Western Bulldogs Limbo Club

Remove this Banner Ad

Mate you might be right. I hoped and thought we should be into Boyd and Patton. I hope you are right. But we can't afford to pay Boyd like rates again, it just creates another list imbalance in the form of salary and opens other players up to be targeted.

What makes you think we would pay "Boyd like rates" to a key defender from another club? There are good points to support your argument, but that's just not one of them.
 

BRWB

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts The Cult of Robbo
Oct 7, 2012
15,839
24,196
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
What makes you think we would pay "Boyd like rates" to a key defender from another club? There are good points to support your argument, but that's just not one of them.

Hasn't the number of around $800k been thrown around for Carlisle? That's Boyd like rates I think.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

What is actually hilarious is that people are actually arguing that our tall stocks are in good shape!!! Wowsers :confused::confused::confused:


They might not be in good shape but how is adding two or three more speculative talls going to help?

Should we have used a pick on guys like Kietel who weren't picked by any club? Maybe we should have used a pick in the 20s on Oscar McDonald, instead of him sliding to the 50s
 
Hasn't the number of around $800k been thrown around for Carlisle? That's Boyd like rates I think.

I doubt we'd pay Carlisle $850k and I'm pretty sure he won't leave Essendon.

If we target a proven key defender we probably won't try to get the best and highest paid KPD in the competition - we could better use the money elsewhere.

I don't think it helps the credibility of your argument to suggest that bringing in a mature key defender from another club requires us to pay $850k to $1M to that player.
 

stefoid

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 8, 2002
16,838
7,925
home
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Those @#$#@ expansion clubs man - we need to pick up a quality young defender or forward.

We owe the Suns one for Harbrow. We pretty much got GWS back, I think, although I wouldnt be crying if we squeezed another tall out of them either.
 
Mate I can't speak for Mofra. Concerns as follows:

1 - We again recruited other clubs' delistees (Kelly and Hamling). This is a proven low percentage way of getting good AFL players (others recruited by Simon are Markovic and Austin)

3 - Boyd was great but realistically our hand was forced by Griffen (and Boyd's salary may create salary imbalance in our list)

5 - In the last three drafts we have not drafted anyone over 192cm. The argument is either we don't need them or they weren't there. However viritually every draft has tall players picked later that are end up competent or better AFL players. And its seems we relying on two players (Talia and Fletch) when they couldn't beat Austin into last season's team. The other KPD is Roughhead who has questions over his fitness and speed #


Of course there are arguments against everything I've said and we have really done it all to death a bit. Hope that sums up my view in a relatively succinct manner.

Too true... ;) [I should've stopped the first time when I said I was going to! :p ]

But you really do seem to hammering away on point 5!!...and in isolation it could be relevant, but look at the drafts, and the names...you have not once offered an alternative. Not once. Why?? Is it because there simply weren't any better alternatives?

Because I'm a sucker ( ;) ) I'll do the leg work for you...

2012: McRae and/or Stringer could have been Grundy. Yeah?...Naaaa.
Hrovat could have been O'Brien, McBean, Colledge (based in Perth, recruited by WCE *) or Mason Wood. Meh.
Hunter and/or Pruden could have been Currie. Maybe. [But if we get Pruden and not Hunter still the debate rages on...]

2013: Bont. Fuller. Honeychurch.

Ben Brown was a possibility late (which to be fair a couple have mentioned...), but other than that, crickets...

2014: I'm finding it really hard to see the anger here. Lamb, Howe, V-W, McGovern...all 192cm or less. ;)
Which leaves McDonald (who a few here seem to legitimately not rate.), Pittonet (ruck, rather than KPD/F...but I do think we are thin in that area, so yeah...), and Dear (who Hawthorn didn't rate highly enough to f/s.)
A couple of others people have been screaming about didn't even get rookie'd.

It's just not as bad as you're making it look (intentionally or not).


3. "Forced" maybe. But everything points to us knowing it was going to happen mid-year. 3-4 months of maneuvering/negotiating isn't really blind luck at the end of the day.

1. Again, you keep saying this. Give us a number...

Sure, it's not going to be high, but as mentioned previously, Spangher effectively got cut twice. He's done alright.

I'd also suggest (without any evidence at all) that our current de-listee's could well be better than most, given the talent that is established in the Geelong backline, and a Hawthorn team full of elite talent both back and midfield.
Some times, logically enough, it's lack opportunity as much as talent that is holding back a career.


