Nick Lower fan club

[Ghost Dog]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YxZSbLaKLz0/UY90K4H-DjI/AAAAAAAACCY/oW6hbCGuzYg/s1600/1-Fullscreen+capture+5122013+84322+PM.jpg

Seriously, I'm a huge fan
Judging by his press conf, the reporters are too. Got a lot of air time.

What's a good Nickname for Nick? His move to us was a massive win / win.
Would have been slaughtered last night without him, as opposed to being beaten up.

[GVGjr]

What's a good Nickname for Nick? His move to us was a massive win / win.
Would have been slaughtered last night without him, as opposed to being beaten up.

The nightmare

[Ghost Dog]

Good one. Nightmare Nick. See if he can give Gablett a bit of insomnia next week. Let's hope so.
Fantastic shut down job on Swallow. Obviously maligned by the opposition. Just about their whole list gave Nick a whack over the course of the game. But he kept at it all night. Actually a very good midfielder and kicks well.

[GVGjr]

Good one. Nightmare Nick. See how he goes on Ablett.
Far out he gave Swallow a bath. Just about their whole list gave nightmare a whack too But he kept at it all night. Actually a very good midfielder and kicks well.

I think the The Padlock will get Ablett

[LostDoggy]

'Your Colours' :-)

[Twodogs]

Yap Yap.

[Ghost Dog]

huh?

lol yap yap.

some North fans were shouting " Pass it to Boom Boom!. made me physically ill.

[BulldogBelle]

He's absolutely brilliant. Love his work off the ball.

[bulldogtragic]

Was stoked when we picked him up, still happy now. Should be a fan favourite.

[Cyberdoggie]

I think the The Padlock will get Ablett

Yeah Picken is better suited to Ablett and the quicker mids, while lower is good for the slower types like Swallow, Watson, Kennedy etc.

[whythelongface]

Good one. Nightmare Nick. See if he can give Gablett a bit of insomnia next week. Let's hope so.
Fantastic shut down job on Swallow. Obviously maligned by the opposition. Just about their whole list gave Nick a whack over the course of the game. But he kept at it all night. Actually a very good midfielder and kicks well.

Is he really a good kick? Personally think his kicking is average as he turns over the ball on occassions-maybe it is more poor judgement than poor kicking. IIRC there was one on Saturday where he kicked a short pass straight to NM player in the centre square with no real pressure on him.

I think Lower has been a really good acquisition to the team in particular his negating role on players and also his ability to pounce on the lose ball and create a turnover. Really impressed by his tackling.

[Scorlibo]

What's a good Nickname for Nick?

Name!

[LostDoggy]

Is Nick too one dimensional? Picken has vastly improved in the second half of the season after looking like his role in the team was questionable. Mitch Wallis looks a revelation as a run with (and in the last couple of games, out perform) tagger, much to everyone's delight who were also starting to question where his value may have been moving forward.

Where does Ed's brother sit? Is he useful on the list as a reserve tagger should Wallis/Picken get injured/lose form. Is this the reason he's been through two clubs in his career previously?

He provides an excellent contest, has the tagger attitude and gives us a hardened body, but are his days numbered, especially since Grant and Tutt have moved from delist material to beneficial members of the squad in the last 4-5 matches?

[Cyberdoggie]

We needed pace through the middle,
too many slow and negating types earlier in the season meant Lower was on the outer.

I can't see Lower playing in the middle again anytime soon.
Perhaps a HBF role as his skills aren't too bad.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Good point M.R.M.
To be honest, I'd totally forgotten all about him.

We certainly look a faster model than we were at the start of the year.

[bornadog]

I still wonder why we recruited him.

[Mantis]

I can't see Lower playing in the middle again anytime soon.
Perhaps a HBF role as his skills aren't too bad.

I see his skills & pace as the reasons why he isn't playing at the moment.

[Ghost Dog]

We have worse depth players. We will need them, the style of footy we are playing.

[bornadog]

Played 29 minutes last weekend and was knocked out. Not sure he is ok to play this week.

[LostDoggy]

He's done good shutdown jobs this year. Need to find a balance with happy medium with him& Picken or no room for both?

[bulldogtragic]

We have had MUCH MUCH worse players taking up the final position on the list. You don't generally have world beaters selected to take the final spot on the list. I think as an overall package, he was a good selection at the time.

[LostDoggy]

We traded the toughness and team play of Lower and Cross for some youth and pace, luckily we've found some toughness in some of the youngsters too.
Good depth player.

[Maddog37]

Might be handy when Boyd and Cross pull the pin.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Lower was useful as a tagger until Wallis showed he is so much better as our number one tag. Young and Stevens have been very good additions from other clubs. Nick's lack of pace is a major concern for our team going forward.

