The concept of the rookie list

[GVGjr]

I know the easy answer to what I'm about to propose is to take the fully compliment of rookies but I'm wondering if 6 is just too many for an under resourced club like ours despite the success we have had?

- Last year we had the full compliment. Dahlhaus and Barlow got promoted, Panos improved a hell of a lot, Prato struggled with injury and consistency and Johannissen showed a bit but not a lot and Hahn just made up the numbers.

- All year some players got moved back into the reserves regardless of their form and while I don't think a spell in the reserves is such a bad thing as some indicate the simple maths of it is the less players we have on the rookie list the less players that play in the reserves.

- For an under resourced club our coaches could focus more on players if we say had 2 less.
It doesn't sound much but it might be.

Lets look at last years rookies a bit closer.
Dahlhaus proved to be a gem, he knocked the door down and then made the most of his chances. Kudos to the recruitment and development teams.

Barlow was solid throughout the season and did OK when he was promoted but I wonder if we didn't have so many injuries if we would have sat up and taken as much notice of him as we did? He hasn't been promoted yet and I think that's an indication that we still don't see him as much more than insurance.

Hahn was our other player with senior experience and while he played well for Williamstown he didn't really offer the depth that we selected him for.

Johannissen was quiet but showed a little bit. Not sure if he gets another year and won't be fussed either way.

Prato was a good experiment but never looked fit enough and really didn't offer us much at all.

Panos was a solid performer who switched between defensive of key forward duties and even took his lumps in the reserves when his form should have guaranteed him a spot in the senior side.

Lets be honest, did we need Johannissen, Prato and Hahn?

My view on the rookie list now is to have 2 players capable of senior football (like a Barlow) and 2 that might offer us something in the coming years (Panos). Ideally one of them should be a ruckman.

Sure we will lose some depth with a reduced list (I don't think we will be contending for the top 4 sides next year anyway) but I think we will more than make up for it but giving guys more opportunities in the Williamstown senior side and letting the development coaches work a bit more with the slightly smaller list.

When I see guys like Mulligan and Hooper being promoted from the rookie list and players like Skinner on the senior list I actually think we have too much temptation in front of us and feel obligated more than we should.

Let me know your thoughts?

[Go_Dogs]

First off, great post - you raise a very valid question and I think your idea has a lot of merit.

My concerns would be:-

1) That many kids don't work out for various reasons, be it senior list or rookie list players, and having a bigger net should help us get the desired end result of more players up to the required standard.

2) If we're going to be beefing up our footy department spend I don't see any reason why we can't have faith in our ability to improve at developing players.

I think the rookie list is still a necessary tool, however perhaps we can be a bit smarter in balancing our shorter and longer term needs through the rookie draft. We were fairly close this year in that we had a few developing players in Panos, Prato and JJ and a few 'ready made' options in Hahn and Barlow, plus Dahlhaus who perhaps came on quicker than expected but that's not totally uncommon, Harbrow another example.

In short, I guess my response is we should take our full compliment unless we have serious concerns about our ability to manage those numbers financially and development wise.

[Doc26]

Interesting topic GVGjr and thanks for the thread.

My concern with the suggestion would be who might be the 2 players that would miss out.

Maybe Dahlhaus and Panos may not have the opportunity they will have in 2012 if we had cut deeper into our rookie selection.

There could be an argument mounted not to send a Hahn type to the rookie list but then that was done for insurance purposes rather than to look into developing a prospect. The fact that we never elevated Hahn might suggest that it is wasteful to send older, tired players to a rookie list.

In short, I don't have a problem rookieing a Johannissen type but I do moreso with the Hahn types unless they have a realistic opportunity of playing a role.

[GVGjr]

My concern with the suggestion would be who might be the 2 players that would miss out.

Maybe Dahlhaus and Panos may not have the opportunity they will have in 2012 if we had cut deeper into our rookie selection.




Thanks for the response Griff and Doc,

My view is that you would have a rookie list around someone like Barlow (versatile and somewhat experienced) a Panos (a player we think we can get a bit more from) an emerging ruckman and the best junior footballer we can draft like Dahlhaus.

If we have injuries then a Barlow, Panos or hopefully the next Dahlhaus are right in the mix but if we don't have injuries then these guys get to spend more time in the Williamstown senior side rather than taking more of a turn in the reserves than their form might indicate.

Remember the downside for us is that guys like Veszpremi played reserves football when he should have been in the seniors because we just had too many players. He also missed on on the Williamstown GF.

On face value the bigger list seems great but I think there is some downside for it with a club that isn't resource rich and a club that doesn't have full control of it's VFL side.

I'm asking if following the full rookie list quota that so many clubs do is the right thing for us?
North get around it by having their players split between 2 sides but I'm questioning if following the others is the right thing for us.
Also if someone does perform well there appears to be an expectation or even an obligation to promote them and this ends up being an even bigger issue for us.

[stefoid]

Why does having 6 rookies prevent players from playing in the willi seniors?

Apart from cost I see no downside to having 6 rookies.

Rookies are low-probability types, thats a given. The more of them you have, the better the chance of finding a player.

I could see an argument for turning rookies over more quickly, but not for having less of them.

It would be interesting to do a study of successful rookies to determine how long they spend on the rookie list before they are elevated successfully (as opposed to unsuccessfully like Mulligan)

If such a study found, say, 7/10 successfully elevated rookies only spend one season on the rookie list before elevation, you could really make a case of turning your entire rookie list over every year.

We know Dalhaus was elevated after one season. What about Boyd, Morris?

Anyone with more timeand energy thn me want to tackle the list of successful rookies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rookie_list

[GVGjr]

Why does having 6 rookies prevent players from playing in the willi seniors?



Are you not aware that we have to play some Williamstown listed players every match meaning some of the Bulldog listed players must play some reserves football?

[Sockeye Salmon]

That's a terrible idea.

So what if a couple of them play reserves? It's fine saying that two rookies aren't required but it's a bit like the old saying, "Half your marketing money is wasted, you just don't know which half". What if the one you decided not to use was Dale Morris?

I am a bit of a believer that at least a few of your rookie spots should be taken up with guys a bit older, those who developed late and weren't ready when they were 18 or those who can fill a role who were cut by another club.


Frost, Currie, Sellar, Urquhart, Spurr...

