Rookie selections - What is the theory?

[mjp]

Just reading the thread on young Majak Daw and saw the comment 'would make an ideal rookie selection...'. I have some thoughts on that and rather than sidetrack that thread figured I would start my own.

Rookie selections are:

1/.For players who 'just' missed out on being selected at the national draft and who we want to let develop at Williamstown for a couple of years.

2/.Mature players with 20-50 senior games at state league level (more is OK!) under their belt who we aren't quite sure will be good enough but are 'ready to go'.

My vote is for Option 2. Good, young performers at state league level who can fill the role of a rookie as defined by the AFL - actually come in and PLAY if we get injuries. Based on this, I would do the following:

- Find the best ruckman available not on a senior list and get him on our rookie list. If that is John Shaw - so be it.
- Do the same thing with a key defender and crumbing forward. I propose Ben Stratton from East Perth and Patty Rose at Willi. Done and Done.

Getting guys who need to develop is OK - but we need ready made players as rookies. Let's use the rules - we pay them bugger all and they know coming in that they are only backups...besides which they are just desperate for a chance (no ego's to worry about).

I guess under my theory we would have missed out on Harbrow, but maybe there is a bit of a 'some for today, one for tomorrow' policy with these selections.

[Rocco Jones]

I guess under my theory we would have missed out on Harbrow, but maybe there is a bit of a 'some for today, one for tomorrow' policy with these selections.

Great post. I definitely believe the rookie list should primarily be used to select mature players.

I would go with the theory you are alluding to. Most picks being used on mature players, with one or two raw types.

[GVGjr]

When we only selected one rookie we normally went with the more mature player.
Now that we are taking 4 or 5 guys I still don't think we can go with more than one of the mature guys but that's largely based on the Williamstown alliance.
If we were to select a Myles Sewell, Patrick Rose and say a Mitch Thorp (God forbid) for 2010 then so many of of youngsters would be shunted back to the 2nds through no fault of their own.

I understand the logic behind what MJP is saying but I'm afraid I don't believe it's practical for the club to use it that way.

We need to rookie draft another ruckman and I wouldn't care if he is a bit older.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Do we really require another ruckman?

Roughead and Mulligan are probably equal or better than most of what's going around. I'd expect Roughy to be fitter and stronger next year. I'd rather we develop him as much as possible, giving him a couple of games in the seniors. It's a bit of a risk - but I think we should turn our attention to other needs first.

In regards to the OP, I am more of a fan for the mature state league players too. Haven't personally got any suggestions, but I think the rookie system is the perfect opportunity to find talent that wasn't picked up earlier for whatever reasons. There's always plenty (Eg. Late developer/injuries). Quality seems to come through the system every year with most of them having experience under their belts.

Having a 17-19 year old developing isn't bad thinking either. Harbrow has turned out great and Daw would be worthy of selection.

FWIW I hope we pick up a small forward, medium forward & running half back.

[GVGjr]

Do we really require another ruckman?

Roughead and Mulligan are probably equal or better than most of what's going around. I'd expect Roughy to be fitter and stronger next year. I'd rather we develop him as much as possible, giving him a couple of games in the seniors. It's a bit of a risk - but I think we should turn our attention to other needs first.



I think so especially considering Hudsons age. In my opinion Mulligan can't really ruck and Cordy will take a few more seasons so that's a lot of expectation on Roughead.
Rookie listing another ruckman is a worthy investment.

[comrade]

I'd be more than happy to have a minimum of 2 mature age back ups to cover deficencies or areas where we lack depth, and 1 or 2 raw types who could thrive with extra development such as Daw.

I agree with the sentiments above - a back up ruckman is a must, and a mature defender would be more than handy to have sitting on the rookie list.

[Go_Dogs]

2/.Mature players with 20-50 senior games at state league level (more is OK!) under their belt who we aren't quite sure will be good enough but are 'ready to go'.

My vote is for Option 2. Good, young performers at state league level who can fill the role of a rookie as defined by the AFL - actually come in and PLAY if we get injuries.

I tend to agree with this.

I'd certainly be getting a few blokes who have played senior footy in 09 and could fill a role if required at senior AFL level in 2010. Alex Stopp is one who I hope we look at as a key defender.

