Where are north at?

[Kimbo]

Ah every club in the top 14 teams probably is selecting best available. You were ordinary last year yet your high selections weren't pushing themselves in, even with all of these apparent injuries. Just because they are high picks doesn't mean they are any good. Do I really need to start giving examples? You need to hope Durdin and Nielsen can cut it at AFL level. I can safely say Barrass has passed that initial test. See the difference?

As B Tron has pointed out, Durdin, Nielson and Vickers-Willis (the third of our taller 2014 draftees) all missed 2015 with injury and so 2016 was their first year in the system. Barrass was a 2013 draftee so he has 1-2 years on these guys.

I don't think anyone is saying you don't have kids. You have the 2nd youngest list in the league so obviously you do.

It's just that North supporters keep pumping up these kids that have 0 AFL experience, and are confused why opposition supporters aren't doing the same. It's hard to rate North's youth when most of them are stuck in the VFL or on the sidelines with injury. The fact you have so many untried rookies isn't necessarily a good thing.

Where's North's Merrett, Bontempelli, Petracca, Cripps, Barrass, Mills? Not much to get excited about at the moment when you look at North's young players.

That's the big thing isn't it, they either point to kids that are yet to play a game or a 23 year old that hasn't even reached 20 games. Meanwhile the Bulldogs have multiple 50+ game players and Sydney has Danes Rampe who has almost hit 100 games. Hell, even Rory Atkins has doubled Woods total while debuting later and having just as many injuries.

I must have missed us pumping up kids with little experience. I've simply seen North supporters saying 'It's too early to tell' as we do have a lot of kids who, for various reasons, haven't had a lot of games. How they'll pan out is really anyone's guess. We're not at the 50 game level for these guys as we're closer to 6 o'clock now, than 12 o'clock.

Including rookies, we now have 20 players who are aged 21 years old or younger, as at 23rd March 2017 (start of next season); 46.5% of the list. Only 4 of these 20 have debuted (Dumont, Turner, Wagner, Clarke) with a grand total of 51 games between them. (Dumont and Clarke look to be capable AFL players, although their ceiling is yet to be determined.)

• Of the 16 who haven’t debuted, 8 have only just arrived at the club; 7 draftees + Ahern who didn’t debut for GWS due to injuries.
• Of the remaining eight, three are the 2014 intake who all missed 2015 with injury. Ed Vickers-Willis (EVW) was on the cusp in 2016.
• The remaining five include Preuss and Fordham (rookie list, so limited opportunities), McKay (young big man), Hibberd (injured) and Mountford.

It's my view that the only U21s who could/should have been played (more) are Dumont, and possibly Mountford and EVW who each could have debuted at least.

We have 14 players aged between 22 and 26 with 1000 games between them, averaging 70 AFL games each. At the older end of the spectrum, we have 9 players aged 27 or older, with 1467 games between them, averaging 163 games. So, all up across both over 21 age groups, 23 players with an average 107 games experience.

 

[mikeg4]

Have a look and let me know. Thats what i did.

FYI North first and second round picks yet to play at AFL level.

Durdin, Nielsen, Vickers-Willis, McKay, Hibberd, Simpkin, Ahern, Watson and Williams.

**** it. I'll do it for ya.

Hawks: 0
Rich: Bolton
Geel: Parfitt
Melb: McKenna
Adel: Galluci, Wigg, Doedee
WCE: Venables, Rotham, Partington

9 first and second rounders between 6 clubs who are yet to debut.

North have 9 yet we are the ones who are stuffed.

Never change bigfooty.

Its weird to interpret it as a good thing that 5 of them are 20 and havent even cracked a game yet, especially when you guys had injuries this year to senior players. I would much rather 1st and 2nd round draft picks who have played a few games

 

[Le Grille]

Its weird to interpret it as a good thing that 4 of them are 20 and havent even cracked a game yet, especially when you guys had injuries this year to senior players. I would much rather 1st and 2nd round draft picks who have played a few games

Did you actually read what he posted

He stated that there were reasons which prevented them playing. All we are saying is that you cant dismiss these guys as rubbish just yet.

