Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Pugz89]

Well it’s clear that we have an agreement to take one Footscray player each year and there’s literally no one else that stands out. Maybe Van De Heuvel on a needs basis but I don’t think he’s up to it either.

I’m surprised it hasn’t attracted us some better VFL players. An ‘agreement’ where we select one player onto the AFL list each year is fairly significant IMO.

It's bullshit though. Why is there a need to have an agreement in place. Recruit on merit, not because of a handshake deal. If they're good enough, they'll get picked up without agreement. And if there isn't an agreement in place, then what is the obsession with drafting Footscray players. Geelong do similar with their VFL team I think.

 

[doggiesin08]

It's bullshit though. Why is there a need to have an agreement in place. Recruit on merit, not because of a handshake deal. If they're good enough, they'll get picked up without agreement. And if there isn't an agreement in place, then what is the obsession with drafting Footscray players. Geelong do similar with their VFL team I think.

I think the logic would be that it attracts better VFL listed players. That in turn makes the team better and young players develop better in winning teams.

 

[TiAn_]

I think the logic would be that it attracts better VFL listed players. That in turn makes the team better and young players develop better in winning teams.

Also theoretically we could turn the player over every year if they’re just picked up in the rookie draft on a one year contract.

It’s basically a free hit with a player we know inside out. It’s worked pretty well with McComb, Scott and even others like Hayes and Gowers, given how many AFL games they’ve ended up playing. Much better strike rate than rando rookie pick ups I’d imagine.

 

[bobs head soup]

Also theoretically we could turn the player over every year if they’re just picked up in the rookie draft on a one year contract.

It’s basically a free hit with a player we know inside out. It’s worked pretty well with McComb, Scott and even others like Hayes and Gowers, given how many AFL games they’ve ended up playing. Much better strike rate than rando rookie pick ups I’d imagine.

Agree with this. Using our feeder club/2nds to develop and recruit mature types who may have missed out in their draft year has served us very well over the years. Best examples would be Dale Morris and Liam Picken.

 

[Bulldogs85]

Inside Trading has reported that Alex keath

42

Alex Keath

Age

32

Ht

198cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.0

4star

K

8.9

3star

HB

5.1

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

206.7

3star

D

11.0

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.6

1star

MG

193.4

3star

D

11.4

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

165.0

3star

has hit a trigger extension for next year.

 

[BrisDog]

I'm pretty confident to say we are taking Sullivan

He’s 181cm - seems a little tall for Bevo. Not much of a kick though, so you might be correct. Great story as well.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Inside Trading has reported that Alex keath has hit a trigger extension for next year.

Very happy about this, mainly because we aren't forced to fork out a multi-year extension now. Can wait until this time next year and see how how his form/body is holding up.

 

[BEaston]

It's bullshit though. Why is there a need to have an agreement in place. Recruit on merit, not because of a handshake deal. If they're good enough, they'll get picked up without agreement. And if there isn't an agreement in place, then what is the obsession with drafting Footscray players. Geelong do similar with their VFL team I think.

How is it bullshit? The benefits of an agreement are pretty clear.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

Don’t know why we didn’t recruit some VFL KPDs for Footscray seeing as we have a shortage at both levels. We should be recruiting a team of defenders across the ground in the hopes that 1-2 come good for our AFL team

 

[stefoid]

Also theoretically we could turn the player over every year if they’re just picked up in the rookie draft on a one year contract.

It’s basically a free hit with a player we know inside out. It’s worked pretty well with McComb, Scott and even others like Hayes and Gowers, given how many AFL games they’ve ended up playing. Much better strike rate than rando rookie pick ups I’d imagine.

hmm, depends on how you define a strike rate.

For me, you want top quality players or bust, not role-players who might play 20-30 mediocre games over 3-4 years. Id rather keep the rookie and fringe players turning over at a fast rate to find the hidden gems - the young and raw players who might flourish quickly in a professional environment.

By picking mature players who are already in a relatively professional environment (our VFL team), there is much less chance that they will blossom to the next level.

 

[TiAn_]

hmm, depends on how you define a strike rate.

For me, you want top quality players or bust, not role-players who might play 20-30 mediocre games over 3-4 years. Id rather keep the rookie and fringe players turning over at a fast rate to find the hidden gems - the young and raw players who might flourish quickly in a professional environment.

By picking mature players who are already in a relatively professional environment (our VFL team), there is much less chance that they will blossom to the next level.

i don't think picking up one player from Footscray each year would prevent us from taking swings on upside players. The rookie list can be up to 6 players. Also the number of hidden gems in the rookie draft is incredibly low. If we're picking up blokes that become best 22 for a few years in a competitive side we're doing quite well.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I can’t see him playing for Port, but we know he does love the money.

Not sure even the $$$ would trump everything else... . There's more to life, etc, plus he has plenty of business ventures happening (afaik).

 

[doggiesin08]

i don't think picking up one player from Footscray each year would prevent us from taking swings on upside players. The rookie list can be up to 6 players. Also the number of hidden gems in the rookie draft is incredibly low. If we're picking up blokes that become best 22 for a few years in a competitive side we're doing quite well.

The era of hidden gems in the rookie draft coincided with the era of first round flops. Obviously both still exist but not to the degree they used to with improved talent identification.

 

[stefoid]

Is that true though? love to see the stats on rookies.

 

[doggiesin08]

Is that true though? love to see the stats on rookies.

Which part? If you’re getting less flops in the early rounds (and therefore more games on average) you mathematically have to be getting less games from later picks assuming the same number of players per game and number of rounds.

