News Chris Pelchen quits!

[VDS66]

My conclusion is that when Watters was appointed, the club tried to quickly inject some talent purely because we still had BJ, Dal etc.

Rather than just go directly to a rebuild, we thought that adding 3 or 4 players ready to go would make us competitive again.

Reality is that we erred after 2010 if not 2009 when 3 new players per year should have been blooded.

So apart from the list wash up, there are obvious areas that needed / need addressing. Firstly, why players did not develop and the majority failed. was it bad selection? Poor development structures or both?

The second area is of course salary cap, which was also a ticking time bomb. It's no coincidence that during the Lyon era, we could not trade for any elite players, and had to make do with scraps.

We are rebuilding the club from the ground up, hence all the changes. You cannot look at this in a single dimension only.

From what I have seen, the club has been pro-active in modelling successful clubs... which should see us improve on a sustainable level.

Whilst we came of a long period of relative success, it seems that at any one stage we had essential ingredients missing, be it a proper coach, fitness, admin.

Hopefully those hit and miss days are behind us. Summers appears to be on the ball, and Finnis is pretty much AFL approved product.

We are putting a proper development system in place with a long term view to a stand alone VFL team. Salary cap restructure has also been completed.

We are now in a position to vigorously chase talent via draft and trades... with the cap space to do so.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

We had so many holes in our list and the players drafted in round 2,3, & 4 in those drafts were also not good (Heyne, Cahill, etc). Our list was dire back then as we literally had little or no youth coming through who were going to make it (Armitage, Steven, Geary, McEvoy & probably Gilbert). As Periphery said, we needed to turn over the list quite a bit whilst bringing in talent and trying to stay competitive. Not easy with GWS & GC coming in to the competition. It would have been nice to have more 1st round picks but the GWS and GC drafts didn't help as they had access to all the early picks and this mini draft was the worst thing the AFL ever did. We have made some tough calls and IMO they were justified at the time.

As previous posters have mentioned, the reason we are where we are right now is that the majority of our kids have played 0-30 games. Let's review the situation in two years time when these players have played 40-70 (as well as some playing 80-100). I think you'll find we'll be more competitive, win more games, run out more games, and these players will be able to impact games.

It is acknowledged that it takes on average at least 4 years in the system before a player can impact, run out the whole game, etc, (Ross I have been on record will need more as the Saints came out and said when they first recruited him. White is probably the same due to his injuries as well). So in 2 years time most of the youngsters we have will have played 4 or more seasons.

We are now at the bottom and have access to the better kids on offer - we have more of a choice. There are lots of rumours about us turning down certain offers from GWS for pick 1. I don't have any mail on this but am sure that it wasn't good enough for us to give up pick 1. (Although if Melbourne didn't have the priority pick I wonder if we would have taken 3 and 6 for pick 1 which still would have meant that GWS had picks 1 and 5). We'll recruit 3 more decent players this year (and hopefully we get a good one for pick 41 - we've had a good record with players in the 40's - Webster, Steven, & Newnes to name but 3).

I think the club did pretty well with what they had to work with. Could they have done better? Easy to say with hindsight - Luke Parker drafted in the 40's (I remember being dead keen on him that draft year). But all clubs can say that with their recruiting.

People have to be patient, some of you younger supporters who don't remember or were not around in the 80's, you guys are lucky and have been spoilt by wins and finals and big wins too. Back in the 80's and early 90's we were shocking, however there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Essentially the period 1997 - 2011 (take away a couple of poor years) were the best period in the club's history. OUR ENTIRE HISTORY. Outside of that times were hard. i like a lot of our kids. Some won't make it (I don't think Saunders is good enough & Markworth is too injured to stay on the park, Siposs is a one trick pony who doesn't have the fitness, Simpkin whom I love will always be a VFL player who comes up to fill a gap when injuries occur, and I could go on), but many will (Newnes, Webster, Murdoch (I hope), Billings, Dunstan, Acres (I hope) Hickey, Longer, Roberton (assuming over ankle issues), Wright, etc).

We will be back and there is no way we will be down in the bottom 3 for the next 5 years as some suggest. One thing I have learned, especially since coming back to live in Melbourne 4 years ago is that this latest generation of so called football commentators are clueless. Some are lucky to have a job in fact. There are some posters on here who have a better football knowledge than the media. Jay Clark and Damien Barratt are two of the worst IMO. They try to cover the whole league and have a high level view of each club. Geez I have that and could do a better job than what they are doing. The good commentators are the ones who have a slightly more detailed knowledge of each club, (similar to the supporters of each club). There are that many around though....