 

[tazaa]

Not to mention that the returning 'stars' were all instrumental in their bottom 4 finish before the suspensions.

Two bottom 4 finishes in a row, even when they had everyone available, yet all their fans think that the return of a bunch of average players with a 12 month lay off is going to catapult them into the finals and, knowing the delusion of Essendon fans throughout the whole saga, probably premiership contention.

That's the thing. It's like bringing back 10 players from knee recos all at the same time. They will be as bad if not the same as 2015. Delusional

 

[Elite Master]

I don't think anyone is saying you don't have kids. You have the 2nd youngest list in the league so obviously you do.

Just curious: how do you know this?

 

[GarnerSmash]

Its weird to interpret it as a good thing that 5 of them are 20 and havent even cracked a game yet, especially when you guys had injuries this year to senior players. I would much rather 1st and 2nd round draft picks who have played a few games

As GN80 stated four of em were injured or recovering from major surgery, so it was hard for them to get a crack. That, and it wasn't really their positions that we were hard up for. The other was a first year KPF who woulda been drafted last week if he had been born a week later.

In truth we don’t know if these guys are up to it but there are, as always, a truck load ready to write them off before they have fired a shot. Just look through this thread.

Generally speaking more long term AFL players come from the first two rounds of the draft and we have a lot (in comparison to all other clubs) of those guys looking for a crack. Hence my claim that we don't need a full rebuild because a fair bit of it has already been done.

 

[Beerfish]

That's the thing. It's like bringing back 10 players from knee recos all at the same time. They will be as bad if not the same as 2015. Delusional

Except for the fact that they, you know, haven't had knee recos.

 

[tazaa]

Except for the fact that they, you know, haven't had knee recos.

They've had 18 months between games. The rustiness will be off the charts.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Just curious: how do you know this?

 

[Le Grille]

Except for the fact that they, you know, haven't had knee recos.

You know full well he is talking from a conditioning (match fitness) point of view.

 

[hilly]

Its weird to interpret it as a good thing that 5 of them are 20 and havent even cracked a game yet, especially when you guys had injuries this year to senior players. I would much rather 1st and 2nd round draft picks who have played a few games

Very conservative selection policy which has to change. I don't watch VFL so have no idea how good those guys are. Only one way to find out for sure..

 

[Beerfish]

They've had 18 months between games. The rustiness will be off the charts.

We'll see. They will naturally take some time to get back into the swing of it, luckily there are pre-season games to help blow the cobwebs out. I doubt anyone thinks they're going to kill it straight away but I also doubt it will be anything like 10 players coming back from knee recos.

Still, we digress. Thread is about where your club is at. Bottom 4 for mine.

 

[Le Grille]

We'll see. They will naturally take some time to get back into the swing of it, luckily there are pre-season games to help blow the cobwebs out. I doubt anyone thinks they're going to kill it straight away but I also doubt it will be anything like 10 players coming back from knee recos.

Still, we digress. Thread is about where your club is at. Bottom 4 for mine.

OK, how about this for a bit of fun and good natured banter.

Dons finish higher than Roos. I will put a dons player of your choosing as my avatar, change my listed team as Essendon and add "Beerfish was right, I should have taken notice of what he said" to my signature and keep it there for two weeks.

If the Roos finish above the Dons roles reversed.

Deal?

 

[Beerfish]

OK, how about this for a bit of fun and good natured banter.

Dons finish higher than Roos. I will put a dons player of your choosing as my avatar, change my listed team as Essendon and add "Beerfish was right, I should have taken notice of what he said" to my signature and keep it there for two weeks.

If the Roos finish above the Dons roles reversed.

Deal?

What makes you think I care about your avatar and sig? I don't care whether you think I'm right or not. If I'm right I'm right and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. It's just an opinion. Everyone's entitled to them you know. Even non-North supporters.

