To tank or not to tank

[tigerT]

So why have Geelong & St Kilda been so good for the last 5-6 years and yet between them both they have less top 5 picks that we currently do? Can anyone answer that?!?

bc stkilda's strength today was built when they bottomd out 7-8 years ago when they got reiwoldt/kosi/dal santo/goddard al within a few years of each other with early picks. Geelong never bottomed out like the saints, true, but they were blessed with some father son picks which were the equivolent of top 3picks in ablett/scarlett and hawkins. Not to mention these sides had much better development resources in place and have been able to build a side around these a-graders. Plus saints got some handy comp for players like everitt and Hall, so they may not have had top 5 picks a plenty but they had plenty of 1st and 2nd rounders

I think its safe to say I have seen enough under the dimma regime that the development resurces have finally been put in place at richmond and regardless of PP's we will get better, but the PP's will give us that extra kick to start the climb that much quicker... Lids/Reiwoldt/Cotch & Martin will be A-graders, add 2-3 more potenial genuine A-graders this year and next and then you have 6-7 top shelf footballers you can build a club around.

 

[Barnzy]

So why have Geelong & St Kilda been so good for the last 5-6 years and yet between them both they have less top 5 picks that we currently do? Can anyone answer that?!?

Geelong aided by a few FS's and drafted better than us. St Kilda obviously used their draft picks better while we have thrown a lot of ours away. It's only logical to suggest earlier draft pick = better chance to pick up a better players because you're getting a bigger pool of players to choose from. Up to the club to use it wisely. Also logical to suggest extra pick (P.P) another chance to pick up a player that can take us forward. For example last year a 2nd round pick netted Fyfe and Bastinac in a supposed "weak draft". They would be best 22 players right now for us with ease and they both look like they will good players. We have that chance this year and also had that chance in previous years.

Also, your stat is a bit flawed. You can say we have a lot of our first-round picks on our list but that would also include rubbish we got from other clubs like Thomson, Hislop, McMahon and Polak that we should've never traded/picked up in the first place (mistakes made by previous regimes). Our rebuild started last year. It's about giving ourselves the best opportunity to get out of this whole. Why not take advantage of the system while we can? Winning games won't fix anything at the moment sadly because the list isn't good enough. The system rewards finishing as low as possible unless you win the premiership.

 

[camsmith]

I keep hearing that Geelong have been aided by FS... other than Ablett who do they have on their list through father-son? And please don't mention Blake.

And Barnzy I think Polak was a great pickup for us. The others, not so much. Although Hislop still has potential. Oh and our rebuild started beyond last year, you can't just ignore the good that TW did.

Great avatar btw. I love him.

Off topic... Saw a lot of Tiger boys at the Storm game tonight. Unusually Roberts and Alroy Gilligan were in one of those Richmond rusty type jumpers? Vickery, Martin, Nason and Tambling were also there I believe. Lucky buggers were in the corporate section. Had thoughts of sneaking in, but I didn't really look the part in my Storm gear.

 

[Barnzy]

I keep hearing that Geelong have been aided by FS... other than Ablett who do they have on their list through father-son? And please don't mention Blake.

Scarlett.

 

[camsmith]

Scarlett.

Fair point then.

Can build a side around Son of God and Scarlett.

 

[tigerT]

I keep hearing that Geelong have been aided by FS... other than Ablett who do they have on their list through father-son? And please don't mention Blake..

jeezuz i mentioned it 2 posts before yours...

I guess your posts don't get read on here unless you are one of the gang or you're a troll...

 

[_RT_]

bc stkilda's strength today was built when they bottomd out 7-8 years ago when they got reiwoldt/kosi/dal santo/goddard al within a few years of each other with early picks. Geelong never bottomed out like the saints, true, but they were blessed with some father son picks which were the equivolent of top 3picks in ablett/scarlett and hawkins. Not to mention these sides had much better development resources in place and have been able to build a side around these a-graders. Plus saints got some handy comp for players like everitt and Hall, so they may not have had top 5 picks a plenty but they had plenty of 1st and 2nd rounders

Who is to say that our strength for future years hasn't been established now with Deledio Cotchin Martin Riewoldt who were all picked up within a few years of each other.

I think its safe to say I have seen enough under the dimma regime that the development resurces have finally been put in place at richmond and regardless of PP's we will get better, but the PP's will give us that extra kick to start the climb that much quicker... Lids/Reiwoldt/Cotch & Martin will be A-graders, add 2-3 more potenial genuine A-graders this year and next and then you have 6-7 top shelf footballers you can build a club around.

