The Rookies of 2010

[tdy]

What do people think of the rookies of 2010.

Contin, Hicks, Gilligan, O'Reilly, Westhoff.

Given we had a reboot year and we played almost everyone including the boot studder, and only one rookie, O'Reilly, got a game, should we just clear out the other 4 rookies?

If they couldn't get a game this year then are they likely to become good, let alone AFL standard players.

Under Wallace we had a policy of developing and retaining rookies.  I don't think that worked.  What players did we get from the rookie list under Wallace.  Off the top of my head i think we got Moore, Foley, Nahas and Gourdis.   Can anybody remember any others?  Moore and Gourdis took a long time, Nahas and Foley were on the main list quickly.  Of them only Foley has proven he can play stellar footy.


Gilligan is already gone in many reviews.
Westhoff is tall so maybe he will develop, but he didn't get a game this year and there were plenty of spots going begging.
But why keep Hicks or Contin?  Even Westhoff.

[Infamy]

Gourdis - will be retained or elevated
Hicks - managed to get promoted into the AFL side in his first year as a rookie, that is a definite retain, may even get elevated
O'Reilly - showed very impressive improvement in his first year so he will be kept
Contin - showed steady improvement throughout the year and was in the Coburg Seniors by the end of the year in his first year so retain him too
Westhoff - was always a project player retain
Gilligan - would have had his name striked through when he went AWOL and could barely even get a game with Coburg Seniors when he got back
Polak - retired
Roberts - delisted

That gives us at least 3 rookie picks this year, more if some are elevated

[Penelope]

What do people think of the rookies of 2010.

Contin, Hicks, Gilligan, O'Reilly, Westhoff.

Given we had a reboot year and we played almost everyone including the boot studder, and only one rookie, O'Reilly, got a game, should we just clear out the other 4 rookies?

If they couldn't get a game this year then are they likely to become good, let alone AFL standard players.

Under Wallace we had a policy of developing and retaining rookies.  I don't think that worked.  What players did we get from the rookie list under Wallace.  Off the top of my head i think we got Moore, Foley, Nahas and Gourdis.   Can anybody remember any others?  Moore and Gourdis took a long time, Nahas and Foley were on the main list quickly.  Of them only Foley has proven he can play stellar footy.


Gilligan is already gone in many reviews.
Westhoff is tall so maybe he will develop, but he didn't get a game this year and there were plenty of spots going begging.
But why keep Hicks or Contin?  Even Westhoff.

You do understand that the rookie list is for 'project' players, meaning they are longer term proposals and the expectations on them in their first year is minimal?

Infamy is pretty much on the mark IMO, except perhaps about hicks being elevated, although the club may decide that whoever they are looking at for pick 80odd is behind hicks so he goes up and that kid is picked up in the rookie draft instead.

[tdy]

What do people think of the rookies of 2010.

Contin, Hicks, Gilligan, O'Reilly, Westhoff.

Given we had a reboot year and we played almost everyone including the boot studder, and only one rookie, O'Reilly, got a game, should we just clear out the other 4 rookies?

If they couldn't get a game this year then are they likely to become good, let alone AFL standard players.

Under Wallace we had a policy of developing and retaining rookies.  I don't think that worked.  What players did we get from the rookie list under Wallace.  Off the top of my head i think we got Moore, Foley, Nahas and Gourdis.   Can anybody remember any others?  Moore and Gourdis took a long time, Nahas and Foley were on the main list quickly.  Of them only Foley has proven he can play stellar footy.


Gilligan is already gone in many reviews.
Westhoff is tall so maybe he will develop, but he didn't get a game this year and there were plenty of spots going begging.
But why keep Hicks or Contin?  Even Westhoff.

You do understand that the rookie list is for 'project' players, meaning they are longer term proposals and the expectations on them in their first year is minimal?

Infamy is pretty much on the mark IMO, except perhaps about hicks being elevated, although the club may decide that whoever they are looking at for pick 80odd is behind hicks so he goes up and that kid is picked up in the rookie draft instead.

