View Full Version : Heffernan to Dons. Stage 2 of Sheedy’s 3 Stage 2006 top-up plan now complete.
Stage 1: Camporale to Dons: Complete
Stage 2: Heffernan to Dons: Complete
Stage 3: Woewoedin: Soon?
Little surprised by Sheedy’s reliance on recruiting ready-made players, nearing the end of their careers to prop up his sliding team. 6 or 7 years ago he was renowned for developing younger players, now it’s quite the reverse. An aging, slow list with arguably the least talented collection of younger players going around at present. Further recruitement of 2 and probably 3 prop-up players further emphasises Sheedy’s change in philosophy i.e. get close to the finals to appease the Bomber faithful, at the expense of the long term development of his side. :)
luckysaint48
1 Nov 2005, 05:28
Hopefully woewodin can make a huge difference to their forward structure :p
bradrowe#32
1 Nov 2005, 08:37
Can't believe the silly old fool thinks they are close enough to a flag that all he needs is top up players.
Stage 1: Camporale to Dons: Complete
Stage 2: Heffernan to Dons: Complete
Stage 3: Woewoedin: Soon?
Little surprised by Sheedy’s reliance on recruiting ready-made players, nearing the end of their careers to prop up his sliding team. 6 or 7 years ago he was renowned for developing younger players, now it’s quite the reverse. An aging, slow list with arguably the least talented collection of younger players going around at present. Further recruitement of 2 and probably 3 prop-up players further emphasises Sheedy’s change in philosophy i.e. get close to the finals to appease the Bomber faithful, at the expense of the long term development of his side. :)
LOL go parrot , same story different day :D
Longy413
1 Nov 2005, 09:15
Can't believe the silly old fool thinks they are close enough to a flag that all he needs is top up players.
No one has ever known what Kevin Sheedy is thinking.
What makes you think you do?
No one has ever known what Kevin Sheedy is thinking.
What makes you think you do?
Valid point. :)
monfries_young-gun
1 Nov 2005, 11:03
May i ask where you pulled woewodin to essendon from??
why wouldn't sheedy attempt to roll the dice and try to snatch a flag before his champion Hird retires.
Good luck to him. Quality coach imo
Exactly what the bombers want, slow, out of date midfielders.
mattyc2422
1 Nov 2005, 14:14
6 or 7 years ago he was renowned for developing younger players, now it’s quite the reverse.
Lovett? Stanton?
enjoy bullen at the blues parrot, following in the footsteps of cory mcgrath and bannister.
lol
They're well on their way to winning the flag now they have heffa :rolleyes:
mcphee_is_a_gun
1 Nov 2005, 16:03
Heffernan is worth the risk imo he was a very good player in our 2000 premiership team and he is still only 26 if he can get back to anywhere near that form i'll be happy and all were giving up for him is pick 51 in the ND or a PSD pick.
Having Heffernan on our list is not gonna be the reason we dont win a premiership in the near future.
Heffanan is a gamble - but what do you expect.
The Bombers fans probably expect very little but since thats what they are paying it shouldn't be too much of a problem
Longy413
1 Nov 2005, 16:51
Heffanan is a gamble - but what do you expect.
The Bombers fans probably expect very little but since thats what they are paying it shouldn't be too much of a problem
An objective point of view on Bigfooty. Who'd of thought?
Well done.
Can't believe the silly old fool thinks they are close enough to a flag that all he needs is top up players.
Last years round 21 team versus Carlton was the youngest Essendon team in Sheedy's 25 years in charge. Yes, the youngest.
Our list last year (and by last year, I mean 2005) consisted of only three players over 30. One was Dustin Fletcher who is still a gun, and only just turned 30 in May. One is Hird, who is a champion, and the other is Matthew Allan who has since been delisted.
Essendon have one of the youngest lists in the competition - perhaps too young, and it needs to be strengthened with some experienced players. Thirty players on our list of 41 last year were 25 or younger. Heffernan is only 26, and he can be a handy 30-40 player on the list (he will be cheap.) can you think of a better player to occupy the "depth" part of a clubs list (30-40) considering he is 26, has 5 years left, and costs next to nothing?
Essendon do not top up with crap at the expense of building the list. We always seek to have a good balance, which is why we contend for the flag nearly every year. Why waste a year?
We always seek to have a good balance, which is why we contend for the flag nearly every year. Why waste a year?
Time will tell whether this strategy, or Hawthorn's strategy is more successful.
Pessimistic
1 Nov 2005, 17:26
Last years round 21 team versus Carlton was the youngest Essendon team in Sheedy's 25 years in charge. Yes, the youngest.
Our list last year (and by last year, I mean 2005) consisted of only three players over 30. One was Dustin Fletcher who is still a gun, and only just turned 30 in May. One is Hird, who is a champion, and the other is Matthew Allan who has since been delisted.
Essendon have one of the youngest lists in the competition - perhaps too young, and it needs to be strengthened with some experienced players. Thirty players on our list of 41 last year were 25 or younger. Heffernan is only 26, and he can be a handy 30-40 player on the list (he will be cheap.) can you think of a better player to occupy the "depth" part of a clubs list (30-40) considering he is 26, has 5 years left, and costs next to nothing?
Essendon do not top up with crap at the expense of building the list. We always seek to have a good balance, which is why we contend for the flag nearly every year. Why waste a year?
Spin city
Cerpin Taxt
1 Nov 2005, 17:29
Stage 1: Camporale to Dons: Complete
Stage 2: Heffernan to Dons: Complete
Stage 3: Woewoedin: Soon?
#1: Camporeale was lodged on your list.
#2: Incomplete, Heffernan was only just delisted by Melbourne
#3: Need something else to prop up your argument?
Time will tell whether this strategy, or Hawthorn's strategy is more successful.
No club has ever won a flag by bottoming out completely and getting every player through early picks and winning a flag. Are you naive enough to think that Adelaide finished minor-premiers this years "because" of early draft picks?
Looking at Sydney's list, it appeared pre-season to not even be in the same league as St.Kilda's list, but look what happened.
There are no guarantees in football. Sheedy doesn't like to waste years. A year is a long time in your life. We only live for 75 of them, and a players career, goes for an average of only 5 years.
Hawthorn basically have wasted the last two years. 40% of the average players football life. They didn't seek to have any balance in their list, they are rebuilding totally through young players and are basically writing off a couple of years with the hope of winning a flag in a few years time. What kind of attitude is that. Shouldn't the aim be to have a good balance and contend for the flag every year, like Essendon?
The history of the draft proves that good players can be picked up from anywhere, anyway. Our rookie list has basically provided us with the equivalent of a top 15 pick a couple of times, even though the player originally wasn't in the best 80 in the national draft.
I know, our strategy of having balanced list each year is more successful, because I have seen it be consistently successful for 25 years. It's called playing for the moment, but not at the expense of your future.
Who the hell wants to sit through a wasted year? A year is a long time.
douggie the don
1 Nov 2005, 17:58
No club has ever won a flag by bottoming out completely and getting every player through early picks and winning a flag. Are you naive enough to think that Adelaide finished minor-premiers this years "because" of early draft picks?
Looking at Sydney's list, it appeared pre-season to not even be in the same league as St.Kilda's list, but look what happened.
There are no guarantees in football. Sheedy doesn't like to waste years. A year is a long time in your life. We only live for 75 of them, and a players career, goes for an average of only 5 years.
Hawthorn basically have wasted the last two years. 40% of the average players football life. They didn't seek to have any balance in their list, they are rebuilding totally through young players and are basically writing off a couple of years with the hope of winning a flag in a few years time. What kind of attitude is that. Shouldn't the aim be to have a good balance and contend for the flag every year, like Essendon?
The history of the draft proves that good players can be picked up from anywhere, anyway. Our rookie list has basically provided us with the equivalent of a top 15 pick a couple of times, even though the player originally wasn't in the best 80 in the national draft.
I know, our strategy of having balanced list each year is more successful, because I have seen it be consistently successful for 25 years. It's called playing for the moment, but not at the expense of your future.
Who the hell wants to sit through a wasted year? A year is a long time.
well said!!!!!!!!
Also with teams that bottom out like Stkilda and Hawthorn, what's gonna happen in two or three years if the saints haven't won a priemiership...
many of their young-guns then will be 22-24,25. They'll all be requesting more money whilst if they fail to deliver the club will be reluctant to pay them. therefore risk loosing them through poaching or cap pressure will increase..
If you look at the last 4 premiership teams
young, barnard, pike, Scott, Mcrae, montgomery, half of the sydney team.
there is many more of these type players for Ess, Bris, Port and Syd
that are not stars but they fit into teams that have created winning cultures.
people think that we're going to base our team around heff and campo but the fact is they'll probably slot into our squad of 38 nicely and do a roll, so the kids can learn how to be winners without bottoming out...
No club has ever won a flag by bottoming out completely and getting every player through early picks and winning a flag. Are you naive enough to think that Adelaide finished minor-premiers this years "because" of early draft picks?
Looking at Sydney's list, it appeared pre-season to not even be in the same league as St.Kilda's list, but look what happened.
There are no guarantees in football. Sheedy doesn't like to waste years. A year is a long time in your life. We only live for 75 of them, and a players career, goes for an average of only 5 years.
Hawthorn basically have wasted the last two years. 40% of the average players football life. They didn't seek to have any balance in their list, they are rebuilding totally through young players and are basically writing off a couple of years with the hope of winning a flag in a few years time. What kind of attitude is that. Shouldn't the aim be to have a good balance and contend for the flag every year, like Essendon?
