TempleKelvington
Cancelled
- Sep 23, 2009
- 6,096
- 5,130
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Low - hence the rationale that if you want to develop AFL standard player in one position, you need depth in that area
Yeah exactly. We now have 6 on the list.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Low - hence the rationale that if you want to develop AFL standard player in one position, you need depth in that area
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.
Cats were going to Re-rookie Hamling, so no you can't draw that conclusion at all.North did intend to re-draft Delany but the Cats jumped in
The only conclusion you can draw is Geelong thought Delany was a better prospect than Hamling
What is actually hilarious is that people are actually arguing that our tall stocks are in good shape!!! Wowsers
Hasn't the number of around $800k been thrown around for Carlisle? That's Boyd like rates I think.
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.
Brilliant post. I think some knees have jerked a little too quickly.Too true... [I should've stopped the first time when I said I was going to! ]
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? (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...
So the Hawks and Swans have more than the Giants and Saints, where did each finish on the ladder again?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
Even higher according to some - it takes a bit extra to get players to leave a club (another tick in the draft & develop box)Hasn't the number of around $800k been thrown around for Carlisle? That's Boyd like rates I think.
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
Great post. Was thinking about writing something like this, then I read this post and glad to see some logic.Too true... [I should've stopped the first time when I said I was going to! ]
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? (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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow! That's called having your cake and eating it. Hard to argue against any of that, it makes so little sense.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.
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
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.Looks to me like there is some pretty robust discussion going on with a diversity of opinions.
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.