Did we waste Draft Picks by picking Rejects from other clubs?

[bornadog]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

[bulldogtragic]

Stevens picked us from about 4 potential clubs, and was taken second round by WCE, I wouldn't have him in there.
Young is not too bad on good days, his season before for Collingwood was a cash converters trade which we're in front of IMO.
Campbell is still raw, but we needed a tall/ruck.
Dickson has been handy in the rebuild phase, but I now longer see him long term owing to the likes of Hunter, Hrovat, Honeychurch and Dahl, with Crameri, Grant and Stringer all probably ahead of him
I didn't think we should've elvated Goodes and Fuller is very, very questionable considering Goodes upgrade, picking up Darley and keeping Tutty and Howard. I don't understand it at this stage of the journey.

[Bulldog Joe]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

Only Darley on that list is a delisted player and he is still very much a youthful age. Stevens and Young were trades and while Young may have been delisted if not traded, Stevens certainly was never going to be delisted.

Campbell although classed as mature age was a good age to pick a player of his size. Dickson, Fuller and Goodes are mature age players and certainly Goodes and Dickson have given value for their selection. Much better than some previous 18 y-o. Obviously we have seen nothing yet of Fuller to know if he will add anything, but it is early days.

[Ozza]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

Campbell - Developing ruckman take time, he has shown some reasonable signs, and seems the most likely Minson-replacement (long term) on the list. Happy with him.
Darley - Too early to tell. Can't recall what we gave up for him.
Dickson - Took him late in the draft. Is already a regular goal kicker when in the side. Prefer him to a speculative pick of an 18 year old.
Fuller - I guess we don't really know yet. I wasn't even impressed with his highlight reel to be honest. Think we may have erred in judgement taking him quite early when we may have been able to rookie him, or take much later.
Goodes - Happy to have rookie listed him. Has played some good games for us, was a good contributor last year, and keeps pressure on the backs for their spots when we are full strength.
Stevens - happy with getting him in. Is in our best 22. Power runner, who could be an excellent player with some improved game-sense.
Young - really good pick (think it was a 80-odd pick). Gives us flexibility and run out of defence. Think he is a long term player.

[always right]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

Are you defining them as rejects simply because no other AFL clubs picked them up?

[bornadog]

Are you defining them as rejects simply because no other AFL clubs picked them up?

Ok, rejects sounds harsh, but yes.

[SlimPickens]

I think our list management has been very good since Bmac, Jmac and Dalrymple have all been on board together.

Our hits have far out weighed our misses and even some of those perceived as a miss are yet to show their full wares.

Goodes brought a mature body/head into a defensive half that was seen as young and inexperienced.

Campbell will be our number one ruck after big Will.

Young has been very good since coming to the club.

Dickson bar injury was one of, if not our best performing forward last season.

Stevens is easily best 22, and although some seem to focus entirely on the negative aspect of his game he will play a lot of football for our footy club and be a valuable contributor.

Darley/Fuller too soon to tell.


So to answer your question BAD, no I don't think we wasted draft picks with the players you have listed.

[Twodogs]

How many players apart from those on BAD's list do we have who have played with another club?

Let's examine the list

Goodes. I was happy to get him as a rookie to see what he to offer had but after a promising start he's gone backwards. I don't really understand why we contracted him for two years. One would done and have given us more flexibility to deal with other players.

Fuller. Only seen bits and pieces of him in games and he doesn't really stand out much at training. Can't really offer an opinion.

Young. I see him as a great pick up. Versatile, good skills, loves a challenge, young and cost us very little. A ten year player on the making.

Stevens. Kicking will aways be a little suspect under pressure but works hard on his game and his attitude seems to fit with the ethos of the club. Happy to have him.

Dickson. Other players have gone past him but he will play more senior footy this year but ths year will be his last

Darley. Frustratingly I've only ever seen him at training but I see him as a good small defender. Has determination, skill and a touch of class. Uses the ball well running out of defence and we are short on players who can do that.

Campbell. I think he will be a player. Happy to have him developing on the list.

A couple of the guys named, Young and Darley, while they might have been let go by their original clubs still have a future. I see them not as rejects but as a result of good networking-we have a good relationship with their original clubs and those clubs have been happy to see them given a chance rather than being thrown on the scrap heap.

[Doc26]

On Darley, he is still only slightly built but his disposal by foot looks pretty good to me. In gusty conditions down at Williamstown yesterday he was one of few who was regularly hitting the right target.

[Twodogs]

What foot was Darley using yesterday Doc26? He's not a long kick but he always hits a target.

[Scorlibo]

Tom Campbell was just an 18 year old rookie draft pick - how does he qualify as being second hand or unwanted?

I like the acquisition of Young, Stevens and Darley because they're all still developing, young players yet falling into a better age bracket.

Dickson and Fuller have been mature age picks and whilst Fuller is taking a bit of time to find his feet, Tory has been a very successful pick thus far.

I think we've done well out of most of those guys so far tbh.

[soupman]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

Geez harsh thread.

For starters Goodes doesn't really suit the question. His spot was not about getting a player in to the club to perform 5 years down the track, but instead to get one that could provide an instant impact and some leadership and experience. That's why it was down to he and Prismall.

The rest have been picked up because they present the same potential as the kids we would have drafted at the low picks they cost us, except they are two-three years more advanced and as a result are straight into the mix instead of requiring multiple years of development in the VFL first.

Young, Stevens and Dickson were all mature and developed enough to play pretty much immediately, and all three have potential to be good players in good sides 5 years on.

Darley would seem to be near the mark, but has copped an injury.

And Fuller is the only questionable one as like a raw kid it seems that his first year will be spent getting him up to the standard required in the VFL.

Campbell is the harshest one. Ruckmen are the one position where I think unless they are a standout player at draft age (Grundy, NicNat, Kreuzer) you should wait until they are at least 20 before picking them up. Good young ruckmen often fail to translate much of their talent from the u18's to senior footy, and I think we are better off making an educated selection of someone like Campbell, than picking up someone who we have to wait 2-5 years for to see if they are capable against real men. I would take Campbell as a rookie over any of the raw ruckmen available in his draft.

Ruckmen are way too risky to pick up at 18 unless they have already proven they can play against men combined with unique athletic abilities. And in the time it has taken to develop Ayce Cordy, a "raw ruckman", we could have used his spot on the list to draft 4 different 20-21 year old ruckmen who had already shown they were capable against men and given each of them 2 years to see if they could make the next step.

[Mofra]

The only guy we've come close to trading heavility for (Crameri) won the goal kicking 3 times in a row for his club - the only other we've traded anything for really is Stevens, who looks like a value pick.

Overall the approach appears sound, but one will always wonder how close we are/were to landing a genuine KPF

[Doc26]

What foot was Darley using yesterday Doc26? He's not a long kick but he always hits a target.

Probably should know but I would be guessing, right ? I agree with you though, he's quite good at spotting up targets even in tricky conditions and can see the attraction.

[GVGjr]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

It's a good question BAD.

Macca inherited a playing list in serious decline where some players like Mulligan had been on the list for years without giving much back at all. We had a team that had topped up on players like Hall, Welsh and Akermanis because we were contending but these guys had a very limited self life and we couldn't make the hard call on players like Hahn who stayed on a year too long.
We also lost players like Schofield who wanted to return home and took huge risks on players like Skinner and Thorne that never measured up. We also had a number of players that never reached their potential like Hill and Everitt but knocked back offers 12 months earlier only to sign them again and trade them 12 months later for a marginal talent.
We lost Harbrow to a start up club but then squandered the compensation pick on Sherman which was a very poor target and this is not a hindsight response..
We messed up re-signing Ward who would be at his peak with us now.

This doesn't even address the players who we drafted with early picks either.

In short, it created a gap in the playing list that wasn't going rectified by just drafting young players.

We have discussed these points numerous times in the past but the reason why I have raised them now is that I think it helps explain where we are now and why we are taking the approach we have.

Our aim is to develop and recruit young players but given the deteriorating list we had to address some gaps quickly.

Both Dickson and Campbell addressed issues we had. Campbell in particular was seen as a ruckman we needed to develop further and someone who could rotate as a forward. He still has a way to go but I do believe he was a good pick.
I think both players were solid selections that we didn't break the bank for.

Goodes had been setting a high standard at the club and we used a rookie pick for him. His form at the start of last year was terrific.
We will make a call on him later in the year. Hope he makes it

You missed Lower but have a look at the way we got out of that quick smart. Excellent list management execution.

Stevens and Young have been very good selections for us. Just over 12 months in and they have both played better for us than they did with their previous teams and they still have a lot of upside.

Darley and Fuller can't really be judged until closer to the end of the season.

While many people thought the Bombers would screw us with the Crameri trade we stood firm and got a good deal

I think we have the right mix of development via the draft and adding some guys who fill some needs via trades.

We will of course get a few wrong but I can see the logic we are using and I think it's the right way. When we are in a stronger position then we won't need to do trades unless there is a huge upside for the club

[FrediKanoute]

Over the past two years Macca has tried to bring in some youth, but also decided to pick some rejects from other clubs (Including VFL):


Campbell
Darley
Dickson
Fuller
Goodes
Stevens
Young

I haven't included Crameri because he was an established leading goalkicker.

Should we have chosen raw 18 year olds instead of the guys above and developed them ourselves?

To answer the question - NO, we would probably not have gotten any more from a raw 18 year old.

Of the list I would have a question mark over Fuller in that he was mature and should be pressing for selection. Training and Footscray watchers will probably be better placed to give an assessment, but the general feeling I get from the Board is hmmmm, nothing special.

