Rookies Vs Draft choices

[The Big Cat]

It seems the swans are happier to promote rookies than take a chance on a lower draft pick. We have promoted plenty who have taken the place of potential draftees and are we better off? (I know people will quote Kirk, Bevan and Kennelly). But have a look - most of our delistings in recent years have been ex rookies - Shaw, Phillips, Simpkin, Vogels, Mickeljohn, etc, etc. Are we missing a chance at the new O'Loughlin, Goodes, O'Keefe etc who were picked up in the middle to low reaches of the draft?

[reigning premier]

Unfortunately, you can only have so many on your list. There in lies the problem. Do you take the punt on a 17yo that shows a bit of raw talent? Or do you retain someone that you know may be a player one day?

[Robbo]

It should depend on who is in the better reserves form.

[Jewels]

I think alot would depend on the potential and depth expected in the draft. This year it is considered a shallow draft so we are only taking two. Last year, a deep draft, we took four.

[The Big Cat]

I forgot some others. Pritz, MacPherson, Brockman, Bennett.

[swantastic]

IMHO all Rookie and Draft players are a gamble,i think its easier to turn a good rookie with the right attitude into a good player.As opposed to turning a high draft pick with a @@@@ attitude into a good player.

Its mostly between the ears,as the saying goes"its mind over matter"


"Just here to help"

[liz]

The rookie list has two main purposes. One is to add some relatively mature depth that is unlikely to ever become star quality but can fill a hole when injuries demand. Brockman, Bennett, Vogels and Brennan fit that category.

And then it gives a chance to get a larger number of raw 'NQR' youngsters and have a better look at them than you can possibly get if they're not at the club. Players drafted onto the main list invariably get at least two years to give it a shot. Many rookies only get one, and the system demands a rapid turnover at the bottom end of the list. Promoting rookies onto the senior list really just gives them a second year to see if they have what it takes - ie what drafted players usually get.

There often won't be much between the rating of players drafted at the end of the draft and those taken as rookies. Most clubs will have a similar list of top rated draftees but the lower the ranking gets, the more the list is likely to diverge. It is highly likely, for instance, that Brabazon and/or Thornton would have been available to be rookied had the Swans taken, say, Simpkin with their last pick in 2005 (except Thornton was too young - probably why he was taken in the main draft).

Also, the Swans' recent use of the rookie list hasn't seen it pass on 3rd or 4th round picks. Probably this is the first year when the list congestion caused by 3 rookie promotions will see it end its draft involvement so early.

[The Big Cat]

The rookie list has two main purposes. One is to add some relatively mature depth that is unlikely to ever become star quality but can fill a hole when injuries demand. Brockman, Bennett, Vogels and Brennan fit that category.

And then it gives a chance to get a larger number of raw 'NQR' youngsters and have a better look at them than you can possibly get if they're not at the club. Players drafted onto the main list invariably get at least two years to give it a shot. Many rookies only get one, and the system demands a rapid turnover at the bottom end of the list. Promoting rookies onto the senior list really just gives them a second year to see if they have what it takes - ie what drafted players usually get.

There often won't be much between the rating of players drafted at the end of the draft and those taken as rookies. Most clubs will have a similar list of top rated draftees but the lower the ranking gets, the more the list is likely to diverge. It is highly likely, for instance, that Brabazon and/or Thornton would have been available to be rookied had the Swans taken, say, Simpkin with their last pick in 2005 (except Thornton was too young - probably why he was taken in the main draft).

Also, the Swans' recent use of the rookie list hasn't seen it pass on 3rd or 4th round picks. Probably this is the first year when the list congestion caused by 3 rookie promotions will see it end its draft involvement so early.

Well argued. You've won me over.

[bodgie]

Given so far that our choices in Mattner and Playfair and our losses of Dempster and Schneider are fairly safe/moderate/mild it would seem we still have faith in our playing list as it is for a last crack at premiership. I'm not so sure.

I say take the newly available Fraser Gehrig as first pick. he has solid full back experience. Imagine being able to swap monsters like Hall (some retraining needed for a thug without having to be a politically correct captain) and Gehrig, with Leaping Leo, our lost forward. The fear! The audacity! With our rebounding redoubtables such as C Bolton, Keneally, Malceski. I'm excited!