Opinion Where will our rookie hits come from?

[Scodog10]

Not necessarily. His Intel could easily have come from one of our track watchers.

Hmm I thought I’d actually popped that in, but you’re spot on. This time of year it’s far easier to hop on internet forums than it is to do some journalism.

 

[Anzacday]

Mihocek wasn’t a rookie with collingwood

Think you might be mistaken there.

 

[Quicky]

I make a good point does Collingwood have any rookie players we have drafted that have been promoted to become regular players? The whole rookie list has been a fail going into 2021.

In the current team Cox and Mihocek. Madgen played a lot last year as did Noble.

 

[Apex36]

You could still have a one year contract without a seperate list. And the base being excluded is ridiculous. Net result is simply more kids being signed up for one year as there is an incentive for clubs to do so.

The seperate list means that there can be a maximum number of 1 year draftee contracts that can be enforced, so no, there aren’t more kids being signed up for one year. The whole point of the rookie draft/list is to give the more speculative kids a chance on a list, who would otherwise go undrafted because clubs were unwilling to give them 2 years off the bat. Honestly I can’t see the issue with it, even with the advent of senior players being shifted to the rookie list over the past few years.

 

[Apex36]

In the current team Cox and Mihocek. Madgen played a lot last year as did Noble.

I’d go as far as saying that Noble has become best 22. Madgen the only one of those 4 who got games because of injury circumstances, but he was solid and I’d wager he’d get a regular gig at several clubs with weaker back lines than ours.

 

[jackcass]

Mihocek wasn’t a rookie with collingwood. The rest were all over a decade ago. Anyone the past half a decade?

Check Checkers again....

 

[jackcass]

I make a good point does Collingwood have any rookie players we have drafted that have been promoted to become regular players? The whole rookie list has been a fail going into 2021.

Currently only Cox, Mihocek, Madge and Noble. Lynch the other rookie currently on the senior list.

 

[sr36]

The seperate list means that there can be a maximum number of 1 year draftee contracts that can be enforced, so no, there aren’t more kids being signed up for one year. The whole point of the rookie draft/list is to give the more speculative kids a chance on a list, who would otherwise go undrafted because clubs were unwilling to give them 2 years off the bat. Honestly I can’t see the issue with it, even with the advent of senior players being shifted to the rookie list over the past few years.

Sorry, I missed out a key word in my post.
I was trying to say that you could still have a rookie or one year contract draft without having a rookie list. If they continue with list size requirements post the covid period the same players would be drafted. But without the cap saving in the rookie list, more kids would be taken on two year contracts. For most kids taken in the rookie draft, clubs have taken them there because of the cap saving. They'd otherwise take them in the main draft, because there's an advantage in taking them in the main draft - you don't drop down the draft order and thus miss your man. The reason why they were only given a one year contract is that the AFL incentifies it with the cap space. And the cap space is the only difference between the lists.

 

[Quicky]

The seperate list means that there can be a maximum number of 1 year draftee contracts that can be enforced, so no, there aren’t more kids being signed up for one year. The whole point of the rookie draft/list is to give the more speculative kids a chance on a list, who would otherwise go undrafted because clubs were unwilling to give them 2 years off the bat. Honestly I can’t see the issue with it, even with the advent of senior players being shifted to the rookie list over the past few years.

Senior listed players delisted then relisted on the rookie undermines the purpose of the rookie list in a way. If formerly senior listed players are taking up rookie spots that's likely taking away an opportunity for a kid. The more I think about that the more I think they need to adjust the rules.

 

[jackcass]

Senior listed players delisted then relisted on the rookie undermines the purpose of the rookie list in a way. If formerly senior listed players are taking up rookie spots that's likely taking away an opportunity for a kid. The more I think about that the more I think they need to adjust the rules.

I agree, but it's generally only done for players with significant injury issues. That changed a bit for 2020 but I think that's a 1 off due to list restructures. Maybe changes to the LTI list processes would be a better resolution to teams being forced to do that.