The rest are fine. I expect Campbell, Stevens and Young to be regular players (some are). Goodes and Dickson have served a purpose providing strong bodied, mature heads for a developing team. Both will probably not be around next year or the year after, but they have been solid contributors, doing the job they were selected to do.

Darley is a possible waste, but is young. He's no more a waste than Howard or Pearce has been.

[ledge]

I think our list goes a lot deeper than it did anytime under Eade, not that It was anything to do with Eade, we have put more time into recruiting now so we can make better decisions.
I'm very happy with the way our list is going and I think some are writing off DIckson to early.

[boydogs]

The most we used on anyone in that list was a 3rd rounder, I think we've done well.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Campbell - Developing ruckman take time, he has shown some reasonable signs, and seems the most likely Minson-replacement (long term) on the list. Happy with him.
Darley - Too early to tell. Can't recall what we gave up for him.
Dickson - Took him late in the draft. Is already a regular goal kicker when in the side. Prefer him to a speculative pick of an 18 year old.
Fuller - I guess we don't really know yet. I wasn't even impressed with his highlight reel to be honest. Think we may have erred in judgement taking him quite early when we may have been able to rookie him, or take much later.
Goodes - Happy to have rookie listed him. Has played some good games for us, was a good contributor last year, and keeps pressure on the backs for their spots when we are full strength.
Stevens - happy with getting him in. Is in our best 22. Power runner, who could be an excellent player with some improved game-sense.
Young - really good pick (think it was a 80-odd pick). Gives us flexibility and run out of defence. Think he is a long term player.

Of the players mentioned it would seem that Campbell and Young give us the most upside .Dickson has been handy but lacks pace. Stevens likewise although I think his spot will eventually be taken over by Bontempelli Smith and Hrovat. Goodes has been a handy fill in but his recruitment was made too late. I have reservations about Fuller with Darley still unproven. My theory is that once you have quality lists like Hawthorn and Geelong you can afford to be more selective . Geelong have been remarkable in its list management in rarely selecting rejects from other clubs but preferring to bring in new talent although Rivers and McIntosh have been exceptions by targeting positions that need replacements. We likewise have done well to secure Crameri when desperate for a forward.

[F'scary]

BAD, a number of the picks you refer to, specifically Young, Stevens, Darley & Campbell are young enough that there is no point splitting hairs on whether we should have gone with lucky dip 18 yo's instead of 20 or 21 yo's.

As for the older ones, well we got a few raw 18 yo's since Macca came along who have not even established themselves in the two's yet. E.g., Prudden & Pearce. So, Dickson & Goodes have played some good games and may yet play a few more - they are working out for the late picks we spent on them.

[F'scary]

Of the players mentioned it would seem that Campbell and Young give us the most upside .Dickson has been handy but lacks pace. Stevens likewise although I think his spot will eventually be taken over by Bontempelli Smith and Hrovat. Goodes has been a handy fill in but his recruitment was made too late. I have reservations about Fuller with Darley still unproven. My theory is that once you have quality lists like Hawthorn and Geelong you can afford to be more selective . Geelong have been remarkable in its list management in rarely selecting rejects from other clubs but preferring to bring in new talent although Rivers and McIntosh have been exceptions by targeting positions that need replacements. We likewise have done well to secure Crameri when desperate for a forward.

Stevens is pretty versatile. That is a good quality.

[Bulldog Joe]

It's a good question BAD.

.......

That was a great post GVGjr

[Twodogs]

Stevens is pretty versatile. That is a good quality.

As is Young.

I think the footy dept. also bought in Stevens and Young because they have body types-strong though the middle and they stay on their feet-that can play 'Macca Footy" straight away and they bring forward the implementation of his plan. Crameri has the same quality.



Darley is a possible waste, but is young. He's no more a waste than Howard or Pearce has been.

He has shown enough at training to give me hope that he has a good chance to make it. He's a nice kick too-pretty composed with the ball in his hand.

[bornadog]

That was a great post GVGjr
yes ditto from me.

[bornadog]

Young, Stevens, Darley & Campbell are young enough that there is no point splitting hairs on whether we should have gone with lucky dip 18 yo's instead of 20 or 21 yo's.

Agree these guys are still around 21/22, so good pickups.

[1eyedog]

It's fine to defend who we did pick and how they've performed but for the question to be quantifiable we need to look at what 18 year olds we could have chosen and assess how they are tracking. I have no hope of doing this to provide an argument either way.

Could you give me a list of the 18 year olds you're talking about?

[Twodogs]

That was a great post GVGjr


Yep really good post. It said that I wanted to say about how a lot of those players had attributes that the list was lacking at that time. They provided cover in experience, age profile, body types, positional shortcomings, playing skills, personality types that we desperately needed in the short term while we developed longer term options for them.

Dickson is a good example of this. He provided us with an option in the forward line but other players have gone past him now. He'll be good injury cover for the duration of his contract but is no longer first choice.

[Twodogs]

It's fine to defend who we did pick and how they've performed but for the question to be quantifiable we need to look at what 18 year olds we could have chosen and assess how they are tracking. I have no hope of doing this to provide an argument either way.

Could you give me a list of the 18 year olds you're talking about?


There'd be quite a few that would fit the bill so we'd have a fairly wide selection to choose from.

[bornadog]

Could you give me a list of the 18 year olds you're talking about?

You know that is not going to happen. I put this up merely for discussion to see what posters think.

[1eyedog]

You know that is not going to happen. I put this up merely for discussion to see what posters think.

I know why didn't you just post something like 'Are we happy with our drafts and include the list?'

[bornadog]

I know why didn't you just post something like 'Are we happy with our drafts and include the list?'

Because we have been in development mode so wins and losses are not that important, so why not give opportunities to young players to be developed as the alternative. Who knows where they would be now after say 30 games or so. Therefore the OP is about those that were given opportunities and have they worked for us.

[Sedat]

I think our list management has been very good since Bmac, Jmac and Dalrymple have all been on board together.

Our hits have far out weighed our misses and even some of those perceived as a miss are yet to show their full wares.

Goodes brought a mature body/head into a defensive half that was seen as young and inexperienced.

Campbell will be our number one ruck after big Will.

Young has been very good since coming to the club.

Dickson bar injury was one of, if not our best performing forward last season.

Stevens is easily best 22, and although some seem to focus entirely on the negative aspect of his game he will play a lot of football for our footy club and be a valuable contributor.

Darley/Fuller too soon to tell.


So to answer your question BAD, no I don't think we wasted draft picks with the players you have listed.
Great summary Slim.

Just on Brett Goodes, if we hadn't butchered out first round pick in 2009 on Christian Howard, we would not have had to shore up a critical area of weakness with a 29yo in 2013. Actually we could have gotten Goodes as a rookie back then and used our first pick on, you know, someone like Fyfe or Carlisle, players that actually had form and history at the highest level in U18's.

I can't fault any of the selections mentioned in this thread. The won't all turn out but there is a sound rationale in all of them, and the exposed form of all players selected has been known and isn't highly speculative.

[1eyedog]

I wasn't trying to be a smart arse I just couldn't answer the question. I think Campbell is an excellent acquisition and he looks the most likely to be our next no. 1 ruck so I would like to play him more. I think the drafting of Stringer and the acquisition of Crameri puts enormous pressure on Dickson. I can't see him being retained beyond next year. Darley was a gun junior and makes good decisions and I think he has plenty of upside.

To be honest I see Stevens as a workhorse who lacks good decision making and skills. He's a poor mans Matty Boyd and given the plethora of inside kids we have he may struggle to be best 22 next year. Especially if Honeychurch and Rat come on the way we hope they will. I think Young has been excellent, a classic utility with good endurance, height and decision making and he's only 21 - a keeper.

[Remi Moses]

On Darley, he is still only slightly built but his disposal by foot looks pretty good to me. In gusty conditions down at Williamstown yesterday he was one of few who was regularly hitting the right target.

Particularly in the last Darley was good.

[Remi Moses]

I agree with one eye, it's hard to gage at this stage.
I mean the only mature aged player is Goodes.
I think the tiges have gone to far with mature aged rejects.
Fuller looked to me like he's in between learning a defensive side for the first time, and playing his SANFL way.
Time will tell

[jeemak]

Great summary Slim.

Just on Brett Goodes, if we hadn't butchered out first round pick in 2009 on Christian Howard, we would not have had to shore up a critical area of weakness with a 29yo in 2013. Actually we could have gotten Goodes as a rookie back then and used our first pick on, you know, someone like Fyfe or Carlisle, players that actually had form and history at the highest level in U18's.

I can't fault any of the selections mentioned in this thread. The won't all turn out but there is a sound rationale in all of them, and the exposed form of all players selected has been known and isn't highly speculative.

I think we can all acknowledge Howard in the first round of 2009 was an ordinary selection (happy for him to be taken in a later round, but FFS, why in the first?), but realistically, the Goodes selection had nothing to do with the former failing. Howard at the age of 22 was never going to fill the spot on the list Goodes did as a 29 year old to steer our backline and list through in terms of leadership. IMO, you can't tie the two together notwithstanding Howard's lack of development since being drafted.

[jeemak]

Dickson is one of only two players on our list to have kicked six goals in a game, and that was on the back of being slugged down to the reserves due to a lack of intensity and reassessing his game to make himself relevant. I don't think we've seen the back of him, as we become a better team with better movement we'll be able to afford a specialist forward pocket and I think he can be that player. Agree he struggles when charged with playing up the ground.

