I understand in the present time we might be able to take on one of these project players but in the last 7-8 years we haven't been well equipped enough to do it. On our development I'd seriously struggle to find any side in this day & age where recruiters rarely get it wrong have had so many wasted top 20 picks. Yes out of the 10 or so picks yours always going to have 2-3 that won't quiet make it but to have so many not developed I find hard to believe the club aren't largely responsible.

The innovation I see is as follows JV7 ...

vandenBerg was a risk in some people's eyes but all we gave up was a rookie spot. ✓ Harmes the same ✓ (hopefully)

We gave up pick #2 ((probably Kelly) for an injury prone Tyson and an unknown at pick #9 (Salem) ✓

We gave up a "prized" 2nd round draft pick for an ageing veteran (Vince) ✓

We also listed another ageing veteran (Cross) who had been de-listed by a club that had only won 8 games that season. ✓

The Frost/O-Mac/ANB deal could end up being a good win and if Lumumba finds his form we'll get another win there. ✓ (hopefully)

We gave up pick 61 for Garlett ✓

We held our nerve and used picks #2 & #3 on Brayshaw & Petracca ✓ (hopefully)

Granted, there's been a few minor misses as well but all of the above examples were met with varying degrees of derision here yet there were also a number of people here who saw each move as an innovative one.

The latest is the Melksham move or the possible trading of Toumpas, Howe, Watts and/or Dawes - we need to take risks to get better.

Having one spot for an overseas project player is hardly going to destroy the club - that sort of thinking can lead to other positives. We shouldn't be worried about changing things up either - to my way of thinking Roos and co are changing things up.

For the first time in a long time I actually have real faith in our FD.

The innovation I see is as follows JV7 ...

vandenBerg was a risk in some people's eyes but all we gave up was a rookie spot. ✓ Harmes the same ✓ (hopefully)

We gave up pick #2 ((probably Kelly) for an injury prone Tyson and an unknown at pick #9 (Salem) ✓

We gave up a "prized" 2nd round draft pick for an ageing veteran (Vince) ✓

We also listed another ageing veteran (Cross) who had been de-listed by a club that had only won 8 games that season. ✓

The Frost/O-Mac/ANB deal could end up being a good win and if Lumumba finds his form we'll get another win there. ✓ (hopefully)

We gave up pick 61 for Garlett ✓

We held our nerve and used picks #2 & #3 on Brayshaw & Petracca ✓ (hopefully)

Granted, there's been a few minor misses as well but all of the above examples were met with varying degrees of derision here yet there were also a number of people here who saw each move as an innovative one.

The latest is the Melksham move or the possible trading of Toumpas, Howe, Watts and/or Dawes - we need to take risks to get better.

Having one spot for an overseas project player is hardly going to destroy the club - that sort of thinking can lead to other positives. We shouldn't be worried about changing things up either - to my way of thinking Roos and co are changing things up.

For the first time in a long time I actually have real faith in our FD.

Do not disagree with one bit of this... I'm talking about years previous why we haven't gone down the project player path because the club hasn't been well equipped enough to do so. We've had to focus on developing our top draft picks. On top of this we haven't had the depth in the list to have one of these players

Good post Macca

We don't even look the same!

I know lucky I got the looks and brains and u got well......personality!!

Do not disagree with one bit of this... I'm talking about years previous why we haven't gone down the project player path because the club hasn't been well equipped enough to do so. We've had to focus on developing our top draft picks. On top of this we haven't had the depth in the list to have one of these players

Yeah, but we could have still brought in a "project" player and in turn unearthed a good player despite the club not being a well run club. A diamond in the rough so to speak.

Sometimes a player shines above the mess - Nathan Jones.

I'm just a believer that good players become good players because of their own drive and ambition. Coaches can't turn a D grader into a B grader (forget A grade - that's out of the question)

Development probably accounts for 10-15% improvement - Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Cook, Tapscott, Morton, Maric et al were never that good to begin with - they were all decent or top juniors and that's where it stopped.

Very true. But maybe we haven't looked at signing an international rookie is that we need to sort our own house out before we invite others in. We are rebuilding from top to bottom and don't have the time....this is my thought but hey i could be completely off the mark.

this is what I think as well, & makes sense. get the culture & competitiveness right first, then bring in the bigger projects, when things are in better shape.

Yeah, but we could have still brought in a "project" player and in turn unearthed a good player despite the club not being a well run club. A diamond in the rough so to speak.

Sometimes a player shines above the mess - Nathan Jones.

I'm just a believer that good players become good players because of their own drive and ambition. Coaches can't turn a D grader into a B grader (forget A grade - that's out of the question)

Development probably accounts for 10-15% improvement - Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Cook, Tapscott, Morton, Maric et al were never that good to begin with - they were all decent or top juniors and that's where it stopped.