[Greystache]

I don't have a problem with us taking our full compliment of rookies, I do however strongly believe that rookies should be treated equally compared to senior listed players when it comes to Williamstown selection. I also think having more than one senior/ experienced player is a waste, I didn't see the point of Hahn's role last season, and I wouldn't want to see another experienced AFL player on the rookie list next year if we retain Barlow. For me the rookie list is the place to take a punt on young kids with talent who may have a potential weakness to work on. If they show improvement give them another year, if they excel put them on the main list, if they don't move them on after one year and give another kid a try.

It seems to me a player can be judged reasonably accurately if they're going to make it halfway through their first season as a full time footballer, the rookie list allows us to turn them over more quickly without being bound to the 2 year commitment of drafting them.

[GVGjr]

That's a terrible idea.

So what if a couple of them play reserves? It's fine saying that two rookies aren't required but it's a bit like the old saying, "Half your marketing money is wasted, you just don't know which half". What if the one you decided not to use was Dale Morris?

I am a bit of a believer that at least a few of your rookie spots should be taken up with guys a bit older, those who developed late and weren't ready when they were 18 or those who can fill a role who were cut by another club.

Frost, Currie, Sellar, Urquhart, Spurr...

Most people on the forum say it's the equivalent of being sent to Coventry and how we need/must have full control of our VFL side. This of course won't happen for us unless the AFL pony up the money for us.

I'd also question when has quantity been better than quality? A Morris, Boyd and Dahlhaus will still prosper with what I'm proposing and I'm guessing a Mulligan won't.

We heard all year how other clubs had more coaches etc and how that was a huge advantage for them but the reality is we can't spend what they can so I'd like to trim the list by a couple to increase the focus on the ones that will likely make a contribution to the senior side.

Filling a list up with Mitch Hahns each year is all good and well when you are contending but I think we need to assess where we are and make some adjustments. Having Mitch Hahn at Williamstown this year simply cost guys more exposure to the senior side.

This is not a long term idea rather one that says whilst we aren't going to be a genuine contender next year we have x number of coaches and reducing the list by a couple they won't be as stretched as far as they were this year. It also gives us the chance to not have to drop back as many players to the reserves.

[Sockeye Salmon]

No problems with that. Mitch was a waste of a spot last year.

[soupman]

I think you have to look at it in sections.

Firstly, what would cutting two rookie spots gain for us.

The obvious would be money. No rookie means no rookie salary, and they say that an employee costs his company roughly double his salary, so if the rookie wage is $30,000pa (I think it's about that) we would stand to gain $120,000 a year to invest elsewhere.

Also resources. Less players means that the resources we have such as coaches can spend more time with the fewer numbers of players on our list and in theory better develop them. More attention should lead to better coached players.

Finally playing time. Less Bulldogs players means more spots available at Williamstown. This may be the difference between guys like Panos playing against half decent mature bodied defenders and kicking bags against a raw defender in Williamstowns "development squad".

To me these aren't big gains. $120,000 is a lot of money but I'm not sure that it's enough. Also currently the coaches divide their time between 46 players, so each player gets 2.2% of each coaches time. If we reduce that to 44 players then each player gets 2.3% of a coaches time. Surely a 0.1% increase in attention isn't worth it? And finally playing time. Sure, more games at VFL level is desirable, but if the side is picked on who deserves selection then I can't see what the problem of a little competition for spots even at that level is.

So thus far the gains seem to be neglible.

Now what are the losses?

The obvious would be that the bigger the net the better chance of finding something of quality. If there is a 10% chance of a rookie making it then I want to increase my chances of finding that 1 in 10 by having more, not less. It's mentioned earlier that if we didn't have Prato and Hahn on the rookie list would we have been any worse off, but who is to say they are the rookies that wouldn't have been selected. For all we know if we adopted this policy last year Dahlhaus might be running around in a Collingwood jumper.

Also depth is lost as you have a smaller list to fall back on. Even though they may not be great quality, a warm body is better than nothing. Imagine if Freo didn't have a full quota of rookies when they played us in round 24 this year. They quite possibly could have been completely out of players and would have had to ask special permission to ask someone not even on their list to play (or they could have borrowed Callan Ward).

I think that the first is a major loss. I think we need to filter through as many players as possible to see if any are worth sticking with. The more the better. Also the more raffle tickets you get the better your chance of winning that prize. There are conditions to this however that will be discussed soon. As for the second, well really I'm not too fussed about depth on the rookie list. Having one Barlow or O'hAilpin would be good as a versatile backup, but if you are so injury struck you need to turn to more than two rookies to make up your side you might as well play he kids from that point on anyway.

Based on the above I conclude that the gains just aren't big enough for me to want to reduce the odds of us finding a good rookie. Depth I don't care about.

The bigger questions however are these:

Is it worth filling the rookie list up even if you start picking players you don't rate?

This refers to the possibility that going into the rookie draft the club might say that we are prepared to fill up our entire quota of rookies, and thus our recruiting staff feel obliged to do so, even if they start signing players they don't really think have a chance of developing into AFL players. So is it worth taking a punt on somebody we don't think is going to make it at all, based on the "more players=better chance of finding quality" theory, or in this instance is it worth the gains mentioned above?

Are those last rookies picked really that good a shot at making it anyway?

Kind of ties in with the above question, but in that last round of rookie selections is it just the dregs left? In 2009 after say pick 34 (two rounds) the best players were Hooper, Stewart Crameri and Simon White (Not including zone and international selections which come at the end automatically). In 2008 these included Andrew Browne, Ben Speight, Luke Bruest, Jay Van Berlo, Matthew Suckling and Greg Broughton with a few re-rookies like Moss and Jacobs. So is the talent there to fill up those last two spots?

Why aren't rookies given the same opportunities to play Willy seniors?

Shouldn't they be picked on what they offer us? If a rookie listed player is going to offer more than a senior listed player then they should be in our 15. This means Panos should've played ahead of others at times. I'm happy to promote competition for those spots, as long as every player is on even footing. I undertand exceptions will be made for players like say Jones these last two years who should play Willy seniors regardless, but there are many players who shouldn't be getting a game over others because they are on the main list.

and finally

What is the right amount of experienced rookies?

Was Barlow and Hahn too much last year? Should it have been just one of them with a kid replacing the other? What is the value in having a Hahn take up a valuable key forward development spot at Williamstown, as good a coach as he may be?

