Dalrymples first draft.

[chef]

Only early days i know, but it looks like he has tried to fill a few holes(the only thing we didn't need was inside mids).

Flanker/Wingers
Howard, Tutt, Thorne and Moles

Small Forward/Back
Hooper, Rose

Tall Forward/Back
Markovic, Panos

Ruck
Prato

A good all round effort. Very happy:).

Whats everyone else's opinion.

[lemmon]

Agreed, a few smokeys and bolters as well as a few highly rated sliders in the rookie draft. Panos and Hooper are good rookie pick ups and Im looking forward to watching how Howard and Tutt develop. Good mix of talent, positional depth and picks based on needs for mine.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I'm very pleased with the number of new players we have added overall. Not having footage of Howard makes it difficult to know but Tutt looks a super user, who I have high hopes for.

Having a larger compliment of rookies is brilliant for turning the list over and looking at guys who may or may not be up to it. It gave us a whole lot more flexibility to add Mole, Markovic, Thorne and Rose - and if 1 of them ends up a player of the Morris, Boyd, Picken ilk then it will be a brilliant outcome.

I also like that we have added two highly performed kids who people have question marks over in Panos and Hooper. It means they should be desperate and determined

Its really up to the coaches now to get the development bit right

Young kids
Howard, Tutt, Panos, Prato, Hooper,

Mature age
Markovic, Thorne, Mole, Rose

[ledge]

Its Moles not Mole :)

[chef]

Its Moles not Mole :)

Thanks:o

[LostDoggy]

Mole that will be be Barry Hall's ex?

[The Doctor]

The net result is

Primary list

Off - Welsh, Wight, O'Shea, O'Keefe, Lynch, Skipper

On - Hall, Markovic, Mulligan, Howard, Tutt, Thorne

I would argue that the first 3 talls that have come on are better than the 3 talls that have come off. The balance we will have to wait and see. We lose a ready made ruckman so that offsets the gains somewhat unless one of the young rucks kick on.

Rookie List

Off - Mulligan, White, Shaw

On - Moles, Hooper, Panos, Prato, Rose & Daniels (retained)

In Rose and Moles we have quality VFL players who are experienced and could play round 1 if needed. Hooper & Panos come with a decent junior resume in positions we are hoping to improve and Prato is clearly the project player. I like the balance here.

Overall we have added to our depth significantly. We have added an extra 5 players who could arguably play straight away in Hall, Markovic, Moles, Thorne & Rose. We have only lost 2 players who were realistic AFL chances in Welsh and Skipper. It is also refreshing to see 6 rookies on the list now as opposed to 4.

[GVGjr]

Due to salary cap pressures we appear to have added a lot of mature type players on the cheap which has added a lot to our depth.
I think it was a bonus to land Panos and we can slot him into a key forward role in the Williamstown 2nds and have a good look at him.

Peter German has a critical role now of managing a number of players between the seniors and the reserves. This will create a lot of competition which, if managed well, can only be good for us.

[Bulldog4life]

The net result is


Overall we have added to our depth significantly. We have added an extra 5 players who could arguably play straight away in Hall, Markovic, Moles, Thorne & Rose. We have only lost 2 players who were realistic AFL chances in Welsh and Skipper. It is also refreshing to see 6 rookies on the list now as opposed to 4.

And so much better than 1! :)

[Dancin' Douggy]

I wonder if in years to come our rookie draft will outperform our "real draft" this year.
Hooper will definitely make it in my opinion. Panos was supposedly a second rounder and Rose seems destined to follow in the footsteps of Boyd, Picken and Morris.

[The Doctor]

Summary from the Kennel

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/season2009/news/newsarticle/tabid/4112/newsid/88185/default.aspx

[LostDoggy]

As Sockeye alerted me, the problem now is with so many rookies, a number of them and other listed players will be at Williamstown 2nds due to the stupid 12 AFL player list rule.

[chef]

On - Hall, Markovic, Mulligan, Howard, Tutt, Thorne


You forgot Picken.

[Mantis]

As Sockeye alerted me, the problem now is with so many rookies, a number of them and other listed players will be at Williamstown 2nds due to the stupid 12 AFL player list rule.

I was pretty sure that this rule only came into effect when you played against a stand alone side such as Frankston.

Can someone clarify this rule?

[Twodogs]

We were planning on mostly younger, developing players, which is what we got. It's a good mix.