This year quite a lot of blokes like Nick Lower from Port who has been delisted will end up on a rookie list too, and given the GC etc I think teams will want to ensure they have some depth, so more mature rookies could become increasingly popular.


As far as developing players on the rookie list, I'd target mainly ruckmen and really skinny kids and hope that a year or two of development can get them ready for senior footy.

[ledge]

Well if your talking mature aged ruckman who is great in lower grade and ready to go your talking Skipper i would have thought but we delisted him.
I heard the Hawks were looking at him as Lade wouldnt come out of retirement.

[Doc26]

Well if your talking mature aged ruckman who is great in lower grade and ready to go your talking Skipper i would have thought but we delisted him.
I heard the Hawks were looking at him as Lade wouldnt come out of retirement.

Yes I would've thought Skipper could be a worthy 'back up' ruck option to have whilst giving Ayce time to mature. Skip obviously struggled for opportunities at the Bulldogs in recent years but given a new environment he might flourish. Might be worth a punt as a back up for Hudson or Minson when they suffer injuries.

[LostDoggy]

I thought young Everitt was one of our back up ruckmen if we are ever down one ruckmen - the chances of losing both would not be that high I would have thought. Also looking forward to seeing young Roughy et some game time - I am more excited about him than I am about Ace.

[ledge]

I tend to think Eade is going to give quite a bit more game time to Roughy, more than we think.
Wouldnt be surprised to see him line up first game.
The pre-season cup for sure.

[Mofra]

I guess under my theory we would have missed out on Harbrow, but maybe there is a bit of a 'some for today, one for tomorrow' policy with these selections.
Would we? If our first 2-3 rookie selections are players who could feasibly play senior football in a specific role, that does leave 1-2 young 'uns to develop.

Of the 4 rookies playing regular senior football for the Dogs, 2 are from each camp. Too much wanting cake & eat it too?

[mighty_west]

I think so especially considering Hudsons age. In my opinion Mulligan can't really ruck and Cordy will take a few more seasons so that's a lot of expectation on Roughead.
Rookie listing another ruckman is a worthy investment.

Interesting with those comments and the club upgrading Mulligan, yet cutting John Shaw, i wonder if the club saw more upside in Mulligan or that keeping the extra developing tall defender was more important than a developing rookie ruckman, perhaps thinking he was no further developed than say a Roughead and Cordy?

I can see us selecting both developing youngin's as well as a few mature types, i think that would be the way to go, but this would also depend on the talent available, and to which was we go with the rookie draft, i like the idea of taking maybe a few talls as rookies, knowing that talls generally take longer to develop, we can always upgrade them 3 years later ayway, would also be a great way to get a few "smokies" rather than going with a few speculative picks early on in the National draft.

[mjp]

Yes I would've thought Skipper could be a worthy 'back up' ruck option to have whilst giving Ayce time to mature. Skip obviously struggled for opportunities at the Bulldogs in recent years but given a new environment he might flourish. Might be worth a punt as a back up for Hudson or Minson when they suffer injuries.

Yeah...but Skipp isn't a rookie, therefore he needs to be PAID.

Rookies earn 3/5ths of not much...draftees not much more. Skipp would be on the veterans minimum which makes him less attractive.

[Sedat]

2/.Mature players with 20-50 senior games at state league level (more is OK!) under their belt who we aren't quite sure will be good enough but are 'ready to go'.
If more Greg Broughton's and Liam Picken's continue to be unearthed in the next few years I suspect option 2 will continue to become increasingly more attractive. I agree with the overall philosophy that we shouldn't use too many rookie selections on tall, athletic "raw" types (such as Gaertner/Gourdis, and Daw in this coming draft) just because they have untapped "upside". If and when we get into another serious injury pickle, the rookie selections will become massively important in digging us out of a personnel hole - we've been pretty lucky in getting the vast majority of our core group on the park (if not 100% fit) the last couple of seasons.

[Rod61]

What about Mitch Thorpe from Hawthorn.
Delisted no6 pick key position player.
Massive upside or overated player?

[LostDoggy]

Can't see us picking up Skip.

From what I have been reading on here, I sense that Rocket is ready to let Roughy play as our 3rd option Ruckman.

[mighty_west]

What about Mitch Thorpe from Hawthorn.
Delisted no6 pick key position player.
Massive upside or overated player?

