Message to Mr. Roos, Barham & the hierarchy.

[ScottH]

7 of the Hawthorns players came from top 10 draft picks.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Injuries play a part, too. If Roughead, Franklin and Hodge were injured as often as Riewoldt, Koschitzke and Ball they probably wouldn't have made the GF.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

WC bottomed out and won a flag. StKilda bottomed out and should have won a flag. Port spent its first four years down the bottom half. Brisbane finished bottom three years before their first flag.

I wouldn't say West Coast bottomed out. How long were they out of the 8? Port had been challenging for a while before they won a flag and then proved their quality by bouncing back and contesting another GF just 3 years later.

[Jewels]

The best way to do it is build from the ground up IMO. Spending one or two (or three) years down the bottom is a small price to pay if you can get a side together who can challenge for the premiership for the next 5 years.

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot understand how anybody could possibly accept failure for any period of time for the blind hope of future glory.
Again, maybe it's me being dumb and/or very naive, but I like to think that my team goes out each and every week with one specific purpose in mind and that's to WIN football games. Whether they do that or not is another matter but I just cannot entertain the thought of my team running out onto the field and NOT trying their arses off, thinking that they will be far better rewarded by losing the game by getting better draft picks.

[NMWBloods]

I wouldn't say West Coast bottomed out. How long were they out of the 8? Port had been challenging for a while before they won a flag and then proved their quality by bouncing back and contesting another GF just 3 years later.

WC finished in the bottom four and picked up Judd. They were out of the eight for two years. Port were out of the eight for three of their first four years before being good enough to become a genuine challenger. My point is that virtually all teams spend some time out of the eight, often in the bottom four, while rebuilding.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

WC finished in the bottom four and picked up Judd. They were out of the eight for two years. Port were out of the eight for three of their first four years before being good enough to become a genuine challenger. My point is that virtually all teams spend some time out of the eight, often in the bottom four, while rebuilding.

Naturally, but it's not what I'd call bottoming out. I'm not sure you can use Port as an example, they only joined the AFL in '97 so any time they spent out of the 8 couldn't be considered bottoming out. Once the Power established themselves in the league they bottomed out.

It depends on which definition you're using, but West Coast and Port never really bottomed out as far as I can tell.

[originalswan]

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot understand how anybody could possibly accept failure for any period of time for the blind hope of future glory.
Again, maybe it's me being dumb and/or very naive, but I like to think that my team goes out each and every week with one specific purpose in mind and that's to WIN football games. Whether they do that or not is another matter but I just cannot entertain the thought of my team running out onto the field and NOT trying their arses off, thinking that they will be far better rewarded by losing the game by getting better draft picks.

I think you have missed the point: "NOT trying their arses off" as you have put it would be against the spirit of any competition let alone AFL football. The point being made is that we don't need to hold onto certain players that are generally mediocre for the sake of finishing off thereabouts or in the top 8. We could let these guys go or be traded thereby ensuring that our younger players get more opportunity and at the same time improve our drafting position in the hope of snaring one of the young guns. Remember, first, second and third year players will still try just as hard (as we all want) but simply would not have the physical capabilities that the older guys have.

The above scenario would mean we would end up a little lower than our ideal position would be but potentailly snare a young gun.

The other argument that seems to be prevalent is "what would two or three new young players bring overall?" the answer is we would still play the trading game but just not use it as our sole focus.

[originalswan]

Naturally, but it's not what I'd call bottoming out. I'm not sure you can use Port as an example, they only joined the AFL in '97 so any time they spent out of the 8 couldn't be considered bottoming out. Once the Power established themselves in the league they bottomed out.

It depends on which definition you're using, but West Coast and Port never really bottomed out as far as I can tell.

West Coast came 13th in 2000 (pick no. 4) and 14th in 2001 (pick no. 3 taking Chris Judd) I would call that bottoming out. As I have alluded to you don't necessarily have to finish last like Hawthorn to take advantage of the drafting game.

