What can we learn from the doggies win?

[Bluthy]

I think most would agree we have a lot of parallels with dogs in terms of resources, previous flag success, s*** stadium deal, membership etc. Ie we have both been battlers in modern times.

Doggies went on to win a flag in this modern era. Is there something we can learn from how they did it?

To me the three pillars of premiership success are:

1) Strong administration with a great board and CEO setting a strong path and focus for the club. I think we are check in that area with Summers and Finis doing a great job and setting strong directions and doing innovations like Pride game and NZ. If we can get a decent deal from Etihad that will help.

2) Recruiting. Dogs were incredibly bold going for a 193 basketballing mid at pick 4, tiny little Daniel with elite disposal and even more doing an unprecedented 8 million for 8 years for a 20 y.o. power forward who hadn't shown much at all. I think we've done really well with recruiting. But maybe we should have been bold enough to take the risk to go after JOM. If he got right he is the sort that will elevate your team to a new level and fills that hole for a young class inside and outside mid we are missing. No guts, no glory.

3) A great coach with a brilliant onfield system. I think this is vital. The coaches that win flags, I think, are brilliant strategists and implement systems that catch other teams off guard. Bevo uses zoning really well ala hawks making sure he always has numbes on the half backline to make it a swamp there. But his "handball academy" let the dogs work it and keep possession to work it up the field. In the heavy congestion of current AFL footy, it was a master stroke. Watch teams catch up with it and/or negate it next year.

I like a lot of what Richo is doing. He is developing players really well. He is the getting the team to bond well. Seems to have a good mix of defence and attack. But is he doing anything that is really unique? Is he a deep thinker of the game - an artist who can find a way to look at the game differently and reinvent it ala Clarkson? I just don't know if he has a clever enough system or is going to be a great strategist who can pull the strings on the fly in finals. Won't know until we are there I guess.

[SaintPav]

Good post. I hope Richo isn't a development coach only but he is what we need right now.

From what I have heard from him, he appears an exceptional reader and analyst of the game. This will not necessarily mean he is a great strategist or innovator in the Clarkson/Bevo mould. There will be a few others on here who would know much more about this than me.

Ironic how Bevo was hired by us for the 2015 season but ended up landing the Bulldogs job. Another ballsy move by the dogs. Bulldogs really did go for it

[Jacks Back]

I really hope Richo's got some moves in him but we don't really need that at the moment - the players just need to get more experience playing with each other and then Richo can introduce that grand final winning strategy in due course.

[Mr Magic]

I learned one thing from yesterday's fantastic performance by the Doggies.
If you take your chances when you have n opportunity then you give yourself the best opportunity of succeeding.
I always believed that 2009 was our best opportunity to snag a premiership.
We were clearly the best team in the competition that year and we missed so many opportunities to 'seal' the game in the first half.
Had we been 6 goals up at half time instead of 6 points I'm convinced we'd have been the premiers.

WB took all their opportunities over the past 4 weeks and they've done the seemingly impossible.

[Johnny Member]

I don't think the club would have learnt anything.


Intense pressure For 4 quarters is key.

Neither team has any overly complicated strategies - just win the ball and bolt forward.


The bulldogs flood heavily then when it goes to ground, they turn on intense pressure and back themselves to win it in tight and they sprint forward of the ball.

The Swans similar in terms of their pressure and intensity - except they rely on their guys winning one on one contests in defence and across the ground.


The Bulldogs style is very similar to what we're doing - except we're not good enough in contests yet.



One thing the Bulldogs did do very well during the finals, was managing momentum swings. They apply the uber flood when the opposition scored a couple, then open it up slightly when they were on top.


The umpires helped them with some critical momentum swinging plays too though.

[SaintPav]

I learned one thing from yesterday's fantastic performance by the Doggies.
If you take your chances when you have n opportunity then you give yourself the best opportunity of succeeding.
I always believed that 2009 was our best opportunity to snag a premiership.
We were clearly the best team in the competition that year and we missed so many opportunities to 'seal' the game in the first half.
Had we been 6 goals up at half time instead of 6 points I'm convinced we'd have been the premiers.

WB took all their opportunities over the past 4 weeks and they've done the seemingly impossible.

In 2009, what round did we play our first game at the G?

[Scollop]

We were clearly the best team in the competition that year and we missed so many opportunities to 'seal' the game in the first half.