 

[Le Grille]

What makes you think I care about your avatar and sig? I don't care whether you think I'm right or not. If I'm right I'm right and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. It's just an opinion. Everyone's entitled to them you know. Even non-North supporters.

I just thought it was a bit of fun, lighten the mood. Sort of an agree to disagree kind of thing. No real intent other than a bit of fun.

 

[tazaa]

If we finish below Essendon next year Essendons playing finals

 

[Beerfish]

If we finish below Essendon next year Essendons playing finals

Now there's a post I can like.

 

[Bazza97]

It's a common pattern among footy supporters of 'rebuilding sides' (to talk up prospects based on incoming young players who have played little to no footy). To suggest that this then leads invariably to failure (or success) is flawed. Each case is unique and depends on a range of factors, not least the quality of the kids themselves.

In our case I'll back our football department to ensure they're competitive - we didn't drop down the ladder dramatically when Brad first took over in 2010 - and to develop a team worthy of finals within a short period. The bigger question is whether we've got enough players now, or in the next few years, who have the necessary star quality to win a premiership. It's too early to tell either way.

That said, I wouldn't be unhappy with a year or two in the bottom four from a draft pick perspective. I'm not advocating tanking by any means; just saying if playing lots of kids results in a lower ladder position the one upside is access to high end quality we've been starved of from a draft position perspective.

Personally just from what I see, if you happened to finish bottom four for a couple of years, that would be the best possible result with your current list IMO.

To be fair, your younger players have barely been given an opportunity and part of that is due to injury but that is an issue in itself and could very well stall the development of those players in particular the first and second year players. Therefore, getting more talent, especially in the top 10 of the draft seems to be one of the best ways to rebuild and build a list that can contend for a premiership.

One of the worst things that can happen is if you overrate your list and ignore the draft and finish just in or around the top 8 without making much of an impact in finals. Richmond is a team that fits this bill and this is what happened to them over the past few years and now it seems they could be stuck in no man's land as they've got a list that doesn't look like it will bottom out nor will it challenge for a premiership TBH.

ATM I don't see North's list as capable of challenging for a premiership so therefore I think if North undertake a rebuild by focusing on promoting the younger and unproven players as well as aiming to draft high talented kids by obtaining top 10 draft picks most likely received through their ladder position should be on the agenda for North. I'm not trying to advocate tanking either but if you start to focus on the youth through drafting and playing as well as balance that with playing your reliable experienced players I think you'll be going in the right direction long term.

 

[Jack Bradley]

Personally just from what I see, if you happened to finish bottom four for a couple of years, that would be the best possible result with your current list IMO.

To be fair, your younger players have barely been given an opportunity and part of that is due to injury but that is an issue in itself and could very well stall the development of those players in particular the first and second year players. Therefore, getting more talent, especially in the top 10 of the draft seems to be one of the best ways to rebuild and build a list that can contend for a premiership.

One of the worst things that can happen is if you overrate your list and ignore the draft and finish just in or around the top 8 without making much of an impact in finals. Richmond is a team that fits this bill and this is what happened to them over the past few years and now it seems they could be stuck in no man's land as they've got a list that doesn't look like it will bottom out nor will it challenge for a premiership TBH.

ATM I don't see North's list as capable of challenging for a premiership so therefore I think if North undertake a rebuild by focusing on promoting the younger and unproven players as well as aiming to draft high talented kids by obtaining top 10 draft picks most likely received through their ladder position should be on the agenda for North. I'm not trying to advocate tanking either but if you start to focus on the youth through drafting and playing as well as balance that with playing your reliable experienced players I think you'll be going in the right direction long term.

What a well balanced comment.

I agree 100% - 2 years in the bottom 4 would do us good. Will give good exposure to the young players in the list and give them a chance to improve. Finishing bottom 4 will also give us an opportunity to get some genuine talent in the draft.

 

[Kimbo]

Personally just from what I see, if you happened to finish bottom four for a couple of years, that would be the best possible result with your current list IMO.