But how long is a good project?  Under Wallace it was 3 years, that clearly was too long as most of them failed and it wasted a lot of potential spots.  Is 1 year enough of a project?  If they aren't up to it after one year, enough to get elevated then should they, in general, go?  Maybe 2 years for talls.

I know I'm being tough minded on this, but to not get a game this year, given richmonds state of the list and coaching panel is pretty damning.

[Penelope]

not all rookies can get a game for richmond. There has to be a spot available for a temporary elevation for a start.

As for how much time? two years minimum for a rookie, perhaps three.

Just because in the past we have given players on the rookie list two to three years and ended up with sweet FA, doesnt meant that you start only giving rookies 1 year. It means you make a better hash of which players you pick and do a better job of developing them, something that at this early stage, the club seems to be doing better than any time in recent history.

Jimmy O' is a different kettle of fish to the others. The international rookies can be rookied for three year stints and I believe are outside of the salary cap. They don't take up a spot on the regular rookie list either.

[Smokey]

What do people think of the rookies of 2010.

Contin, Hicks, Gilligan, O'Reilly, Westhoff.

Given we had a reboot year and we played almost everyone including the boot studder, and only one rookie, O'Reilly, got a game, should we just clear out the other 4 rookies?

If they couldn't get a game this year then are they likely to become good, let alone AFL standard players.

Under Wallace we had a policy of developing and retaining rookies.  I don't think that worked.  What players did we get from the rookie list under Wallace.  Off the top of my head i think we got Moore, Foley, Nahas and Gourdis.   Can anybody remember any others?  Moore and Gourdis took a long time, Nahas and Foley were on the main list quickly.  Of them only Foley has proven he can play stellar footy.


Gilligan is already gone in many reviews.
Westhoff is tall so maybe he will develop, but he didn't get a game this year and there were plenty of spots going begging.
But why keep Hicks or Contin?  Even Westhoff.

You do understand that the rookie list is for 'project' players, meaning they are longer term proposals and the expectations on them in their first year is minimal?

Infamy is pretty much on the mark IMO, except perhaps about hicks being elevated, although the club may decide that whoever they are looking at for pick 80odd is behind hicks so he goes up and that kid is picked up in the rookie draft instead.

But how long is a good project?  Under Wallace it was 3 years, that clearly was too long as most of them failed and it wasted a lot of potential spots.  Is 1 year enough of a project?  If they aren't up to it after one year, enough to get elevated then should they, in general, go?  Maybe 2 years for talls.

I know I'm being tough minded on this, but to not get a game this year, given richmonds state of the list and coaching panel is pretty damning.

You are being much too harsh for the club's good Tidyman.  Based on your logic we should rid ourselves of every 1st year player that doesn't get a game?  Hicks and O'Reilly both did very well to get games in their 1st year as rookies, Contin and Westhoff are both kids who were both regularly in the best for Coburg 2's and then got games in the seniors.  That improvement alone suggests that they deserve another year.  Gilligan is the only one I would agree with you as he has had his chances and doesn't appear to have shown enough improvement to justify another chance.  Your policy would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Judge Roughneck]

Contin was getting in coburg senior best by end of season from memory?

[WilliamPowell]

IMHO

Gourdis - will be elevated

Hicks - should be retained as a rookie. DOn't think he warrants a spot on the senior list ATM

O'Reilly - will be retained as he is signed as a 3 year international rookie - so we don't need to do anything

Contin - will admit to be staggered that Hicks got ALF games ahead of this kid. Think long (from what I've seen) he is a much better prospect

Westhoff - retain as 2nd year rookie

Gilligan - he didn't go AWOL as some people keep suggesting. He was allowed to go home for an extended period because of a serious illness which led to a loss in the family. Having said that - I don't think we will retain

Polak - retired

Roberts - blew his chance and GAWN. Have to say I am disappointed with some of his comments in the article that was in the HUN & NT News the other day. Very disappointed

Gives us 4 spots which is a good number IMHO

[Fishfinger]

Contin, Hicks, Gilligan, O'Reilly, Westhoff.

Given we had a reboot year and we played almost everyone including the boot studder, and only one rookie, O'Reilly, got a game, should we just clear out the other 4 rookies?

Hicks played 3 games.

