Roarke Smith

[Mofra]

Luckless rookie, wanted a separate thread to ask questions about him.

I liked what I saw of him and we have backed him in after two knee recos, what is the likelihood of him getting elevated to a main list spot? Personally I think he has more upside than any speculative late draft pick and showing some loyalty to the kid could well be rewarded so I'd like to see him upgraded this year (we don't have the option to re-rookie him again).

Query I guess is whether the recos will have longer term implications on his agility / pace. Redpath has the turning circle of a roadtrain after his knee ops but I'm not sure how much of that is due to his knee issues and how much it was just not an asset before he was injured.

[bulldogtragic]

When Roarke did his knee this year, he said to Bevo he wants to continue on at the top level. Bevo told him he wanted that too. So if Bevo has a say, I'm betting he stays on. We need to elevate him or cut him, and we haven't cut him yet. Like you, if we need to use pick 80 then I have no issues using it on him if the medicos pass him.

[Bulldog4life]

Think it is Roarke Moffra. Good thread though.

[bornadog]

When Roarke did his knee this year, he said to Bevo he wants to continue on at the top level. Bevo told him he wanted that too. So if Bevo has a say, I'm betting he stays on. We need to elevate him or cut him, and we haven't cut him yet. Like you, if we need to use pick 80 then I have no issues using it on him if the medicos pass him.

I agree, pick 80 wouldn't be a big risk, and he seems like he is passionate about playing AFL. So yes, let's upgrade him as he is a known quantity.

[bornadog]

Luckless Bulldog rookie set for a lifeline


http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/Samples/490150-tlsnewsportrait.jpg

LUCKLESS Western Bulldog Roarke Smith appears set for a welcome change of fortune, with the out-of-contract rookie to play on at the Whitten Oval next season.

Smith has been sidelined since March after undergoing his second knee reconstruction in 18 months, but AFL.com.au understands the athletic defender will be offered a new deal for 2018 before the Bulldogs finalise their list.

Smith has been restricted to just two senior games in his three seasons on the rookie list, but the Dogs are optimistic he can overcome his horrible run of luck.

The defender's troubles began a week after he made his AFL debut against West Coast in round 21, 2015, when he ruptured his left anterior cruciate ligament in the VFL.

Smith made a promising return in the second half of 2016, earning a senior game in round 22 against Essendon, before rupturing his right ACL in March during a JLT Community Series loss to the Brisbane Lions.

Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge said after that game the club was committed to helping Smith return to the field.

"We will support him and get him going again. It's a bitter pill to swallow tonight," Beveridge said.
"We think Roarke has a really bright future. It's just a shame he has had so much bad luck so early in his career."

Smith was recruited by the Bulldogs from the Calder Cannons with pick No.5 in the NAB AFL Rookie Draft.
In addition to his two senior games, he has played 25 VFL games for Footscray, 15 in 2015 and 10 in 2016.

[bulldogtragic]

I think it's between Honey & Smith. I'm happy it's Smith, there's a lot more upside if he can take a trick with injuries.

[GVGjr]

I don't quite see the upside with him. He's OK but I haven't seen enough positives with him to suggest he could be a 100 game player. I'd delist and re-rookie if no other club selected him if that is allowed.

[Webby]

I don't quite see the upside with him. He's OK but I haven't seen enough positives with him to suggest he could be a 100 game player. I'd delist and re-rookie if no other club selected him if that is allowed.

I actually do see the upside. However, I agree with you that he should be rookie listed.

FWIW his upside is that he has a good sized frame, has footy smarts and is versatile. Without the knees, I'd back him in every time. However, with them, it has to be a hedge via the rookie list.

[bornadog]

I don't quite see the upside with him. He's OK but I haven't seen enough positives with him to suggest he could be a 100 game player. I'd delist and re-rookie if no other club selected him if that is allowed.

The question I guess is - is he better than a speculative pick at 80 plus?

[bulldogtragic]

I don't quite see the upside with him. He's OK but I haven't seen enough positives with him to suggest he could be a 100 game player. I'd delist and re-rookie if no other club selected him if that is allowed.

Id give him a one year offer. But bigger than that, Bevo/leadership group/club is not just being tough on a bloke refusing to train and do their rehab properly, he's rewarding a young guy with some talent whose training 100%, doing rehab 100%, conducting himself professionally and doing everything right. This is also a good message of positive reinforcement to everyone. And he might just be a handy player.

[GVGjr]

I actually do see the upside. However, I agree with you that he should be rookie listed.

FWIW his upside is that he has a good sized frame, has footy smarts and is versatile. Without the knees, I'd back him in every time. However, with them, it has to be a hedge via the rookie list.

I don't see the footy smarts with him. He can shut down a player, has good endurance and is reasonably athletic given his knee injuries but to me he can play just one or two positions and we already have some depth in those positions.
Having said that if he is offered a one year deal he can step up and prove me wrong which I won't be upset about in the slightest


The question I guess is - is he better than a speculative pick at 80 plus?