 

[Scodog10]

I make a good point does Collingwood have any rookie players we have drafted that have been promoted to become regular players? The whole rookie list has been a fail going into 2021.

I mean if you aren’t pumping up your tyres who will? The answer is emphatically yes, but the question needs to be whether it’s enough.

For instance we had 7 current or former rookies play senior footy in 2020 for 62 matches and 2 play more than 15 so best 22. Geelong likewise had 7 for 95 matches and 3 play more than 15. Richmond 8 for 140 matches and 6 best 22 (I included Soldo because he’s best 22 and played 14).

Bottom line for me is our numbers stack up in terms of cracking AFL, but we need to find more hits when it comes to best 22. IMO, it’s development and opportunity not talent ID that results in a rookie hit. For some reason we’ve tended toward taller types on our rookie list the past decade and there’s limited opportunities for those players plus they’re trickier to develop. In 2020 4 of our rookies to play were talls whereas Richmond and Geelong had a combined 3.

Perhaps it’s time we invested more in talls earlier in the draft and smalls later in the draft?..

 

[Quicky]

I mean if you aren’t pumping up your tyres who will? The answer is emphatically yes, but the question needs to be whether it’s enough.

For instance we had 7 current or former rookies play senior footy in 2020 for 62 matches and 2 play more than 15 so best 22. Geelong likewise had 7 for 95 matches and 3 play more than 15. Richmond 8 for 140 matches and 6 best 22 (I included Soldo because he’s best 22 and played 14).

Bottom line for me is our numbers stack up in terms of cracking AFL, but we need to find more hits when it comes to best 22. IMO, it’s development and opportunity not talent ID that results in a rookie hit. For some reason we’ve tended toward taller types on our rookie list the past decade and there’s limited opportunities for those players plus they’re trickier to develop. In 2020 4 of our rookies to play were talls whereas Richmond and Geelong had a combined 3.

Perhaps it’s time we invested more in talls earlier in the draft and smalls later in the draft?..

I've thought this for a while.

It's interesting because the approach to look at the rookie for key position players has had some success. Mihocek is an excellent forward. Cox has been handy as has Madgen. Keanes debuted and looks promising.

I think though it's left us without the same quality in our spine as the best teams. You don't typically find the best key forwards unless you're dropping high draft picks on them.

There's risk in that because they're often busts. This risk is what I think Hine avoids and is the reasoning behind his approach.

I don't mind it but reckon we need to balance it up a bit. We still need to be willing to use a high pick on a quality key position player. I'd also like to see us use the rookie more on smalls and mediums in place of some of our talls and relisted players.

Our biggest success with the rookie was doing this. Thinking Maxwell, Lumumba, Wellingham, Blair etc. It was when we shifted from this we did worse.

 

[sr36]

I make a good point does Collingwood have any rookie players we have drafted that have been promoted to become regular players? The whole rookie list has been a fail going into 2021.

Mihocek, Noble, Cox and Madgen are from our rookie list.

 

[left at home]

I hope we go back to what the rookie list was meant to be for, and not for putting injured players on.
Give the kids a chance

 

[sr36]

I mean if you aren’t pumping up your tyres who will? The answer is emphatically yes, but the question needs to be whether it’s enough.

For instance we had 7 current or former rookies play senior footy in 2020 for 62 matches and 2 play more than 15 so best 22. Geelong likewise had 7 for 95 matches and 3 play more than 15. Richmond 8 for 140 matches and 6 best 22 (I included Soldo because he’s best 22 and played 14).

Bottom line for me is our numbers stack up in terms of cracking AFL, but we need to find more hits when it comes to best 22. IMO, it’s development and opportunity not talent ID that results in a rookie hit. For some reason we’ve tended toward taller types on our rookie list the past decade and there’s limited opportunities for those players plus they’re trickier to develop. In 2020 4 of our rookies to play were talls whereas Richmond and Geelong had a combined 3.