The history of the draft proves that good players can be picked up from anywhere, anyway. Our rookie list has basically provided us with the equivalent of a top 15 pick a couple of times, even though the player originally wasn't in the best 80 in the national draft.
I know, our strategy of having balanced list each year is more successful, because I have seen it be consistently successful for 25 years. It's called playing for the moment, but not at the expense of your future.
Who the hell wants to sit through a wasted year? A year is a long time.
Last year was something of an exception. It might well become more regular, but i personally have my suspicions.
The majority of flags won from 1992 onwards have been built on teams created outside the normal rules.
1992: WCE - Built on the most favourable concessions of all time.
1993: ESS - Cheated cap, but built from olden days and good drafting.
1994: WCE - See 1992
1995: CAR - Cheats of the highest order.
1996: NM - Utilised U19s system to circumvent regular draft system (legally of course).
1997: ADE - Core built on 1991 concessions
1998: ADE - As above
1999: NM - See 1996
2000: ESS - Won off base of extended success.
2001: BL - Where do I start? Merger players. Plus bottoming out completely. Plus cap allowance.
2002: BL - See above
2003: BL - See above
2004: PA - Core built on 1997 concessions
2005: SYD - With 2000 and maybe 1993, the only team built without concessions of some form. Salary cap helps lure players though at expense of 1st round draft pick.
And that's about that! A maximum of 3 premiership teams who have avoided concessions or cheating. One could argue that it's probably only Essendon of 2000. And even then, your Hirds, Mercuris, Longs etc. were part of Ye Olde draft system, but to your credit, you were first to see the advantage of non-traditional slight players who could run and kick.
The fact is, yeah, Sydney won from nowhere and Adelaide somehow stole top spot, but I reckon it will be an exception to the rule. The likes of St Kilda need a better run with injuries and the Dogs are rising up at a rapid rate of knots. WCE have forward issues, but one wouldn't suggest that they weren't contenders this year (one kick from flag), nor contenders next year.
And after all my points above, you simply have some questions to answer re. your list for me to prove my point: Who's your next Hird? Who's your next Lucas? Who's your Mercuri? Your Michael Long? Where are these premium players who's going to win you a flag??
While you're thinking about those questions, please understand that teams like the Saints and Bulldogs already have answers under development. Sure, they ain't without flaw, and yes they didn't beat Sydney, but they will and they are poised to be better than your team for a long time.
But hey, don't listen to me. I'd rather you finished mid table for all of eternity!
Love how supporters of clubs like Hawthorn, St.Kilda et al just 'assume' success will come their way after 'gaining' a few priority picks in succession. I believe you have to have a package of good coaching and great mix of youth and experience in your playing list to win a flag. And thats not taking into account luck with injuries. That plays a bigger part than any. You don't want to lose any KPP long-term if you are hoping to win a Premiership.
Pessimistic
1 Nov 2005, 18:14
No club has ever won a flag by bottoming out completely and getting every player through early picks and winning a flag. Are you naive enough to think that Adelaide finished minor-premiers this years "because" of early draft picks?
Looking at Sydney's list, it appeared pre-season to not even be in the same league as St.Kilda's list, but look what happened.
There are no guarantees in football. Sheedy doesn't like to waste years. A year is a long time in your life. We only live for 75 of them, and a players career, goes for an average of only 5 years.
Hawthorn basically have wasted the last two years. 40% of the average players football life. They didn't seek to have any balance in their list, they are rebuilding totally through young players and are basically writing off a couple of years with the hope of winning a flag in a few years time. What kind of attitude is that. Shouldn't the aim be to have a good balance and contend for the flag every year, like Essendon?
The history of the draft proves that good players can be picked up from anywhere, anyway. Our rookie list has basically provided us with the equivalent of a top 15 pick a couple of times, even though the player originally wasn't in the best 80 in the national draft.
I know, our strategy of having balanced list each year is more successful, because I have seen it be consistently successful for 25 years. It's called playing for the moment, but not at the expense of your future.
Who the hell wants to sit through a wasted year? A year is a long time.
well if lucas hird and lloyd were all 'funished' at the same time due to retirement or injury I think you'd find essendon wouldn't have much of a choice as to where they finished.
Hang on - that could be 2006 ?
Cheer Red Blood
1 Nov 2005, 18:15
Looking at Sydney's list, it appeared pre-season to not even be in the same league as St.Kilda's list, but look what happened.
Only because people don't take the time to look seriously. Sydney haven't had a propaganda machine (Read the Melbourne papers) talking us up, like the Saints have.
I agree with all your other points though.
Love how supporters of clubs like Hawthorn, St.Kilda et al just 'assume' success will come their way after 'gaining' a few priority picks in succession. I believe you have to have a package of good coaching and great mix of youth and experience in your playing list to win a flag. And thats not taking into account luck with injuries. That plays a bigger part than any. You don't want to lose any KPP long-term if you are hoping to win a Premiership.
Who said they did?? It's a hard road and there are zero guarantees along the way. Zero!
But the fact is, you get the premium players like Riewoldt, Kosi, Judd, Hodge, Ball, Dal Santo, Griffen, Cooney, Roughead etc. at the pointy end of the draft. You very rarely get them later on in the draft.
As Lucas, Fletcher and Hird decline and if Lloyd doesn't pick up his form, you'll be lacking the premium players to land you a flag. It's that simple! And I personally don't see those players being involved in a flag any time soon. So where are these premium players coming from??
Last year was something of an exception. It might well become more regular, but i personally have my suspicions.
The majority of flags won from 1992 onwards have been built on teams created outside the normal rules.
1992: WCE - Built on the most favourable concessions of all time.
1993: ESS - Cheated cap, but built from olden days and good drafting.
1994: WCE - See 1992
1995: CAR - Cheats of the highest order.
1996: NM - Utilised U19s system to circumvent
1997: ADE - Core built on 1991 concessions
1998: ADE - As above
1999: NM - See 1996
2000: ESS - Won off base of extended success.
2001: BL - Where do I start? Merger players. Plus bottoming out completely. Plus cap allowance.
2002: BL - See above
2003: BL - See above
2004: PA - Core built on 1997 concessions
2005: SYD - With 2000 and maybe 1993, the only team built without concessions of some form. Salary cap helps lure players though at expense of 1st round draft pick.
And that's about that! A maximum of 3 premiership teams who have avoided concessions or cheating. One could argue that it's probably only Essendon of 2000. And even then, your Hirds, Mercuris, Longs etc. were part of Ye Olde draft system, but to your credit, you were first to see the advantage of non-traditional slight players who could run and kick.
The fact is, yeah, Sydney won from nowhere and Adelaide somehow stole top spot, but I reckon it will be an exception to the rule. The likes of St Kilda need a better run with injuries and the Dogs are rising up at a rapid rate of knots. WCE have forward issues, but one wouldn't suggest that they weren't contenders this year (one kick from flag), nor contenders next year.
And after all my points above, you simply have some questions to answer re. your list for me to prove my point: Who's your next Hird? Who's your next Lucas? Who's your Mercuri? Your Michael Long? Where are these premium players who's going to win you a flag??
While you're thinking about those questions, please understand that teams like the Saints and Bulldogs already have answers under development. Sure, they ain't without flaw, and yes they didn't beat Sydney, but they will and they are poised to be better than your team for a long time.
But hey, don't listen to me. I'd rather you finished mid table for all of eternity!
Figjam you've posted this before. All you are doing is looking at recent premiership teams, looking at who they drafted, and then look at the end result (the flag) to justify the means. Surely you're above that. If you swap the premier for thre runners-up in each of the years you have listed, you could make a similar excuse for the runner-up having all sorts of early picks and concessions, or cheating, that helps them win. You can find reasons for any team if you look at the end result first and then "find" a reason to justify it.
At the end of the day, no club has won a premiership "because" of drat picks.
Your list is flawed anyway. Adelaide built off 1991 core of concessions? I suppose their 1996 12th placed team was built this way too? NM utilised U19's to circumvent? No other club had an under 19's did they?
Brisbane merging and bottoming out? They bottomed out in the early 1990's, merged at the end of 1996, yet still won a wooden spoon in 1998 (Des Headland was first pick, don't you dare tell me he helped them.)
When they won the spoon in 1998, was it due to concessions? I can make a silly case for that. I look at the end result as you did (in this case, the wooden spoon) I see the fact they had concessions, so I put two and two together and come up with a silly argument that concessions and merging led to a wooden spoon. See? Anyone can do it, even me.
At the end of the day, good players can come from anywhere, and bottoming out achieves nothing. Richmond have bottomed out for 20 years. And while some clubs bottom out and then become good, there is always another club (i.e Adelaide in 2005) who achieves the same success through a different route.
Wasting years, and rebuilding with no balance in your list (li.e Hawthorn and St.Kilda when all their top players were young) leads to a lot of wasted years, and who wants to waste a year? A year is a bloody long time. You gotta make 'em count. All of them.
Figjam you've posted this before. All you are doing is looking at recent premiership teams, looking at who they drafted, and then look at the end result (the flag) to justify the means. Surely you're above that. If you swap the premier for thre runners-up in each of the years you have listed, you could make a similar excuse for the runner-up having all sorts of early picks and concessions, or cheating, that helps them win. You can find reasons for any team if you look at the end result first and then "find" a reason to justify it.
