Cool, but to be honest we need to do more. Much more.
Nadueke, Bennet and Edwards more or less said directly.
What we need to do, is to play them. Always have 2-5 in the XXV man squad and always have 1-3 in the XI man match day squad. No excuses.
As easy as that.
That alone would give the best dozen or so spots to fight for, both in the first team training regime and in the match day squads. A rabbit to chase in their development every single day.
It's a fucking travesty having youth players leave us, because we cannot do the above mentioned. In particular when the worst 30% of the XXV man squad are so shit, and in many instances, overpriced.
I too would like to see homegrown players break through, but I disagree with your "as easy as that". For many reasons.
First of all, when you say "the XI match day squad", do you mean the match day squad including subs, or the starting team (XI = 11,match day squad = 18).
When you say "play them" and that we should have 1-3 in the match day squad, do you mean players under a certain age, players under a certain age that has been with us for a given number of years (true academy products, as opposed to players we've bought at e.g. 19 years old), or do you mean HG players from our own academy of any age? If the latter, we usually do have Kane + Winks, and sometimes Tanganga and Skipp. Others involved more rarely.
If you mean 1-3 young, still up-and coming, in the first eleven, would that be the same 1-3, or should we rotate between a lot of players? How many games could they play before they were no longer a part of the category getting those 1-3 spots?
Do you not think that having such an arrangement would make them feel that they've made it too soon? Should those getting playing time under this quota be paid as first team regulars, or as schoolboys? If the former, we could have easily ended up with Walcotts and Wilsheres - players who stagnate early and who are hard to move on because of wages.
Not so easy, lots and lots of questions without an apparent good answer.
The thing is, imo, that developing players to go straight into a top class team from a youth team is very difficult. Players need time to mature, they need to be able to thrive under pressure, many fans and managers will demand near instant success, and, if they do break through and manage to get a spot to play regularly, injuries may quickly become an issue.
I have a long-held opinion that the HG rule is a travesty. It gives the top clubs way to strong an incentive to hold onto young talents, and has for a long time made many top clubs vacuum the market for talents and kept them in their squads as fringe players who never get the right amount of exposure and experience to develop in a good way.
It would be way more natural for talented players to move to the top step by step through clubs at increasing levels, like many foreign (to England) players have done, playing first in their home country, then stepping out to a bigger league, and then to a top international club.
Loans allow a version of the step-by-step career development, and is certainly better than the tran-under-me path of Poch. But players, I think, benefit more from actually belonging to the club they play for. Partly for stoking their own desire to perform and their feeling of belonging, but also to more greatly insentivise the club whos dhirt they wear to actually play and develop them.
I think the top clubs should focus more on youth development untill players are ready to start playing senior football, building a relationship with the players up to that point, selling them with buy-back clauses, and them, if they become greats, get them back at a stage in their careers where they are ready to actually make an impact.
But then there is that progress- and career-killing HG rule.