2014 Rookie Draft Thread

[Zephiisdaman]

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

I think that is the point Wian if he is not likely to play seniors, or is not considered good enough why bother giving him the rookie spot when there were taller options available? The taller options might not make it as an AFL player, but we sure as hell know that Goodesy won't make it. So why not give a younger fellow an opportunity to show his wares?

 

[Zephiisdaman]

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.



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.

I agree 100%. Rookie spots should be filled by players that could possibly make it. Two of the people we have chosen won't make it. Sorry it's the way I see it.

 

[Bazza Bulldog]

It was another classic case of the match day medal awarding panel getting things wrong.
His medal seemed to be political i.e:

Goodes VFL GF statistics
29 possessions, 10 tackles and 6 marks ... yep, it's political! Please ...

 

[TempleKelvington]

Jordan Kelly can play, doesn't have any x-factor, just plays football, does most things right, nothing outstanding. Could slot in at half-back or midfield at the Dogs, probably half-back given the strength of the midfield there.

Well the direction coming out of the club is that they want players with decent skills and they want players that can play in at least 2 positions. If this guy Kelly at his size can play mid then that would be great.

We have predominately gone with smaller quick and skilled mids who can play forward or back, perhaps the club is thinking that the likes of Z.Cordy and Kelly could compliment the taller mids like Macrea, Bontempelli and Stringer in the rotations a bit like the Hawks who have any number of players including Roughead who rotate through the midfield.

So there is more method in the madness than meets the eye....who knows.

 

[ducksonthepond]

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.

Spot on Conch, Brett will also have a role within the AFL, stay tuned!

 

[the conch]

Well the direction coming out of the club is that they want players with decent skills and they want players that can play in at least 2 positions. If this guy Kelly at his size can play mid then that would be great.

We have predominately gone with smaller quick and skilled mids who can play forward or back, perhaps the club is thinking that the likes of Z.Cordy and Kelly could compliment the taller mids like Macrea, Bontempelli and Stringer in the rotations a bit like the Hawks who have any number of players including Roughead who rotate through the midfield.

So there is more method in the madness than meets the eye....who knows.

Were structuring up more like a Geelong team with bigger mids and a kingpin forward, inside strangth and getting more mobility and skill in to the team.

 

[TBOW]

It's been a very long time since our off season has been as unsettling and bewildering as this one.

This year is Probably only behind the shenanigans of 1989.

Thus again we must lower our expectations - rebuild refresh restructure remold whatever it is

Without the weekly confrontation with reality the off season belongs to the true believers

Not one of these sub 182 cm picks could be sacrificed for a single ruck forward back with any height

We must be in the premiership window loading up for an attack

It's all a hoax

True believers? Or just the posters with the common sense to realise that our part time, ill-informed, emotional summations are not superior to the plans and strategies of a professional football club?

Football is changing at a rapid rate and list management is no exception. I think some people are left clinging to values that are no longer shared by the AFL world and are angry and confused by it.

Clubs don’t look at the list as a nurturing ground for kids who might turn out to be AFL players. Every list spot needs to be a calculated investment with the ultimate objective of winning games of football - even rookie listed players need to be able to impact a game of football if called upon. That is not just at our club, that is AFL wide.

If I was managing the rookie list it would be loaded up with the highest risk highest return kids you could get. But I don’t think for a second that I know better than the collective thoughts of 18 AFL clubs.

Don’t peg me as a conformist either. I really value opposing ideas and think it is important to question the decisions of those in control, but I hate all the disgruntled agitating against the club with nothing more behind it than ‘it is not what I would have done’. Just because you don't understand the philosophy doesn't mean that it is wrong.

It would be great if you could back up your sentiments with a little more substance or even some statistics so that we could actually consider your standpoint, rather than just skimming over an empty (yet nicely constructed) post.

 

[Dogs Rule]

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.

You're right, but again, this mentoring could have been done in his player development role. He doesn't need to be a player to be involved in player development.

Perhaps we didn't see anybody else of value and Goodes is a good insurance policy, I understand that. But, I stand by my point that the rookie list has completely transformed from a list for overlooked kids to the old supplementary list from the 80s and 90s.

 

[yebiga]

True believers? Or just the posters with the common sense to realise that our part time, ill-informed, emotional summations are not superior to the plans and strategies of a professional football club?