[The Big Cat]

The right players need to be there in the draft and you have to select wisely. You can bottom out and still achieve nothing. Look at our last 4 top ten draft choices - Fitzy, B1, Fossy and JMcV. All servicable (except poor old crock Fitzy), but none take the game by the scruff of the neck like the players people are suggesting we would "certainly" get by bottoming out. Our best drafting has been the lower picks such as ROK, MOL, Goodesy. They are our main "A Graders". We can get access to those lower picks without bottoming out.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

The right players need to be there in the draft and you have to select wisely. You can bottom out and still achieve nothing. Look at our last 4 top ten draft choices - Fitzy, B1, Fossy and JMcV. All servicable (except poor old crock Fitzy), but none take the game by the scruff of the neck like the players people are suggesting we would "certainly" get by bottoming out. Our best drafting has been the lower picks such as ROK, MOL, Goodesy. They are our main "A Graders". We can get access to those lower picks without bottoming out.

JMac is turning into a fine player but the other 3 appear to be wasted selections, considering they were top 10. It could be worse, we could be Richmond.

[SimonH]

WC finished in the bottom four and picked up Judd. They were out of the eight for two years. Port were out of the eight for three of their first four years before being good enough to become a genuine challenger. My point is that virtually all teams spend some time out of the eight, often in the bottom four, while rebuilding.

But, like a man famously asked over a century ago: What is to be done? What do we actually learn from these examples?

West Coast: They were basically just as awful in 2000 as in 2001. In 2000, their first pick was Andrew McDougall. A worse than usual #5 pick in the same way that Judd is a better than usual #3 pick. The fact that someone won the lottery (Weagles getting Judd) doesn't recommend buying lots of lottery tickets as a good way to get rich. In any event, a man called Ben Cousins departing in 2007 (plus a bunch of other players falling apart), showed that Judd (who played 19 games for an increasingly less-intimidating Weagles that year) was not the sole dividing line between flag and failure.

Port Adelaide: Never received any of the ultra-high draft picks that are associated with proponents of the 'bottoming out' theory. Their highest draft pick before they were minor premiers was #5 used on Michael Stevens-- scarcely a star. The fact that they were in the bottom 8 (while still competitive) while starting to build a minor-premiership winning and ultimately premiership winning list, is just how it was for a new entrant in the comp. There's no evidence of any causative relationship between one and the other.

Brisbane: The opposite of the bottoming out theory, albeit tracing their premiership history is complicated by the Fitzroy culling/'merger'. The Bad News Bears were well and truly in a position to take a stab at a flag by the time of the 'merger'. 1998 was the worst underperformance by a quality list in the AFL era. The core of their premiership winning group was there in 1998. And their #1 draft pick from being crap that year produced Des Headland. Yes, a 2-time premiership player, but scarcely the kind of guy you build a premiership-winning club around.

So, back to: What is to be done?

Well, on this issue people are badly prone to confuse events and intentions. Which is like confusing history with the future. Port Adelaide missed the 8 for a few years after kick-off because they weren't yet quite at the mark. Brisbane had a horror year under a very ordinary coach in 1998. The Weagles were poor, and also suffered coaching-wise, in 2000 and 2001. While I think it's nonsense to draw a strong causative link between these unsuccessful years and their later flags, it's especially
nonsense to say that they intended to be bad in these years because they believed that being bad would improve their chance of winning flags later.

So no, we do not want to deliberately plummet down to the bottom, in the dream that this strategy is the best way to win our next flag.

And how about Hawthorn? 6 of their 22 players on the ground today were top 10 draft picks (inc Croad who left and came back). Two of those 6 were effectively gained through trade (those geniuses Freo deciding to give away pick #1 in 2001 for Croad, a year the Hawks finished 6th; and the Hawks' #7 pick in 2004 used on Jordan Lewis being derived from the trade where they gave away Nathan Thompson), and one of them (2004) was under draft priority rules that no longer exist. Under current rules and excluding trades, there are 3 top 10 players.