If I compare if him our Fergus Greene selection from last year I think there is a difference between the two, Greene has footy smarts and a far greater skill level and probably more than matches Smith for endurance.


Good luck to Roarke Smith no matter what.

[GVGjr]

Id give him a one year offer. But bigger than that, Bevo/leadership group/club is not just being tough on a bloke refusing to train and do their rehab properly, he's rewarding a young guy with some talent whose training 100%, doing rehab 100%, conducting himself professionally and doing everything right. This is also a good message of positive reinforcement to everyone. And he might just be a handy player.

I'm not sure that the decision to keep him or not should be blurred by other activities around the club. He's had wretched luck but we've had 3 seasons to assess him and we should know if he has the ability to be a 50 game plus player. Prudden had 5 years at the club and we eventually had to make the hard call. It should be clear to the club now if they really want him and while I know they are waiting on some clarity with some other players I think we should delist him and if he is the best player still available with our last pick at the National Draft then we should select him then. He can still keep training with the club.

Why lock him in now when there might be a Lewis Young and Fergus Greene type player still available when we have our last selection?

[bulldogtragic]

I'm not sure that the decision to keep him or not should be blurred by other activities around the club. He's had wretched luck but we've had 3 seasons to assess him and we should know if he has the ability to be a 50 game plus player. Prudden had 5 years at the club and we eventually had to make the hard call. It should be clear to the club now if they really want him and while I know they are waiting on some clarity with some other players I think we should delist him and if he is the best player still available with our last pick at the National Draft then we should select him then. He can still keep training with the club.

Why lock him in now when there might be a Lewis Young and Fergus Greene type player still available when we have our last selection?

There might be a Matt Fuller too, maybe even a Shane Thorne. I like him, club obviously likes him and I think Bevo likes to look after those who do everything asked within reason. That just happens to be a good message for the group as the circumstances are. Not a reason to keep him, just a nice byproduct.

[GVGjr]

There might be a Matt Fuller too, maybe even a Shane Thorne. I like him, club obviously likes him and I think Bevo likes to look after those who do everything asked within reason. That just happens to be a good message for the group as the circumstances are. Not a reason to keep him, just a nice byproduct.

I don't think we have the room for too much sentiment because if there is a Fuller or Thorne available you go with Smith.
Do you think someone is going to pinch him from us and it will bite us in the arse?

[ledge]

I'm not sure that the decision to keep him or not should be blurred by other activities around the club. He's had wretched luck but we've had 3 seasons to assess him and we should know if he has the ability to be a 50 game plus player. Prudden had 5 years at the club and we eventually had to make the hard call. It should be clear to the club now if they really want him and while I know they are waiting on some clarity with some other players I think we should delist him and if he is the best player still available with our last pick at the National Draft then we should select him then. He can still keep training with the club.

Why lock him in now when there might be a Lewis Young and Fergus Greene type player still available when we have our last selection?
Technically we have had him one season , he has been out two years with the knees , what I have seen I highly rate him he reads the play well runs off well and he takes a good leaping mark , the question is can he still do that after two knees ?
One way to find out is give him another year .

[bulldogtragic]

I don't think we have the room for too much sentiment because if there is a Fuller or Thorne available you go with Smith.
Do you think someone is going to pinch him from us and it will bite us in the arse?

No. If he's done everything required he's worth a one year offer with pick 80 or so. We either need to cut him all together or promote him and give him the confidence of the club that we believe he can make the grade. Delisting him off the rookie list just to re-rookie list him doesn't give him any confidence that we think he can make it. That would be a self fulfilling prophecy. So there only two options, cur him, promote him.

[GVGjr]

It looks like he will be given another year or two. Good luck to him

[Hotdog60]

The AFL should have it that if a player suffers long term injuries they can get that time added back on to your rookie time to make up for lost development.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I'm amazed we're giving him a senior list spot (apparently).

Re-rookie him. If somebody else snaps him up, good for them.

Hardly shown anything that screams "keep me".

[comrade]

I'm amazed we're giving him a senior list spot (apparently).

Re-rookie him. If somebody else snaps him up, good for them.

Hardly shown anything that screams "keep me".

I agree, it seems like a potential waste of a list spot.

I could be wrong but it feels like we're trying to correct some flaws that have developed over the last 12 months and are making a concerted effort to reinforce certain values within the playing group. Roarke's had plenty of set backs, yet seems like a solid citizen and a good teammate, so we're rewarding him for that. We're seeing the opposite happen with Stringer.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Im ok with another year - we've been very good at looking after injured recruits - prudden, smith etc

It might cost us but it shows we attempt to look after our people - and we have a long history with our veterans also

[josie]

In a team that is not blessed with raw athleticism and marking ability, assuming Roarke can overcome his 2 acl's successfully, he is worth keeping. Likely better than 80 in draft. Club would know and have done research on trading in other players that are moneyball types like Biggs, hamling and would account for different scenarios.

[bulldogsman]

I'm amazed we're giving him a senior list spot (apparently).