[F'scary]

One or two injuries or form reversals and he is back in the firsts. Having said that, he will be anxious when the lists are being finalised.

[Guido]

We have had MUCH MUCH worse players taking up the final position on the list. You don't generally have world beaters selected to take the final spot on the list. I think as an overall package, he was a good selection at the time.
Yes, but that spot could have gone towards a shot at a youngster who, our drafting history with late/rookie picks, suggests had about a 10% of delivering a gun who could contribute to a flag. 10% is still a long shot, but it had a much greater chance of delivering the club a dividend than 0%.

Boyd, Harbrow, Picken, JJ, Morris ... rather than promoting a rookie and delving into this pool that has delivered us multiple A-Graders, we spend who knows how much money on a recruit who has NO CHANCE of even being a top 22 AFL player beyond 2-3 years.

Why the **** this club continues to invest resources on middle of the road plodders like this is beyond me. I could seriously list 20 of these pointless, dime a dozens recycled Bulldogs recruits off the top of my head, each one of them contributing FA to the list and the club's bigger picture.

The wages, the salary cap space, the time spent by assistant coaches investing in getting their games barely up to sub-par that could/should be diverted towards youngsters, the games they play that have kept and will keep youngsters out when most of them need as much game time at the top level as possible.

History says that there will be All-Australians that we could have picked up with a late pick/ in the rookie list, who would have been available cheaply at one of our selections, and we instead blew it on Nick Lower.

And the stupidity is that in 5 years, we'll be offering multi-million dollar contracts to lure a player we could have picked up instead of Nick Lower this year. $1.6million and a prized second round pick for Stuart Crameri? Yeah, genius, why the **** not - the rookie spot we blew on Brodie Moles could have picked him up at next to no draft cost 4 years ago, and we could have wrapped him up at 10%-20% unders salary wise compared to having to pay 10%-20% overs to prize him away. But of course <*> insert some horseshit argument about hindsight to defend club decision makers here <*>

The only way the bulldogs will out-perform the bigger clubs is by being more efficient with its resources - there is no way in the world that we can outspend the Collingwood's and West Coasts, but there is a chance that we can outsmart them. Spending hundreds of thousands in wages and precious, precious resources on twice delisted plodders who offer sweet FA going forward is not intelligent and efficient in anyone's book.

[comrade]

And the stupidity is that in 5 years, we'll be offering multi-million dollar contracts to lure a player we could have picked up instead of Nick Lower this year. $1.6million and a prized second round pick for Stuart Crameri? Yeah, genius, why the **** not - the rookie spot we blew on Brodie Moles could have picked him up at next to no draft cost 4 years ago, and we could have wrapped him up at 10%-20% unders salary wise compared to having to pay 10%-20% overs to prize him away. But of course <*> insert some horseshit argument about hindsight to defend club decision makers here <*>



Crameri was probably seen as a depth player for the Bombers, too. A bullocking mid-sized player who can do a role, just like Dale Morris was for us all these years ago. Yeah, both guys turned out to be guns and Moles didn't. It happens.

[bulldogtragic]

Crameri was probably seen as a depth player for the Bombers, too. A bullocking mid-sized player who can do a role, just like Dale Morris was for us all these years ago. Yeah, both guys turned out to be guns and Moles didn't. It happens.
Yep. For every Morris there are two or three or four Mulligans. How many speculative spuds do you take before taking the conservative option once every now and then?

Drafting and trading is an in exact science.

[The Pie Man]

Has his presence lifted Mitch Wallis to a new level?
Long bow maybe, but I'm not upset at all with Nick's recruitment.

[Scorlibo]

He seems like an incredibly strong character to have around the club and gave us some good service in the first half of the season as the number one tagger. I'm absolutely happy for him to stay on as depth.

[mighty_west]

Nothing wrong with having depth at your club, and there is no such thing as a best 22, all clubs need a best 28-30 with players who can come in at any given time and play an important role whether it be round 1 or a GF.

[DragzLS1]

He is a very good role model for the younger guys aswell on and off the field. Great addition to the team and can fill a hole when called upon.

[Guido]

How many speculative spuds do you take before taking the conservative option once every now and then?
Are they conservative options or destined-to-fail options?

You say "for every Morris you get four Mulligans". This is correct. Which means across 6-7-8 years, from 30 odd rookies, you will walk away with quite a number of A-Grade standard players from a supplementary source of recruiting. A quarter of Collingwood's premiership team was from the rookie list, including their premiership captain.

Now, where's the outstanding pick-up equivalent (Morris/Harbrow/Boyd/Dalhaus) in going down the recycled/delisted/not quite right route with late/rookie list picks?

