Official Club Stuff Liam Jones gone for pick 46

[Dav1d]

46 is also the same number as Jones Football IQ

 

[ManOfClay]

Check out the jones thread on the drafts and trading board. Carlton fans just keep bringing up Boyd, can't they be happy with their new gun KPF?

 

[gillo94]

Check out the jones thread on the drafts and trading board. Carlton fans just keep bringing up Boyd, can't they be happy with their new gun KPF?

Boyd will be a gun lol, as a Blues fan I'm admitting since the trade I've been kicking myself every day. He was suppose to come to us end of 2015!

Honestly we are still happy with Liam only 23 years old and lots of upside. Kinda happy Blues have multiple marking options forward and can build off it. I still think Liam will have a better year than Tom Boyd in 2015 but 2016 I'm expecting Tom to stamp his authority on the competition.

I think Liam will become a better player at Blues, expecting Tom Boyd to have a very successful career at Dogs

 

[gillo94]

46 is also the same number as Jones Football IQ

Bit harsh, only 23 now were KPP start to blossom.

 

[Dav1d]

Bit harsh, only 23 now were KPP start to blossom.

Naw, would have been more harsh if I said his actual IQ

I actually don't mind his clothing brand though, be sure to go check that out

 

[ManOfClay]

Bit harsh, only 23 now were KPP start to blossom.

He'll need to blossom hard. 66 games for 68 goals from a full-time KPF isn't a great base

 

[gillo94]

He'll need to blossom hard. 66 games for 68 goals from a full-time KPF isn't a great base

Your right has to start showing consistency and attitude, even if say Casboult goes down and Hendo playing back will cop number 1 defender.

 

[ManOfClay]

Your right has to start showing consistency and attitude, even if say Casboult goes down and Hendo playing back will cop number 1 defender.

He's a better player than Casboult. Casboult is s**t

 

[threenewpadlocks]

McCartney wasn't dour, his game style was about balance between defense and offense. It may have looked dour because our players either couldn't or wouldn't understand it.
Also ask Steve Johnson, Matthew Scarlett and Gary Ablett if Macca could coach players with flair.

Can't say I agree with you.

McCartney wasn't the coach at Geelong, Bomber Thompson was. They also had assistants who were higher up in the chain like Hinkley and Sanderson.
He had no responsibility with the game style or the tactics - he was mainly a development coach.
His gamestyle was dour - gamestyles that emphasise contested ball tend to be like that. He may have attempted to transition to an offensive game style eventually but in the 66 games he showed as coach, they tended to be of a dour nature. And it isn't about the players because the very same players showed that they could play offensively under Eade (and they will play offensively under a new coach), yet became dour under the coach.

 

[Mattdougie]

What a load of rubbish
Blaming McCartney for Jones not having a tank? Blame McCartney for Jones easily buffeted from a run at the ball from AFL level defenders ?

Yep I am

Eade got him to do it

Mate if I say that smurfs are blue and you would disagree

Do me a favour and ignore me coz you add nothing

 

[_Mike_]

I cant accept "its 100% the coaches fault" for someone not taking their opportunities. Would you blame your boss for you doing a s**t job at work (under the presumption that you had the right training and skills to do the job in the first place)?

 

[Mattdougie]

I cant accept "its 100% the coaches fault" for someone not taking their opportunities. Would you blame your boss for you doing a s**t job at work (under the presumption that you had the right training and skills to do the job in the first place)?

No mike I've never said it's all Maccad fault but ther must have been an issue between the 2 that attributed to Jones fall under Macca.

The effort Jones put in is 100% his fault but the reason why must be in a great part Maccas fault in Jones eyes coz Eade got Jones to do what Macca couldn't

 

[immortalmike]

Can't say I agree with you.

McCartney wasn't the coach at Geelong, Bomber Thompson was. They also had assistants who were higher up in the chain like Hinkley and Sanderson.
He had no responsibility with the game style or the tactics - he was mainly a development coach.
His gamestyle was dour - gamestyles that emphasise contested ball tend to be like that. He may have attempted to transition to an offensive game style eventually but in the 66 games he showed as coach, they tended to be of a dour nature. And it isn't about the players because the very same players showed that they could play offensively under Eade (and they will play offensively under a new coach), yet became dour under the coach.

Read my second post on the previous page. It answers all your claims.

 

[_Mike_]

No mike I've never said it's all Maccad fault but ther must have been an issue between the 2 that attributed to Jones fall under Macca.

The effort Jones put in is 100% his fault but the reason why must be in a great part Maccas fault in Jones eyes coz Eade got Jones to do what Macca couldn't

Yep I understand that, McCartney might have not been using Jones to his potential however Jones bares the responsibility for his own form on the field.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Read my second post on the previous page. It answers all your claims.

