Opinion Butcher

[Janus]

*The team is sitting in the TACS trailer. El_Scorcho (in the role of Charlie) is reviewing the 2014 season*

El_Scorcho: "The coach drops John Butcher?! That's the last thing you should do. We're already crying out for another key forward, what were you thinking at this point?"

Hinkley: "You don't have time to think when it's about winning games. If you think, you're dead."

El_Scorcho: "That's a pretty big gamble when there's a premiership on the line.

"Unfortunately, the gamble worked. The team won matches against Geelong, Fremantle and Hawthorn and made a preliminary final. The ladder will say that Port Adelaide had a successful season but I think we've shown that this is an example of what not to do."

*Hinkley just looks at El_Scorcho*

El_Scorcho: "Now let's look at a textbook tactic..."

Janus (to Hinkley): "Gutsiest move I ever saw, Kern."

 

[El_Scorcho]

Half the list were given several more games than Butcher. Butcher's non-selection has nothing to do with Mitchell or S.Gray. If his form warranted AFL selection, he would have been selected. Butcher only rated in the best players at SANFL once and that was late in the season. If a forward kicks bags of goals and still can't muster a 'best', that's telling. He clearly wasn't doing something right and time and again there were reports from Bigfooty posters (including Macca19) that his goals were more easy "gimme" goals than bread and butter lead up goals that you would expect from a key forward.

I've talked about gimme goals enough times. A goal is a goal is a goal. It doesn't matter whether you run 80m at full tilt like Matty White, or get a cheapy over the top in the goalsquare. Roughead basically had 6 gimme goals in the Prelim, getting the rewards off of his team's good play. He was best on ground.

Given our dire need to develop a KPF, Butcher should have been playing even if he wasn't getting named in the bests because he was in reasonable form and we were too short up forward, with 28 and 29 year olds leading the line.

I'd suggest Sam Gray playing had a lot to do with Butcher not playing, given that they both played in our forward line. A forward line that was too short for most of the season. People keep arguing that Gray actually replaced Monfries, but we lost 3 forwards that week and Gray was the only permanent forward to come in for them.

*The team is sitting in the TACS trailer. El_Scorcho (in the role of Charlie) is reviewing the 2014 season*

El_Scorcho: "The coach drops John Butcher?! That's the last thing you should do. We're already crying out for another key forward, what were you thinking at this point?"

Hinkley: "You don't have time to think when it's about winning games. If you think, you're dead."

El_Scorcho: "That's a pretty big gamble when there's a premiership on the line.

"Unfortunately, the gamble worked. The team won matches against Geelong, Fremantle and Hawthorn and made a preliminary final. The ladder will say that Port Adelaide had a successful season but I think we've shown that this is an example of what not to do."

*Hinkley just looks at El_Scorcho*

El_Scorcho: "Now let's look at a textbook tactic..."

Janus (to Hinkley): "Gutsiest move I ever saw, Kern."

The 2007 ladder will show that we had an even more successful season, if that's how we're measuring success. We beat every other side in the top 6 on the way to finishing 2nd and making a GF.

How do you feel about Choco's gamble to play our HOF CHF as a decoy to make Brett Ebert the focal point?

Just because you're winning doesn't mean you are making optimal use of what you have available to you.

 

[Garibaldi Red]

I've talked about gimme goals enough times. A goal is a goal is a goal. It doesn't matter whether you run 80m at full tilt like Matty White, or get a cheapy over the top in the goalsquare. Roughead basically had 6 gimme goals in the Prelim, getting the rewards off of his team's good play. He was best on ground.

Given our dire need to develop a KPF, Butcher should have been playing even if he wasn't getting named in the bests because he was in reasonable form and we were too short up forward, with 28 and 29 year olds leading the line.

I'd suggest Sam Gray playing had a lot to do with Butcher not playing, given that they both played in our forward line. A forward line that was too short for most of the season. People keep arguing that Gray actually replaced Monfries, but we lost 3 forwards that week and Gray was the only permanent forward to come in for them.



