The concept of the rookie list

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

What is a 5th and 6th rookie selection anyway? I mean, if you retain 4 rookies from last year, then you top up with 2 more the following year, they are your 1st and 2nd rookie picks for that year, arent they? To have a '5th and 6th' rookie selection would mean you completely turned over your rookie list in one year, which rarely happens.

Sorry, I thought it was a straight forward comment that didn't need further clarification.
You are wanting 6 players selected in the rookie draft and I'm saying we might do better in terms of development with just 4.

I'm wondering how many of young players became productive footballers when selected deep into the rookie draft? I'm sure there is some but I doubt there is many.

[stefoid]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Sorry, I thought it was a straight forward comment that didn't need further clarification.
You are wanting 6 players selected in the rookie draft and I'm saying we might do better in terms of development with just 4.
The 5th and 6th player comment are the players selected after our (or any clubs) 4th pick.
I'm wondering how many of young players became productive footballers when selected deep into the rookie draft? I'm sure there is some but I doubt there is many.

I dont think there has ever even been a 5th or 6th round rookie selection, because nobody turns over their rookies that quickly to have 5 or 6 spots to fill. so its a weird 'statistical' argument you are making there.

What Im saying is attempting to turn over the rookie list and the senior list more savagely is something that could be considered in the future. A 1:10 chance isnt very significant, but if I roll the dice 10 times, it becomes so.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

What Im saying is attempting to turn over the rookie list and the senior list more savagely is something that could be considered in the future. A 1:10 chance isnt very significant, but if I roll the dice 10 times, it becomes so.

You shouldn't gamble if you cant afford it and I've already confirmed that it's not a long term thing just a realisation of where we are and the resources we have.

[Greystache]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I'm wondering how many of young players became productive footballers when selected deep into the rookie draft? I'm sure there is some but I doubt there is many.

Players taken in the last handful of picks in recent rookie drafts

2005

Keiran Jack
Ben McGlynn

2006

Jarryn Geary

2007

Shane Mumford

2008

Matt Suckling
Greg Broughton
Lachlan Keefe

2009

James Podiadly
Stuart Crameri
(lots of Irish players taken at the end of that year)

So there are some, but obviously there's lots of misses too. There was also quite a lot of re-roookie selections too.

[soupman]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I don't agree that 2 extra spots automatically give you the chance to find someone of quality.
If I was the coach or the list manager I'd need the recruiting team to convince me after the 4th selection in the rookie draft that there was players we rated still available before filling the next spot let alone the next 2.

But as others have stated you don't typically have 5-6 rookie selections in a year. You'll have 6 rookies but 2-3 of them will be in their second season. So at most you are looking at picking up 3-4 rookies in any given year. Panos for example was our 3rd choice rookie in the year he was picked up, and after him came both Greg Broughton and Matt Suckling, so you can get decent players that deep. And if there is nobody worth picking that deep then you don't pick them, but only in that scenario. You don't just draw a line through those last picks if there is still available talent.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Interesting thread, great discussion. My two cents (some of which have already been kinda said):

- Hahn was an example of what NOT to do with a rookie spot. He potentially cost us another good kid. Low probability, yes, but with Hahn in there, zero probability. Should have been cut, but we went down the loyalty route. Fair enough.

- GVG, you mentioned having less spots puts the onus on the recruiting team to get it right. If they aren't getting it right now, cutting two spots won't make them get it any more right. The recruitment process has to stand on it's own two feet, I doubt an external limitation will make it any better if our recruiters are prone to making bad judgment calls anyway.

- As a resource management issue, the last 2 spots on the list shouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference; I understand that there is a difference between working with 8 players compared to working with 10, but 46-48 is a much smaller difference percentage and perception wise.

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations. Players that have never touched a footy have to be OUT, and speculative picks from the outback, romantic as they are, will cost us far more in sheer wastage than having the full complement of rookies each year. We should literally just pick up the top 6 gun junior footballers that year that missed out in the main draft, or if there aren't 6 that meet that standard, throw in one or two mature age players under 25 who are now almost-AFL standard -- fullstop. If it is the case then that there aren't 6 players who meet those standards, then it will be okay to have less than the full complement.

When resources are tight decisions have to be LESS risky, not more -- it's the 'extra resources' (risk money) that can be used for riskier punts, and we don't have any risk money at the Dogs. Basic tenet of risk-management.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

- GVG, you mentioned having less spots puts the onus on the recruiting team to get it right. If they aren't getting it right now, cutting two spots won't make them get it any more right. The recruitment process has to stand on it's own two feet, I doubt an external limitation will make it any better if our recruiters are prone to making bad judgment calls anyway.