For every _________, you get four Davidsons.
For every _________, you get four Moles'
For every _________, you get four Barlows
For every _________, you get four Pasks'
For every _________, you get four Austins
For every _________, you get four Callans
For every _________, you get four Aaron James'

I don't see the success stories in going down this route, and yet we continue to do it. From a scientific stand point, I see a lot of evidence to stay the hell away from going down this path - it no workey.

Lower has achieved barely anything that some of the the blokes above didn't, but it seems to be applause all around. We can't afford to spend $150K on buying an Alter-G machine at the peak of a premiership window, but a couple of hundred grand on a bloke who can sit as the 30th best on our list in the middle of rebuild? Yeah, sure! Why not! We got money to blow baby.

If Lower is such an astute pick-up, you might as well say that Djerrkurra was a great pick-up, getting Callan was a really good choice, and that Bandy, Bartlett and Harrison were OUTSTANDING recruits, because in comparison to Lower and what they initially delivered, they were.


Drafting and trading is an in exact science.
See, I'd argue that there is a science to it, and our poor results with this strategy can be attributed to not following best practice and the historical success rates of certain types of recruits.

Almost every single failed trade/recycled pick up is dismissed as "oh well, benefit of hindsight is a great thing, just bad luck, move on". Every year. But if you look carefully, past results and history have plenty of pointers and advice to give that can help the club avoid 90% of these pitfalls.

[Bulldog4life]

Nothing wrong with having depth at your club, and there is no such thing as a best 22, all clubs need a best 28-30 with players who can come in at any given time and play an important role whether it be round 1 or a GF.

Yes mighty west heard Mick Malthouse say the same thing this year. You need a best 30. Lower was a good get for us for zero draft pick. Fremantle wanted him to stay.

[bulldogtragic]

Are they conservative options or destined-to-fail options?

You say "for every Morris you get four Mulligans". This is correct. Which means across 6-7-8 years, from 30 odd rookies, you will walk away with quite a number of A-Grade standard players from a supplementary source of recruiting. A quarter of Collingwood's premiership team was from the rookie list, including their premiership captain.

Now, where's the outstanding pick-up equivalent (Morris/Harbrow/Boyd/Dalhaus) in going down the recycled/delisted/not quite right route with late/rookie list picks?

For every _________, you get four Davidsons.
For every _________, you get four Moles'
For every _________, you get four Barlows
For every _________, you get four Pasks'
For every _________, you get four Austins
For every _________, you get four Callans
For every _________, you get four Aaron James'

I don't see the success stories in going down this route, and yet we continue to do it. From a scientific stand point, I see a lot of evidence to stay the hell away from going down this path - it no workey.

Lower has achieved barely anything that some of the the blokes above didn't, but it seems to be applause all around. We can't afford to spend $150K on buying an Alter-G machine at the peak of a premiership window, but a couple of hundred grand on a bloke who can sit as the 30th best on our list in the middle of rebuild? Yeah, sure! Why not! We got money to blow baby.

If Lower is such an astute pick-up, you might as well say that Djerrkurra was a great pick-up, getting Callan was a really good choice, and that Bandy, Bartlett and Harrison were OUTSTANDING recruits, because in comparison to Lower and what they initially delivered, they were.

See, I'd argue that there is a science to it, and our poor results with this strategy can be attributed to not following best practice and the historical success rates of certain types of recruits.

Almost every single failed trade/recycled pick up is dismissed as "oh well, benefit of hindsight is a great thing, just bad luck, move on". Every year. But if you look carefully, past results and history have plenty of pointers and advice to give that can help the club avoid 90% of these pitfalls.
To be fair:

Tom Davidson - 1 game with Collingwood
Brodie Moles - 0 games with Geelong
Ed Barlow - 26 games with Sydney
Marty Pask - 8 games with Brisbane
Mark Austin - 15 games with Carlton
Tim Callan - 15 games with Geelong

Nick Lower - 42 games with PA/Fremantle, and was given a new contract by Freo.

I dont dispute our history of trying to get others slops and trying to make a player out of them, but It's a matter of opinion of what your individual opinions on Lower are, and judging him on less than one season. Lower is miles ahead of this list. MILES. Far more credentialed than Tom Young even. (what do you think about Youngy)? I think it's far too early to make decisions on them. I'm not saying he's the messiah, "an astute pick up", or what the history book will say, rather, at the time risk/reward analysis justified the decision to take him. I can see why you put him in this group, I think it's a little harsh though.