I'd like to move a motion that these names never get mentioned again...

The best time to think outside the box is when you are down and out (or on your way up) ... way back when we conducted the Irish experiment, we were hardly in a position of strength. We had gone from being a complete basket case ('77 - '81) to the next mediocre level (8 or 9 wins) when the club decided to expand it's recruiting policy.

In fact, the club withstood quite a deal of ridicule for quite some time until Wight and Stynes started playing regularly and well. It was a brave move and for once, we were the innovators. The credit we then received never matched the previous ridicule that came our way - but that's how things work.

the club undertook the Irish experiment because we needed to catch-up, & we had Great player development people in place. Ray Jordan comes to mind, as well as others including Rod McNabb

The innovation I see is as follows JV7 ...

vandenBerg was a risk in some people's eyes but all we gave up was a rookie spot. ✓ Harmes the same ✓ (hopefully)

We gave up pick #2 ((probably Kelly) for an injury prone Tyson and an unknown at pick #9 (Salem) ✓

We gave up a "prized" 2nd round draft pick for an ageing veteran (Vince) ✓

We also listed another ageing veteran (Cross) who had been de-listed by a club that had only won 8 games that season. ✓

The Frost/O-Mac/ANB deal could end up being a good win and if Lumumba finds his form we'll get another win there. ✓ (hopefully)

We gave up pick 61 for Garlett ✓

We held our nerve and used picks #2 & #3 on Brayshaw & Petracca ✓ (hopefully)

Granted, there's been a few minor misses as well but all of the above examples were met with varying degrees of derision here yet there were also a number of people here who saw each move as an innovative one.

The latest is the Melksham move or the possible trading of Toumpas, Howe, Watts and/or Dawes - we need to take risks to get better.

Having one spot for an overseas project player is hardly going to destroy the club - that sort of thinking can lead to other positives. We shouldn't be worried about changing things up either - to my way of thinking Roos and co are changing things up.

For the first time in a long time I actually have real faith in our FD.

That's not "innovation" thought, it's smart drafting, and completely different to the concept of an international rookie.

I have trust in our FD also, and currently we don't look like picking up any international rookies, that tell you something?

Yeah, but we could have still brought in a "project" player and in turn unearthed a good player despite the club not being a well run club. A diamond in the rough so to speak.

Sometimes a player shines above the mess - Nathan Jones.

I'm just a believer that good players become good players because of their own drive and ambition. Coaches can't turn a D grader into a B grader (forget A grade - that's out of the question)

Development probably accounts for 10-15% improvement - Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Cook, Tapscott, Morton, Maric et al were never that good to begin with - they were all decent or top juniors and that's where it stopped.

We did, his name was Maia Westrupp. You seem to be conveniently ignoring him...

I'd like to move a motion that these names never get mentioned again...

In truth, they should serve as reminder that the draft is hit and miss and sometimes a club misses far more than it hits.

We're starting to hit again just like we hit more often back in the 90's and and the late 80's ... is it a cyclical thing? In my eyes yes although most clubs have less disproportionate outcomes with drafting.

Richmond went through a similar patch to what we did but not nearly as bad - bad enough however to stop them getting out of the lower reaches of the ladder - then they drafted Reiwoldt, Cotchin, Deledio and Martin.

Hopefully we're entering a much better phase with Hogan, Salem, Brayshaw, Viney, Petracca (hopefully) and others.

That's not "innovation" thought, it's smart drafting, and completely different to the concept of an international rookie.

I have trust in our FD also, and currently we don't look like picking up any international rookies, that tell you something?

It is innovative when compared to just drafting high school teenagers.

We did, his name was Maia Westrupp. You seem to be conveniently ignoring him...

We've had that conversation - the club should do it again if it was the right sort of player. It's just one spot on the list - it should be remembered that there's about 200+ project players in the system anyway - listed AFL players who we don't know whether they're going to be any good or not. Each of these 200+ player "costs" the clubs involved.

Would you rather an overseas "project" player or any number of C & D graders who we gave every chance? Often at least 4-5 years with many of them for close to a negligible return.

I just don't see having 1 overseas player as a big deal at all - it's not like they cost that much anyway - probably a little bit more than a pick #65 or thereabouts. We're talking a negligible amount of money.

Don't forget that Roos was at Sydney when they went down the path of securing the odd overseas player.

We didn't hold our nerve with pick 2 and 3 as they got offered up for Dangerfield, though I think in the long run if that kids knee holds up we could win there

the club undertook the Irish experiment because we needed to catch-up, & we had Great player development people in place. Ray Jordan comes to mind, as well as others including Rod McNabb

And we're not in catch-up mode now?

We're still miles off being a top 4 side and we need to find as many good players as possible - and I don't particularly care how we get those good players.

It's whatever works in my eyes - every trade or draft pick is a risk. Free agents are risky - there is no set template except a club should never limit itself to one particular way of recruiting.