Apologies for long post it sort of all came out but at least I feel better getting it off my chest

 

[VDS66]

Have said this many times...

The end result of the top up approach we had under Lyon is a massive gap between youth and seniors... nothing int he middle.

The next challenge we face is that as the kids get games into them, the seniors will be starting to retire. Teams liek Hawks and Cats and Swans have brought in youth whilst they still had / have a good senior core. They have transitioned and we have collapsed.

As for the list approach, it all or bust under Lyon. Imagine if he had come in and said we needed 3 years to seriously challenge, rather than immediate results? But that's history.

No true blooded Saints fan likes to see us lose, but we are stuck with it and have to just suck it up and stick fat.

If I can use an economic analogy...

The club has experienced boom - bust cycles. what we are doing now is to restructure to end those extremes... but rather have a more even cycle in years to come.

Much of what Pelch has done is to set this in motion.

what a pity it's taken us almost 20 years to wake up.

I recall us trading out a few great players which ultimately got us to a GF in 97.

Point is that if you lose good players for nix, then you have stuffed up. But if you trade them and use the returns wisely, then it's a different matter all together.

 

[stfan]

Have said this many times...

The end result of the top up approach we had under Lyon is a massive gap between youth and seniors... nothing in the middle.

.

Disagree. Had little to do wit the mature age players that both GT ad Lyon recruited and everything to do with the fact that for many years under both GT and Lyon that our recruiters were inept in the kids that they drafted. It is these many poor picks that is the real problem.

 

[stfan]

Why are you acting like Hickey and Lee are the only players we got out of those trades? We got Wright, White, Murdoch and Saunders PLUS Hickey and Lee for picks 12,13 and Cripps. I don't think panic had anything to do with it. Lee and Hickey both filled needs (fwd and ruck) while also being a good fit our young age group. It was part of a clear strategy to bring in more talent as quickly as possible and turn over the list.

Pelchen also did these trades as he believed that there was little difference in those drafts between the pick we had, and the pick we would get later, and so for him it made sense to do deals that got 5 (2 and 3) players for those 2 picks.

If you take out the picks like Tom Mitchell that were not available, so far this assessment would pretty much be correct. Do even if Hickey and Lee do not make it we will probably break even. If one does we will be in front. If bot do, then way in front. If Saunders does as well, then way, way in front.

113GWSTaylor AdamsCollingwood43
114GWSDevon SmithGWS59
115RichmondBrandon EllisRichmond65
116FremantleThomas SheridanFremantle19
117Western BulldogsClay SmithWestern Bulldogs31
118North MelbourneBradley McKenzieNorth Melbourne22
119EssendonElliott KavanaghEssendon7
120FremantleHayden CrozierFremantle23
121 Father/SonSydneyTom MitchellSydney20
122CarltonJoshua Bootsma14
123West CoastMurray NewmanWest Coast4
124Gold CoastHenry SchadeGold Coast0
125St KildaSebastian RossSt Kilda27




112GWSKristian JakschCarlton7
113Gold CoastJesse LonerganGold Coast13
114GWSAidan CorrGWS14
115North MelbourneTaylor GarnerNorth Melbourne2
116GeelongJackson ThurlowGeelong10
117FremantleJosh Simpson2
118CollingwoodBrodie GrundyCollingwood22
119CollingwoodBen KennedyCollingwood20
120CollingwoodTimothy BroomheadCollingwood8
121Western BulldogsNathan HrovatWestern Bulldogs19
122SydneyDean TowersSydney6
123BrisbaneMarco PaparoneBrisbane23
224St KildaNathan WrightSt Kilda15
225St KildaSpencer WhiteSt Kilda2

 

[malevu]

What must Scott Watters be thinking ? A year ago it was Pelchen or Watters and the club went with Pelchen's "grand plan".

I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off under Watters. We wasted two years development when we sacked him and unlike most on here I'm still not sold on Richo. Everyone seems very generous to him considering the absolute floggings we had in 2014, something that rarely happened under Watters.

Now there's no Watters or Pelchen and nowhere for Richo to hide in 2015. I still reckon when we eventually come good again it won't be under Richo.