Darley and Fuller are much too untried to tell. The latter will have to spend the year proving himself at the lower level, but if he's good enough he'll get a chance. The former is the same. We shouldn't be drafting players with the thought process they should immediately be making an impact as it's completely contradictory to the philosophy we have taken to the rest of the playing group to this point. We need to be consistent.

Irrespective of the above, I wouldn't have listed Goodes. I understand the reasons why he was listed, and I can see the benefit in it to an extent. I just don't think over the course of a season where injuries and form can play a massive part in how a developing list presents, that he is valuable holistically.

Overall I've been happy with the list management since Macca took over.

[bornadog]

Overall I've been happy with the list management since Macca took over.

I think more to the point, list management has improved since we appointed a list manager.

[KT31]

I think more to the point, list management has improved since we appointed a list manager.

I agree this has been the difference, it has freed up B.Mac to Coach and we have somebody of quality, in J.Mac, full time monitoring our list.

[bornadog]

I agree this has been the difference, it has freed up B.Mac to Coach and we have somebody of quality, in J.Mac, full time monitoring our list.

Fantasia was the one doing list management, player contracts etc, as well as the football managers role. Too much for one person, plus he sucked at it.

[GVGjr]

I agree this has been the difference, it has freed up B.Mac to Coach and we have somebody of quality, in J.Mac, full time monitoring our list.

From my understanding, B-Mac is more involved with recruitment than I think people are aware of. Yes we have a recruiting manager and a list manager (contracts, list management objectives and profiles etc) but players won't be given contract extensions without Macca's approval nor will trades be made without his input. In conjunction with the football department he has also set the standards and the philosophies on the whole recruitment process including the development of players arriving at the club.

It's certainly a great for the club to have J-Mac and the recruiting team but Macca hasn't just distanced himself from that.

[Sedat]

I think we can all acknowledge Howard in the first round of 2009 was an ordinary selection (happy for him to be taken in a later round, but FFS, why in the first?), but realistically, the Goodes selection had nothing to do with the former failing. Howard at the age of 22 was never going to fill the spot on the list Goodes did as a 29 year old to steer our backline and list through in terms of leadership. IMO, you can't tie the two together notwithstanding Howard's lack of development since being drafted.
Would we have gotten a 29yo Goodes in 2013 if the Howard selection in 2009 had worked as was hoped and he became an AFL standard running half back to replace Gilbs? We only got Goodes last year because Howard has failed to become the player we needed, so an area of our list (running half backs) needed urgent bolstering.

[bornadog]

It's certainly a great for the club to have J-Mac and the recruiting team but Macca hasn't just distanced himself from that.

I doubt that would happen at any club. The coaches as a group would review the players and put forward suggestions on delisting, renewing and types of players they want in the future. I doubt it comes down to just one person.

[jeemak]

Would we have gotten a 29yo Goodes in 2013 if the Howard selection in 2009 had worked as was hoped and he became an AFL standard running half back to replace Gilbs? We only got Goodes last year because Howard has failed to become the player we needed, so an area of our list (running half backs) needed urgent bolstering.

Yes we would have, I think.

Having come into the system needing immediate surgery (known to the club) and a lot of development Howard was always likely to take a while. Further injuries and poor form have held him back more than any of us would have hoped.

The likelihood of him being up to a standard where we wouldn't have been able to make a very good case for needing more experience in defense and across the list in general until some of our younger players developed would have been pretty small.

That's moot to a point anyway, particularly if you believe the detailed rationale for taking either Prismal or Goodes as mature age rookies.

[stefoid]

I dont care where we get our fringe / development players from, as long as we refresh them quicker - Im firmly of the opinion that quality players reveal themselves early and having a fringe player who shows nothing on the list for more than two years is poor list management.

We could and should have had three new players on the rookie list this year - one of them might have been the next Dahlhaus, Morris, or Boyd, but we will never know. We do know that Greenwood, Austin and Redpath wont be.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

We certainly have a habit of holding onto players too long.

Right now I don't see a future for Howard, Pearce, Greenwood whatsoever whilst others (Cordy, Tutt, Roberts, Jong, Ausitn, Redpath) are questionable.

I hope in the future we are more prepared to make changes. We didn't cut deep enough around 08-10 and I don't think we cut deep enough last season either.

[Sedat]

I dont care where we get our fringe / development players from, as long as we refresh them quicker - Im firmly of the opinion that quality players reveal themselves early and having a fringe player who shows nothing on the list for more than two years is poor list management.
Well said Stefoid. We should give this a name, like the 'Mulligan Effect'.

[Bulldog4life]

Interesting stats of where we stand compared to other Clubs of acquiring players from other Clubs. We are one of the lowest.

No. of players on your clubs list who started elsewhere:

Richmond 13

Carlton 12

St Kilda 12

Collingwood 11

GWS Giants 11

Hawthorn 11

Melbourne 11

Port Adelaide 10

West Coast Eagles 9

Brisbane 9

Sydney Swans 9

Adelaide 8

Fremantle 8

Gold Coast Suns 8

North Melbourne 6

Essendon 5

Western Bulldogs 5

Geelong 3

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/fox-footy-expert-david-king-runs-the-rule-over-richmonds-recycled-list-looking-to-contend-in-2014/story-fni5ezm8-1226886785519

[Maddog37]

It's no surprise we are similar to the Cats in this regard.

I believe we will have to make a few more changes this year as the Willy alignment was a mitigating circumstance for some players. No such excuse this year.

[Twodogs]

So that's Crameri, Darley, Young, Stevens-who is the fifth?

[chef]

So that's Crameri, Darley, Young, Stevens-who is the fifth?

Austin

[Twodogs]

Thanks Chef. I forgot about him.


That must be our lowest amount for quite some time. Or did we have less last year? Given we bought 2 in this year.

[jeemak]

It would be interesting to see how all clubs fare in terms of players from state leagues.

From the top of my head we've got Goodes, Fuller, Campbell, Morris, Picken, Redpath and Dickson.

That immediately seems like a lot to me.

[Twodogs]

It would be interesting to see how all clubs fare in terms of players from state leagues.

From the top of my head we've got Goodes, Fuller, Campbell, Morris, Picken, Redpath and Dickson.

That immediately seems like a lot to me.

And Matty Boyd.

[jeemak]

So we have Goodes, Fuller, Campbell, Morris, Picken, Redpath, Dickson and Boyd, on top of Crameri, Darley, Austin, Young and Stevens who weren't drafted from the National Draft.

13 out of 44 seems like a lot. I'm too apathetic towards this component of the topic see how it compares to other lists. :)

[soupman]

So we have Goodes, Fuller, Campbell, Morris, Picken, Redpath, Dickson and Boyd, on top of Crameri, Darley, Austin, Young and Stevens who weren't drafted from the National Draft.

13 out of 44 seems like a lot. I'm too apathetic towards this component of the topic see how it compares to other lists. :)

And Crameri was recruited from the state leagues himself originally IIRC.

In fact the only players in that entire group to actually have started their careers through the ND are Austin and Stevens.

[Twodogs]

And Crameri was recruited from the state leagues himself originally IIRC.

In fact the only players in that entire group to actually have started their careers through the ND are Austin and Stevens.


Do you mean drafted via the ND and not the PSD or the RD? Young and Darley were drafted via the ND.

[soupman]

Sorry should have clarified.

Tom Young was drafted in the ND, but this was merely token as he came through the NSW scholarship scheme and was picked up with a nominal pick 104.

Sam Darley was a 17 year old predraft selection, the kind of pick GWS used so that Jeremy Cameron didn't go in the ND. So Darley was never in the ND on the open market either.

[Twodogs]

Cheers Soupaman. When I thought about it I thought that Darley was probably selected outside the draft proper. Didn't know the circumstances behind Young's recruitment to Collingwood.

[always right]

We certainly have a habit of holding onto players too long.

Right now I don't see a future for Howard, Pearce, Greenwood whatsoever whilst others (Cordy, Tutt, Roberts, Jong, Ausitn, Redpath) are questionable.

I hope in the future we are more prepared to make changes. We didn't cut deep enough around 08-10 and I don't think we cut deep enough last season either.

Surprised you have Jong in that list considering how quickly he has developed. You might as well include Stringer.

[jeemak]

Surprised you have Jong in that list considering how quickly he has developed. You might as well include Stringer.

The "P" word comes into it then. Not saying it's right or wrong to use it though. What I would say is that Stringer has been playing a much tougher role at senior level than what Jong has.

[Before I Die]

I dont care where we get our fringe / development players from, as long as we refresh them quicker - Im firmly of the opinion that quality players reveal themselves early and having a fringe player who shows nothing on the list for more than two years is poor list management.

We could and should have had three new players on the rookie list this year - one of them might have been the next Dahlhaus, Morris, or Boyd, but we will never know. We do know that Greenwood, Austin and Redpath wont be.


I think the critical point here is the 'definition of shows nothing'. For most fans a player has to be amongst the bests in the twos or regularly performing ok in the senior team to be 'showing something'. We don't see what the coaches see on the track. We don't know what their KPIs are for improvement in a particular season. Late draft picks have flaws, that is why they are late picks. Can those flaws be addressed and how long will it take is the question. Plus there is the injury dilemma which often complicates things. I am not an advocate of the tattslotto approach to late picks. Remember, every week somebody wins it, but it is not a smart investment strategy.

Austin is clearly insurance and is one more injury away from being needed. You cannot know if Greenwood or Redpath will make it, though I suspect that this year will be their last chance at the Dogs.

