Macca

[NMWBloods]

I agree that it varies across players and the important thing is getting all the players to AFL standard.

However, with regard to it being a sunk cost, yes it is, but there has still been a cost that could have spent elsewhere. Ignoring the cost of getting that player is a mistake IMHO, akin to saying once you've bought an expensive product it should perform the same as a cheaper product because the amount spent is no longer relevant.

Of course players are ready at different times. The ideal outcome for a high draft pick is a top-flight player ready now (eg: Judd). I expect most high draft picks to be ready earlier, but some may still be developing. In the latter case though, I expect that when they reach their best they really are sensational. Otherwise there seems little point in expending your high draft pick on them. So we'll wait and see.

I can think of a number of our high draft picks that haven't quite reach those standards (yet a number of low ones who have outperformed expectations a lot).

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

However, with regard to it being a sunk cost, yes it is, but there has still been a cost that could have spent elsewhere. Ignoring the cost of getting that player is a mistake IMHO, akin to saying once you've bought an expensive product it should perform the same as a cheaper product because the amount spent is no longer relevant.

The implication of a couple of posts in this thread (not yours) was that McVeigh should get less time to prove himself because he was a high pick. That is where the "sunk cost" concept comes in - there is no point in making a decision for the future (ie whether to keep the faith in a player) based on what he cost in the past.

If, say, McVeigh and Malceski are considered to have equal chance of developing to the necessary standard, you would expect them to be treated the same. You wouldn't give up on McVeigh sooner just because he "cost" more initially.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by lizz
The implication of a couple of posts in this thread (not yours) was that McVeigh should get less time to prove himself because he was a high pick. That is where the "sunk cost" concept comes in - there is no point in making a decision for the future (ie whether to keep the faith in a player) based on what he cost in the past.

If, say, McVeigh and Malceski are considered to have equal chance of developing to the necessary standard, you would expect them to be treated the same. You wouldn't give up on McVeigh sooner just because he "cost" more initially.

Ah, yes - I agree in that case. Once you've 'spent' the cost on the players it is a waste to give up too early. However, naturally you would expect that once they do both develop McVeigh should theoretically be a much better player.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by sharpie
Fraser won the rising star award, he certainly didnt take years

Fraser played on the bench in what can only be described as a dismal side - played very little, same with Headland who was only regular in 2002 almost 4 years after being drafted.

Fraser did not win the rising star - in fact he should never have been nominated for it.

Goodes also did not play senior footy in his first year - spent all in the reserves

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Reggi
Fraser played on the bench in what can only be described as a dismal side - played very little, same with Headland who was only regular in 2002 almost 4 years after being drafted.

Fraser did not win the rising star - in fact he should never have been nominated for it.

Goodes also did not play senior footy in his first year - spent all in the reserves

Sorry, my mistake, for some reason i was convinced he did win it. Oh well. Still remember that he was good in his first year.

[Steve]

The other distorting issue of early draft picks playing early (generally speaking, notwithstanding successful clubs trading into the top end of the draft) is that they are going into poorly-performing sides.

When a high draft pick first plays seniors depends just as much on the quality of his club's side. If Andrew Walker is fit next year and plays 22 games for Carlton, would he really have been 'more ready' than someone like Jared Brennan who only played 8 in his first year b/c he was drafted by a team who were about to win their third-straight flag?

Just b/c you pay a high price for a product doesn't mean that you necessarily expect greater performance immediately even short-term - it may just mean that you are prepared to pay a premium to have a 'product' that will still be going strong in 10+ years, and not go okay for a couple of years and then become useless.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Steve
When a high draft pick first plays seniors depends just as much on the quality of his club's side. If Andrew Walker is fit next year and plays 22 games for Carlton, would he really have been 'more ready' than someone like Jared Brennan who only played 8 in his first year b/c he was drafted by a team who were about to win their third-straight flag?

That hits the nail right on the head.

I always shudder when I see first year players rushed into the seniors. Given the high attrition rate among young players, throwing these kids into the deep end is a sure indication that the team lacks depth (and often a sign that the coach is desperately trying to pull the stiletto out of his back).

Apart from McVeigh, our draft picks last year were more advanced physically than usual, and I think it is a very positive sign for the future that the match committee feels no pressure to put them into the seniors until they are 100% ready and able.

Given McVeigh's age and stature, I think it would have been lunacy to promote him in 2003, and, from a club perspective, I will be perfectly happy if he doesn't play a senior game in 2004 (although it's always exciting when a youngster breaks into the big time).

[NMWBloods]

It's like the Hawthorn approach of the 1980s and that worked pretty well.

[Bas]

I always shudder when I see first year players rushed into the seniors. Given the high attrition rate among young players, throwing these kids into the deep end is a sure indication that the team lacks depth (and often a sign that the coach is desperately trying to pull the stiletto out of his back).

[/QUOTE]

I agree. It also makes you wonder how long the careers will be before they become too injury prone. We'll have to wait to see how many of the current young "stars" make it to ten years.

St Kilda's list will be interesting especially if supercoach stays in charge for a few more years.

[Nico]

Originally posted by motorace_182
For a #4 Draft Pick, Jared better show something this year or he will be shown the door, i feel. He looks skkillfull but unless there is a lot of time spent in the gym over the off-season, he will not go too far. Is he worth keeping if he doesnt progress much this year?? Any thoughts?

Footballers come in all shapes and sizes. History shows that skinny blokes can cut the mustard with the tough nuts.

This crap about AFL players having to bulk up is just that. A decade back the theory going around was that players with hunched shoulders were the ideal build because they somehow thought they got their body over the ball, simply because there was some stars around who fitted that profile.

Then they all jumped on bulking up in the gym to add strength to their game and the team. Remember how Stewie Maxfield did just that and lost heaps of pace. How did he reinvent himself? Kept out of the bloody gym.

Poor old Saddo. He cops it every week because he needs to bulk up. How long has he been playing now? Has anyone considered that his build does not allow him to endure the rigours of the gym that many on this sight visualise?

The Under 18's comp is littered with dropouts who did their backs and legs because they were shunted into the gym way before their bodies matured. Damian Cupido had back troubles at 16 because of this.

I believe Nathan Buckley also backed off the gym work because it was affecting his speed and skills.


So if we follow the teachings of the fitness gurus on this site we will soon have a team of slow fat bastards running around who couldn't run out of sight on a dark night.

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's like the Hawthorn approach of the 1980s and that worked pretty well.

OK, I'll bite . . . . .

All I can remember of the Hawks in the 80s was that they did everything right and won just about everything.

Which bit of that are you referring to?

[Reggi]

On the whole in the 80s Hawthorn had players who played 50 + reserves games before they played senior footy.

Hawthorn of that period aren't a goood example fact is they were gifted a rort by the then VFL who gave them a recruiting zone that produced Mathews, Knights, Brereton, Ayres, The Abletts, Mew etc.

Take the zone away and they have done nothing whatsoever.

McVeigh is about 70KGs and a ball winner - cannot even compete with the men in the ACTAFL.

A generation ago most players did not debute until they were 20 - 21 teenage footballers were comparitively a rarity. P Kelly did not debute until 21 same with Cresswell Dale Lewis and W Schwass about 20.

This system that forces clubs to play teenagers has only been around a decade or so.