2014 Rookie Draft Thread

[Dogs Rule]

How many of the 60 odd players rookied today won a VFL/SANFL/WAFL club B&F and best on ground in a winning grand final last year?

Take your point, but we know what he's capable of at AFL level already and it's been underwhelming. Star at VFL level, no question.

We've cleaned the place out this off-season, so may as well have gone the whole hog.

 

[wian]

I dont know what the fuss is about. Goodes will most likely not even get a game in the seniors anyway . He's just there as a backup. I think he still has a bit to offer ( If needed ) and he is good backup and currency for a young list

 

[Mofra]

Otherwise an injury or two and wood is back on the resting ruck.

Pretty sure there's an interesting stat out there like in 2008 Gilbee was the only Bulldogs player to play on the opposing ruckman of every opposition team.

Eade rolled the dice, betting that the 1 or 2 contested marks the ruck would take would be balanced out by the drive from HB that Gilbee provides. These days forwards structure up differently so would be far more likely to isolate the mismatch in the goalsquare.

 

[Butane]

Pearce is young & could potentially fill a need for us provided he gets fit.

In the midfield, Goodes is behind Liberatore, Bontempelli, Macrae, Boyd, Wallis, Stevens, Picken, Hrovat, Smith, and possibly Honeychurch, Hunter, Prudden & Jong. Do we really need a 10th string midfielder & if so, does it need to be a 31 years old who has no chance of making it to our next Premiership Window?

Goodes > Pearce. Surprised they both got another go but thank **** we didn't take Greenwood.

 

[inyourfacedunk]

Follows the main draft and trade period of the last few years really

Not sure if serious. And if you are, you need to step back and calm down a little. That's quite a call you're making about the last few drafts.

 

[BRWB]

I dont know what the fuss is about. Goodes will most likely not even get a game in the seniors anyway . He's just there as a backup. I think he still has a bit to offer ( If needed ) and he is good backup and currency for a young list

The fuss is opportunity cost. We are putting players on the rookie list who have proven they will never (in Goodes case) or highly unlikely (Pearce) make it as competent AFL players. That is two development spots that could be used for untried players.

Not sure if serious. And if you are, you need to step back and calm down a little. That's quite a call you're making about the last few drafts.

Two similarities from last few drafts:

1 - We continue to clog up rookie list spots with players who have proven they are unlikely to make it, thereby reducing the number of players we try out and reducing our chances of finding gems like a Dahlhaus or a Dean Cox,etc
2 - We haven't drafted anyone over 192cm

Don't think there is anything irrational about those statements, would have thought they are factual actually.

 

[Zgope1]

Goodes, as a CLEARANCE mid, would be behind Libba, Boyd, Wallis and Smith only. We'd like to think that Jong, Stevens and Hrovat develop past him in the next year in that role. That's the point. In case they don't and we lose some experience to injury, we can put a fit bloke in there who knows the structure back to front

 

[Bulldog1954]

How many of the 60 odd players rookied today won a VFL/SANFL/WAFL club B&F and best on ground in a winning grand final last year?

Sounds like he's a good pick for a VFL / SANFL or WAFL side then

 

[wian]

The fuss is opportunity cost. We are putting players on the rookie list who have proven they will never (in Goodes case) or highly unlikely (Pearce) make it as competent AFL players. That is two development spots that could be used for untried players.

I see your point, but reality is, we have lost many, many hard bodied senior players this off season and we have picked up a hell of a lot of youth. I really can see the logic with getting Goodes, especially if he can be utilised in the midfield if we have a bad run with injuries... Im happy we went with Gooders over Greenwood.... I however think if Pearce has a good run with injuries, he still has something to offer..

Im happy we picked up a tallish utility type player in the rookie draft too.

 

[TBOW]

I just wanted Keitel so I could call him Harvey

You'll have to settle for calling Roarke 'Micky'.

 

[BRWB]

I see your point, but reality is, we have lost many, many hard bodied senior players this off season and we have picked up a hell of a lot of youth. I really can see the logic with getting Goodes, especially if he can be utilised in the midfield if we have a bad run with injuries... Im happy we went with Gooders over Greenwood.... I however think if Pearce has a good run with injuries, he still has something to offer..

Im happy we picked up a tallish utility type player in the rookie draft too.

Yep in isolation for one year I could understand Goodes but its not, we have clogged up the Rookie list with little turnover for a few drafts now, that opportunity cost is cumulative.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Does anybody really care what he tweets? He just lacks the brain-keyboard filter, as do plenty of others.

