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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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]

Re: Rookie selections - What is the theory?

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.