Do you win a game of football if you're in front at half time?

Ross Lyon told you that he coached brilliantly that day. Ross Lyon told you that it was ok that we didn't kick a goal in the last quarter of the 09 GF and it's ok to defend for 30 minutes of football and you believed him...

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrk me!!

Even if we were 4 or 5 goals up in that game, how do you know that we would have kept the lead? Maybe we would have won but a great coach doesn't blame his players for a few misses at goal. He shares the responsibility. It's not a one off that Ross Lyon coached teams have failed to kick enough goals in finals. It's not a one off that he places too much emphasis on negating, stopping and playing risk free footy. It's not a one off that his philosophy of risk free drafting with recycled players didn't get the job done

[To the top]

Apart from the disruption pressure being at the level it was I didn't think it was such a great game.

The wind seemed to impact on disposal and there were a number of players who had no influence, particularly from Sydney which is why they were over run in the end. Too few doing too much.

Then there was the umpiring which was very ordinary and which impacted on the ultimate result.

That said, the most interesting observation for me was the absence of KPP defenders on both sides.

In contrast, in 2017 our defence will be led by Carlisle at 200cm - and we will hopefully see the establishing of Goddard who is 196cm (plus Fisher as the third, intercept tall?).

Despite these structures, and the game played by Grundy, no tall forward apart from Boyd from the WB could make a mark on the game - perhaps the wind but with Franklin and Tippett it was noticable that they were 2 or 3 deep when the ball was directed to them and could not mark because they were out of the contest.

And Sydney only had very small forwards apart from Franklin and Tippett (who also took turns in the ruck) so there was absolutely no input from any of the Sydney front 6.

WB had Stringer, who was unsighted, and Boyd and then relied on the likes of Picken.

So it was a game of mid-sized players, where WB had more contributors on the day.

And they had more capable of using leg speed to gain metres.

So what does this mean for St Kilda?

We are structuring around McCartin, Bruce and Membrey (and how Sydney would have loved him yesterday?) in the forward line, Carlisle and Goddard in defence and a ruckman in Hickey who is far, far superior to the rucks who went around yesterday.

The pressure comes on our mid-sized players, their ability to suffocate, disrupt the direction of disposals particularly in close so outside players are not "freed up" and fierce tackling - then run and carry and dispose when the opportunity presents.

Unlike the sides yesterday, we will have key targets.

The other aspect is playing the game where you have your players (who can all be on a postage stamp when momentum is against you) so you just lock it in until you can feed and carry to the next congregation of players.

So we need some "burst" players and this is where the recovery of Freeman and the development of the likes of White, McKenzie and Webster is vitally important particularly in regards the back 7 (and more!).

We trust it will be most difficult to mark against Carlisle and Goddard (and Fisher) but it is what we do from there and how our mid sized players impact with smothering defence, tackling and, when the opportunity is there pace, run, carry and disposal to where we want the ball next.

With a bit of luck, I reckon we are not too far off the mark!

And I wouldn't be interested in Mitchell.

[Teflon]

I learned one thing from yesterday's fantastic performance by the Doggies.
If you take your chances when you have n opportunity then you give yourself the best opportunity of succeeding.
I always believed that 2009 was our best opportunity to snag a premiership.
We were clearly the best team in the competition that year and we missed so many opportunities to 'seal' the game in the first half.
Had we been 6 goals up at half time instead of 6 points I'm convinced we'd have been the premiers.

WB took all their opportunities over the past 4 weeks and they've done the seemingly impossible.

Spot on
The old adage "bad kicking is bad football" never rang truer for us - a side who routinely kicked low scores simply had to hit the scoreboard hard when we had the chance. We didn't.

We were renowned defensively and I too believe 6 goals in front of Cats and that flag was ours but we left the door ajar... you felt it on the day ...

History now but Dogs were clean around goal under pressure -7.1 yesterday at some stage so kudos to them

[Scollop]

But maybe we should have been bold enough to take the risk to go after JOM. If he got right he is the sort that will elevate your team to a new level and fills that hole for a young class inside and outside mid we are missing. No guts, no glory.

No guts, no glory. How right you are. Get the best players available and don't play it safe Saints. We took the risk with Carlisle and we've got to keep doing the same this draft period.