To be fair, your younger players have barely been given an opportunity and part of that is due to injury but that is an issue in itself and could very well stall the development of those players in particular the first and second year players. Therefore, getting more talent, especially in the top 10 of the draft seems to be one of the best ways to rebuild and build a list that can contend for a premiership.

One of the worst things that can happen is if you overrate your list and ignore the draft and finish just in or around the top 8 without making much of an impact in finals. Richmond is a team that fits this bill and this is what happened to them over the past few years and now it seems they could be stuck in no man's land as they've got a list that doesn't look like it will bottom out nor will it challenge for a premiership TBH.

ATM I don't see North's list as capable of challenging for a premiership so therefore I think if North undertake a rebuild by focusing on promoting the younger and unproven players as well as aiming to draft high talented kids by obtaining top 10 draft picks most likely received through their ladder position should be on the agenda for North. I'm not trying to advocate tanking either but if you start to focus on the youth through drafting and playing as well as balance that with playing your reliable experienced players I think you'll be going in the right direction long term.

If we did finish bottom four, that'd be a result of 'gifting' games to younger players who may not fully deserve it on merit. And, for a year or so, I'm not opposed to it as long as it is not overdone. For example, if 25% of the team is filled with younger players, that younger players rotate through these, more than take spots of older players whose form warrants a spot. There still needs to be a strong culture of competition for spots. I'd like to think this will happen more without the older 'gimme' games.

Fortunately, while we've got 20x U21s, we've got a decent core of 14x 22-26s and 9x 27 and older players, averaging 100+ games. These guys have played a more important part in recent success than they're credited with in my view (the role of Petrie and Dal Santo, in particular, overrated, and the importance of Harvey over-emphasized).

 

[Bazza97]

If we did finish bottom four, that'd be a result of 'gifting' games to younger players who may not fully deserve it on merit. And, for a year or so, I'm not opposed to it as long as it is not overdone. For example, if 25% of the team is filled with younger players, that younger players rotate through these, more than take spots of older players whose form warrants a spot. There still needs to be a strong culture of competition for spots. I'd like to think this will happen more without the older 'gimme' games.

Fortunately, while we've got 20x U21s, we've got a decent core of 14x 22-26s and 9x 27 and older players, averaging 100+ games. These guys have played a more important part in recent success than they're credited with in my view (the role of Petrie and Dal Santo, in particular, overrated, and the importance of Harvey over-emphasized).

It'll be a real balancing act in terms of promoting players who deserve the call up and those that perhaps do not deserve it as much but hopefully most of your younger players who are on the fringe are able to play to a level where they are not gifted games in the seniors. If this happens the result could promote a strong culture within the whole team in terms of competition for spots as players will understand that they have to play to a certain level to get called up to the Seniors.

 

[Kimbo]

It'll be a real balancing act in terms of promoting players who deserve the call up and those that perhaps do not deserve it as much but hopefully most of your younger players who are on the fringe are able to play to a level where they are not gifted games in the seniors. If this happens the result could promote a strong culture within the whole team in terms of competition for spots as players will understand that they have to play to a certain level to get called up to the Seniors.

Indeed. Excuse me indulging your apparent interest here Bazza.

For me, there are three groups I’m keen to see get more opportunities or extend the limited opportunities they’ve had till now:

Group 1. Those who have played some games over the past few years, but unable to cement a regular spot:

1. Mason Wood (16). Didn’t bring the defensive consistency until 2016, then broke through, only to suffer a knee injury. High hopes.
2. Trent Dumont (20). Kid has shown he's got it, but limited chances. Problem is his pace and the fact that this places him in direct competition with Swallow, Cunnington and Ziebell in the middle where we’re already too slow. (Was really hoping we’d trade Swallow out.)
3. Taylor Garner (16). Paper hamstrings delayed his early years, only to break down again in '16. Has skills and aggression if he gets a go.
4. Kayne Turner (21). Footy smart (knows where to position himself) and hard as a cats head. Sabotaged 2016 with his drink driving. Hoping he’s well poised to make amends.
5. Majak Daw (25). I’ve been pretty skeptical about whether he’ll make it, but the EF gave me a glimpse that he might just have clicked that with Drew’s departure there are no excuses. Others have said he needed the continuity of games he finally got in 2016; I hope they’re right.
6. Jed Anderson (19). Has had injury issues, at Hawks and for a good portion of 2016. Some more continuity, building on 2016 games, would be good as he was a Rd 1 selection.
7. Nathan Hrovat (30). Hoping he gets plenty of opportunity as he brings a point of difference to our midfield, and that he stays injury free.
8. Marley Williams (68). Has a point to prove, and needs to mature, but at the very least I hope he puts pressure on the likes of Mullett who has stagnated.

Group 2: The 2015-2016 smaller midfielder types with no/limited experience:

1. Ryan Clarke (6). Gets the ball, great endurance, good link player. Can see him contributing in a similar way to Michael Barlow at his best.
2. Declan Mountford (0). Looking forward to his pace through HB/midfield.
3. Corey Wagner (4). Needs more games to see what he’ll bring.
4. Jy Simpkin (0). Some ‘x factor’, hopefully. Will get some opportunity in 2017 for the taste, if nothing else. Who knows, might seize it.
5. Josh Williams (0). Don’t expect much for a year or more. Lots of pace, decent kick, but skinny.

Group 3: The 2014-2016 taller/key position types, all with NO AFL experience:

1. 2014 recruits (Sam Durdin, Daniel Nielson, Ed Vickers-Willis). Like to see them all injury-free, good pre-season and all at least debut, with one (EVW most likely at this stage) to begin to stake a claim down back. Durdin is a bit lighter framed and I don’t expect him to stake a claim till Thompson retires. Has the capacity, not sure yet about the desire or consistency.
   
2. 2015 recruits: Mitch Hibberd. Not sure what to expect; at this stage holding my breath till he shows he can get on the paddock. Not a Rd 1 selection as K4E suggests imho. Ben McKay. Young, but a big frame. We’re carefully managing him in both player development and injury prevention. Will have a big impact I reckon, when he’s ready. Will be 2-3 years away from that I reckon, though could debut sooner.
3. 2016 recruits. Declan Watson (defender), Nick Larkey (tall utility) and rookie Oscar Bunker (tall utility, with potential to be a big Bontempelli-type mid in time.

We're going to need to get games into some of these Group 3 guys for succession's sake as we've only got Thompson, Tarrant and Hansen down back.

 

[Bazza97]

Indeed. Excuse me indulging your apparent interest here Bazza.

For me, there are three groups I’m keen to see get more opportunities or extend the limited opportunities they’ve had till now:

Group 1. Those who have played some games over the past few years, but unable to cement a regular spot:

1. Mason Wood (16). Didn’t bring the defensive consistency until 2016, then broke through, only to suffer a knee injury. High hopes.
2. Trent Dumont (20). Kid has shown he's got it, but limited chances. Problem is his pace and the fact that this places him in direct competition with Swallow, Cunnington and Ziebell in the middle where we’re already too slow. (Was really hoping we’d trade Swallow out.)
3. Taylor Garner (16). Paper hamstrings delayed his early years, only to break down again in '16. Has skills and aggression if he gets a go.
4. Kayne Turner (21). Footy smart (knows where to position himself) and hard as a cats head. Sabotaged 2016 with his drink driving. Hoping he’s well poised to make amends.
5. Majak Daw (25). I’ve been pretty skeptical about whether he’ll make it, but the EF gave me a glimpse that he might just have clicked that with Drew’s departure there are no excuses. Others have said he needed the continuity of games he finally got in 2016; I hope they’re right.
6. Jed Anderson (19). Has had injury issues, at Hawks and for a good portion of 2016. Some more continuity, building on 2016 games, would be good as he was a Rd 1 selection.
7. Nathan Hrovat (30). Hoping he gets plenty of opportunity as he brings a point of difference to our midfield, and that he stays injury free.
8. Marley Williams (68). Has a point to prove, and needs to mature, but at the very least I hope he puts pressure on the likes of Mullett who has stagnated.