We should have had a sweep on how long it took Rocket to say "it's a good mix.":D

[Mofra]

I'm hoping that Dalrymple is given a few drafts to adjudge his performance on, not just one.
This was regarded as a shallow draft, and a few guys seem to be more depth picks than out and out montys to make the grade.

Time will tell, he's joined at a poor time to be judged as a talent scout, given our f/s picks and the GC17 & WS18 concessions over the next few years. If we get one each of our 2009 draftees & rookies who make an impact in coming seasons, that'd be close enough to a pass for me.

[LostDoggy]

Time will tell, he's joined at a poor time to be judged as a talent scout.

Isn't it when pickings are slim that the best scouts will stand out? It's no skill to pick a gun from a strong draft, any of us could do it by shutting our eyes and throwing a dart at a bunch of names, it's when the talent pool is supposedly lean that a good scout (and development coach/team) can really build a reputation by accurately judging a players' growth potential and overall fit into a team's culture and succession planning.

I think the 'lean draft' excuse is precisely that -- an excuse -- after all, every club (bar GC17) has access to the same talent pool so it's not as if anyone is getting a leg up (so to speak) -- it's all relative, and is a real opportunity for someone to jump ahead by identifying that one or two star potentials later in the draft (which is when a scout earns their bread). Of course, there's the matter of timing, but clubs that have played outside the spirit of the system by tanking and trying to 'time the cycle' or being shit deserve all the crap luck that they get.

The coaching and recruiting team at the Dogs has shown that you can build a good team by developing a deep list and adding to it with quality players from everywhere in the draft (including the rookie list) -- the core of our team, apart from the veterans, aren't first rounders from our crap years (other than Coons and Griff, our other early picks -- Williams, Walsh, Grant, Everitt -- haven't come on all that much) but are picks from the '99 draft when we were still a good team (Murph, Gia, Gilbs, Hargrave etc.), astutely recycled players (Huddo, Aker, previously Welsh, now Hall), and a bunch of late picks or great rookie pick-ups (Cross, Lake, Morris, Boyd, Harbrow, Picken).

[Mofra]

Isn't it when pickings are slim that the best scouts will stand out? It's no skill to pick a gun from a strong draft, any of us could do it by shutting our eyes and throwing a dart at a bunch of names, it's when the talent pool is supposedly lean that a good scout (and development coach/team) can really build a reputation by accurately judging a players' growth potential and overall fit into a team's culture and succession planning.
You've raised some good points, but I think you've misinterpreted my intent slightly. With 2-3 f/s selections over the next few years, his results will be based solely on the leftover selections which will be late round picks in a compromised draft.

If he manages 1 player per year (outside of f/s selections) who make the grade over the next few years, his strike rate will be well down on his contempories however he would have arguably done a better job.

[Cyberdoggie]

Due to salary cap pressures we appear to have added a lot of mature type players on the cheap which has added a lot to our depth.
I think it was a bonus to land Panos and we can slot him into a key forward role in the Williamstown 2nds and have a good look at him.

Peter German has a critical role now of managing a number of players between the seniors and the reserves. This will create a lot of competition which, if managed well, can only be good for us.

Very good points there.

It's always been difficult to manage the younger and more senior players outside of the Bulldogs side. The rookies we have selected seem to be bigger stronger and also more mature in Rose and Moles, so German will find it even more of a challenge to balance the Williamstown players, the Bulldogs primary list players and the rookies.

It should all make for a good viewing none the less.

[Mantis]

I was pretty sure that this rule only came into effect when you played against a stand alone side such as Frankston.

Can someone clarify this rule?

It has been confirmed that we can play as many of our listed (senior & rookie) players as we like (or as many as Williamstown let us) against all teams other than the stand alone ones.

[LostDoggy]

You've raised some good points, but I think you've misinterpreted my intent slightly. With 2-3 f/s selections over the next few years, his results will be based solely on the leftover selections which will be late round picks in a compromised draft.

If he manages 1 player per year (outside of f/s selections) who make the grade over the next few years, his strike rate will be well down on his contempories however he would have arguably done a better job.

Ah. Yes, and I for one wouldn't be judging him based on comparisons with his contemporaries -- apples with apples and all that.

[mighty_west]

As Sockeye alerted me, the problem now is with so many rookies, a number of them and other listed players will be at Williamstown 2nds due to the stupid 12 AFL player list rule.