[GVGjr]

Over the last couple of year I've seen it mentioned from time to time that we have 'wasted' draft picks on players from other clubs.
The club was pretty clear when Macca was appointed that it was on a path of bringing in young players but also addressing some of gaps we had in the list by identifying players from other clubs with a number of playing years in front of them.

We targeted Koby Stevens early on and paid a sensible price him and he has now responded well by playing his best football with us. He still has some improvement to go and he played 19 games for us last year and I think this is one in the plus column.

We also landed (20yo) Tom Young from Collingwood for a late pick we were probably never going to use and when he arrived at the club we were surprised that he really wasn't an AFL fit player at that time. Hard work over the summer had him around the mark.
A tallish defender who can play on a variety of opponents for his 15 games in 2013 I think this is another player in the plus column.

Mark Austin is a 193cm rookie listed player for us who plays mainly as a tall defender. He's into his 3rd season as a rookie and has played senior games in both 2012 and 2013. I thought he was close to a promotion at the end of last year and with the injury to Roughead I think he is still a handy player to have on the list. I still regard Austin as a plus because he is a solid insurance for injuries to KPD.

For years there were question marks on the pace we had in the back half so during last years trade period we were able to land Sam Darley from GWS and once again we used a late pick. He unfortunately required an operation before the start of the season and it will take some time before we see him in action. Have to be regarded as neutral so far.

Crameri was our high profile recruit. A lot of people thought we would be screwed over by Essendon during the long drawn out process but in the end we landed him for a 2nd round pick. I have to regard him as a big tick.

Nick Lower was a player we identified to help us add some tagging qualities to the midfield. Lower was seen as the guy that could run with the stronger bodied midfielders (allowing Picken to play on the smaller ones). During the season two other options emerged. Clay Smith was able to play a couple of very good games as a run with player before getting injured but instead of turning straight back to Lower, Mitch Wallis grasped his chances and really kick started him career.
After just one season, Lower was no longer a required player and is now playing for Footscray. I'd regard this selection as neutral but some might see it as a fail.

Overall, I'm very supportive of the way we have identified players from other clubs. Some might regard them as rejects but I think we have such a low number of players from other clubs it's actually a good endorsement of what Macca and the recruiting team are all about.

We often read of 'Moneyball' recruitment principles but I think the Dogs have developed a better version that could possibly be called 'Sensiball'.

[lemmon]

Great post GVG, you can throw in Campbell and Dickson as sensible selections as well. We had insider knowledge on both, we needed a ruck in case Minson went down and Campbell was both proven at VFL level and more mature than an 18 year old we would get out of the draft, while also having significant improvement left.

Dickson perhaps wasn't a selection based on need but even if he doesn't play another game I think it's been a successful pick, he's been able to come into the side when required and perform reasonably well, 30 games and 45 goals is a better career than most pick 57's would have. Not writing him off but in the few years he's had on the list he has already contributed to a few significant wins.

[GVGjr]

Great post GVG, you can throw in Campbell and Dickson as sensible selections as well. We had insider knowledge on both, we needed a ruck in case Minson went down and Campbell was both proven at VFL level and more mature than an 18 year old we would get out of the draft, while also having significant improvement left.

Dickson perhaps wasn't a selection based on need but even if he doesn't play another game I think it's been a successful pick, he's been able to come into the side when required and perform reasonably well, 30 games and 45 goals is a better career than most pick 57's would have. Not writing him off but in the few years he's had on the list he has already contributed to a few significant wins.

I had a look at the 6 players we recruited from other sides (Lower is now at Footscray) but I'll certainly have a deeper look at the players we have picked up from state league teams like Fuller, Goodes, Campbell and Dickson. I have already written a bit about them.

I just had a glance at a few other sides including Fremantle who have been remarkable with the state league teams and Hawthorn through aggressive trades with other clubs. There is quite a contrast between a lot of successful sides. When you look at the Swans they have really targeted top bracket players in the last 2 years with Tippet and Franklin. Richmond have gone about things like they are in a premiership window.

Who knows what the right approach is for us but I tend to think young players from other clubs that are capable of playing 100 games with us seems about right and players with specific strengths that our list lacks from the state leagues also helps.

[Remi Moses]

You just can't cut everybody, as you have such things as contracts.
The term "moneyball" just gets used as a commentator's throw away line.
For mine in a compromised drafts like we've had picking up VFL players or mature players is a no brainer.
Lower, although I disagreed with the selection I could see the reasoning behind it.

[always right]

The "P" word comes into it then. Not saying it's right or wrong to use it though. What I would say is that Stringer has been playing a much tougher role at senior level than what Jong has.

Wasn't meaning to pot Stringer. I just can't understand why anyone would put Jong in the questionable category when he is now playing seniors at a youngish age and his improvement is still on an upward trajectory. My point is he has shown just as much as Stringer although I concede that Stringer has X factor and is playing in a more difficult position.

[bulldogtragic]

Barlow, Rampe, Hudson (before Adelaide), Podsiadly - All still playing AFL, not for us.

Every team needs to pan for gold, Hawthorm have done very well supplementing top picks with picks like Puopolo, Simpkin, Cheney & Spangher. And even then they lost on Boumann and even some top picks like Thorp and Dowler. Recruiting is an inexact science, but finding gems in lower leagues of discards is a good strategy, see Dale Morris. I think unfortunately for us we've had more fails than say Hawthorn with picks like Rose, Panos, Davidson etc. It's about picking the right players who didn't get drafted or have been overlooked. I think we're getting better, but past fails shouldn't deter us from future investments in this area of recruiting and list management.

[G-Mo77]

Barlow, Rampe, Hudson (before Adelaide), Podsiadly - All still playing AFL, not for us.

Every team needs to pan for gold, Hawthorm have done very well supplementing top picks with picks like Puopolo, Simpkin, Cheney & Spangher. And even then they lost on Boumann and even some top picks like Thorp and Dowler. Recruiting is an inexact science, but finding gems in lower leagues of discards is a good strategy, see Dale Morris. I think unfortunately for us we've had more fails than say Hawthorn with picks like Rose, Panos, Davidson etc. It's about picking the right players who didn't get drafted or have been overlooked. I think we're getting better, but past fails shouldn't deter us from future investments in this area of recruiting and list management.

I really can't remember back as far as the Werribee days. All I remember is Pods and the talk of drafting him or getting him out of Werribee to develop our own forwards. I can't even remember Barlow or Huddo. Was there interest from anywhere else apart from Freo/Crows?

Willy days are a bit more clearer. Rampe is a miss as far as I'm concerned, was good at Willy, very good and should have been on our list. Drafted #37 in the rookie draft we took Goodes as our only pick and Rampe wasn't even a candidate for that pick. Duscher and Prismall were the others fighting for that spot. I've got no problems with the Goodes selection but the fact that we took one pick in the Rookie Draft in 2012 and none in 2013 is very concerning.

[bulldogtragic]

I really can't remember back as far as the Werribee days. All I remember is Pods and the talk of drafting him or getting him out of Werribee to develop our own forwards. I can't even remember Barlow or Huddo. Was there interest from anywhere else apart from Freo/Crows?

Willy days are a bit more clearer. Rampe is a miss as far as I'm concerned, was good at Willy, very good and should have been on our list. Drafted #37 in the rookie draft we took Goodes as our only pick and Rampe wasn't even a candidate for that pick. Duscher and Prismall were the others fighting for that spot. I've got no problems with the Goodes selection but the fact that we took one pick in the Rookie Draft in 2012 and none in 2013 is very concerning.

To your last point, this was and maybe soon a serious concern of mine and others. That being, did we cut deep enough and did we select the right players last year?

As you say, no rookie selections. We've done really well from this source and keeping Redpath and Greenwood if they continue along the path of VFL struggle street then questions will get asked about over estimating the list.

Not selecting a back up ruckman. I'm still puzzled by this. Campbell and Cordy are the best back up we have, neither have shown a history of dominating the VFL ruck spot, and Minno is rucking 95% of the game as our first option.

Darley AND Fuller. My understanding as I haven't seen them is they're both half back flankers... We upgraded Goodes, a half back flanker. Then we moved Higgins to the half back flank. Many pieces of the puzzle have not been apparent me, and this piece is still not clear to me.

And then keeping players like Howard on, and Gia taking a spot on the senior list for about 5 equivalent full time games for the season.

We still may very well play really well for the year, really well as our good is good. But if things don't go as well then the above questions are legitimate questions in review of what we did post season 2013. I still remember thinking I hope we don't look back in a few years in say if only we cut deeper in 2013.

[G-Mo77]

I think our main list trimming was fine last year. Gia going another round was surprising but I don't have that many issues with it. Howard should have gone, yes we drafted him high doesn't mean we need to keep him for 5 years to prove it. He can't play, cut him.

We should have cut into the rookie list and at least taken one selection. Redpath and Greenwood the obvious candidates to be cut. Austin adds depth but we've invested in Roberts why not just put faith in him and take another rookie selection?

[GVGjr]

Rampe is a miss as far as I'm concerned, was good at Willy, very good and should have been on our list. Drafted #37 in the rookie draft we took Goodes as our only pick and Rampe wasn't even a candidate for that pick. Duscher and Prismall were the others fighting for that spot. I've got no problems with the Goodes selection but the fact that we took one pick in the Rookie Draft in 2012 and none in 2013 is very concerning.

Early on, I kept making mention of Rampe in my Williamstown reports. He's done okay with the Swans and I'm not sure why he didn't get a look in despite training with the club from time to time.