[bulldogtragic]

To be fair:

Tom Davidson - 1 game with Collingwood
Brodie Moles - 0 games with Geelong
Ed Barlow - 26 games with Sydney
Marty Pask - 8 games with Brisbane
Mark Austin - 15 games with Carlton
Tim Callan - 15 games with Geelong

Nick Lower - 42 games with PA/Fremantle, and was given a new contract by Freo.

I dont dispute our history of trying to get others slops and trying to make a player out of them, but It's a matter of opinion of what your individual opinions on Lower are, and judging him on less than one season. Lower is miles ahead of this list. MILES. Far more credentialed than Tom Young even. (what do you think about Youngy)? I think it's far too early to make decisions on them. I'm not saying he's the messiah, "an astute pick up", or what the history book will say, rather, at the time risk/reward analysis justified the decision to take him. I can see why you put him in this group, I think it's a little harsh though.
2007 - Jarrad Boumann, Guy O'Keefe, Henry White, John Shaw
2008 - Jamason Daniels
2009 - Shane Thorne, James Mulligan, Andrew Hooper, Matthew Panos, Eddie Prato, Pat Rose
2010 - Jayden Schofield, Zeph Skinner, Tom Hill

Lower is no star, but he's better than this.

Lets just agree our recruiting has to get better period! AND, that last year's ND was a good start.

[Guido]

To be fair:

Tom Davidson - 1 game with Collingwood
Brodie Moles - 0 games with Geelong
Ed Barlow - 26 games with Sydney
Marty Pask - 8 games with Brisbane
Mark Austin - 15 games with Carlton
Tim Callan - 15 games with Geelong

Nick Lower - 42 games with PA/Fremantle, and was given a new contract by Freo.

I couldn't care less how many games they had played in the past, what did they (and he) offer going forward is the only consideration. There's dead-set spuds at other clubs who have put together 100 games that'll be delisted this year - should we recruit them too? (I joke, but we probably friggen will)

You invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on these types, and history says IF YOU'RE LUCKY you'll get a return of a player who'll dance on the fringes, put together 20/30 serviceable games across 1/2/3 years before being delisted again - IMO it simply not the smartest way for the club to go.

And the very real consequence when you go down this path so many times is that you cost yourself shots at getting possibly elite players into the club. Given our track record with the rookie list especially (a gem at least every couple of years), odds are we would have picked up a few more quality players with these picks which were instead wasted on these NQRs.

And for the record, Lower was already contracted for 2013 to Freo when they delisted him, hence why they offered him the spot on the list back (salary was going to go towards their cap regardless). But in order to delist him with another year to go, they rated him amongst the 36th 37th 38th players on their list, of that we can be sure.


2007 - Jarrad Boumann, Guy O'Keefe, Henry White, John Shaw
2008 - Jamason Daniels
2009 - Shane Thorne, James Mulligan, Andrew Hooper, Matthew Panos, Eddie Prato, Pat Rose
2010 - Jayden Schofield, Zeph Skinner, Tom Hill
I think I've made it quite clear that I understand that the majority of kids recruited late won't make it, but the point is that you at least give yourself the CHANCE of picking up a gun late in the draft or on the rookie list like Cross, Lake, Morris, Dalhaus, Harbrow, Boyd, who will add to multiple premiership tilts.

It's a much better and more fruitful policy than picking up NQRs who 99% of time will achieve nothing more than 2/3 years of taking up resources at a club that has precious few.

[Greystache]

I think I've made it quite clear that I understand that the majority of kids recruited late won't make it, but the point is that you at least give yourself the CHANCE of picking up a gun late in the draft or on the rookie list like Cross, Lake, Morris, Dalhaus, Harbrow, Boyd, who will add to multiple premiership tilts.

It's a much better and more fruitful policy than picking up NQRs who 99% of time will achieve nothing more than 2/3 years of taking up resources at a club that has precious few.

Do you mean like;

Rhyce Shaw, Ted Richards, Martin Mattner, Josh Kennedy, Mitch Morton?

All recycled players from other clubs that played in last year's premiership team

[Guido]

Do you mean like;

Rhyce Shaw, Ted Richards, Martin Mattner, Josh Kennedy, Mitch Morton?

All recycled players from other clubs that played in last year's premiership team
Because my last few posts show I'm clearly against the Bulldogs picking up quality, premiership level talent from other clubs. Which of course is the category that Nick Lower, Callan, Aaron James, Moles et al fall into.

Seriously, are you deliberately attempting to misrepresent things?

It's a discussion about late pick ups of delisted/close to being delisted types. Morton is an exception that proves the rule, and other than a couple of other examples across the league of delistees turning into premiership standard players across the last 10 years, players that are delisted/traded for nothing "with the original clubs blessing" will 99% of the time amount to nothing - and we keep making the mistake of recruiting them.