Personally I think I've made it pretty obvious that I am supportive of using our full quota of rookies provided they are all realistic chances of being able to make it at AFL level. That means no picking Patrick Rose's who we would've known beforehand their limitations that hold them back. I believe the composition of it should be a maximum of 1 player who has already reached their potential and is there as a backup (ie. Barlow), 1 developing ruckman who gets 1-2 years to show something. no matter how obscure his background. The rest to be made up of players who have unfulfilled potential at AFL level. I don't care what age or whether they are from TAC cup, state leagues or from an island off the coast of Mauritius. If the recruiting staff honestly believe they can make it then fill the rookie list up.

*I apologise for the lengthy post. Clearly I get a little carried away at times.

[Happy Days]

I'll never have a problem with guys like Mulligan and Prato being rookied; even though they both have or will amount to nothing in their own cases, one of the most ideal rookies is an athletic tall with upside - gives them an avenue to channel their raw talent and/or athleticism, whilst not taking up a list space.

Mature agers like Hahn are more the issue; no real upside or depth (unless every forward on the list goes down) on offer, and, as alluded to, simply a hinderance toward the development of others.

[ReLoad]

I think its simple, you just never know unless you have a go.
by having more rookies you have more opportunities to find a player.

Its like raffle tickets, the more entries you have the more chances to win.

The real trick is placing the right players on the rookie list.
Mitch was a good idea at the time given we were gunning for a flag and he was an insurance policy, but right now, I would look at rookies in the 18-22 bracket.

[GVGjr]

I think you have to look at it in sections.

Firstly, what would cutting two rookie spots gain for us.

The obvious would be money. No rookie means no rookie salary, and they say that an employee costs his company roughly double his salary, so if the rookie wage is $30,000pa (I think it's about that) we would stand to gain $120,000 a year to invest elsewhere.

Also resources. Less players means that the resources we have such as coaches can spend more time with the fewer numbers of players on our list and in theory better develop them. More attention should lead to better coached players.

Finally playing time. Less Bulldogs players means more spots available at Williamstown. This may be the difference between guys like Panos playing against half decent mature bodied defenders and kicking bags against a raw defender in Williamstowns "development squad".



Thanks for the detailed response.

A couple of things here:
It's not about the money we pay the players it's about accepting that we don't have the same coaching resources and the opportunities to play senior football that some other sides have and coming up with a different approach.
It's also about backing the recruitment team to get it right with the selections they have rather asking them to fill the list with marginal talent.

Sure I don't want to see more Fiji experiments or even the Irish ones until we get the basics right and can truly develop players but it's not about the money.



Now what are the losses?

The obvious would be that the bigger the net the better chance of finding something of quality. If there is a 10% chance of a rookie making it then I want to increase my chances of finding that 1 in 10 by having more, not less. It's mentioned earlier that if we didn't have Prato and Hahn on the rookie list would we have been any worse off, but who is to say they are the rookies that wouldn't have been selected. For all we know if we adopted this policy last year Dahlhaus might be running around in a Collingwood jumper.



I don't think that is the case at all and especially the part I have highlighted. Dahlhaus was the first player we drafted not the last and lets be 100% honest here, while we pat the recruitment team on the back for an inspired selection they actually need a slap for allowing him to go to the rookie list and taking a punt on Skinner.
In 2009 we selected Thorne over Moles because we supposedly had intel that someone else would select Thorne.
A reduced list will put the onus on the recruitment team to get it right at each draft.



Also depth is lost as you have a smaller list to fall back on. Even though they may not be great quality, a warm body is better than nothing. Imagine if Freo didn't have a full quota of rookies when they played us in round 24 this year. They quite possibly could have been completely out of players and would have had to ask special permission to ask someone not even on their list to play (or they could have borrowed Callan Ward).


You're missing the rules here, in it's purest sense you can't promote someone off the rookie list unless you have the long term injuries and if you aren't going to be a contender then you just have to accept that and hope that the opportunities presented to the balance of the list will be a blessing in the longer term.




Why aren't rookies given the same opportunities to play Willy seniors?

Shouldn't they be picked on what they offer us? If a rookie listed player is going to offer more than a senior listed player then they should be in our 15. This means Panos should've played ahead of others at times. I'm happy to promote competition for those spots, as long as every player is on even footing. I undertand exceptions will be made for players like say Jones these last two years who should play Willy seniors regardless, but there are many players who shouldn't be getting a game over others because they are on the main list.



This is the point I'm making and accepting that we only have a maximum of 15 spots in the senior side. If dropping the last 2 guys off the list last year (assume Hahn and Prato) meant that Panos was played more in the seniors (to cover Hahn) then that's an automatic win for the club and it would also mean that there would be no need to have dropped Veszpremi.



Personally I think I've made it pretty obvious that I am supportive of using our full quota of rookies provided they are all realistic chances of being able to make it at AFL level. That means no picking Patrick Rose's who we would've known beforehand their limitations that hold them back. I believe the composition of it should be a maximum of 1 player who has already reached their potential and is there as a backup (ie. Barlow), 1 developing ruckman who gets 1-2 years to show something. no matter how obscure his background. The rest to be made up of players who have unfulfilled potential at AFL level. I don't care what age or whether they are from TAC cup, state leagues or from an island off the coast of Mauritius. If the recruiting staff honestly believe they can make it then fill the rookie list up.



I get the point that nearly everyone would prefer the concept of the full quota of rookies but I don't think it does as much for the club that people think. Great concept but I'm saying it's more around tailoring the number to our likely performance. If the club believes we aren't going to be a top 8 side then adding more players to the list won't change that unless the recruitment team is adamant that there is still a player or two available that we rate.
In my opinion though giving the players more opportunities and greater focus on their development would probably be better than having the increased list.


A quick snapshot of our rookie draft selections (please allow for players retained for the following year)

2001
Greenwoood and Boyd

2002
Nil

2003
Condos

2004
Morris

2005
Davidson

2006
Hughes, Harbrow Pask and MWest

2007
Mulligan, White and Shaw

2008
Daniels and Picken (Thanks to Williamstown)

2009
Moles, Hooper, Panos, Prato, Rose

[stefoid]

Are you not aware that we have to play some Williamstown listed players every match meaning some of the Bulldog listed players must play some reserves football?