 

[Periphery]

What must Scott Watters be thinking ? A year ago it was Pelchen or Watters and the club went with Pelchen's "grand plan".

I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off under Watters. We wasted two years development when we sacked him and unlike most on here I'm still not sold on Richo. Everyone seems very generous to him considering the absolute floggings we had in 2014, something that rarely happened under Watters.

Now there's no Watters or Pelchen and nowhere for Richo to hide in 2015. I still reckon when we eventually come good again it won't be under Richo.

Watters didn't get flogged as much because the list wasn't as young and we had more key senior players still at the club. Watters leaving doesn't instantly cause all our kids to lose any development they had gained in the two years he was there.

The club has publicly stated that our win loss record in the next few years wont have any reflection on whether Richo has a job or not. Instead they are judging his performance on the development of our young players. I have more confidence in Richo to do this than Watters because Richo is widely considered one of the best development coaches the game has ever seen.

He might end up not being the right gameday coach for us but it is far to early to judge that yet. We wont be able to make any calls on that for a few years.

 

[Nutsngum]

What must Scott Watters be thinking ? A year ago it was Pelchen or Watters and the club went with Pelchen's "grand plan".

I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off under Watters. We wasted two years development when we sacked him and unlike most on here I'm still not sold on Richo. Everyone seems very generous to him considering the absolute floggings we had in 2014, something that rarely happened under Watters.

Now there's no Watters or Pelchen and nowhere for Richo to hide in 2015. I still reckon when we eventually come good again it won't be under Richo.

Just curious if you paid attention to the general experience of the players on our list before decrying Richardson for our floggings? Or take into account the heavily increased workload they are all on to improve fitness which contributed to our floggings?

I mean, I doubt it considering you think that our kids suddenly lost all their development because Watters was sacked, for reasons.

 

[Saint Luke]

What must Scott Watters be thinking ? A year ago it was Pelchen or Watters and the club went with Pelchen's "grand plan".

I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off under Watters. We wasted two years development when we sacked him and unlike most on here I'm still not sold on Richo. Everyone seems very generous to him considering the absolute floggings we had in 2014, something that rarely happened under Watters.

Now there's no Watters or Pelchen and nowhere for Richo to hide in 2015. I still reckon when we eventually come good again it won't be under Richo.

It seems a strange metric to judge a coach by. The coach isn't playing, how can he be the immediate person responsible for losses?

Melbourne got flogged this year, is Paul Roos is a bad coach? Come on.

 

[Kildonan]

Our club went through a phase where the senior players took exception to Scott Watters, whether that was justified or not is a moot question. When a coach loses the playing group there is no recourse.

By sacking Watters we did go backwards as a club, but not as much as we could have. Richardson seems to be the right man for the job - and that job is development, but that's not all. He brings with him a legitimacy of his development proficiency as demonstrated by Port Adelaide's rise to contention after being a basket case. We needed someone who was credentialed enough to withstand a couple of years of (seemingly) little progress.

We fans a a fickle lot. We may intellectually comprehend the enormity of the task of grabbing a bunch of kids together and convincing them that they can play as well as Sydney or Hawthorn or Geelong, but we lose patience rather quickly and demand palpable improvement before it is feasible.

That's why Paul Roos was such a good choice for Melbourne. He brings with him enough cred that when he says it will take "this long" to do something, people will accept this as fact. Richo brings a similar cred. At least he will be given some time to pull off the miracle.

 

[bergholt]

As previous posters have mentioned, the reason we are where we are right now is that the majority of our kids have played 0-30 games. Let's review the situation in two years time when these players have played 40-70 (as well as some playing 80-100). I think you'll find we'll be more competitive, win more games, run out more games, and these players will be able to impact games.

Right. They'll be more experienced and so more competitive but (as you go on to say) they won't all be stars. The ceiling of any rebuild is largely determined by the eventual quality of your kids. My opinion of the under 26s:

Potential Stars: Billings, Steven, pick 1 2014

Potential A-Graders: Acres, Dunstan, Hickey, Lee, Newnes, White

Potential B-Graders: Bruce, Delaney, Longer, Membrey, Murdoch, Roberton, Ross, Saunders, Savage, Siposs, Templeton, Webster, Wright

Potential C-Graders: Curren, Minchington, Shenton, Simpkin, Weller

Unknown: Holmes, Markworth, Pierce, pick 21 2014, pick 22 2014, pick 41 2014

My definition of "Star" is pretty hard to satisfy, they have to be considered right up there with the best in the comp. "A-Graders" would get a game at any side without question. "B-Graders" are good enough to get games at most sides. "C-Graders" are foot soldiers who fill a need.

