko has often said you don't need to be the most talented, as long as you play your role

With the game evolving, these 2 will help us go forward, regardless of if they star or not

Have you seen Willsmore? Not quick, it's one of the reasons he slipped to the rookie Draft last year.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Have you seen Willsmore? Not quick, it's one of the reasons he slipped to the rookie Draft last year.

Only time I saw him was in vfl on TV, looked quick, but camera angles are deceiving I suppose

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Have you seen Willsmore? Not quick, it's one of the reasons he slipped to the rookie Draft last year.

What position does he play then? Can't be wing, small forward or rebounding defender.

????

 

[Hawkas1988]

What position does he play then? Can't be wing, small forward or rebounding defender.

????

It's hard to say what kind of player he could eventually become but I see him atm as a lead up forward, good hands, big kick, he has footy smarts IMO.

I'm not saying he is Hallahan slow but his pace isn't his strength. He could also become a tall midfielder. I'm actually pretty excited by him as a player, one of those guys that may really come on and surprise a few in the next few years.

 

[Ordovician]

What position does he play then? Can't be wing, small forward or rebounding defender.

????

He looked like he was playing mainly on the wing with the odd stint as a high HF at BH late in the season. He certainly played wing in the v port final and the GF. It just depends on where they can squeeze him into the team which being at the arse end on the pecking order means his position is determined by who else is available.

At 191 cm he is a bit tall for a small forward so he more of a true third tall.

He is a true utility which means he does not belong anywhere. At BH we had so many hawks defenders that there was no space for him to play HB (Brand, Kelly, Litherland, Heatherly, Cheney and Wangers, then throw in Mirra and Kennedy). It is a similar story with forward line but with sightly less contention.

He does not have the super pace required for a hawks wing slot v Hill, Smith or Hartung, but then who does?

Even our outlet defenders have a fair bit of burst pace and running power e.g. Strats (burst pace), Birchall (more running power), and Litherland (true pace). Unless he is keeping it well hidden he is a bit slow for this role.

So I guess if he wants to play regular senior footy at the Hawks then it will be is as a high HF with possibly a bit of a run as a ruck rover.

He looks funny when he plays, he just appears to just float over the ground. He seems to rely on judgement of the ball through the air and anticipation of the play to get clear but I have never seen him burst clear or run quickly in a chase. This contrast strongly with Webby who is a bit of a racehorse or more accurately, a crazed kelpie tearing after tennis balls in a park whenever he sniffs the scent of the ball.

The kid has a lot of poise as you'd expect from an AIS grad. He has good hands, reads the play well and in a neat set shot on goal. All of those qualities screams HF or linking midfielder to me. There is a lot to like about this kid I just hope he can improve his pace nad his endurance will naturally improve with the passing of the years in the senior system.

With so many kids in contention to replace the aging super stars it is going to be tough to get the game time into them in time to adequately groom their replacements, particularly with Wx and Ando returning as well as recruiting O'Rouke. So it will be really tough for Webby, Willsmore, Sicily and Woody to get much game time over the next two seasons.