Off topic but I'm watching the NBL and blow me over with a feather that fartwit Dayne Russell is commentating.

FMD can't get away from this plick even in the off season.

God help me!

I know I'll mute the coverage that will make for better viewing!

We didn't hold our nerve with pick 2 and 3 as they got offered up for Dangerfield, though I think in the long run if that kids knee holds up we could win there

That's proof that we did hold our nerve - Dangerfield would have transformed our club and those 2 picks would have been fair.

We held our nerve in keeping them when that deal didn't come to fruition, in that we didn't panic and send them elsewhere for a player who wasn't worth it. Once that deal fell over we held our nerve and went to the draft.

In truth, they should serve as reminder that the draft is hit and miss and sometimes a club misses far more than it hits.

We're starting to hit again just like we hit more often back in the 90's and and the late 80's ... is it a cyclical thing? In my eyes yes although most clubs have less disproportionate outcomes with drafting.

Richmond went through a similar patch to what we did but not nearly as bad - bad enough however to stop them getting out of the lower reaches of the ladder - then they drafted Reiwoldt, Cotchin, Deledio and Martin.

Hopefully we're entering a much better phase with Hogan, Salem, Brayshaw, Viney, Petracca (hopefully) and others.

It is innovative when compared to just drafting high school teenagers.

We've had that conversation - the club should do it again if it was the right sort of player. It's just one spot on the list - it should be remembered that there's about 200+ project players in the system anyway - listed AFL players who we don't know whether they're going to be any good or not. Each of these 200+ player "costs" the clubs involved.

Would you rather an overseas "project" player or any number of C & D graders who we gave every chance? Often at least 4-5 years with many of them for close to a negligible return.

I just don't see having 1 overseas player as a big deal at all - it's not like they cost that much anyway - probably a little bit more than a pick #65 or thereabouts. We're talking a negligible amount of money.

Don't forget that Roos was at Sydney when they went down the path of securing the odd overseas player.

Innovation is doing something no one has done before. We're not the first team to draft experienced players. It's better drafting by us, but it's not innovative.

Why is it a choice between a project player and a D grade player? We're not in a position to take an international rookie for the same reason we didn't look at Bennel. Our resources, coaching, money, time & list management are not in a position to take any kind of risks, that's the reason we went for guys like vandenBerg, not because it's "innovative" but because it's quite the opposite, it's safe.

It's been said that each listed player costs that particular club 200k per season - that's before that player is even paid.

The cost is mainly the FD spend but if the whole infrastructure is geared around the players, then each player listed is going to cost a reasonable amount of money.

That cost would apply to the best player and the last player listed - so, if that's the case, what's the difference between the last player on the list (pick #60 odd) and an overseas project player? Especially if that overseas player is only rookie listed ...

Roos praises Westrupp’s courage

Innovation is doing something no one has done before. We're not the first team to draft experienced players. It's better drafting by us, but it's not innovative.

Why is it a choice between a project player and a D grade player? We're not in a position to take an international rookie for the same reason we didn't look at Bennel. Our resources, coaching, money, time & list management are not in a position to take any kind of risks, that's the reason we went for guys like vandenBerg, not because it's "innovative" but because it's quite the opposite, it's safe.

We just see things differently - I see going away from one way of doing things as innovative.

Other clubs might view us as innovative as compared to how we once did things - so, if we're going down this track then we shouldn't rule out anything with regards to how we recruit players.

That might include landing a number of big name free agents over the future years (which I'm not against) and having a program that includes recruiting or developing overseas talent. That program doesn't have to be a large and extensive one.

As I said previously, I don't really care how the club brings in talent. As long as it's above board and is cost effective, who cares? I don't believe the club should ever limit itself - our thinking should be advanced of how the best clubs go about it.

Innovation is doing something no one has done before. We're not the first team to draft experienced players. It's better drafting by us, but it's not innovative.

Why is it a choice between a project player and a D grade player? We're not in a position to take an international rookie for the same reason we didn't look at Bennel. Our resources, coaching, money, time & list management are not in a position to take any kind of risks, that's the reason we went for guys like vandenBerg, not because it's "innovative" but because it's quite the opposite, it's safe.

The biggest innovation and risk we've done under the current regime was signing Roosy for a short term deal and handover on 1.5 million a year. Got to spend money to make money.

I wouldn't say Vanders was either safe or risky. He was the best player available, there are good 18 year olds who dominate TAC who would've been just as safe in many regards, or a good VFL player. Most of our other picks, including the next pick were for 18 year olds. Bennell is risk/reward and the risk was too big for the potential reward, but I see it more as an age profile/window thing than due to our shaky footings as a club. We are just too far off a flag for the reward to mean anything giving it's unlikely he fully turns it around.

