AFL Autopsy Round 5 - St Kilda

[Essendonia]

It wasn't bad luck. Gumbleton and Hansen were clearly the two rated talls in the draft and rated just about the best players in the 2006 draft. Gumby has been injury plagued, though he has never shown elite attributes, and Hansen is ONLY a good player. The evidence suggests the recruiters got their projections wrong. Recruiting is an inexact science, and I for one accept this will happen. Some seem to think that if a player is selected high in the draft say top 10 - It's only bad luck, bad development etc, that stop their progress. We need to understand that if we put a top 10 player in the AFL in their last year of TAC Cup, that player will show glimpses at AFL level. Some players improve/progress better than expected, other s stagnate and stop progressing. At the end of the day drafting is projecting how a player will be in 5 years time.

You should just go to Perth, find Scott, and finish him off.

I'm embarrassed that there are supporters who can misinterpret the facts and misrepresent outcomes to such an extent. Have a read of his injury history, see how many times he strung multiple matches together, which teams he played in, his impact on AFL matches he did play and review your warped opinion.

Maybe have a look at the first handful of games of 'elite' top-5 draft picks and see how much impact they made in those early games and what 'elite attributes' were apparent at that time. You might surprise yourself, or you might learn nothing, which would not surprise me.

 

[Runk]

That was a putrid loss by a group with their heads planted firmly up their own arses.

They had a belief that the game was won prior to the first bounce, a belief reaffirmed when they had five goals on the board at quarter time.

They coasted. It was lazy, unprofessional junk and I for one think the playing group themselves need to be dragged over the coals for an inept performance.

Unacceptable loss.

I honestly thought we were past this crap of playing down to opposition teams - but sure enough here it is again.

Yeah, I understand your anger, but I reckon it should be tempered by a couple of things;

1. They were coming back from Perth which is ALWAYS bloody tough to back up from.
2. The heat last week really would've hurt them and hindered their recovery this week.
3. The flu went through the club pretty swiftly and I'm willing to accept the 'flatness' of out team was attributed to that.

So the question that remains IMO is 'what was their recovery between games like?' I don't think even Bomber knew.
An effort like that this week would really put them under the pump and some hard questions would need to be asked as a result.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Yeah, I understand your anger, but I reckon it should be tempered by a couple of things;

1. They were coming back from Perth which is ALWAYS bloody tough to back up from.
2. The heat last week really would've hurt them and hindered their recovery this week.
3. The flu went through the club pretty swiftly and I'm willing to accept the 'flatness' of out team was attributed to that.

So the question that remains IMO is 'what was their recovery between games like?' I don't think even Bomber knew.
An effort like that this week would really put them under the pump and some hard questions would need to be asked as a result.

Bomber and the players know this i expect them to bounce back.

 

[yaco55]

You should just go to Perth, find Scott, and finish him off.

I'm embarrassed that there are supporters who can misinterpret the facts and misrepresent outcomes to such an extent. Have a read of his injury history, see how many times he strung multiple matches together, which teams he played in, his impact on AFL matches he did play and review your warped opinion.

Maybe have a look at the first handful of games of 'elite' top-5 draft picks and see how much impact they made in those early games and what 'elite attributes' were apparent at that time. You might surprise yourself, or you might learn nothing, which would not surprise me.

I can only give you the facts - Gumbleton and Hansen were seen as the JEWELS ( for talls ) in the 2006 ND - They have never lived up to their draft rankings. And Gumbleton and Hansen have played more than a handful of games. They are not in the JD category for games played.

 

[Essendonia]

I can only give you the facts - Gumbleton and Hansen were seen as the JEWELS ( for talls ) in the 2006 ND - They have never lived up to their draft rankings. And Gumbleton and Hansen have played more than a handful of games. They are not in the JD category for games played.