Those other sides didn't recruit all their A graders with first round picks guys like Montagna, Fisher, Gilbert, Enright, Chapman, Ling & Johnson were all taken outside the first round while others like Kelly Hayes & Dal Santo were taken outside the top 10. They also built without the extra PP that many here seem to think will be the key to our success. IMO it comes down to recruiting and development and now that we're spending more money on these 2 areas its not as important to our future that we have to land a PP as it was in previous years.

As I've said all year if we end up with a PP come seasons end because we're truly not good enough to win games I'll wear it. However if, like we have shown, we're good enough to win games and deliberately go out and lose I can't accept that.

IMO you don't spend the whole season demanding that the players put their bodies on the line when it is their turn to go and then turn around, when you might lose pick 27 as a result of them doing just, and ask them/make moves that forces them to go away from that team rule. Once you do that it sends the wrong message to the group.

Geelong aided by a few FS's and drafted better than us. St Kilda obviously used their draft picks better while we have thrown a lot of ours away. It's only logical to suggest earlier draft pick = better chance to pick up a better players because you're getting a bigger pool of players to choose from. Up to the club to use it wisely. Also logical to suggest extra pick (P.P) another chance to pick up a player that can take us forward. For example last year a 2nd round pick netted Fyfe and Bastinac in a supposed "weak draft". They would be best 22 players right now for us with ease and they both look like they will good players. We have that chance this year and also had that chance in previous years.

So now that we're pouring more money into recruiting and development whats stopping us from also using our picks better. Having access to top end picks doesn't stop sides from making the wrong call. Hawthorn had a much better recruiting and development program than we did back in 2006, they picked Mitch Thorp at 6, who was delisted after playing 2 games in 3 years, the next pick was Selwood who has won 2 flags and we got Riewoldt at pick 13 that year after downgrading from pick 8. In 2005 the Hawks also had pick 6, their second top 10 pick that year and used it on Dowler who in 4.5 season has managed 16 games, next pick was Ryder who has played 85 and been a shining light for the Bombers over the last 18 months, picks 11-16 have also proved to be better players than Dowler. What does that say about your logic that having access to higher picks gives you a better chance of nabbing better players?

Also, your stat is a bit flawed. You can say we have a lot of our first-round picks on our list but that would also include rubbish we got from other clubs like Thomson, Hislop, McMahon and Polak that we should've never traded/picked up in the first place (mistakes made by previous regimes).

Actually its not flawed, the list I put up earlier just includes those we've drafted not guys like Thomson McMahon & Polak.

Our rebuild started last year.

Not if you read what Hardwick has to say on the subject, he believes the rebuild started back in 2004.

 

[camsmith]

jeezuz i mentioned it 2 posts before yours...

I guess your posts don't get read on here unless you are one of the gang or you're a troll...

Nah you need a pretty avatar that grabs my attention. sorry just missed your post. Oh and this board has a gang? How do I join?

 

[Barnzy]

So now that we're pouring more money into recruiting and development whats stopping us from also using our picks better. Having access to top end picks doesn't stop sides from making the wrong call. Hawthorn had a much better recruiting and development program than we did back in 2006, they picked Mitch Thorp at 6, who was delisted after playing 2 games in 3 years, the next pick was Selwood who has won 2 flags and we got Riewoldt at pick 13 that year after downgrading from pick 8. In 2005 the Hawks also had pick 6, their second top 10 pick that year and used it on Dowler who in 4.5 season has managed 16 games, next pick was Ryder who has played 85 and been a shining light for the Bombers over the last 18 months, picks 11-16 have also proved to be better players than Dowler. What does that say about your logic that having access to higher picks gives you a better chance of nabbing better players?

I see what you're saying, there's been plenty of examples of better players taken at later picks but there's also been plenty of examples of better players taken with earlier picks. Look over all the drafts, generally the creme of the crop is taken within the first few picks.

I don't know how anyone can suggest that having higher picks doesn't enhance your chances of getting a better player. For example, If you don't get a better player at pick 4 than pick 6, 8, etc it's just because you stuffed up, simple as that. If you have a higher pick you have a bigger pool of players to choose from than what you would with a lower pick. Also the P.P gives us another chance to add a quality player to the list. It's all about taking advantage of the system while we can and and giving ourselves the best possible chance to get out of this mess. Play the odds.

 

[acr2751]

I see what you're saying, there's been plenty of examples of better players taken at later picks but there's also been plenty of examples of better players taken with earlier picks. Look over all the drafts, generally the creme of the crop is taken within the first few picks.

