Another 3 delistings

[Angelus]

We should stick to this policy of selecting mature age players. Just because the other clubs are even more stupid than us doesn't mean we should think we are smarter than we actually are.

We have fill 5 or 6 rookie spots this year. I'm sure we will load up on a few mature guys. Don't worry.

I think go for just one young player up to Pick 24 and then go for mature aged players after that. Leaving all the older players until the Rookie Draft is going to be seen as a very "old school" policy pretty soon.

???? what are you on about??? pick 24??? 1 pick before that??? Do you even know what picks we have to use in this years draft??? As for the 'old school' remark. Are you really putting 'trends' on drafting and then basing your decisions on the fact that it won't be 'hip' in a few years. LOL.....

There are actually heaps of good mature aged players to pick from in this draft and probably stuff all good young players.

Great!!! we can get them in the rookie draft then

 

[CamTinley]

I'm saying that the talent seems to dry up after pick 24. Most picks up to 24 seem to make it but after that they don't.

Recruiters year after year want to show everyone how smart they are but end up showing everyone how dumb they are.

Look at how many "kids" after pick 24 we have gone for who have made it in the last 10 years. We should go for players we know can play.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

I think the good players tend to dry up at pick 28.5 (rounded down).

 

[DockerLand1]

I think the good players tend to dry up at pick 28.5 (rounded down).

Does this mean that we are able to Re Rookie our beloved Sibosado if he nominates for the draft and we are well short on key position talent at the Rookie end of the Draft?

I certainly hope so! Not many key position players with a mature body at his still young age that are out there with his talent. That is for sure.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Does this mean that we are able to Re Rookie our beloved Sibosado if he nominates for the draft and we are well short on key position talent at the Rookie end of the Draft?

I certainly hope so! Not many key position players with a mature body at his still young age that are out there with his talent. That is for sure.

I'll break this to you gently.

Someone stuck a fork in him, and he's done.

Clancee got asked to train with us, Sibo did not. Surely that tells you something?

 

[Chris25]

Exactly. And when we re-rookie Hinkley, there wont be any room for someone like Sibosado.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Exactly. And when we re-rookie Hinkley, there wont be any room for someone like Sibosado.

I think that you'll both need a new sig before long.

 

[malpaso]

We should stick to this policy of selecting mature age players.

Finally AFL clubs are starting to understand that there are few 18 - 20 year olds that can affect the contest to warrant such dependency.

Considering the physical demands of AFL it's no wonder that the mature age players are starting to make their presence felt on club lists. Take any other physical sport and you rarely see young players making a big impact, it's not until they are 20+

A policy such as ours has been in recent years is the best, 2-3 kids with the highest draft picks available and then bolster depth and possibly find a gem by scouring the lower leagues for players who've taken that bit longer to show their wares. I've no doubt we'll uncover another couple players this year.

 

[more_of_bito]

In the 2009 draft we got

Joel Houghton @ pick @36
Jesse Chrichton @ pick @48
Dylan Roberton @ pick #49
Justin Bollenhagen @ Pick @52

all before picking up Barlow or Silvagni in the Rookie Draft

Our recruiting department was lucky not smart in leaving Barlow till about overall pick #100. I hope they don't dine out for too much longer on the great Barlow Gambit.

In my mind our recruiters are going OK but nothing special.

I 100% disagree. IMO our recruiting is one of the best in the league and was especially good The draft where Barlow (87), SCOS(109), Deboer (100) and JVB(110) were all promoted rookies in the comprimised draft and didnt nominate as they were on our rookie list so no risk in using pick 100+ for them. We have Lower to upgrade this year to upgrade with pick 78, and use 58 to pick up Davis or pass to leave a RD spot free to get a Ray/Dawson/mature age. Pearce is the only risk we will take as he will have to nominate. but as some stated on this board it's not a risk at all as hes borderline top 35 player.

We also have two reasonable NSW scholarships coming next year who we can use pick 80+and 90+ on so we don't waste any early picks.

 

[Rob]

If we knew that Barlow and Silvagni were going to be anywhere near as good as they turned out to be, we would have drafted them much, much earlier.

Those picks were 99% arse. There is no way we would have lined up Bollenhagen and Barlow and thought 'gee, clearly Barlow will be a better player, but we'll gamble that he'll still be there in the rookie draft so lets go for Bollenhagen'.

 

[Moo]

If we knew that Barlow and Silvagni were going to be anywhere near as good as they turned out to be, we would have drafted them much, much earlier.

Yes but we rated them more than the other AFL clubs, this is the key.

Barlow was never going anywhere but the rookie list and Silvagni was line ball as to whether he was going to be drafted.

To say well we took young guys in the main draft and only arsed these guys in the rookie is absolutley ridiculous.

All that matters is we rated their talent far, far better than all the other clubs.

We deemed Silvagni worthy of a spot, and took Barlow a mature ager who had been overlooked by the guys he had trained with ...these were not risk free selections.