At the end of the day, no club has won a premiership "because" of drat picks.
Your list is flawed anyway. Adelaide buklt of 1991 core of concessiosn? I suppose their 1996 12th placed team was built this way too? NM utilised U19's to circumvent? No other club had an under 19's did they?
Bribane merging and bottoming out? They bottomed out in the early 1990's, merged at the end of 1996, yet still won a wooden spoon in 1998 (Des Headland was first pick, don't you dare twll me he helped them)
When they won the spoon in 1998, was it due to concessions? I can make a silly case for that. I look at the end reuslt as you did (in this case,the wooden spoon) I see the fact they had concessions, so I put two and two together and come up with a silly argument that concessions and merging led to a wooden spoon. See? Anyone can do it, even me.
At the end of the day, good players can come from anywhere, and bottoming out achieves nothing. Richmond have bottomed out for 20 years. And while some clubs botton out and then become good, there is always another club (i.e Adelaide in 2005) who achieves the same success through a different route.
Wasting years, and rebuilding with no balance in your lsit (li.e Hawthorn and St.Kilda when all their top players were young) leads to a lot of wasted years, and who wants to waste a year? A year is a bloody long time. You gotta make 'em count. All of them.
It's all done over an elongated period, with varying ups and downs. Coaches, confidence, ******** attitude etc. all contribute to variations. It's not a fricken game of pass the parcel!
And I'm not saying that teams win flags "because" of draft picks. We made our recent grannies not because of Didak and Fraser, but because of a host of reasons, not least of which was having stars from the bygone era (eg. stealing Bucks and Rocca from then weak clubs, and drafting guns like Burns after pick bloody 90!
The fact of the matter is, that teams who win flags, have premium players in their midst. We got close because we landed premium players via unconventional means in the past.
To answer your question, yes, the Cows' 12th team contained premium concession players such as Jarman, Hart, Rehn and Smart. Modra helped them along their way too!
And Richmond's main joke is that they perpetually finished 9th. You're proving my point here that not bottoming out leads to mediocrity, by using them as an example!!
We are now entering a new era. This is an era of settlement and of limited concessions. It is an era of full knowledge of new talent and as recent trade periods indicate that there are less suckers out there than there used to be. It's more transparent, and whilst still full of variables which are expliotable, it's becoming harder to find a competitive edge.
So getting back to my questions, which you are no doubt ignoring; Who's your next Hird? Who's your next Lucas? Who's your Mercuri? Your Michael Long? Where are these premium players who's going to win you a flag coming from?? WHERE?????
It's all done over an elongated period, with varying ups and downs. Coaches, confidence, ******** attitude etc. all contribute to variations. It's not a fricken game of pass the parcel!
Of course it is. All clubs have playes that come from different places under different scenarios. The ones that bottom out are the clubs we joke about as having unsuccessful cultures, because they never win.
The fact of the matter is, that teams who win flags, have premium players in their midst. We got close because we landed premium players via unconventional means in the past.
Heaps of clubs land premium players through unconventional means. Adam McPhee is one of Essendon top 4 players, and B&F winner. We picked him up in a trade with Freo, that was hardly mentioned.
To answer your question, yes, the Cows' 12th team contained premium concession players such as Jarman, Hart, Rehn and Smart. Modra helped them along their way too!
This is my point. These "concessions" heldp them all the way to 11th in 1994, 11th in 1995 and 12th in 1996. And because they win the flag in 1997, you conveniently use the end result to justify the means. If the concessions helped Adelaide win a flag, then those concessions also helped them finish 12th in 1996. It works both ways.
And Richmond's main joke is that they perpetually finished 9th. You're proving my point here that not bottoming out leads to mediocrity, by using them as an example!
Richmond has missed the finals in 21 of the last 23 years. Of those 21 misses, they have finished 9th only four times. They have had two decades to build a team, but as the draft proves, there are no guarantees. They have had hepas of years around the bottom.
When you look at the draft, FIGJAM, the practical nature of it, is that each clubs gets a pick in each round. Now if one club had picks 1,2,3 and 4, and the next club had picks 5,6,7,8, then the draft would help those teams. But it doesn't work that way. The wooden spoon club, in theory gets pick 1 then pick 17. The premiership team gets pick 16, which is ahead of pick 17. So, really, it's only one pick that is an advantage for the bottom team over the premiers and even then, that pick offers no guarantees.
So getting back to my questions, which you are no doubt ignoring; Who's your next Hird? Who's your next Lucas? Who's your Mercuri? Your Michael Long? Where are these premium players who's going to win you a flag coming from?? WHERE?????
I'm not ignoring anything. How am I supposed to know where the next great player will come from? You don't "plan" to draft a champion. Sometimes players just progress and end up better than what you expect. Any one of our upcoming draftees could be our next champion.
For what it's worth (and you'll take my advice in this case, given I am talking about Essendon) we have a young player called Stanton, who will be unbelievably good. He's pretty good now, but I am talking Brownlow chance when he peaks. He is an absolute ball magnet. You can book mark this if you like and bring it back in two years time, but I seriously think he will be one of the AFL's elite midfielders. I initially thought his disposal was poor, but he has fixed that up. Keep an eye on him.
But back to the question, those players can come from anywhere, and it's pointless trying to predict which draft pick will be our next champion.
2006 Spooners.
Hahahahaha...
Hawks are the new StKilda - they'll 'thrive' at the bottom next year.
Blues_Man
1 Nov 2005, 19:35
Last year was something of an exception. It might well become more regular, but i personally have my suspicions.
The majority of flags won from 1992 onwards have been built on teams created outside the normal rules.
1992: WCE - Built on the most favourable concessions of all time.
1993: ESS - Cheated cap, but built from olden days and good drafting.
1994: WCE - See 1992
1995: CAR - Cheats of the highest order.
1996: NM - Utilised U19s system to circumvent regular draft system (legally of course).
1997: ADE - Core built on 1991 concessions
1998: ADE - As above
1999: NM - See 1996
2000: ESS - Won off base of extended success.
2001: BL - Where do I start? Merger players. Plus bottoming out completely. Plus cap allowance.
2002: BL - See above
2003: BL - See above
2004: PA - Core built on 1997 concessions
2005: SYD - With 2000 and maybe 1993, the only team built without concessions of some form. Salary cap helps lure players though at expense of 1st round draft pick.
And that's about that! A maximum of 3 premiership teams who have avoided concessions or cheating. One could argue that it's probably only Essendon of 2000. And even then, your Hirds, Mercuris, Longs etc. were part of Ye Olde draft system, but to your credit, you were first to see the advantage of non-traditional slight players who could run and kick.
The fact is, yeah, Sydney won from nowhere and Adelaide somehow stole top spot, but I reckon it will be an exception to the rule. The likes of St Kilda need a better run with injuries and the Dogs are rising up at a rapid rate of knots. WCE have forward issues, but one wouldn't suggest that they weren't contenders this year (one kick from flag), nor contenders next year.
And after all my points above, you simply have some questions to answer re. your list for me to prove my point: Who's your next Hird? Who's your next Lucas? Who's your Mercuri? Your Michael Long? Where are these premium players who's going to win you a flag??
While you're thinking about those questions, please understand that teams like the Saints and Bulldogs already have answers under development. Sure, they ain't without flaw, and yes they didn't beat Sydney, but they will and they are poised to be better than your team for a long time.
But hey, don't listen to me. I'd rather you finished mid table for all of eternity!
nice list ...it's certainly great to see the Collywobbles never got a mention in all those years ...must be a tough gig being a feral having to support losers :D
Some great arguments for and against here, but trying to be as impartial as possible, I'll give my opinion. Essendon may not have the greatest young list of all time, but through quality drafting and trading there's no reason why we can't win a flag without bottoming out. Of course it's impossible to predict the next Lloyd and Hird, but over the last few years we've picked up a few players that have been impressive via later picks.....and chances are that they won't reach the heights of those players, but even the vast majority of top 5 picks can't reach those heights. I'm confident that Essendon will be challenging for the flag at some stage before Lloyd and Lucas retire. Bookmark this if you like.
windyhill
1 Nov 2005, 20:00
We may have to get micky martyn to play on the gorilla`s.
Kildonan
1 Nov 2005, 23:58
The placings of teams at the end of the H&A season last ten years:
?? Year - 96-97-98-99-00-01-02-03-04-05
Freman. - 13-12-15-15-12-16-13-05-09-10 5 years in the bottom 4, 0 years in top 4.
Magpies - 11-08-14-16-15-09-04-02-13-15 5 years in the bottom 4, 2 years in top 4.
Hawtho - 08-15-13-09-08-06-10- 09-15-14 4 years in the bottom 4, 0 years in top 4
Richmon - 09-13-09-12-09-04-14-13-16-12 4 years in the bottom 4, 1 year in top 4.
Demons - 14-16-04-14-03-11-06-14-05-07 4 years in the bottom 4, 2 years in top 4.
Carlton. - 05-11-11-06-02-05-16-15-11-16 3 years in the bottom 4, 1 year in top 4
St Kilda - 10-01-06-10-16-15-15-11–03-04 3 years in the bottom 4, 3 years in top 4.
W Bulld - 15–03-02–04-07-10- 12-16-14-09 3 years in the bottom 4, 3 years in top 4.
Collingwood and Fremantle have the worst recent records hence enormous opportunities via the draft system - yet both seem to have gone the wrong path (initially at least) for long term success.