I don't know how anyone can suggest that having higher picks doesn't enhance your chances of getting a better player. For example, If you don't get a better player at pick 4 than pick 6, 8, etc it's just because you stuffed up, simple as that. If you have a higher pick you have a bigger pool of players to choose from than what you would with a lower pick. Also the P.P gives us another chance to add a quality player to the list. It's all about taking advantage of the system while we can and and giving ourselves the best possible chance to get out of this mess. Play the odds.

i think most understand and agree with most of what you are saying and of course its better to have pick 1 than pick 2 or extra picks.
i personaly think tanking to take advantage of the system is cheating.

i really dont think dimma or the player would go down this track and if they did ill keep my hard earned.

 

[santa claws]

leslie lounder banik hooper hutton banfield gaspar white waterhouse gardiner johnstone headland fraser all number 1 picks all in the first 12 yrs of the draft look at the second twelve yrs and just look at the improvement in hits. and every yr we keep getting better at it.

to rt there are many things to look at when going the bottoming out route there are reasons why some clubs should and need togo down that path and there are reasons why some dont have to. few can argue geelong built its premiership on the back of two drafts they were lucky or smart enough to load up with kids on the back of strong drafts.but they were also lucky that they had a decent core group to build of.

sheesh in 2001 hodge ball judd im sure if geelong had finished last they would have taken one of them yet the 01 draft was strong enough to still have bartell at 8 kelly at 17 gardiner and s johnson at 23 24 g ablett at 40 playfair at 41 maccarthy at 69 and d jonston at 81. iw ould say none of those taken were as good as hodge and judd apart from say ablett who was a fs.
you really miss the point its not just about the top 5 picks its about minimising the risk and giving yourself the best possible chance of getting your hands on the few elite players that are taken each draft. its as much about pick 18 as it is about picks 1 thru 5.

and theres the other bit where there is still a chance at getting a kelly type in the late teens or early twentys what would be better tapscott or bastinac to go with martin and griffiths or winning two games when your season is shot.

i dont get the pigheadedness of some its been shown time and time again when you have a poor list winning late games when the season is done and dusted brings no gain to your club what so ever.

mate we arent geelong or stkilda geelong have been one of the most consistent sides in the comp sinse the mid 80s their circumstances and where they come from is totally different to us they havent needed pps and they havent had to practically build from the ground up.

you can say almost exactly the same thing about stkilda since the mid 90s they built of the nucleus of a gf side. yet they still bottomed out in 00 01. on the backs of two drafts stkilda became a finals contender again geelong did as well my argument with geelong would be is they have hardly ever not been a finals contender.

a question. from o2 who are the quality players geelong have drafted out side of selwood who they only aquired by having a poor yr finishing 10th in a yr there were no first rnd pps..
i think you will find their selections have been solid they have done well with the picks they have had in most cases. even as good as wells has been he hasnt managed to get his hands on real quality its been gobbled up well before their picks.

finally its 07 and melb win two of their last 4 games to finish on 5 wins. they not only miss out on pick 19 but the following yr when thay are truly woeful they miss out on pick 2 as well. how much better for them could it have been say ward at 18 and anyone of naitanui hill hartlett rich hurley to go with watts. they gave all that up and for what.

anyway im really over this debate ive made my position abundantly clear there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that will alter what i think is the correctness and common sense of that position.
like i said we have had 24 yrs of not bottoming out and not going thru the process that ive spoken about. i reckon its time we gave that process a go.

 

[JDC!]

Tanking doesn't exist in the form of teams going out there with the purpose of losing. The only form of tanking that exists is when teams plan for next year by sending important players in for surgery or getting as much games into the young players as possible.

 

[Dustin Credible]

i think most understand and agree with most of what you are saying and of course its better to have pick 1 than pick 2 or extra picks.
i personaly think tanking to take advantage of the system is cheating.

i really dont think dimma or the player would go down this track and if they did ill keep my hard earned.

I think, perhaps this is the crux of the issue. Maybe a better poll would've been is tanking cheating or not?

Does anyone know what the (tigers) player's opinions are regarding Melbourne and Carlton and the way they went about things?

 

[_RT_]

leslie lounder banik hooper hutton banfield gaspar white waterhouse gardiner johnstone headland fraser all number 1 picks all in the first 12 yrs of the draft look at the second twelve yrs and just look at the improvement in hits. and every yr we keep getting better at it.

to rt there are many things to look at when going the bottoming out route there are reasons why some clubs should and need togo down that path and there are reasons why some dont have to. few can argue geelong built its premiership on the back of two drafts they were lucky or smart enough to load up with kids on the back of strong drafts.but they were also lucky that they had a decent core group to build of.