* May be the budget and therefore size of our recruiting team is a legitimate issue? o_O (It would be interesting to see the spending of all the teams on recruiting staff.)

# I also find it interesting that a few people here are effectively saying Austin -> Talia/Fletcher (and yes, games played back that up!), yet here we are with Austin gone...
Just interesting...
 
Last edited:
Feb 11, 2008
15,698
28,421
West Footscray
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls
Too true... ;) [I should've stopped the first time when I said I was going to! :p ]

But you really do seem to hammering away on point 5!!...and in isolation it could be relevant, but look at the drafts, and the names...you have not once offered an alternative. Not once. Why?? Is it because there simply weren't any better alternatives?

Because I'm a sucker ( ;) ) I'll do the leg work for you...

2012: McRae and/or Stringer could have been Grundy. Yeah?...Naaaa.
Hrovat could have been O'Brien, McBean, Colledge (based in Perth, recruited by WCE *) or Mason Wood. Meh.
Hunter and/or Pruden could have been Currie. Maybe. [But if we get Pruden and not Hunter still the debate rages on...]

2013: Bont. Fuller. Honeychurch.

Ben Brown was a possibility late (which to be fair a couple have mentioned...), but other than that, crickets...

2014: I'm finding it really hard to see the anger here. Lamb, Howe, V-W, McGovern...all 192cm or less. ;)
Which leaves McDonald (who a few here seem to legitimately not rate.), Pittonet (ruck, rather than KPD/F...but I do think we are thin in that area, so yeah...), and Dear (who Hawthorn didn't rate highly enough to f/s.)
A couple of others people have been screaming about didn't even get rookie'd.

It's just not as bad as you're making it look (intentionally or not).


3. "Forced" maybe. But everything points to us knowing it was going to happen mid-year. 3-4 months of maneuvering/negotiating isn't really blind luck at the end of the day.

1. Again, you keep saying this. Give us a number...

Sure, it's not going to be high, but as mentioned previously, Spangher effectively got cut twice. He's done alright.

I'd also suggest (without any evidence at all) that our current de-listee's could well be better than most, given the talent that is established in the Geelong backline, and a Hawthorn team full of elite talent both back and midfield.
Some times, logically enough, it's lack opportunity as much as talent that is holding back a career.


* May be the budget and therefore size of our recruiting team is a legitimate issue? o_O (It would be interesting to see the spending of all the teams on recruiting staff.)

# I also find it interesting that a few people here are effectively saying Austin -> Talia/Fletcher (and yes, games played back that up!), yet here we are with Austin gone...
Just interesting...
Brilliant post. I think some knees have jerked a little too quickly.
 

JJHunter

Club Legend
Jan 15, 2008
2,390
2,119
Toorak
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
19 of our total list (inc rookies are 183cm or under)

A few random checks ....
Hawks have 16
Swans have 17
Giants, Saints have 15
Tigers have 16
Freo 14
 
19 of our total list (inc rookies are 183cm or under)

A few random checks ....
Hawks have 16
Swans have 17
Giants, Saints have 15
Tigers have 16
Freo 14
So the Hawks and Swans have more than the Giants and Saints, where did each finish on the ladder again?
 
Hasn't the number of around $800k been thrown around for Carlisle? That's Boyd like rates I think.
Even higher according to some - it takes a bit extra to get players to leave a club (another tick in the draft & develop box)
I rate Carlisle higher than Mr $700k pa Frawley and Carlisle has shown far more forward so has flexibility on his side as well.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gmod23

Club Legend
Nov 16, 2012
1,881
1,135
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Ravens
Too true... ;) [I should've stopped the first time when I said I was going to! :p ]

But you really do seem to hammering away on point 5!!...and in isolation it could be relevant, but look at the drafts, and the names...you have not once offered an alternative. Not once. Why?? Is it because there simply weren't any better alternatives?

Because I'm a sucker ( ;) ) I'll do the leg work for you...

2012: McRae and/or Stringer could have been Grundy. Yeah?...Naaaa.
Hrovat could have been O'Brien, McBean, Colledge (based in Perth, recruited by WCE *) or Mason Wood. Meh.
Hunter and/or Pruden could have been Currie. Maybe. [But if we get Pruden and not Hunter still the debate rages on...]

2013: Bont. Fuller. Honeychurch.