Just getting the picks isn't enough.
St Kilda's improvement has been in part due to stability off field and a plan to achieve long term competitiveness. This plan included a commitment to youth (resisting the temptation to trade draft picks for short term gain) whilst retaining a blend of mature players for balance, and a philosophy of changing the culture of the club to a more professional winning culture. Despite harsh criticism from outside the club, much of the credit for the observable improvement of St Kilda as a football power must go to Grant Thomas. It definitely has not all been plain sailing for the club. Injury revealed a significant lack of depth in the playing group in 2002. There was the sacrifice of having to wait while the youth developed - this is now paying off, yet I am the first to accept that St Kilda still haven't won a premiership since bottoming out - so the formula cannot be deemed successful - just promising. In fact, since the draft system was introduced, no team has been successful in drafting a premiership team.
The era of cheque-book recruiting and rorting the system is coming to an end, there are few players left from that era. The new era is a boon for St Kilda - for so long our club, and a few other clubs were victims of the richer clubs, our stars were poached mercilessly and our off-field performance mirrored our on-field performance. We were caught in a vortex that we were unable to change. The inevitable outcome was the dissolution of the club, and other clubs along with us.
The equalisation measures saved us and the AFL.
I think the draft and salary cap are essential for the system to work. I do not support the current priority pick process. Maybe it should be set in place for teams who are chronically underperforming (i.e. <15 wins over three successive seasons) but the constant suggestion of possible tanking by underperforming teams is a blight on the game.
I am not a fan of Sheedy's approach - however his influence may result in moderately competitive Essendon teams in a similar vein to how the Kangaroos are recruiting. Good enough to remain in the middle eight most of the time but never really a premiership hope, nor poor enough to bottom out. This is not what I want for my team.
When you look at the draft, FIGJAM, the practical nature of it, is that each clubs gets a pick in each round. Now if one club had picks 1,2,3 and 4, and the next club had picks 5,6,7,8, then the draft would help those teams. But it doesn't work that way. The wooden spoon club, in theory gets pick 1 then pick 17. The premiership team gets pick 16, which is ahead of pick 17. So, really, it's only one pick that is an advantage for the bottom team over the premiers and even then, that pick offers no guarantees.
Haha!! :D Stuff of dreams!
It's true. No guarantees. None whatsoever! But take 2003 for example, would you take Adam Cooney over GF Runners Up Billy Morrison or Premiers Llane Spaanderman (both delisted)?
Just a "one pick" advantage Daniel?? C'mon mate, even you can admit that this is utter garbage!!
I like Stanton. He looks like your Misiti replacement. He is of course a high draft pick, so you're again proving my point! I also haven't asked you who your Fletcher replacement is, because I've been generous and considered Bradley a viable replacement (although I wonder how Braddles will go on serious full forward though!). Both top 15 picks. One a top 6 pick. Again, you're proving my point.
Like I said, I hope your club has the same attitude as you, as I'll enjoy wathing you think you're "perennial contenders", when in actual fact, you'll be like Norf and a mere step ladder to the stars.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/bluehammer/Diving.jpg
still wishing his old man played a few more games for your lot huh?
:D
Funkalicous
2 Nov 2005, 08:20
I'm afraid Parrot is absolutely correct this time. What Sheedy is doing, without doubt, is topping up. Needlessly I might add. After Pagan's much publicised failer with rejects, I'm surprised another coach would go down the same road.
Gutless really. IMO Sheedy's philosophy (on rejects) differs somewhat from Pagan's. DP would try to plug holes that our kids would otherwise not be able to plug. Ie, Martin for gorilla forwards, or Teague/Bowyer for the Glen Archer role. If we had a young player that could've given those roles a crack, Dennis wouldn't hesitate to play him.
Sheedy on the other hand uses rejects so he can hide his questionable youngsters behind them. By now Sheedy should know whether guys like (for example) Johns or Laycock will sink or swim, but alas, playing experienced players ahead of these guys has delayed that process, and consequently has delayed the rebuilding process.
Think about it. Your last real crack at a premiership was in 2001. Since then it's been a slow descend towards the other end of the ladder. 4 years should've been 2. But thanks to some Sheedy ingenuity the fans got to watch a dodging finals series or two. From what I remembered from Don fan at the time, there wasn't the excitment of a young team on the rise, but a side that had long gone stale.
Keeping Sheeds at the helm is a mistake. You watch what happens. What should be a 2 year rebuilding process, will infact become 4. But there will be a high for every 2nd low. Each year you'll dodge and weave the bottom 4 (avoiding those God-aweful draft picks), but you'll win the odd game, and for some (Sheedy's family?) that'll be enough.
Maybe the fact that you hide questionable youngsters behind the rejects is the sorce of your new-found optimism. If you don't know enough about a couple of youngsters, then how can one say that they're bad? "I see no evil, I hear no evil, and I speak no evil". Atleast at Carlton we know where every player is at. Their strengths, their weaknesses, even their room for improvement. Heck, I could probably tell you what each player had for breakfast.
Perhaps too much information is a bad thing. They're on to us Sheeds, apply the smoke screen!
Can't believe the silly old fool thinks they are close enough to a flag that all he needs is top up players.The reality is almost every team is within striking distance of a flag. That’s one of the aims of the draft and cap. If Essendon had a good year with injuries and a couple of young players can step up they’d have a solid lineup. The older you are the bigger that injury IF though.
Camporeale - PSD for nothing
Heffernan - PSD or late pick
Murphy - McGrath
Allen - Pick 60
Barnes/Salmon - badly needed at the time
hardly giving away 'top' young talent for these players.
Like I said, I hope your club has the same attitude as you, as I'll enjoy wathing you think you're "perennial contenders", when in actual fact, you'll be like Norf and a mere step ladder to the stars.Or like Sydney? Mate, even us, with our football department monkeys, could have a crack if we recruited for it and had a crack. This is equalisation football. List limits, cap’s, draft’s, priority picks, compulsory culling….it’s all designed to minimise the impact of merit.
A good run with injury, some luck with opponents and some youngsters improving makes a massive difference. We should know. 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 15th. Two good years with injury and two poor years. Two years of advancing youth and two years without. A few players here and there makes a bid difference.
Pevers-Legend
2 Nov 2005, 09:33
I'm afraid Parrot is absolutely correct this time. What Sheedy is doing, without doubt, is topping up. Needlessly I might add. After Pagan's much publicised failer with rejects, I'm surprised another coach would go down the same road.
Gutless really. IMO Sheedy's philosophy (on rejects) differs somewhat from Pagan's. DP would try to plug holes that our kids would otherwise not be able to plug. Ie, Martin for gorilla forwards, or Teague/Bowyer for the Glen Archer role. If we had a young player that could've given those roles a crack, Dennis wouldn't hesitate to play him.
Sheedy on the other hand uses rejects so he can hide his questionable youngsters behind them. By now Sheedy should know whether guys like (for example) Johns or Laycock will sink or swim, but alas, playing experienced players ahead of these guys has delayed that process, and consequently has delayed the rebuilding process.
Think about it. Your last real crack at a premiership was in 2001. Since then it's been a slow descend towards the other end of the ladder. 4 years should've been 2. But thanks to some Sheedy ingenuity the fans got to watch a dodging finals series or two. From what I remembered from Don fan at the time, there wasn't the excitment of a young team on the rise, but a side that had long gone stale.
Keeping Sheeds at the helm is a mistake. You watch what happens. What should be a 2 year rebuilding process, will infact become 4. But there will be a high for every 2nd low. Each year you'll dodge and weave the bottom 4 (avoiding those God-aweful draft picks), but you'll win the odd game, and for some (Sheedy's family?) that'll be enough.
Maybe the fact that you hide questionable youngsters behind the rejects is the sorce of your new-found optimism. If you don't know enough about a couple of youngsters, then how can one say that they're bad? "I see no evil, I hear no evil, and I speak no evil". Atleast at Carlton we know where every player is at. Their strengths, their weaknesses, even their room for improvement. Heck, I could probably tell you what each player had for breakfast.
Perhaps too much information is a bad thing. They're on to us Sheeds, apply the smoke screen!
Pray do tell - how is he hiding our younger players weaknesses? We have drafted a few midfielders, becuase we recruited crap ones circa 1999-2001. It is the 2002-onwards draft group that is showing promise. Any team with 3 years of bad recruiting will have a hole in their list. That is what we are patching up. Why shouldn't you try and cover a weakness? Wasn't that your argument. Oh but if deni$ does it is logical, if sheeds does it he is hiding.:confused:
you mention Johns and Laycock as those who he is hiding.Being injured for two seasons is hiding? A developing ruckman playing half a season? come back with where we are hding our youth.
JeffDunne
2 Nov 2005, 09:33
List limits, cap’s, draft’s, priority picks, compulsory culling….it’s all designed to minimise the impact of merit.
Christ you come up with some crap.
Care to explain how?
Or like Sydney? Mate, even us, with our football department monkeys, could have a crack if we recruited for it and had a crack. This is equalisation football. List limits, cap’s, draft’s, priority picks, compulsory culling….it’s all designed to minimise the impact of merit.
A good run with injury, some luck with opponents and some youngsters improving makes a massive difference. We should know. 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 15th. Two good years with injury and two poor years. Two years of advancing youth and two years without. A few players here and there makes a bid difference.
Sydney have been an exception to the rule Mark. Read my earlier posts.