Re-rookie him. If somebody else snaps him up, good for them.

Hardly shown anything that screams "keep me".

I don't understand it if that's true. He's coming off two knee reconstructions and hasn't yet shown he's up to it. I'd be very surprised if another club snapped him up.

[bornadog]

I disagree he has been impressive at VFL level and can't see any harm in giving him a year if we could secure him with apick 80 plus.

He has good hands and a good leap, a Easton Wood type.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Media/Images/375718-tlsnewsportrait.jpg

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/6a9a198e9124df700d19fbab20bb5399?width=1024

[GVGjr]

I disagree he has been impressive at VFL level and can't see any harm in giving him a year if we could secure him with apick 80 plus.

He has good hands and a good leap, a Easton Wood type.


How does the 80+ pick work?

Are you suggesting he should be delisted and redrafted at the ND or upgraded now?

[bulldogtragic]

How does the 80+ pick work?

Are you suggesting he should be delisted and redrafted at the ND or upgraded now?

I think BADs suggesting that instead of using pick 80 as our last pick, we elevate RS in lieu of same.

[GVGjr]

I think BADs suggesting that instead of using pick 80 as our last pick, we elevate RS in lieu of same.

I had another read and I think he is suggesting Smith is better or safer bet than players likely to be available in the 80's. I'd argue that most players on a list for 3 years would be assessed as better or at least marginally better than a speculative late pick but the real question is if the incumbent is still likely to play close to 60 senior games or more? I also wonder why Smith is getting retained using that logic and Honeychurch the flick given he is most likely better than any player we might pick up with an 80th selection.

Where that argument also doesn't stand up with me is what if our last pick is in the 40's or 50's? This is a likely scenario

Sometimes you have to make the hard call and we haven't always been good at that. I get why we might think retaining him is a positive option and I hope it works

[bornadog]

How does the 80+ pick work?

Are you suggesting he should be delisted and redrafted at the ND or upgraded now?


I think BADs suggesting that instead of using pick 80 as our last pick, we elevate RS in lieu of same.

Correct

[Twodogs]

I had another read and I think he is suggesting Smith is better or safer bet than players likely to be available in the 80's. I'd argue that most players on a list for 3 years would be assessed as better or at least marginally better than a speculative late pick but the real question is if the incumbent is still likely to play close to 60 senior games or more? I also wonder why Smith is getting retained using that logic and Honeychurch the flick given he is most likely better than any player we might pick up with an 80th selection.

Where that argument also doesn't stand up with me is what if our last pick is in the 40's or 50's? This is a likely scenario

Sometimes you have to make the hard call and we haven't always been good at that. I get why we might think retaining him is a positive option and I hope it works


Hard calls aren't always a decision to drop someone off a list though. Sometimes it's just as hard to give someone another chance.

But you're right we are historically bad at making calls that will advantage or improve the club over the benefit of an individual.

[GVGjr]

Correct

So do you back him for a year or two?

[bornadog]

So do you back him for a year or two?

One year at this stage.

[GVGjr]

One year at this stage.

This is the bit I don't get with your logic. If he was as good as you say he is why not lock him away for a couple of years after all any player we would have got late in the draft would have received a 2 year deal? Why not apply it to Smith?

Why shouldn't we wait until the draft and if we are selecting in the 70's or 80's why commit to him now and not then if really we only want to offer a one year deal?

Also using your logic of him most likely being better than any player late in the draft why wouldn't we do the same for Honeychurch?

A one year deal smacks of us wanting to be seen to be doing the right thing but we aren't really sure we are doing the right thing.

[Topdog]

2 knee recos, you can't give a 2 year deal

[GVGjr]

2 knee recos, you can't give a 2 year deal

So that's why you have him train at the club and make the call at the National Draft.
On one hand we are saying he's better than anyone we will get with a late pick but on the other we are really not that confident with his injuries and as a result we are only half in with a one year deal.

[Go_Dogs]

I haven't seen enough of Smith (has anyone, really?) and agree the pending decision to add him to the senior list is a strange one, particularly at this stage. We've demonstrated the ability to pick up prospects with upside late in the ND over recent years and like GVG said, is Smith ahead or have more upside than some others who may not be offered another contract? I suppose in the eyes of the club he must, but with his injury history there's got to be concerns he may not be the same player with the leap and speed that made him an attractive proposition to begin with.

[bornadog]

Also using your logic of him most likely being better than any player late in the draft why wouldn't we do the same for Honeychurch?

Different logic.

We have made a decision to not offer Honeychurch, or delist others because we need new players on the list. Having made that decision, we then have to ask who gets the spot, Smith or an unknown quantity? One year, two year is a different debate and I am saying one year due to his knee reco.

[GVGjr]

Different logic.

We have made a decision to not offer Honeychurch, or delist others because we need new players on the list. Having made that decision, we then have to ask who gets the spot, Smith or an unknown quantity? One year, two year is a different debate and I am saying one year due to his knee reco.