[always right]

I think our main list trimming was fine last year. Gia going another round was surprising but I don't have that many issues with it. Howard should have gone, yes we drafted him high doesn't mean we need to keep him for 5 years to prove it. He can't play, cut him.

We should have cut into the rookie list and at least taken one selection. Redpath and Greenwood the obvious candidates to be cut. Austin adds depth but we've invested in Roberts why not just put faith in him and take another rookie selection?
Watched the VFL yesterday. Howard yet again struggled to get the ball, Greenwood was pretty solid but not what we need, Redpath looked pretty good if a little one dimensional, and Roberts was as impressive as I've seen him.

[comrade]

Early on, I kept making mention of Rampe in my Williamstown reports. He's done okay with the Swans and I'm not sure why he didn't get a look in despite training with the club from time to time.

I was always impressed with Rampe, back in the day, even when he was slogging it out in the VFL reserves.

[Greystache]

Early on, I kept making mention of Rampe in my Williamstown reports. He's done okay with the Swans and I'm not sure why he didn't get a look in despite training with the club from time to time.

Without knowing for sure I think his game in the VFL grand final might have really hurt his rating at the club. Getting destroyed by Pat Rose, who we didn't rate, probably hurt him. He looked really second rate that day.

[Before I Die]

Early on, I kept making mention of Rampe in my Williamstown reports. He's done okay with the Swans and I'm not sure why he didn't get a look in despite training with the club from time to time.

Rampe is on record as saying he didn't like living in Melbourne and didn't train well or commit himself on the field when he was at Williamstown. It was only when he went back home to Sydney that he pulled the finger out, raised the quality of his game and was subsequently drafted by Sydney. He wasn't a miss by our recruiting team.

[azabob]

Early on, I kept making mention of Rampe in my Williamstown reports. He's done okay with the Swans and I'm not sure why he didn't get a look in despite training with the club from time to time.


I was always impressed with Rampe, back in the day, even when he was slogging it out in the VFL reserves.

What role would Rampe play in our team yesterday and which player wouldn't have played?

[GVGjr]

What role would Rampe play in our team yesterday and which player wouldn't have played?

HBF/BP, it might either mean we didn't need to chase Darley or it might free up Murphy for some more time up forward.

Either way it's a moot point as the Swans got more out of him than we could have.

[G-Mo77]

Rampe is on record as saying he didn't like living in Melbourne and didn't train well or commit himself on the field when he was at Williamstown. It was only when he went back home to Sydney that he pulled the finger out, raised the quality of his game and was subsequently drafted by Sydney. He wasn't a miss by our recruiting team.

There ya go. Thank Before I Die. Good to know we didn't miss there

[Remi Moses]

Jack Frost is one we let slip . He played in from of our noses and we didn't pick him up.

[G-Mo77]

Jack Frost is one we let slip . He played in from of our noses and we didn't pick him up.

We were interested but we got scared away by his injuries. I'm not fussed on Frost personally. Once Reid/Brown are back he won't play again this year unless there is another injury. Just a depth player, nothing more, nothing less.

[azabob]

We were interested but we got scared away by his injuries. I'm not fussed on Frost personally. Once Reid/Brown are back he won't play again this year unless there is another injury. Just a depth player, nothing more, nothing less.

Agree, similar story to Peter Faulks.

[G-Mo77]

Agree, similar story to Peter Faulks.

I believe Faulks is back at Willy now.

[Guido]

We were interested but we got scared away by his injuries. I'm not fussed on Frost personally. Once Reid/Brown are back he won't play again this year unless there is another injury. Just a depth player, nothing more, nothing less.
Really dodged a bullet by not going with the long term depth player with serious tools to exceed at the top level ... phew, lucky we went with blokes like Goodes and Lower instead.

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2014-04-02/young-magpie-aims-to-freeze-big-guns

Try not to throw up in the first ten seconds of the above video, but if that's what a depth player looks like in his 4th game, then I would happily have half a dozen of similar talent/athleticism on our list.

[azabob]

Really dodged a bullet by not going with the long term depth player with serious tools to exceed at the top level ... phew, lucky we went with blokes like Goodes and Lower instead.

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2014-04-02/young-magpie-aims-to-freeze-big-guns

Try not to throw up in the first ten seconds of the above video, but if that's what a depth player looks like in his 4th game, then I would happily have half a dozen of similar talent/athleticism on our list.

Isn't this Williams all those years ago ;)

[Guido]

There are two very distinct groups of recruiting being discussed here.

One, mature age state league recruits.

The percentage of success stories, and not only success stories, but the percentage of outstanding, truly A grade recruits picked up for a hundredth of their true value is simply amazing. In terms of bang for buck, IMO other than the rookie list in general, it is the smartest area of recruitment you can invest heavily (both in terms of scouting resources + draft picks) in.

Right off the bat, I reckon a gun mature age VFL player has a 50/50 shot of succeeding into a long term, premiership standard player. Some of them will become All Australian standard, or at the very least more than capable of playing a role in a premiership side; Morris, Boyd, Scott Thompson, Puopolo, Pods, Sam Mitchell, Barlow.

Howe, Mzungu, Pods, Puopolo, Rampe, Jack Frost - these are all players that we were either interested in or trained with us, so that tells you our recruiting department is right up there when identifying these players.

The criticism of investment in this subset of recruiting IMO only happens by people that don't have an understanding it or simply haven't run through the numbers. Anecdotally, there are quite a few AFL clubs that are still skeptical about investing in gun VFL/SANFL, which means more for the rest of us.

There are dozens of success stories, I could seriously come up with a solely mature age, state based recruited 22 that would give the top 4 a shake.

Now, try to do the same with a pool of the 1000+ players that have either been delisted or otherwise fringe players given away for a pick after 60 "with our blessing, wish him all the best", since the year 2000, and you'll come up with maybe half a dozen players that would be selected again in hindsight. And, unlike the state league recruits listed, other than the rare, rare exception (tend to have had a screw loose and the delisting was the kick in the arse they needed), very few of the delistees/fringe dwellers were really "instrumental" in a premiership run - had they not been there, it's likely player 23 would have stepped in and had similar success.

Why then, when the stats are so clear cut on the success of one and the failure of the other, we continue to invest in type like Lowers is beyond me.

Goodes is his own sub-category - a solid VFL player who's age profile was simply not a good fit for where the club was at. At 22-23, fine, get him fit and understanding the sacrifices required at AFL, give him a shot at developing in a professional environment, it at least has the scope to be really solid recruiting. At the age of 29 for a bottom four side with a already a couple too many 29-30 year olds on the list, IMO bordering on idiotic. And that completely discounts the opportunity cost given up in not using these types of picks to invest in young state league players available who could be big, long term contributors to the club.

[G-Mo77]

Really dodged a bullet by not going with the long term depth player with serious tools to exceed at the top level ... phew, lucky we went with blokes like Goodes and Lower instead.

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2014-04-02/young-magpie-aims-to-freeze-big-guns

Try not to throw up in the first ten seconds of the above video, but if that's what a depth player looks like in his 4th game, then I would happily have half a dozen of similar talent/athleticism on our list.

Wow ease up on the sarcastic tone there Guido, there's really no need for it.

I was a big fan of Jack Frost while he was at Willy but I still stand behind what I said, he's a depth player. Good on him for making the most of those opportunities though. I hope he's good enough to "freeze" out Reid and Brown.

I've got no argument against anything else you write, you make some great points.

[stefoid]

Goodes is his own sub-category - a solid VFL player who's age profile was simply not a good fit for where the club was at. At 22-23, fine, get him fit and understanding the sacrifices required at AFL, give him a shot at developing in a professional environment, it at least has the scope to be really solid recruiting. At the age of 29 for a bottom four side with a already a couple too many 29-30 year olds on the list, IMO bordering on idiotic. And that completely discounts the opportunity cost given up in not using these types of picks to invest in young state league players available who could be big, long term contributors to the club.

Goodes (and Lower) were picked partly for culture I think. First couple of years, the coach was/is trying to install a 'train how you play' culture at the club. Plus more mature bodies and minds in very young list.

Mac publicly said we are past that stage now, and we are only looking for <25yo players.

[Guido]

Wow ease up on the sarcastic tone there Guido, there's really no need for it.
Sorry G-Mo, it was out of line, but borne more out of frustration with the club's thinking and decisions rather than aimed at your view.

The thing is that most of these VFL pick-ups are seen as good depth in the beginning ... until they keep developing, and developing and developing, until they're a Dale Morris among the top 5 players on your list or a Josh Gibson playing a key role in a premiership winning team.

If these mature aged players weren't simply seen as good depth at their time of recruitment and instead seen on what they were capable of achieving, Morris, Mitchell, Barlow, Boyd would have all went top 20.

Based on early form, IMO Frost could be end up on the same path and end up right up there. Or maybe not, but even if you're right and he amounts to not much, if there is one guarantee in recruitment, it is that there will be fantastic future players who will have been available at that rookie draft (and every rookie draft thereafter).

Which is why we need to give ourselves every chance to pick them up: if you take your chances well, financially, it is a great recruiting leveler. It gives you a chance to get top players for barely anything.

But instead of us being the team that outsmarted everyone, of using our competitive advantage of having this often injured but exciting prospect under our noses and picked up for less than he was worth, Collingwood does it. Collingwood! We're the ones that need to make the most of every break we can get, to get the most out of every cent, to not waste a single spot on the list to have a chance of competing, and instead we leave it wide open for the club with the $80mil turnover and $30mil footy department to be the moneyball recruiters.