Sydney got their stars through trading first round picks. They really only have one superstar and he was got at the bargain basement price of #13.
You wouldn't want to rely on the "we can win it from anywhere" philosophy. As I pointed out, there's only one or two examples of this since Gablett Snrkicked 9 in a Grannie. That's a long time ago!!
Longy413
2 Nov 2005, 10:50
So getting back to my questions, which you are no doubt ignoring; Who's your next Hird? Who's your next Lucas? Who's your Mercuri? Your Michael Long? Where are these premium players who's going to win you a flag coming from?? WHERE?????
You could make those sort of arguements for near on every club and not find solutions.
The next Gehrig, the next Buckley/Burns/Rocca, the next Hall/Barry/O'Loughlin, the next Tredrea/Wanganeen, the next Voss/Michael etc. You can't just replace players like for like. You can't go into the draft and say "we have to find the next James Hird." You just take the best player available with each draft pick (be it old or young), afford them the time to develop and hope he becomes a 150 game player for your club.
Also remember we will be drafting in the next few years, we aren't stuck with the current list from here on in. Our next Scott Lucas might be drafted in 2008, he might be Jay Neagle, he might be Jason Laycock or Courtney Johns. Or maybe Scott Lucas will be in our next Premiership side. And for what it's worth, I reckon Andrew Lovett/Ricky Dyson have started to fill the void left by Mark Mercuri and Michael Long. One a rookie list player one drafted in the fourth round.
You could make those sort of arguements for near on every club and not find solutions.
The next Gehrig, the next Buckley/Burns/Rocca, the next Hall/Barry/O'Loughlin, the next Tredrea/Wanganeen, the next Voss/Michael etc. You can't just replace players like for like. You can't go into the draft and say "we have to find the next James Hird." You just take the best player available with each draft pick (be it old or young), afford them the time to develop and hope he becomes a 150 game player for your club.
Also remember we will be drafting in the next few years, we aren't stuck with the current list from here on in. Our next Scott Lucas might be drafted in 2008, he might be Jay Neagle, he might be Jason Laycock or Courtney Johns. Or maybe Scott Lucas will be in our next Premiership side. And for what it's worth, I reckon Andrew Lovett/Ricky Dyson have started to fill the void left by Mark Mercuri and Michael Long. One a rookie list player one drafted in the fourth round.
I don't disagree with you. Don't make mistakes. Ever! Pick up kids who can play from Natioal round 1 to Rookie round 20. Simple strategy!!
What I am saying to you though, is don't be afraid to not try to pick up your Campos or Heffernan types for instant gratification. If you finish lower, then that's a good thing!
In this system, you are playing probabilities. You have the highest probability of gaining premium players through top 5 picks.
It's all well and good to say "Well Sydney won it and they're ordinary", but it's a very rare occurrence and is very much against the norm. History suggests that high end clubs, with high end stars wins the flags. With respect, but Lovett and Dyson ain't high end. Handy, but not high end. The likes of Campo and Heff have watched the game slip passed them at a rate of knots.
But hey, I just have an opinion. You have yours and I hope your club sticks to fulfilling your opinion!
Longy413
2 Nov 2005, 11:08
Maybe the fact that you hide questionable youngsters behind the rejects is the sorce of your new-found optimism. If you don't know enough about a couple of youngsters, then how can one say that they're bad? "I see no evil, I hear no evil, and I speak no evil". Atleast at Carlton we know where every player is at. Their strengths, their weaknesses, even their room for improvement. Heck, I could probably tell you what each player had for breakfast.
Games played in 2005 by players from 2001 draft onwards (career total in brackets)
Essendon
Welsh 21 (80)
Lovett 20 (20)
Bradley 19 (24)
Stanton 19 (34)
Lovett-Murray 17 (37)
Laycock 13 (17)
Monfries 12 (12)
Winderlich 12 (21)
Richards 10 (33)
Dyson 10 (21)
Thomas 8 (8)
Watson 5 (13)
Slattery 4 (2)
Cartledge 4 (4)
Johns 3 (4)
Nash 2 (2)
Reynolds 1 (27)
Carlton
Waite 21 (50)
Carazzo 20 (22)
Betts 19 (19)
Walker 18 (33)
Thornton 16 (69)
Simpson 15 (21)
Bryan 11 (11)
Deluca 11 (33)
Davies 10 (41)
Bentick 9 (14)
Fisher 7 (38)
Bannister 5 (36)
Russell 1 (1)
O'hAilpin 1 (1)
Our youngsters got plenty of opportunities this season. We played 17 kids from the past 4 drafts for a total of 180 games. Carlton played 14 for a total of 146.
This theory that Sheedy is robbing games by playing blokes like Murphy or next year Campo is crap. Our young blokes played plenty of footy this season. I'd be happier for a player like Campo to run around in our midfield, keeping a kid out than someone like, lets say David Clarke.
Essendon were doing what now?
Sydney have been an exception to the rule Mark. Read my earlier posts.
Sydney got their stars through trading first round picks. They really only have one superstar and he was got at the bargain basement price of #13.
You wouldn't want to rely on the "we can win it from anywhere" philosophy. As I pointed out, there's only one or two examples of this since Gablett Snrkicked 9 in a Grannie. That's a long time ago!!The reality it’s only been about 8 years since we had a fair draft without start-up player concessions bastardising the socialistic player allocation at regular intervals. Soon it will be all but a generation of players and then we will see the real impact of AFL socialisation and engineering.
As for the last one, I’d say Carlton in 1995 when they remained competitive until they added a couple of midfielders and North in 1996 squeezed one out. Maybe Adelaide twice. Collingwood in 2002 nearly did it and there have been a couple of other close calls.
You’re right, I wouldn’t want to rely on "we can win it from anywhere" but then again I’d rather fall back on that than give up because in reality it’s close to true. I don’t think every team could win next year but a lot more could than the consensus would have you believe IMO. I reckon there are 2 close to complete outfits. Brisbane and St. Kilda. Outside that everyone lacks something important as well as depth so everyone else is vulnerable. If everyone had the same luck etc Brisbane would walk in but they have some important injury vulnerable players. St. Kilda have it all to prove yet. Everyone else is very gettable by a large number of teams. I very much doubt Essendon (or Collingwood for that matter) will win the premiership or even finish top 4 but they (both) have an excellent chance of making the 8 and from there a lot depends on injury/stability/momentum and luck as well as what happens to Brisbane and St. Kilda IMO.
Longy413
2 Nov 2005, 11:37
I don't disagree with you. Don't make mistakes. Ever! Pick up kids who can play from Natioal round 1 to Rookie round 20. Simple strategy!!
There is some merit in that. But that would also mean Collingwood wouldn't have Wakelin. That would mean in 1993 we wouldn't have Watson. Sometimes you need to fill a whole in your side. Unfortunately when you do that, it is viewed as 'topping up.' But if you have a weakness then why not try and find a way to strengthen it?
What I am saying to you though, is don't be afraid to not try to pick up your Campos or Heffernan types for instant gratification.
Mind youI don't agree with drafting Heffernan, I'd rather us look at someone else. But I think part of the reason we are drafting him (if we draft him) has more to do with his leadership qualities and the example he sets to others off the field and on the training track.
I actually think he'll be played as a tagger, like he was in 2000. He was good at that, that was his role. He was also good at finding the ball in close and providing our runners with supply. If that means Peverill gets less game time, I actually think Heff can improve our side. But he has a lot to do.
I like the idea of getting Campo. He'll do either one of two things. He won't attrack at the tag he did at Carlton and that will free him up to hopefully play better footy. His disposal should help our forward line.
Or if he does get tagged, then someone who otherwise would have been (Stanton maybe, Mark Johnson?) won't be. That free's him up.
We found a few midfielders this year that can play at the level. Stanton, Dyson, Lovett, Monfries. But we don't have enough depth. Our depth midfielders have been delisted, Haynes, Bullen, Alvey etc. Camporeale and Heffernan are taking their place on the list. Not a young players.
With respect, but Lovett and Dyson ain't high end.
First/second year players rarely are. That was my point.
You can't find replacements for great footballers instantly. Even with Campo and Heffernan we'll still introduce 8 young players (plus Cole) to our list this year. Four in the National Draft and four in the Rookie draft.
It is highly unlikely all 8 will be good footballers. Infact it won't happen.
Does taking 10 kids rather than 8 improve our chances of winning a flag in the future? I doubt it. Does improving a weakness and trying to continue a winning culture? I'd like to think so.
But hey, I just have an opinion.
Makes the world go round!
Christ you come up with some crap.
Care to explain how?Fairly typical response from you JD but I’ll answer anyway.
The deliberate outcome of playing a season is:
The lower you finish the better your intake;
If you win less than 5 you get a bonus player at the very top of the draft;
The more success you have the more players will demand, deserve and be offered and the harder the salary cap is to manage;
Every club has to cull to compulsorily draft every year whether they want to or not;
List numbers are capped when in fact a salary cap should ensure adequate list talent accumulation safeguards;
The PSD facilitates the bottom club’s recruiting via the PSD itself and the enhanced bargaining power in trade week;
The more money you lose the more you are underwritten;
It doesn’t eliminate merit entirely but I didn’t say that.
Now how about you tell me how I was wrong and how about you tell me on what basis you don’t believe the AFL want to even the spread of talent regardless of merit? Why are Brisbane now experiencing difficulties managing the cap and letting players go? Do you think that is merit related?