Firstly, why are you discussing Hansen on this board, let alone this thread. Second, Gumbleton's injuries prevented anyone from seeing what he was capable of as a matured, professional footballer, so there is no legitimate basis to write him off or say that it was a failed selection based on a failure to accurately predict his capabilities beyond the impact of injuries. With no injuries, he might've been N.Riewoldt II or J.Neagle. Or maybe a J.Schulz. We'll never know, by the looks of it, because even if he gets going at Freo, he's missed development in formative years. I will not post any more on the subject, and if you don't see the logic or commonsense of my perspective, then we shall agree to disagree.

 

[yaco55]

Firstly, why are you discussing Hansen on this board, let alone this thread. Second, Gumbleton's injuries prevented anyone from seeing what he was capable of as a matured, professional footballer, so there is no legitimate basis to write him off or say that it was a failed selection based on a failure to accurately predict his capabilities beyond the impact of injuries. With no injuries, he might've been N.Riewoldt II or J.Neagle. Or maybe a J.Schulz. We'll never know, by the looks of it, because even if he gets going at Freo, he's missed development in formative years. I will not post any more on the subject, and if you don't see the logic or commonsense of my perspective, then we shall agree to disagree.

Of course its a failed selection. All clubs have failed selections. And I forgot to mention that Mitch Thorp was pick 6 in the same draft. There is a theme in those 3 selections.

 

[Doss]

The point is that the liberal use of the word 'failed' is seen as quite harsh when injuries robbed Gumby of any real chance of showing what he could do.

 

[daffo]

I still can't believe we lost that game. Excuses aren't good enough IMO. It was hot in Freo but we barely ran hard in the second half of that game so we shouldn't have been that tired.

It's all between the ears.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

I've come to the realisation that it isn't panic stations just yet. Prior to that game, we had played 2 bad quarters for the year. We ran Hawthorn to the last 45 seconds of the game and matched it with Freo at Subi in 35 degree heat for the first half. Yes, Saturday night was shocking in many ways, but we had an off day. Our best is better than a lot of teams in the comp and matches with the top teams IMO. Move on from Saturday night I reckon.

 

[rines]

The point is that the liberal use of the word 'failed' is seen as quite harsh when injuries robbed Gumby of any real chance of showing what he could do.

I've been hearing that, in relation to Gumby, for near 10 years..

At what point can you acknowledge, injury or not, in terms of having an IMPACT for EFC as a Top 2 pick.. he was an epic epic epic fail for us? Yeah it was injuries, whatever..

The reality is that you need a Top 2 pick to become a star of the comp and play 250+ games to be considered a 'win'. In this case it did not happen.

Epic Fail overall.

 

[Doss]

How can you not look acknowledge his injuries though? Whatever?

Yes he failed, and the injuries were the main reason for that. It's useless trying to predict whether he would have succeeded free of injuries, because he never really got the chance to do so.

My point was that most people associate 'fail' in the context of drafting as a Tambling, Rory Hilton or Thorp type situation, where someone was picked high up but failed because a) they got a decent run at it but were actually not that good or b) they had massive attitudinal problems.

 

[rines]

How can you not look acknowledge his injuries though? Whatever?

Yes he failed, and the injuries were the main reason for that. It's useless trying to predict whether he would have succeeded free of injuries, because he never really got the chance to do so.

My point was that most people associate 'fail' in the context of drafting as a Tambling, Rory Hilton or Thorp type situation, where someone was picked high up but failed because a) they were actually not that good or b) they had massive attitudinal problems.

Yeah, I know the point. Personally I just don't think he deserved the spot he got taken with. I think it was a draft that was light on for talls.. and many were over rated. I think Gumby had deficiencies in his game that were never worked out. Injuries papered over quite a few flaws.

What pissed me off the most is that we didn't trade him after the first wasted three years.. when he still had some currency due to his draft number.. he was never going to come good after missing those key development years.. and I said repeatedly at the time.. and it turned out to be accurate.

I would also add that is why I am adamant that Daniher must stay in the team.. development of key forwards can only occur at AFL level right now.. VFL is just too much of a lower level.. we still don't have a good second tier comp that plays with AFL tactics etc.. so only way forwards can learn to beat zone defence, tactics and flooding is at the AFL level.