A one or two year or option is pertinent when you say you think he is better than others likely to be in the 70's or 80's (although I don't know how you can make that call) but then you step back from actually making a genuine commitment and offer the bare minimum.

[soupman]

So that's why you have him train at the club and make the call at the National Draft.
On one hand we are saying he's better than anyone we will get with a late pick but on the other we are really not that confident with his injuries and as a result we are only half in with a one year deal.

Can't see why you are so hellbent on a 2 year deal.

If he was a draftee he would get a 2 year deal, but he isn't a draftee. He's a 3 year rookie with multiple knee recos. Even if we do believe in him more than a draftee it doesn't mean we have to give him the terms that draftee would have gotten.

There is nothing to be gained at all from our pov in giving him a 2 year deal. No matter how much you have faith in his ability, offering an extra year to a fringe mid sized defender with injury issues can only end up not in your favour. Also from his pov, the contract is likely to be close to minimum wage (AFL minimum, not real world minimum). If he plays games next year which is obviously the plan it means he can negotiate a better deal for himself as well.

[GVGjr]

Can't see why you are so hellbent on a 2 year deal.

If he was a draftee he would get a 2 year deal, but he isn't a draftee. He's a 3 year rookie with multiple knee recos. Even if we do believe in him more than a draftee it doesn't mean we have to give him the terms that draftee would have gotten.

There is nothing to be gained at all from our pov in giving him a 2 year deal. No matter how much you have faith in his ability, offering an extra year to a fringe mid sized defender with injury issues can only end up not in your favour. Also from his pov, the contract is likely to be close to minimum wage (AFL minimum, not real world minimum). If he plays games next year which is obviously the plan it means he can negotiate a better deal for himself as well.

I would wait until the draft and make the assessment if he was better than what is in front of us. I just think it's smacks of inconsistency for some to say he is better than what we will get late in the draft (I still don't know haw anyone makes that call) but then use the fail safe in that we would only offer a 1 year deal. Either we are sure he is worth a spot or we aren't.
More than happy if they offer a 1 year deal but lets wait until the draft happens and make the call them

[boydogs]

Either we are sure he is worth a spot or we aren't

I don't think he is but I thought the same with Prudden. Do we regret keeping Prudden on, or was it the right thing to do?

[GVGjr]

I don't think he is but I thought the same with Prudden. Do we regret keeping Prudden on, or was it the right thing to do?

Do you recall the scrutiny some placed on Adcock being a rookie? This was a guy who had played a lot of senior football and was recruited to provided some addition coverage in a few positions. Most weeks he copped it as 'being a waste of a spot'
We demoted Hahn a few years back to a rookie, it was seen as not a problem.

It seems to be a popularity contest for spots more than demonstrated results.

Prudden was on the list for what 5 years, barely a murmur. Smith has had 3 on the rookie list with just one senior game and we now think he is worth upgrading.

I don't have a problem if we do promote Smith but it has to be more than just that it would be a nice thing to do. If we think he can get to 60 senior games then go for it. I'd still like to know what the perceived difference is between him and Honeychurch?

We kept Prudden on at least one year too long and given where we finished last year we should be opening up as many spots as we can.

There is no need to promote Smith now, we should pick him at the draft if he is better than other candidates.

[jazzadogs]

Honeychurch has been given chances at AFL level and in the eyes of those in charge has likely not done enough to be retained.

Roarke has had limited opportunities due to injury, but has made the most of the chances that he has had. If we could keep him on the rookie list we would, but I do think that another club would take him if he was put back into the draft. Therefore promotion is the only option.

[Topdog]

Do you recall the scrutiny some placed on Adcock being a rookie? This was a guy who had played a lot of senior football and was recruited to provided some addition coverage in a few positions. Most weeks he copped it as 'being a waste of a spot'
We demoted Hahn a few years back to a rookie, it was seen as not a problem.

It seems to be a popularity contest for spots more than demonstrated results.

Whilst that is all true should we actually care what fans in the outer say about a player and his spot? If the team want to see what Smith can do either a season without a knee reco and are confident that he is better than anything we get after pick x then they should sign him for 1 year.

They should wait until after trade period if that's possible to make sure we know what picks we will have

[GVGjr]

Whilst that is all true should we actually care what fans in the outer say about a player and his spot? If the team want to see what Smith can do either a season without a knee reco and are confident that he is better than anything we get after pick x then they should sign him for 1 year.

They should wait until after trade period if that's possible to make sure we know what picks we will have

I think that's the correct approach rather than promoting him now.
Once the trade period is over we will know what players are coming into the club and what draft picks we have. It's at that point we will know how badly we need Smith

[boydogs]

I don't have a problem if we do promote Smith but it has to be more than just that it would be a nice thing to do

Do you think the club saw keeping Prudden as more than just a nice thing to do?

[GVGjr]

Do you think the club saw keeping Prudden as more than just a nice thing to do?

I don't know but perhaps it's a thought that he was such a good club man they wanted to given him another chance and I get that but at the moment I don't think we have that luxury.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I don't know but perhaps it's a thought that he was such a good club man they wanted to given him another chance and I get that but at the moment I don't think we have that luxury.