Funkalicous
2 Nov 2005, 12:16
We have drafted a few midfielders, becuase we recruited crap ones circa 1999-2001. It is the 2002-onwards draft group that is showing promise.
I swear to God, I hear this comment far too much. Question: How many clubs would be disapointed at their selections last year? NONE. Because no one knows if there any good yet. This always seems to be prolonged at Essendon. Your kids get about 20 minutes of game time a match. And when they're on they're always getting soft roles like with Stanton last year. Who'll be in the guts for your mob next year? Hird? Johnson? Campo? Heffernan?
I take a peek at your spine every year and it's always the same. Lloyd, Lucas, Hird, Fletcher... Unless you plan to win a premiership with these guys, don't tell me you've rebuilt.
Look at Carlton's spine. Fevola, Waite, Thornton, Livingston. These are 10 year players that we've introduced into those key positions. That is rebuilding.
Look at Carlton's spine. Fevola, Waite, Thornton, Livingston. These are 10 year players that we've introduced into those key positions. That is rebuilding.
livingstone?
lol, so now we're talking up duds as 10 year players?
Longy413
2 Nov 2005, 12:25
And when they're on they're always getting soft roles like with Stanton last year. Who'll be in the guts for your mob next year? Hird? Johnson? Campo? Heffernan?/QUOTE]
Playing in the centre is a soft role? Please tell me your kidding. Watch some footy.
[QUOTE=Funkalicous]I take a peek at your spine every year and it's always the same. Lloyd, Lucas, Hird, Fletcher...
Hird hasn't played down the spine in years. Kind of you to leave Bradley out.
But what do we do with Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher?
They are among the best in the competition for their position. Do we not play them?
Unless you plan to win a premiership with these guys, don't tell me you've rebuilt.
Essendon played more young players for more games than Carlton in 2005.
And we haven't rebuilt, we don't rebuild. We continue to try and develop our list. Rebuilding isn't something you do every few years, it's something you do every year.
Look at Carlton's spine. Fevola, Waite, Thornton, Livingston. These are 10 year players that we've introduced into those key positions. That is rebuilding.
What exactly does that mean?
You are filling a position on the field with the best player on your list for that position. You don't have a better full-back than Thornton, you don't have a better full forward than Fevola. That isn't rebuilding, that is picking your best 22. And that is exactly what we are doing.
Do we not play Lloyd at Full-Forward just so we can have a younger player there? Lloyd is only 27 mind you.
Do we not play Fletcher at full-back just for the sake of having a teenager there?
Crap. You pick your best 22. Carlton and Essendon did that no different.
Daytripper
2 Nov 2005, 12:37
I take a peek at your spine every year and it's always the same. Lloyd, Lucas, Hird, Fletcher... Unless you plan to win a premiership with these guys, don't tell me you've rebuilt.
So what is Sheedy meant to do ?
Drop one of those four players to give a young player a chance ? :confused:
You pick your best available side every week. If the young player isn't good enough, then so be it.
Look at Carlton's spine. Fevola, Waite, Thornton, Livingston. These are 10 year players that we've introduced into those key positions. That is rebuilding.
You don't have any other options. Are you trying to tell us that if Lucas was at Carlton, you'd play Livingston at CHB instead of him. Just because he was young. Or would Waite get the CHF position ahead of him. No knock on Waite either.
JeffDunne
2 Nov 2005, 13:33
Fairly typical response from you JD but I’ll answer anyway.
The deliberate outcome of playing a season is:
The lower you finish the better your intake;
If you win less than 5 you get a bonus player at the very top of the draft;
The more success you have the more players will demand, deserve and be offered and the harder the salary cap is to manage;
Every club has to cull to compulsorily draft every year whether they want to or not;
List numbers are capped when in fact a salary cap should ensure adequate list talent accumulation safeguards;
The PSD facilitates the bottom club’s recruiting via the PSD itself and the enhanced bargaining power in trade week;
The more money you lose the more you are underwritten;
It doesn’t eliminate merit entirely but I didn’t say that.
Now how about you tell me how I was wrong and how about you tell me on what basis you don’t believe the AFL want to even the spread of talent regardless of merit? Why are Brisbane now experiencing difficulties managing the cap and letting players go? Do you think that is merit related?
Of course the AFL want an even spread of talent - isn't that the point of the system as it stands. It would be silly to argue otherwise.
I guess I don't understand the "regardless of merit" part . . . actually that's not true . . . we've been down this path before and I guess I straight out don't agree. When I get more than 5 minutes to post a response (one of those weeks) I'll detail why I think you are wrong. In a nutshell though, the rewarding mediocrity line is simplistic purely because it ignores the current structure of Australian Football generally. Unless you are advocating a return to a structure where clubs developed their own talent, I can't possibly see how the distribution of talent should have anything to do with individual club "merit".
Of course the AFL want an even spread of talent - isn't that the point of the system as it stands. It would be silly to argue otherwise. Argue against it? That was my point.
I guess I don't understand the "regardless of merit" part . . . actually that's not true . . . we've been down this path before and I guess I straight out don't agree. That’s not what I said. What I said was “designed to minimise the impact of merit.” That’s the part you quoted. Not eliminate, reduce. You still have to be a well run club to win a flag but the worse you are run the better are your chances of getting the players that can turn you around. Getting pick 1 & 2 for not winning a game and losing $2m is specifically taking merit out of the equation irrespective of circumstance.
In a nutshell though, the rewarding mediocrity line is simplistic purely because it ignores the current structure of Australian Football generally.That’s a circular argument. The structure dictates the results. The structure is what it is due to the agenda. The agenda is to have 16 equal teams regardless of whether one team is the best run team of all time and whether one is run by monkeys. The results don’t quite get there because, as I said, merit is not entirely eliminated.
Unless you are advocating a return to a structure where clubs developed their own talent, I can't possibly see how the distribution of talent should have anything to do with individual club "merit".Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? How about simply having a rolling order and no priority picks. Just that one change would make a big difference. You don’t have to re invent the wheel or go back to carrying water on your head. I can’t any reason why a the draft can’t be a random, or even better, a rolling order. The only reason it isn’t is because the AFL wants to ensure those that fail get the better players so they can improve with less emphasis on merit. It’s a house of cards but that’s another issue.
JeffDunne
3 Nov 2005, 09:31
Argue against it? That was my point.
I was talking about me not you . . . I should have said "It would be silly for me to argue otherwise."
That’s not what I said. What I said was “designed to minimise the impact of merit.” That’s the part you quoted. Not eliminate, reduce. You still have to be a well run club to win a flag but the worse you are run the better are your chances of getting the players that can turn you around. Getting pick 1 & 2 for not winning a game and losing $2m is specifically taking merit out of the equation irrespective of circumstance.
Yes you did. In the quote that my post is attached to it clearly says "Now how about you tell me how I was wrong and how about you tell me on what basis you don’t believe the AFL want to even the spread of talent regardless of merit?"
Anyhow, your statement "designed to minimise the impact of merit" doesn't change my view that the distribution of talent shouldn't have anything to do with individual club "merit". The reverse order draft isn't "designed to minimise the impact of merit" - it is designed to distribute talent to where it is most needed. A consequence may be that clubs play to lose (a yet unproven concept), but it was never designed to reward failure or punish success.
That’s a circular argument. The structure dictates the results. The structure is what it is due to the agenda. The agenda is to have 16 equal teams regardless of whether one team is the best run team of all time and whether one is run by monkeys. The results don’t quite get there because, as I said, merit is not entirely eliminated.
It's not a circular argument at all. The structure of football (particularly in Victoria), has been designed specifically to facilitate the draft. If we didn't have a draft we'd still have individual clubs developing youth. The argument is more complex for the interstate clubs but even they cleary benefit from the changes to the structure of football in Victoria.
Like I said, the draft is cleary designed to spread the talent accross all 16 teams. I guess I have a problem in seeing how this is a bad thing. However, I fail to see how this produces 16 "equal" teams. In fact, I'd go as far to say that an equal spread of talent ensures that only well run and well coached teams play finals and win premierships. When there's an unequal spread even clubs run by monkeys can achieve success (often to the detriment of the rest of the league).
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? How about simply having a rolling order and no priority picks. Just that one change would make a big difference. You don’t have to re invent the wheel or go back to carrying water on your head. I can’t any reason why a the draft can’t be a random, or even better, a rolling order. The only reason it isn’t is because the AFL wants to ensure those that fail get the better players so they can improve with less emphasis on merit. It’s a house of cards but that’s another issue.
You and this "merit" bit. :rolleyes:
Random or rolling order doesn't distribute talent to where it's most needed. I don't have a problem with elements of each, but I still think there needs to be a mechanism to tilt the distrubtion to clubs in need of help.
The reverse order draft isn't "designed to minimise the impact of merit" - it is designed to distribute talent to where it is most needed.Regardless of merit.
In the absence of controlled player distribution the better managed clubs would have more chance of attracting the better player. If you alternatively send the best youngsters to the poorer performing clubs you reduce the impact of merit by design and by effect.
but it was never designed to reward failure or punish success.Completely disagree.
It's not a circular argument at all. The structure of football (particularly in Victoria), has been designed specifically to facilitate the draft. If we didn't have a draft we'd still have individual clubs developing youth. The argument is more complex for the interstate clubs but even they cleary benefit from the changes to the structure of football in Victoria.It's not just the draft but the way it is conducted. It's also the interplay with the cap and restriction on player movement. I suspect eventually someone will challenge it and bring about free agency but that's another debate again.
