100%. Of course AFL players in general play under far more strain than VFL players. But in terms of kids that don't get contested roles and will have their minutes managed I'd like to see more hard facts behind the different impacts on players bodies. I wonder if there are any recently departed medicos that would talk on the issue...
Actually had an interesting chat with a medico-type person about this in relation to rugby league. His words: "if you and I went out there, we'd get killed." His view was that it's a whole collection of things that make elite athletes in contact sports able to absorb physical impact that most couldn't.
Among these are the body habituating to hits of slowly greater impact as players move up through the age brackets; the increasing emphasis on strength training that goes with higher levels of footy (I'm assuming this is true also for Australian rules); the far better reflex times of elite players that allow them to respond more quickly - along with elite anticipation of when hits will come (so there is muscle preparation). Which in part explains why players can absorb incredible hits they see coming, then get flattened by something they don't.
(ON which, watched the Sloane-Danger collision a few times this morning. Sloane goes for Danger, while Danger goes for the ball. He knows it's coming but he thinks they'll be shoulder to shoulder. I don't think he 'stayed down'. You could argue, he was put down.)
If you compare something as simple as weights and heights, a 'big' player at local footy is significantly smaller than a 'big' guy at AFL level, with the state league players somewhere in between. So at the highest level, AFL they are being hit harder, hit faster, and hit more often. And management has its limits. Scott claimed that players like Zac Guthrie were being 'protected' in terms of the role they are being asked to play, but when the game moves so quickly it's not feasible to think that under-size players can just be tasked with avoiding contact. Motlop being taken out by Hawkins early in his career set him back, a lot.
And in fact I didn't necessarily mean playing VFL when I said first-year players probably shouldn't play a full season in their first year. I had in mind that they should be given regular rests, say every four to six weeks - with the bye, that would mean playing 20 games instead of 22. I think it would be better for them longer term. It's true the club would be monitoring their recovery closely but we know that they ask players to red-line far more often than they admit.
This year we were a hell of a lot better at giving younger players games than we have been since 2011, and that's positive. Apart from motivating them and giving them confidence (as well as a reality check about what they need to do to get better), the club would be making more informed decisions about who it wanted to keep. (I wouldn't be amazed to see a couple of those who did play being de-listed or not renewed - I take it that being played doesn't just mean you're being rewarded, it means you're being tested).
Hopefully the new practice of giving more players a run in the ones earlier in their careers means more effective decision-making than we have seen. Keeping a player like Hamling for three years, not playing him, then effectively telling him to piss off by only offering him a rookie position was a stuff-up, especially when we had injuries to key backs in his third year. But I need to get over it.