Ben Brown was a possibility late (which to be fair a couple have mentioned...), but other than that, crickets...

2014: I'm finding it really hard to see the anger here. Lamb, Howe, V-W, McGovern...all 192cm or less. ;)
Which leaves McDonald (who a few here seem to legitimately not rate.), Pittonet (ruck, rather than KPD/F...but I do think we are thin in that area, so yeah...), and Dear (who Hawthorn didn't rate highly enough to f/s.)
A couple of others people have been screaming about didn't even get rookie'd.

It's just not as bad as you're making it look (intentionally or not).


3. "Forced" maybe. But everything points to us knowing it was going to happen mid-year. 3-4 months of maneuvering/negotiating isn't really blind luck at the end of the day.

1. Again, you keep saying this. Give us a number...

Sure, it's not going to be high, but as mentioned previously, Spangher effectively got cut twice. He's done alright.

I'd also suggest (without any evidence at all) that our current de-listee's could well be better than most, given the talent that is established in the Geelong backline, and a Hawthorn team full of elite talent both back and midfield.
Some times, logically enough, it's lack opportunity as much as talent that is holding back a career.


* May be the budget and therefore size of our recruiting team is a legitimate issue? o_O (It would be interesting to see the spending of all the teams on recruiting staff.)

# I also find it interesting that a few people here are effectively saying Austin -> Talia/Fletcher (and yes, games played back that up!), yet here we are with Austin gone...
Just interesting...
Great post. Was thinking about writing something like this, then I read this post and glad to see some logic.
 

JJHunter

Club Legend
Jan 15, 2008
2,390
2,119
Toorak
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm not sure I get the point. If you have some correlation to this fact and wining games then I'm more interested, otherwise what difference does it make?

I just posted to generate some conversation. You can make of it anything you want to make of it.
Im through putting out an "opinion" for discussion just to be howled down by the defensive mob that that jump on anyone who evens thinks about questioning club direction.
 

TempleKelvington

Cancelled
Sep 23, 2009
6,096
5,130
Out searching for omens pointing to our next flag.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I just posted to generate some conversation. You can make of it anything you want to make of it.
Im through putting out an "opinion" for discussion just to be howled down by the defensive mob that that jump on anyone who evens thinks about questioning club direction.

I thought I was generating conversation by replying and wanting to expand on what you said and understand what it means to have 19 players at 183cm or less. What you said was more of here are the facts....but there was no opinion as to what it means or what it might mean. Is there any correlation to being successful or not.

Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? I suspect you think it's a bad thing?

There was nothing to "howl" down because I don't know what your opinion is.
 

TempleKelvington

Cancelled
Sep 23, 2009
6,096
5,130
Out searching for omens pointing to our next flag.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Too true... ;)

3. "Forced" maybe. But everything points to us knowing it was going to happen mid-year. 3-4 months of maneuvering/negotiating isn't really blind luck at the end of the day.

The only thing forced was the recruiting him this year instead of next. Griffin leaving gave us the ability to make it happen this year. He was coming to the Dogs next year.
 

JJHunter

Club Legend
Jan 15, 2008
2,390
2,119
Toorak
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I thought I was generating conversation by replying and wanting to expand on what you said and understand what it means to have 19 players at 183cm or less. What you said was more of here are the facts....but there was no opinion as to what it means or what it might mean. Is there any correlation to being successful or not.

Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? I suspect you think it's a bad thing?
There was nothing to "howl" down because I don't know what your opinion is.

Yes I think its a bad thing - But I am not going to try and change the opinions of those that have a differing one.
Ill keep dropping facts and figures out there and people can make of them what they want to.

But as you asked personally I think that there are only so many spots for small guys in a side and we have the balance too screwed into depth in that area while not having depth in other areas. You see posters can say that there was no depth of talls after pick 20 this year but the facts are these....

1) There was an average of near on 2 players per side drafted (national or rookie) over 193cm this year - The bulldogs drafted none.
I'm not talking trade period.... I am talking draft - a draft that people like to say didn't have any talented talls.
Throw hamling at me and ill tell you he weighs less than most of the draftees and isn't a type to play on a Kennedy and co.
Throw boyd at me and Ill tell you he wont be playing great footy for two more years until he develops.

2) Next years draft crop is a midfielders draft - other sides picked up on that and loaded up this year.

