Talking Up The Positives: Rookies

[The Royal Sampler]

Righty-oh, continuing with my little theme of seeing the glass as half full in the face of adversity, is it just me or have we picked well with our rookies lately?

Nick Maxwell of course has been a great success story, and is now a tough-as-nails defender who can be relied on every week. He's even cracked into the leadership group, and by all reports is revelling in the new role.

Of the 2006 rookies, Shannon Cox in particular shows a great deal of promise as a defender-come-winger, a bit of a project player, yes, but with plenty of upside. I was really pleased to hear that he'd been promoted to the seniors.

Also, this year's crop including international rookie Martin Clarke and WA's Sharrod Wellingham have given me good reason to look forward to long careers for both.

Clarke as we know is the biggest thing since Tickle Me Elmo, and Sharrod Wellingham has already featured in the best in a practice match with the seniors, and now in a practice match for Willy. Sensational to see him putting his hand up so quickly .

Kudos to the recruiting staff for utilising the rookie list effectively.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Eh - We have still to get a real star off the rookie list, which most other clubs have done.

However, I do like the look of Nicholls, Clarke and Wellingham that are on the rookie list at the moment.

 

[Therussian]

vinnie, is MC in your dreamteam

 

[toommy]

Eh - We have still to get a real star off the rookie list, which most other clubs have done.

However, I do like the look of Nicholls, Clarke and Wellingham that are on the rookie list at the moment.

mal michael would have been one had we kept him

 

[Palmer Stoat]

mal michael would have been one had we kept him

Yep, Mal must be close to the best player to come through the rookie system.

 

[toommy]

Righty-oh, continuing with my little theme of seeing the glass as half full in the face of adversity, is it just me or have we picked well with our rookies lately?

Nick Maxwell of course has been a great success story, and is now a tough-as-nails defender who can be relied on every week. He's even cracked into the leadership group, and by all reports is revelling in the new role.

Of the 2006 rookies, Shannon Cox in particular shows a great deal of promise as a defender-come-winger, a bit of a project player, yes, but with plenty of upside. I was really pleased to hear that he'd been promoted to the seniors.

Also, this year's crop including international rookie Martin Clarke and WA's Sharrod Wellingham have given me good reason to look forward to long careers for both.

Clarke as we know is the biggest thing since Tickle Me Elmo, and Sharrod Wellingham has already featured in the best in a practice match with the seniors, and now in a practice match for Willy. Sensational to see him putting his hand up so quickly .

Kudos to the recruiting staff for utilising the rookie list effectively.

Thoughts anyone?

we wouldn't have these blokes if we didn't elevate cox and toovey which a lot of people were opposed to on this board.one clown even wanted to keep cam cloke

 

[Dazman]

If we didn't elevate Cox and Toovey wouldn't we than have had 2 extra picks in the national draft where we could have picked the exact same players or even better ones.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Yep, Mal must be close to the best player to come through the rookie system.

Dean Cox, perhaps?

Brett Kirk, Aaron Sandilands, Russell Robertson, Ben Rutten, Aaron Davey and Danyle Pearce aren't too shabby either.

 

[toommy]

If we didn't elevate Cox and Toovey wouldn't we than have had 2 extra picks in the national draft where we could have picked the exact same players or even better ones.

no but instead of taking them at pick 60 or 70 in the draft you can bring them in have them train with you and see them first hand if they are worth picking or not.we probably hand 10 youngsters training with us in that time.

 

[goalpie]

Eh - We have still to get a real star off the rookie list, which most other clubs have done.

However, I do like the look of Nicholls, Clarke and Wellingham that are on the rookie list at the moment.

Maxwell is a star. Dont forget it.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Dean Cox, perhaps?

Brett Kirk, Aaron Sandilands, Russell Robertson, Ben Rutten, Aaron Davey and Danyle Pearce aren't too shabby either.

Of that group, I'd have only Dean Cox ahead of Mal. Like I said, close to the best.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Of that group, I'd have only Dean Cox ahead of Mal. Like I said, close to the best.