Of the 600 odd players delisted in the last 10 years, I can count the amount of players that have gone on to be excellent contributors at a new club on one hand. Of the 500 odd rookie picks used on youngsters/VFL recruits however, I could comfortably put together a near-on premiership squad. So all I argue is that the club's list managers play the percentages.

In Sydney's case with the players you're listing (and you forgot Mumford), most were traded for with 2nd/3rd round picks, most were targeted when younger, their clubs wanted to keep them but couldn't/wouldn't match the offers, most had the scope to be very good long term players, and at a reasonable trade cost. How many of our trades/recycled pick ups fall into this category? One springs to mind, and if you find me ONE post of mine criticising recruiting Koby Stevens (even if he doesn't end up making it, at least he had the scope and tools to be up there), then I'll walk away from this forum with my tail between my legs.

I am not against bringing recycled players in, I am against trading in recycled spuds that are either never going to make it or middle of the roaders brought in on stupidly over the odds wages/trade costs when they have no chance of contributing to a flag.

[Guido]

And it is also important to be mindful that Sydney have a system in place that no other club in the league seems to - they are in effect an exception that proves the rule themselves.

Look at Geelong's flags, Port, West Coast, Hawthorn in 2008 (it would be a different scenario if they won this year), Collingwood in 2010, even as far back as Essendon in 2000, I don't think any of those teams won a flag with any more than 2-3 recycled players in their premiership 22.

[Happy Days]

Pissing contests are sick, especially about something as hackneyed as the last spot on our list going to a free agent that came after the draft process. THIS IS BAD RECRUITING BECAUSE WITH THE LAST POSSIBLE SELECTION WE COULD HAVE HAD WE DIDN'T PICK SOMEONE WE'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT NO OTHER TEAM WANTED.

[SlimPickens]

And it is also important to be mindful that Sydney have a system in place that no other club in the league seems to - they are in effect an exception that proves the rule themselves.

Look at Geelong's flags, Port, West Coast, Hawthorn in 2008 (it would be a different scenario if they won this year), Collingwood in 2010, even as far back as Essendon in 2000, I don't think any of those teams won a flag with any more than 2-3 recycled players in their premiership 22.

So not a fan Guido?;)

[LostDoggy]

And it is also important to be mindful that Sydney have a system in place that no other club in the league seems to - they are in effect an exception that proves the rule themselves.

Look at Geelong's flags, Port, West Coast, Hawthorn in 2008 (it would be a different scenario if they won this year), Collingwood in 2010, even as far back as Essendon in 2000, I don't think any of those teams won a flag with any more than 2-3 recycled players in their premiership 22.

Weren't Stuart Dew and Brent Guerra two of Hawthorn's best players in 2008? just to name two off the top of my head.

[Guido]

So not a fan Guido?;)
Of Sydney? Or of recycled players? Or of premierships? :)

I'm a fan of getting a premiership squad together, whatever that may entail, be it the Sydney model or even 22 recycled players.

But when it comes to (specifically) our history of decision making on recycled players, IMO we are much better off investing in youth and the draft. I genuinely think that there's nothing stopping us from becoming the first ever "drafted only" premiership team. A solely bulldog born and bred army.

A model/blueprint that it can be done is largely there, Geelong I think only had Ottens in their 2011 flag. Podsiadly had been rookied 10 years earlier, but I don't have any problem with the club, at the top of the cycle, recruiting 25/26 years olds who've grown up a bit from their shot at 17/18.

The thing that gets me is that we've now got this group of over a dozen outstanding kids, with more to come, and we still focus on bringing in mid-aged, middle of the road outsiders, outsiders that are nowhere near as good as what we already have.

Since I first became a member in the mid 90s, we've recruited 50+ recycled players. No shit. 50 plus. There is not another club in the land that can match it. And how many have genuinely, genuinely worked? I can count 5. How many have gone the other way and actually inflicted damage on the club?

From the president, the CEO (in an article last week), the coach, the footy manager, the list manager, all of noises are that we going to go down that path again.

Do we learn?

We offer up the draft pick that got Talia, and a 3 year contract for Matthew Bate. A year later he's delisted.

A year later, we offer up the draft pick that got Hrovat (plus another pick in the 40s), 4 years and almost 2 million for Dawes. Yes, he woulda been serviceable for 2-3 years, but when we starting hitting finals again in 3-4 years, will we be looking at him and saying "Gee, wish we had a slow as hell 29 year old Dawes now" ? Or will we be saying "thank f*** we've got a 22 year Hrovat on the cusp of a great half a dozen years of knocking on the door of a flag?"

And it will happen again this year. It is an obsession with outsiders offering magic bean solutions, when the best solutions are usually there right under our noses, homegrown and love the club more than any overpaid outsider ever could.