Perhaps it’s time we invested more in talls earlier in the draft and smalls later in the draft?..

I think the best available/highest ranked early, followed by needs late approach to drafting is flawed and should be turned upside down. If you're picking for needs late, you're significantly reducing the size of a pool which already has few good ones left - the likelihood of getting a needs based senior player late is pretty small - just draft the bloke most likely to have an AFL career. Early in the draft, there are often a range of guys from different positions that are likely to make it - this is where you can afford to go with needs.

 

[Scodog10]

I've thought this for a while.

It's interesting because the approach to look at the rookie for key position players has had some success. Mihocek is an excellent forward. Cox has been handy as has Madgen. Keanes debuted and looks promising.

I think though it's left us without the same quality in our spine as the best teams. You don't typically find the best key forwards unless you're dropping high draft picks on them.

There's risk in that because they're often busts. This risk is what I think Hine avoids and is the reasoning behind his approach.

I don't mind it but reckon we need to balance it up a bit. We still need to be willing to use a high pick on a quality key position player. I'd also like to see us use the rookie more on smalls and mediums in place of some of our talls and relisted players.

Our biggest success with the rookie was doing this. Thinking Maxwell, Lumumba, Wellingham, Blair etc. It was when we shifted from this we did worse.

Tracking only the 2010-2019 drafts. Mihocek is the only rolled gold hit from the guys you mentioned and Cox is marginal, but a hit on the strength of his finals record. We then have flops in Schade, Frost, Lynch, Richmond, Tohill, Wyatt, McCarthy, Reilly and Gordon. That’s 2 hits, 2 maybes and 9 flops. For these ratings I’m looking at guys that are best 22 quality in a top 4 team.

Not only is the hit rate abysmal, but what’s most shocking, to me at least, is the number. Without having done the numbers I can guaranteee we haven’t drafted that many talls in the top 50. Honestly I’d be surprised if that figure was more than 10. The numbers have shown for a long time that’s where your quality is so it’s little wonder our tall profile is poor.

Edit: I think this is coach driven and Buckley doesn’t rate talls. Sr also nailed the assessment of a wholistic view of a draft. The only counterpoint I’d make is that if KPP’s and their traits were rated more highly I think we’d naturally see them move up our draft board. The flow on effect of that would be that without changing that draft model we’d see more talls taken early. That means more smalls at the back on a needs basis which results in more rookie hits (on a numbers basis). The other alternative is to keep doing what we’re doing and invest more resources (picks and $) in trading for talls. End of the day with our current draft strategy we know we’ll just keep getting hits with smalls so what’s the point in investing in them?

 

[Quicky]

Tracking only the 2010-2019 drafts. Mihocek is the only rolled gold hit from the guys you mentioned and Cox is marginal, but a hit on the strength of his finals record. We then have flops in Schade, Frost, Lynch, Richmond, Tohill, Wyatt, McCarthy, Reilly and Gordon. That’s 2 hits, 2 maybes and 9 flops. For these ratings I’m looking at guys that are best 22 quality in a top 4 team.

Not only is the hit rate abysmal, but what’s most shocking, to me at least, is the number. Without having done the numbers I can guaranteee we haven’t drafted that many talls in the top 50. Honestly I’d be surprised if that figure was more than 10. The numbers have shown for a long time that’s where your quality is so it’s little wonder our tall profile is poor.

Edit: I think this is coach driven and Buckley doesn’t rate talls. Sr also nailed the assessment of a wholistic view of a draft. The only counterpoint I’d make is that if KPP’s and their traits were rated more highly I think we’d naturally see them move up our draft board. The flow on effect of that would be that without changing that draft model we’d see more talls taken early. That means more smalls at the back on a needs basis which results in more rookie hits (on a numbers basis). The other alternative is to keep doing what we’re doing and invest more resources (picks and $) in trading for talls. End of the day with our current draft strategy we know we’ll just keep getting hits with smalls so what’s the point in investing in them?