The 2007 ladder will show that we had an even more successful season, if that's how we're measuring success. We beat every other side in the top 6 on the way to finishing 2nd and making a GF.

How do you feel about Choco's gamble to play our HOF CHF as a decoy to make Brett Ebert the focal point?

Just because you're winning doesn't mean you are making optimal use of what you have available to you.

I agree with your assertion that a goal is a goal but sorry but the part of your argument, that I have highlighted, is just wrong. IIRC he kicked 3 from outside 40 metres (one from the centre square), hardly what you would call a gimme.

 

[Janus]

The 2007 ladder will show that we had an even more successful season, if that's how we're measuring success. We beat every other side in the top 6 on the way to finishing 2nd and making a GF.

How do you feel about Choco's gamble to play our HOF CHF as a decoy to make Brett Ebert the focal point?

Just because you're winning doesn't mean you are making optimal use of what you have available to you.

You're not seriously trying to compare not playing a 20 game KPF to what happened in 2007, are you? We're measuring success on quantifiable results, not on theoretical analysis. Results say that in 2007 that tactic was exposed to be fraudulent. You're probably right in what you say, but until we get blown apart in a game using Kern's tactic, he has the credits in the bank to play who he wants as far as I'm concerned. It's called taking an educated risk.

 

[El_Scorcho]

You're not seriously trying to compare not playing a 20 game KPF to what happened in 2007, are you? We're measuring success on quantifiable results, not on theoretical analysis. Results say that in 2007 that tactic was exposed to be fraudulent. You're probably right in what you say, but until we get blown apart in a game using Kern's tactic, he has the credits in the bank to play who he wants as far as I'm concerned. It's called taking an educated risk.

I'm trying to compare sacrificing structure and KPF development for our running game to what happened in 2007. Choco was very successful (in terms of winning games) using a baffling forward structure. Kern decided very early in the season that we'd go small up forward and IMO it cost us several games. Just because the structure issues weren't as extreme as they were in 2007 doesn't mean they weren't there.

Freo have never been blown apart under Ross Lyon, but like the Saints before them they play a defensive slog of a game style that doesn't allow them to put teams away, and effectively keeps teams in the game, which hurts them come finals time.

I'd say the loss to Essendon in a game where we should have absolutely destroyed them is as bad as being blown apart. I defy anyone who watched thatgame to argue that our structure was fine, in my eyes it absolutely cost us the game. Our goalkicking hurt, but our goalkicking should have meant we won by 5 goals instead of 10, not lost by 2 points.

We're not going to be blown apart by anyone because we are too fast and too good. That doesn't mean we can't be better than we are.

 

[Janus]

I'm trying to compare sacrificing structure and KPF development for our running game to what happened in 2007. Choco was very successful (in terms of winning games) using a baffling forward structure. Kern decided very early in the season that we'd go small up forward and IMO it cost us several games. Just because the structure issues weren't as extreme as they were in 2007 doesn't mean they weren't there.

Freo have never been blown apart under Ross Lyon, but like the Saints before them they play a defensive slog of a game style that doesn't allow them to put teams away, and effectively keeps teams in the game, which hurts them come finals time.

I'd say the loss to Essendon in a game where we should have absolutely destroyed them is as bad as being blown apart. I defy anyone who watched thatgame to argue that our structure was fine, in my eyes it absolutely cost us the game. Our goalkicking hurt, but our goalkicking should have meant we won by 5 goals instead of 10, not lost by 2 points.

We're not going to be blown apart by anyone because we are too fast and too good. That doesn't mean we can't be better than we are.

Which is why we're going to give Butcher every chance to make an impact so that he feels like he belongs and can do the role he's in the team for. I expect him to get games in lieu of Ryder when Paddy is serving his suspension (if he gets suspended). When he marked that ball in the third quarter of the Showdown, I was already clapping before anyone else when the ball left his boot because I knew he would kick it. I want John to be the player he can be, which is infinitely greater than the player we need.

 

[Forzaport]

I've talked about gimme goals enough times. A goal is a goal is a goal. It doesn't matter whether you run 80m at full tilt like Matty White, or get a cheapy over the top in the goalsquare. Roughead basically had 6 gimme goals in the Prelim, getting the rewards off of his team's good play. He was best on ground.

