Strategy “You only get a chance to improve your list once a year with bringing in talent.

[TigerAndy]

So far in the off season we have not done anything to suggest that we are going to take a step forward in 2015. Looks like we are going to go around again with pretty much the same team. We may recruit some kids in the upcoming draft that might be ready to go in a couple of years but at this stage we have not filled any of the deficiency gaps that were exposed. Hopefully minimal injuries next year will help but I don't think we have the complete personnel at this point to have a real tilt.

 

[Infamy]

I thought the club had a policy under Dimma they would never trade their first pick??

They didn't actually say they would never trade the pick, they said they wouldn't unless it was to bring in a player that would offer the club at least 8 years of football i.e. Only for a talented junior

 

[TigerImposter]

They didn't actually say they would never trade the pick, they said they wouldn't unless it was to bring in a player that would offer the club at least 8 years of football i.e. Only for a talented junior

It appears the statement has lost it's structure over the years

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It appears the statement has lost it's structure over the years

not quite - I heard the same as what Infamy mentioned years ago at a C80 night discussing list management around the time dimma started.

pretty sure they mentioned that a first round pick could only be traded now with board approval, and that would only be given to a player who would provide the kind of service we would expect from a first round draftee.

 

[TigerImposter]

not quite - I heard the same as what Infamy mentioned years ago at a C80 night discussing list management around the time dimma started.

pretty sure they mentioned that a first round pick could only be traded now with board approval, and that would only be given to a player who would provide the kind of service we would expect from a first round draftee.

That's what I meant, but reading all these forums it's been misquoted even by me

 

[theflea]

I was thinking about this topic last night as I was eating my pork chops and salad. If you look at the age profile of our midfield it is still considered young in age, though its lifted in games played. Which imo is a good sign. I believe, we are banking on natural improvement from our midfield but the huge question to me is simply, how much natural improvement is needed to maintain our position as a finals playing side and lift us over that hurdle and win a few ?

As I started tucking into my blueberry pie with a delightful splash of rich honeycomb ice cream. I became even more convinced our strategy this draft will be to focus solely on our midfield. My question is simply, what are the chances in your opinion a kid we draft with the picks we have would be able to have an impact next year ?

We need speed and outside run and also we still need more contested ball winners. We also need IMO a run with player to play as a defensive mid. Can this draft or the delisted/rookie draft fill that need and with who do you think ?

EDI- also can we keep on topic. If you want to talk spuds and we have no hope etc..do it in another thread. By all means if its draft related, go for it.

I do agree with your assessment but I also think our rise up the ladder will be dependant on how Griff and Ty do next year and if we can get all 3 talls working together.

 

[theflea]

FJ has been the head recruiter since 2006. Outside the first round, he has taken:
2006 - Edwards (pick 26), Connors (58), Peterson (60), Collins (71), King (rookie). Would have taken Houli with 42 if Miller didn't trade it away.
2007 - Rance (18), Putt (51). Shallow draft. Would have taken Scott Selwood with 19 if Miller/Wallace didn't trade it for McMuffin.
2008 - Post (26). Should have gone a mid but brief was to get talls. Would have taken Sloane with 42 if Miller/Wallace didn't trade it for Thomson. Hislop at 58 was under directive. Got Nahas as a rookie.
2009 - Griff (19), Astbury (35), Dea (44), Taylor (51), Webberley (67). Nason (71), Grimes (PSD).
etc

You seem well informed mate, how did you get the info?

 

[theflea]

His record would look a lot better if we had Selwood and Sloane. And we'd be top-4. The ex-Geelong guy is a great get and will take over as head man soon enough.

Just on this, what about our other 3 FT guys? Wont they get shirty of that happens?

 

[theflea]

The age breakdown of the list is:
6 players 18-21
19 players 22-25
8 players 26-29
2 players 30+

Looking at that I'd suggest that we're going to be bringing in mostly kids to keep the spread of the list more even given we have the fewest number of players in that 18-21 bracket along with North.

Who's the other 30+ player besides Newy?