Dustin Martin, Brett Delidio, or Jaeger O'Meara are the quality we should go for. At least with these blokes we know that their best is worthy of a spot in our team. Even Steven Motlop is welcome in my book. You have to trust in our coaches and in the players to get the best out of any player coming in don't you?

Just because we may have made a mistake with Freeman (and that's yet to be determined) doesn't mean we shouldn't keep dreaming and aiming for the ultimate.

[SaintPav]

I learned one thing from yesterday's fantastic performance by the Doggies.
If you take your chances when you have n opportunity then you give yourself the best opportunity of succeeding.
I always believed that 2009 was our best opportunity to snag a premiership.
We were clearly the best team in the competition that year and we missed so many opportunities to 'seal' the game in the first half.
Had we been 6 goals up at half time instead of 6 points I'm convinced we'd have been the premiers.

WB took all their opportunities over the past 4 weeks and they've done the seemingly impossible.

Spot on
The old adage "bad kicking is bad football" never rang truer for us - a side who routinely kicked low scores simply had to hit the scoreboard hard when we had the chance. We didn't.

We were renowned defensively and I too believe 6 goals in front of Cats and that flag was ours but we left the door ajar... you felt it on the day ...

History now but Dogs were clean around goal under pressure -7.1 yesterday at some stage so kudos to them

Apparently it was windier than people think and combined with wet conditions wasn't as easy as it looked.

Still..

[Scollop]

We were renowned defensively and I too believe 6 goals in front of Cats and that flag was ours

okaaayyyy. We kicked 7-7 and Cats had kicked 7-1 by half time...so...you're saying we should have had 13-1 and been 6 goals ahead...interesting theory.

Cats kicked 5-7 in the second half and we kicked 2-7. Put it this way...if we were interested in kicking goals instead of trying to restrict the opposition from kicking goals we might have won.

but...if you want to isolate the game to 2 halves of footy we drew even...Maybe they should hand out Melbourne Cups to the horse that's leading at the 1600m mark.

[BigMart]

That they are a good team, they took their chances and got lucky with the umpires.

It has no bearing on our future.

If we try to emulate their footy, we'll already be a step behind

Winners set trends

Losers follow trends

[Linton Lodger]

That they are a good team, they took their chances and got lucky with the umpires.

It has no bearing on our future.

If we try to emulate their footy, we'll already be a step behind

Winners set trends

Losers follow trends

Well said, we've got absolutely nothing to learn from them. There is nothing to learn from dumb luck.

[White Winmar]

That you need a lot of luck to win a flag. We are the most luckless side in the competition. I watched the 2010 drawn GF doco and was shocked at how unlucky we were in that last quarter. 2009, no free to Schneider when he was pulled to the ground 30 metres out straight in front with the game in the balance. The dogs got an incredible run from the umpires. Even AFL.com.au mentioned it. Free kicks 17-4 at one stage. Disgraceful bias. The timing of the ridiculous bye. I don't begrudge them their win, but if we had a tenth of the luck they had yesterday, in any one of 1971, 1997, 2009 and 2010, we'd have five cups in the cupboard right now. Excuse me, but I'm off to vomit. Not that I'm bitter. Much.

[perfectionist]

Lesson? Get rid of duds and dickheads. If a player can't kick to a teammate when there is little or no pressure, they will never be any good in must win games. Not one Dogs player stuffed up to hand the opposition three goals. One Sydney player did - Tom Papley. We have three such players in our team who get the ball a lot but give it away too often. We will be nowhere near a flag until all are gone. Three players from a flag. All it takes is guts from those in charge.

[asaint]

If you are lucky, you may come up against a team that does not fire on the day.
Our team in 09 and 10 would have cruised to victory against that Sydney team.

[Scollop]

Lesson? Get rid of duds and dickheads. If a player can't kick to a teammate when there is little or no pressure, they will never be any good in must win games. Not one Dogs player stuffed up to hand the opposition three goals. One Sydney player did - Tom Papley. We have three such players in our team who get the ball a lot but give it away too often. We will be nowhere near a flag until all are gone. Three players from a flag. All it takes is guts from those in charge.

Even the best mids and the stars make mistakes. If the duds you speak of have a balance to their game and can create and intercept and can run and carry they are worthy of their spot. If they defend well and they consistently start or provide an option for attacking chains they are worthy of their spot

Would you consider the following blokes as duds?