Ha! Thats why I contain the stupidity of my thoughts to the relative anonymity of BigFooty, and eschew all other forms of "social media."

 

[inyourfacedunk]

Don't think there is anything irrational about those statements, would have thought they are factual actually.

You actually said the main draft and trade periods.

Macrae, Stringer, Bonts, Hrovat
Traded in Boyd, Crameri, Stevens and Darley. We'll see what Biggs and Hamling can do.

As far as rookies go, what were people expecting? No club finds a Dahlhaus in every rookie draft.
Smith looks like he could be anything. Is he one sided? At the moment, yes. But Dahlhaus also couldn't kick and was too short only a few years ago. Look at him now.

If any of these kids were a sure thing they wouldn't be in the rookie draft would they?
And to pick up 4 players who are very much speculative picks is a massive risk to take with such a young list. In my opinion they're better off keeping one great VFL/decent AFL player and another who when played in the AFL performed well (but seems to get injured a lot so doesn't get much chance in the AFL). Followed by a pick on a known quanity from Hawthorn and a smokey.

Essentially it's all doom and gloom because they didn't pick up a 195+cm player.
If that's your criteria, I will direct you to one James Mulligan. I'm sure he's still floating around somewhere.

 

[JJHunter]

I wanted Brayden Maynard he goes to Collingwood.
I wanted Michael Manteit he goes to Collingwood.
You can't always get what you want and if there
is a slim chance you might it goes to Collingwood
Drafting is a mystery, how are those five draft
commandments going JJ Stringer.

hahahahaha I shall need to revisit them now I think !

 

[Roscoe_au]

Goodes, as a CLEARANCE mid, would be behind Libba, Boyd, Wallis and Smith only. We'd like to think that Jong, Stevens and Hrovat develop past him in the next year in that role. That's the point. In case they don't and we lose some experience to injury, we can put a fit bloke in there who knows the structure back to front

Exactly. Some of the hysteria surrounding Goodes' recruitment is misguided. He (or anyone else picked 4th Round in the Rookie Draft) is very unlikely to get a game unless we have an absolute disaster run with injuries.

If we do have 4 or 5 of our front line mids go down, then I would rather an experienced bloke who has a strong body and knows the set up over a young kid likely to freeze like a rabbit in the headlights. Wouldn't be fair on the kid.

Obviously he's sitting as a 4th Round Rookie for another reason and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why.

 

[JJHunter]

I dont know what the fuss is about. Goodes will most likely not even get a game in the seniors anyway . He's just there as a backup. I think he still has a bit to offer ( If needed ) and he is good backup and currency for a young list

The fact he is taking a spot on the ist is what mosta re complaining about.
he may well not paly a game but he is taking he spot of a mature aged player or a kid that we are yet to find out what they can do.
Say Luke Dalhaus or Matthew Boyd as a couple of examples - those guys may be out there instead we have taken a 31 yo clanger king who we know what he will provide and where his ceiling is. We dont know what a number of other kids ceilings are

 

[the conch]

Just watching goodes now. His strengths are contested footy and elite endurance yet we never played him as an inside mid at top level. Is unbelievable in this gf. As long as we play him there (and he's just a back up) I'm stoked

I never felt he was playing or positioned to his strengths under BM.

 

[Roscoe_au]

I never felt he was playing or positioned to his strengths under BM.

Not wanting to flog a dead horse, but its possible that nobody actually asked what his strengths might have been?

 

[the conch]

Goodes is 31 in February. Crazy.

So, he's on the rookie list for another year (at best). Meanwhile, if we get a string of injuries (which hopefully we don't) we're up the proverbial creek, because we've p***ed away selections on a 31-year-old HBF who we've tried and found isn't quite up to it and a kid who has played a few games and who we're not sure about.
Hmmm.

You're forgetting Goodes has got a lot of strengths to his game and his round the club leadership and positive influence with the playing group. We've got more than enough kids who need developing, support and back up with "good people". Goodes provides continuity on this score. I reckon Murph might have had a say in this too.

 

[BEaston]

Absolute bullshit post mate. I think you'll find he cops a hell of a lot when theres a reason for it, I.e now.

Also do people actually think its only Dals choice to take Goodes and Pearce? Really? He's the talent spotter, we also have a list manager.