 

[theflea]

I thought the club had a policy under Dimma they would never trade their first pick?? Just like if you can't kick........ And the jumper hit the ground and You only get to improve your list once a year lines. I know it's all positive stimulation for fans and words to buy us in , but it gets a bit tiresome with the continual contradictions .i wasn't being a smarty pants but I didn't value JT on risk factor(worth nothing except a good mentor for all our injured boys in the ward) so really pick 12 become down graded to 23
That was just my theory Anyway it's done now so we can put away our cap guns

We never had a don't trade our first under Dimma. It was under Wallace he stated that we have doen it too many times and I think the board made an edict about it.

 

[TigerImposter]

We never had a don't trade our first under Dimma. It was under Wallace he stated that.

You've now thrown in another smokey
You're probably right though as I had selective hearing during Wallets tenure
for interest can you remember the thereabouts wording bc infamy and rfc74 said Dimma mentioned a slightly different format

 

[theflea]

You've now thrown in another smokey
You're probably right though as I had selective hearing during Wallets tenure
for interest can you remember the thereabouts wording bc infamy and rfc74 said Dimma mentioned a slightly different format

I just remember when TW started he thought our problem was we traded away our 1st picks willy nilly. It was time to draft our own stars, which means holding on to our 1st picks. I think that was then made a board decision edict. This is what I remember from his era.

 

[TigerImposter]

Who's the other 30+ player besides Newy?

I couldn't find one except ,foley will be 30 in Sep2015

 

[theflea]

I couldn't find one except ,foley will be 30 in Sep2015

Yeah ok I thought so. I thought the post was talking about ages right now.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

I do agree with your assessment but I also think our rise up the ladder will be dependant on how Griff and Ty do next year and if we can get all 3 talls working together.

Those two blokes more than any I can ever remember have so much of our destiny in their hands.
If they were to click in the one season well s**t we could have a season out of the box.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility.
Even just one season of career best footy together. Any more and then we are set.
Conversely if it goes the other way we are staring down the barrel of a restart .

 

[SpudsLoveChild]

And how many of those 26-29 are actually A graders? Deledio and Maric?

And all these mature agers we have brought in eg. Petterd, Thomas, Knights etc have given a false sense of where the list is at in terms of my other post and that we should be in Premiership contention when in fact we are still probably 3 or so years until the young guns are playing consistent top class footy

Hells no. The age of the players taken reflects the talent available given the compromised drafts.
Sure you can have a couple of kids but only after GWS and GC take the cream.

 

[Infamy]

You've now thrown in another smokey
You're probably right though as I had selective hearing during Wallets tenure
for interest can you remember the thereabouts wording bc infamy and rfc74 said Dimma mentioned a slightly different format

I wasn't trying to repeat a quote verbatim, just explain that we didn't say we would never trade our 1st round, there were just strict conditions
The way rfctiger74 says it sounds pretty right to me

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You've now thrown in another smokey
You're probably right though as I had selective hearing during Wallets tenure
for interest can you remember the thereabouts wording bc infamy and rfc74 said Dimma mentioned a slightly different format

Actually I stand corrected, it was under Wally's reign this policy was introduced. Reason for this was I remember there was some angst when we traded our pick 8 to Freo for Polak and 13. Some said this was breaking the clubs commitment to not trade away first round picks unless for a long term quality kid, but the club pointed out 13 still gave us a position in the first round.

Only thing I cannot remember was who drove this - the board or Wally. I do recall however the board did require sign off from them for any round 1 trade, so I don't believe it was a decision by Wally in isolation

 

[TigerTime3]

Have you read the threads the past two weeks? People here want a grade trades, no more recycled hacks like those you listed (their words not mine)

Also those you listed are role players with very definite deficiencies which lowered their value. We don't need that type as much now, but shopping for more complete players sees us competing with more clubs, and having to offer greater trade currency

Hm I think you're right actually. I'm talking more for myself rather than for others. If as you say we were targeting higher profile players this year, then it does make me wonder what could have been if we performed earlier in the season.

We need to offer premiership success to attract that type of player. Our recent success is on the back of offering opportunity to those role players. The club didn't predict our 3-10 start and had already planned our FA/trade strategy at the start of the year, so I guess it would've been too difficult to switch tactics mid-year.

