2011 Rookie Draft

[pulpdriver]

Sounds like both parties must be keen for him to come to Brisbane to train:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...-turns-afl-heads/story-e6freckc-1226133358431

"WORD is out that there's a 17-year-old centre-half-back in the bush who stands 6ft 5'' and moves like Dustin Fletcher. "

"Two weeks after the reserves game Clarke was studying at home when an interstate AFL club called.

``I thought the bloke was joking,'' Ian said.

``But he wanted to talk to Justin to find out whether AFL was something he was serious about.''"

Sounds like an impressive kid on and off the field. Would be a perfect fit for a team like us needing KPD prospects and a no ****heads policy.

 

[Quigley]

Quigs I just had Steve Rusca brought to my attention.
An 18 year old from Central Districts, described to me as a player with sublime skills. Seems to have been overlooked in the draft. 182cm defender that runs and carries the ball in similar fashion to Docherty without the penetration in his kicks as the Doc. As we are a bit deficient in the small sized defenders he may be a perfect developing rookie. Can you shed some light if you know more of him?

Irel - I only got to see him in the Qld game. He did pretty well but was not someone I followed up on. He is a half back who can really rack up the possessions and get around the park. He seems pretty intelligent about where to go to although this was not hugely evident at the Champs. His athletic testing was pretty average across the board apart from in the repeat sprints where he finished in the top 17%. His 20m sprint time was 3.02 which was okay but not as good as the 30m repeat sprint would suggest it should be.

My comments from the Qld game about him were:

takes kick in and goes short to pocket, chips nicely into 50 and picks out man well, indig guy, strong tackle - hitter rather than a wrapper, nice kick, tackles at clearance and does well, big kick - nice penetration, reasonable pace, smart kick out in front to let man run onto it.

So he got a few mentions there and mostly positive but I didn't really follow up and research him.

 

[Nick Lions]

@AFL_PKeane on twitter

Permission to train;Lions;Justin Clarke (Booleroo Melrose Wilmington),Scott Clarke(W Magpies),Sam Michael (Redland),Steven Wrigley(Labrador)

May be an insight into who we are looking at rookie listing.

 

[knaf]

Ok I'm satisfied. I had a go at our recruiting staf because they werent identifying key position prospects.

I don’t want to load up Clarke with unrealistic expectations before he has even been selected as a rookie, but to identify him and get him to Brisbane when Adelaide and other clubs were interested is a fair effort by the recruiting team. Seems like a really good kid too – off the field anyway.

Kerr is demonstrating that he is working hard to rebuild the team. It’s the sort of thing that makes me more comfortable when I part with my membership money.

I know nothing about the football ability of the other potential rookies but think it is great that we are looking at some mature locals to support the very young kids from in the magoos

Best of luck to Justin and the other potential rookies.

 

[Nick Lions]

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong,
Michael is a 196cm ruck/fwd who was in the AIS/AFL academy.
Clarke is also a ruck/fwd prospect who played some games for the ressies this year.
Wrigley is a Utility/flanker who was Labrador's B&F winner.

 

[Quigley]

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong,
Michael is a 196cm ruck/fwd who was in the AIS/AFL academy.
Clarke is also a ruck/fwd prospect who played some games for the ressies this year.
Wrigley is a Utility/flanker who was Labrador's B&F winner.

Michael measured in at 200cm at State Screening. Looking at the training pictures he is materially taller than Justin Clarke who is 195cm.

 

[Nick Lions]

Even better.

 

[chopperduck]

Makes you wonder if we had this planned all along. Need some fresh KPP prospects, but we didn't like the draft options, outside of the top 15 or so picks anyway, so we went to work looking outside the box for some decent prospects that might come good with a professional environment. Also looking in our own back yard which is great to see. We really should be giving the top players from the local NEAFL clubs rookie spots to see what they can do, you could certainly do worse with the rookie picks.

Good to see a lot of talls.

 

[Grimreepah]

From memory, last year we had 3 players (all locals) on our permission to train list, and didn't end up picking any of them.

 

[Special88]

Reid was robbed.

 

[irish]

while its nice to pick up the qld boys thats fine if they are the best available but if not we should go with the best from where ever !!. i know its cheaper and easier to stay with home boys but in the end does it help us ?

 

[chopperduck]

From memory, last year we had 3 players (all locals) on our permission to train list, and didn't end up picking any of them.