If they are good enough, the'll force their way into the seniors.

Rookies seem to me to be better value for money than late draft picks on the normal list because they cost less and you can turn them over more frequently if you wish.

[Mofra]

Is this entire point moot?

It would be a valid question is we were paying for the rookies - but hasn't the AFL been providing funding for each club to have a full compliment of rookies since the last TV rights agreement was signed?
I doubt that if the AFL has provided funds for the express purpose of a full compliment of rookies we would not be given the choice to spend those funds elsewhere.

[GVGjr]

Is this entire point moot?

It would be a valid question is we were paying for the rookies - but hasn't the AFL been providing funding for each club to have a full compliment of rookies since the last TV rights agreement was signed?
I doubt that if the AFL has provided funds for the express purpose of a full compliment of rookies we would not be given the choice to spend those funds elsewhere.


I've tried to make the point that it isn't about the money and more focused towards the resources and opportunities that we have to offer to develop players.

[Mofra]

I understand your point on resources, however if the AFL dictate we must take our full compliment of rookies we wont have any wiggle room in this regard.

[soupman]

A couple of things here:
It's not about the money we pay the players it's about accepting that we don't have the same coaching resources and the opportunities to play senior football that some other sides have and coming up with a different approach.
It's also about backing the recruitment team to get it right with the selections they have rather asking them to fill the list with marginal talent.

Sure I don't want to see more Fiji experiments or even the Irish ones until we get the basics right and can truly develop players but it's not about the money.



Thanks for the response.

I understand that the key benefit is with a reduced list you can look after those who remain better, but I'm not sure that that gain is as big as it may look at first. As I stated in my post above it's a 0.1% increase in attention for each player, which if we assume each coach works roughly a 38 hour week means something as insignificant as just over 2 minutes each player per week.



I don't think that is the case at all and especially the part I have highlighted. Dahlhaus was the first player we drafted not the last and lets be 100% honest here, while we pat the recruitment team on the back for an inspired selection they actually need a slap for allowing him to go to the rookie list and taking a punt on Skinner.
In 2009 we selected Thorne over Moles because we supposedly had intel that someone else would select Thorne.
A reduced list will put the onus on the recruitment team to get it right at each draft.



I agree. Thats why I raise the question whether or not the late rookies picked are really worth a shot anyway. I agree that under your model Dahlhaus would probably still be picked, but while I like the idea of trying to get the recruitment team to be more efficient and effective with the limited picks they have, why can't we do this and have say 3 rookie picks instead of 2? It's not like we are giving them permission to pick up their wife's cousin with the last pick, We want them to get that right as much as we want them to get the first pick right. There is already an onus on our recruitment team to get it right each draft.

And as for picking Thorne ahead of Moles, or Skinner ahead of Dahlhaus, I don't have a problem with that if that is what we thought it would cost to secure the players we wanted. When you put it like you have above it's as if our recruitment team went into the draft going "well Dahlhaus is going to be a much better player than Skinner but there is more interest in Skinner therefore we'll take him first and take the unecessary risk of missing out on Dahlhaus". That's surely wrong. Our recruitment team would have rated Skinner at roughly the equilavent value of Dahlhaus, if not higher, and therefore when seperating the two they may have decided that as there was a much higher chance of Skinner being selected before we had a nother crack we might as well take him and have a better shot at getting both instead of just one.



You're missing the rules here, in it's purest sense you can't promote someone off the rookie list unless you have the long term injuries and if you aren't going to be a contender then you just have to accept that and hope that the opportunities presented to the balance of the list will be a blessing in the longer term.



I'm not saying the whole rookie list gives us that depth and I am aware that in all likelihood the most we can promote in a year is 2.


This is the point I'm making and accepting that we only have a maximum of 15 spots in the senior side. If dropping the last 2 guys off the list last year (assume Hahn and Prato) meant that Panos was played more in the seniors (to cover Hahn) then that's an automatic win for the club and it would also mean that there would be no need to have dropped Veszpremi.



I agree. But the issue there is not that we had too many rookies, but that we had Hahn. If you turn Hahn into a draftee and pick players on merit then Panos plays a whole year in the VFL seniors. Panos is probably the only player in recent times for us at Willy who based on form alone should not have been dropped to the "development squad". The solution is surely to work with Willy to make sure there are sufficient vacancies in the spots we want to develop kids in ie. key forward spots, instead of us filling these spots ourselves with players who don't have a future with the club.




I get the point that nearly everyone would prefer the concept of the full quota of rookies but I don't think it does as much for the club that people think. Great concept but I'm saying it's more around tailoring the number to our likely performance. If the club believes we aren't going to be a top 8 side the adding more players to the list won't change that unless the recruitment team is adamant that there is still a player or two available that we rate. In my opinion though giving the players more opportunities and greater focus on their development would probably be better than having the increased list.



Why would the position you are going to finish dictate how many rookie spots you fill? I'd want to turn over as many players as possible every year to see if we can find a gem. 2 extra players means there are two more chances to find someone of quality, despite the slightly less plentiful resources to go around thanks to having them.

Having written all this I do wonder if the last rookies are really that good a chance of making it, which relates back to one of my other questions in that is there a point where the recruiting team should stop of their own accord? DO they just automatically keep picking until the picks run out or do they stop once they have drafted all the kids they feel are worth it, even if there is rolom for more? The only time we shouldn't use up all the rookie spots is when it just isn't worth it in our eyes.

The other issue is how we manage our rookie list, it's make up and how many chances a rookie gets before they are cut. I think we could have higher expectations of them, and on that basis not promote players like Hooper until they have shown they deserve to be in our side more often than not, like Dahlhaus has. Hooper and Mulligan should not have been promoted unless they were likely to regular feature in our best 25.

[Cyberdoggie]

I guess the more rookies you have the more chance there is of you picking up something worthwhile. As long as you are picking these players on sound advice and research that they have some potential, rather than economic/sentimentality reason like with Hahn and his assistant coach backup player role.

I think somewhere between 4 and 6 is ok, depending on quality of the players available.

[Doc26]

With close to a completely new MC in place I'm thinking, Ok hoping, that there might be some diamonds in the rough that might be plucked out for 2012's rookie draft. Hopefully the insight that McCartney, Grant and King will bring from a different landscape to our own will reap us some reward during the coming draft / rookie selection period. With this is mind I suspect we may look to exploit the full potential of the rookie draft for this season.