Group 2: The 2015-2016 smaller midfielder types with no/limited experience:

1. Ryan Clarke (6). Gets the ball, great endurance, good link player. Can see him contributing in a similar way to Michael Barlow at his best.
2. Declan Mountford (0). Looking forward to his pace through HB/midfield.
3. Corey Wagner (4). Needs more games to see what he’ll bring.
4. Jy Simpkin (0). Some ‘x factor’, hopefully. Will get some opportunity in 2017 for the taste, if nothing else. Who knows, might seize it.
5. Josh Williams (0). Don’t expect much for a year or more. Lots of pace, decent kick, but skinny.

Group 3: The 2014-2016 taller/key position types, all with NO AFL experience:

1. 2014 recruits (Sam Durdin, Daniel Nielson, Ed Vickers-Willis). Like to see them all injury-free, good pre-season and all at least debut, with one (EVW most likely at this stage) to begin to stake a claim down back. Durdin is a bit lighter framed and I don’t expect him to stake a claim till Thompson retires. Has the capacity, not sure yet about the desire or consistency.
   
2. 2015 recruits: Mitch Hibberd. Not sure what to expect; at this stage holding my breath till he shows he can get on the paddock. Not a Rd 1 selection as K4E suggests imho. Ben McKay. Young, but a big frame. We’re carefully managing him in both player development and injury prevention. Will have a big impact I reckon, when he’s ready. Will be 2-3 years away from that I reckon, though could debut sooner.
3. 2016 recruits. Declan Watson (defender), Nick Larkey (tall utility) and rookie Oscar Bunker (tall utility, with potential to be a big Bontempelli-type mid in time.

We're going to need to get games into some of these Group 3 guys for succession's sake as we've only got Thompson, Tarrant and Hansen down back.

Like the detailed analysis Kimbo. Wood and Clarke I think are two players that showed glimpses of their ability this year and I think both can cement themselves in the side next year I reckon.

Wood can fill that third tall forward spot and I think he offers a fair bit of flexibility to your forward line in that he can play higher up the ground and be a link up forward with his endurance quite strong as well as his ability to mark on the lead. Think he could play a pretty important part in your forward line next year and beyond.

For a first year player I also quite liked the look of Clarke. Like you said Clarke's endurance is a real strength of his and his work rate does stand out in games. Had 15 or more uncontested possessions in 4 of his 6 games so he's got no problem linking up on the outside and I think he may add that lack of outside run to your on-ball brigade next year alongside Ziebell as it seems Cunnington and Swallow didn't provide much of that this year and both of these players won more contested than uncontested possessions.

Also the players you traded in Hrovat and Williams have increased your depth and both have the capability to also become best 22 players for your side so they are handy recruits and it seems likely both will get more opportunities at North than their previous clubs so they'll get their chances as well.

Overall, I reckon there's a bit of a real unknown around North in terms of their unproven and untried players which is exciting in a way so i'll be an interested onlooker next year to see how these players develop and how much impact they have at your club now and in the future.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

We'll see. They will naturally take some time to get back into the swing of it, luckily there are pre-season games to help blow the cobwebs out. I doubt anyone thinks they're going to kill it straight away but I also doubt it will be anything like 10 players coming back from knee recos.

Still, we digress. Thread is about where your club is at. Bottom 4 for mine.

The only guarantee is when we lose games next year, there won't be some sort of massed circle jerk and standing ovation for a good effort unlike your abortion of a football club.

In which round do you think we start seeing the has Woosha lost the players threads?

I'm tipping round 6-7.

I would take Brisbane's list over Essendon's every day of the week.

 

[Pykie]

Interesting that everyone is predicting bottom 4, whilst at the same time advocating that we carried 4 cooked veterans. I think we will get at least 10 wins, especially with a far easier draw than last year.