A worrying trend?

[Dogs 24/7]

It just dawned on me when I put together my best team for the start of the season how much over the last few seasons we have been drafting or trading for older players.
Montgomery, Akermanis, Hudson and Welsh have all been selected with their best footy well behind them and all are likely to be gone (monty gone already) before the 2010 season. On top of that we have lost Grant, Darcy, Smith and will lose West and most likely Johnson.

I know most of these guys were a bargain trade or draft pick but is drafting guys at 29 or 30 really the right thing to do?
I didn't mind trying for McDougall and the more I think about it Bradley might be better than say Welsh. What does everyone else think? Is drafting and trading for so many older player like we have a flawed logic?

[Sockeye Salmon]

It just dawned on me when I put together my best team for the start of the season how much over the last few seasons we have been drafting or trading for older players.
Montgomery, Akermanis, Hudson and Welsh have all been selected with their best footy well behind them and all are likely to be gone (monty gone already) before the 2010 season. On top of that we have lost Grant, Darcy, Smith and will lose West and most likely Johnson.

I know most of these guys were a bargain trade or draft pick but is drafting guys at 29 or 30 really the right thing to do?
I didn't mind trying for McDougall and the more I think about it Bradley might be better than say Welsh. What does everyone else think? Is drafting and trading for so many older player like we have a flawed logic?

I think you've answered your own question.

We've lost Smith, Darcy, Grant, Robbins and Montgomery, we can afford to take some guys a bit older.

I was against taking Monty because he was 32 rather than 28 like Hudson or Welsh.

We'll still be taking 6 kids in the draft.

[bornadog]

It just dawned on me when I put together my best team for the start of the season how much over the last few seasons we have been drafting or trading for older players.
Montgomery, Akermanis, Hudson and Welsh have all been selected with their best footy well behind them and all are likely to be gone (monty gone already) before the 2010 season. On top of that we have lost Grant, Darcy, Smith and will lose West and most likely Johnson.

I know most of these guys were a bargain trade or draft pick but is drafting guys at 29 or 30 really the right thing to do?
I didn't mind trying for McDougall and the more I think about it Bradley might be better than say Welsh. What does everyone else think? Is drafting and trading for so many older player like we have a flawed logic?

The reason is that we don't have any one that was drafted as kids in 1997, 1998 who would now be in the 26 plus bracket. Wallets strategy was short term, he didn't develop any young kids (other than N Brown) and we just haven't had the mix of players that is required for a balanced team, ie a mix of 18 to 21, 22 to 25, 26 to 29, and 29 plus. We have been playing with a big gap for the past five seasons.

[LostDoggy]

Monty might have been 32 but he earned his paypacket as far as I am concerned. The roar he got from the crowd at the Doggies family day, when he was presented - was heartening to hear, a favourite bulldog son returning home.
As for Aker - I think this year will be a better year for him - it seems to take a couple of years to settle in to a new club (Ottens at Geelong for example).
Welsh and Hudson will fix some holes in our side that we are still developing younger players to fill in years ahead. Judging by the way the Adelaide supporters have reacted, we have made some good decisions there. The most important thing for me, is that these players have wanted to come to the bulldogs. Jade Rawlings never wanted to play for us and this was obvious and a huge costly error.
I know I have been accused of being an eternal optimist - but if you judge our 2006 season and think what that would have been like with the addition of Hudson and welsh - I think we can have a fair tilt at a top four chance in 2008.

[Go_Dogs]

Monty might have been 32 but he earned his paypacket as far as I am concerned. The roar he got from the crowd at the Doggies family day, when he was presented - was heartening to hear, a favourite bulldog son returning home.
As for Aker - I think this year will be a better year for him - it seems to take a couple of years to settle in to a new club (Ottens at Geelong for example).
Welsh and Hudson will fix some holes in our side that we are still developing younger players to fill in years ahead. Judging by the way the Adelaide supporters have reacted, we have made some good decisions there. The most important thing for me, is that these players have wanted to come to the bulldogs. Jade Rawlings never wanted to play for us and this was obvious and a huge costly error.
I know I have been accused of being an eternal optimist - but if you judge our 2006 season and think what that would have been like with the addition of Hudson and welsh - I think we can have a fair tilt at a top four chance in 2008.

Great point. That's the one thing that is different compared to a lot of disastrous trades of yester-year. The players WANT to come here and be SUCCESSFUL here.

[Dogs 24/7]

I think you've answered your own question.

We've lost Smith, Darcy, Grant, Robbins and Montgomery, we can afford to take some guys a bit older.
I was against taking Monty because he was 32 rather than 28 like Hudson or Welsh.

We'll still be taking 6 kids in the draft.
I know what you are saying but I don't fully agree with this. For example surely a tilt at Wood would have been a better balance between our needs for next season and the future 4 or 5 than landing Hudson?
Yes it would have cost us more but we seem to be focusing on just being competitive over the next couple years rather than trying to get players with a huge upside.
The point I am making is that we are being frugal with our trades and drafts and acquiring good players but in the main they won't play their best football under us as they have from the clubs we got them from.

Thats why I liked the trade for McDougall because with good management and a bit of luck we might get him playing his best football.

Some good points made by dogs r barking though

[Mantis]

I know what you are saying but I don't fully agree with this. For example surely a tilt at Wood would have been a better balance between our needs for next season and the future 4 or 5 than landing Hudson?
Yes it would have cost us more but we seem to be focusing on just being competitive over the next couple years rather than trying to get players with a huge upside.
The point I am making is that we are being frugal with our trades and drafts and acquiring good players but in the main they won't play their best football under us as they have from the clubs we got them from.

Yes it would have cost a fair bit more to acquire Wood. Brisbane were demanding a 1st rd draft pick and we were never going to trade pick #5. So we would have had to trade for one which would have been quite difficult. I think we went for Hudson because he is good to go now, not in 2 or 3 years when you would expect Wood to be at his peak. It would also be hoped that over the next 2 or 3 years while Hudson is around that Minson can improve his game so that when Hudson retires Minson is a very capable ruckman. I would also expect that we will draft a developing ruckman this year either in the national or rookie draft this year.

[LostDoggy]

the phantom drafts have us drafting quite a few ruckmen.

[Mofra]

I know what you are saying but I don't fully agree with this. For example surely a tilt at Wood would have been a better balance between our needs for next season and the future 4 or 5 than landing Hudson?
I prefer Hudson to Wood, simply because Wood has never player the no 1 ruck spot at AFL level, and we are guaranteed 3 years minimum of Hudson as he started his career so late.
We can develop a ruckman in the meantime (assuming we draft someone as well as take Ayce Cordy). Once Hudson retires, we will have a Minson in his prime, a 3-4 year pure ruckman looking to step up (look at North, Hale & McIntosh are about this age) and whoever the first round pick in this draft is (not downgraded as Wood would cost alot).

If we already had a clear no 1 ruckman on the list, Wood would have been the preferred choice.