[stefoid]

I dont agree with having any thing less than the maximum amount of players feeding your best 22 that you can get away with.

But this thread kind of clicked for me in terms of how the rookie list, and for that matter, the mariginal senior list players, could be best treated to maximise the number of quality players coming through.

Do you think it makes sense to turn over the rookie list and the senior list, more quickly than we do?

Like, rather than spending more than the minimum number of seasons (1 for a rookie and 2 for a draftee) trying to determine if the player is AFL potential or not, free up the list for yet more candidates as soon as legally possible?

Obviously this will result in a number of players being kicked off the list 'too soon' because had they been given more years to develop, they would have eventually become decent players. However, the end result might be a net benefit simply due to the greater number of players coming onto the list producing more quality players than those who were prematurely delisted or traded away.

I think statistics show that the great majority of players picked in the third round of the ND or latter, and those picked in the rookie draft, dont make it. And often they take years not to make it. But occasionally (1:10?) there are gems that pop up. Really, apart from luck, the only way to ensure finding more of these gems is to sort through a greater number of players. Its all very well saying 'recruit better', but apart from spending vast amonts of money we dont have, how do you simply 'recruit better'? Presumably the recruiters we have are allready trying their best!

Im not saying throw a blanket over players - each has to be taken on their own merits, but perhaps we do need to be a bit more ruthless about the qualities we expect to see in players that deserve to have their initial contracts extended. and if the players concened cant demonstrate those qualities in the allotted time...

I reckon things like:

1) attitude
2) demostrated capacity to improve faults
3) pressure skills - primarilly decision making. Im of the opinion that players who demonstrate poor decision making under pressure rarely are able to fix this fault and rarely go on to become quality players.

I reckon if you drew a line through players with poor attitudes, or didnt show continual improvement, or are found to have poor pressure skills, you wouldnt loose too many quality players prematurely, but you sure would get rid of a lot of cloggers and ekers to free up the list for future barlows, morrises and dalhauses.

[GVGjr]

Why would the position you are going to finish dictate how many rookie spots you fill? I'd want to turn over as many players as possible every year to see if we can find a gem. 2 extra players means there are two more chances to find someone of quality, despite the slightly less plentiful resources to go around thanks to having them.


To me it's clearly our ability to develop players. If you are performing well then essentially your drafting and development teams are doing the job and you have the luxury of being able to take a punt. When you are rebuilding then you need to focus more on the development of the players you believe can improve.

I don't agree that 2 extra spots automatically give you the chance to find someone of quality.
If I was the coach or the list manager I'd need the recruiting team to convince me after the 4th selection in the rookie draft that there was players we rated still available before filling the next spot let alone the next 2.

[GVGjr]

I guess the more rookies you have the more chance there is of you picking up something worthwhile. As long as you are picking these players on sound advice and research that they have some potential, rather than economic/sentimentality reason like with Hahn and his assistant coach backup player role.

I think somewhere between 4 and 6 is ok, depending on quality of the players available.

Nicely put.

[stefoid]

I don't agree that 2 extra spots automatically give you the chance to find someone of quality.
If I was the coach or the list manager I'd need the recruiting team to convince me after the 4th selection in the rookie draft that there was players we rated still available before filling the next spot let alone the next 2.

Isnt that saying the recruiting team thinks its infalible? Which of course it isnt. Players can and do make big leaps when given the opportunity that nobody could forsee - Barlow from Freo would have been taken with a 1st rounder instead of a rookie if you could see 12 months into the future. Obviously he was able to unexpectedly deliver when the opprtunity was given.

I find it very hard to believe that in all of Australia, there arent at least 2 players in any given year that show enough to have a punt taken on them.

[bulldogsman]

Isn't the AFL reducing the rookie list by two anyway? They gave clubs an extra 2 spots for when GC and GWS came in, then I thought they were going to change the rules back to the old system once GWS and GC did there thing. I think next year or the year after it changes back. Can anyone confirm this?

[GVGjr]

Isnt that saying the recruiting team thinks its infalible? Which of course it isnt. Players can and do make big leaps when given the opportunity that nobody could forsee - Barlow from Freo would have been taken with a 1st rounder instead of a rookie if you could see 12 months into the future. Obviously he was able to unexpectedly deliver when the opprtunity was given.

I find it very hard to believe that in all of Australia, there arent at least 2 players in any given year that show enough to have a punt taken on them.

No it's not saying that.
How many junior players taken with the 5 and 6th rookie selections of a club have become productive players? Why gamble on marginal talent when you don't have the resources to develop them to the extent of the better resourced sides?

There may be the time where the recruiting managers says you know I think there is still a couple of players that I genuinely believe have a chance of adding something to the list but if the best reason behind selecting players is to just fill the list then I don't see the value in it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't think that is the case at all and especially the part I have highlighted. Dahlhaus was the first player we drafted not the last and lets be 100% honest here, while we pat the recruitment team on the back for an inspired selection they actually need a slap for allowing him to go to the rookie list and taking a punt on Skinner.


I think we selected Skinner because GC intended to rookie him and they had the first 100 rookie picks (or something).

I know we had to draft Hill rather than rookie him because GWS had already rookied him and we had to trump them (the AFL wouldn't let us rookie someone who was already a rookie).

[GVGjr]

I think we selected Skinner because GC intended to rookie him and they had the first 100 rookie picks (or something).

I know we had to draft Hill rather than rookie him because GWS had already rookied him and we had to trump them (the AFL wouldn't let us rookie someone who was already a rookie).
That pretty much confirms that we intentionally overlook better players based on our intel on what other clubs may or may not do. Risky process but it might need to be done to balance the list.

I think your reasoning is spot on for Hill and probably right for Skinner but it does highlight that we are passing on better talent and that while we think the recruiting team did well with the Dahlhaus selection it was also a lot of luck.

[stefoid]

No it's not saying that.
How many junior players taken with the 5 and 6th rookie selections of a club have become productive players? Why gamble on marginal talent when you don't have the resources to develop them to the extent of the better resourced sides?

There may be the time where the recruiting managers says you know I think there is still a couple of players that I genuinely believe have a chance of adding something to the list but if we the best reason behind selecting players is to just fill the list then I don't see the value in it.