Not really.
You're stating that we didn't play a dour style of footy - I say we did. We consistently moved the ball slowly inside 50 and emphasised contested ball which in my eyes represents dour footy. We also emphasised defensive footy (and failed to do so, as shown by the Squiggle thread on the main board). I don't think you're right in saying that we had a balanced plan of attack.
And referring to the players like the flair of Bontempelli and Stringer - that's the players, not the coach. Players like them would demonstrate flair under any coach in the AFL. I'm just looking at the game plan as a whole.

 

[immortalmike]

Not really.
You're stating that we didn't play a dour style of footy - I say we did. We consistently moved the ball slowly inside 50 and emphasised contested ball which in my eyes represents dour footy. We also emphasised defensive footy (and failed to do so, as shown by the Squiggle thread on the main board). I don't think you're right in saying that we had a balanced plan of attack.
And referring to the players like the flair of Bontempelli and Stringer - that's the players, not the coach. Players like them would demonstrate flair under any coach in the AFL. I'm just looking at the game plan as a whole.

I don't think you understand what I wrote.
My statement was that despite appearances our game plan wasn't dour it was about balance. This was often not reflected on field. That is why Macca lost his job, he couldn't get the players to play his way.
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about what he was trying to get out of our players and you are talking about what ge actually got out of them.
The point on Bonts and Stringer was actually a separate point refuting the statement that Macca couldn't work with players with flair. He obviously could, just had trouble getting the whole team to play with flair and hard tough footy. Whether that was entirely his fault I'm not sure.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't think you understand what I wrote.
My statement was that despite appearances our game plan wasn't dour it was about balance. This was often not reflected on field. That is why Macca lost his job, he couldn't get the players to play his way.
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about what he was trying to get out of our players and you are talking about what ge actually got out of them.
The point on Bonts and Stringer was actually a separate point refuting the statement that Macca couldn't work with players with flair. He obviously could, just had trouble getting the whole team to play with flair and hard tough footy. Whether that was entirely his fault I'm not sure.

Fair nuff.

 

[Butane]

I don't think you understand what I wrote.
My statement was that despite appearances our game plan wasn't dour it was about balance. This was often not reflected on field. That is why Macca lost his job, he couldn't get the players to play his way.
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about what he was trying to get out of our players and you are talking about what ge actually got out of them.
The point on Bonts and Stringer was actually a separate point refuting the statement that Macca couldn't work with players with flair. He obviously could, just had trouble getting the whole team to play with flair and hard tough footy. Whether that was entirely his fault I'm not sure.

His terrible team selection and game day strategy only made sense if you assume he was aiming at 2017+. Which the board and enough of the supporters reluctantly sat through on the proviso that he paid dividends down the track. The reason he lost his job wasn't because of his dubious results and more dubious long term plan, it was because the players thought he was a terrible coach.

 

[ManOfClay]

No mike I've never said it's all Maccad fault but ther must have been an issue between the 2 that attributed to Jones fall under Macca.

The effort Jones put in is 100% his fault but the reason why must be in a great part Maccas fault in Jones eyes coz Eade got Jones to do what Macca couldn't

What did Jones do under Eade that he didn't under McCartney?

 

[immortalmike]

His terrible team selection and game day strategy only made sense if you assume he was aiming at 2017+. Which the board and enough of the supporters reluctantly sat through on the proviso that he paid dividends down the track. The reason he lost his job wasn't because of his dubious results and more dubious long term plan, it was because the players thought he was a terrible coach.

You don't think the two things are related?
I wasn't specifically referring to the board.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

What did Jones do under Eade that he didn't under McCartney?

Played alongside an experienced big forward who attracted multiple defenders, so Jonesy got the cheap stuff.

 

[ManOfClay]

Played alongside an experienced big forward who attracted multiple defenders, so Jonesy got the cheap stuff.

And when you say he "only got the cheap stuff" that was still a meagre 19 goals. For someone drafted in 2008 with a couple of years in the system it's pretty bad.

I used to have high hopes for Jones. But now he's gone I can see a lot of the time I was pushing a wheelbarrow full of s**t with a flat tyre uphill trying to justify his place.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

And when you say he "only got the cheap stuff" that was still a meagre 19 goals. For someone drafted in 2008 with a couple of years in the system it's pretty bad.

I used to have high hopes for Jones. But now he's gone I can see a lot of the time I was pushing a wheelbarrow full of s**t with a flat tyre uphill trying to justify his place.

I meant cheap possies, but yeah the goals total wasn't exactly outstanding either.

 

[fronkalicious]

And when you say he "only got the cheap stuff" that was still a meagre 19 goals. For someone drafted in 2008 with a couple of years in the system it's pretty bad.

I used to have high hopes for Jones. But now he's gone I can see a lot of the time I was pushing a wheelbarrow full of s**t with a flat tyre uphill trying to justify his place.

Jones was drafted young and spent his first year on the list at school at Scotch College.

 

[ManOfClay]

Jones was drafted young and spent his first year on the list at school at Scotch College.

And we are talking about his 2011 season aren't we? he had ample time to develop before then. Three AFL pre-seasons, no major injuries at that stage that I can recall.