-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Crows Rookie Selections discussion thread
- Thread starter cmndstab
- Start date
- Tagged users None
is it really this big of a deal? other clubs passed up late in the rookie draft as well.
- Banned
- #153
if it were an isolated example, no.
but consider:
Brisbane and the doggies, were the only ones to pass at the same stage of the draft.
Richmond were next, 2 rounds later.
worth pointing out that Brisbane & Richmond also took guys in the PSD.
it also doesn't matter if we are smarter than everyone else, at which point we shouldn't be doing what everyone else does.
doggies and richmond cant afford it so they dont count.
Yeah i know theres some nice players to come from the rookie list (1/2 our team is made of them!), but just saying the decision most likely wont bite us on the ass as almost all rookies are duds. As i said, i would of liked us not to put henderson on show, so we could of taken him a bit later.What?You might want to look up the sizeable list of quality players who began their careers on rookie lists.
Considering that nobody including recruiters really know how any of these kids are going to turn out wouldn't it make sense to cast the net as far and as wide as we can. I mean, what possible harm could it do?
I'm with Drummond on this and cannot believe that there was not one solitary rookie draft worthy player available after our 3rd pick. Clearly the recruiting teams of the clubs that selected post our pass at 41 are a bunch of muppets.
- Oct 3, 2003
- 26,916
- 30,910
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Soft spot for Brisbane
I think it is completely ridiculous that the club would suggest that there isn't ONE footballer in all of Australia that we would be curious to have on our rookie list for a year to see if they MIGHT turn into a worthwhile footballer.
No-one????
Not Sharples or Martin or Allwright or O'Hara or Klemke or Stopp or Gugliotta or Bennell or Gaertner or a project ruckman or an indigenous small forward or ANYTHING.
Pretty arrogant, and you'd want to be right. It seems a much smaller risk to draft someone and give yourself a year to find out, instead of writing off EVERYBODY.
No-one????
Not Sharples or Martin or Allwright or O'Hara or Klemke or Stopp or Gugliotta or Bennell or Gaertner or a project ruckman or an indigenous small forward or ANYTHING.
Pretty arrogant, and you'd want to be right. It seems a much smaller risk to draft someone and give yourself a year to find out, instead of writing off EVERYBODY.
- Thread starter
- #158
Hey, not trying to be smart but you keep talking about "we" when you're listed as a Geelong supporter
Are you a closet Adelaide supporter, or just in disguise 
For all of you saying "but there must have been good players picked up after pick 41 who Adelaide should have drafted" consider the following...
There were 85 possible selections at yesterdays draft. Of these, 11 were passed over, with 74 players drafted. Of those 74, 14 were pre-selected ahead of the draft (NSW Scholarship, International Rookies (Irish and otherwise), 3-year unregistered players, 3rd year rookies). All of the pre-selected players were taken after #41, while Brisbane passed twice before #41. This means that there were just 60 "live" selections.
Of those 60, just 21 were selected after we chose to pass at #41. Effectively, these were the last 21 players chosen out of 159 players drafted in 2008 (79 in the ND, 6 in the PSD, 74 in the RD).
So, the 21 players we chose to pass on were effectively selected in the 138-159 range, having already been passed over on no less than 137 occasions.
What are the odds on players this far down the pecking order being successful?
There were 85 possible selections at yesterdays draft. Of these, 11 were passed over, with 74 players drafted. Of those 74, 14 were pre-selected ahead of the draft (NSW Scholarship, International Rookies (Irish and otherwise), 3-year unregistered players, 3rd year rookies). All of the pre-selected players were taken after #41, while Brisbane passed twice before #41. This means that there were just 60 "live" selections.
Of those 60, just 21 were selected after we chose to pass at #41. Effectively, these were the last 21 players chosen out of 159 players drafted in 2008 (79 in the ND, 6 in the PSD, 74 in the RD).
So, the 21 players we chose to pass on were effectively selected in the 138-159 range, having already been passed over on no less than 137 occasions.
What are the odds on players this far down the pecking order being successful?
- Thread starter
- #160
Regardless of the way you jiggle the numbers, the fact remains that the odds of a player this far down the pecking order being successful are infinitely higher than the odds of getting a successful player when you don't pick one at all. Even 1% or 2% is higher than 0%.
The argument here then becomes, is that small chance of getting a decent player worth spending time and money on. Assuming we could fit the player in our salary cap, the costs associated with trialling the extra rookie would be:
1) Salary
2) Slightly less time to focus on other "more deserving" youngsters
3) A few costs associated with flying them over, putting them in a house somewhere, etc
4) Possibly losing confidence in the other youngsters who now know they were selected by choice, but just because the Crows had to plug a gap.
5) Any others?
I would hope that the Adelaide Crows, of all clubs, would be able to foot the monetary side of things, so presumably they place a big emphasis on only having people on their list they feel are worthy of being there.
- Banned
- #161
and that's my point. how could you defend the decision if you're not?
Hey, not trying to be smart but you keep talking about "we" when you're listed as a Geelong supporter
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=526097
- Thread starter
- #163
The decision would be easier to defend if they'd actually bothered to trial out a few more rookies. If they tried out eight and said they were all shit except Henderson, it would carry more weight. But they didn't even look at any besides him, so effectively they carried a list of three others from the ND, added Schmidt and Henderson, and called it a day.
Realistically it probably won't matter much. The argument that "if even one player after we passed turns out good we've failed", while fair, likely wouldn't match up reality because at that stage, it's a crap shoot and we probably wouldn't have picked them even if we had to pick someone. It's just a pity not to give anyone a try. Pity for the supporters, too.