Football is changing at a rapid rate and list management is no exception. I think some people are left clinging to values that are no longer shared by the AFL world and are angry and confused by it.

Clubs don’t look at the list as a nurturing ground for kids who might turn out to be AFL players. Every list spot needs to be a calculated investment with the ultimate objective of winning games of football - even rookie listed players need to be able to impact a game of football if called upon. That is not just at our club, that is AFL wide.

If I was managing the rookie list it would be loaded up with the highest risk highest return kids you could get. But I don’t think for a second that I know better than the collective thoughts of 18 AFL clubs.

Don’t peg me as a conformist either. I really value opposing ideas and think it is important to question the decisions of those in control, but I hate all the disgruntled agitating against the club with nothing more behind it than ‘it is not what I would have done’. Just because you don't understand the philosophy doesn't mean that it is wrong.

It would be great if you could back up your sentiments with a little more substance or even some statistics so that we could actually consider your standpoint, rather than just skimming over an empty (yet nicely constructed) post.

so your faith in the club and recruiters and coaches is based on facts and statistics

It would nice if you could share some of that substance so we could consider your stand point rather than just skimming over empty conceited rhetoric - nicely worded it may be

 

[Igloo]

It's been said several times already guys. Stay on topic.

 

[Mofra]

Sorry mate but Goodes was BOG in that game. Only one that came close was Jong who was brilliant for periods but Goodes was more consistent.

Yep - 10 tackles shows a huge amount of effort.

I'm one of the few actually happy with Goodes as a selection, on the premise that his is there as a mature mid and not as a HBFer (that would change my outlook).
Rookies are generally a fairly low percentage play and we've got someone who can actually step in and fill a role for us, even if it's just one year to protect some of the kids as the season wears on and takes a toll. They will need a rest at times.
Goodes is actually an elite runner so can provide cover for us as the kids get another year in the system.

A few of us suggested that a mature bodied mid should be considered at the rookie draft (not mentioning Goodes specifically) so hopefully that's what we've got.

 

[TBOW]

so your faith in the club and recruiters and coaches is based on facts and statistics

It would nice if you could share some of that substance so we could consider your stand point rather than just skimming over empty conceited rhetoric - nicely worded it may be

The statistics & facts I'm basing my trust on are -hours/weeks/months spent, collective industry experience, nation wide man power, money spent, inside knowledge... I just find it ridiculous that people think they know better than an AFL club based on personal opinion and time spent on an internet forum.

I'm not saying that the club is always unequivocally right, just that they are in a better position to make these calls than we are.

Sorry Yebiga- I didn't intend on this being a personal attack on you. I've generally enjoyed your posting (although it seems to have gotten much bleaker lately).
There are plenty of posters who are far worse than you when it comes to running down the club based on a personal opinion. I just haven't found many providing much insight and I wish they would take the time to articulate the reasons rather than just bluster.

 

[BRWB]

Yep - 10 tackles shows a huge amount of effort.

I'm one of the few actually happy with Goodes as a selection, on the premise that his is there as a mature mid and not as a HBFer (that would change my outlook).
Rookies are generally a fairly low percentage play and we've got someone who can actually step in and fill a role for us, even if it's just one year to protect some of the kids as the season wears on and takes a toll. They will need a rest at times.
Goodes is actually an elite runner so can provide cover for us as the kids get another year in the system.

A few of us suggested that a mature bodied mid should be considered at the rookie draft (not mentioning Goodes specifically) so hopefully that's what we've got.

That's the funny thing from 09-11 we drafted Dalhaus, JJ, Campbell, Jong and Redpath on the rookie list. That's 5 out of 10 now on the main list and four in or pressing for best 22 (not counting delistees and mature age pick ups of Hahn, Barlow, Austin, Markovic).

So if Simon could achieve around a 1 in 2 success rate by not taking mature agers (like Goodes) or delistees (like Kelly), we are pretty sure of getting an AFL level player. Instead we have Pearce, Kelly and Goodes.

When Simon has such a good record of drafting new (not recycled) talent in the rookie draft, its seems a bizarre list management decision to not use all four picks for new talent (not delistees or mature agers) as it goes against the numbers.

