How long should a rebuild take?

[Joao]

Yeah you need some experience left to teach the kids or you can end in the wilderness for years, look at Carlton and Melbourne with their 5 year plans every 5 years.

Of course the real key to any flag is a period of good luck, you could keep drafting the best players available for 10 years and still fail if they were to run into an extended spell of injuries, personnel problems, concussion protocol etc.

100%

 

[Freomaniac]

Why is that funny?

Because like crows, port and eagles , GWS were expected to win a flag with in 8 years with the concessions they got

 

[bzparkes]

I found it interesting, listening to gettable, and them talking about North Melbourne rebuild being 5 or 6 years away from making finals.

Is a 8+ year rebuild too long?

Should we try to make it shorter?

It's not the 'rebuild' that takes time, that should only take around 3 years to accumulate enough talent.

It's the development, getting games/experience into young players and keeping the team together that takes time.

North's has only gone on so long because they've been a basket case since Scott left and Hawthorn/WCE are similar, as both tried to delay the inevitable by topping up when they where nowhere near it.

 

[go_the_dockers]

It's not the 'rebuild' that takes time, that should only take around 3 years to accumulate enough talent.

It's the development, getting games/experience into young players and keeping the team together that takes time.

North's has only gone on so long because they've been a basket case since Scott left and Hawthorn/WCE are similar, as both tried to delay the inevitable by topping up when they where nowhere near it.

3 years is only 6 draftees in first 2 rounds.
I think you need to get lucky to rebuild in 3 years.

Agree, we will see it more with teams chasing flag then bottoming out badly which slows down rebuild as you start with no or little talent between 23 and 27.

 

[go_the_dockers]

The other option is worse than bottoming out. Being competitive e.g 6 to 10 is horrible spot to be for 3 years straight. . Assuming your list is not building.

Average draft picks but no chance of flag.

 

[bzparkes]

3 years is only 6 draftees in first 2 rounds.
I think you need to get lucky to rebuild in 3 years.

Agree, we will see it more with teams chasing flag then bottoming out badly which slows down rebuild as you start with no or little talent between 23 and 27.

Plenty of other avenues to bring talent in now though, such as MSD, supplementary sign ons and free agents. Then there's trading future picks to fast track, pick splitting and now talk of future picks.

You only really need to nail those 3x first rounders and have a few of those later picks become solid performers to get back into finals contention within a few years.

I'd say it's probably far more important to get the correct development team, coaching and fitness regime in place so that whoever you bring in develops properly.

People are fixated on high draft picks but WCE in 2018 won the flag with only 3x top 10 picks(Kennedy, Masten & Jetta), with Kennedy being the only real standout.

Obviously there were strong contributions from NN, Gaff and Sheppard throughout the year but only Sheppard managed to play in finals and even he went out injured in the first one.

Of the team that played in the 2018 grand final, only 7 of them were first rounders. 7 of them also came in via trades and that team was rock bottom right when GC/GWS entered the competition.

I'd say the success was more down to the right off-field appointments than the talent on the list necessarily. The exact same can be said for the club's fall from grace, obvious. Hawthorn in a similar basket, although they had more draft picks to play around with, as well as starting far earlier.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Plenty of other avenues to bring talent in now though, such as MSD, supplementary sign ons and free agents. Then there's trading future picks to fast track, pick splitting and now talk of future picks.

You only really need to nail those 3x first rounders and have a few of those later picks become solid performers to get back into finals contention within a few years.

I'd say it's probably far more important to get the correct development team, coaching and fitness regime in place so that whoever you bring in develops properly.

People are fixated on high draft picks but WCE in 2018 won the flag with only 3x top 10 picks(Kennedy, Masten & Jetta), with Kennedy being the only real standout.

Obviously there were strong contributions from NN, Gaff and Sheppard throughout the year but only Sheppard managed to play in finals and even he went out injured in the first one.

Of the team that played in the 2018 grand final, only 7 of them were first rounders. 7 of them also came in via trades and that team was rock bottom right when GC/GWS entered the competition.

I'd say the success was more down to the right off-field appointments than the talent on the list necessarily. The exact same can be said for the club's fall from grace, obvious. Hawthorn in a similar basket, although they had more draft picks to play around with, as well as starting far earlier.

Agree with large chunks of what you said.

I am not sure a bottom 6 side will get many free agents, especially the smaller sides.

 

[bzparkes]

Agree with large chunks of what you said.

I am not sure a bottom 6 side will get many free agents, especially the smaller sides.

That would be the last piece, IMO. FA's at the start are fine if your side lacks maturity but A-graders will only commit if they see a genuine chance at success.

It's pretty much where North failed, because other than when they courted Dusty, most of the other attempts were when they were on the down. Then there was bringing in Polec & Pittard, who were only there for the paycheck.