As such, the main reason we failed to execute our more ambitious strategy than previous years is because of our poor performance this season. The off-field staff probably would have been successful in their strategy if we indeed were this year's Port Adelaide as planned.

So we can't be too hard of them I guess. Their strategy was set 12 months ago, and I certainly don't expect them to change it on the fly according to form. In that sense, I'm glad they were bold.

Consequences? Hard to tell. If we make up for it through unexpected cap space next year, then by 2016 we should be in the same position as we originally planned. 2015 is a bit tougher though, and absolutely crucial, because another poor year means the Hardwick era will offer no hope of the premiership success required to attract the type of players we want and need.

 

[TigerTime3]

Actually I stand corrected, it was under Wally's reign this policy was introduced. Reason for this was I remember there was some angst when we traded our pick 8 to Freo for Polak and 13. Some said this was breaking the clubs commitment to not trade away first round picks unless for a long term quality kid, but the club pointed out 13 still gave us a position in the first round.

Only thing I cannot remember was who drove this - the board or Wally. I do recall however the board did require sign off from them for any round 1 trade, so I don't believe it was a decision by Wally in isolation

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression it was 100% his idea and he was firm about it. He's made it sound like his legacy to the club when talking about us.

He's often talked about how damaging it was to walk into a club that had traded away so many first round draft picks before he arrived (and how we had an age gap in our list profile). Filling that age gap partly justified his need to draft McMahon and Morton. He'd say he was just fixing our own mess from the early 2000 drafts.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression it was 100% his idea and he was firm about it. He's made it sound like his legacy to the club when talking about us.

He's often talked about how damaging it was to walk into a club that had traded away so many first round draft picks before he arrived (and how we had an age gap in our list profile). Filling that age gap partly justified his need to draft McMahon and Morton. He'd say he was just fixing our own mess from the early 2000 drafts.

Then why the board sign off requirement? Remember this is a guy who insisted upon unprecedented power to agree to come to the club given our history. I'd be stunned if he proposed board sign off for trading picks

Also Wally has been very revisionist in his old age. He complains that he didn't get extra assistants like clarko, but forgets clarko took a pay cut to get his.

He says he brought our current young talent to the club, and is therefore responsible for their success. He forgets he rarely spoke to them though while coach.

He says Newman was a loyal captain, forgetting it was his mate who put out the false story of newman demanding wallaces resignation

 

[richoatthedisco]

You seem well informed mate, how did you get the info?

Ear to the ground, buddy.

Just on this, what about our other 3 FT guys? Wont they get shirty of that happens?

I assumed Luke Whatshisface was brought in to take over from FJ in time. I could be wrong.

 

[TigerImposter]

Hm I think you're right actually. I'm talking more for myself rather than for others. If as you say we were targeting higher profile players this year, then it does make me wonder what could have been if we performed earlier in the season.

We need to offer premiership success to attract that type of player. Our recent success is on the back of offering opportunity to those role players. The club didn't predict our 3-10 start and had already planned our FA/trade strategy at the start of the year, so I guess it would've been too difficult to switch tactics mid-year.

As such, the main reason we failed to execute our more ambitious strategy than previous years is because of our poor performance this season. The off-field staff probably would have been successful in their strategy if we indeed were this year's Port Adelaide as planned.

So we can't be too hard of them I guess. Their strategy was set 12 months ago, and I certainly don't expect them to change it on the fly according to form. In that sense, I'm glad they were bold.

Consequences? Hard to tell. If we make up for it through unexpected cap space next year, then by 2016 we should be in the same position as we originally planned. 2015 is a bit tougher though, and absolutely crucial, because another poor year means the Hardwick era will offer no hope of the premiership success required to attract the type of players we want and need.

What you're suggesting is that the club had a plan for the future, but no contingency plan if things went AWOL
Although we won our last nine games which was a tremendous effort the club needed to still reflect on why we were 3-10 and the future plans of our list needed revising
Instead they forgot the horrors of the first half and the EF and went on chasing players who were not really going to improve our list
Next trade period is crucial and I will be intrigued on what players this club will attract
Will it be a gun or two or the typical Epworth hospital patient