Rookie Pick 67: PASS

[one-eyed]

 ???

[Infamy]

So out of the entire rookie draft we only take one junior in Gilligan
All the others are older players in Nahas, Gourdis & Browne

Very disappointing

[Chuck17]

Yep seems a bit odd, there was so much talk of the quality and depth of this draft but it would appear the RFC didn't rate it that well as the media had hyped it to be.

[Infamy]

Yep seems a bit odd, there was so much talk of the quality and depth of this draft but it would appear the RFC didn't rate it that well as the media had hyped it to be.

The top 2 dozen were meant to be good quality and deep, but it fell away after that
This was highlighted by the fact that the first two rounds of the draft flew by but most clubs took extra time from about pick 30 onwards

[Judge Roughneck]

So out of the entire rookie draft we only take one junior in Gilligan
All the others are older players in Nahas, Gourdis & Browne

Very disappointing

Why would you rather a 18 year old than a 20 year old?

Will so many young players on the list - that we started building in 03/04 - now does it really matter if the are bottom age or not?

[Infamy]

So out of the entire rookie draft we only take one junior in Gilligan
All the others are older players in Nahas, Gourdis & Browne

Very disappointing

Why would you rather a 18 year old than a 20 year old?

Will so many young players on the list - that we started building in 03/04 - now does it really matter if the are bottom age or not?

Because most of the players we've drafted this year are all top aged draftees or recycled players in their early 20s.
It's called balance and with the upcoming compromised drafts will have less access to the kids around this age for the next couple of years

[Judge Roughneck]

So out of the entire rookie draft we only take one junior in Gilligan
All the others are older players in Nahas, Gourdis & Browne

Very disappointing

Why would you rather a 18 year old than a 20 year old?

Will so many young players on the list - that we started building in 03/04 - now does it really matter if the are bottom age or not?

Because most of the players we've drafted this year are all top aged draftees or recycled players in their early 20s.
It's called balance and with the upcoming compromised drafts will have less access to the kids around this age for the next couple of years

 18-21       White   179   21   38   F       Edwards   180   20   32   M       Deledio   188   21   84   M   
                Nahas   176   21   0   M       Connors   183   20   8   U         Oakley-Nicholls   188   21   9   D   
                Gilligan   177   18   0   F       Collins   184   20   0   M           Hislop   186   20   7   M   
                                                       Cotchin   184   18   15   M                       

 18-21       Riewoldt   192   20   26   F    Post   195   19   0   D             Graham   200   21   2   R   
                Gourdis   193   20   0   U                                                  Putt   202   19   0   RF   
                Rance   192   19   0   D                                                   Vickery   200   18   0   RF   
                                                                                                  Browne   205   18   0   R   

 

Looks like a fairly even spread to me.

We have so many players in the 22-24 age group that I don't beleive it makes a difference.

 * 18 players - 21 and under
 * 34 players - 24 and under

We still have 8 teenagers on the list and only 11 players out of 45 are older than 25.

[Infamy]

18-21 is a pretty broad range
It doesn't show the fact that our new additions from this year are all top aged or older

[camboon]

So out of the entire rookie draft we only take one junior in Gilligan
All the others are older players in Nahas, Gourdis & Browne

Very disappointing

Brownes an 18 uear old, Goudis is 19 (I think) and I bet you Sheedy had something to do with Nahas, looks like his type of project.

[Stripes]

Surprized we didn't recruit more Aboriginal boys with the new centre opening up at Punt Road in the future.

Stripes

[camboon]

Any one know why we didnt use our another rookie pick, thought we were going to use them all.

[mightytiges]

Any one know why we didnt use our another rookie pick, thought we were going to use them all.

Did we raise the 2nd half of the rookie donation idea we had going?

Passing on our last rookie pick will futher convince clubs that opposed our Polak rookie application that their suspicions of us trying to move our last rookie pick forward 70 spots were right.

[one-eyed]

We have the equal smallest list with the Dogs, Crows and Port.

2009 AFL LISTS – CLUB TOTALS

Adelaide – 45 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 5 rookies)
Brisbane Lions – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
Carlton – 46 players (38 primary and 8 rookies)
Collingwood – 47 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 7 rookies)
Essendon – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
Fremantle – 46 players (38 primary and 8 rookies)
Geelong – 47 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 7 rookies)
Hawthorn – 47 players (38 primary and 9 rookies)
Melbourne – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
North Melbourne – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
Port Adelaide – 45 players (38* primary, 2 veterans and 5 rookies)
Richmond – 45 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 5 rookies)
St Kilda – 48 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 9 rookies)
Sydney Swans – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
West Coast – 47 players (38 primary, 2 veteran and 7 rookies)
Western Bulldogs – 45 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 6 rookies)

http://afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=70974

[camboon]

We have the equal smallest list with the Dogs, Crows and Port.

2009 AFL LISTS – CLUB TOTALS

Adelaide – 45 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 5 rookies)
Brisbane Lions – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
Carlton – 46 players (38 primary and 8 rookies)
Collingwood – 47 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 7 rookies)
Essendon – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
Fremantle – 46 players (38 primary and 8 rookies)
Geelong – 47 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 7 rookies)
Hawthorn – 47 players (38 primary and 9 rookies)
Melbourne – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
North Melbourne – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
Port Adelaide – 45 players (38* primary, 2 veterans and 5 rookies)
Richmond – 45 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 5 rookies)
St Kilda – 48 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 9 rookies)
Sydney Swans – 46 players (38 primary, 2 veterans and 6 rookies)
West Coast – 47 players (38 primary, 2 veteran and 7 rookies)
Western Bulldogs – 45 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 6 rookies)

http://afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=70974

Doesn't make sense to me, surely there were a couple of Indigenous boys worth a punt as my brother mentioned previously - we have a centre dedicated to indigenous development?
Lots of kids out there but who knows what the thinking was. We did OK in the drafts overall IMO

[Smokey]

Doesn't make sense to me, surely there were a couple of Indigenous boys worth a punt as my brother mentioned previously - we have a centre dedicated to indigenous development?
Lots of kids out there but who knows what the thinking was. We did OK in the drafts overall IMO

I don't know but I've got a strong suspicion it has to do with the salary cap.  I reckon if we didn't take Cousins then we would have topped up on rookies.