Personally I find it hard to believe we can't scrape together 100k it might cost to have an international/category B rookie. We are choosing to have 1 less player based mainly on the money. I really don't believe the difference between 44 or 45 is anything much for coaches, sports science, list management etc. But when every cent counts I can understand it. The one thing that surprises me is that these american ruck prospects attend the Roos draft camp and often get looked at by Sydney. With the need for a developmental ruck prospect I'm surprised we haven't had one on our list outside the usual 44.

Maybe when Roos goes the extra cash will be distributed in to signing one. Maybe our recruiters are just waiting for the right guy and none of the category B athletes, Irish or American prospects have impressed them.

We didn't hold our nerve with pick 2 and 3 as they got offered up for Dangerfield, though I think in the long run if that kids knee holds up we could win there

Rubbish. Roos was on record saying that only one of those picks was ever on the table.

And we're not in catch-up mode now?

We're still miles off being a top 4 side and we need to find as many good players as possible - and I don't particularly care how we get those good players.

It's whatever works in my eyes - every trade or draft pick is a risk. Free agents are risky - there is no set template except a club should never limit itself to one particular way of recruiting.

yes we are, but our situation is still raw re culture without the robbies, gerards, ickes, jarrots, RJordans, Barassi's, etc... & the D1ick Seddons.

#edit: I would say after this seasons trading, & new list positioning, we would then be in that similar same situation as back then.

yes we are, but our situation is still raw re culture without the robbies, gerards, ickes, jarrots, RJordans, Barassi's, etc... & the D1ick Seddons.

#edit: I would say after this seasons trading, & new list positioning, we would then be in the same situation.

Our current situation is eerily similar to that 80's situation - a proven coach comes in and rights the ship. Back then a number of us thought that Barassi could take us all the way but we just couldn't attract enough big name talent (I think I'm right in saying that we had both Jarman brothers signed on form fours) All the top interstate players headed to Hawthorn, Essendon & Carlton (who also won all the flags from '81 - '89)

Let's just hope that Goodwin can do a Northey (or in fact go at least one better) I still believe we'll need a good dose of luck with our drafting plus we'll need to bring in some top talent in order for the club to really contend.

^^

Surely a draft is only ever as good as the recruiters and then the developers make it.

2003 was a pig of a draft.

They vary a lot in quality.

Our current situation is eerily similar to that 80's situation - a proven coach comes in and rights the ship. Back then a number of us thought that Barassi could take us all the way but we just couldn't attract enough big name talent (I think I'm right in saying that we had both Jarman brothers signed on form fours) All the top interstate players headed to Hawthorn, Essendon & Carlton (who also won all the flags from '81 - '89)

Let's just hope that Goodwin can do a Northey (or in fact go at least one better) I still believe we'll need a good dose of luck with our drafting plus we'll need to bring in some top talent in order for the club to really contend.

... it's earily similar because, we as a club keep sliding back into a lazy footy club, losing any strong culture in the slipping. our club environment lends itself to a cosy culture.

I think everyone underestimated the depths our culture had sunk, including Barass... So it took longer than imo, even he estimated. And in coaching hard, he bruised some Ego's, & some I imagine, were playing from spite.... noted in some interviews since, which suggests that he's not the Fav' of some.

But he turned the club right around, from the mice to the MCC.

..... only couldn't get facilities for a real GYM, & decent training conditions at the MCG. (retribution??? being sent to the junction ?)

Then the AFL sent him to the Swans in Sydney, to straighten up that organisation, on & off field... He did, & coached iirc, Dermie, Roosy & Lockett? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Swans#Dark_times:_1988.E2.80.931994

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2010-11-24/barassis-legacy-to-the-swans

.... and from paragraph 8 >>> http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/club/history

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

....... meanwhile back at the Demon cave; enter the AFL, PJ, & PR... similar as the restructuring of the Swans,,, & maybe some kama Re Roosy... helped at the Swans by Barassi back then; & now the AFL, PJ, & Roos repay the Kama debt to us. & in the memories of the great 'Checker Hughes', 'Norm Smith', & all others who took the game of footy forward, so many decades earlier.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-18/jackson-to-be-named-interim-demon-ceo

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/roos-announced-as-demons-coach/4940876

It's been said that each listed player costs that particular club 200k per season - that's before that player is even paid.

The cost is mainly the FD spend but if the whole infrastructure is geared around the players, then each player listed is going to cost a reasonable amount of money.

That cost would apply to the best player and the last player listed - so, if that's the case, what's the difference between the last player on the list (pick #60 odd) and an overseas project player? Especially if that overseas player is only rookie listed ...

Roos praises Westrupp’s courage

Kids cost more than veterans as they need more coaching to learn team rules, professionalism, recovery, training techniques (such as not injuring yourself doing lifts), diet management etc etc etc etc etc.

#averageisthedevilsstatistic