What is a 5th and 6th rookie selection anyway? I mean, if you retain 4 rookies from last year, then you top up with 2 more the following year, they are your 1st and 2nd rookie picks for that year, arent they? To have a '5th and 6th' rookie selection would mean you completely turned over your rookie list in one year, which rarely happens.

anyway...

My gut feeling is that players who are going to make it from marginal draft picks and rookie selections tend to put their hands up and grab the opportunity early if they are capable of grabbing it at all. My talkative gut also tells me this is because they are self-driven, or given the opportunity, become self-driven to succeed.

Im all in favour of cycling through these types of marginal draft picks and rookies to find those self-driven players that, when given an opportunity, will identify themselves early and force their way onto the list with minimal hand-holding. i.e. without unduly taxing the development resources of the staff.

And I agree with some other thoughts that late bloomers are ideal to fill out the full quota of rookie slots. Guys that werent up to it at 17 or 18, but at the age of 22-24 are mature in body and mind and ready to grab that last chance of having an AFL career - pick these guys to max out the rookie lsit, and cycle through them savagely each year to find the ones that are up to it.

EDIT: further thoughts - the nature of the upcoming draft and available pool of players should enter into calcualtions - i.e. this year we turn over less of the list because of the thin draft, and next year we go a lot harder because there is plenty of talent around.

[GVGjr]

What is a 5th and 6th rookie selection anyway? I mean, if you retain 4 rookies from last year, then you top up with 2 more the following year, they are your 1st and 2nd rookie picks for that year, arent they? To have a '5th and 6th' rookie selection would mean you completely turned over your rookie list in one year, which rarely happens.




Sorry, I thought it was a straight forward comment that didn't need further clarification.
You are wanting 6 players selected in the rookie draft and I'm saying we might do better in terms of development with just 4.

I'm wondering how many of young players became productive footballers when selected deep into the rookie draft? I'm sure there is some but I doubt there is many.

[stefoid]

Sorry, I thought it was a straight forward comment that didn't need further clarification.
You are wanting 6 players selected in the rookie draft and I'm saying we might do better in terms of development with just 4.
The 5th and 6th player comment are the players selected after our (or any clubs) 4th pick.
I'm wondering how many of young players became productive footballers when selected deep into the rookie draft? I'm sure there is some but I doubt there is many.

I dont think there has ever even been a 5th or 6th round rookie selection, because nobody turns over their rookies that quickly to have 5 or 6 spots to fill. so its a weird 'statistical' argument you are making there.

What Im saying is attempting to turn over the rookie list and the senior list more savagely is something that could be considered in the future. A 1:10 chance isnt very significant, but if I roll the dice 10 times, it becomes so.

[GVGjr]

What Im saying is attempting to turn over the rookie list and the senior list more savagely is something that could be considered in the future. A 1:10 chance isnt very significant, but if I roll the dice 10 times, it becomes so.

You shouldn't gamble if you cant afford it and I've already confirmed that it's not a long term thing just a realisation of where we are and the resources we have.

[Greystache]

I'm wondering how many of young players became productive footballers when selected deep into the rookie draft? I'm sure there is some but I doubt there is many.

Players taken in the last handful of picks in recent rookie drafts

2005

Keiran Jack
Ben McGlynn

2006

Jarryn Geary

2007

Shane Mumford

2008

Matt Suckling
Greg Broughton
Lachlan Keefe

2009

James Podiadly
Stuart Crameri
(lots of Irish players taken at the end of that year)

So there are some, but obviously there's lots of misses too. There was also quite a lot of re-roookie selections too.

[soupman]

I don't agree that 2 extra spots automatically give you the chance to find someone of quality.
If I was the coach or the list manager I'd need the recruiting team to convince me after the 4th selection in the rookie draft that there was players we rated still available before filling the next spot let alone the next 2.

But as others have stated you don't typically have 5-6 rookie selections in a year. You'll have 6 rookies but 2-3 of them will be in their second season. So at most you are looking at picking up 3-4 rookies in any given year. Panos for example was our 3rd choice rookie in the year he was picked up, and after him came both Greg Broughton and Matt Suckling, so you can get decent players that deep. And if there is nobody worth picking that deep then you don't pick them, but only in that scenario. You don't just draw a line through those last picks if there is still available talent.

[LostDoggy]

Interesting thread, great discussion. My two cents (some of which have already been kinda said):

- Hahn was an example of what NOT to do with a rookie spot. He potentially cost us another good kid. Low probability, yes, but with Hahn in there, zero probability. Should have been cut, but we went down the loyalty route. Fair enough.

- GVG, you mentioned having less spots puts the onus on the recruiting team to get it right. If they aren't getting it right now, cutting two spots won't make them get it any more right. The recruitment process has to stand on it's own two feet, I doubt an external limitation will make it any better if our recruiters are prone to making bad judgment calls anyway.

- As a resource management issue, the last 2 spots on the list shouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference; I understand that there is a difference between working with 8 players compared to working with 10, but 46-48 is a much smaller difference percentage and perception wise.

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations. Players that have never touched a footy have to be OUT, and speculative picks from the outback, romantic as they are, will cost us far more in sheer wastage than having the full complement of rookies each year. We should literally just pick up the top 6 gun junior footballers that year that missed out in the main draft, or if there aren't 6 that meet that standard, throw in one or two mature age players under 25 who are now almost-AFL standard -- fullstop. If it is the case then that there aren't 6 players who meet those standards, then it will be okay to have less than the full complement.

When resources are tight decisions have to be LESS risky, not more -- it's the 'extra resources' (risk money) that can be used for riskier punts, and we don't have any risk money at the Dogs. Basic tenet of risk-management.

[GVGjr]

- GVG, you mentioned having less spots puts the onus on the recruiting team to get it right. If they aren't getting it right now, cutting two spots won't make them get it any more right. The recruitment process has to stand on it's own two feet, I doubt an external limitation will make it any better if our recruiters are prone to making bad judgment calls anyway.


When resources are tight decisions have to be LESS risky, not more -- it's the 'extra resources' (risk money) that can be used for riskier punts, and we don't have any risk money at the Dogs. Basic tenet of risk-management.