In our last Grand Finals we had Jason Blake, Steven Baker, Gilbo, Clint Jones, Farren Ray, Zac Dawson and Sean Dempster. Good stoppers but apart from Gilbo in 2010 the others had no impact imo. I don't remember them as turnover merchants on the big day, but I do remember that these guys along with a few others couldn't provide any attack whatsoever.

Courage and hardness can only take you so far. You can carry a few but I think we had too many passengers and too many negaters - not enough play makers.

[SaintPav]

That you need a lot of luck to win a flag. We are the most luckless side in the competition. I watched the 2010 drawn GF doco and was shocked at how unlucky we were in that last quarter. 2009, no free to Schneider when he was pulled to the ground 30 metres out straight in front with the game in the balance. The dogs got an incredible run from the umpires. Even AFL.com.au mentioned it. Free kicks 17-4 at one stage. Disgraceful bias. The timing of the ridiculous bye. I don't begrudge them their win, but if we had a tenth of the luck they had yesterday, in any one of 1971, 1997, 2009 and 2010, we'd have five cups in the cupboard right now. Excuse me, but I'm off to vomit. Not that I'm bitter. Much.

Luck plays a huge part.

Compare the Swans of Saturday to the opposition we faced in all our GF.

Enough said.

Dogs deserved it though.

[citywest]

What can we learn from the doggies win?

Luck is everything!!!!

2016
1. The bye in round 23.
2. Buddy getting injured in first quarter rendering him lame/useless for the rest of the game.

2010
1. The unluckiest bounce in AFL history.

2009
1. The ball clearly hitting the post but given a goal.
2. Being defeated by a team that had 4 free hits (Father sons), then a few years later the rule is fixed...too late for us.
3. The lucky toe poke by Scarlet.

1997
1. Vidovic doing his ACL in last round of the season.
2. Spider doing his shoulder first week of finals.
3. Winmar's father passing away during GF week.
4. A certain CHF's sister committing suicide during GF week.

[Bluthy]

Apart from the disruption pressure being at the level it was I didn't think it was such a great game.

The wind seemed to impact on disposal and there were a number of players who had no influence, particularly from Sydney which is why they were over run in the end. Too few doing too much.

Then there was the umpiring which was very ordinary and which impacted on the ultimate result.

That said, the most interesting observation for me was the absence of KPP defenders on both sides.

In contrast, in 2017 our defence will be led by Carlisle at 200cm - and we will hopefully see the establishing of Goddard who is 196cm (plus Fisher as the third, intercept tall?).

Despite these structures, and the game played by Grundy, no tall forward apart from Boyd from the WB could make a mark on the game - perhaps the wind but with Franklin and Tippett it was noticable that they were 2 or 3 deep when the ball was directed to them and could not mark because they were out of the contest.

And Sydney only had very small forwards apart from Franklin and Tippett (who also took turns in the ruck) so there was absolutely no input from any of the Sydney front 6.

WB had Stringer, who was unsighted, and Boyd and then relied on the likes of Picken.

So it was a game of mid-sized players, where WB had more contributors on the day.

And they had more capable of using leg speed to gain metres.

So what does this mean for St Kilda?

We are structuring around McCartin, Bruce and Membrey (and how Sydney would have loved him yesterday?) in the forward line, Carlisle and Goddard in defence and a ruckman in Hickey who is far, far superior to the rucks who went around yesterday.

The pressure comes on our mid-sized players, their ability to suffocate, disrupt the direction of disposals particularly in close so outside players are not "freed up" and fierce tackling - then run and carry and dispose when the opportunity presents.

Unlike the sides yesterday, we will have key targets.

The other aspect is playing the game where you have your players (who can all be on a postage stamp when momentum is against you) so you just lock it in until you can feed and carry to the next congregation of players.

So we need some "burst" players and this is where the recovery of Freeman and the development of the likes of White, McKenzie and Webster is vitally important particularly in regards the back 7 (and more!).

We trust it will be most difficult to mark against Carlisle and Goddard (and Fisher) but it is what we do from there and how our mid sized players impact with smothering defence, tackling and, when the opportunity is there pace, run, carry and disposal to where we want the ball next.

With a bit of luck, I reckon we are not too far off the mark!

And I wouldn't be interested in Mitchell.