The one chance we have, they take it, and have a kid recruited on a $50K rookie contract with a good 6-7 years ahead of him tearing a guy on a $9mil deal a new one. While we're the ones stuck with the 30 year old soon to be delisted.

We can't whinge about the wealth disparity when it comes to decision making like this.

[Guido]

Goodes (and Lower) were picked partly for culture I think. First couple of years, the coach was/is trying to install a 'train how you play' culture at the club.
Training culture! Full disclosure, I say this as someone quite "big boned" myself, but seriously, he's struggled to control his own weight let alone set a training standard for others. Lower added so much in this element that the club (100% correctly) delisted him 10 months after recruiting him.

Blokes like Daniel Cross and Matty Boyd were fine in setting culture. Griffen, Murphy, Morris can set training culture and standards. Blokes that have been delisted twice and others who taken until 28 "to find out what professionalism really means" aren't going to add much to the mix, and certainly no more than the tangible, real dividends of what picking up a good long term player with one of those picks will.

And even if there is an element of truth to the blokes being really good on the training track, seriously, how much does it add to the long term benefit of the club? It's as silly as suggesting that having had Morgan and Bassett training the house down in 2004 somehow added something to the 2008-2010 finals runs.

I've heard it for years and to be honest I've had enough of this intangible, long bow, secondary factor malarkey to justify failed recruits. We are a club who has neither the time nor the money to invest in these - every recruit should be seen with an eye to whether they can contribute to a premiership.

In finals in 2017 and 2018, we won't be thinking "gee, lucky Lower and Goodes - who never played in an AFL final - were there in 2013 to teach the boys what's required at training so we could reach this prelim", but it could very well be "gee, one of those 5 guns available in the 2013 rookie list we didn't even give ourselves a chance to recruit might have got us over the line today".

Tangible dividends (i.e. actual players) which have the scope to add to premiership campaigns, at a reasonable cost, should be the only recruiting goal this club has with every pick it uses at the draft or trades. Get it right, and they'll add to the "play the way you train" culture by default.

[Guido]

Just on Brett Goodes, if we hadn't butchered out first round pick in 2009 on Christian Howard, we would not have had to shore up a critical area of weakness with a 29yo in 2013. Actually we could have gotten Goodes as a rookie back then and used our first pick on, you know, someone like Fyfe or Carlisle, players that actually had form and history at the highest level in U18's.

Goodes himself was a punt. There was no guarantee he was going to walk straight into the top 22, there was no guarantee there was going to be a long term injury. From memory he really wasn't knocking the door down with insanely good performances demanding a spot on an AFL list that past year, it was more a feel good type recruiting story, so I don't think this idea that he was picked up with an expectation to straight away move in to sure up our defense is accurate.

I made this point elsewhere, but IMO we need to go easy on the Howard one off.

Sure, if there were signs that systematic screw ups like this where occurring quite often, go to town, but on every level it seems to be a one off.

It was a ballsy punt that failed.

Andrew Mackie was the ballsiest of punts on a SA player outside of the state u/18s system too, a decade later it's a crazy-smart selection resulting in THE ONLY multiple AA player available at that point of that draft. There was a rumour that we were a chance to take Mackie at 4 ... lucky we went the safe, traditional option with Walsh. :)

In 2007 most recruiters couldn't believe Geelong would select a 20 year old from WA that barely anyone had heard of at pick 17 either. Geelong knew most wouldn't touch him before their next pick, they didn't want to take the risk that someone would take him at 30, 31, 32 before their next pick. Top 3 standard, multiple AA, Harry Taylor picked up for a bargain of pick 17. Had they gambled and he got picked up one pick before their second rounder, they'd be kicking themselves for the next 10 years.

Exact same situation with Clayton and Minson - no name, knew 95% of the league hadn't heard of him and 95% wouldn't take him before 50, but was worried Essendon was going to pounce at about 27/28 so pulled the trigger to have the bird in the hand.

The recruiting department ****ed up with Howard. They know it. They seem to have addressed it, the picks since have been smart and paying dividends.

This is a very different criticism to continually picking up fringe players, which no matter how many examples of it failing, the club continue's down the path on.

Howard is simply a really unlucky example of having how a recruiter's reputation is largely down to how the cards can fall on the day.

We lose to Sydney in that final, we take Jetta, our recruiting department are lauded as geniuses, no one on this forum the wiser that the next name on their list was Christian Howard, sandwiched in between the next name on his list, Nat Fyfe.

[Go_Dogs]

Lower added so much in this element that the club (100% correctly) delisted him 10 months after recruiting him.

I'm not going to debate the decision, but I'm pretty confident in saying that Lower set a very high standard on the track and was a well liked teammate. I understand he spent a lot of time with Griff, playing hard as a tagger would which culminated in Griff being better equipped to break the tag and have his best season yet.

The fact we worked so hard to keep him involved at VFL level is a testament to the above - I guess it's easy to underrated the impact a player can make in such a short period of time, but I think it was a worthwhile move for us.

[LostDoggy]

Goodes himself was a punt. There was no guarantee he was going to walk straight into the top 22, there was no guarantee there was going to be a long term injury. From memory he really wasn't knocking the door down with insanely good performances demanding a spot on an AFL list that past year, it was more a feel good type recruiting story, so I don't think this idea that he was picked up with an expectation to straight away move in to sure up our defense is accurate.

I made this point elsewhere, but IMO we need to go easy on the Howard one off.

Sure, if there were signs that systematic screw ups like this where occurring quite often, go to town, but on every level it seems to be a one off.

It was a ballsy punt that failed.

Andrew Mackie was the ballsiest of punts on a SA player outside of the state u/18s system too, a decade later it's a crazy-smart selection resulting in THE ONLY multiple AA player available at that point of that draft. There was a rumour that we were a chance to take Mackie at 4 ... lucky we went the safe, traditional option with Walsh. :)

The recruiting department ****ed up with Howard. They know it. They seem to have addressed it, the picks since have been smart and paying dividends.

This is a very different criticism to continually picking up fringe players, which no matter how many examples of it failing, the club continue's down the path on.

Howard is simply a really unlucky example of having how a recruiter's reputation is largely down to how the cards can fall on the day.

We lose to Sydney in that final, we take Jetta, our recruiting department are lauded as geniuses, no one on this forum the wiser that the next name on their list was Christian Howard, sandwiched in between the next name on his list, Nat Fyfe.

Agree that they seem to have rectified, but if they had of read Moneyball (some of which translates to AFL), they would have seen the stats that picks like Mackie are rare, most kids who come straight from school comps fail, the Moneyball guys never recruited guys like Howard or Mackie, they would be much more likely to go for a Harry Taylor.

[Remi Moses]

I believe Faulks is back at Willy now.

Showed more than Faulks . He's played 4 games and looks promising.
Think he's behind Reid and Brown, but after what I saw on Sunday you'd swear Tom had only played 4 games

[Maddog37]

If he looks good then we could do a Mumford type deal and throw the cash at him. Let the good clubs develop them for us.

[bornadog]

I'm not going to debate the decision, but I'm pretty confident in saying that Lower set a very high standard on the track and was a well liked teammate. I understand he spent a lot of time with Griff, playing hard as a tagger would which culminated in Griff being better equipped to break the tag and have his best season yet.

The fact we worked so hard to keep him involved at VFL level is a testament to the above - I guess it's easy to underrated the impact a player can make in such a short period of time, but I think it was a worthwhile move for us.

For a team that is rebuilding we should never have added Lower or Goodes. Fuller could be a mistake as well, but lets see what happens.

[GVGjr]

For a team that is rebuilding we should never have added Lower or Goodes. Fuller could be a mistake as well, but lets see what happens.

I disagree, neither of them cost us much at all and provided leadership for a young and developing side. Cut our losses with Lower once the decision was made to go with Wallis and Smith in tagging roles and Goodes has the balance of the season to prove his worth.

Savvy list management is how I see it. No use in selecting players like Thorne or Skinner with late picks when just because they fit an age profile for the supporters. We play a lot of youngsters and we needed to balance that with some more seasoned players even if they end up at Footscray.

[Twodogs]

Does Fuller have the type of age profile and state league experience that you were talking about Guido? The jury is still out on whether he will make it but if he does you'd think he'd have 7 or 8 years to play as opposed to the 2, 3 or maybe 4 that Goodes offers.

[Happy Days]

Agree that they seem to have rectified, but if they had of read Moneyball (some of which translates to AFL), they would have seen the stats that picks like Mackie are rare, most kids who come straight from school comps fail, the Moneyball guys never recruited guys like Howard or Mackie, they would be much more likely to go for a Harry Taylor.

The difference between Howard and Mackie is that we got spooked by Adelaide into drafting him early; we rated Mackie good enough to be pick 4, and Howard good enough to be gone 5 picks later, if not at 15.

Also I'm with you (I think); the moneyball meme is being applied totally incorrectly and needs to die.

[GVGjr]

Does Fuller have the type of age profile and state league experience that you were talking about Guido? The jury is still out on whether he will make it but if he does you'd think he'd have 7 or 8 years to play as opposed to the 2, 3 or maybe 4 that Goodes offers.

With Goodes I can't help but think that by round 4 last year most of thought he was a great selection. Once his form tapered off his age was once again an issue. Given the state of our list I don't have a problem with us bringing in a player of his age providing we don't just give him senior games for the sake of it. Who is he actually holding back?