Regarding the highlighted comment, my view is that with 2 less picks would probably mean that the recruiting team wouldn't feel the need to punt on players. Now they haven't done too badly but in my opinion a resource poor club can't afford to take that many chances.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I like the idea of picking up a 19-20 yo or two who missed out on his draft year but has matured a bit later on.

[GVGjr]

I like the idea of picking up a 19-20 yo or two who missed out on his draft year but has matured a bit later on.

Same here. This was the original design of the rookie list.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I really hope we don't draft anymore 'athletes' who have only played football for 12 months. Mulligan and Prato are absolute wastes.

We should stick to picking genuine footballers. Picken, Morris, Dahlhouse, Harbrow types.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations. Players that have never touched a footy have to be OUT, and speculative picks from the outback, romantic as they are, will cost us far more in sheer wastage than having the full complement of rookies each year. We should literally just pick up the top 6 gun junior footballers that year that missed out in the main draft, or if there aren't 6 that meet that standard, throw in one or two mature age players under 25 who are now almost-AFL standard -- fullstop. If it is the case then that there aren't 6 players who meet those standards, then it will be okay to have less than the full complement.

This.

I couldn't agree with you more, Lantern.

Seriously. I couldn't.

[LostDoggy]

Well said TBB and Lantern. The time of the 'Project player' taking up a rookie spot should be gone now.

[Mofra]

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations.
Generally we do.

Dalhaus you've mentioned, but Panos & Hooper were both u18 AA and J Ho was seen as a possible pick late in the main draft. The other picks are generally mature agers who have earned a shot or provide depth to the list (ie Moles, Barlow).

[Pembleton]

Interesting thread.

Another way to look at the problem of development under-resourcing is that if our under-resourcing makes it slower/less likely that our players improve compared to the speed/ liklihood of players at other clubs improving, to have success we will need more talent to work with on our list, compared to our opponents. Unless you assume that the development gap can be bridged by having a couple of less guys at the club.

So there may be more benefit to us, given our under-resourcing, in rolling the dice on getting good players on the list through the rookie draft so we possibly have more to work with, rather than looking for very minor ways to improve our development resources (as a ratio to the number of listed players).



- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations. Players that have never touched a footy have to be OUT, and speculative picks from the outback, romantic as they are, will cost us far more in sheer wastage than having the full complement of rookies each year. We should literally just pick up the top 6 gun junior footballers that year that missed out in the main draft, or if there aren't 6 that meet that standard, throw in one or two mature age players under 25 who are now almost-AFL standard -- fullstop. If it is the case then that there aren't 6 players who meet those standards, then it will be okay to have less than the full complement.



I think this makes sense, and if i was making our selections, that's the philosophy i'd follow. But that is mostly because i don't know much about identifying potential in junior footballers. I think if you're paying experts to make those picks, you need to let them do their thing and not confine them to this extent. I'm not sure, but my impression is that neither of Morris or Boyd have been picked up using this philosophy.

Interestingly, one of my memories of the Kleiman era is that we drafted an inordinate number of players that had won junior awards, and he did not have much success.

[stefoid]

You shouldn't gamble if you cant afford it and I've already confirmed that it's not a long term thing just a realisation of where we are and the resources we have.

Ultimately the aim is to get good players onto the list. I reckon if you stacked up the number of decent players obtained from the rookie list, vs the cost of maintaining the rookie list, youd probably find it was one of the most cost effective ways of getting good players onto the list.

i.e. its the last thing you should be looking at cutting if cost efficiency is your concern, which it appears to be. What we should do is determine how to make it even more cost efficient - produce more players.

I reckon late draft picks and rookie selections can be lumped together as low probability players, with low draft picks being only a little more probable than rookies.

Turn these guys over quicker - let them be 'projects' on their own time, like Malcolm Lynch.

So as to identify more players who are willing and able to show rapid improvement.

[GVGjr]

i.e. its the last thing you should be looking at cutting if cost efficiency is your concern, which it appears to be. What we should do is determine how to make it even more cost efficient - produce more players.



I don't know how many more times I can spell this out but from my perspective it's just an acknowledgement of the coaching resources we have and giving them the best chance to develop players and it has nothing to do with cutting costs.

I don't think it compromises the list in the slightest. A Morris, Boyd, Harbrow, Picken or Dahlhaus would still make it and maybe a Mulligan and Hopper wouldn't. If an increased spend in the footy department can be achieved then this isn't an issue. If we are genuinely contending for a top 6 spot then this isn't an issue. If however, we have a list that needs a lot of development work and we don't have additional coaching resources then lets look at reducing the numbers and increasing the focus on the players we think are the best.
I don't think I can make this any clearer but it's not about cost cutting or saving a dollar.

[stefoid]

I don't know how many more times I can spell this out but from my perspective it's just an acknowledgement of the coaching resources we have and giving them the best chance to develop players and it has nothing to do with cutting costs.

I don't think it compromises the list in the slightest. A Morris, Boyd, Harbrow, Picken or Dahlhaus would still make it and maybe a Mulligan and Hopper wouldn't.

Well, the recruiting department knows ahead of time which rookies are going to make it?

In 2009 we rookied Moles, Hooper, Panos and Prato in that order. Presumably Panos and Prato would have missed out so that the coaching staff wouldnt be overworked?

[GVGjr]

Well, the recruiting department knows ahead of time which rookies are going to make it?

In 2009 we rookied Moles, Hooper, Panos and Prato in that order. Presumably Panos and Prato would have missed out so that the coaching staff wouldnt be overworked?

They typically know within a season if a player will offer them a bit more sometimes they might needs two seasons to make that assessment but our history highlights the better guys promoted are done within the first season.

Regarding you making the assumption that the coaching resources are overworked, well once again that's not what I'm saying.

Regarding the 2009 list, perhaps a smaller list to work with might have meant us taking Moles (which was the original plan) on the primary list instead of Thorne. We were contending for a top 4 spot though so the bigger list isn't the issue I'm talking about is it?

[Mofra]

Regarding the 2009 list, perhaps a smaller list to work with might have meant us taking oles (which was the original plan) on the primary list instead of Thorne. We were contending for a top 4 spot though so the bigger list isn't the issue I'm talking about is it?
Thorne wouldn't have been available to rookie IIRC - Collingwood had also spoken to him and were likely to have taken him with a late pick.