Given our dire need to develop a KPF, Butcher should have been playing even if he wasn't getting named in the bests because he was in reasonable form and we were too short up forward, with 28 and 29 year olds leading the line.

I'd suggest Sam Gray playing had a lot to do with Butcher not playing, given that they both played in our forward line. A forward line that was too short for most of the season. People keep arguing that Gray actually replaced Monfries, but we lost 3 forwards that week and Gray was the only permanent forward to come in for them.

I do admire your tenacity but you're drawing a longer a longer bow. Roughead's goals were quality and changed the game. The BOG was well deserved. The same simply cannot be said of Butcher's SANFL games. The week we lost Monfries and Wingard to injury and dropped Butcher we brought it S.Gray, Young and O'Shea. I think it's fairly obvious that S.Gray and Young replaced Monfries and Wingard and Hinkley opted to move the height down back by replacing Butcher with O'Shea. Suggesting that S.Gray is some sort of super replacement for all 3 forwards, let alone a key forward, is surely boardering on taking the piss.

It really is questionable whether Butcher's form was even reasonable at all at SANFL level. The match reports from his first 3 SANFL games for 2014 (below) didn't demand a recall to AFL football. And let's be honest, if he didn't look a million dollars in the thumping of Glenelg, it's highly, highly doubtful he would have in the thumping of Brisbane.

We do have a dire need to develop a KPF, that's why we've drafted 1 each year for the previous 3 years. When these developing KPFs show form that warrants AFL selection, they'll get their opportunity. If Butcher had performed to a higher standard he surely would have been given more AFL opportunity in 2014.

Match report from the R2 Glenelg thumping where Butcher kicked 5 goals:
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/ne...adelaide/news/2014-04-16/sanfl-report-round-2

John Butcher
Butch was a bit out of sorts in the first half but going after half time with five goals — especially a big one from outside 50. He was also good at ground level which is something we have been keen for him to improve, but we would still like a few more marks in the forward 50.

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/ne...adelaide/news/2014-04-16/sanfl-report-round-2

Match report from R3 WWT thumping. Butcher was goalless:
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2014-04-26/sanfl-report-round-3

John Butcher
Butch’s forward pressure was good and he hunted the opposition when the ball hit the ground, but we want to see a higher work rate from him over four quarters, particularly when presenting up at the ball and in isolated contests inside the forward 50.

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2014-04-26/sanfl-report-round-3

Match report from R4 West Adelaide game. Butcher kicked 5:
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2014-04-30/sanfl-report-round-4

John Butcher
John presented better this week up at the ball, but poor disposal by teammates hurt him a little. He was much better after half time and looked more confident when marking the ball inside 50. Finished with five goals

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2014-04-30/sanfl-report-round-4

 

[Dylan8]

This thread may aswell be 3 pages long

 

[Ando39]

I'll never forget that one Butcher bombed from outside 50 against Glenelg. It was almost Brendan Lade like in its beauty.

 

[edgie]

You're not seriously trying to compare not playing a 20 game KPF to what happened in 2007, are you? We're measuring success on quantifiable results, not on theoretical analysis. Results say that in 2007 that tactic was exposed to be fraudulent. You're probably right in what you say, but until we get blown apart in a game using Kern's tactic, he has the credits in the bank to play who he wants as far as I'm concerned. It's called taking an educated risk.

Until? * "until", I say prevention is better than waiting around to be reactionary.

Also, in 2007, we gave our green KPF plenty of games.

 

[Powerade 08]

This thread may aswell be 3 pages long

"We need another tall forward to straighten us up!!!"

"Butcher doesn't play tall, he leads backwards and sideways and looks for crumbs off the packs"

"It doesn't matter how he kicks goals lets just play him!"

:/

 

[Tibbs]

Kane Mitchell and Sam Gray were given several more games than John Butcher despite failing to have much of an impact. There were several selections threads on this board where the consensus was gobsmacked at Mitchell's repeated selection.

