Rookie vs. 1st round picks

[Col.E.Kurtz]

For those of us who are worried about losing a high pick in the upcoming super draft (I count myself in that group) who need some cheering up.

The 3 under 25 players that played key roles in the win all came off the rookie list
-King, Thirsty, Foley. Three players that almost everyone rates.

But of our 7 first round picks in the last 4 years:
-Four didn’t play, two will play for Couburg tomorrow (Jake, JoN)
-one played and has a respectable game (Bling)
-two played and made small contributions (Lids& Pato).

If only we drafted as well as we rookie.

 

[the claw]

the rookie draft came to be in 1997.
may not be totally accurate but i make it we have utilised 35 rookie picks on players. that doesnt include the picks we did not utilise.
im going to include recent rookies who have played seniors as well as those who have lasted the distance.
tivendale was promoted in 98. he is the only long term rookie we have had. of those recent ones who are on our list and have played seniors we have moore. thursfield foley howat graham and king. theres no guarantee 3 or 4 will play 100 games. anyway thats 7 out of 35 thats 1 in every 5 selections. and thats generous. the rookie draft is what it is and i wouldnt want to be trying to build a list from it.

 

[Bill James]

the rookie draft came to be in 1997.
may not be totally accurate but i make it we have utilised 35 rookie picks on players. that doesnt include the picks we did not utilise.
im going to include recent rookies who have played seniors as well as those who have lasted the distance.
tivendale was promoted in 98. he is the only long term rookie we have had. of those recent ones who are on our list and have played seniors we have moore. thursfield foley howat graham and king. theres no guarantee 3 or 4 will play 100 games. anyway thats 7 out of 35 thats 1 in every 5 selections. and thats generous. the rookie draft is what it is and i wouldnt want to be trying to build a list from it.

Agree, we should utilise all the picks. But the reason so many of our rookies and late picks (Raines, Tuck) play so many games is because we have taken so few top 20 picks and we have not picked well inside top 20. Somebody has to fill the 22 spots and if its not first and second rounders its will be rookies and late picks.

 

[Tigerfan]

The 3 under 25 players that played key roles in the win all came off the rookie list
-King, Thirsty, Foley. Three players that almost everyone rates.

and Howat and Moore

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

the rookie draft came to be in 1997.
may not be totally accurate but i make it we have utilised 35 rookie picks on players. that doesnt include the picks we did not utilise.
im going to include recent rookies who have played seniors as well as those who have lasted the distance.
tivendale was promoted in 98. he is the only long term rookie we have had. of those recent ones who are on our list and have played seniors we have moore. thursfield foley howat graham and king. theres no guarantee 3 or 4 will play 100 games. anyway thats 7 out of 35 thats 1 in every 5 selections. and thats generous. the rookie draft is what it is and i wouldnt want to be trying to build a list from it.

Oh yeah, no doubt the return from first round picks is higher on average, as you would expect.

It just struck me when I was contemplating Friday's game that the best contributors from the 03, 04 and 06 drafts respectively were all rookies.


DDT, true about Howat and Moore, but I rate their roles as fairly peripheral, the type of games that you you stereotypically get from rookie list players. King, Foley and Thirsty were all playing key roles.

 

[GoodOne]

Oh yeah, no doubt the return from first round picks is higher on average, as you would expect.

It just struck me when I was contemplating Friday's game that the best contributors from the 03, 04 and 06 drafts respectively were all rookies.


DDT, true about Howat and Moore, but I rate their roles as fairly peripheral, the type of games that you you stereotypically get from rookie list players. King, Foley and Thirsty were all playing key roles.

Our strike rate of late has been excellent. I think the recruitment department have to be given some congratulations there. I think you can be successful rookying players as the draft tends to concentrate on youngsters just eligible whereas the rookies are i many cases at least a couple more years in age. Not everyone is flagged as a star before 18. Many mature or excel much later than that.

 

[the claw]

Oh yeah, no doubt the return from first round picks is higher on average, as you would expect.

It just struck me when I was contemplating Friday's game that the best contributors from the 03, 04 and 06 drafts respectively were all rookies.


DDT, true about Howat and Moore, but I rate their roles as fairly peripheral, the type of games that you you stereotypically get from rookie list players. King, Foley and Thirsty were all playing key roles.

look wce have have cox 2000, fletcher 1998, nicoski 2003, lynch 2002, priddis 2006, graham 2005, brett jones 2004, armstrong 2006. mcnamarra 2007. and chad jones 2007. thats 10 on their list that have come thru the rookie system. they have always used the rookie list exceptionally well. there are good players to be found late in the nd and thru the rookie system. if you look at wce though they always load up with plenty of rookies they are nearly always loaded up with a full quota of 6. its the hit ratio that has me saying if you are not going to use early picks in certain areas you have to load up with those types late.turn over 4 or 6 to find 1. the earlier the pick you use theoretically the less you have to turn over.
if you did the maths i guess it would be about 1 in 5 or6 that makes it

 

[Opulentus Tigris]

look wce have have cox 2000, fletcher 1998, nicoski 2003, lynch 2002, priddis 2006, graham 2005, brett jones 2004, armstrong 2006. mcnamarra 2007. and chad jones 2007. thats 10 on their list that have come thru the rookie system. they have always used the rookie list exceptionally well. there are good players to be found late in the nd and thru the rookie system. if you look at wce though they always load up with plenty of rookies they are nearly always loaded up with a full quota of 6. its the hit ratio that has me saying if you are not going to use early picks in certain areas you have to load up with those types late.turn over 4 or 6 to find 1. the earlier the pick you use theoretically the less you have to turn over.
if you did the maths i guess it would be about 1 in 5 or6 that makes it

good call Claw. :clap

 

[GoodOne]

Comparing West Coast with Richmond is unfair. West Coast have had local knowledge to make the most of thier rookie list (and money). The Tigers in the past have had to compete with the rest of the Victorian clubs. I don't think any other team has been as successful as West Coast with the rookie system. Richmond have done very well the last 2 or 3 tears out of it.

