The club is using a very small risk policy when it comes to recruiting and trading. It has chosen to use the rookie draft on experienced players that offer a consistent output rather than a youth who has only a small percentage chance of making it. A successful rookie could potentially give you a greater return eventually but the probability is very slight particularly given the lack of depth in this draft . This is why we have gone for the best players available now rather than taking the risk that all our rookies will never see a game.
This approach is why we have made the gradual yet undeniable improvements to our list to this point. No high risk drafting or trading.
if they are taking no risk players in the nd after the 1st round then they are getting plenty wrong still. i cant name one of 17 players taken in the nd, after the first round , in hardwicks time who have become consistent regulars. not one. and they are no risk picks give me a break.
they are taking so many mature players and rookies because they cant find a decent player weather it be junior or mature. the record for both is poor. hardwick mentions the need for the 2010 draft to step up but doesnt mention the 09 draft.
of 7 nd picks in 09 only martin has become a consistent decent player.three are gone already and griffiths astbury and dea have struggled and are on notice.ffs even the trade we did a jackson special in farmer has gone and the two promoted rookie players who we really should have had an inkling about are gone as well. so much for the start of the rebuild under hardwick eh.
i dont buy into this spurious argument that there were no juniors left in our case after pick 12
who were not worth taking and developing. if this is the belief then no wonder they cant find decent players after the first round.they arent doing the ground work. this is what we have done just one junior at 12 and there wasnt a kid good enough to take after it lol
. not one junior player after pick 12 and when one remotely suggests our recruiting was a bit too lopsided this yr your howled down. if its a one off yr fine but we need to remember we do get many of our mature picks wrong and to think theres no risk is a nonsense.
in taking mature players im hoping hampson can become a good player for us because we need this to happen. im hoping the likes of lloyd gordon and miles were not taken just for cover to injury. we need em to surpass some of the ordinary ones that are getting regular games. this is the problem.
the talk of no risk what a joke. wehave taken our fair share of risky players both nd and mature and rookie s since hardwick has been there.
how the hell were webberley,nason,farmer not risks or griffiths dea batchelor and taylor. with his 7 yr record how is hampson not a risk.you can go on and on.hislop, roberts macdonald gourdis all came with obvious weaknesses or problems yet we traded or drafted for em. what about the irish men definate risks. do i need go on.
all i suggest is we could have found a better balance in trades, nd, and rookie draft this yr. for sure take worthy mature players where ever but ffs dont give up on youth altogether.
i would have been happy to go after mature players some i liked was chapman, laidler sully waldhuter cain., i even acknowledge the need to get a ruckman in hampson hes not my choice though because of the inherent risk. ffs ive argued on this site in previous yrs the very need to take our fair share of mature players mainly state leaguers late nd and rookie draft. but go about it in a balanced way. if we give up on juniors and the draft we are doomed.
im more than happy with the selection of miles and gordon. there was in fact many mature types we could have targeted but we needed to imo balance it out with a decent amount of juniors.