Not a remarkable number for any club across the AFL. In fact, less than many. So leaving aside trading good players for high draft picks (which any side, up the top or down the bottom, can do), or dreaming of creating a time machine to an era of more generous priority picks, the Hawks scarcely deliver the message 'be really, really s*** for 2 years and then 3 or 4 years later you'll win a flag'. If they did, Melbourne would be montys for the premiership in 2011-12. I'm not putting my money on them.

[Big Al]

The best way to do it is build from the ground up IMO. Spending one or two (or three) years down the bottom is a small price to pay if you can get a side together who can challenge for the premiership for the next 5 years.

Worked wonderfully well for StKilda.

[Legs Akimbo]

And how about Hawthorn? 6 of their 22 players on the ground today were top 10 draft picks (inc Croad who left and came back). Two of those 6 were effectively gained through trade (those geniuses Freo deciding to give away pick #1 in 2001 for Croad, a year the Hawks finished 6th; and the Hawks' #7 pick in 2004 used on Jordan Lewis being derived from the trade where they gave away Nathan Thompson), and one of them (2004) was under draft priority rules that no longer exist. Under current rules and excluding trades, there are 3 top 10 players.

It's not about bottoming out to get early draft picks. It's about list rotation and building players in a 'group' that has high potential. IMO, we had such a group for two years in 2005/06, but not afterwards. Our current list management strategy is going to get us into trouble. (i) drafting older fringe players from other clubs to maintain a ladder position with an aging mediocre list etc., (ii) keeping guys on the list who should be moved on faster, at least until we are in a position to challenge. (iii) Inneffective use of the draft.

Not sure why people seem stuck on a need to 'bottom out'. That is not the means, although for a period of time, it may be an outcome.

Having said all that, we did some things this year that should have been done last year. Played some younger players, dropped some older ones. I just hope we don't draft any more dodgy players to keep our current second rate list at the foot of the 8. They should have asked Crouch to retire (yes, I still think he can play) and I hope Playfair and several others are moved on too.

[sharp9]

I think most are just missing the point slightly here -

The choice is not between "bottoming out" and "only going down to the middle", it's between

(1) Fast tracked playing of "normal" young players (by delisting/trading over 28 yr olds who are in the best 22) to give them accelerrated game time...or

(2) Continuing to select/contract/play your best 22 regardless of age...or

(3) Half-assedly doing both at the same time whilst topping up with reasonably priced mature aged trade/recruits in the hope of never being un-competitive (Sydney 2007/2008)

Fast tracking doesn't necessarily mean "bottoming out" and continuing with the "Best 22" theory till the death doesn't necessarily avoid going to the bottom (Melbourne anyone???) (West Coast 2000???).

Actually come to think of it maybe fast tracking does equal bottoming out! I can't think of any team that has gone "we're playing the kids" without finishing bottom four as a result. Mind you it's a bit chicken and egg. The reason St. Kilda, Richmond, Carlton, West Coast, Hawthorn, Essendon etc started "playing the kids" was that their senior players were just not cutting it and the team was already in the bottom four as it was. Nowadays top six teams which are not as good as the top 2 or 3 start saying "we need to play the kids" ...(inject fresh blood/freshen the list/analyse where we're at)...which is either very forward thinking or just plain silly. No one knows yet as no-one has tried rebuilding after finishing 4th. But this year Sydney, North, Saints, Adelaide and Bulldogs are ALL making noises about rebuilding. Weird. Of the top 8 teams only 3 think they are on track for a premiership over the next 2 years.

With regard to "fast tracking" my personal feeling is that there's not point in doing that unless the young players are unusually good. If they are just average players they get smacked and you don't achieve anything really (Carlton under Pagan!!!! Richmond under Frawley). On the other hand maybe you find out if some are better than you expect.

Hell I don't know.....I should shut up......

That Vespa is the @@@@, though

[NMWBloods]

Well, on this issue people are badly prone to confuse events and intentions.

That's not what I've done. I haven't said you should spend time out of the eight, but rather it will nearly always happen when you properly rebuild.