Well, if those players are good enough, they will be made to work their collective asses off to get promoted and not recieve a free ticket into the senior side, having to bust a gut and get yourself promoted into the Willy ones can only be a healthy thing for young up & comers, Boumann did it, Roughead did it, generally players that make it do it, and the players that don't, well........................goodbye.

[comrade]

It has been confirmed that we can play as many of our listed (senior & rookie) players as we like (or as many as Williamstown let us) against all teams other than the stand alone ones.

I think the bolded part is the key.

[Cyberdoggie]

It will be interesting to see what they do with the Williamstown selection, as we have picked up a few hbf running types in Howard and Tutt, a couple of midfielders in Moles and Hooper. If i was Dylan Addison i would be worried for my position. He needs to impress this year or he might end up like Cameron Wight.

[Mofra]

As an aside, Dalrymple seemed a bit more inclined to draft for needs rather than purely on a best available basis. Even if only a few of his picks kick on, we may see a more balanced list in coming years.

[mighty_west]

It will be interesting to see what they do with the Williamstown selection, as we have picked up a few hbf running types in Howard and Tutt, a couple of midfielders in Moles and Hooper. If i was Dylan Addison i would be worried for my position. He needs to impress this year or he might end up like Cameron Wight.

Which can only be a great thing for the club, Addison won't want some 18 year old come in and take his spot, so he better work his ass off to make sure that doesn't happen, the competition for spots seems greater than most years, the main side has a settled defence with the likes of Boumann & Marko, Addison & Callan knocking on the door, same with the mids with Wood & Reid able to come in at any stage.

Something we haven't had was alot of developing forwards, now we do, and Grant won't want an 18 year old Panos coming in & taking his spot in the Willy ones, so he better bloody work his ass off to keep that spot! Jones would also be knocking on the door to play Willy seniors in 2010, then we have Rough & Cordy as well.

I don't subscribe to the "Willy will only let us play so many Bulldogs listed players" etc etc because basically, if you're good enough, you will get promoted, i don't remember seeing many players that didn't get promoted make the grade! ;)

Good times.

[mighty_west]

As an aside, Dalrymple seemed a bit more inclined to draft for needs rather than purely on a best available basis. Even if only a few of his picks kick on, we may see a more balanced list in coming years.

It's probably a smart move on two fronts:

1. where we are as a team right now, no longer just in a development phase but pressing for a Premiership

2. a shallow draft.

[chef]

He is also seems to be filling the holes that retirements are going to cause over the next 1-3 years.

[LostDoggy]

He is also seems to be filling the holes that retirements are going to cause over the next 1-3 years.

Succession planning.

[Mantis]

Succession planning.

Which is great.

There was a concern early last year that we didn't have players on our list capable of filling the shoes of the likes of Gilbee and Eagleton when they finish up. One would think that with the drafting of Howard and Tutt we are at the very least attempting to achieve this.

[LostDoggy]

It has been confirmed that we can play as many of our listed (senior & rookie) players as we like (or as many as Williamstown let us) against all teams other than the stand alone ones.

Thats good news.

[alwaysadog]

Drafting is a lottery: some clever person should do an analysis and test if the success rate is much better than would be achieved with a random distribution. Add the lack of early picks and it’s very hard to know very much about this draft. Dalrymple seems to have filled a lot of holes either current or potential and so the end product of his handiwork appears to meet needs and have a nice balance, not an easy task.

What is more interesting is that he put his stamp on proceedings with his first pick. He appears to analyse players and draw conclusions irrespective of the recruiting group think and have the courage to back his judgment. If he’s anywhere near right he will have turned a year in which we started well back in the order of things into something much better.

All the players he has selected have a strong upside in fact it would not be hard to make a case that we can look forward to seeing them train and play with a degree of tempered excitement. The more I read about them the more I get to like them; they are a very marketable bunch.

Sidetracking slightly, I hope the club’s media dept have this in mind and plan all sorts of stunts to keep membership sales ticking over during the next 3 months; BBB tutoring the young FF, Libba telling someone that you’re never too small, Grantie well he just has to smile to pull at many supporters heart strings, Aker showing the midfielders crumbing tricks, Brian showing the new KPP how he does it. I’d like to be planning the media campaign; it was shockingly inadequate last year.

But back to the thread theme; when you have no access to the prize recruits you are forced to take players with a more evident or supposedly more evident weaknesses. There are two issues here, one is whether the supposed problem is real or imagined and if real what we are able to do about. Dalrymple would have had to be able to see some way through or surely he wouldn’t have picked them.
As well a lot of those labeled as wanting in one way or another sound like they want to demonstrate that they are better than the reputations they have been given. In the way that a hungry boxer is regarded as the most dangerous this group may be ideally suited to Rocket’s approach.