 

[Mofra]

That's the funny thing from 09-11 (not counting rookie listed delistees and mature agers) we drafted Dalhaus, JJ, Campbell, Jong and Redpath on rookie list. That's 5 out of 10 now on the main list and four in or pressing for best 22 (not counting delistees and mature age pick ups (Hahn, Barlow, Austin, Markovic).

So if Simon could achieve around a 1 in 2 success rate by not taking mature agers (like Goodes) or delistees (like Kelly), we are pretty sure of getting an AFL level player. Instead we have Pearce, Kelly and Goodes.

When Simon has such a good record of drafting new (not recycled) talent in the rookie draft, its seems a bizarre list management decision to use all four picks for new talent (not delistees or mature agers) as it goes against the numbers.

I'm worried about only taking one new face at the rookie draft, although if you consider Campbell & Dickson were "coaches insider" picks I am hoping Bevo's input is the major reason we took Kelly. Hawks backline coach would know him better than almost anyone.

Pearce was a contractual thing - I wont harp on about how I see him not making the grade, despite the glowing references for him off the field (hard worker, good kid etc). I would have looked for something different (would have preferred ex-North's Delaney TBH).

 

[doggies ftw]

Having a think about it if Goodes and Pearce only get the one year on the rookie list it's actually a smart decision. So Pearce needs to show enough this season to find a spot on the senior list and Goodes is just there for a one year insurance policy. That allows us to take another two rookies next year, which is much much better than going into the 3rd and 4th round of the draft this year. Also let's us have rookies at different stages rather than having to delist or upgrade them all at the same time which can cause problems.

Smart rookie list management!

 

[BRWB]

I'm worried about only taking one new face at the rookie draft, although if you consider Campbell & Dickson were "coaches insider" picks I am hoping Bevo's input is the major reason we took Kelly. Hawks backline coach would know him better than almost anyone.

Pearce was a contractual thing - I wont harp on about how I see him not making the grade, despite the glowing references for him off the field (hard worker, good kid etc). I would have looked for something different (would have preferred ex-North's Delaney TBH).

Understand with Kelly, if Bevo rates him well I suppose you have to respect that.

But looking at how we go in picking up other club's delistees and a recent failure rate of approaching 100% I don't understand why we just don't put the cue in the rack on delistees (since Simon took over in 09 - Barlow, Austin, Markovic, Moles, Djerkurra, Vezpremi, Lower,Young and Darley (yet to play out).

I can see 9 delistees, 8 of whom aren't on our or any AFL list now. It just isn't sustainable to keep picking up other club's delistees, yet we have Hamling and Kelly now....

 

[doggies ftw]

Understand with Kelly, if Bevo rates him well I suppose you have to respect that.

But looking at how we go in picking up other club's delistees and a recent failure rate of approaching 100% I don't understand why we just don't put the cue in the rack on delistees (since Simon took over in 09 - Barlow, Austin, Markovic, Moles, Djerkurra, Vezpremi, Lower,Young and Darley (yet to play out).

I can see 9 delistees, 8 of whom aren't on our or any AFL list now. It just isn't sustainable to keep picking up other club's delistees, yet we have Hamling and Kelly now....

It's quite easy to make out such a high delistee failure rate when half of those players aren't even delistees

 

[GreatSouthWest]

Understand with Kelly, if Bevo rates him well I suppose you have to respect that.

But looking at how we go in picking up other club's delistees and a recent failure rate of approaching 100% I don't understand why we just don't put the cue in the rack on delistees (since Simon took over in 09 - Barlow, Austin, Markovic, Moles, Djerkurra, Vezpremi, Lower,Young and Darley (yet to play out).

I can see 9 delistees, 8 of whom aren't on our or any AFL list now. It just isn't sustainable to keep picking up other club's delistees, yet we have Hamling and Kelly now....

Djerrka, Young, Darley and Vez weren't delistees, they were trades.

 

[BRWB]

Djerrka, Young, Darley and Vez weren't delistees, they were trades.

Yep, technically true, but I think they were trades done to get the player who was going to be delisted to the club of his choice. I don't recall that any were going to be at their respective clubs the following year, you might have different information to this though.

 

[Mofra]

Understand with Kelly, if Bevo rates him well I suppose you have to respect that.