The fact that Hawthorn cut him free with a year left on his contract tells me he has a sign on his forehead reading "stay clear".

[Bulldog Revolution]

Will be interesting to see what happens with Thorp

Can we not use the rookie list to do a bit of both?

a) kids who were almost drafted
b) mature aged players ready to roll

With our ageing list I think we cant afford to just have mature age players on the rookie list, and we need to keep turning the list over by putting kids on there, and seeing who can improve the most

[Rod61]

l would have thought last round selection in main draft or rookie draft would be worth the risk with Thorpe as you don't get selected these days at no6 unless you have a fair bit of talent.
All reports are he had a big head but surely 2nd time around he would recognize its his last chance.
A good back up CHF or CHB without costing us a lot.

[Cyberdoggie]

With 2 more teams coming in to the AFL i think we will see more recycled/older players picked and or rookied due to the lack of depth of young talent.

If we lose Minson and Hudson at the same time we will be left with a a raw Roughead leading the ruck division with help from either Everitt, Cordy, Mulligan, or another senior player that wouldn't normally play in the ruck, therefore altering our setup. Barry Hall, Tom Williams or another tall might have to play as a backup ruck.
We kept Skipper last year for this reason as it was felt that our younger rucks weren't ready. This year we have let him and Cam Wight go so finding a backup ruck tall defender that could ruck should be the first option to rookie.

Williamstown have said they will fund another rookie so who would we pick?
Patrick Rose is the obvious standout however do we pick him just to keep Willy happy or do we go with someone else?.

If there are young players available that are worth taking the punt on then we should decide to take 2-3 of them, and 2-3 recycled/older players. I'm assuming we would pick a total of 5 players this year, so it would be 2 of one and 3 of the other.

[GVGjr]

l would have thought last round selection in main draft or rookie draft would be worth the risk with Thorpe as you don't get selected these days at no6 unless you have a fair bit of talent.
All reports are he had a big head but surely 2nd time around he would recognize its his last chance.
A good back up CHF or CHB without costing us a lot.


His problems aren't confined to just injuries and over confidence. He would be a risk but I'm sure some club will take him.

[boydogs]

l would have thought last round selection in main draft or rookie draft would be worth the risk with Thorpe as you don't get selected these days at no6 unless you have a fair bit of talent.
All reports are he had a big head but surely 2nd time around he would recognize its his last chance.
A good back up CHF or CHB without costing us a lot.

He was picked in our phantom draft, so someone agrees with you ;)

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Scott Simpson might be a worthy mature age rookie selection. He's had a few injuries but is talented and if I recall correctly kicked a bag earlier this year. I read on another site that he's hoping to emulate Aaron Edwards path to get back on an AFL list. It'd seem his attitude is OK.

[Raw Toast]

Just reading the thread on young Majak Daw and saw the comment 'would make an ideal rookie selection...'. I have some thoughts on that and rather than sidetrack that thread figured I would start my own.

Rookie selections are:

1/.For players who 'just' missed out on being selected at the national draft and who we want to let develop at Williamstown for a couple of years.

2/.Mature players with 20-50 senior games at state league level (more is OK!) under their belt who we aren't quite sure will be good enough but are 'ready to go'.

My vote is for Option 2. Good, young performers at state league level who can fill the role of a rookie as defined by the AFL - actually come in and PLAY if we get injuries. Based on this, I would do the following:

- Find the best ruckman available not on a senior list and get him on our rookie list. If that is John Shaw - so be it.
- Do the same thing with a key defender and crumbing forward. I propose Ben Stratton from East Perth and Patty Rose at Willi. Done and Done.

Getting guys who need to develop is OK - but we need ready made players as rookies. Let's use the rules - we pay them bugger all and they know coming in that they are only backups...besides which they are just desperate for a chance (no ego's to worry about).

I guess under my theory we would have missed out on Harbrow, but maybe there is a bit of a 'some for today, one for tomorrow' policy with these selections.

Have we done a bit of this with the National Draft? To me it's like we decided that the draft wasn't that deep, and so with our last two picks we went for some more proven players who can probably come in if we get injuries.

You could call them depth players, but I presume that the recruiting staff see enough upside in them to compete for a first-team spot anyway...