Time heals all, but in the end it also decides all.

[alwaysadog]

It has been confirmed that we can play as many of our listed (senior & rookie) players as we like (or as many as Williamstown let us) against all teams other than the stand alone ones.

Last year the problem as Rocket explained it to me was that Willie had a core of experienced or able VFL players of its own that it wanted to play and this had to be part of the equation. That was I suspect driven by the need to have an identity separate from the WBs in order to remain viable with supporters and sponsors.

This year we have recruited aware of Willie's needs, and without compromising our strategy, have acquired several ready-made VFL players so it will be interesting to watch developments and how they handle the competing demands of our desire to expose more players to the elite level of the VFL and the need for Willie to appear more than just an appendage of the WBs. Their "sponsoring" of a rookie with us was a really good means of bringing the two groups of supporters and sponsors together, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

[Go_Dogs]

Which is great.

I tend to agree to a certain extent, but you can't let succession planning blind you from taking a significantly better player. Obviously a balance was found in that we identified some needs - kicking, speed - and then put them into a best available type philosophy, which is a sound strategy from my point of view.

If we just picked players because they were quick and could kick, regardless of what better prospects were available, that would be a disaster, and we'd be stuffed in 5 years time for quality/talent.

[stefoid]

Last year the problem as Rocket explained it to me was that Willie had a core of experienced or able VFL players of its own that it wanted to play and this had to be part of the equation. That was I suspect driven by the need to have an identity separate from the WBs in order to remain viable with supporters and sponsors.

This year we have recruited aware of Willie's needs, and without compromising our strategy, have acquired several ready-made VFL players so it will be interesting to watch developments and how they handle the competing demands of our desire to expose more players to the elite level of the VFL and the need for Willie to appear more than just an appendage of the WBs. Their "sponsoring" of a rookie with us was a really good means of bringing the two groups of supporters and sponsors together, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

yeah, interesting. Pushing Skipper, Wight, Okeefe and Lynch out of Williamstown and moving Rose into the midfield will free up the willi seniors to a large degree. We really want to see Roughead, Cordy, Jones, Marcovic, Moles, Grant and Everitt developing nicely and playing in their best suited positions.

[LostDoggy]

But back to the thread theme; when you have no access to the prize recruits you are forced to take players with a more evident or supposedly more evident weaknesses. There are two issues here, one is whether the supposed problem is real or imagined and if real what we are able to do about. Dalrymple would have had to be able to see some way through or surely he wouldn’t have picked them.

Most players have physiological 'weaknesses', even most (if not all) of the greats. On our list, Crossy doesn't kick, Gilbee and Harbrow and Aker are short, Huddo and Boydy are slow etc. etc.

While some weaknesses are less and less tolerable in the modern game (namely lack of pace, especially if combined with a small tank) more often than not this has to be weighed against a players' strengths -- Boydy's gut running, Gilbee's distribution, Harbrow's burst etc. -- and team structures and strategies developed accordingly to maximise the use of these strengths while mitigating or hiding the deficiencies.

I think sometimes that concentrating too much on supposed 'weaknesses' can detract from seeing what a player has to offer -- even if they only have one outstanding strength, far from making them 'one-trick ponies', can often mean a game-breaking difference (as that strength is more likely to be overdeveloped).

It can be argued (for example) that Fev is incredibly game-breaking despite only having one real trick in his book. Speaking of Fev, the only real 'weaknesses' that would put me off a player are not physiological ones, but serious character issues.

--

ps. I'm not arguing for a philosophy of recruiting only 'specialist' players (recruiting for needs) instead of players with good overall skills (best available), just musing...

[Lachy]

Realitically it will be at least 5 years before we can judge Dalrymples performance. Scott Clayton had left Brisbane for 3 years before they became a power based on the players he had picked up.

We are only now challenging after Clayton arrived for the 1999 draft.

This is why drafting for positions, is not drafting for positions now, but drafting for positions in 3 to 5 years time.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Most players have physiological 'weaknesses', even most (if not all) of the greats. On our list, Crossy doesn't kick, Gilbee and Harbrow and Aker are short, Huddo and Boydy are slow etc. etc.