I would have preferred a different player to Fuller but if he can transition his game into that of a senior footballer then he might have that skill level that the club has been looking to improve. As you say, he could still have a long career with us.

[bulldogtragic]

With Goodes I can't help but think that by round 4 last year most of thought he was a great selection. Once his form tapered off his age was once again an issue. Given the state of our list I don't have a problem with us bringing in a player of his age providing we don't just give him senior games for the sake of it. Who is he actually holding back?

I would have preferred a different player to Fuller but if he can transition his game into that of a senior footballer then he might have that skill level that the club has been looking to improve. As you say, he could still have a long career with us.

Tend to agree with most of this. I would've preferred we kept Goodes on the RL, but my attitude on Goodes is I want the likes of JJ, Tutt, Howard, Darley or Fuller to have made Goodes redundant by years end because their development exceeded Goodes limitations. I'm not sure why we took Fuller to be honest after recruiting Darley, keeping Howard and Tutty and thinking about keeping Picken & Bob down back with Higgins too.

[GVGjr]

Tend to agree with most of this. I would've preferred we kept Goodes on the RL, but my attitude on Goodes is I want the likes of JJ, Tutt, Howard, Darley or Fuller to have made Goodes redundant by years end because their development exceeded Goodes limitations. I'm not sure why we took Fuller to be honest after recruiting Darley, keeping Howard and Tutty and thinking about keeping Picken & Bob down back with Higgins too.

JJ needs to improve his fitness and will be back in the mix once he does, Tutt has shown a bit and I'm comfortable enough that he is still on the list, Howard just needs to see if he can salvage his career, Darley got injured at a critical time and should show us something in the next month or so and Fuller probably won't be in contention until the 2nd half of the season.

I think there is a few expiring contracts at the end of this year for some of the players who haven't established themselves so it will be interesting to see if Macca can make the hard call after 3 years of his teaching and development plans for the playing list.
If he can't make the hard calls then we effectively play with a reduced list.

I went through the list on the way home on the train and think we could potentially lose 8 (or more) senior listed players which is a bit on the high side especially if we are likely to only promote 1 or 2 (at best) rookies.

[Twodogs]

How many players including rookies do we have?

[Remi Moses]

I disagree, neither of them cost us much at all and provided leadership for a young and developing side. Cut our losses with Lower once the decision was made to go with Wallis and Smith in tagging roles and Goodes has the balance of the season to prove his worth.

Savvy list management is how I see it. No use in selecting players like Thorne or Skinner with late picks when just because they fit an age profile for the supporters. We play a lot of youngsters and we needed to balance that with some more seasoned players even if they end up at Footscray.
Summed it up well.Whats the difference between a Fuller or a Skinner or Thorne?
We reached on Howard, it looks like a big mistake.

[Guido]

Does Fuller have the type of age profile and state league experience that you were talking about Guido?
Absolutely Twodogs.

There's no guarantee with him or with anyone gunning it at the next level down (if there was they'd go first round), but all historical percentages suggest that he's an even money shot of being a really good player for a number of years.

17/18 year olds picked up after pick 40 are probably a 1 in 5 shot, so I think it makes good sense to go the mature aged state league route if no juniors stick out (like Honeychurch, who we might have missed out on if we retained Lower another year).

Rookie listed 17/18 year olds are probably a 1 in 10 shot - people might argue that that in itself is reason enough go with recycled fringe players, but the latter is almost a guarantee to a middle of the road, mediocre outcome (between 10-50 games).

Alternatively, if you take your full complement of young rookies every year, the evidence shows that, with a good standard recruiting team at least, that you'll unearth a premiership standard (or better) player every couple of years. At the very least. Across 10 years, it equates to almost a quarter of a premiership side: Collingwood's 2010 premiership being a case in point, including their captain.

Just look at the quality players on our list that originally were rookied: Morris, Boyd, Dahlhaus, Picken, JJ, Jong, Crameri, and in the past Harbrow. If players of this quality they were again there this time around (experience suggests they will have been), how bloody stupid would it have been to take a Lower or Goodes rather than take a punt on an equivalent talent to these guys.

And the thing it's unlikely that any supporters will be any the wiser because who we would have taken doesn't get recorded anywhere for judgement. I'd imagine the internal footy department review of the recruitment would be much like the view in this thread; "20 odd games, great list management guys, Goodes achieved more than we expected, pat on the back". Not "cost us 10+ years of possible top level player".

[Guido]

With Goodes I can't help but think that by round 4 last year most of thought he was a great selection.
Does/should this change anything with the overall judgement on his recruitment?

If it was the opposite, and a gun long term recruit had started off with 4 really poor games, those early games would be considered largely irrelevant wouldn't they?

Bandy, Sherman, Rawlings, they were all the beez neez four rounds into their careers with us as well. End of the day, it counted for nothing.

Players and list management decisions should really be rated on their entire career with the club and the opportunity cost.

You take into account the total contribution of a player (great/good/poor quality games, output, standing up when it counts, agreeability), and weigh it up against total cost (salary, spot on the list, footy department spend allocated to them, game time in the seniors which, if they're delisted within 20 games or 12/24 months, could be considered a waste given that might have been better to invest that experience into younger players who will be around for a flag tilt in a few years time, trade cost - who would have been picked up in their place if they weren't acquired).

Given that cost, the most important question you ask, would you do it again.

Despite their being too many recycled/fringe bulldogs pick ups to list, there are not many where the answer to that question is a yes.

[lemmon]

Are there actual stats behind those numbers you've quoted Guido or are they purely based on your observation?

[G-Mo77]

I went through the list on the way home on the train and think we could potentially lose 8 (or more) senior listed players which is a bit on the high side especially if we are likely to only promote 1 or 2 (at best) rookies.

I found this list at another site but apparently it is all our uncontracted players. As the season goes on players will sign extensions but I saw those 17 names and alarm bells started to ring in my head. 8 or more is a big possibility and that concerns me.

Matthew Boyd
Tory Dickson
Daniel Giansiracusa
Brett Goodes
Christian Howard
Shaun Higgins
Jason Johannisen
Liam Jones
Dale Morris
Robert Murphy
Daniel Pearce
Clay Smith
Koby Stevens
Jason Tutt
Easton Wood
Tom Williams
Tom Young

[ledge]

It's a big list but not a scary one, the names we might be worried about will be Signed during the year and one is retiring.

[LostDoggy]

Are there actual stats behind those numbers you've quoted Guido or are they purely based on your observation?

I'd genuinely love to read this (if it's not just opinion) also.

:)

[ledge]

I think we could possibly delist Howard, Goodes, Pearce and johannison, Gia retired.. Murphy Boyd, Williams and Morris are certainties to stay, can't see Smith, Wood, Stevens,higgins or Young wanting to leave, Liam Jones is just starting to come good, cant see Tutt getting offers from other clubs yet, Dickson maybe.

[LostDoggy]

JJ, really?

[always right]

Come on dogs.....offer up our first round draft pick to Essendon, get this bloke across to us and play him at CHB.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-coach-mark-thompson-refuses-to-guarantee-underperforming-forward-jake-carlisle-position-in-anzac-day-team/story-fni5f6kv-1226892110887

[azabob]

Come on dogs.....offer up our first round draft pick to Essendon, get this bloke across to us and play him at CHB.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-coach-mark-thompson-refuses-to-guarantee-underperforming-forward-jake-carlisle-position-in-anzac-day-team/story-fni5f6kv-1226892110887

Agree for sure, but being essendon they would want more and plus they would probably still think we stooges them on Crameri!

[Greystache]

Agree for sure, but being essendon they would want more and plus they would probably still think we stooges them on Crameri!

I don't think he's the player I would target with a big contract. He's identical to Roughead but without the leadership. If we're to chase a key defender I'd prefer it to be more of a mobile athletic type who can offer us more flexibility

[soupman]

I found this list at another site but apparently it is all our uncontracted players. As the season goes on players will sign extensions but I saw those 17 names and alarm bells started to ring in my head. 8 or more is a big possibility and that concerns me.

Matthew Boyd
Tory Dickson
Daniel Giansiracusa
Brett Goodes
Christian Howard
Shaun Higgins
Jason Johannisen
Liam Jones
Dale Morris
Robert Murphy
Daniel Pearce
Clay Smith
Koby Stevens
Jason Tutt
Easton Wood
Tom Williams
Tom Young
I would be very surprised if 8 of them left at the end of the year.

I wouldn't think Higgins, JJ, Jones, Morris, Murphy, Smith, Stevens or Wood would be in any doubt at all.

Boyd and Young are only chances if things go really sour really quickly.

Dickson and Tutt probably only need 4-5 decent games in the seniors to snag another year.

Williams is one that could go either way depending on injuries, form and his motivation.

Giansiracusa is obviously already gone.

That leaves Howard, Pearce and Goodes as probables at this stage, and they are all half back flankers which may mean the club is reluctant to lose 3 of the same type and thus keeps one.

So really there are only 7 real candidates, and based on the faith we have seen from the coaches towards players I would be surprised if half of that 7 goes.

Couple that with a required rookie promotion if we want to keep any of our rookies (most probably Jong at this stage) and there aren't actually that many free list spots at the end of the season.

[Go_Dogs]

Absolutely Twodogs.

There's no guarantee with him or with anyone gunning it at the next level down (if there was they'd go first round), but all historical percentages suggest that he's an even money shot of being a really good player for a number of years.