Will be interesting to see if we do anything different this year. Whether we use more rookie spots, or try save money.

 

[Quigley]

while its nice to pick up the qld boys thats fine if they are the best available but if not we should go with the best from where ever !!. i know its cheaper and easier to stay with home boys but in the end does it help us ?

We get 3 extra rookie picks we can use only on Qlders.

 

[thoselionslads]

Reid was robbed.

He can thank Gubby & Fev for that.

 

[irish]

We get 3 extra rookie picks we can use only on Qlders.

fair enough !!

 

[LIONHART]

i for one will be very disappointed if the club don't take their full quota of rookies this year, particularly if the talent/potential is there.

if we don't take them, others will. why shouldn't we have them if they are available.

as far as I am concerned this is a far more important investment than high-altitude training in arizona, if it comes down to money, then this should be the priority imo.

 

[POBT]

i for one will be very disappointed if the club don't take their full quota of rookies this year, particularly if the talent/potential is there.

That might be the big "if". I think it is likely that the clubs didn't really rate this year's draft, particularly the crop of talls. Having said that, it doesn't necessarily follow that the clubs don't rate the players left as genuine rookie prospects.

It will be interesting to compare the number of rookie picks this year to previous years - if clubs take a relatively low number of rookies, it will give further weight to the argument that this is a weak (or at least shallow) draft year, in the eyes of the recruiters.

The other aspect is the effect of the reduced draft pool caused by the GC/GWS concessions. 2009, a relatively untainted draft, had a bumper crop of rookies. A number of players taken in that year's rookie draft have played a fair bit of senior footy - guys like Podsiadly, Barlow, Golby, Thompson, Hitchcock, Silvagni, Strijk, Howlett, Hams, Crameri, etc. Interestingly, that year clubs took a lot of selections in both the national and rookie drafts indicating a lot of confidence at clubland in the depth of the talent pool.

By contrast, in 2010, the later reaches of the national draft had many promoted rookies, many more than normal I suspect. Further, the rookie draft had a number of recycled rookies and, in any event, clubs didn't take a lot of rookie picks anyway. Lower, Pederson, Curnow, Dahlhaus, Brad Miller are probably the most successful of those who weren't re-rookied by their club.

Sure, clubs "loaded up" in 2009 but it says to me that clubs didn't rate the depth much last year and I can't see it being much different this year. Further, even though the sample size is only 1 draft year, the comparative lack of success of the 2010 rookies compared to 2009 also indicates that it might be harder to find a success story in the draft years impacted by concessions.

 

[Fatcat08]

Is there a minimum contract length for rookies? Thought there was but have seen a few first year rookies been delisted in the last 2 years.

If this is the case and if we rate next years draft higher we may be waiting for next season to fill most of our rookie spots as per pobt's post.

If there isn't we should take as many as possible simply from a reserves development point of view. As long as we pick the right type of players, having more players available for the reserves that train full time with us can only be of benefit. Maybe less of an issue as our academy players get older in future years. Sometimes its about more than just the development and potential of those we rookie, sometimes its about the development opportunities having them on the list creates for other players too.

While the magpies affiliation is better than past setups in as far as consistency of players, it still fell over at times this year (eg playing Clarke) which may have been avoided had we had a full compliment of rookies. Training together once a week for the magpies guys and reserves pales in comparison to having 4 more guys training with the group full time.

Agree partially with the Arizona vs rookies comment earlier, although one could argue what is of more value? Your top players getting fitter? Or having better structures in place for your younger developing fringe players? Debate about the benefits of altitude training aside, its probably pretty close but given the young developing nature of our list I'm tempted to lean to the latter. As the team matures it probably swings to the former as you try to eek the final 2% out to get a crack at the premiership.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

[dlanod]

There is no minimum contract length for rookies, only those taken in the National Draft.

 

[irel]

There is no minimum contract length for rookies, only those taken in the National Draft.

There is. One year minimum contracts for rookies. So we should have no fear of taking our full compliment and still have the option to make room for next year's super draft.

 

[ZoBlitz]

That might be the big "if". I think it is likely that the clubs didn't really rate this year's draft, particularly the crop of talls. Having said that, it doesn't necessarily follow that the clubs don't rate the players left as genuine rookie prospects.

It will be interesting to compare the number of rookie picks this year to previous years - if clubs take a relatively low number of rookies, it will give further weight to the argument that this is a weak (or at least shallow) draft year, in the eyes of the recruiters.