While some weaknesses are less and less tolerable in the modern game (namely lack of pace, especially if combined with a small tank) more often than not this has to be weighed against a players' strengths -- Boydy's gut running, Gilbee's distribution, Harbrow's burst etc. -- and team structures and strategies developed accordingly to maximise the use of these strengths while mitigating or hiding the deficiencies.

I think sometimes that concentrating too much on supposed 'weaknesses' can detract from seeing what a player has to offer -- even if they only have one outstanding strength, far from making them 'one-trick ponies', can often mean a game-breaking difference (as that strength is more likely to be overdeveloped).

It can be argued (for example) that Fev is incredibly game-breaking despite only having one real trick in his book. Speaking of Fev, the only real 'weaknesses' that would put me off a player are not physiological ones, but serious character issues.

--

ps. I'm not arguing for a philosophy of recruiting only 'specialist' players (recruiting for needs) instead of players with good overall skills (best available), just musing...

Players today need a weapon.

It's not good enough to be OK at everything, you need something that can hurt the opposition - whether it's Cross' gut-running or Gilbee's kicking, you need something to make the other bloke worried.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Realitically it will be at least 5 years before we can judge Dalrymples performance. Scott Clayton had left Brisbane for 3 years before they became a power based on the players he had picked up.

We are only now challenging after Clayton arrived for the 1999 draft.

This is why drafting for positions, is not drafting for positions now, but drafting for positions in 3 to 5 years time.

Scott Clayton's inability to attract key players during his time at the Bulldogs such as CHB, CHF and FF has been a bane of contention amongst long suffering Doggie supporters.
Boumann and Cordy look definite possibilities but that is still to be proven.
Apart from Brian Lake we have been very inadequate down the middle of the ground.
The same applies in the rucking division where Scott Wynd was our last class big man.

[bornadog]

Scott Clayton's inability to attract key players during his time at the Bulldogs such as CHB, CHF and FF has been a bane of contention amongst long suffering Doggie supporters.
Boumann and Cordy look definite possibilities but that is still to be proven.
Apart from Brian Lake we have been very inadequate down the middle of the ground.
The same applies in the rucking division where Scott Wynd was our last class big man.

Darcy went alright;)

[alwaysadog]

Most players have physiological 'weaknesses', even most (if not all) of the greats. On our list, Crossy doesn't kick, Gilbee and Harbrow and Aker are short, Huddo and Boydy are slow etc. etc.

While some weaknesses are less and less tolerable in the modern game (namely lack of pace, especially if combined with a small tank) more often than not this has to be weighed against a players' strengths -- Boydy's gut running, Gilbee's distribution, Harbrow's burst etc. -- and team structures and strategies developed accordingly to maximise the use of these strengths while mitigating or hiding the deficiencies.

I think sometimes that concentrating too much on supposed 'weaknesses' can detract from seeing what a player has to offer -- even if they only have one outstanding strength, far from making them 'one-trick ponies', can often mean a game-breaking difference (as that strength is more likely to be overdeveloped).

It can be argued (for example) that Fev is incredibly game-breaking despite only having one real trick in his book. Speaking of Fev, the only real 'weaknesses' that would put me off a player are not physiological ones, but serious character issues.

--

ps. I'm not arguing for a philosophy of recruiting only 'specialist' players (recruiting for needs) instead of players with good overall skills (best available), just musing...

Lantern, I agree with the majority of what you have to say, especially the notion that we shouldn’t focus exclusively on what a player can’t do to the exclusion of what he can achieve.

Nevertheless I think you are casting a bigger net than I intended, which may be as a result of my not making it clear what I am referring to.

I am talking about a player with a significant weakness that makes that player vulnerable under pressure and therefore ineffective or a liability eg a forward with no defensive skills so that any contribution he makes are more than wiped out by the way the ball rebounds when not delivered “laces out”.

The players you refer to have found or learned ways to cope with pressure on their deficiencies while still allowing their strengths to contribute. This reinforces my point that a recruiter, in this case Dalrymple, must have considered the degree to which remedial action, or other strategies like extending the players strengths, can make the player effective in the AFL context.

[alwaysadog]

The same applies in the rucking division where Scott Wynd was our last class big man.

Luke Darcy would I feel sure beg to differ. Going for you is that he was a father son recruitment and came long before Clayton arrived.

[divvydan]

Just something I wanted to bring up in the best available vs need drafting argument. From the times when a recruiter's 'best available' list has been made public, it generally already takes into account need to at least a certain degree. Obviously we can't know with Dalrymple given it's his first draft, however, there's no reason to suspect that he deviates from the majority of recruiters.