When resources are tight decisions have to be LESS risky, not more -- it's the 'extra resources' (risk money) that can be used for riskier punts, and we don't have any risk money at the Dogs. Basic tenet of risk-management.

Regarding the highlighted comment, my view is that with 2 less picks would probably mean that the recruiting team wouldn't feel the need to punt on players. Now they haven't done too badly but in my opinion a resource poor club can't afford to take that many chances.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I like the idea of picking up a 19-20 yo or two who missed out on his draft year but has matured a bit later on.

[GVGjr]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I like the idea of picking up a 19-20 yo or two who missed out on his draft year but has matured a bit later on.

Same here. This was the original design of the rookie list.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

I really hope we don't draft anymore 'athletes' who have only played football for 12 months. Mulligan and Prato are absolute wastes.

We should stick to picking genuine footballers. Picken, Morris, Dahlhouse, Harbrow types.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations. Players that have never touched a footy have to be OUT, and speculative picks from the outback, romantic as they are, will cost us far more in sheer wastage than having the full complement of rookies each year. We should literally just pick up the top 6 gun junior footballers that year that missed out in the main draft, or if there aren't 6 that meet that standard, throw in one or two mature age players under 25 who are now almost-AFL standard -- fullstop. If it is the case then that there aren't 6 players who meet those standards, then it will be okay to have less than the full complement.

This.

I couldn't agree with you more, Lantern.

Seriously. I couldn't.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Well said TBB and Lantern. The time of the 'Project player' taking up a rookie spot should be gone now.

[Mofra]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations.

Generally we do.

Dalhaus you've mentioned, but Panos & Hooper were both u18 AA and J Ho was seen as a possible pick late in the main draft. The other picks are generally mature agers who have earned a shot or provide depth to the list (ie Moles, Barlow).

[Missing-Dog]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

Interesting thread.

Another way to look at the problem of development under-resourcing is that if our under-resourcing makes it slower/less likely that our players improve compared to the speed/ liklihood of players at other clubs improving, to have success we will need more talent to work with on our list, compared to our opponents. Unless you assume that the development gap can be bridged by having a couple of less guys at the club.

So there may be more benefit to us, given our under-resourcing, in rolling the dice on getting good players on the list through the rookie draft so we possibly have more to work with, rather than looking for very minor ways to improve our development resources (as a ratio to the number of listed players).

- I think we can do a LOT better with our rookie selections: yes we've done amazingly well, but we still typically pick up a couple of players that one can almost be certain will NEVER play AFL. Picks like Dahlhaus have to be the norm: players who are already part of the elite pathway and have won awards etc. as juniors, but missed the main draft due to specific perceived limitations such as size or speed or something. At least we KNOW they can play the game, and well, and may learn to overcome their limitations. Players that have never touched a footy have to be OUT, and speculative picks from the outback, romantic as they are, will cost us far more in sheer wastage than having the full complement of rookies each year. We should literally just pick up the top 6 gun junior footballers that year that missed out in the main draft, or if there aren't 6 that meet that standard, throw in one or two mature age players under 25 who are now almost-AFL standard -- fullstop. If it is the case then that there aren't 6 players who meet those standards, then it will be okay to have less than the full complement.

I think this makes sense, and if i was making our selections, that's the philosophy i'd follow. But that is mostly because i don't know much about identifying potential in junior footballers. I think if you're paying experts to make those picks, you need to let them do their thing and not confine them to this extent. I'm not sure, but my impression is that neither of Morris or Boyd have been picked up using this philosophy.

Interestingly, one of my memories of the Kleiman era is that we drafted an inordinate number of players that had won junior awards, and he did not have much success.

[stefoid]

Re: The concept of the rookie list

You shouldn't gamble if you cant afford it and I've already confirmed that it's not a long term thing just a realisation of where we are and the resources we have.

Ultimately the aim is to get good players onto the list. I reckon if you stacked up the number of decent players obtained from the rookie list, vs the cost of maintaining the rookie list, youd probably find it was one of the most cost effective ways of getting good players onto the 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 reckon late draft picks and rookie selections can be lumped together as low probability players, with low draft picks being only a little more probable than rookies.

Turn these guys over quicker - let them be 'projects' on their own time, like Malcolm Lynch.

So as to identify more players who are willing and able to show rapid improvement.