[LostDoggy]

Is there a age bracket caveat on these players in your opinion Guido? Young has worked but he's 21/22 y.o. On the other hand we got Goodes who was 29. Again I think he's been serviceable, but he's taken a rookie spot where we could have got a Sam Colqhoun, an All Australian at U18 last year iirc, who went post draft.

[Twodogs]

Surely the main problem is the fact the competition dictates that the wooden spooners have to pay roughly the same amount to their playing list as the premiership side? We have to have a certain amount of players on our list and we have to pay those players a stated amount of money.

Might a better system be the footy department has a budget that covers player payments, equipment, coaches and etc? Then rather than having a TPP that has to be spent on players, the club could allocate resources as they see fit according to where it see it selves on the premiership clock. As a team improves then the player's wages could rise and spending on development or other improvement tools could decrease.

[bornadog]

Of Sydney? Or of recycled players? Or of premierships? :)

I'm a fan of getting a premiership squad together, whatever that may entail, be it the Sydney model or even 22 recycled players.

But when it comes to (specifically) our history of decision making on recycled players, IMO we are much better off investing in youth and the draft. I genuinely think that there's nothing stopping us from becoming the first ever "drafted only" premiership team. A solely bulldog born and bred army.

A model/blueprint that it can be done is largely there, Geelong I think only had Ottens in their 2011 flag. Podsiadly had been rookied 10 years earlier, but I don't have any problem with the club, at the top of the cycle, recruiting 25/26 years olds who've grown up a bit from their shot at 17/18.

The thing that gets me is that we've now got this group of over a dozen outstanding kids, with more to come, and we still focus on bringing in mid-aged, middle of the road outsiders, outsiders that are nowhere near as good as what we already have.

Since I first became a member in the mid 90s, we've recruited 50+ recycled players. No shit. 50 plus. There is not another club in the land that can match it. And how many have genuinely, genuinely worked? I can count 5. How many have gone the other way and actually inflicted damage on the club?

From the president, the CEO (in an article last week), the coach, the footy manager, the list manager, all of noises are that we going to go down that path again.

Do we learn?

We offer up the draft pick that got Talia, and a 3 year contract for Matthew Bate. A year later he's delisted.

A year later, we offer up the draft pick that got Hrovat (plus another pick in the 40s), 4 years and almost 2 million for Dawes. Yes, he woulda been serviceable for 2-3 years, but when we starting hitting finals again in 3-4 years, will we be looking at him and saying "Gee, wish we had a slow as hell 29 year old Dawes now" ? Or will we be saying "thank f*** we've got a 22 year Hrovat on the cusp of a great half a dozen years of knocking on the door of a flag?"

And it will happen again this year. It is an obsession with outsiders offering magic bean solutions, when the best solutions are usually there right under our noses, homegrown and love the club more than any overpaid outsider ever could.

There are two ways to look at recruiting of mature age players.

1. Premiership window - (example Dogs 2008-2010) - I don't mind recruiting a Hudson, or Aker, Barry Hall as a short term fix and possible tilt at a premiership. Don't recruit players like Vez, DJ, in other words, you recruit mature age proven players, not wannabes.

2. Rebuild (Dogs 2011 to now) - Stick to recruiting of young players from the draft, forget mature age, or recyled players.

I know the Swans and Hawks do it well, but as Guido says, we suck at it. Lets rebuild with young players and this year should be no exception.

[Ghost Dog]

We offer up the draft pick that got Talia, and a 3 year contract for Matthew Bate. A year later he's delisted.

.

You convinced me of your view right there.

[Ozza]

Every club, when bringing in players from other clubs or through the rookie list/mature aged players has had successes and failures. Sometimes as supporters its hard to see the logic behind them at the time - but to suggest we are just taking a stab at plodders and rejects from other clubs in nonsense.

As an example, I recall that on this board - pretty much nobody wanted to get Liam Picken. He was just a 'good VFL player and thats about it' according to most. Admittedly I was probably only in his corner because I knew him at the time when he was at Willy - but the club did some testing of him, got him into the club to train and (in Rocket's words) found out that he had a few more tricks to him than had been utilised at VFL level.

I think for the most part we have to look at the National Draft - but if there are opportunities to get players from other clubs who can come straight in and fill a requirement - if it doesn't cost us our first pick in the draft, we should consider our options.

[Ozza]

There are two ways to look at recruiting of mature age players.

1. Premiership window - (example Dogs 2008-2010) - I don't mind recruiting a Hudson, or Aker, Barry Hall as a short term fix and possible tilt at a premiership. Don't recruit players like Vez, DJ, in other words, you recruit mature age proven players, not wannabes.