Yeah, but get it in context ... players like Newton, Mitchell, and Sam Gray, initially got picked as emergencies, then as subs, before being rewarded games. Butcher is NOT a subs player. He either rips it up and goes straight into the team, or he is left in the SANFL to earn his way.

Also dont get fixated on KENNY not picking him. Butcher was not selected because, Kenny, AND all the other coaches, including input from Boak, thought he just wasnt ready. Move on! This is not 2011/12 when average performers were gifted games to get experience. We are now one of the top-3 contenders for the flag. To play in this side you have to clearly, definatively, be the best of the rest and earn your place .... its all in Butcher's hands now. I really hope he smashes it!!

 

[Boxx]

I went down to training this morning and watched the 4qtr scratch match and big Butch was playing very much a Tredders type role of playing high and leading up the wing... He even swung onto his left 4 or 5 times and slammed it deep into the forward 50 like Waz used to do!!!

To me, he appears to have his confidence to crash the pack and clunk the grab at an all time high!!!
The other thing that really stood out to me with butch was his work rate and second efforts during the match - maybe, just maybe he could actually be fit!!!

If he can play this role and stay away from the goals until he develops a sounder kicking style, he will have a spot in the team for a long time to come!!

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

If this was me posting my thoughts it would of been archived in the graveyard thread 3 pages ago.

 

[El_Scorcho]

"We need another tall forward to straighten us up!!!"

"Butcher doesn't play tall, he leads backwards and sideways and looks for crumbs off the packs"

"It doesn't matter how he kicks goals lets just play him!"

:/

This isn't what i'm arguing.

Butcher is a tall who is good below his knees. He can still compete under the high ball a lot better than the smalls in our side and can at least bring the ball to ground, even if he can't always clunk a mark. Having his height up forward would change the way we structure up and change the way we enter the forward line, both for the better, even if Butch himself isn't yet capable of playing as a gorilla CHF.

Butcher can effectively play a small forward role and get "cheapies" and still be good for our structure because of his ability to compete in the air. Anybody who watched Chad Wingard play half the season wasted as a full forward against two opponents who had 15cm on him shouldn't need the importance of structure explained to them.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yeah, but get it in context ... players like Newton, Mitchell, and Sam Gray, initially got picked as emergencies, then as subs, before being rewarded games. Butcher is NOT a subs player. He either rips it up and goes straight into the team, or he is left in the SANFL to earn his way.

Butcher earned his way with a pretty good preseason. Hinkley spoke in the preseason about how important Butcher was going into the 2014 season. After one down game, Butcher was out of the side and didn't return despite hitting the scoreboard at SANFL level and our need for a KPF. Mitchell played games to the point where in the changes threads on this board, we were collectively baffled as to how he continued to get a game.

Butcher was doing enough to hold his spot when he got dropped. Mitchell kept getting games for weeks after not being quite up to it.

Also dont get fixated on KENNY not picking him. Butcher was not selected because, Kenny, AND all the other coaches, including input from Boak, thought he just wasnt ready. Move on! This is not 2011/12 when average performers were gifted games to get experience.

I disagree, you're missing a very important factor in selection. Structure. Renouf got picked for the Freo game when Lobbe was injured, and it certainly wasn't because he was beating down the door or dominating the SANFL, it was because we needed a ruckman. We also spent almost the whole season last year too short up forward, and it hurt us. Butcher would have made us a better side last year by making our forward line function better.

If we'd played him all year, he'd also be a 40 game KPF instead of a 23 game KPF, and he'd be a lot more ready if he was required in the AFL side this year. Instead, if Schulz or Westhoff get injured, we're absolutely ****ed because we elected not to develop a backup when it made sense for us to do so.

 

[Dalphonso]

Butcher earned his way with a pretty good preseason. Hinkley spoke in the preseason about how important Butcher was going into the 2014 season. After one down game, Butcher was out of the side and didn't return despite hitting the scoreboard at SANFL level and our need for a KPF. Mitchell played games to the point where in the changes threads on this board, we were collectively baffled as to how he continued to get a game.

