The concept of the rookie list

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

i.e. its the last thing you should be looking at cutting if cost efficiency is your concern, which it appears to be. What we should do is determine how to make it even more cost efficient - produce more players.

I don't know how many more times I can spell this out but from my perspective it's just an acknowledgement of the coaching resources we have and giving them the best chance to develop players and it has nothing to do with cutting costs.

I don't think it compromises the list in the slightest. A Morris, Boyd, Harbrow, Picken or Dahlhaus would still make it and maybe a Mulligan and Hopper wouldn't. If an increased spend in the footy department can be achieved then this isn't an issue. If we are genuinely contending for a top 6 spot then this isn't an issue. If however, we have a list that needs a lot of development work and we don't have additional coaching resources then lets look at reducing the numbers and increasing the focus on the players we think are the best.
I don't think I can make this any clearer but it's not about cost cutting or saving a dollar.

[stefoid]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I don't know how many more times I can spell this out but from my perspective it's just an acknowledgement of the coaching resources we have and giving them the best chance to develop players and it has nothing to do with cutting costs.

I don't think it compromises the list in the slightest. A Morris, Boyd, Harbrow, Picken or Dahlhaus would still make it and maybe a Mulligan and Hopper wouldn't.

Well, the recruiting department knows ahead of time which rookies are going to make it?

In 2009 we rookied Moles, Hooper, Panos and Prato in that order. Presumably Panos and Prato would have missed out so that the coaching staff wouldnt be overworked?

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Well, the recruiting department knows ahead of time which rookies are going to make it?

In 2009 we rookied Moles, Hooper, Panos and Prato in that order. Presumably Panos and Prato would have missed out so that the coaching staff wouldnt be overworked?

They typically know within a season if a player will offer them a bit more sometimes they might needs two seasons to make that assessment but our history highlights the better guys promoted are done within the first season.

Regarding you making the assumption that the coaching resources are overworked, well once again that's not what I'm saying.

Regarding the 2009 list, perhaps a smaller list to work with might have meant us taking Moles (which was the original plan) on the primary list instead of Thorne. We were contending for a top 4 spot though so the bigger list isn't the issue I'm talking about is it?

[Mofra]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Regarding the 2009 list, perhaps a smaller list to work with might have meant us taking oles (which was the original plan) on the primary list instead of Thorne. We were contending for a top 4 spot though so the bigger list isn't the issue I'm talking about is it?

Thorne wouldn't have been available to rookie IIRC - Collingwood had also spoken to him and were likely to have taken him with a late pick.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Thorne wouldn't have been available to rookie IIRC - Collingwood had also spoken to him and were likely to have taken him with a late pick.

Is that a good enough reason though? We promoted Mulligan that year when we also had the option to rookie him again for the 3rd year and this decision was largely apparently based on some other intel that said Clayton was interested.

I get that sometimes we need to alter our plans based on the what other teams might do but when do we just select players on their merit?

[Greystache]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Is that a good enough reason though? We promoted Mulligan that year when we also had the option to rookie him again for the 3rd year and this decision was largely apparently based on some other intel that said Clayton was interested.

I get that sometimes we need to alter our plans based on the what other teams might do but when do we just select players on their merit?

I agree. We supposedly did the same thing with Howard, why can't we just select players on merit? If a player we had penciled in as a potential pick in X round goes goes before our pick so be it.

[Mantis]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I agree. We supposedly did the same thing with Howard, why can't we just select players on merit? If a player we had penciled in as a potential pick in X round goes goes before our pick so be it.

That isn't true... Howard was picked on merit.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I agree. We supposedly did the same thing with Howard, why can't we just select players on merit? If a player we had penciled in as a potential pick in X round goes goes before our pick so be it.

No we didn't. I reckon Sockeye has explained this about half a dozen times.

[Greystache]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

That isn't true... Howard was picked on merit.

I've heard otherwise. If we did think he was the next best available we were the only one's who did.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

That isn't true... Howard was picked on merit.

Whilst I don't disagree that we picked Howard on merit (and good on the recruiting team for identifying him) I can also point to two or three articles where the club has justified the selection based on that Adelaide would have snapped him up before our next pick. Once again we use our intel on what other clubs are supposedly doing to justify our selections instead of being bold enough to just back our picks. It seems we are very caught up explaining that our selections have a lot to do with what other clubs may or many not do which I don't think does us any favors.

Anyway, this thread is more around how we should use the rookie list.

[Mofra]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Is that a good enough reason though?

I'm not arguing that it is or isn't - that was the word from the recruiting team at the time.

If a player is borderline draft proper or rookie I would guess a call has to be made either way based on a number of factors.

[Missing Dog]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I can see where you are coming from GVGjr but gor my money the rookies should be filled with kids or under 23's who show a Picken/Morris like desire.you see a kid who missed on the previous draft and who works his arse off thats what I want not an athlete who decides at 18 because he is tall and fast he can play AFL football. I see no desire in their eyes or hunger in their heart give me the kid who really wants it and will do whatever it takes to me that is what the rookie list is for.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I can see where you are coming from GVGjr but gor my money the rookies should be filled with kids or under 23's who show a Picken/Morris like desire.you see a kid who missed on the previous draft and who works his arse off thats what I want not an athlete who decides at 18 because he is tall and fast he can play AFL football. I see no desire in their eyes or hunger in their heart give me the kid who really wants it and will do whatever it takes to me that is what the rookie list is for.

You might have actually missed the point I'm trying to make.
I've said that the recruiting manager would need to convince me (just for this year) that there were players still available that could offer us something before filling the last 2 positions of the list. If there was a Morris or Picken (desire) type still available I'd be asking why we hadn't taken them earlier and what positions did he see them filling. I just wouldn't fill the list with speculative types that are unlikely to make it.

[LongWait]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

You might have actually missed the point I'm trying to make.
I've said that the recruiting manager would need to convince me (just for this year) that there were players still available that could offer us something before filling the last 2 positions of the list. If there was a Morris or Picken (desire) type still available I'd be asking why we hadn't taken them earlier and what positions did he see them filling. I just wouldn't fill the list with speculative types that are unlikely to make it.

This is an interesting discussion. How do you reconcile your above post with the Lindsay Gaze quote that you use for your sig? It seems that Gaze was all for giving guys with the right build every opportunity to make it and was willing to wait years.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

This is an interesting discussion. How do you reconcile your above post with the Lindsay Gaze quote that you use for your sig? It seems that Gaze was all for giving guys with the right build every opportunity to make it and was willing to wait years.

The quote is for basketball not football and I'm only saying the idea to not fill the rookie list is when your list is already very much into a development position not a contending one.