2. Rebuild (Dogs 2011 to now) - Stick to recruiting of young players from the draft, forget mature age, or recyled players.

I know the Swans and Hawks do it well, but as Guido says, we suck at it. Lets rebuild with young players and this year should be no exception.

We HAVE sucked at it in the past. I'm not sure that means you just give up on trying to find players who aren't getting opportunities elsewhere, or who can help your club.

I'm confident that getting Tom Young from Collingwood and Koby Stevens from West Coast will prove to be good moves. Both are probably in our best 22 - certainly in the best 26 or so as a minimum - and both are about 21 years old - a perfect age for us and are developing well as Bulldogs.

Goodes is a shorter term prospect - but, again, is in our best 22. And may well be for the next two years while we find and develop a younger player for his role.

Lower, I haven't been completely sold on - but is a role player, who basically looked lost if he didn't have a defined run with role on a good opposition player.

[Mofra]

Ozza, that's because we are cherry-picking undervalued players and not waving a chequebook around like a desperate sailor after 12 months at sea.

I imagine we'd be much the same way - overall emphasis is to draft & develop our way out of trouble and not hope some big trade will save us.

[Ghost Dog]

You would have to say Lower fell out of love with his home club. He was a decent pick up. You need depth in a side; It's a tough sport. You can't say what the effect of losing Pickers might have on the development of our younger list. What we have done in the past might not necessarily reflect what we will do this year.

Dawes and Bate were near misses.

[LostDoggy]

There are two ways to look at recruiting of mature age players.

1. Premiership window - (example Dogs 2008-2010) - I don't mind recruiting a Hudson, or Aker, Barry Hall as a short term fix and possible tilt at a premiership. Don't recruit players like Vez, DJ, in other words, you recruit mature age proven players, not wannabes.

2. Rebuild (Dogs 2011 to now) - Stick to recruiting of young players from the draft, forget mature age, or recyled players.

I know the Swans and Hawks do it well, but as Guido says, we suck at it. Lets rebuild with young players and this year should be no exception.

Richmond have history of poor list managment, but they kept at the recycled trade to plug holes in their list with players like Grigg, Houli, Chaplin, Maric which has allowed them to go from a very poor team to a finals contender, despite being the worst list managed team going around a few years ago.

[bulldogtragic]

Richmond have history of poor list managment, but they kept at the recycled trade to plug holes in their list with players like Grigg, Houli, Chaplin, Maric which has allowed them to go from a very poor team to a finals contender, despite being the worst list managed team going around a few years ago.
That's a fair point.

[Sedat]

Goodes is a shorter term prospect - but, again, is in our best 22. And may well be for the next two years while we find and develop a younger player for his role.
If Howard was anything other than bloody ordinary, we would not have needed to bring in a 29yo VFL journeyman. Actually we could have gotten Goodes with our last rookie pick in 2009 and used our first round ND pick that year on someone that, you know, had exposed form at the elite U-18 level - then we wouldn't have had to use a list position this year on a 29yo VFL journeyman (he would have already been on our list and presumably given us 3 years of decent value already because he can clearly play at this level) and maybe had a Fyfe or Duncan or equivalent on our list as well.

Guido raises some very valid points - there is a litany of plodders that we've drafted over the years and not many of them would have reached 25 games with us. That's an awful lot of resources being sucked away from the club for bugger-all return. We're not talking about premiership window top-ups like Huddo, Akermanis or Hall either - they are roll-the-dice risks worth taking (within reason).

[Scorlibo]

I see it differently.

The average rookie draft selection will net you 23 games in the 6-7 years following their selection. Compare this to the recycled players being talked about:

Tim Callan played 19 games.
Brodie Moles played 17 games.
Ed Barlow played 8 games.
Mark Austin has played 14 games.
Koby Stevens has played 15 games.
Tom Young has played 11 games.
Nick Lower has played 13 games.

Presuming the latter four add to their tallies, the evidence stacks up pretty well, to this stage we've more or less broken even.

[Sedat]

I see it differently.

The average rookie draft selection will net you 23 games in the 6-7 years following their selection. Compare this to the recycled players being talked about:

Tim Callan played 19 games.
Brodie Moles played 17 games.
Ed Barlow played 8 games.
Mark Austin has played 14 games.
Koby Stevens has played 15 games.
Tom Young has played 11 games.
Nick Lower has played 13 games.