Just look at the quality players on our list that originally were rookied: Morris, Boyd, Dahlhaus, Picken, JJ, Jong, Crameri, and in the past Harbrow. If players of this quality they were again there this time around (experience suggests they will have been),

Interesting post Guido.

With respect to State League players and transitioning across to become reliable senior footballers, I'd love to see a breakdown on all the numbers. If we look at a couple of rookie drafts, I might use 2012 and 2013 as recent examples, we're talking about the following players from VFL.

Tory Dickson, Sam Rowe and Orren Stephenson taken in the ND and Sam Dunell, Shane Biggs, Tom Couch, Tom Campbell, Brad Mangin, Jack Sheringham, James Magner, Malcolm Lynch, Mark Baugley, Sam Gibson, Adam Pattison, and others from the SANFL and WAFL such as Daz Pfeiffer, Lee Spurr, Cory Dell'Olio, Cam Shenton....and then the following year, Sydney took Dean Towers early, Dylan Van Unen, Matt Jones and Dean Terlich were also taken in the ND, with Leigh Osborne, Jarryd Cachia, Kyle Martin, Kyle Hartigan, Mitch Clisby, Sam Dwyer, Jack Frost, Kane Mitchell, Callum Sinclair and of course our own Brett Goodes (I've possibly missed a couple - just had a quick look through). It again looks like a few solid depth players were picked up last time (the 2014 RD), and maybe a couple who go on and become a little more than that, but it's difficult to assess so early into the season.

The strike rate of finding players who become better than depth players is still pretty low for mine, and a lot of the examples are blokes who can come in and play a year or two and take some heat off younger guys, fill a spot on the list and be a good team member until the recruitment team is able to identify a better talent or ready made player to replace them.

With the young players taken in the rookie list, again it is not an exact science and odds are against getting a Dahlhaus, a Harbrow - however as you say, we need to be taking selections and attempting to identify those types of players. That we've given our current crop of rookies the maximum amount of time is showing a lot of faith in them developing into senior players, and perhaps also that we haven't rated what's out there as a better chance of becoming senior players. I was happy to stick with Jong, whilst Austin is solid back up to have. Redpath did improve a bit over 2013, but keeping both he and Greenwood on and not having a crack at anyone was a bit disappointing.

It's an interesting debate, but overall I think we've done pretty well out of our mature aged recruits in recent times, and have (albeit usually with a lot of financial constraints) done exceptionally well out of the rookie list.

[always right]

I don't think he's the player I would target with a big contract. He's identical to Roughead but without the leadership. If we're to chase a key defender I'd prefer it to be more of a mobile athletic type who can offer us more flexibility

We clearly rate his ability differently.

[Greystache]

We clearly rate his ability differently.

And I've seen nearly every game of his career.

[Ozza]

We clearly rate his ability differently.

Yeah - have to say, I rate him pretty highly also.

I know Greystache watches a lot of Essendon - so respect his opinion.
But from what I've seen of Carlisle - he could be anything, if they just let him play centre half back, which is where he prefers to play (and thats not from media speculation...that's from Jake himself).

[Greystache]

Yeah - have to say, I rate him pretty highly also.

I know Greystache watches a lot of Essendon - so respect his opinion.
But from what I've seen of Carlisle - he could be anything, if they just let him play centre half back, which is where he prefers to play (and thats not from media speculation...that's from Jake himself).

The media machine was working overdrive on Carlisle when he started to show some form, but the truth it's only been in small bursts and even then he struggled with the faster leading types. His first half of last season was very good, prior to 2013 he'd been predominantly a top up tall, but his 2nd half of 2013 was poor and he's continued in the same way this season.

As I said his limitations are the same as Roughead (pace off the mark, agility on quick leading forwards) and his strengths are the same (can play on the biggest of forwards, intercept marking, impacting a contest third man up). He only offers us something that's already a strength, plus he's been highly inconsistent to date, and has no leadership qualities.

I'm a fan of Carlisle, I liked what I saw right from his debut, but he's not an improvement on Roughead, and I certainly wouldn't be throwing big bucks at him under the assumption that Roughead will be just as effective playing somewhere else.

[always right]

The media machine was working overdrive on Carlisle when he started to show some form, but the truth it's only been in small bursts and even then he struggled with the faster leading types. His first half of last season was very good, prior to 2013 he'd been predominantly a top up tall, but his 2nd half of 2013 was poor and he's continued in the same way this season.

As I said his limitations are the same as Roughead (pace off the mark, agility on quick leading forwards) and his strengths are the same (can play on the biggest of forwards, intercept marking, impacting a contest third man up). He only offers us something that's already a strength, plus he's been highly inconsistent to date, and has no leadership qualities.

I'm a fan of Carlisle, I liked what I saw right from his debut, but he's not an improvement on Roughead, and I certainly wouldn't be throwing big bucks at him under the assumption that Roughead will be just as effective playing somewhere else.

Couldn't care less about the media machine. He's been inconsistent but I like what I see as he matches up well against a lot of the key forwards. Is the complete footballer?.......not many are.

You seem to think he would be a replacement for Roughead. I'm thinking we would have our two key position defenders locked away for the next ten years. Not a bad duo to build your defensive structure around.

As I said.....we clearly rate his ability differently. No crime in that regardless of the number of times you've watched him play.:)

[Ozza]

You definitely make some good points regarding his potential to fit in our side, Greystache. I'm not sold either way on whether he's the type we should look at going after. However, I still think he has shown he has a lot of ability - and at 22 inconsistency is probably a given. I would suggest he is way ahead of most 22 year olds of his size in the game.

The way footy is going - the forwards are getting so tall, that you might need 2 blokes around the 6"6 mark, with the ability to swing one forward at times.

It certainly makes for a interesting discussion, if he was to become available for trade in future.

[bornadog]

We have ZERO chance of getting Carlisle, so a moot point.

[always right]

We have ZERO chance of getting Carlisle, so a mute point.

Moot even.;)

Sorry

[bornadog]

Moot even.;)

Sorry
correct

[Guido]

Are there actual stats behind those numbers you've quoted Guido or are they purely based on your observation?
As always, all stats are ripped out my arse. :)

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts?year=1999&t=R&s=G

Above website is fantastic, it dynamically updates to reflect the games tally.

In the top corner of the table you can basically scroll through each rookie draft between 1999-2009 within about 2 minutes. 1999 still has guys going and probably a good starting point for "modern" recruiting, and 2009 would be as late as you would go, 4 full years on a list would be the minimum time frame to get an idea of long term quality.

Of the typical 50-60 picks taken, almost every single rookie draft has about half a dozen players who wouldn't be out of place in a premiership side, and most drafts will also have a player or two who've turned into A graders.

Exact percentage might be a touch more, might be a touch less, in some years the strike rate might be a lot more or a lot less, but generally, 10% of players picked up via the rookie list ending up quality players I think is a fair guesstimate.

The other figures, yep, purely based on observation and skimming through some drafts, as a general gut feel about 4 out of 5 kids picked up after about 40 won't amount to much in the long term (I'm sure there will be drafts that make this call look ridiculous). But using this lower strike rate to justify going with the "better bet" of fringe, list clogging delistees instead with these picks might cost you a Cross or Lake.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

I would be very surprised if 8 of them left at the end of the year.

I wouldn't think Higgins, JJ, Jones, Morris, Murphy, Smith, Stevens or Wood would be in any doubt at all.

Boyd and Young are only chances if things go really sour really quickly.

Dickson and Tutt probably only need 4-5 decent games in the seniors to snag another year.

Williams is one that could go either way depending on injuries, form and his motivation.

Giansiracusa is obviously already gone.

That leaves Howard, Pearce and Goodes as probables at this stage, and they are all half back flankers which may mean the club is reluctant to lose 3 of the same type and thus keeps one.

So really there are only 7 real candidates, and based on the faith we have seen from the coaches towards players I would be surprised if half of that 7 goes.

Couple that with a required rookie promotion if we want to keep any of our rookies (most probably Jong at this stage) and there aren't actually that many free list spots at the end of the season.

A lot will depend on our success rate from now until the end of the season. If we do not advance up the ladder then drastic changes to the list would need to follow.This could mean that 7-8 changes could be more likely.

[Happy Days]

The media machine was working overdrive on Carlisle when he started to show some form, but the truth it's only been in small bursts and even then he struggled with the faster leading types. His first half of last season was very good, prior to 2013 he'd been predominantly a top up tall, but his 2nd half of 2013 was poor and he's continued in the same way this season.

As I said his limitations are the same as Roughead (pace off the mark, agility on quick leading forwards) and his strengths are the same (can play on the biggest of forwards, intercept marking, impacting a contest third man up). He only offers us something that's already a strength, plus he's been highly inconsistent to date, and has no leadership qualities.

I'm a fan of Carlisle, I liked what I saw right from his debut, but he's not an improvement on Roughead, and I certainly wouldn't be throwing big bucks at him under the assumption that Roughead will be just as effective playing somewhere else.

I agree with you, except for the being a fan part. He's got unlimited mileage from beating up on a heavily injured Pavlich last year and kicking two goals in the second half of a game where he had SEVEN GOALS kicked on him in the first. And Buddy messed him up for fun.

He's got great hands and passes the eye test but that's about it.

[LostDoggy]

Come on dogs.....offer up our first round draft pick to Essendon, get this bloke across to us and play him at CHB.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-coach-mark-thompson-refuses-to-guarantee-underperforming-forward-jake-carlisle-position-in-anzac-day-team/story-fni5f6kv-1226892110887

I like this but is he out of contract?
Imagine taking another guy away from Essendon, god I would love it.