Fyfe's better than Mora ....my God what were the recruiters thinking taking Fyfe that late, should of taken him at 4....or do you say well played you judged talent appropriately (Fyfe was in the 20-40 range pre-draft so we paid full value for a skinny flanker)?

Those picks were 99% arse. There is no way we would have lined up Bollenhagen and Barlow and thought 'gee, clearly Barlow will be a better player, but we'll gamble that he'll still be there in the rookie draft so lets go for Bollenhagen'.

What you envisage when we were doing our rookie list recruiting we just carry out a huge chocolate wheel.

Pick 8 Freo ...tik-aticka-tik-aticka-tik ....ummmmmm M Barlow

Pick 24 24 Freo ....tik-aticka-tik-aticka-tik ....sorry liner .....tik-aticka-tik-aticka-tik A Silvagni

We would of been going for young talent in the main draft and filling holes with the best mature talent in the rookie.

Acknowledge that our recruiters in the last 3 drafts got ahead of the curve in use of the rookie draft and assessing mature age talent....or just go gee we got lucky - I'll lock in A.

[YOUTUBE]yX7hJhlWAt8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Postman_Pav]

Yes but we rated them more than the other AFL clubs, this is the key.

Barlow was never going anywhere but the rookie list and Silvagni was line ball as to whether he was going to be drafted.

Barlow trained with Essendon before PSD. Essendon had the pick before Freo in the PSD. I think its accepted that if Ess didnt go Hardingham, they would have gone Barlow.

Freo must have been pretty damn confident that a Melb based club wouldnt draft him, where you got that confidence nobody knows. To be brutally honest, it smells more like luck than good management. Obviously you deserve credit for actually taking him but surely if you thought he was half as good as he was, you wouldnt have waited until he was the 100th player taken. He had an outstanding draft camp and had dominated the VFL that year.

 

[Sman-21]

Nothing to do with luck fool.

Every other club thought he was too slow to make it, skills werent great enough to make up for the speed issue.

We just saw a guy who could play football an was a ball magnet an was prepared to take the risk that he could transfer that to AFL level instead of wasting a rookie spot on some kid who had never shown anything except a bit of potential once or twice in his young career.

 

[Postman_Pav]

Nothing to do with luck fool.

Every other club thought he was too slow to make it, skills werent great enough to make up for the speed issue.

We just saw a guy who could play football an was a ball magnet an was prepared to take the risk that he could transfer that to AFL level instead of wasting a rookie spot on some kid who had never shown anything except a bit of potential once or twice in his young career.

He ran 2.90 at draft camp, he was never slow. Bit rich calling me a fool

 

[Proud Bogan]

He ran 2.90 at draft camp, he was never slow. Bit rich calling me a fool

How about a gutless turncoat then.

amirite

 

[CamTinley]

Nothing to do with luck fool.

Every other club thought he was too slow to make it, skills werent great enough to make up for the speed issue.

We just saw a guy who could play football an was a ball magnet an was prepared to take the risk that he could transfer that to AFL level instead of wasting a rookie spot on some kid who had never shown anything except a bit of potential once or twice in his young career.

I think it was 99% luck that we got Barlow.

We didn't know that that all the other clubs thought he was too slow (blah, blah) we just worked that out afterwards. I have forgotten which club planned to pick him up with their next pick but if they had pulled the trigger earlier the same accusation would have been thrown at us.

We wasted at least two picks in the 2009 draft before the Barlow selection and then we "passed" on a pick a little later on in the main draft. To say that it was a stroke of genius by our recruiting department just doesn't hold water.

We got lucky with Barlow, our recruiters should just accept that and move on. The more I hear about the great Barlow Gambit the more I'm convinced that they want to use that as a "remember when" fall-back for any future stuff-ups they make.

 

[tacopavlich]

I think it was 99% luck that we got Barlow.

We didn't know that that all the other clubs thought he was too slow (blah, blah) we just worked that out afterwards. I have forgotten which club planned to pick him up with their next pick but if they had pulled the trigger earlier the same accusation would have been thrown at us.

We wasted at least two picks in the 2009 draft before the Barlow selection and then we "passed" on a pick a little later on in the main draft. To say that it was a stroke of genius by our recruiting department just doesn't hold water.

We got lucky with Barlow, our recruiters should just accept that and move on. The more I hear about the great Barlow Gambit the more I'm convinced that they want to use that as a "remember when" fall-back for any future stuff-ups they make.

You are just making sh!t up now. And we have done more good than just Barlow in the last few years. Or did we just get lucky multiple times?

 

[Chris25]

He was rated as a rookie prospect, we took him as soon as we could have in the rookie draft. What's the problem?

 

[Bender571]

Barlow trained with Essendon before PSD. Essendon had the pick before Freo in the PSD. I think its accepted that if Ess didnt go Hardingham, they would have gone Barlow.