Oh so you're reason is valid but others is not. Turn it up. For normally a great poster, that's gotta be a joke post?

 

[timtamWB]

You're forgetting Goodes has got a lot of strengths to his game and his round the club leadership and positive influence with the playing group. We've got more than enough kids who need developing, support and back up with "good people". Goodes provides continuity on this score. I reckon Murph might have had a say in this too.

But why did Goodes have to be rookies? Surely he could do the same thing while on Footscray's list?

 

[the conch]

I've never seen Pearce do anything at any level that warrants playing in the AFL. He reminds me of Sam Power, he would blend in to an under 14's game.
I understand the Goodes selection though. We're close to the youngest team in the league already and Goodes is better, at the moment, then most of our list. Plus he fills that maturity gap for another year. I'm actually ok with that selection.
At times it's hard to tell the difference between the elite(lol) AFL team and the kindergarten at Whitten Oval.

We gotta give Bev the benefit, too. He's going in the deep end with our underdeveloped and fractured list. Really he's been handed a blank slate to some extent because BM's work imploded and his first year is going to be about sorting out the wreckage and just about starting from scratch. He couldn't be exactly sure what type of players we need to target, what he's got already, so Goodes is good. Maybe he watched the VFL GF - probably...

 

[TempleKelvington]

Yep in isolation for one year I could understand Goodes but its not, we have clogged up the Rookie list with little turnover for a few drafts now, that opportunity cost is cumulative.

If we look at just one aspect of the list or one aspect of the draft we miss the whole picture and I don't think we can look at it like that.

We have really turned over the list this year, massive outs and a lot of kids in and that's just this year. Sure the Rookie list has remained stable. There are no rookies from last year on our rookie list this year, 100% turnover after a couple of years where we backed our development because I think we turn over players too soon in the AFL so I don't mind giving players a chance to bloom. Jong is a great example of persevering with a rookie he has progressively got better with time and we promoted Redpath too.

I'm totally fine with Pearce and Goodes staying on seeing as we have so many first and second year players and on top of that we have lost a lot of mature minds and bodies. I'm not sure about the other 2 selections only because I know so little about them, but they are new blood to further add to 9 other new guys. That's 11 new players to this list and most are first year.

That's about 25% turnover.

 

[BEaston]

Roarke Smith looks pretty smooth moving. Seems we have identified this as a massive area of need. List is much more balanced with inside/outside types now.

For those of you criticising the club for selecting Goodes, We've just lost Cooney, Higgins, Tutt and Griffen from our midfield rotation, and replaced them with a bunch of 70kg kids. Get some perspective. Who replaces Libba or Wally or Bont if they go down with injury??

For what it's worth, the club needs to play him in the guts when he plays AFL. No more HBF rubbish. Thats not where he plays football. The man runs a 16 beep test. Use him in the bloody guts. Bev is a smart man, I think he'll recognise this.

Spot on. I don't really get the criticism of selecting Goodes. It addresses another glaring list imbalance we have which is experience. If we cop a few midfield injuries do we really want a team full of 18/19 y.o. running around? We'd get annihilated to 1st year GWS levels. Fk that. There's no way we would have taken him if Cooney/Griff/etc hadn't just left. It's smart risk mitigation and he'll probably only be there a year.

On the topic of no talls, the Rookie Draft was never the place to address that should've been done last week so I'm not too fussed there.

We've taken two speculative guys, one of which Bevo has a great insight to. Happy with that.

Pearce is a bit of a confusing one but they're probably only giving him one more year to see if he can make it.

Overall I think it was a good RD.

 

[the conch]

If we look at just one aspect of the list or one aspect of the draft we miss the whole picture and I don't think we can look at it like that.

We have really turned over the list this year, massive outs and a lot of kids in and that's just this year. Sure the Rookie list has remained stable. There are no rookies from last year on our rookie list this year, 100% turnover after a couple of years where we backed our development because I think we turn over players too soon in the AFL so I don't mind giving players a chance to bloom. Jong is a great example of persevering with a rookie he has progressively got better with time and we promoted Redpath too.

I'm totally fine with Pearce and Goodes staying on seeing as we have so many first and second year players and on top of that we have lost a lot of mature minds and bodies. I'm not sure about the other 2 selections only because I know so little about them, but they are new blood to further add to 9 other new guys. That's 11 new players to this list and most are first year.

That's about 25% turnover.

It's true. Macca really sorted out the list for us.