The size thing in defence is interesting. I think Swans would have loved Aliir. They ended up having to use guys like Heeney and Mills to do a lot of high defensive work which stretched them and robbed them of doing their main role as primer movers. Cordy is 190 odd. EAston Wood plays remarkably tall by using his timing and judgement of the ball flight. Dunkly is pretty tall. Roughhead filled the holes a fair bit. So yes they made do with injury and were a bit undersized. But Tippet has proven to be ineffectual in big games - only Buddy was the real threat and they could double team him to stop his run at the footy. I think playing that backline would have cost the dogs against GWS if GWS weren't so rusty barely playing in a month.

Clarkson never minded playing under sized defenders as he he had confidence in his defensive zoning to stop one outs and get the ball to the deck. He also had the brilliance of Hodge who could read the play so well and cut off so much stuff. So much footy is played off the deck now. Defenders are so good at hitting forwards forearms to make sure they don't mark - as long as they have eyes for the footy and get somewhere in the vicinity of the ball umps will let them do it which I don't necessarily agree with but there it is. But you do want to have that slingshot attack from the back and don't want to be too clunky there in modern footy.

So as you say TTT it is interesting we have CArlisle a frickin monster at 200 and Goddard who does look a bit of a big slow clunky guy at the moment. But Carlisle is remarkably agile. If his body stays together and he doesn't stiffen up, he could be an incredible intercepting weapon with those bucket hands. You could give him licence to try and mark everything cos he's almost never going to be out marked at that height. I think Goddard will be groomed to be that pillar of defence general. I think his kicking is actually pretty good and that will come in handy.

I was keen on Aaron Francis as he looks like a barnstorming type that even though only 190 odd, he apparently never gets out marked. HE seemed the perfect type for modern footy in that Goddard mould. I think he'll be a monster in a finals with his speed and strength and good marking.

JJ's run for the dogs was huge in the second half in both the prelim and GF. When exhaustion sets in average speed players start looking really slow but the fast ones seems to stay fast. McKenzie is looking a good runner and I reckon White will have some toe out of defence. Would be good to keep an eye out for a young, fast running, line breaking machine though.

The other way to move it quickly from the back and break through teams presses is with good kicking. Hopefully thats where White and Rice will come in. Hawks have been so good at letting the ball do the work especially on the big MCG where of course they get to play the GF at their home ground. Its a really efficient style of play that lets them stay relatively fresh. Most of the dogs can use the ball well by hand and foot - they don't have a lot of ball butchers turning it over.

[spert]

What can we learn??

Stable leadership, a vision, risk-taking, recruiting a highly regarded person as coach, having midfielders who win large numbers of contested possessions, not relying on one or two champions past their prime, winning a GF against a team clearly affected by injury with a big free kick differential.

That's it.

[Con Gorozidis]

What can we learn??

Stable leadership, a vision, risk-taking, recruiting a highly regarded person as coach, having midfielders who win large numbers of contested possessions, not relying on one or two champions past their prime, winning a GF against a team clearly affected by injury with a big free kick differential.

That's it.

Also Big Name "messiahs" like Buddy and PDF dont win you flags.

[Bluthy]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-28/h ... heir-lists

How the Swans and Bulldogs built their Grand Final lists

MAKING a Grand Final takes plenty of planning, execution and a little luck (f*** luck - edit Bluthy)

But the list management teams of both clubs have been building towards this weekend for some time.

Recruiters work three or four years in advance, drafting players and targeting others to either reach the top of the ladder or stay there.

This week's Grand Finalists have made it in different ways. The Bulldogs are probably a little ahead of their own internal predictions and built on a youthful exuberance, whereas this will be the Swans' third Grand Final in the past five years.

Here AFL.com.au has taken a look at the clubs' 25-player squads (including their preliminary final line-ups and three other possible inclusions) to see how the Swans and Bulldogs have constructed their Grand Final teams.

There are large similarities between the list builds, with the Swans having six first-round picks and the Dogs having four.

The Swans have nine players in their squad of 25 who were drafted in the fourth round or later (including the rookie and pre-season drafts), while the Dogs have eight.

In a slight difference, the Swans have picked up six players from other clubs, including genuine high profile and high-priced recruits.

The Dogs have grabbed four (two at basement price), although it must be added that former Bomber Stewart Crameri would be in this side if not for his season-long WADA ban.