You will note that even when Gumby got injury free.. he didn't get games for us. By then we had about 4-5 talls that had gone past him. Don't really need to argue about it.. it is done, no worries.. and I do wish the guy all the best.. but it was a fail for our club and one of the core reasons why we have been shithouse for 10+ years.

 

[Doss]

He played seventeen games in 2010 and was quite serviceable, although his body problems were still not properly fixed. They're still not, apparently. That was his fourth year.

I'd suggest the reason he didn't get a game by the time he was finally sort of injury free in late 2012/early 2013 was because those 4-5 talls had actually played heaps and were never going to be dropped regularly for someone who'd barely played.

And pinning that as a core reason we've been rubbish for ten years is pretty harsh. One player wouldn't have fixed all the shortcomings we've had in the last decade- not even close.

 

[rines]

I wanted us to pick Travis Boak (coming from down that way myself).. and still wanted us to pick Travis Boak..

In fact we could still use a guy like Travis Boak.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

I wanted us to pick Travis Boak (coming from down that way myself).. and still wanted us to pick Travis Boak..

In fact we could still use a guy like Travis Boak.

People were rightly excited about Gumby, his junior footy was huge apparently. It happens sometimes...

 

[rines]

People were rightly excited about Gumby, his junior footy was huge apparently. It happens sometimes...

Yeah.. I think I may have been the only person not excited about Gumby.. cause many many arguments around these traps for years while he was on the list.

Never really got excited at Junior or Senior level.. still not sure what people like.. other than we took him with #2.

Leunberger was the better tall imho.. and we needed a ruckman... gee lewy would still be good.. ughhhh

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Yeah.. I think I may have been the only person not excited about Gumby.. cause many many arguments around these traps for years while he was on the list.

Never really got excited at Junior or Senior level.. still not sure what people like.. other than we took him with #2.

Leunberger was the better tall imho.. and we needed a ruckman... gee lewy would still be good.. ughhhh

That's a good video for a kid who still had another 2 inches to grow at that point.

 

[HirdyLannister]

That's a good video for a kid who still had another 2 inches to grow at that point.

Leroy Jetta a star!

 

[Drummer_19]

He was absolutely the correct pick, we were so thin for tall talent at the time that picking a mid would have been lol.

 

[Jobe]

I must admit, i laughed.

 

[Yoda_]

I must admit, i laughed.

"hey Nick, Nick, where's your Brownl..

Oh, never mind!"

 

[Essendonia]

Of course its a failed selection. All clubs have failed selections. And I forgot to mention that Mitch Thorp was pick 6 in the same draft. There is a theme in those 3 selections.

Of course it's a failure. But you've been rattling on that it's a failure due to (a) the player being s**t and (b) the recruiters not foreseeing this. This is a fallacy. It was a failure because he couldn't get on the park. End of story. Stop missing the point.

 

[yaco55]

The point is that the liberal use of the word 'failed' is seen as quite harsh when injuries robbed Gumby of any real chance of showing what he could do.

Doss

I am discussing a failed draft selection which is different to referring to a player. The fact is that the three dominant talls from the 2006 have had less than stellar careers.

 

[yaco55]

He was absolutely the correct pick, we were so thin for tall talent at the time that picking a mid would have been lol.

I have never said Gumby was the WRONG pick. All I've said is that the three gun talls, Gumbleton/Hansen/Thorp in the 2006 ND, haven't developed as expected and nothing that I've seen in their play screams OUT better than average/good players.

I am one who accepts that recruiters get it wrong sometimes, but others seem to believe there are other reasons.

 

[yaco55]

Of course it's a failure. But you've been rattling on that it's a failure due to (a) the player being s**t and (b) the recruiters not foreseeing this. This is a fallacy. It was a failure because he couldn't get on the park. End of story. Stop missing the point.

I have no doubt that Gumby is only an average player at AFL level. Not every player develops from their junior days. Do you realise that Jetta was rated in the top 3 players in the under 16's ! It happens !