 

[go_the_dockers]

That would be the last piece, IMO. FA's at the start are fine if your side lacks maturity but A-graders will only commit if they see a genuine chance at success.

It's pretty much where North failed, because other than when they courted Dusty, most of the other attempts were when they were on the down. Then there was bringing in Polec & Pittard, who were only there for the paycheck.

That is almost once you have made finals.

Brisbane did well getting a few big bodied mids. You do need to find away to improve your 15-20 best players on your list, so you are half competitive early.

Until we get unlimited free agents, I think rebuilds will take a while.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

North and WC are proof that this can occur. GC have been building for 14 years so far if Finals is considered a pass mark.

Lists take a long time if you go over the cliff. Geelong have managed to escape this surprisingly but maybe not forever.

100% it can occur, but it’s a failed rebuild.

if you make consistently good decisions on list management from “ground zero” you’ll be back in Finals within 5 years.

 

[Purple Suit]

100% it can occur, but it’s a failed rebuild.

if you make consistently good decisions on list management from “ground zero” you’ll be back in Finals within 5 years.

I think 5 years for a full rebuild is gold standard though. That is, 5 years out of finals while you rebuild the club. With 18 teams, 5 years out and 4 years in the finals would be an average. Teams obviously stay up longer too so others miss out for longer.

If playing / winning finals is the official end of a rebuild then Freo did it in 6 seasons out of finals. Losing a lot of senior players probably prolonged it but I think it will mean our contending period will be longer with a bigger core bunch of players and high end talent compressed. We have barely missed a draft pick along the way while losing a lot of good players and we now have three first rounders this year to top it off.

 

[Dazb86]

3 years

 

[Freomaniac]

A full re-build from the ground up via the draft is 8 years to a decade.

So.... Similar to the Saints rebuild of 2012-19?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

3 years is only 6 draftees in first 2 rounds.
I think you need to get lucky to rebuild in 3 years.

Agree, we will see it more with teams chasing flag then bottoming out badly which slows down rebuild as you start with no or little talent between 23 and 27.

More than luck it's player coaching and development.

Good coaching will forgive poor talent ID but good talent ID won't forgive bad coaching.

That's where the advantage of a team like Geelong where we retain a lot of older players. Those older players coach younger players and take the load off the actual coaching staff.

They also have a lot fewer players dependent on coaching from the actual coaching group and so the development coaches might spend their time on 20 names instead of 30. Having 30% more time to spend on individual players is a huge advantage.

Geelong also does it in cohorts on a rolling basis. The theory is that you can be competitive with one on field weakness. Example 2018 Geelong lost basically it's entire multiple AA backline and replaced them with whoever they had on hand. Geelong's strong midfield at the time slowed up the play to prevent turnovers burning an extremely inexperienced defence. Cats took the worst backline in the comp on paper and made it concede the fewest scores against.

Did that for years while the backline developed, while at the same time started recruiting basically entirely forward pressure players. Not all worked out but those forwards coming in were the basis of the 2020 tilt, then we got Jez at point where we were between rebuilds and snagged one.

Importantly within days of winning the premiership the Cats started adding mids. Now we're turning over the midfield and it's not always pretty but we have had multiple games where 62% of our total CBAs were players under 22. We've had to have the forwards and defenders play with very few rotations to the bench to allow our midfield to have 60-70% TOG% to keep them fresh. We've robbed some of the best defenders and forwards we have from the arcs to support the mids and cover the emergent weakness. But we've done all that.

Long winded, but overall I think that to rebuild into being a good side, you need to start by being a good side

 

[TigerTime88]

Re build like the Cats and Swans.. on the run by judicious trading/Free agents and picking up gems later in the draft.

Swans rebuilds are a bit flawed given how good their academies have been. Gulden, Mills, Heeney and Blakey is a crazy haul and not something other clubs have had access too.

Cats have brought in some young guys but until the likes of Danger, Cameron, Hawkins, Blicavs, Stewart ect retire I would say they are not rebuilding on the run. They'll experience some pain when those seniors players leave as you would expect.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Swans rebuilds are a bit flawed given how good their academies have been. Gulden, Mills, Heeney and Blakey is a crazy haul and not something other clubs have had access too.

Cats have brought in some young guys but until the likes of Danger, Cameron, Hawkins, Blicavs, Stewart ect retire I would say they are not rebuilding on the run. They'll experience some pain when those seniors players leave as you would expect.

Even if the Cats are only getting half the rebuild out the way now, that's pretty significant

 

[M Malice]

Swans rebuilds are a bit flawed given how good their academies have been. Gulden, Mills, Heeney and Blakey is a crazy haul and not something other clubs have had access too.

Cats have brought in some young guys but until the likes of Danger, Cameron, Hawkins, Blicavs, Stewart ect retire I would say they are not rebuilding on the run. They'll experience some pain when those seniors players leave as you would expect.