 

[the claw]

Comparing West Coast with Richmond is unfair. West Coast have had local knowledge to make the most of thier rookie list (and money). The Tigers in the past have had to compete with the rest of the Victorian clubs. I don't think any other team has been as successful as West Coast with the rookie system. Richmond have done very well the last 2 or 3 tears out of it.

not saying they havent done okay i am saying we still dont use it properly though .rookies elevated tivendale 1998 moore 2004. foley 2005 thursfield 2005. king 2007.graham 2007 howat is yet to be elevated hes still a rookie.
this yr we have 3 22 23 yolds on our rookie list we utilised 4 picks new rules we were forced to. this is not what it is for.
the yr before 2 of the 4 rookies were 22 23 yolds. we had 4 rookies on the list.
geez 2006 we utilised just 3 rookie picks you guessed it 2 were mature types.
2005 we had just 2 rookies foley and thursty.
2004 we had just 3 rookies foley moore and a recycled dragacevic.
2003 we had just 3 rookies again moore shir and pickering 2 were 22yolds. we dont have a record like the eagles because we dont use the system properly. in fact we hardly used the system at all at times.

i would have thought for a club with no money utilising the rookie draft is the cheaper way to go than putting players on the list proper. 99% of all rookied players are in the system and available to all clubs. mcnamarra dominated at colts level a ball magnet and he used it well.imo he showed leadership qualities. priddis killed em at wafl level.jones and armstrong came from other clubs.they were there for everyone to take.

wce have shown the value of the rookie system to all clubs there is no reason why we cant be as succesful as them in this area.
we have no option if we are to beat the power clubs we have to get better than them. this to me means we have to be better than them in useing the nd the psd the rookie drarft list management and development. to me comparing our rookie list to theirs is fair .or more to the point comparing how they use theirs to us is fair.
they are the benchmark they show us where we need to get to.

i have a question in recent times say 2003 onwards ask yourself how many young talls have we rookie listed. i make it just 2 if you throw in a 23yold sylvestor and a 22 yold cartledge this yr that makes 4. thats 4 talls in the last 6 drafts 2 of whom are insurance policies only. the silly thing is those 2 young talls we took look like they may be okay.surely theres a lesson to be learned just there.

 

[craig]

More common sense my Dear Claws.

 

[Willo]

Believe Adelaide have done ok from the rookie list as well.

 

[Jason King]

Believe Adelaide have done ok from the rookie list as well.

I would class Bock, Rutten, Matiner and Skipworth as pretty OK myself ;D

 

[GoodOne]

Good post Claw and I agree with most of what you say. West Coast is the barometer as far as rookie listing goes. But that was not just Richmond who haven't used the rookie list well in the past. Personally I think we've done well out of the rookie list in the last 3 years or so picking up Thursfield, Foley, King and even Moore seems to be coming on. I'd say in comparison to most clubs that's a pretty good strike rate. Everyone acknowledges we are still short on quality talls, would we have been better off now if we picked up more talls as rookies previously. Don't know its hypothetical. Agree that we should utilise the rookie system for more talls in the future.

Still maintain that West Coast in the past have been able to keep good youngsters under wraps. This is changing now as teams become aware of the potential to have eyes on the ground in WA.

 

[mld]

Glass half full - lets celebrate that, against teh odds, we have recruited a few decent players through the rookie system, then presuure the club to sort out recruiting and list management properly.

 

[MC]

Good post Claw and I agree with most of what you say. West Coast is the barometer as far as rookie listing goes. But that was not just Richmond who haven't used the rookie list well in the past. Personally I think we've done well out of the rookie list in the last 3 years or so picking up Thursfield, Foley, King and even Moore seems to be coming on. I'd say in comparison to most clubs that's a pretty good strike rate. Everyone acknowledges we are still short on quality talls, would we have been better off now if we picked up more talls as rookies previously. Don't know its hypothetical. Agree that we should utilise the rookie system for more talls in the future.

Still maintain that West Coast in the past have been able to keep good youngsters under wraps. This is changing now as teams become aware of the potential to have eyes on the ground in WA.

Yes, great points Goodone, while Claw did have some good stuff to say, he has missed out on a few things.

In terms of rookies, our system has been overall fairly transparent, all games could be seen etc.

In Wa there has been a theory that players may have been HIDDEN, ROOKIED, THEN LISTED as the vic clubs had no resources over there. This is what Goodone has said. I think this is now changing but it still comes down to money, resources and time which not all the vic clubs have plenty of.

yes, West coast have identified talent, developed them also, and used this better, but they may have had a big advantage on the rest of us in rookie terms.