Realistically it probably won't matter much. The argument that "if even one player after we passed turns out good we've failed", while fair, likely wouldn't match up reality because at that stage, it's a crap shoot and we probably wouldn't have picked them even if we had to pick someone. It's just a pity not to give anyone a try. Pity for the supporters, too.
- Banned
- #164
irrelevant.
its about upside and downside, and at what cost?
you gain upside exposure, with no downside, and at no cost? turning that down is an unnecessarily risky move.
even a 1 in a thousand lottery ticket is worth having if it doesn't cost you anything.
and we all know I am talking list management cost, as the cash side of things is not an issue for us at all.
- Thread starter
- #165
- Banned
- #166
Edit: sorry didn't read the whole thread first
You are arguing about something other than what I thought!
You are arguing about something other than what I thought!
- Thread starter
- #168
The only argument I can think of that would be acceptable (I don't necessarily agree with it but I could applaud the club for making it at least) would be if they did it for the culture of the club.
At the moment, someone like Chris Schmidt or Ricky Henderson, or even Martin and Moss being retained, can look at their spot on the list and say "Well, the Crows think I deserve to be here."
The club has shown that they would rather have nobody at all than have someone they don't feel has earnt their position and that has to give the fringe players some encouragement.
If it was a conscious decision from the club to achieve that goal, then while I would probably prefer an extra rookie I applaud them for making calls on what sort of club they want to run and sticking to their guns.
If it was just a monetary decision made because they figured nobody else would be any good so it would just be a waste of money then I'm disappointed in the club.
The other things to conclude from Matthew Rendell's remarks, via process of elimination, are that AFC:
- would definitely have rookied Wade Thompson if he was still available
- yesterday only ever considered adding Henderson, Schmidt, and Thompson plus two of either McKenzie, Bedford or Sibosado to their Rookie List - NOBODY ELSE
I can see your argument about 1% or 2% being better than the 0% chance a non-selection provides. I sincerely doubt that the decision to pass was made for financial reasons.
The club took a look at all of the players remaining in the pool and decided that there were only 5 whom they were interested in drafting. Given his performance in the 2007 drafts, most of us are currently prepared to back Rendell's judgment to the hilt (drafting anyway, trading is another matter). If he says that none of the other players were worthy of time in the tricolours, then that's good enough for me.
I'm not interested in picking up players for charity. If they're not good enough to attract the interest of our recruiting department then they shouldn't be on our list, even if that means we go into 2008 with one free rookie position available.
The club took a look at all of the players remaining in the pool and decided that there were only 5 whom they were interested in drafting. Given his performance in the 2007 drafts, most of us are currently prepared to back Rendell's judgment to the hilt (drafting anyway, trading is another matter). If he says that none of the other players were worthy of time in the tricolours, then that's good enough for me.
I'm not interested in picking up players for charity. If they're not good enough to attract the interest of our recruiting department then they shouldn't be on our list, even if that means we go into 2008 with one free rookie position available.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,488
- 10,596
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
The refrain of the Gambler?? You have to be in it to win it?
The AFC obviously believe that the cost of taking on another rookie was higher than the value of having a small chance of them turning into a decent player.
Clearly there are costs in getting additional palyers in relation to salaries and equipment and development costs etc. But big indirect cost is that the time spend on the last player picked by Alan Stewart and Rendell will be similar to teh time spent onf the first player picked. Therefore time spent by the coaches on a guy who more than likely won't make it is time that could have been spent on the other guys who in the eyes of the club have far more potential.
Not picking another rookie is hardly a big deal I would have thought.
- Banned
- #172
agreed. we'd all be horrified if it were, seeing as we have superior financial resources but are restrained from exercising that advantage. generally speaking we should be looking for opportunities to spend money within the confines of the system, to mine for gold.
can't imagine we thought of the finance cost.
his performance in the 2007 is VERY far from validated. we all like we see so far, but the proof is in the pudding, and the souffle has not yet risen. but what you are saying here is basically a repeat of what was said before. that yes, we have backed ourselves, seriously ZOMG freaking backed ourselves. which is fine, if we are right. indefensible if we're not.
it's a very big, very provocative call to say there were only ever 5 rookies we'd have been prepared to take under any circumstances. its an arrogant, middle fingered statement that sets us up for ridicule if we're wrong.
I can't feel good about that.
sure, as soon as you can find anyone suggesting picking up players for charity, or because they're mother made tea and scones for reidy, then this will be relevant.
when we say all these guys will definitely suck, then we are claiming a level of certainty that is, at best, surprising.
- Banned
- #173
on the surface its not. the statement it makes is a big deal.
drafting is still an inexact science with a high number of flame outs, saying we don't need our full quota of players, that we are fine with less than maximum oars in the water, is a very big statement.
that we do not have Kade Klemke on our books (say) is a minor thing, saying we are sooooo confident in what we already have, that we need no more is a pretty major and important philosophical message to be sending.
Macca19
Moderator
- Moderator
- #174
Its an interesting call isnt it. So if by chance those 5 players were picked before Adelaides first rookie pick, they'd have passed all their live rookie picks? I cant imagine the confusion on here if that happened!
As I said after the main draft, hes got a lot of balls saying all this stuff in the public domain. Hes either gonna look a genius or an arrogant twat who had no clue. Many dont, but hes willing to put his balls on the line and stand by his opinion.
- Thread starter
- #175
This is probably one of the things I like the most about Rendell. He doesn't hide one tiny bit from his decisions, in fact he stands up and trumpets them just incase someone missed them.
It's nice to see the club being loud and proud about something they're doing for a change.
Now - how long do we wait until numbers are announced?