Normally we have stood by guys in this situation and that's important but we may be waiting to see what else happens in terms of the commmitments we are able to make after trading

[Go_Dogs]

Normally we have stood by guys in this situation and that's important but we may be waiting to see what else happens in terms of the commmitments we are able to make after trading

I follow the Pacers in the NBA (guess I'm a sucker for pain) and Paul George (star player who was traded before pending FA kicked in) provided an insight into one of his issues with the organisation, namely the trading of a teammate and not sticking by them - made me think of this thread.

It's going to increasingly be something players consider when weighing up options - perhaps the goodwill it generates is material and we're onto it.

For context, the quote was:

"I just want to touch on, man, on my situation. I've seen a guy that played for that (Pacers) organization, gave that organization everything they had, or everything he had, and was essentially traded to the dogs. And I'm speaking on Danny Granger, who was one of the better players in Pacers history. And at the time, they traded him to the Philadelphia 76ers. And this was a guy that was battling injuries, and that's where you send him?"

[ledge]

I follow the Pacers in the NBA (guess I'm a sucker for pain) and Paul George (star player who was traded before pending FA kicked in) provided an insight into one of his issues with the organisation, namely the trading of a teammate and not sticking by them - made me think of this thread.

It's going to increasingly be something players consider when weighing up options - perhaps the goodwill it generates is material and we're onto it.

For context, the quote was:

"I just want to touch on, man, on my situation. I've seen a guy that played for that (Pacers) organization, gave that organization everything they had, or everything he had, and was essentially traded to the dogs. And I'm speaking on Danny Granger, who was one of the better players in Pacers history. And at the time, they traded him to the Philadelphia 76ers. And this was a guy that was battling injuries, and that's where you send him?"

There's a history of teams trading away players who weren't the best players but held the boys together and made them what they are just through sheer player respect.

I think Bartlett mentioned it in the 70s when Whale Roberts was traded, the players couldn't believe they let such a club man go and they felt it the next year, just wasn't the same with him gone.

[GVGjr]

I follow the Pacers in the NBA (guess I'm a sucker for pain) and Paul George (star player who was traded before pending FA kicked in) provided an insight into one of his issues with the organisation, namely the trading of a teammate and not sticking by them - made me think of this thread.

It's going to increasingly be something players consider when weighing up options - perhaps the goodwill it generates is material and we're onto it.

For context, the quote was:

"I just want to touch on, man, on my situation. I've seen a guy that played for that (Pacers) organization, gave that organization everything they had, or everything he had, and was essentially traded to the dogs. And I'm speaking on Danny Granger, who was one of the better players in Pacers history. And at the time, they traded him to the Philadelphia 76ers. And this was a guy that was battling injuries, and that's where you send him?"


I think the difference is that the NBA rosters are vastly smaller to the AFL. The players travel together for long periods and would obviously spend more time with each other. The good will part counts but equally wouldn't guys close to the likes of Honeychurch think if one of them were to be retained then he would be the more natural fit?
At some point you have to make the call, if you're consistent about it then players will adapt.

[Topdog]

I think the difference is that the NBA rosters are vastly smaller to the AFL. The players travel together for long periods and would obviously spend more time with each other. The good will part counts but equally wouldn't guys close to the likes of Honeychurch think if one of them were to be retained then he would be the more natural fit?
At some point you have to make the call, if you're consistent about it then players will adapt.

For context the Granger one would be like us trading away Mitch Wallis. Very good player, not brilliant but also bleeds for the club. Granger was finished when they traded him though

[Rocco Jones]

I follow the Pacers in the NBA (guess I'm a sucker for pain) and Paul George (star player who was traded before pending FA kicked in) provided an insight into one of his issues with the organisation, namely the trading of a teammate and not sticking by them - made me think of this thread.

It's going to increasingly be something players consider when weighing up options - perhaps the goodwill it generates is material and we're onto it.

For context, the quote was:

"I just want to touch on, man, on my situation. I've seen a guy that played for that (Pacers) organization, gave that organization everything they had, or everything he had, and was essentially traded to the dogs. And I'm speaking on Danny Granger, who was one of the better players in Pacers history. And at the time, they traded him to the Philadelphia 76ers. And this was a guy that was battling injuries, and that's where you send him?"

Totally agree. When Roarke did his knee, Bevo automatically said we would stand by him.

Being kind or whatever can be a sound business strategy. Loyalty is a two way street.

[Axe Man]

Luckless Bulldog eyes half-back spot (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-04/luckless-bulldog-eyes-halfback-spot)

AFTER a year of uncertainty, luckless Western Bulldogs youngster Roarke Smith can see his promising career taking a turn for the better in 2018.

The 21-year-old, who has played just two career games, has endured two knee reconstructions since late 2015, with the latest mishap occurring during last year's JLT Community Series.

Then, after three years on the rookie list, Smith had to be delisted and redrafted under AFL rules at the end of last season if the Dogs wanted him to remain at Whitten Oval.