Random or rolling order doesn't distribute talent to where it's most needed. I don't have a problem with elements of each, but I still think there needs to be a mechanism to tilt the distrubtion to clubs in need of help.Therein lays the debate. What you are advocating by definition does what I am talking about. Whether you think that is good, bad or indifferent is a different question as is whether you like the idea of bastardising it all for targeted success but it’s all marketing inspired.
JeffDunne
3 Nov 2005, 12:06
In the absence of controlled player distribution the better managed clubs would have more chance of attracting the better player.
If by better managed you mean clubs with the best resources and a large supporter base then I agree. If you mean clubs run by the most talented individuals then I don't necessarily agree.
Generally I agree with what you are saying, but it is far too simplistic an argument. Would the SA clubs become any less a desirable location for SA juniors because they were performing badly. I doubt it. Does North become a more attractive location when they perform well?
If you alternatively send the best youngsters to the poorer performing clubs you reduce the impact of merit by design and by effect.
Saying it is by design is comparable to saying the side effects of a drug were by design. With a collective approach to developing talent a mechanism must be in place to distribute it. The mechanism in place is designed to distribute it where it is needed, not to reward failure. You may disagree with the approach or the rational behind it but it is nonsensical to say that it was designed to punish success.
It's not just the draft but the way it is conducted. It's also the interplay with the cap and restriction on player movement. I suspect eventually someone will challenge it and bring about free agency but that's another debate again.
Is that what we really want? I do think an element of free agency will come into the AFL as the draft and trading process matures. The present system makes it incredibly difficult for players to move clubs and overall I think that's a good thing. The shallow lists though are proving to be a problem and I think free agency for delisted players is a must.
Saying it is by design is comparable to saying the side effects of a drug were by design.Not at all. I am saying this isn’t a side effect it is the purpose of the drug. The salary cap may or may not have started out as a misguided attempt to prevent clubs from eating themselves but the draft and interplay with other equalisation mechanisms is specifically intended to level out the comp. As I said, whether you philosophically favour that or not is another matter. The intention isn’t specifically to reward failure for failure’s sake but it necessarily has to reward failure to promote artificial equalisation regardless or merit given the way it is designed and implemented.
It doesn’t matter how poorly Collingwood have recruited in recent years, how many grand finals they played in, why they finished second last or how financially stable they are or aren’t. They get pick 2 and 5 because they finished second last and won less than 5 games. Their failure was rewarded regardless of merit or even need.
Apart from wanting Collingwood to do well I really would love to see Collingwood rub the AFL’s noses in it by winning the premiership with two gun 18 year olds in the side and their returned injured players. I’m, not saying Collingwood are good enough, just that it would prove a point and more importantly it could lead to an end to the farce that is priority picks. A small but important step IMO.
As for punishing success, what do you call Sydney getting pick 19 compared to Collingwood getting picks 2 & 5? That is deliberately designed to assist Collingwood and to limit Sydney. Not those teams but their results.
Karlostj
3 Nov 2005, 13:37
Priority picks served their purpose in that Saints, Hawks, Bulldogs, Dockers etc got their picks and have been able to rebuild... I think the competition is even enough now though to do away with priority picks. I understand why they were introduced though. There were a number of clubs that were consistently languishing near the bottom and they needed an added boost.
I think in general the professionalism and the management of clubs have improved dramatically over the last 5 or 6 years. So has the research that goes in to the draft. this makes the priority picks less necessary as most clubs are relatively even now thanks to the boosting of the priority system. Plus the picks give more of a boost with less and less uncertainty coming into the picks that are made.
However, I think that some form of draft system is essential to maintain the equality of the competition. Whether it is the lottery system that is used in the NBA, or the draft with no priority picks.
the draft does have unfortunate side effects in that it will tend to create a cylical effect in results, however as clubs get closer and closer in terms of list talent then factors such as injuries, a stiring speach by a coach or a selfless act by a team member will make all the difference.
The draft in its current form has served its purpose to a large degree and has in a sense rewarded mediocrity, but it has been necessary to get these teams that haven't won premierships in years off the bottom of the ladder. Now that it has done that perhaps it is time to look at slight modifications to the draft.
I like the idea of the NBA lottery system - finishing bottom does give you a better chance of securing a top player in the draft, but it doesn't guarantee the best pick! Plus you can finish on top of the ladder and still get the top pick and therefore it doesn't unfairly punish the top side.
Plus the actual lottery would perhaps make for good TV watching.
Last year was something of an exception. It might well become more regular, but i personally have my suspicions.
The majority of flags won from 1992 onwards have been built on teams created outside the normal rules.
Why not include 1990 in your list? There was a bunch of unfair, unlevel playing field stuff going on.
Every club has to cull to compulsorily draft every year whether they want to or not;
List numbers are capped when in fact a salary cap should ensure adequate list talent accumulation safeguards;
Not that I agree or disagree, but I think the list numbers are important to ensure the survival of players passing their prime (24-26 say). If there is no list number limits, some might be tempted to recruit 60 18 year olds at $40000 and see if they can find 22 good ones, and repeat each year until they have a squad. With a limit, you are encouraged to spend more on better older players, and keep them longer I feel.
Interesting theory. I've always thought about it the other way around to be honest. Every year clubs have to draft but they may also want to retain older players. This year St. Kilda have decided to retain Harvey, Thompson and Peckett. If they didn't have a list limit they could still draft another 18 year old or two. In the end clubs will limit their intake to realistic hopefuls and the rookie list allows them to take a few punts while the veterans list allows cap concessions for 10 year 30+ players.
Interesting theory. I've always thought about it the other way around to be honest. Every year clubs have to draft but they may also want to retain older players. This year St. Kilda have decided to retain Harvey, Thompson and Peckett. If they didn't have a list limit they could still draft another 18 year old or two. In the end clubs will limit their intake to realistic hopefuls and the rookie list allows them to take a few punts while the veterans list allows cap concessions for 10 year 30+ players.
The Saints are a good example. I am not sure which of the three are on the vets list, but lets discuss the one that isn't. If the Saints could get 5 youngsters instead for the same cash, they may take that gamble on the chance that 1-2 will be a permanent addition later. If you can only add one, the risks are much higher.
JeffDunne
4 Nov 2005, 08:52
Not at all. I am saying this isn’t a side effect it is the purpose of the drug. The salary cap may or may not have started out as a misguided attempt to prevent clubs from eating themselves but the draft and interplay with other equalisation mechanisms is specifically intended to level out the comp. As I said, whether you philosophically favour that or not is another matter. The intention isn’t specifically to reward failure for failure’s sake but it necessarily has to reward failure to promote artificial equalisation regardless or merit given the way it is designed and implemented.
It doesn’t matter how poorly Collingwood have recruited in recent years, how many grand finals they played in, why they finished second last or how financially stable they are or aren’t. They get pick 2 and 5 because they finished second last and won less than 5 games. Their failure was rewarded regardless of merit or even need.
Apart from wanting Collingwood to do well I really would love to see Collingwood rub the AFL’s noses in it by winning the premiership with two gun 18 year olds in the side and their returned injured players. I’m, not saying Collingwood are good enough, just that it would prove a point and more importantly it could lead to an end to the farce that is priority picks. A small but important step IMO.
As for punishing success, what do you call Sydney getting pick 19 compared to Collingwood getting picks 2 & 5? That is deliberately designed to assist Collingwood and to limit Sydney. Not those teams but their results.
I find the comments in the first paragraph a little contradictory.
MarkT it's clear you don't agree with the reverse order draft simply because it links performance with access to talent - that I understand. What I don't understand is why you think it is designed to punish teams for success. It may be the perception, it might even be a consequence, but IMO it is a nonsensical argument to suggest that is the motivation by design.
The draft is designed purely to provide equal access to talent to all teams - not to make them all equal. If all teams have equal access to the resources required to field a team in the AFL (in this case playing resources), then surely the best managed & coached teams will be the teams rewarded with ultimate success? Most professional sports have recognised the benefits of developing an environment where all participants compete on a level playing field and the AFL is no exception. Whether this utopian level playing field is ever achieved is questionable due to the number of parameters in the equation, but surely it is the very essence of integrity in sport and the goal of any responsible sports administrator? It is why we don't allow performance enhancing drugs, it's why amateur sports resisted professionalism for so long and it's why we have rules in the first place.
Now before you start babbling on about socialist systems and the like, we are talking here about professional sports and the motivation for this level playing field is for one simple reason - money. The more integrity perceived in a sport - the better it sells.
Getting back the AFL draft, it has to be accepted that any measurement of "talent" and how it is distributed is not an exact science. Player drafts are nothing more than an attempt to increase a given teams probability of attracting talent, in our case (and in most cases) based on a perception of need. It doesn't guarantee anything. No doubt improved mechanisms around the draft have increased probabilities further, but it's still a long way from an exact science.
I gather from your comments that you don't have a problem so much with the draft itself but how the picks are allocated. I agree it needs some work (primarliy because of the improved mechanisms around the draft) but I also agree with the fundamental premise that it be distributed on need despite any perceptions it creates with people like yourself. A random draft could create worse perceptions if the same club "won" #1 pick three years in a row, a rolling draft order would be open to too much draft manipulation (clubs encouraging players to sit out a draft if they know they have the following years #1 pick and the like). IMO what we have ATM is sound in it's goals, is the least likely to be manipulated and provides framework that allows the best managed and coached teams to achieve ultimate success. In fact, I'd go as far to say it rewards on "merit".