But looking at how we go in picking up other club's delistees and a recent failure rate of approaching 100% I don't understand why we just don't put the cue in the rack on delistees (since Simon took over in 09 - Barlow, Austin, Markovic, Moles, Djerkurra, Vezpremi, Lower,Young and Darley (yet to play out).

I can see 9 delistees, 8 of whom aren't on our or any AFL list now. It just isn't sustainable to keep picking up other club's delistees, yet we have Hamling and Kelly now....

It a fair analysis - most will disagree, but I'm glad we had Austin as cover with us this year and I still think Darley is an excellent pick up.
Lower cost nothing and did his job - some of these guys can have a role on the list even if they wont become best 22 players.
Marko was a top 10 in the B&F as cover for Lake (god bless KPD depth hey?). Young played decent football for us at times.

Kids who are delisted and their club immediately bring in a mature guy for depth in exactly the same position worry me.

 

[stefoid]

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.

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.

I agree with this - Goodes is a good bloke and all that, but from a list development point of view, we may have been better off with an Adam Macron or other mature bodied VFL mid as backup.

I can only suppose that our leadership-group vacuum has reached alarming proportions with Griffen, Higgins, Cooney, Gia gone from the playing group that we want Goodes for that purpose mostly.

From Dalrymples interview, we see Kelly as a defender. Beveridge says he will fit into the 'system' that he wants to implement at the dogs fairly quickly. Remember Bev was the backline coach at hawthorn for three years. Plus we have Biggs from Sydney's defensive setup.

Whats our backline going to look like? Will Wood get a game in front of Biggs and Kelly?

 

[Mofra]

From Dalrymples interview, we see Kelly as a defender. Beveridge says he will fit into the 'system' that he wants to implement at the dogs fairly quickly. Remember Bev was the backline coach at hawthorn for three years. Plus we have Biggs from Sydney's defensive setup.

Kelly may be there so Bevo has a guy at VFL level who understands his backline philosophy completely. I assume we'll set up quite differently so Kelly can help with an on-field role there

 

[Yojimbo]

Kelly may be there so Bevo has a guy at VFL level who understands his backline philosophy completely. I assume we'll set up quite differently so Kelly can help with an on-field role there

Maybe Bevo and the recruiting team got Biggs, Hamling, Cordy, Webb and
Kelly in preparation for life after Morris and Murphy.

 

[King Harold]

Yep - 10 tackles shows a huge amount of effort.

I'm one of the few actually happy with Goodes as a selection, on the premise that his is there as a mature mid and not as a HBFer (that would change my outlook).
Rookies are generally a fairly low percentage play and we've got someone who can actually step in and fill a role for us, even if it's just one year to protect some of the kids as the season wears on and takes a toll. They will need a rest at times.
Goodes is actually an elite runner so can provide cover for us as the kids get another year in the system.

A few of us suggested that a mature bodied mid should be considered at the rookie draft (not mentioning Goodes specifically) so hopefully that's what we've got.

I am one of the few as well. Find it hard not to love the way this bloke gives you everything.
I still think he would make a good AFL player given a fair go at it.
One of the contenders should have taken him.

 

[yebiga]

True believers? Or just the posters with the common sense to realise that our part time, ill-informed, emotional summations are not superior to the plans and strategies of a professional football club?

Football is changing at a rapid rate and list management is no exception. I think some people are left clinging to values that are no longer shared by the AFL world and are angry and confused by it.

Clubs don’t look at the list as a nurturing ground for kids who might turn out to be AFL players. Every list spot needs to be a calculated investment with the ultimate objective of winning games of football - even rookie listed players need to be able to impact a game of football if called upon. That is not just at our club, that is AFL wide.

If I was managing the rookie list it would be loaded up with the highest risk highest return kids you could get. But I don’t think for a second that I know better than the collective thoughts of 18 AFL clubs.

Don’t peg me as a conformist either. I really value opposing ideas and think it is important to question the decisions of those in control, but I hate all the disgruntled agitating against the club with nothing more behind it than ‘it is not what I would have done’. Just because you don't understand the philosophy doesn't mean that it is wrong.

It would be great if you could back up your sentiments with a little more substance or even some statistics so that we could actually consider your standpoint, rather than just skimming over an empty (yet nicely constructed) post.

I can't make head or tail of this
post
Your defending the club
But believe in a totally different rookie selection policy
Every position must be valued
So we should or shouldn't have goodes ??