sheesh in 2001 hodge ball judd im sure if geelong had finished last they would have taken one of them yet the 01 draft was strong enough to still have bartell at 8 kelly at 17 gardiner and s johnson at 23 24 g ablett at 40 playfair at 41 maccarthy at 69 and d jonston at 81. iw ould say none of those taken were as good as hodge and judd apart from say ablett who was a fs.
you really miss the point its not just about the top 5 picks its about minimising the risk and giving yourself the best possible chance of getting your hands on the few elite players that are taken each draft. its as much about pick 18 as it is about picks 1 thru 5.

and theres the other bit where there is still a chance at getting a kelly type in the late teens or early twentys what would be better tapscott or bastinac to go with martin and griffiths or winning two games when your season is shot.

i dont get the pigheadedness of some its been shown time and time again when you have a poor list winning late games when the season is done and dusted brings no gain to your club what so ever.

mate we arent geelong or stkilda geelong have been one of the most consistent sides in the comp sinse the mid 80s their circumstances and where they come from is totally different to us they havent needed pps and they havent had to practically build from the ground up.

you can say almost exactly the same thing about stkilda since the mid 90s they built of the nucleus of a gf side. yet they still bottomed out in 00 01. on the backs of two drafts stkilda became a finals contender again geelong did as well my argument with geelong would be is they have hardly ever not been a finals contender.

a question. from o2 who are the quality players geelong have drafted out side of selwood who they only aquired by having a poor yr finishing 10th in a yr there were no first rnd pps..
i think you will find their selections have been solid they have done well with the picks they have had in most cases. even as good as wells has been he hasnt managed to get his hands on real quality its been gobbled up well before their picks.

finally its 07 and melb win two of their last 4 games to finish on 5 wins. they not only miss out on pick 19 but the following yr when thay are truly woeful they miss out on pick 2 as well. how much better for them could it have been say ward at 18 and anyone of naitanui hill hartlett rich hurley to go with watts. they gave all that up and for what.

anyway im really over this debate ive made my position abundantly clear there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that will alter what i think is the correctness and common sense of that position.
like i said we have had 24 yrs of not bottoming out and not going thru the process that ive spoken about. i reckon its time we gave that process a go.

As I said I'm playing devils advocate here. If we qualify for the PP at the end of the year through not being good enough then we take it and move on, if we don't qualify then I would hope that those who are more pro bottoming out than others would see that as a sign that the kids are improving faster than expected rather than being a team that has won meaningless games on the back of older players getting the job done.

One thing I'll leave you with, since 2003 we've finished 16th, 12th, 9th, 16th, 9th & 15th as well as a probable 16th this year and in that time we've added: Deledio Tambling Reiwoldt Cotchin Martin & Vickery as quality first rounders as well as players like Edwards McGuane Graham Connors Collins Post Griffiths Astbury Nason & Webberley who are starting to like they could be solid core list players and you could suggest that our rebuild started back in 04, in fact I know that Hardwick believes that to be the case.

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

Exactly RT, Hardwick always new he had a bit to work with . It's just a pity all the players we should have at the club from the Frawley and Wallace eras because of recycling aren't around the club to be guided by Hardwick and his team.

He'll Id give my left nut to have the two kids I think picks 35 & 52 from the 2008 draft running around for us now. Hislop and Thomson may as well be called Tim Fleming and Billy Nichols

 

[tigerT]

Who is to say that our strength for future years hasn't been established now with Deledio Cotchin Martin Riewoldt who were all picked up within a few years of each other.



Those other sides didn't recruit all their A graders with first round picks guys like Montagna, Fisher, Gilbert, Enright, Chapman, Ling & Johnson were all taken outside the first round while others like Kelly Hayes & Dal Santo were taken outside the top 10. They also built without the extra PP that many here seem to think will be the key to our success. IMO it comes down to recruiting and development and now that we're spending more money on these 2 areas its not as important to our future that we have to land a PP as it was in previous years.

As I've said all year if we end up with a PP come seasons end because we're truly not good enough to win games I'll wear it. However if, like we have shown, we're good enough to win games and deliberately go out and lose I can't accept that.

You fail to mention that in my post that you quoted, I mentioned that the saints may not have had many top 5 picks but they had plenty of 1st and 2nd rounders which netted them players like dal santo, montagna, hayes et al. You still can get some very good players in the 2nd round, they were able to get a headstart by getting extra draft picks from players like Hall and Everitt. This gave them enough quality to build around.

Geelong always had a quality side like claw said as well as the necessary resources to nurture and develop, add a couple of cracking f/s picks as well as using the draft effectively and there you have it. Both these sides were in a much better space than we are now, they had something top build upon, some class, some extra draft picks, we are building from scratch and only now our nucleus/core of lids/martin/cotch/reiwoldt is being setup. We need an extra kick that a few extra bluechip draft picks will give us

 

[Azzleberry]

Never thought I would say this, but I agree largely to what Santa Claws has stated above..Well to most of it anyway!