The other aspect is the effect of the reduced draft pool caused by the GC/GWS concessions. 2009, a relatively untainted draft, had a bumper crop of rookies. A number of players taken in that year's rookie draft have played a fair bit of senior footy - guys like Podsiadly, Barlow, Golby, Thompson, Hitchcock, Silvagni, Strijk, Howlett, Hams, Crameri, etc. Interestingly, that year clubs took a lot of selections in both the national and rookie drafts indicating a lot of confidence at clubland in the depth of the talent pool.

By contrast, in 2010, the later reaches of the national draft had many promoted rookies, many more than normal I suspect. Further, the rookie draft had a number of recycled rookies and, in any event, clubs didn't take a lot of rookie picks anyway. Lower, Pederson, Curnow, Dahlhaus, Brad Miller are probably the most successful of those who weren't re-rookied by their club.

Sure, clubs "loaded up" in 2009 but it says to me that clubs didn't rate the depth much last year and I can't see it being much different this year. Further, even though the sample size is only 1 draft year, the comparative lack of success of the 2010 rookies compared to 2009 also indicates that it might be harder to find a success story in the draft years impacted by concessions.

Excellent post. I also think that the premise that "more players on list = more future AFL players" is overly simplistic.

There are still costs (time as well money) involved in picking up players in the rookie draft and developing them and I can understand the club not taking a full complement if they don't think the talent is available. After all it was allegedly a weak draft and now we're getting down to the bottom of the talent pool.

 

[POBT]

A couple of reasons not to take the extra rookies we're entitled to:

- According to the CBA, the wages are included in our salary cap. That's about $35K per player, increasing if the player plays senior footy. Therefore, 3 extra rookies equals a minimum of $105K that can't be spent on senior listed players.

- The cost to the club of taking additional players is more than salaries. Equipment and clothing, medical, insurance, relocation costs if applicable, etc. More players means a potential increase in these costs.

- It spreads the club's coaching and support staff thinner. Of course, the difference between 46 and 49 players (or whatever it is) makes this marginal but it does mean a little less time that each coach/support staff can spend per player.

Not necessarily saying that I agree with any of the above but they might go some way to explaining the club's position.

 

[whatboutbob]

It will be interesting to compare the number of rookie picks this year to previous years - if clubs take a relatively low number of rookies, it will give further weight to the argument that this is a weak (or at least shallow) draft year, in the eyes of the recruiters.

On the flipside POBT, this year I had the impression that a higher proportion of players (particularly KPPs) than usual had a question mark over one aspect of their skillset - whether it be football IQ, fitness, contested marking...whatever. While many of those may turn out to be fatal flaws - enough to turn clubs off committing to players for 2 years - many may just make perfect rookie options. "Give 'em a year, see if they've got the determination and ability to improve. If not, cut 'em."

It will indeed be interesting to see how the RD unfolds this year, and how the numbers stack up against previous years.

 

[POBT]

On the flipside POBT, this year I had the impression that a higher proportion of players (particularly KPPs) than usual had a question mark over one aspect of their skillset - whether it be football IQ, fitness, contested marking...whatever. While many of those may turn out to be fatal flaws - enough to turn clubs off committing to players for 2 years - many may just make perfect rookie options. "Give 'em a year, see if they've got the determination and ability to improve. If not, cut 'em."

It will indeed be interesting to see how the RD unfolds this year, and how the numbers stack up against previous years.

Yep - as I said, it doesn't necessarily follow that they won't be rated as genuine rookie prospects.

Looking at this thread, a number of clubs have cleared their rookie lists through either promotion or delisting. By my count, Adelaide, Freo, Richmond have 6 rookie list changes while Collingwood, Essendon have 5. Several others have 3 or 4 changes. That may well indicate that clubs might use the rookie draft extensively this year (although other clubs also don't take their full quota of rookies too).

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

A couple of reasons not to take the extra rookies we're entitled to:

Not necessarily saying that I agree with any of the above but they might go some way to explaining the club's position.

The other obvious one that people are missing is the academy.

How much are we ploughing into the academy & do we think that this is more worthwhile than an extra 1 or 2 rookies? Difficult to tell at this stage as to where more senior players may come given the infancy of the academy, but it still should be considered within the whole debate.

Kerr went out of his way to mention the academy when assessing trade week (& the high hopes they have for some in it). It is an area that we do have an advantage over others so perhaps resources are being poured its way rather than the traditional methods.