3) A side like Sydney (who have the highest number of <183cm players on their list behind us) drafted in the rookie draft a kid called Sean Mclaren. A key back/ruckman. He may well turn out to be a dud - but I dont care - they didnt take a 31yo who has shown not to be up to it at the senior level already - they took a chance on a kid who may turn into the next dean cox off the rookie list or numerous other rookies who make it. But they took a chance. A chance I would have been happy to take.

But none of that matters. Because there will always be those who say everything is going to be alright.
Our list if out of balance - that is my opinion and I say it not to get a response from the "Defenders" but because you asked me.
I'm not even interested in what the "Defenders" have to say about it because that is my opinion.

Over the last 12 months ive raised concerns over the coach and towards the end of the season the unity and happiness of the playing group.
And yes I and other were continually howled down for trying to raise genuine concerns. We didn't say stuff to be alarmest but we said them to provide some perspective on what was actually happening. So excuse me if I do not wish to entertain the defenders this time around.
 
I just posted to generate some conversation. You can make of it anything you want to make of it.
Im through putting out an "opinion" for discussion just to be howled down by the defensive mob that that jump on anyone who evens thinks about questioning club direction.

It's a weak stance you take by attacking those who don't agree with you of being club sycophants. It tells the world you can't add anything of substance to support your cause.
 

Black Dog

Senior List
Feb 15, 2007
174
154
North Parkville North
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Mansfield Eagles, Bonnie Doon Dogs
Yes I think its a bad thing - But I am not going to try and change the opinions of those that have a differing one.
Ill keep dropping facts and figures out there and people can make of them what they want to.

But as you asked personally I think that there are only so many spots for small guys in a side and we have the balance too screwed into depth in that area while not having depth in other areas. You see posters can say that there was no depth of talls after pick 20 this year but the facts are these....

1) There was an average of near on 2 players per side drafted (national or rookie) over 193cm this year - The bulldogs drafted none.
I'm not talking trade period.... I am talking draft - a draft that people like to say didn't have any talented talls.
Throw hamling at me and ill tell you he weighs less than most of the draftees and isn't a type to play on a Kennedy and co.
Throw boyd at me and Ill tell you he wont be playing great footy for two more years until he develops.


2) Next years draft crop is a midfielders draft - other sides picked up on that and loaded up this year.

3) A side like Sydney (who have the highest number of <183cm players on their list behind us) drafted in the rookie draft a kid called Sean Mclaren. A key back/ruckman. He may well turn out to be a dud - but I dont care - they didnt take a 31yo who has shown not to be up to it at the senior level already - they took a chance on a kid who may turn into the next dean cox off the rookie list or numerous other rookies who make it. But they took a chance. A chance I would have been happy to take.

But none of that matters. Because there will always be those who say everything is going to be alright.
Our list if out of balance - that is my opinion and I say it not to get a response from the "Defenders" but because you asked me.
I'm not even interested in what the "Defenders" have to say about it because that is my opinion.

Over the last 12 months ive raised concerns over the coach and towards the end of the season the unity and happiness of the playing group.
And yes I and other were continually howled down for trying to raise genuine concerns. We didn't say stuff to be alarmest but we said them to provide some perspective on what was actually happening. So excuse me if I do not wish to entertain the defenders this time around.
Wow! That's called having your cake and eating it. Hard to argue against any of that, it makes so little sense.
 
This board is becoming the ministry of disinformation and propaganda

The new coach is a genius
The recruiters can do no wrong
All the draftees are guns

We could win the 2015 flag by the time February comes around

Then in April there will be a reckoning

:drunk: Looks to me like there is some pretty robust discussion going on with a diversity of opinions.
 

Black Dog

Senior List
Feb 15, 2007
174
154
North Parkville North
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Mansfield Eagles, Bonnie Doon Dogs
:drunk: Looks to me like there is some pretty robust discussion going on with a diversity of opinions.
I think on this particular issue there isn't much disagreement in the premise that our list is a little light on for KPPs, however the idea that we can somehow pick up speculative talls late in the PS draft or rookie draft without creating a clutch of list cloggers, I believe, is flawed.

*(I know most would view Goodes as a classic list clogger but he was our 4th pick in rookie draft)
 

TempleKelvington

Cancelled
Sep 23, 2009
6,096
5,130
Out searching for omens pointing to our next flag.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Yes I think its a bad thing - But I am not going to try and change the opinions of those that have a differing one.
Ill keep dropping facts and figures out there and people can make of them what they want to.