So when Howard is described as 'best available' it really (almost certainly) means 'best available given our current situation'.

The trick of course, is how much weighting is given to the current situation when determining 'best available'. Too much and you end up with a Tim Walsh type selection, too little and you end up with a poorly balanced list.

[GVGjr]

Darcy went alright;)


Father son pick rather than the normal draft pick.

[w3design]

As we now seem to have in place a clear extra pathway to AFL level for fringe players [ Williamstown's funding of rookies from their ranks into our rookie/senior squad], and given our history of promoting our own rookies [Boyd, Morris, Harbrow etc], it will be interesting to see if Willy. use this as a lure to bring more players they see as having potential onto their own list.
Can any one give us more details on the Dogs program to develop and follow potential father/son kids?
What are we doing with these kids? When do we start? Who is managing the process? Is it a formal program, or just something add hock? We have heard a little about young Libber, and junior Wallis, but who else are we looking at/after?
Would love to see a lot more f/s's in RW&B. Yeah I know, I am just an old traditionalist at heart! They will always be Footscray to me, for so long as the ticker beats to the tune of "Sons of the Scray".
I hope young Rampe at Willy. works his butt off this year in order to put his name high on the list of rookie prospects for next year, as he showed a bit of raw talent at times in 09.

[The Coon Dog]

^^^^^

Last Monday night at the Rookie Fundraiser a few of us took the time to speak with Simon Dalrymple about young Wallis & Libba.

Both train regularly with the club including a 3 day stint recently where they acquitted themselves quite well.

The team from Vic Uni at the club already have their claws into them & they regularly undergo the various programs there including video analysis of their kicking & running & all the other physical testing.

Neither are overly quick, but seem to know where to run; they're smart footballers (chips off the old blocks).

Simon rated Libba a top 20 in this years draft & Wally a top 30, not bad seeing as they still have another year to go before they're eligible to be drafted. He also said both boys are obsessive in their desire to get the very best out of themselves.

Mark Hunter's boy, Lachlan is now part of the program, but missed the recent 3 day stint as his old man had a huge win on the gee gee's & decided on the spur of the moment to take the family to Disneyland.

We mentioned that next year would be a quiet one for Simon as we were not likely to enter the draft until the 3 round (assuming we use our 1st & 2nd round picks on Lubber & Wally). He felt that GC17 were likely to be active in trade week so we had to cover all bases incase we are involved in a trade with them.

[Go_Dogs]

He felt that GC17 were likely to be active in trade week so we had to cover all bases incase we are involved in a trade with them.

That's a great point.

If we acquire an early selection as a result of a trade we will need to have done our research. I imagine he'd go through his process as per usual and have his list of players well established for the 'just in case' scenario.

[w3design]

Thanks Coon Dog, really apreciate the info. But don't we only have to use a pick equal to that nominated by an opposition club who bids for the same kid [ as those rats at St Kilda did for Ayce]? So it is still possible that given a compromised draft other clubs may not risk an early draft pick bid, meaning we could still get our F/S picks and keep an early draft option with a bit of luck [and no St K. manipulation].

[The Coon Dog]

Thanks Coon Dog, really apreciate the info. But don't we only have to use a pick equal to that nominated by an opposition club who bids for the same kid [ as those rats at St Kilda did for Ayce]? So it is still possible that given a compromised draft other clubs may not risk an early draft pick bid, meaning we could still get our F/S picks and keep an early draft option with a bit of luck [and no St K. manipulation].
Doubt it, if this season they were both ranked by Dalrymple as top 30, surely with another season under their belts & TAC only, not school footy, their stocks can only rise.

[GVGjr]

Doubt it, if this season they were both ranked by Dalrymple as top 30, surely with another season under their belts & TAC only, not school footy, their stocks can only rise.

Are they not playing school footy next season?

[The Coon Dog]

Are they not playing school footy next season?
I just assumed they weren't, could be wrong though.

[Greystache]

^^^^^
Mark Hunter's boy, Lachlan is now part of the program, but missed the recent 3 day stint as his old man had a huge win on the gee gee's & decided on the spur of the moment to take the family to Disneyland.

Adding to that, he's also been allocated Boyd and Crossy as mentors. He is arranged to meet with them once a month, and will also sit with the non-participating players during a few games next season with the specific task of purely focussing on those two and what they do not only when they have the footy but also when they don't have it.

The club's also given him a training program they want him to follow over the next 12 months.