 

[doggies ftw]

i don't think picking up one player from Footscray each year would prevent us from taking swings on upside players. The rookie list can be up to 6 players. Also the number of hidden gems in the rookie draft is incredibly low. If we're picking up blokes that become best 22 for a few years in a competitive side we're doing quite well.

I get what your saying and I love the idea of using Footscray as a feeder club but just don’t really think we’re utilising it right.

Gardner & Gowers were fine as they’re different players with a bit of upside but I’m not sure about using it on the best performing small mids every year.

Hayes was on the list for what 3 years, we even delisted and redrafted him which was a waste, McComb will probably be the same and yes he’s playing right now (that’s a different argument) but he’s depth for the deepest midfield in the league - and now talk of Sullivan whose the same just not needed at all.

Would be different if we were bringing in undrafted 19 yos to develop at Footscray but we’re not really. And especially talls, there’s like one genuine tall on the Footscray list, we should be using it for key defenders and ruckmen who we can watch develop and see if theyre worth a shot.

So my problem isn’t really with the agreement I suppose but the way we’re using it, when list spots are always so tight at the moment too it’s a bit of a waste

 

[Dog 36]

I get what your saying and I love the idea of using Footscray as a feeder club but just don’t really think we’re utilising it right.

Gardner & Gowers were fine as they’re different players with a bit of upside but I’m not sure about using it on the best performing small mids every year.

Hayes was on the list for what 3 years, we even delisted and redrafted him which was a waste, McComb will probably be the same and yes he’s playing right now (that’s a different argument) but he’s depth for the deepest midfield in the league - and now talk of Sullivan whose the same just not needed at all.

Would be different if we were bringing in undrafted 19 yos to develop at Footscray but we’re not really. And especially talls, there’s like one genuine tall on the Footscray list, we should be using it for key defenders and ruckmen who we can watch develop and see if theyre worth a shot.

So my problem isn’t really with the agreement I suppose but the way we’re using it, when list spots are always so tight at the moment too it’s a bit of a waste

Maybe it is a haven for midfielders because we don't have a good program to develop tall players both in the ruck and as KPD.

 

[Bulldogs85]

Tom Browne has said we have strong interest in Lobb

 

[TiAn_]

I get what your saying and I love the idea of using Footscray as a feeder club but just don’t really think we’re utilising it right.

Gardner & Gowers were fine as they’re different players with a bit of upside but I’m not sure about using it on the best performing small mids every year.

Hayes was on the list for what 3 years, we even delisted and redrafted him which was a waste, McComb will probably be the same and yes he’s playing right now (that’s a different argument) but he’s depth for the deepest midfield in the league - and now talk of Sullivan whose the same just not needed at all.

Would be different if we were bringing in undrafted 19 yos to develop at Footscray but we’re not really. And especially talls, there’s like one genuine tall on the Footscray list, we should be using it for key defenders and ruckmen who we can watch develop and see if theyre worth a shot.

So my problem isn’t really with the agreement I suppose but the way we’re using it, when list spots are always so tight at the moment too it’s a bit of a waste

I agree that the list balance is too skewed to certain types and needs rectifying. But re any alleged arrangement if we're getting players like Gardner (mid-season), Scott and McComb that are all playing regularly in a winning side then you really can't ask for more from the rookie draft.

 

[doggies ftw]

Tom Browne has said we have strong interest in Lobb

Lobb would be a strange get at this point in time tbh - unless we planned to go with Keath, Naughty & Darcy in defence & Bruce, Jamarra & Lobb up forward.

Which I mean wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world - but I dunno the thought of needing a key forward for so long then finding the best one in the league whose on track for 700 career goals, then taking him away. Doesn’t sit great with me - maybe if Marra comes on in a huge way

 

[Bulldogs85]

Lobb would be a strange get at this point in time tbh - unless we planned to go with Keath, Naughty & Darcy in defence & Bruce, Jamarra & Lobb up forward.

Which I mean wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world - but I dunno the thought of needing a key forward for so long then finding the best one in the league whose on track for 700 career goals, then taking him away. Doesn’t sit great with me - maybe if Marra comes on in a huge way

Fremantle supporter said this on their board Not just Lobb. The Dogs like both Pearce and Logue too.

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

Lobb would be a strange get at this point in time tbh - unless we planned to go with Keath, Naughty & Darcy in defence & Bruce, Jamarra & Lobb up forward.

Which I mean wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world - but I dunno the thought of needing a key forward for so long then finding the best one in the league whose on track for 700 career goals, then taking him away. Doesn’t sit great with me - maybe if Marra comes on in a huge way

Only makes sense if the club thinks we need a forward-ruck in the mix. In any case I'm pretty confident that would mean JUH is out. I can't see them ever moving Naughton.

 

[bobs head soup]

Tom Browne has said we have strong interest in Lobb

Strong Daniel Bandy Kingsley Hunter vibes

 

[TiAn_]

Lobb would be a strange get at this point in time tbh - unless we planned to go with Keath, Naughty & Darcy in defence & Bruce, Jamarra & Lobb up forward.

Which I mean wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world - but I dunno the thought of needing a key forward for so long then finding the best one in the league whose on track for 700 career goals, then taking him away. Doesn’t sit great with me - maybe if Marra comes on in a huge way

Naughton, Bruce & Lobb forward. JUH can earn a spot as a medium or provide injury backup.

Darcy is still only 19 so don’t need to carve out a role for him.

 

[Testekill]

Fremantle supporter said this on their board Not just Lobb. The Dogs like both Pearce and Logue too.

Possibly part of a package deal maybe? Lobb is fine but I don't really see him as someone that we absolutely need. He'd probably be done by the time Darcy comes good but he's just not a huge concern in my eyes.