What I don't understand is why you think it is designed to punish teams for success. It may be the perception, it might even be a consequence, but IMO it is a nonsensical argument to suggest that is the motivation by design. Because they always get the rough end of the draft stick and that is while they are experiencing cap pressure and in all likelihood have an ageing list (premiers tend to be older) and in need of talented youth. Regardless of their ability to recognise their impending shortfalls and identify the corrective measures they are hamstrung by the policy of evening out the competition.
Lifting the bottom alone would be punishing success because it is giving the unsuccessful an unearned advantage (ie regardless of merit) but in addition the successful are further penalised by the later draft picks as well as the cap being far more likely to put pressure on the playing list. Witness Essendon and more recently Brisbane having to shed premiership players and in some cases for noting only to have them allocated to the bottom teams. Fancy Brisbane’s duel gran final opponent getting a Brisbane premiership player for free because they finished near the bottom and had such a thin list they had huge cap pace. You think that’s a side effect and I think that’s part of the success management/equalisation agenda.The draft is designed purely to provide equal access to talent to all teams - not to make them all equal. If all teams have equal access to the resources required to field a team in the AFL (in this case playing resources), then surely the best managed & coached teams will be the teams rewarded with ultimate success? If the draft was designed purely to provide equal access then it wouldn’t depend on ladder position at all it would actually be a lottery or a rolling order. That would be equal whereas it is now weighted. Most professional sports have recognised the benefits of developing an environment where all participants compete on a level playing field and the AFL is no exception. A lot of sports are being Americanised and dictated by broadcast rights. Interestingly, soccer, the most successful sport and possibly only truly global sport is the least Americanised.
Now before you start babbling on about socialist systems and the like, we are talking here about professional sports and the motivation for this level playing field is for one simple reason - money. The more integrity perceived in a sport - the better it sells. Money for whom? The controlling body. That’s still socialist. That’s a whole different argument though.
The Saints are a good example. I am not sure which of the three are on the vets list, but lets discuss the one that isn't. If the Saints could get 5 youngsters instead for the same cash, they may take that gamble on the chance that 1-2 will be a permanent addition later. If you can only add one, the risks are much higher.It's possible but lots of things are possible. The Saints have chosen to try and win a flag with this squad and have chosen to go with Thompson and Peckett instead of pick whatever down the tail end of the draft. It's the same decision. Whether it's two for 5 or 1 for 1. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong but it's not something I would be concerned about. I'd much rather clubs could list as many players as they wanted to and let them allocate their cap entirely as they see fit. If there are specific concerns re veterans then I'd be happy enough to increase the vets list. In fact I would in any case. It is actually a reward for good list management IMO but that in itself runs counter to what the AFL is seeking. Lynch and/or Heart and/or White may have played another year for Brisbane had the vet’s list been a bit more flexible. I’d see that as a good thing. It is not something any team can’t equally take advantage of if they similarly select the quality players, keep them and manage them and the list well.
It's possible but lots of things are possible. The Saints have chosen to try and win a flag with this squad and have chosen to go with Thompson and Peckett instead of pick whatever down the tail end of the draft. It's the same decision. Whether it's two for 5 or 1 for 1. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong but it's not something I would be concerned about. I'd much rather clubs could list as many players as they wanted to and let them allocate their cap entirely as they see fit. If there are specific concerns re veterans then I'd be happy enough to increase the vets list. In fact I would in any case. It is actually a reward for good list management IMO but that in itself runs counter to what the AFL is seeking. Lynch and/or Heart and/or White may have played another year for Brisbane had the vet’s list been a bit more flexible. I’d see that as a good thing. It is not something any team can’t equally take advantage of if they similarly select the quality players, keep them and manage them and the list well.
An interesting topic. Perhaps worthy of a thread ofr its own.
Update: Sheeds top-up with aging player plan now has another addition: Mecuri.
Stage 3 of 4 now complete
Stage 1: Heffernan: Complete
Stage 2: Campo: Complete
Stage 3: Misiti: Complete
Stage 4: Woewoeful: Soon
:)
Slander
10 Nov 2005, 18:31
Update: Sheeds top-up with aging player plan now has another addition: Mecuri.
Stage 3 of 4 now complete
Stage 1: Heffernan: Complete
Stage 2: Campo: Complete
Stage 3: Misiti: CompleteStage 4: Woewoeful: Soon
:)
Oops :)
Has bird flu got to your brain? :)
Oops :)
Has bird flu got to your brain? :)
Opps, sorry. I get Misiti and Mecury mixed up - both old slow midfielders, that should have retired 1-2 years before they did. Perhaps Misiti will come out of retirement and joint Heffernan, Campo, Mecuri, Woewoeful in the midfield. Essendon's future. :)
mcphee_is_a_gun
10 Nov 2005, 18:48
Opps, sorry. I get Misiti and Mecury mixed up - both old slow midfielders, that should have retired 1-2 years before they did. Perhaps Misiti will come out of retirement and joint Heffernan, Campo, Mecuri, Woewoeful in the midfield. Essendon's future. :)
Wait until after the PSD we will only have one of these players...
dave_27
10 Nov 2005, 19:13
Opps, sorry. I get Misiti and Mecury mixed up - both old slow midfielders, that should have retired 1-2 years before they did. Perhaps Misiti will come out of retirement and joint Heffernan, Campo, Mecuri, Woewoeful in the midfield. Essendon's future. :)
enjoy bullen and another year of bannister and mcgrath running through the middle.
celtic_pride
13 Jun 2006, 15:24
Apparently Essendon are very close to securing the services of Jason Cloke and David Fanning from Collingwood to join the superb recruits of 2005, Cole and Campo :) BTW Dave Mcgrath is still better than 60 percent of the players on Essendon's list.
Longy413
13 Jun 2006, 15:31
Apparently Essendon are very close to securing the services of Jason Cloke and David Fanning from Collingwood to join the superb recruits of 2005, Cole and Campo :) BTW Dave Mcgrath is still better than 60 percent of the players on Essendon's list.
Dave McGrath?
Or do you mean Cory? The bloke playing on Andrew Embley in the last quarter on Sunday. The same Andrew Embley that had a pretty handy last quarter.
I especially loved Cory's attempted spoil that only resulted in him taking Whitnall out of the contest.
You say all of that like you didn't pick up Jason Saddington.
mcphee_is_a_gun
13 Jun 2006, 16:25
Heffernan has been a valuable pickup this season.
dave_27
13 Jun 2006, 16:58
He's had a very good return to Essendon, one of the most consistent players this year.
Bennycoff
13 Jun 2006, 18:03
Stage 1: Camporale to Dons: Complete
Stage 2: Heffernan to Dons: Complete
Stage 3: Woewoedin: Soon?
Little surprised by Sheedy’s reliance on recruiting ready-made players, nearing the end of their careers to prop up his sliding team. 6 or 7 years ago he was renowned for developing younger players, now it’s quite the reverse. An aging, slow list with arguably the least talented collection of younger players going around at present. Further recruitement of 2 and probably 3 prop-up players further emphasises Sheedy’s change in philosophy i.e. get close to the finals to appease the Bomber faithful, at the expense of the long term development of his side. :)
you really are an idiot. **** off.
Heffernan has played some good footy, isn't that old, probably in his peak and has a bit to offer so don't know why you're having a crack at them for.
Who do you barrack for? Carlton? You're team isn't exactly wonderful either, I'd rather Sheedy any day ahead of Pagan (money bags). Carlton have the worst list, imagine if Fevola and Whitnall get injured? You wouldn;t come close again this season.
Sheedy has a plan and I'm sure it will work for Essendon, it's more than you've done in your pathetic little life.
Apparently Essendon are very close to securing the services of Jason Cloke and David Fanning from Collingwood to join the superb recruits of 2005, Cole and Campo :) BTW Dave Mcgrath is still better than 60 percent of the players on Essendon's list.
And the award for try hard parrot wannabe goes to...
drum roll...................
celtic_pride
good job loser
The Dustbin
13 Jun 2006, 19:03
you really are an idiot. **** off.
Heffernan has played some good footy, isn't that old, probably in his peak and has a bit to offer so don't know why you're having a crack at them for.
Who do you barrack for? Carlton? You're team isn't exactly wonderful either, I'd rather Sheedy any day ahead of Pagan (money bags). Carlton have the worst list, imagine if Fevola and Whitnall get injured? You wouldn;t come close again this season.
Sheedy has a plan and I'm sure it will work for Essendon, it's more than you've done in your pathetic little life.
:thumbsu:
Nice work little fella. Didn't expect that from a Hawks supporter. ;)
Just wondering why a 7-month old thread has been bumped. I guess the topic's still topical. :)
Dry Rot
13 Jun 2006, 19:34
Just wondering why a 7-month old thread has been bumped. I guess the topic's still topical. :)
No it's a troll and will get booted.
Dry Rot
13 Jun 2006, 19:37
Apparently Essendon are very close to securing the services of Jason Cloke and David Fanning from Collingwood to join the superb recruits of 2005, Cole and Campo :) BTW Dave Mcgrath is still better than 60 percent of the players on Essendon's list.
You really need to review the rules re Bay 13 and the AFL Board, otherwise you will get booted from the AFL Board if you troll here again.