But as you asked personally I think that there are only so many spots for small guys in a side and we have the balance too screwed into depth in that area while not having depth in other areas. You see posters can say that there was no depth of talls after pick 20 this year but the facts are these....

1) There was an average of near on 2 players per side drafted (national or rookie) over 193cm this year - The bulldogs drafted none.
I'm not talking trade period.... I am talking draft - a draft that people like to say didn't have any talented talls.
Throw hamling at me and ill tell you he weighs less than most of the draftees and isn't a type to play on a Kennedy and co.
Throw boyd at me and Ill tell you he wont be playing great footy for two more years until he develops.

2) Next years draft crop is a midfielders draft - other sides picked up on that and loaded up this year.

3) A side like Sydney (who have the highest number of <183cm players on their list behind us) drafted in the rookie draft a kid called Sean Mclaren. A key back/ruckman. He may well turn out to be a dud - but I dont care - they didnt take a 31yo who has shown not to be up to it at the senior level already - they took a chance on a kid who may turn into the next dean cox off the rookie list or numerous other rookies who make it. But they took a chance. A chance I would have been happy to take.

But none of that matters. Because there will always be those who say everything is going to be alright.
Our list if out of balance - that is my opinion and I say it not to get a response from the "Defenders" but because you asked me.
I'm not even interested in what the "Defenders" have to say about it because that is my opinion.

Over the last 12 months ive raised concerns over the coach and towards the end of the season the unity and happiness of the playing group.
And yes I and other were continually howled down for trying to raise genuine concerns. We didn't say stuff to be alarmest but we said them to provide some perspective on what was actually happening. So excuse me if I do not wish to entertain the defenders this time around.

I am all for people with different opinions and perspective otherwise I would come on here. I don't think you should sell yourself short by not wanting to debate your point.

I agree with some of what you are saying, I also like the look of Mclaren he was on my list of ones I wanted in the rookie draft, but he was the only one of about 5 that got picked up. So clearly they weren't seen by any club to be that special at this time. So not sure we would have been wise to jump on them just because we want a developing KP.

I will offer this. What the club is doing is far more calculated than we might think.

The club has stated that all the players they drafted could all play in at least 2 positions and some 3. A Hawk poster in another thread mentioned that Kelly could also play midfield and I have also heard that Zcordy could play on wing at times too. The club is building up a list of skilled mids and skilled KP prospects with some of them capable of playing serious midfield. Stringer and Bontempelli are seriously big mids who can hold down position in the forward line. Bonts could even play CHF. If they progress the way it looks like they will. Throw in Zcordy and Kelly as part of that midfield rotation and you can start to understand why we need that outside polish.

My take on in the recruitment in the last few years is that we want a core group of contested ball junkies, some taller big bodies mids who can play KP and around that real flare and polish. I think it's been very strategic, the recruitment has been dictated somewhat by what was available at our picks. I say that because I think we know we need some additional KP players with size, but the best ones were gone before our picks so we focused on the mids and got the best available that fit that need.

This has not happened without a lot of thought. Everything they have been doing is calculated. Boyd was calculated, moving on Cooney was calculated. They tried to lure Lonergan, they missed out. They know we need KP players. They went after KP guys who have been in the system a few years rather than speculative 18 years olds and only time will tell if that works out, but again they have thought it through. Perhaps Kelly is someone they wanted more for his midfield potential as mentioned.

I don't care about the size of the players on the list. Love the big mids a lot but what I value more is pure skill and determination to win the ball. For a while now we have been a poorly skilled team. Bit by bit we are letting go of the ones that don't have the skills required. Turnovers kill you.

I think we have drafted the right types of players. Time will tell if they are the right players. If it goes to plan we will have a team full of multi positional midfielders with enormous skill. We will have a blend of taller and smaller mids combinations. We will have depth in our list. We will have a genuine gun FF with a number of cleaver players at his feet and some able big support.

Rome was not built in a day and we will address the KP defensive positions when the right opportunities come along and that is assuming current guys don't make the grade. I suspect we will go again next year at a KP player from another club and who knows maybe they already have him.
 
In the cold hard light of day, the only proof that this strategy has been the right one for us is a premiership in the next 5 to 7 years, which takes allot of luck into account as well.

Any other discussion in merely peoples opinions, neither right nor wrong
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back