With the club keeping their promise of reselecting him as rookie, the athletic defender is rejuvenated and eyeing one of the positions vacated by retired club greats Robert Murphy and Matthew Boyd.

"I was over the moon to be redrafted after a stressful year of not being able to prove myself on the field," Smith told AFL.com.au from the club's training camp in Mooloolaba.

"I just tried to show the club my dedication with my rehabilitation, but (the coaches) obviously see something in me, and I don’t want to let them down.

"I'll probably start the season with a few games in the VFL, but by mid-year I can see myself on a half-back flank (in the senior side).

"But there are a lot of young boys at the club who really need to step up with 'Bob' and 'Boydy' gone."

Smith will be vying for those spots with a host of teammates, as former Docker Hayden Crozier and draftee Ed Richards have also been earmarked as running defenders alongside regulars Jason Johannisen, Shane Biggs and Bailey Williams.

Smith will compete free of any mental scares from his injury misfortune, with his return to full training this week completed without concern for his left knee.

"We had a practice match yesterday, which was my first one (of the pre-season), and I didn't even think about my knee at all," he said.

"After doing a second knee you know a lot more, and I've had a few of the boys at the club who have done ACLs supporting me.

"I've done a few tests and the results have come back that my legs are a lot stronger than they were, so hopefully that's the end of it all."

While he has been compared to his captain Easton Wood due to his athleticism and knack of taking an intercept mark, he also shares similar attributes to Bulldog great and club development manager Rohan Smith.

Smith was a trailblazer for the modern-day defensive playmaker, characteristically rebounding off half-back during 300 games in the red, white and blue.

"I'm pretty close with Rohan and have learnt a lot off him," Roarke Smith said.

"He was a superstar who played 300 games for our club and played a similar way to the way I do, so his tips have come in real handy."

A gifted and passionate skateboarder, Smith didn't need the Dogs to warn him of the perils of sport with a history of accidents.

"I've put my skateboard in the wardrobe for a bit and it will come back out when I've finished football," he said.

"I definitely miss it; all my friends still do it and sometimes I watch them go for skate.

"It's not worth the risk because I'd rather be playing footy any day of the week."

[Twodogs]

Heh! Bubba and Roarke are founding members of the R. Smith club.

[Axe Man]

Heh! Bubba and Roarke are founding members of the R. Smith club.

Is the R. Smith club for Bulldogs only because there are a couple of blokes called Ross that could be members?

[Twodogs]

Is the R. Smith club for Bulldogs only because there are a couple of blokes called Ross that could be members?

True. There is even a Brownlow medallist amongst them.

[SonofScray]

True. There is even a Brownlow medallist amongst them.

I played footy with Jesse Smith, son of Ross Smith (ex-Nth Melbourne). From memory, Ross is a terrific bloke, always very supportive of me as a young fella plugging away at CHB in a side full of kids that would end up getting drafted. Generous with his time, a good coach. Jess had a wretched run with injury, but gee he could play.

[Sedat]

I often wonder if Roarke's parents were massive fans of The Smiths and named their son after the bass player Andy Roarke. Nice work if they did, and a much better choice than going with the more obvious Morrissey Smith - Marr Smith doesn't really work either.

[Twodogs]

I played footy with Jesse Smith, son of Ross Smith (ex-Nth Melbourne). From memory, Ross is a terrific bloke, always very supportive of me as a young fella plugging away at CHB in a side full of kids that would end up getting drafted. Generous with his time, a good coach. Jess had a wretched run with injury, but gee he could play.

I remember Ross Smith. Tough as nails is the phrase that comes to mind.


I often wonder if Roarke's parents were massive fans of The Smiths and named their son after the bass player Andy Roarke. Nice work if they did, and a much better choice than going with the more obvious Morrissey Smith - Marr Smith doesn't really work either.

Joyce Smith? After the drummer

[Sedat]

Joyce Smith? After the drummer
Maybe that's his sister :D

[ledge]

I'm a big fan of Rourke he reminds me of Wood , can jump and take a good mark, can run off and kick well , let's hope his knee injuries haven't put an end to his strengths.

[josie]

Totally agree Ledge. Let’s just pray no more serious injuries for Roarke.

[Twodogs]

I'm a big fan of Rourke he reminds me of Wood , can jump and take a good mark, can run off and kick well , let's hope his knee injuries haven't put an end to his strengths.

It will depend on how the structural integrity (that's a horrible thing to have to say about one of someone's joints) in his knee stands up to the crash and bash of AFL. He's Just the same chance of doing a knee as anyone else I reckon after all the work he would have put into his rehab over the last few years. Maybe less, I dunno.

[ledge]

Good news is Murphy, Redpath( I think) and Royal all did both knees and Recovered well enough to keep going.

[bornadog]

Good news is Murphy, Redpath( I think) and Royal all did both knees and Recovered well enough to keep going.

Clay Smith

[Twodogs]

Good news is Murphy, Redpath( I think) and Royal all did both knees and Recovered well enough to keep going.