Your call, but I'd have Brett Kirk and Aaron Sandilands ahead of him as well, with Ben Rutten and Danyle Pearce closing fast.

 

[Coin_Toss]

We've done well to recruit good players off the rookie list. Nick Maxwell etc.

Sharrod Wellingham has really impressed me in the short time he's been at Collingwood. He has leg speed, which we need in the midfield, and he uses the ball well.

Shannon Cox could be anything. He's got the ability, but his attitude prior to being drafted to Collingwood wasn't impressive and he missed a few training sessions.

Martin Clarke is greatly talked-about to be the Irish equivalent of Nathan Buckley, but Bucks is a champion. Champions are rare to find off the shelf. The positive things I've seen are: his attitude is great, he wants to learn new things every day and he is ahead of schedule, i.e. picked up the game incredibly fast.

 

[pendles]

Righty-oh, continuing with my little theme of seeing the glass as half full in the face of adversity, is it just me or have we picked well with our rookies lately?

Nick Maxwell of course has been a great success story, and is now a tough-as-nails defender who can be relied on every week. He's even cracked into the leadership group, and by all reports is revelling in the new role.

Of the 2006 rookies, Shannon Cox in particular shows a great deal of promise as a defender-come-winger, a bit of a project player, yes, but with plenty of upside. I was really pleased to hear that he'd been promoted to the seniors.

Also, this year's crop including international rookie Martin Clarke and WA's Sharrod Wellingham have given me good reason to look forward to long careers for both.

Clarke as we know is the biggest thing since Tickle Me Elmo, and Sharrod Wellingham has already featured in the best in a practice match with the seniors, and now in a practice match for Willy. Sensational to see him putting his hand up so quickly .

Kudos to the recruiting staff for utilising the rookie list effectively.

Thoughts anyone?

I agree.

I also think Ben Davies will be a 250 game player.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I agree.

I also think Ben Davies will be a 250 game player.

Uh, he's already well off the pace for that.

If he gets to 100, it will be a remarkable achievement for Benny.

 

[nick_savo]

Yep, Mal must be close to the best player to come through the rookie system.

Martin Clark will be when he gets his chance to shine

 

[BoundforGlory]

I agree.

I also think Ben Davies will be a 250 game player.

lol. Ben Davies is a huge dud.

But although we havent picked up a star, Maxwell will be a very very good player (I believe a star in the making). And we have some promising rookies, but only kid with star potential is Clarke, the rest are goers!

 

[pendles]

Uh, he's already well off the pace for that.

If he gets to 100, it will be a remarkable achievement for Benny.

How can we say that definitively Vinnie? Medical science is advancing every day so there's no excuse on that front.

He clearly has the skill and determination to make this milestone.

There's an enormous hole in our midfield. Pendles will be our number one midfielder, but I'm sure Davies will be the "two" in the "one-two" punch.

 

[pendles]

lol. Ben Davies is a huge dud.

But although we havent picked up a star, Maxwell will be a very very good player (I believe a star in the making). And we have some promising rookies, but only kid with star potential is Clarke, the rest are goers!

How can you say Nick Maxwell is better than Ben Davies? That's like saying Scott West is better than Paul Licuria.

 

[MarkT]

I think until a few years back we tried to get players with a lot of potential upside but they were risks. In theory I don’t mind that policy but they generally had flaws they couldn’t overcome or limited ability. Basically the problem was that the people who couldn’t judge draft or talent couldn’t judge rookie talent and overall we selected poorly. Betheras was a good get for us around this time but he was really a plodder. Probably shouldn’t have been delisted when he was. Michael is the one that really came off but we couldn’t keep him. Of more recent times we seem to be looking for safer bets. Our selection process has also improved across the board a bit.

What we have failed to do is get a real gun from the rookie list since Michael. Maxwell looks a good player but whether he will be a top end player is debatable. What I would have liked to have seen was players that can fill specific holes being rookied and developed. Cox and Davey being prime examples of the type we have specifically needed. Ben Davies might be a handy soldier but he’ll never be a star. That’s ok from a rookie list but we just can’t snag that start to supplement the early draft picks we’ve “won”.