What players did we get from the rookie list under Wallace.  Off the top of my head i think we got Moore, Foley, Nahas and Gourdis.   Can anybody remember any others? 

Moore (rookied under Frawley, elevated under Wallace)
Thursfield
Graham
King
Nahas

Foley was rookied under Frawley and elevated under Frawley

Gourdis was on the senior list for one year then moved the rookie list under Wallace

[mightytiges]

For mine....

Gourdis - saved his AFL career for the time being in the last few weeks but still needs to prove himself to go beyond next year. I'd only elevate him if we have to. Did they change the rookie rules so you can keep a rookie for a third year without having to redraft him? If so then given we have no vets we can elevate him anyway prior to round 1 if need be.

Hicks - keep as a rookie (2nd year). He's tiny so I still have doubts he'll make it at AFL level.

O'Reilly - as WP said will be retained as he is signed as a 3 year international rookie

Contin - keep as a rookie. Was pushing into Coburg seniors' best players towards the end of year so will be a chance to make his debut next year. Our best current rookie as far as long-term prospects for mine. I like him a lot.

Westhoff - keep as a rookie (2nd year). He'll need to break into the Coburg seniors next year to last beyond 2011.

Gilligan - Gawn!

Polak - retired.

Roberts - Gawn!

So 3 rookie spots free which is fair enough in a compromised draft year.

Mind you there' that rumour that's been around for a month or so saying Hislop will be delisted and then rookie listed. A waste of a rookie spot IMO. Either you believe a player on your senior list will make it or not. We did the same with Howat and that was a complete waste of a rookie spot.

[Fishfinger]

Did they change the rookie rules so you can keep a rookie for a third year without having to redraft him?

Yes. New rule as compensation for GC & GWS being handed all but the cup.

[WilliamPowell]

Mind you there' that rumour that's been around for a month or so saying Hislop will be delisted and then rookie listed. A waste of a rookie spot IMO. Either you believe a player on your senior list will make it or not. We did the same with Howat and that was a complete waste of a rookie spot.

If the rumour is true MT I wonder if it has something to do with his injury and the recovery time. I remember when I was speaking to young Tommy about his ops and it sounded it nasty - removing excess bone from his kneecap 

[bojangles17]

IMHO

Gourdis - will be elevated

Hicks - should be retained as a rookie. DOn't think he warrants a spot on the senior list ATM

O'Reilly - will be retained as he is signed as a 3 year international rookie - so we don't need to do anything

Contin - will admit to be staggered that Hicks got ALF games ahead of this kid. Think long (from what I've seen) he is a much better prospect

Westhoff - retain as 2nd year rookie

Gilligan - he didn't go AWOL as some people keep suggesting. He was allowed to go home for an extended period because of a serious illness which led to a loss in the family. Having said that - I don't think we will retain

Polak - retired

Roberts - blew his chance and GAWN. Have to say I am disappointed with some of his comments in the article that was in the HUN & NT News the other day. Very disappointed

Gives us 4 spots which is a good number IMHO

polak, roberts gilligan gone, the balance retained...suprised to hear comment on hicks v Contin Hicky actually made an impact at VFL kicking a number of goals and figuring prominently in best for successive weeks. not sure that contin figured amongst in any of the 3 senior vfl games he played. i hope he liimnproves on 2010 sure he will, he needs tro

[Infamy]

Gilligan - he didn't go AWOL as some people keep suggesting. He was allowed to go home for an extended period because of a serious illness which led to a loss in the family. Having said that - I don't think we will retain

From what I understood he was given leave for that issue, but was expected back much quicker than the time he actually was away for
You shouldn't need 6 weeks leave for an illness/loss in the family

[WilliamPowell]

From what I understood he was given leave for that issue, but was expected back much quicker than the time he actually was away for
You shouldn't need 6 weeks leave for an illness/loss in the family

Yeah sometimes you do.... or to put it another way I suppose it depends on how long things take to move from illness to loss doesn't it  ???

Yes he was expected back sooner but things took longer and sometimes work (in this case footy) don't seem that important when you lose someone who's been so important to you (and yes I am speaking from experience).