Butcher was doing enough to hold his spot when he got dropped. Mitchell kept getting games for weeks after not being quite up to it.



I disagree, you're missing a very important factor in selection. Structure. Renouf got picked for the Freo game when Lobbe was injured, and it certainly wasn't because he was beating down the door or dominating the SANFL, it was because we needed a ruckman. We also spent almost the whole season last year too short up forward, and it hurt us. Butcher would have made us a better side last year by making our forward line function better.

If we'd played him all year, he'd also be a 40 game KPF instead of a 23 game KPF, and he'd be a lot more ready if he was required in the AFL side this year. Instead, if Schulz or Westhoff get injured, we're absolutely stuffed because we elected not to develop a backup when it made sense for us to do so.

I would have thought Butcher could be thrown into the ruck every now and then.

 

[RangaInTeal]

Butcher earned his way with a pretty good preseason. Hinkley spoke in the preseason about how important Butcher was going into the 2014 season. After one down game, Butcher was out of the side and didn't return despite hitting the scoreboard at SANFL level and our need for a KPF. Mitchell played games to the point where in the changes threads on this board, we were collectively baffled as to how he continued to get a game.

Butcher was doing enough to hold his spot when he got dropped. Mitchell kept getting games for weeks after not being quite up to it.



I disagree, you're missing a very important factor in selection. Structure. Renouf got picked for the Freo game when Lobbe was injured, and it certainly wasn't because he was beating down the door or dominating the SANFL, it was because we needed a ruckman. We also spent almost the whole season last year too short up forward, and it hurt us. Butcher would have made us a better side last year by making our forward line function better.

If we'd played him all year, he'd also be a 40 game KPF instead of a 23 game KPF, and he'd be a lot more ready if he was required in the AFL side this year. Instead, if Schulz or Westhoff get injured, we're absolutely stuffed because we elected not to develop a backup when it made sense for us to do so.

Maybe Ken wanted to prove a point, maybe he wasn't 100% fit, maybe he broke team rules, maybe Ken wanted MORE, maybe Ken thought Tough love will develop him quicker...

It's hard to know from the sidelines

 

[RangaInTeal]

I would have thought Butcher could be thrown into the ruck every now and then.

Doesn't have the mongrel... To be a genuine Ruckman, you need to have a hurt first mentality naturally, John is a Westhoff like lad. This is why Mitch Harvey was a great Second Ruck prospect. Frampton seems to have a healthy dose of mongrel to him.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Maybe Ken wanted to prove a point, maybe he wasn't 100% fit, maybe he broke team rules, maybe Ken wanted MORE, maybe Ken thought Tough love will develop him quicker...

It's hard to know from the sidelines

These are all great arguments that I can't really argue against.

If they were being made more often i'd probably post less in this thread

 

[Asgardian]

I really hope John can get a chance, grab it and run with it for the whole season.

He does that then we will be even better than what the forecasts are.

 

[RangaInTeal]

These are all great arguments that I can't really argue against.

If they were being made more often i'd probably post less in this thread

Trust me, I am a HUGE Butcher Fanboi, but Ken had his reasons and I support Lens selection policy

 

[Tibbs]

...After one down game, Butcher was out of the side and didn't return despite hitting the scoreboard at SANFL level and our need for a KPF. Mitchell played games to the point where in the changes threads on this board, we were collectively baffled as to how he continued to get a game. Butcher was doing enough to hold his spot when he got dropped. Mitchell kept getting games for weeks after not being quite up to it.

Totally irrelevant, because they are not competing for the same spot!!!

 

[PepeSilvia]

Totally irrelevant, because they are not competing for the same spot!!!

Team structure isn't always exactly the same though...

 

[El_Scorcho]

Totally irrelevant, because they are not competing for the same spot!!!

We dropped a tall forward for a small when we dropped Butcher. The coaches spent all 2014 preseason talking about how important Butcher would be, then dropped him for an extra runner.

They weren't playing the same role, but they were competing for the same spot in the team IMO. The coaches simply decided that we needed run more than we needed structure. I personally disagree.