Clay Smith

Kelvin Temple... Oh bugger!

[bulldogtragic]

So where is Roarke at?

5 years
Plenty of injuries
17 games
11 disposal career average


Rookie list spots tight. La Young, Sweet & Khamis signed to next year. Gardner? Can’t see him getting upgraded. Bevo loves him, put what will Sam Power do?

[bornadog]

So where is Roarke at?

5 years
Plenty of injuries
17 games
11 disposal career average


Rookie list spots tight. La Young, Sweet & Khamis signed to next year. Gardner? Can’t see him getting upgraded. Bevo loves him, put what will Sam Power do?

I think we need to let him go.

[GVGjr]

So where is Roarke at?

5 years
Plenty of injuries
17 games
11 disposal career average


Rookie list spots tight. La Young, Sweet & Khamis signed to next year. Gardner? Can’t see him getting upgraded. Bevo loves him, put what will Sam Power do?

I believe we are tring our best to keep him. Probaly better than 50/50 to stay

[Bulldog Revolution]

He’s made some progress but you’d need to know how his body is tracking

He’s quite a nice kick and goal kicker when the opportunity presents

Is the challenge whether he can get more of the ball?

[GVGjr]

He’s made some progress but you’d need to know how his body is tracking

He’s quite a nice kick and goal kicker when the opportunity presents

Is the challenge whether he can get more of the ball?

Every now and he shows something but I don't think he has that point of difference with many on the list
There is every chance he will get another deal but I do wonder if it's better to open up another spot

[Mofra]

As it stands this year, if we let him go we'd be replacing him with the >90th best junior prospect in the country. Roarke offers us more than that for next season, and we may need to find free list spots next year given we'll have 4 x highly rated kids as FS/NGA prospects.

I'd keep him for another 12 months.

[bornadog]

What is his situation? He has been on the rookie list for a number of years. I thought you can only be on the list for X years. We may have to delist him and pick him up again, as long as no one else does.

[Mofra]

What is his situation? He has been on the rookie list for a number of years. I thought you can only be on the list for X years. We may have to delist him and pick him up again, as long as no one else does.
We already did that.

[hujsh]

If we keep him the worst case is he opens up a spot for more picks next year

[bulldogtragic]

As it stands this year, if we let him go we'd be replacing him with the >90th best junior prospect in the country. Roarke offers us more than that for next season, and we may need to find free list spots next year given we'll have 4 x highly rated kids as FS/NGA prospects.

I'd keep him for another 12 months.

Or a mature player that gives us depth in another area. Or a small forward as good ones come from the rookie draft. Why do we need to free up rookie list spots with our NGAs getting main listed (or Cat B) next year?

Keeping Roarke on the rookie list with Young, Khamis & Sweet means potentially no rookie draft picks. Then Gardner goes, or if La Young gets upgraded, then Gardner stays or we cut him no get one pick. I think there's an argument to keep him, I think there's a good argument to cut him too.

[GVGjr]

As it stands this year, if we let him go we'd be replacing him with the >90th best junior prospect in the country. Roarke offers us more than that for next season, and we may need to find free list spots next year given we'll have 4 x highly rated kids as FS/NGA prospects.

I'd keep him for another 12 months.

I get the reasoning but like last year you don't have to draft the 90th best junior and could focus on the top 10 state league players


The question to me is if he is likely to improve and that is what I struggle with. He's had a number of years at the club will another be the one that he shows us what he is capable of?

[hujsh]

I get the reasoning but like last year you don't have to draft the 90th best junior and could focus on the top 10 state league players


The question to me is if he is likely to improve and that is what I struggle with. He's had a number of years at the club will another be the one that he shows us what he is capable of?
True. We could quite easily have Sydney Stack or Marlion Pickett instead and we'd be quite happy with ourselves.

[GVGjr]

True. We could quite easily have Sydney Stack or Marlion Pickett instead and we'd be quite happy with ourselves.

And Cavarra and Hayes were worth the decision to draft

I guess to me is if you had to make a decision between Hayes and Roarke Smith would we still prefer Smith?
If so then lets give him another 12 months

There is a forward in WA who might be able to come in and make an impact and I think most years you can find productive state league players

[Testekill]

Yeah, I'd rather keep him on for next year. If he comes good (and I do rate him) then that's good, if he doesn't then it's an open spot.

[Mofra]

I get the reasoning but like last year you don't have to draft the 90th best junior and could focus on the top 10 state league players

The question to me is if he is likely to improve and that is what I struggle with. He's had a number of years at the club will another be the one that he shows us what he is capable of?
The 10th best state league player may well be the 90th best prospect. Most are pretty young anyway - 'mature agers' are often ~21 or 22 years old (e.g. Moz, Gardner were both 22 when rookied).

[Bulldog4life]

Roarke's 23 possies against Power in Adelaide shows he has it in him. Consistency is his main problem.