Presuming the latter four add to their tallies, the evidence stacks up pretty well, to this stage we've more or less broken even.
Using the average as a measurement criteria is flawed IMO. You'll end up with probably 90% of rookies not play a single game but there would be 10% of rookies selected that will become high quality AFL players. Averaging out the total output of all rookies distorts the real value of the successful rookies (of which we've had quite a few in the last 10 years). Ask yourself if you would prefer to see 10 mature aged plodders brought into the club, with all of them ekeing out 20-odd nondescript games, or would you prefer to see 10 rookies selected instead with 1 of them ending up being a Morris, or a Sandilands, or a Cox, etc...

[Scorlibo]

Using the average as a measurement criteria is flawed IMO. You'll end up with probably 90% of rookies not play a single game but there would be 10% of rookies selected that will become high quality AFL players. Averaging out the total output of all rookies distorts the real value of the successful rookies (of which we've had quite a few in the last 10 years). Ask yourself if you would prefer to see 10 mature aged plodders brought into the club, with all of them ekeing out 20-odd nondescript games, or would you prefer to see 10 rookies selected instead with 1 of them ending up being a Morris, or a Sandilands, or a Cox, etc...

My preference would be for a mix. In any given 15 selections to select 5 "mature age plodders" who give depth, hardened bodies and experience, and select 10 speculative younger players, netting 1 200 game player.

The 1 in 10 200 game player will usually play to a higher standard than the 10 mature agers each playing 20 games, but then if guys like Tom Young and Koby Stevens go on to play 200 games, then the number of mature-age recycled players we've selected in the last 5-10 years would probably amount to only 10, with the 1 in 10 200 game player achieved as well as 9 players who have contributed, rather than floundered.

But in answer to your question, I would prefer a mix.

[Ghost Dog]

There weren't too many complaints in here when we selected Lower originally. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[LongWait]

There weren't too many complaints in here when we selected Lower originally. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

One minute fans are bragging that gun opposition midfielder X "got Lowered" and the next we want to de-list Lower.

EVERY team recycles other team's players. Every team. Including every Premiership team of the past 20 years.

Some teams do it better than others. Lately we've been one of those who've done it well.

[Twodogs]

EVERY team recycles other team's players. Every team. Including every Premiership team of the past 20 years.



Except Geelong in 2011.

[The Underdog]

Except Geelong in 2011.

Brad Ottens was on his 2nd team

[Twodogs]

Brad Ottens was on his 2nd team


You're right. Podsiadly was on Essendon's and Collingwood's list too but didn't play a senior game.

[LongWait]

Except Geelong in 2011.

Ottens played more games for Richmond than he did for Geelong.

Every Premiership team in the past 20 years has had at least one recycled player.

[Twodogs]

Ottens played more games for Richmond than he did for Geelong.

Every Premiership team in the past 20 years has had at least one recycled player.


Was it was last year that Geelong had no players on their list? They were the only club not to have a player who hadn't played for another club.

[LongWait]

Was it was last year that Geelong had no players on their list? They were the only club not to have a player who hadn't played for another club.

Did they win the flag last year? ;)

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

You're right. Podsiadly was on Essendon's and Collingwood's list too but didn't play a senior game.

I think you will find that Pods never actually made it on to the two final lists you refer. We did have the opportunity to pick him up when he was playing for our VFL team at the time in Werribee.Unfortunately he was rejected by Rodney Eade as not being good enough. The next is history in how well Pods has performed with Geelong.

[jeemak]

I think you will find that Pods never actually made it on to the two final lists you refer. We did have the opportunity to pick him up when he was playing for our VFL team at the time in Werribee.Unfortunately he was rejected by Rodney Eade as not being good enough. The next is history in how well Pods has performed with Geelong.

Pods would have been positioned quite well to benefit from our style in the years we were contending. Once we struggled to move the ball quickly under finals pressure he may have been exposed a bit, just probably a little less than our midget forward line was however.

[Twodogs]

I think you will find that Pods never actually made it on to the two final lists you refer. We did have the opportunity to pick him up when he was playing for our VFL team at the time in Werribee.Unfortunately he was rejected by Rodney Eade as not being good enough. The next is history in how well Pods has performed with Geelong.


Yep he was only ever rookie listed with the pies and the Essendon but played 3 pre season cup games with Collingwood and 19 reserves games with Essendon. The thing I didnt know is he played his junior footy woith Yarraville and grew up in Spotswood-just like Callan Ward.

[stefoid]

Wallis doesnt look like reliniquishing Lowers role any time soon.

[GVGjr]

Wallis doesnt look like reliniquishing Lowers role any time soon.

I would bring in Lower against Brisbane and plant him on Rich again

[bulldogtragic]

Time to find a new messiah.

[GVGjr]

Time to find a new messiah.

Appears so

[KT31]

Time to find a new messiah.

One could say, Nick has been lowered.;)

[jeemak]

One could say, Nick has been lowered.;)

If so, it would have to be with an Arnie voice.