First round picks

Marcus Bontempelli (No.4)
Jake Stringer (No.5)
Jack Macrae (No.6)
Clay Smith (draft pick No.17)

The Bulldogs' recruiting team deserves huge credit for its brave top-10 selections in 2012-13 that have added real star factor to the list. Some clubs wouldn't have touched Stringer given his serious leg injury, but the Bulldogs had seen him up close and believed he would get back to his best. Macrae was a safer choice and has proved an exceptional selection. The boldest pick was Bontempelli at No.4 in 2013. Bontempelli is everything a club would want in a top-five pick – he's tough, courageous, skillful and lifts in the big moments – and has already become one of the competition's most influential players.

Second round

Josh Dunkley (No.25)
Toby McLean (No.26)
Lukas Webb (No.27)
Jordan Roughead (No.31)
Tom Liberatore (No.41)

Liberatore's status here is skewed by the fact he was taken under an older version of the father-son bidding system after Mitch Wallis was picked in the same year with the Dogs' first pick. Nevertheless, Liberatore sits in this category and his importance to the club's midfield cannot be overstated. McLean, Dunkley and Webb even being in this conversation highlights why the Bulldogs have been successful. The club, and coach Luke Beveridge, has instilled belief and confidence in the younger players. None are older than 20 but all have made an impact. McLean's rat cunning smarts in attack appealed to the Dogs' recruiters, while they saw more of Dunkley's strengths than his flaws when assessing where he sat in last year's pool.

Lachie Hunter got through to the third round, while Marcus Bontempelli was picked at No.4. Picture: AFL Photos


Third round
Easton Wood (No.43)
Caleb Daniel (No.46)
Lachie Hunter (No.49)
Tory Dickson (No.57)

The Bulldogs' first premiership captain since 1954 might come from the third round of the draft. Wood has elevated himself into the top echelon of defenders in the competition the past few years, and was an All Australian and best and fairest winner in 2015. The real gem in this crop of recruits is Daniel, whom many clubs overlooked and wouldn't have drafted in 2014 due to his height. The runner up in this year's NAB AFL Rising Star award has impressed with his skill level and tenacity despite his shorter stature. Dickson was a clever choice after making his name at VFL level for Essendon's reserves side, while Lachie Hunter was a father-son pick. Rival clubs, in hindsight, took far too long to place a bid on the busy midfielder.

Fourth round or later/Rookie Draft/Pre-season draft
Fletcher Roberts (No.11, pre-season draft)
Dale Morris (No.19, rookie draft)
Luke Dahlhaus (No.22, rookie draft)
Matthew Boyd (No.23, rookie draft)
Tom Campbell (No.27, rookie draft)
Liam Picken (No.30, rookie draft)
Jason Johannisen (No.39, rookie draft)
Zaine Cordy (No.64)

The Dogs' success with rookies Boyd, Picken and Morris has been well documented but all three have been crucial in the club's quick rebound in the past two years. In more recent times, Dahlhaus was plucked out of the Geelong Falcons system after catching the Dogs' eye. They took a punt on Johannisen because of a breakout trait – his extreme speed – while Campbell was another rookie selected to fill a need as a back-up ruckman. Cordy is another father-son pick for the Dogs where a rival bid has proven to be too late, with the Bulldogs able to secure him with a fourth-round choice.

Trade/Free agency
Shane Biggs (traded from the Sydney Swans, with pick 39, for pick 37)
Tom Boyd (traded from the Giants for Ryan Griffen and pick 6)
Joel Hamling (delisted free agent)
Matthew Suckling (unrestricted free agent)

This highlights how the Bulldogs have built through crafty drafting rather than targeting players through trades and free agency . Boyd was a coup, but it took a long-term multi-million-dollar deal and the exit of their captain (plus pick six) to make it happen. Suckling was a nice addition without giving up anything as an unrestricted free agent. Biggs and Hamling arrived at the Dogs with far less fanfare but have been solid pick-ups at a basement price: Biggs cost them two spots in the draft and Hamling nothing at all as a delisted free agent from Geelong.

==========================================================
Holy s*** look at those rookies including JJ the Norm Smith medalist. Was it really a good idea to have Schneider on the rookie list instead of trying another kid? I keep saying the draft is lottery you will certainly getting losing tickets in, but by god you can also win big if you keep putting your hand in the barrel.