As it stands, I don't reckon we've got good enough kids to be a serious premiership threat in five years. It's a crude estimate because we're so far out and they haven't got enough experience to really be judged. But a serious finals challenge is based on either a bunch of stars or a good base of A-Graders. We don't have the stars. And I don't reckon I've seen enough A-Graders in the kids - especially Murdoch, Ross, Saunders, Webster and Wright.

Hopefully the next year or two proves me wrong as that group goes up from 20-odd games towards 50. Maybe we even have a bolter or two. People seem to rate Pierce, I'm still holding out some hope for Markworth, I suppose Siposs could still turn it around.

But as it stands it feels to me like this list peaks at 4th to 7th, where the Doggies were a few years ago and North probably are at the moment.

 

[tbarker]

We had so many holes in our list and the players drafted in round 2,3, & 4 in those drafts were also not good (Heyne, Cahill, etc). Our list was dire back then as we literally had little or no youth coming through who were going to make it (Armitage, Steven, Geary, McEvoy & probably Gilbert). As Periphery said, we needed to turn over the list quite a bit whilst bringing in talent and trying to stay competitive. Not easy with GWS & GC coming in to the competition. It would have been nice to have more 1st round picks but the GWS and GC drafts didn't help as they had access to all the early picks and this mini draft was the worst thing the AFL ever did. We have made some tough calls and IMO they were justified at the time.

As previous posters have mentioned, the reason we are where we are right now is that the majority of our kids have played 0-30 games. Let's review the situation in two years time when these players have played 40-70 (as well as some playing 80-100). I think you'll find we'll be more competitive, win more games, run out more games, and these players will be able to impact games.

It is acknowledged that it takes on average at least 4 years in the system before a player can impact, run out the whole game, etc, (Ross I have been on record will need more as the Saints came out and said when they first recruited him. White is probably the same due to his injuries as well). So in 2 years time most of the youngsters we have will have played 4 or more seasons.

We are now at the bottom and have access to the better kids on offer - we have more of a choice. There are lots of rumours about us turning down certain offers from GWS for pick 1. I don't have any mail on this but am sure that it wasn't good enough for us to give up pick 1. (Although if Melbourne didn't have the priority pick I wonder if we would have taken 3 and 6 for pick 1 which still would have meant that GWS had picks 1 and 5). We'll recruit 3 more decent players this year (and hopefully we get a good one for pick 41 - we've had a good record with players in the 40's - Webster, Steven, & Newnes to name but 3).

I think the club did pretty well with what they had to work with. Could they have done better? Easy to say with hindsight - Luke Parker drafted in the 40's (I remember being dead keen on him that draft year). But all clubs can say that with their recruiting.

People have to be patient, some of you younger supporters who don't remember or were not around in the 80's, you guys are lucky and have been spoilt by wins and finals and big wins too. Back in the 80's and early 90's we were shocking, however there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Essentially the period 1997 - 2011 (take away a couple of poor years) were the best period in the club's history. OUR ENTIRE HISTORY. Outside of that times were hard. i like a lot of our kids. Some won't make it (I don't think Saunders is good enough & Markworth is too injured to stay on the park, Siposs is a one trick pony who doesn't have the fitness, Simpkin whom I love will always be a VFL player who comes up to fill a gap when injuries occur, and I could go on), but many will (Newnes, Webster, Murdoch (I hope), Billings, Dunstan, Acres (I hope) Hickey, Longer, Roberton (assuming over ankle issues), Wright, etc).

We will be back and there is no way we will be down in the bottom 3 for the next 5 years as some suggest. One thing I have learned, especially since coming back to live in Melbourne 4 years ago is that this latest generation of so called football commentators are clueless. Some are lucky to have a job in fact. There are some posters on here who have a better football knowledge than the media. Jay Clark and Damien Barratt are two of the worst IMO. They try to cover the whole league and have a high level view of each club. Geez I have that and could do a better job than what they are doing. The good commentators are the ones who have a slightly more detailed knowledge of each club, (similar to the supporters of each club). There are that many around though....