I still see the Cats and Swans as the model for staying in top 4/8 contention for extended periods.

Unlike the Lions post 2004 and the Tigers now.

FWIW I would still take a Lions 3 Peat 01-03 and another GF in 04 and the Tigers 3 flags in 4 years and then an extended fall off a cliff over a decade+ of "contention" and only 1 or 2 flags in that period ah la the Swans.

Cats are the ultimate model, although they did have a longish flag drought from 2011 to 2022 but were in the race most of those years.

 

[Purple Suit]

I still see the Cats and Swans as the model for staying in top 4/8 contention for extended periods.

Unlike the Lions post 2004 and the Tigers now.

FWIW I would still take a Lions 3 Peat 01-03 and another GF in 04 and the Tigers 3 flags in 4 years and then an extended fall off a cliff over a decade+ of "contention" and only 1 or 2 flags in that period ah la the Swans.

Cats are the ultimate model, although they did have a longish flag drought from 2011 to 2022 but were in the race most of those years.

Both the Swans and Cats have good development / coaching which is one key element. They also have competitive advantages that the AFL doesn't factor in and even creates for the case of the Swans. Both have regular talent arriving at different ends of the spectrum and specialized home ground advantages.

Swans had cola and now academies to keep the talent rolling while they compete. They also have a very small ground that is different to most grounds, therefore you can build a game plan around it that is not what the opposition usually have to contend with for 22 other games.

Geelong have a home ground fortress that isn't even a regular shaped AFL ground and missing an entire wing. Again, game plans can be tailored and opposition teams do not play on it enough to adjust. They also get to play home block busters at the MCG to cash in on big games, the best of both worlds from a competitive edge and financial point of view. Add in endless supply of experienced players who go to Geelong for unders/free and less money than market rates. (It probably needs looking into with Carlton but the AFL haven't found a single tiny salary cap breech since the Essendon drug scandal so I think the new model is if you don't look, you don't have a scandal.)

These two teams are making rebuilding take longer for the rest of us.

 

[kozi]

Carlton are 29 years into a 5 year plan that’s just starting to bear fruit

 

[Frank Grimes]

How long a rebuild takes depends on many factors. List management and the development of the players being the main factors.

If the club gets everything right and a bit of luck then the club should be in the bottom 4 for 2 or 3 years at most. If the club takes more than 5 years then some really poor decisions must have been made at some point.

 

[Ambrosia]

The full tear down rebuild is an extremely long process that should probably be avoided these days with the draft being so compromised and there no longer being priority picks.

Sides should still obviously correctly assess the talent on their list and move on older players and focus on playing kids but tearing down the list North style isn’t a desirable outcome.

 

[Freomaniac]

Swans rebuilds are a bit flawed given how good their academies have been. Gulden, Mills, Heeney and Blakey is a crazy haul and not something other clubs have had access too.

Cats have brought in some young guys but until the likes of Danger, Cameron, Hawkins, Blicavs, Stewart ect retire I would say they are not rebuilding on the run. They'll experience some pain when those seniors players leave as you would expect.

Again with Victorians and their obsession about the Sydney Swans academy. LoL

Why didn't the Victorian clubs complain about the Sydney Swans in 1992, 1993 and 1994?

Swans Academy is producing NSW local talent. I don't know why that is an issue.

 

[TigerTime88]

Again with Victorians and their obsession about the Sydney Swans academy. LoL

Why didn't the Victorian clubs complain about the Sydney Swans in 1992, 1993 and 1994?

Swans Academy is producing NSW local talent. I don't know why that is an issue.

Sorry just point me to the bit where I complained about it. I just said it is a flawed view to compare a rebuild to the Swans. They were able to start their rebuild with young talent rated in the top 3 while still making top four. Therefore their ability to regenerate quickly is different to other clubs due to the academies. Maybe a touch hard to comprehend as a Freo supporter given you've never actually seen a successful build at all.

2014 - Made a Grand Final and got Heeney who was rated number 1
2015 - They finished fourth on the ladder and got Mills who was rated in the top 3

 

[Ralll]

The Richmond build started with drafting Reiwoldt and Shane Edwards

10

Shane Edwards

Age

36

Ht

182cm

Wt

78kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.2

4star

K

8.1

3star

HB

9.1

5star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.9

4star

CL

3.0

4star

D

16.4

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.6

1star

T

3.0

4star

CL

4.2

5star

D

8.6

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.2

3star

in 06, added Cotch, Rance, Dusty while bottoming out, Vlas, Astbury, Rioli etc. over following years, all the while adding strong rookies with Grimes, Lambert, Baker, Castagna etc., and trading in guys like Houli, Grigg, Caddy, Prestia to fill the gaps.
It took 11 years to fully build before the first premiership while not making too many mistakes, on top of this develop the players well and have the right coach to lead them...

 

[The King!]

72 years max