[GVGjr]

The 10th best state league player may well be the 90th best prospect. Most are pretty young anyway - 'mature agers' are often ~21 or 22 years old (e.g. Moz, Gardner were both 22 when rookied).

I guess is that they aren't quite as risky as the 90th best junior and in most instances have competed against men
The problem for Smith is his best position just happens to be the one we probably bat the deepest in

[GVGjr]

Roarke's 23 possies against Power in Adelaide shows he has it in him. Consistency is his main problem.

Belting down rain, horrible conditions isn't something we experience much
I'd rather his best game was in better conditions

[Bulldog Joe]

I really like Roarke, but he has had enough chances.

If we keep him at Footscray, I would say ok, but really he should be looking to move on with his life.

At best he is depth and that is picked up anywhere. He is not and will not be a game changer.

Opening a spot and you could pick up the next Johannisen or Dale Morris.

Keeping Roarke only gives you Roarke.

[Happy Days]

I really like Roarke, but he has had enough chances.

If we keep him at Footscray, I would say ok, but really he should be looking to move on with his life.

At best he is depth and that is picked up anywhere. He is not and will not be a game changer.

Opening a spot and you could pick up the next Johannisen or Dale Morris.

Keeping Roarke only gives you Roarke.

Yeah this is really a better-the-devil-you-don't scenario. Roarke has had five seasons (four full ones) to show his wares and it's pretty obvious he isn't at the level.

[Eastdog]

Roarke's 23 possies against Power in Adelaide shows he has it in him. Consistency is his main problem.

Yeah he was very good in that game. Kicked a great goal.

[strebla]

I think he has had his time I really want a speedy tackling forward Picken still needs to be replaced and I think the rookie draft is where we can find him. Opens up a second spot so we get 2 cracks at it or a small and another back up ruckman but I think that is Trengove's job now we have Keith .

[bulldogtragic]

AFEL.com.au saying that Roarke Smith (& Roberts & Webb) haven't been offered contracts. (Dicko in a wait and see at the minute)

[Testekill]

AFEL.com.au saying that Roarke Smith (& Roberts & Webb) haven't been offered contracts. (Dicko in a wait and see at the minute)

So taking three list spots into the draft and one open rookie spot; if we end up upgrading a rookie (Young probably) then that's two new players from the draft and two new rookies.

[bulldogtragic]

So taking three list spots into the draft and one open rookie spot; if we end up upgrading a rookie (Young probably) then that's two new players from the draft and two new rookies.

Yep, assuming we let Gardner go, then it’s just Khamis & Sweet on the rookie list. So two rookie spots, either both for the rookie draft or perhaps one rookie draft pick and an SSP option.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Met a fellow Doggies member today who said she got a memo that said no delistings (as opposed to none yet). Anyone in the know?

[KT31]

Met a fellow Doggies member today who said she got a memo that said no delistings (as opposed to none yet). Anyone in the know?

Thought we had to have at least one to take our draft quota.

[bulldogtragic]

Met a fellow Doggies member today who said she got a memo that said no delistings (as opposed to none yet). Anyone in the know?

No I'm not. But there needs to be at least two delistings off the main list as a factual matter.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Cheers guys.
Carry on regardless.

[The Doctor]

Could it be that we will delist 2 and then rookie them?

[bulldogtragic]

Could it be that we will delist 2 and then rookie them?

Then with La Young, Khamis & Sweet retained, there’s one rookie list spot for Roberts, Webb, Roarke & Gardner.

We could upgrade La Young (pick 89) & Khamis (Pick 53), only having pick 13. Then with Sweet, there’s three spots for Roberts, Webb, Roarke & Gardner. Even in this, someone is getting delisted.

There’s going to be delistings.

[GVGjr]

Then with La Young, Khamis & Sweet retained, there’s one rookie list spot for Roberts, Webb, Roarke & Gardner.

We could upgrade La Young (pick 89) & Khamis (Pick 53), only having pick 13. Then with Sweet, there’s three spots for Roberts, Webb, Roarke & Gardner. Even in this, someone is getting delisted.

There’s going to be delistings.

Minimal changes and I suspect moving a rookie to the senior list and someone from the senior to the rookie list via the draft is a chance

[macca]

Can we take 6 rookies?

[Testekill]

Can we take 6 rookies?

You can take as many extra rookies as you have empty spots on your main list. So we could if we did deep cuts but not this year

[Twodogs]

You can take as many extra rookies as you have empty spots on your main list. So we could if we did deep cuts but not this year

So we could have 42 rookies if we wanted too?

[westdog54]

So we could have 42 rookies if we wanted too?

We might struggle to get to 95% of the salary cap if we had 42 rookies. ;)

[Twodogs]

We might struggle to get to 95% of the salary cap if we had 42 rookies. ;)

Is the rookie wage set at a dollar amount? May as do what Richmond does and pay 95% to the top 5 on the list and chuck a bag of money to the rest of the playing group to fight over.

[bornadog]

We might struggle to get to 95% of the salary cap if we had 42 rookies. ;)

Pay the rest to Bont