Apologies for long post it sort of all came out but at least I feel better getting it off my chest

Great post Kip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tbarker]

What must Scott Watters be thinking ? A year ago it was Pelchen or Watters and the club went with Pelchen's "grand plan".

I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off under Watters. We wasted two years development when we sacked him and unlike most on here I'm still not sold on Richo. Everyone seems very generous to him considering the absolute floggings we had in 2014, something that rarely happened under Watters.

Now there's no Watters or Pelchen and nowhere for Richo to hide in 2015. I still reckon when we eventually come good again it won't be under Richo.

Time will tell with Richo but Watters was an ars@$le of the highest order. A cancer that had to be cut out. He couldn't coach to save himself either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tbarker]

Pelchen also did these trades as he believed that there was little difference in those drafts between the pick we had, and the pick we would get later, and so for him it made sense to do deals that got 5 (2 and 3) players for those 2 picks.

If you take out the picks like Tom Mitchell that were not available, so far this assessment would pretty much be correct. Do even if Hickey and Lee do not make it we will probably break even. If one does we will be in front. If bot do, then way in front. If Saunders does as well, then way, way in front.

113GWSTaylor AdamsCollingwood43
114GWSDevon SmithGWS59
115RichmondBrandon EllisRichmond65
116FremantleThomas SheridanFremantle19
117Western BulldogsClay SmithWestern Bulldogs31
118North MelbourneBradley McKenzieNorth Melbourne22
119EssendonElliott KavanaghEssendon7
120FremantleHayden CrozierFremantle23
121 Father/SonSydneyTom MitchellSydney20
122CarltonJoshua Bootsma14
123West CoastMurray NewmanWest Coast4
124Gold CoastHenry SchadeGold Coast0
125St KildaSebastian RossSt Kilda27




112GWSKristian JakschCarlton7
113Gold CoastJesse LonerganGold Coast13
114GWSAidan CorrGWS14
115North MelbourneTaylor GarnerNorth Melbourne2
116GeelongJackson ThurlowGeelong10
117FremantleJosh Simpson2
118CollingwoodBrodie GrundyCollingwood22
119CollingwoodBen KennedyCollingwood20
120CollingwoodTimothy BroomheadCollingwood8
121Western BulldogsNathan HrovatWestern Bulldogs19
122SydneyDean TowersSydney6
123BrisbaneMarco PaparoneBrisbane23
224St KildaNathan WrightSt Kilda15
225St KildaSpencer WhiteSt Kilda2

Interesting. If those only Devon Smith is a miss but undercard able given his size.

The following year however I would have lived Aiden Corr Geundy or Kennedy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ike2112]

Bergholt I agree with the general gist of your post, but when you list so many as B graders, including likes of Siposs in that group, then describe it as good enough to get games at other clubs... It kind of reduces the legitimacy of your post. Most other clubs wouldn't take Siposs on their list, let alone give him a game.

 

[bergholt]

Bergholt I agree with the general gist of your post, but when you list so many as B graders, including likes of Siposs in that group, then describe it as good enough to get games at other clubs... It kind of reduces the legitimacy of your post. Most other clubs wouldn't take Siposs on their list, let alone give him a game.

I was pretty careful to include the word "Potential" at the start of each of those lists. This isn't how I think they play now, it's where I think they can get to over their career. There are very few on our list at the moment who'd get a lot of games anywhere else!

 

[ike2112]

Why are you acting like Hickey and Lee are the only players we got out of those trades? We got Wright, White, Murdoch and Saunders PLUS Hickey and Lee for picks 12,13 and Cripps. I don't think panic had anything to do with it. Lee and Hickey both filled needs (fwd and ruck) while also being a good fit our young age group. It was part of a clear strategy to bring in more talent as quickly as possible and turn over the list.

If you're going to correct me, do it right!

We actually gave up 13, 36 and 55 for Hickey, White (pick 25) and TDL (pick 46).

Gave up 12 and Cripps (forced) for Lee, Wright (pick 24), Murdoch and Saunders.
(we actually got pick 24 and 45 at first but packaged 45 with Cripps for the other two picks in the 40s).

It's impossible to say who the picks might have been.
I know we were really high on Hrovat that year, perhaps half the reason we looked at trading down was thinking he wasn't good value at 12/13. But I think had we not traded for Lee or Hickey, having gaps all over the place we might have gone for Hrovat, Aiden Corr, possibly Grundy if we felt we needed a ruck.