 

[Jabso]

How can you say Nick Maxwell is better than Ben Davies? That's like saying Scott West is better than Paul Licuria.

Scott West is better than Licuria and Maxwell is better than Davies! Maxwell may be slightly overrated by some pies supporters in that he isn't a great defender of the AFL yet, but he is highly underrated by the majority of footy supporters.

Davies has been disapointing all in all despite a promising start. He just doesn't have the right mix of strengths. He is hard at it and suited to being an inside midfielder but can only win outside ball. He is quick but not quick when and where it counts. He is a pretty poor kick. I still think there is hope for him though and unlike others I definately think he deserves to be on the list for the 2007 season.

 

[Jabso]

I think until a few years back we tried to get players with a lot of potential upside but they were risks. In theory I don’t mind that policy but they generally had flaws they couldn’t overcome or limited ability. Basically the problem was that the people who couldn’t judge draft or talent couldn’t judge rookie talent and overall we selected poorly. Betheras was a good get for us around this time but he was really a plodder. Probably shouldn’t have been delisted when he was. Michael is the one that really came off but we couldn’t keep him. Of more recent times we seem to be looking for safer bets. Our selection process has also improved across the board a bit.

What we have failed to do is get a real gun from the rookie list since Michael. Maxwell looks a good player but whether he will be a top end player is debatable. What I would have liked to have seen was players that can fill specific holes being rookied and developed. Cox and Davey being prime examples of the type we have specifically needed. Ben Davies might be a handy soldier but he’ll never be a star. That’s ok from a rookie list but we just can’t snag that start to supplement the early draft picks we’ve “won”.

It's important to note that Cox, Davey and Sandilands are the exception and not the norm. Not every club have great rookie players.

A few years ago our rookie record was horrible. I agree we had a strategy to draft more riskier picks. Overall we have done pretty poorly with our rookie list until recently. It is due to the drafting of the likes of Andrew Hill x2, Eichner, Hooker, even Roe (at the time) who were all risky project players. The selection of all these players put us behind.

 

[Bonuspoints]

I guess theres two ways to go with your rookie list. One is to try an unearth a star player and to do this means taking chances on guys with a lot of rough edges. These guys are project players and tend to need a lot of time to develop, but when they do the reward can be quiet substantial. Thats why putting talls on your rookie list is a good idea. The tall guys tend to need more time to develop and when they do the reward is high.

The other is to go for players that will never be stars, but with a bit of time and work can become solid contributors to give your side more depth. They're more likely to make the jump to AFL level, but their potential isn't as high.

I think Collingwood has done okay here. For my mind the Rookie list is more of a bonus then something that should be feeding your list star players. Any guys that come good is nice, but our main source of quality comes from the draft.

 

[Coin_Toss]

Of more recent times we seem to be looking for safer bets.

Incorrect, MarkT.

Did you care to consider Shannon Cox, Martin Clarke and David Fanning?
The latter came from a basketball background and was considered "a punt" anyway. He never made it. Cox had an attitude problem prior to being drafted to Collingwood. Clarke travelled all the way from Ireland. He didn't know how to kick a footy prior to being drafted to Collingwood - he is "a punt" in that respect.

So, to follow on with my point, we have taken a few risks in order to find a star player.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Well, he does have somewhat of a point - Recent late picks like Adam Iacobucci, Ben Davies, Sam Iles, Alan Toovey and Brent Macaffer have been on the conservative side.

However, at the same time, Harry O'Brien, Danny Nicholls, Shannon Cox, Tyson Goldsack and Sharrod Wellingham have all been reasonable punts on some talented players, so I suppose you could say that it's been about 50/50 in terms of which way we have gone.

However, the interesting thing is that the second group looks to be much more promising, meaning that banking on the better talent might be the strategy to stick with.