1858

I think what we're seeing here is the aftermath of the generation gap we have had over the years. We didn't have enough quality on our list 3 yrs ago in around the 25 age bracket with players on either end making up most of our list. The top enders are simply gone now its that simple. Jones is still just 22 and could be a 100 gamer by round 9 next year which is arguably a result of that gap. wrt experience, we do have 3 players in the 90s and 2 in the 80s so by year end we could have another 5 100 gamers although 3 or 4 is more likely. tbh I don't see any point in worrying about other teams like Collingwood. We need to remember who we are, where we are and what our goal is. There are many teams in the competition who are in a very similar position to us. When we make our challenge Collingwood will be the least of our worries. I would be pretty surprised if we didn't bring in 1 or 2 along the path to glory.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Fair enough, I took your words "as we speak" as meaning now (or at least prior to next year). In any case we're young.

"what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th" Probably not a scenario worth worriying about for mine. So we just miss out on % or perhaps by 4 points and then rationalise it through 1 less veteran? _____________________ As a general discussion on experienced players I don't think losing McDonald and Bruce will make a profound influence on our younger group. McDonald served his purpose this year and I think the value adding of having him on our list next year has been overstated by many. Bruce is a genuine loss IMO as a 244 gamer who knows and plays an important role for us. 1 more year would have been very helpful (especially with the sub rule) but past that who knows? I see it more of a hole to fill than anything else though. I thought our younger players took the game on this year and showed a fair bit of courage in sticking to the gameplan. We have enough senior players around them and coaches to keep guiding them. They need to build a camaraderie and grow from within now rather than rely on a 34 yr old in McDonald to alleviate their load/progress in the midfield (irrespective of Bruce now leaving). We still have Moloney, Sylvia and Jones in the guts to offer assistance and act as fellow players rather than purely as mentor figures although Moloney covers both aspects. Look at how many teams have kids in their midfields now - they will be our future competition for success. Sure St.Kilda and Collingwood are more experienced in the middle atm but so what. Lets just accept that they're better than us at this point in time and move on. Like Geelong they will rebuild at some stage.

Unless I'm miscalculating we're at 22.08

I concur.

Only in the rookie draft though.

Interesting wager this. So we have 4 home games against Victorian clubs next year as opposed to 6 this year. IN: Carlton, Gold Coast, Fremantle OUT: Essendon, Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne ________________________________________________ To do a quick crude analysis, lets say Carlton/Essendon cancel out. We then rely on our improved Demon supporters and neutrals to cover the loss of home games to the Dogs & North to 2 of the biggest non entities in the league wrt to club brand. By round 23 I'm sure the novelty of GC would have worn off, by then they may be simply battlers (who knows). Freo is a corporate nightmare for any club except the Pies. Yes, we should get more followers on the expectation of natural improvement and a competitive fixture and perhaps a few more neutrals but I doubt it will cover the drop off of opposition Victorian supporters. Will be interesting though. I doubt our increase in FTA coverage will make any notable difference either but it will be interesting to see how our average figure pans out. No doubt the home games against Carlton, Collingwood, hawthorn and Richmond will be corkers in any case.

Spot on.

This is the point though. Depriving us of a 6th pick rookie - theoretically the least likely prospect on our entire list.

I'd agree with that but given that Newton isn't on our senior list we don't really have him fighting for our lives. As 'rpfc' put it, being on the rookie list was ironically Newton's lifeline - we simply choose 1 less rookie in the RD and perhaps pay a little above the minimum rookie salary for Newton but that's about it. He doesn't hinder our preparation for the ND and having up to 4 picks. PJ did not have a long term future and McNamara in the eyes of the club was worth letting go for that 4th pick or PSD pick. The moral of the story is that you play the cards you are delt.

All in all I'm pretty happy with this. We give ourselves a legitimate chance of acquiring further prospects in the drafts and we throw down the challenge to some existing players to step up in the process. I thought PJ may have been kept as insurance but if the club thinks we don't need him (or at least expects to rookie him) then all the better we are. Spencer had a fair few critics last year but I noticed he has an ability to get over a pack and uses his weight well in crashing them - couldn't be any worse than PJ as a tall/ruck. Even Martin now has a chance to make an impact. In any case we're down to 20 days to the national draft now.

Fair analysis. When you consider North finished above us and apparently have copped another raping then we have done reasonably well. I'm glad our WA game is out of the way in the first half of the season. The only significant area is no bye after the Darwin game but perhaps the club wanted the bye leading up to it to do promotional stuff up there (interested to know). We have hawthorn the following week who come off the bye themselves so I don't think we'll be favourites for that game.

I notice that both 'Knightmare' and 'Snoop' have us picking Cameron Guthrie with our 2nd pick. In itself this obviously means nothing but notably they both rate him as a good get for that pick ie 32 is at the end of his range.

In principle I hope we rookie as many new kids as possible - with the very lose theory of increasing our chances of uncovering some promising kids. Obviously it doesn't necessarily work like that as we'll probably be sourcing kids way down the rookie order by the time we fill the latter positions. The one thing I consider as a possible factor going forward is the size of our FD and the level of resources we can put into these hopefuls. If this can increase significantly then our rookie program may become a more stringent part of our recruitment rather than mostly pick and hope. I can't see any of our current rookies (apart from Spencer and McKenzie - promoted) staying unless the club for some reason decides to perpetuate the Newton saga (geez I hope it doesn't come to that though).

List lodgement 1 is in 8 days. That is rookie upgrades and delistings. Further dates here.

Skipper at least worth a look.

List lodgement one can't come quick enough.

So, now that the dust has settled we face the PJ situation. I'm guessing the club will opt to keep him in light of our ruck situation but negotiations could be a little delicate here. Do we offer 1 yr and if he demands 2 yrs and threatens to walk do we go with 2 yrs?

Pick 66 is virtually nothing. We actually got more for Cheney than what Adelaide got for Griffen. Our 2nd round ND pick is usable now (even though there could be further senior list delistings).

To my mind Spencer was always going to be at least a 2 yr contract. The club has stated since day 1 that he is a project player, they're looking at long term development.

Quite likely.

If by 'come on' we're talking shown enough to prove to have a viable future and playing consistently at one level or another then I think 22 is quite reasonable. We aren't necessarily talking a dominating #1 ruck here (or are you?). Footy quite simply isn't an exact science. When it comes to rucks, yes bigger players can take longer to develop and perhaps reach their optimum but to get to that point they would have laid the foundations - by 22 a club should have a pretty good idea. It comes down to the player in question and their opportunities as much as anything else. Matthew Kreuzer has been in the system for just 3 yrs and has notched up 56 games. Definitely talented when he came on board but no more physically developed than an average ruck prospect. He played 23 games in his 2nd year. In no way am I suggesting the same bench mark should be in place for our guys, but it does show that setting rules in stone is pointless.

I can't speak for the others but I took your words literally. ie 36 months down the track (not within the next 3 seasons although even then that is reasonable for at least an introduction). This means we'd be looking at season 2014 where we should expect a competent and consistent standard.

Injury stumped Jamar's progress a few years ago. He looked quite promising when he first came on to the scene.