Stefan Martin was on the market, as was Jack Hombsch and at that time a 2nd ruck like Martin and a young defender like Hombsch would have been likely recruitment targets.

In any case my main point was that Pelchen changed plan. He obviously didn't think major rebuild with 18 top draft picks to begin with.
And that Pelchen I think actually erred in his original plan. His new blueprint to success requires going to the draft with high picks. Yet in his early Saints years he did the opposite and traded picks to get in bodies ready to play. I think either Vds is right and they misread the list and thought it could be patched up, or they thought the main concern was the failed drafts 2006-10 so figured some 21yr olds would cover that gap.
It was only in I think Pelchen 's third year they published the 'blueprint ' focusing on the draft.

Why are you acting like Hickey and Lee are the only players we got out of those trades? We got Wright, White, Murdoch and Saunders PLUS Hickey and Lee for picks 12,13 and Cripps. I don't think panic had anything to do with it. Lee and Hickey both filled needs (fwd and ruck) while also being a good fit our young age group. It was part of a clear strategy to bring in more talent as quickly as possible and turn over the list.

 

[Mowman]

What must Scott Watters be thinking ? A year ago it was Pelchen or Watters and the club went with Pelchen's "grand plan".

I'm still not convinced we wouldn't be better off under Watters. We wasted two years development when we sacked him and unlike most on here I'm still not sold on Richo. Everyone seems very generous to him considering the absolute floggings we had in 2014, something that rarely happened under Watters.

Now there's no Watters or Pelchen and nowhere for Richo to hide in 2015. I still reckon when we eventually come good again it won't be under Richo.

A bit the same myself a long way from being sold on Richo and did have giggle when a lot of people on here gave it to the Doggies players when they got rid of their coach and how the players lacked character. Yet when it happened at our club it was all Watters fault s**t coach nothing to do with our players, I thought the brand of footy under Watters was much better and YES I know it was a different list

 

[Periphery]

If you're going to correct me, do it right!

We actually gave up 13, 36 and 55 for Hickey, White (pick 25) and TDL (pick 46).

Gave up 12 and Cripps (forced) for Lee, Wright (pick 24), Murdoch and Saunders.
(we actually got pick 24 and 45 at first but packaged 45 with Cripps for the other two picks in the 40s).

It's impossible to say who the picks might have been.
I know we were really high on Hrovat that year, perhaps half the reason we looked at trading down was thinking he wasn't good value at 12/13. But I think had we not traded for Lee or Hickey, having gaps all over the place we might have gone for Hrovat, Aiden Corr, possibly Grundy if we felt we needed a ruck.

Stefan Martin was on the market, as was Jack Hombsch and at that time a 2nd ruck like Martin and a young defender like Hombsch would have been likely recruitment targets.

In any case my main point was that Pelchen changed plan. He obviously didn't think major rebuild with 18 top draft picks to begin with.
And that Pelchen I think actually erred in his original plan. His new blueprint to success requires going to the draft with high picks. Yet in his early Saints years he did the opposite and traded picks to get in bodies ready to play. I think either Vds is right and they misread the list and thought it could be patched up, or they thought the main concern was the failed drafts 2006-10 so figured some 21yr olds would cover that gap.
It was only in I think Pelchen 's third year they published the 'blueprint ' focusing on the draft.

My correction was right except that I left out TDL because he is largely irrelevant and was apparently a Watters special. He was a mistake and we would have been better off picking a kid with 46.

We apparently thought Hrovat would be around at 24 but the Dogs beat us to him.

My point was that I think it was a clear strategy by the club to get as much talent in as fast as possible in a compromised draft. It wasn't a change of plan and although the official plan hadn't been produced yet I think Pelchen and our list management team knew what they wanted to do with a view at the long term.

Hickey, Lee, White, Saunders, Wright, Murdoch > Cripps, pick 12, 13 and 46 (wasted on TDL). We filled holes in our list (positional, not age) and our recruiters picked a lot of promising kids to replace the bad players we had from years of poor recruiting and development. We have now advanced to a point in the rebuild where quality is more important than quantity and are looking to keep or get more top end picks. I think that claiming it was panic or a change of plan is a bad assessment of the situation.