Freo must have been pretty damn confident that a Melb based club wouldnt draft him, where you got that confidence nobody knows. To be brutally honest, it smells more like luck than good management. Obviously you deserve credit for actually taking him but surely if you thought he was half as good as he was, you wouldnt have waited until he was the 100th player taken. He had an outstanding draft camp and had dominated the VFL that year.

This just shows how far ahead the Freo recruiting staff are. The whole draft was a well orchestrated game of chess. We knew that Barlow was training with Essendon and that they were the only real risk of taking him on their senior list. So what did Freo do? They pissed off Essendon by convincing McPhee to leave and picked him up in the PSD. Whilst all this was going on Freo were making it "known" that we rated Hardingham for our first pick in the rookie draft. When the PSD came we took McPhee and Essendon took their revenge by selecting Hardingham and Barlow just happend to fall to our 1st pick in the rookie draft.

 

[rgauci]

Compare our drafting to West Coast over the period we decided to goto the draft:

2008 Fremantle
Pick 3 Stephen Hill
Pick 21 Hayden Ballantyne
Pick 24 Nic Suban
Pick 37 Zac Clarke
Pick 53 Michael Walters
Pick 56 Ben Bucovaz
Pick 68 Tim Ruffles
Pick 77 Chris Hall
Rookie 1st round: Casey Sibosado
Rookie 2nd round: Matt DeBoer
Rookie 3rd round: Hamish Shepheard
Rookie 4th round: Clancee Pearce
Rookie 5th round: Jay Van Berlo
Rookie 6th round: Greg Broughton

2008 West Coast
Pick 2: Nic Naitanui
Pick 18: Luke Shuey
Pick 20: Tom Swift
Pick 36: Ash Smith
Pick 52: Jordan Jones
Rookie 1st round: Liam Bedford
Rookie 2nd round: Adam Cockie

2009 Fremantle
Pick 4 Anthony Morabito
Pick 20 Nat Fyfe
Pick 36 Joel Houghton
Pick 48 Jesse Chrichton
Pick 49 Dylan Roberton
Pick 52 Justin Bollenhagen
PSD: Adam McPhee
Rookie 1st round: Michael Barlow
Rookie 2nd round: Alex Silvagni

2009 West Coast
Pick 7: Brad Sheppard
Pick 22: Garrick Weedon
Pick 23: Koby Stevens
PSD: Ryan Neates
Rookie 1st round: Lewis Broome
Rookie 2nd round: Andrew Strjik
Rookie 3rd round: Ashton Hams
Rookie 4th round: Jarrod Oakley Nichols

2010 Fremantle
Pick 20: Jayden Pitt
Pick 44: Viv Michie
Pick 56: Josh Mellington
PSD: Jack Anthony
Rookie 1st round: Gavin Roberts
Rookie 2nd round: Nick Lower

2010 West Coast
Pick 4 Andrew Gaff
Pick 26 Jack Darling
Pick 29 Scott Lycett
Pick 62 Jacob Brennan (F/S)
PSD: Blayne Wilson
Rookie 1st round: Tim Houlihan
Rookie 2nd round: Anton Hamp
Rookie 3rd round: Jeromy McGovern

Not to mention we added, Mzungu, Griffin and Faulks via sneaky trades in the 2010 off season. Personally i think we did just better in 2008 and romped home in 2009 with West Coast finding form in 2010, which is easy to do when you win the spoon. There is only 1 pick which stands out as a West Coast triumph which is Jack Darling at pick 26.

There are some lucky picks, one would assume Barlow would have been picked up at some point in the rookie draft by someone. So luck does have something to do with it. Others are just very astute; no-one was chasing Silvagni or Broughton and we were justified using our last pick to select them.

 

[Angelus]

It Can't be luck if it happens consistently though. To that say we lucked out on Barlow would only hold some merit if it was a one off. However, we hVe been doing this for years now. Broughton, DeBoer, Barlow, Silvagni, Lower.

You can't have It both ways, either we lucked out on all of them, making us the luckiest team around (excluding injuries) OR we must have a system in place that sees something in these players that others don't.

Oh and Barlow also trained with North Melbourne and was running round in the WB VFL team so they would have see him more than anyone. Yet none of these teams pulled the trigger.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

He ran 2.90 at draft camp, he was never slow. Bit rich calling me a fool

How about ship jumping rat?

 

[more_of_bito]

Hindsight is wonderful thing. Pies picked Swan up mid 50's so does that mean it was 99% ass? I do believe a certain element of luck, but taking our last 3 years of rookie drafts ie picks 100+, i cant find a better success rate in any othe afl team(maybe hawks?) and stand by my statement Freo's recruiters and/or list management is one of the best in the country.

 

[Clay Davis]

How about a gutless turncoat then.

amirite

Also goes by the name David Brent and (formerly) TOA.

 

[CamTinley]

The whole point of all of my posts is that mature aged draftees are better value than untested kids. Our good picks have been mature aged players. If we want that to continue we will need to start picking those players in the National Draft and not wait for the Rookie Draft.