You forgot Perham as a flop. And Wilson as a maybe.

Theres actually a pattern there for the ones that made it or might. Two international rookies (Cox, Keane), two from basketball (Madgen, Wilson) and one a senior player from the VFL (Mihocek). Four Cat B's.

You may as well not draft key position players that have come from the draft with that hit rate. It may also be we aren't assessing them properly.

Still it supports the idea of going smaller in the rookie for Cat A's. And only going tall with Cat B's with international rookies and converts from other sports or from the VFL.

We'd have had 10 more chances from the rookie with that approach. And I'm sure some hits.

These are the marginal adjustments that can really help give you an advantage.

 

[TradeDraft]

You forgot Perham as a flop. And Wilson as a maybe.

Theres actually a pattern there for the ones that made it or might. Two international rookies (Cox, Keane), two from basketball (Madgen, Wilson) and one a senior player from the VFL (Mihocek). Four Cat B's.

You may as well not draft key position players that have come from the draft with that hit rate. It may also be we aren't assessing them properly.

Still it supports the idea of going smaller in the rookie for Cat A's. And only going tall with Cat B's with international rookies and converts from other sports or from the VFL.

We'd have had 10 more chances from the rookie with that approach. And I'm sure some hits.

These are the marginal adjustments that can really help give you an advantage.

Going Early on Wilson being a Flop.

Covid has really Stuffed his Development up a bit

 

[Quicky]

Going Early on Wilson being a Flop.

Covid has really Stuffed his Development up a bit

I said Wilson was a maybe. The jury is still out.

 

[Scodog10]

You forgot Perham as a flop. And Wilson as a maybe.

Theres actually a pattern there for the ones that made it or might. Two international rookies (Cox, Keane), two from basketball (Madgen, Wilson) and one a senior player from the VFL (Mihocek). Four Cat B's.

You may as well not draft key position players that have come from the draft with that hit rate. It may also be we aren't assessing them properly.

Still it supports the idea of going smaller in the rookie for Cat A's. And only going tall with Cat B's with international rookies and converts from other sports or from the VFL.

We'd have had 10 more chances from the rookie with that approach. And I'm sure some hits.

These are the marginal adjustments that can really help give you an advantage.

Missed Perham I thought he was 09 for some reason but Wilson isn’t a KPP, IMO. The numbers support that adjustment and analysts are paid to pick trends up such as that so hopefully it’s an issue we’ve identified. We haven’t gone tall since the Mihocek selection so perhaps we have. Although I think that’s by chance, lots of re-rookies, rather than design.

 

[THATSGOLD]

I mean if you aren’t pumping up your tyres who will? The answer is emphatically yes, but the question needs to be whether it’s enough.

For instance we had 7 current or former rookies play senior footy in 2020 for 62 matches and 2 play more than 15 so best 22. Geelong likewise had 7 for 95 matches and 3 play more than 15. Richmond 8 for 140 matches and 6 best 22 (I included Soldo because he’s best 22 and played 14).

Bottom line for me is our numbers stack up in terms of cracking AFL, but we need to find more hits when it comes to best 22. IMO, it’s development and opportunity not talent ID that results in a rookie hit. For some reason we’ve tended toward taller types on our rookie list the past decade and there’s limited opportunities for those players plus they’re trickier to develop. In 2020 4 of our rookies to play were talls whereas Richmond and Geelong had a combined 3.

Perhaps it’s time we invested more in talls earlier in the draft and smalls later in the draft?..

I really enjoy your posts ScoDog. I would love to see us develop some more talls but not hang on to them for lengthy periods hoping they will make it rather than developing them like we did with Gault and Max Lynch. You need to know when it’s time to cut your losses with them.
We have too many fails that’s the problem. Jack Perham and Mclarty should’ve been developed to play kpp. I put that down to lack of development.