 

[gringo2011]

A bit the same myself a long way from being sold on Richo and did have giggle when a lot of people on here gave it to the Doggies players when they got rid of their coach and how the players lacked character. Yet when it happened at our club it was all Watters fault s**t coach nothing to do with our players, I thought the brand of footy under Watters was much better and YES I know it was a different list

I had an absolute s**t attack when we got rid of Watters as I thought it was Finey running a hate campaign to out him and put in Richo. I spoke to a woman I know who's brother is a big financial backer and coterie group member. He has sat with the big guys from the club and our famous members during games so has some knowledge of what goes on in the club. He told her some stories which I was told not to repeat to anyone as he was sworn to secrecy. Suffice to say it was untenable and he was acting erratic. From personal experience he was at his kids under 9s match on game day when the game was around an hour away. He was so casual I wanted to get him to the game my self. I think he did some good stuff in development and changing coaches for no reason is idiocy but sometimes there is no going back. Nick Riewoldt was gone to Collingwood- Eddy has publicly said Rooey approached them. Sacking Watters was probably less disastrous than our captain walking. Dogs unfortunately got both.

 

[Baldur]

One thing I have learned, especially since coming back to live in Melbourne 4 years ago is that this latest generation of so called football commentators are clueless. Some are lucky to have a job in fact. There are some posters on here who have a better football knowledge than the media.

Hell, most of the Bay posters have much better knowledge.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Right. They'll be more experienced and so more competitive but (as you go on to say) they won't all be stars. The ceiling of any rebuild is largely determined by the eventual quality of your kids. My opinion of the under 26s:

Potential Stars: Billings, Steven, pick 1 2014

Potential A-Graders: Acres, Dunstan, Hickey, Lee, Newnes, White

Potential B-Graders: Bruce, Delaney, Longer, Membrey, Murdoch, Roberton, Ross, Saunders, Savage, Siposs, Templeton, Webster, Wright

Potential C-Graders: Curren, Minchington, Shenton, Simpkin, Weller

Unknown: Holmes, Markworth, Pierce, pick 21 2014, pick 22 2014, pick 41 2014

My definition of "Star" is pretty hard to satisfy, they have to be considered right up there with the best in the comp. "A-Graders" would get a game at any side without question. "B-Graders" are good enough to get games at most sides. "C-Graders" are foot soldiers who fill a need.

As it stands, I don't reckon we've got good enough kids to be a serious premiership threat in five years. It's a crude estimate because we're so far out and they haven't got enough experience to really be judged. But a serious finals challenge is based on either a bunch of stars or a good base of A-Graders. We don't have the stars. And I don't reckon I've seen enough A-Graders in the kids - especially Murdoch, Ross, Saunders, Webster and Wright.

Hopefully the next year or two proves me wrong as that group goes up from 20-odd games towards 50. Maybe we even have a bolter or two. People seem to rate Pierce, I'm still holding out some hope for Markworth, I suppose Siposs could still turn it around.

But as it stands it feels to me like this list peaks at 4th to 7th, where the Doggies were a few years ago and North probably are at the moment.

Great analysis and yes I think you are more spot on than off

I would hope that Webster and maybe one or two others can move from a B grader to an A grader. Webster & Ross have the potential to make that step up. (Yes Ross, he has come on slower than others but he has the tools, he needs to have more confidence in himself). Plus there will always be players who surprise everyone...

I think the other thing that we don't know is free agency. If we landed a big fish or two, they would certainly be A graders or Stars and then that might push us into top 4. The problem is that GWS and GC will be looking mighty fine around that time.

 

[Axcellence]

gringo2011 it was Eddie approaching Riewoldt

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/...roach-by-Collingwood/l9om7y4rbr21gkhzxwmjqsao

 

[gringo2011]

gringo2011 it was Eddie approaching Riewoldt

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/...roach-by-Collingwood/l9om7y4rbr21gkhzxwmjqsao

He was on SEN as collingwood president (not media man apparently) about 6 months ago saying that he didn't approach Nick and that he came to them enquiring about going there. I'm not sure who to believe although for my sanity I prefer that Eddie was calling Nick.

 

[Axcellence]

He was on SEN as collingwood president (not media man apparently) about 6 months ago saying that he didn't approach Nick and that he came to them enquiring about going there. I'm not sure who to believe although for my sanity I prefer that Eddie was calling Nick.

Eddie.. Wasn't he claiming racial abuse just cause one of pies players who had served jail time was called a convict?

Also... His King Kong comments on Goodes?

I don't think he's had a great track record...