[GVGjr]

Thorne wouldn't have been available to rookie IIRC - Collingwood had also spoken to him and were likely to have taken him with a late pick.

Is that a good enough reason though? We promoted Mulligan that year when we also had the option to rookie him again for the 3rd year and this decision was largely apparently based on some other intel that said Clayton was interested.

I get that sometimes we need to alter our plans based on the what other teams might do but when do we just select players on their merit?

[Greystache]

Is that a good enough reason though? We promoted Mulligan that year when we also had the option to rookie him again for the 3rd year and this decision was largely apparently based on some other intel that said Clayton was interested.

I get that sometimes we need to alter our plans based on the what other teams might do but when do we just select players on their merit?

I agree. We supposedly did the same thing with Howard, why can't we just select players on merit? If a player we had penciled in as a potential pick in X round goes goes before our pick so be it.

[Mantis]

I agree. We supposedly did the same thing with Howard, why can't we just select players on merit? If a player we had penciled in as a potential pick in X round goes goes before our pick so be it.

That isn't true... Howard was picked on merit.

[The Coon Dog]

I agree. We supposedly did the same thing with Howard, why can't we just select players on merit? If a player we had penciled in as a potential pick in X round goes goes before our pick so be it.

No we didn't. I reckon Sockeye has explained this about half a dozen times.

[Greystache]

That isn't true... Howard was picked on merit.

I've heard otherwise. If we did think he was the next best available we were the only one's who did.

[GVGjr]

That isn't true... Howard was picked on merit.

Whilst I don't disagree that we picked Howard on merit (and good on the recruiting team for identifying him) I can also point to two or three articles where the club has justified the selection based on that Adelaide would have snapped him up before our next pick. Once again we use our intel on what other clubs are supposedly doing to justify our selections instead of being bold enough to just back our picks. It seems we are very caught up explaining that our selections have a lot to do with what other clubs may or many not do which I don't think does us any favors.

Anyway, this thread is more around how we should use the rookie list.

[Mofra]

Is that a good enough reason though?
I'm not arguing that it is or isn't - that was the word from the recruiting team at the time.

If a player is borderline draft proper or rookie I would guess a call has to be made either way based on a number of factors.

[strebla]

I can see where you are coming from GVGjr but gor my money the rookies should be filled with kids or under 23's who show a Picken/Morris like desire.you see a kid who missed on the previous draft and who works his arse off thats what I want not an athlete who decides at 18 because he is tall and fast he can play AFL football. I see no desire in their eyes or hunger in their heart give me the kid who really wants it and will do whatever it takes to me that is what the rookie list is for.

[GVGjr]

I can see where you are coming from GVGjr but gor my money the rookies should be filled with kids or under 23's who show a Picken/Morris like desire.you see a kid who missed on the previous draft and who works his arse off thats what I want not an athlete who decides at 18 because he is tall and fast he can play AFL football. I see no desire in their eyes or hunger in their heart give me the kid who really wants it and will do whatever it takes to me that is what the rookie list is for.

You might have actually missed the point I'm trying to make.
I've said that the recruiting manager would need to convince me (just for this year) that there were players still available that could offer us something before filling the last 2 positions of the list. If there was a Morris or Picken (desire) type still available I'd be asking why we hadn't taken them earlier and what positions did he see them filling. I just wouldn't fill the list with speculative types that are unlikely to make it.

[LongWait]

You might have actually missed the point I'm trying to make.
I've said that the recruiting manager would need to convince me (just for this year) that there were players still available that could offer us something before filling the last 2 positions of the list. If there was a Morris or Picken (desire) type still available I'd be asking why we hadn't taken them earlier and what positions did he see them filling. I just wouldn't fill the list with speculative types that are unlikely to make it.

This is an interesting discussion. How do you reconcile your above post with the Lindsay Gaze quote that you use for your sig? It seems that Gaze was all for giving guys with the right build every opportunity to make it and was willing to wait years.

[GVGjr]

This is an interesting discussion. How do you reconcile your above post with the Lindsay Gaze quote that you use for your sig? It seems that Gaze was all for giving guys with the right build every opportunity to make it and was willing to wait years.

The quote is for basketball not football and I'm only saying the idea to not fill the rookie list is when your list is already very much into a development position not a contending one.

[Maddog37]

I think you have to continually turn players over to find good ones. Not taking that opportunity means you lessen the odds of succesfully producing quality players.

Less quality players means less success. Less success means less money so saving cash on Rookies might in the end cost the club money.

[GVGjr]

I think you have to continually turn players over to find good ones. Not taking that opportunity means you lessen the odds of succesfully producing quality players.

Less quality players means less success. Less success means less money so saving cash on Rookies might in the end cost the club money.

I don't think this is accurate. How can the last 2 spots on the rookie list be considered valuable? Resources to train the players is very important in my opinion.

[Mofra]

I don't think this is accurate. How can the last 2 spots on the rookie list be considered valuable?
Because it's two more chances at finding players that cost us $0.

It's a free hit.

[GVGjr]

Because it's two more chances at finding players that cost us $0.

It's a free hit.

I've explained enough times the suggestion I'm making is not a financial consideration of the playing list it's one based around our resources to develop players and I've also explained that it's based not just filling the list with players that are unlikely to make it as senior footballers.

[Mofra]

I've explained enough times the suggestion I'm making is not a financial consideration of the playing list it's one based around our resources to develop players and I've also explained that it's based not just filling the list with players that are unlikely to make it as senior footballers.
Yes, I understand your explanation but reserve the right to disagree with it.

The AFL pay their salary, and we are not going to throw out ~4% of our training equipment and reduce staff hours by ~4% if we reduce the number of players we have by 2 - their drain an resourcing is negligible.

Even if we were allowed to not take two rookies (which is not the case, again making the argument moot) the total effect on our resourcing is so little that from a risk/reward scenario we are far better off taking the rookies than not.

[stefoid]

Looks like we aare only keeping Johanison, which means 5 more rookies.

turn em over! find the keepers!

[strebla]

I don't think this is accurate. How can the last 2 spots on the rookie list be considered valuable? Resources to train the players is very important in my opinion.

Because desire can be worth 15 to 20% the desire to work and learn can NOT be bought any recruiting man worth his salt or any coach for that manner love seeing a kid that was little chance to be drafted make it and so do I.even if you get one every ten years that one is worth it in my opinion.