 

[the ranger]

I'm pretty sure the players and coach are with us delusional types who don't want to tank.

 

[Bruce Monteath]

Santa, I couldn't agree more. I've seen too many "rebuilds" to want to see another one ****ed up. It's not even about ****ing it up, it's about giving this rebuild the best opportunity to succeed.

Simple logic would dictate that any team would prefer pick number 4 over pick 15, 10 or even pick 5 but simple logic is sometimes defied here.

No worries, let's win a couple of meaningless games over the next couple of months and carry that momentum right into next year. It did wonders for us in 2008/09.

 

[the ranger]

Simple logic would dictate that any team would prefer pick number 4 over pick 15, 10 or even pick 5 but simple logic is sometimes defied here.

No-one is arguing that pick 15, 10 or 5 is better than pick 4. The argument is about whether we should stoop to the level of Carlton and cheat the system. The anti-tankers (thankfully the majority and most likely all the people that count within the club) don't think we should sabotage our own season and teach our young players that it's okay to lose. It's about whether we have enough pride to turn up every week hoping for a win or disgrace ourselves by cheering for the opposition.

 

[Bruce Monteath]

No-one is arguing that pick 15, 10 or 5 is better than pick 4. The argument is about whether we should stoop to the level of Carlton and cheat the system. The anti-tankers (thankfully the majority and most likely all the people that count within the club) don't think we should sabotage our own season and teach our young players that it's okay to lose. It's about whether we have enough pride to turn up every week hoping for a win or disgrace ourselves by cheering for the opposition.

I don't believe anyone on this side of the argument is advocating cheating or even throwing a game. I certainly don't. The only strategies I'd like to employ are to keep playing the youngest kids, perhaps resting Axel for the rest of the year and making decisions at the selection table that take a long term view.

People have this romantic view of doing it the "noble" way, which is nice but not the most pragmatic to a club in our situation.

In reference to your remark about those who matter at the club... as much as he annoys me, you would not find many more passionate clubman than Clarkson - remind me what sort of strategy won him a a flag again?

Honestly, I think we will win a few no matter what we do from here on in and if that is the case, so be it, there will be none cheering harder than me.

 

[HobarTiger]

I don't believe anyone on this side of the argument is advocating cheating or even throwing a game. I certainly don't. The only strategies I'd like to employ are to keep playing the youngest kids, perhaps resting Axel for the rest of the year and making decisions at the selection table that take a long term view.

People have this romantic view of doing it the "noble" way, which is nice but not he most pragmatic to a club in our situation.

In reference to your remark about those who matter at the club... as much as he annoys me, you would not find many more passionate clubman than Clarkson - remind me what sort of strategy won him a a flag again?

Honestly, I think we will win a few no matter what we do from here on in and if that is the case, so be it, there will be none cheering harder than me.

Agree with the sentiment here and Claws arguemnt has swayed me. Only thing I don't want to see is Hardwick changing the gameplan and the intensity the team is playing with to 'manufacture <5 wins and 16th. Happy to experiment with personnel, perhaps even bringing someone like McMahon in for a game or 2.

On last season I think the Board made a massive mistake in not instructing Rawlings and the footy department to pull their horns in. You have to remember Rawlings was an applicant for the Coaching job and what better way to ice your CV than with a few wins as caretaker, meaningless or not. He should have been instructed to use strategies (more kids) to ensure we stayed under the 5 wins. After the first half of the season it should have been a no brainer.

With the development we are seeing in the kids as the season progresses we are a chance to again win more than 5 and even hand the spoon to another team. I don't think this achieves anything as in all likelihood we have only beaten teams that are going to be with us in the bottom 4.

The coming draft is probably the last chance, if our development continues, to take advantage, even if the pickings are slim. The strategy must be to get 3-5 top 35 picks through draft position and trading if at all possible.

We still need another clean out and the addition of more quality in the starting 22 and for depth. The lack of game time for Morton Polo Thursfield may provide us with a little ammunition at the trade table as they now appear on the outer.

 

[coke_zero]

Tanking doesn't exist in the form of teams going out there with the purpose of losing. The only form of tanking that exists is when teams plan for next year by sending important players in for surgery or getting as much games into the young players as possible.

Well, Lets tank then.

 

[NQTIGER]

Agree with the sentiment here and Claws arguemnt has swayed me. Only thing I don't want to see is Hardwick changing the gameplan and the intensity the team is playing with to 'manufacture <5 wins and 16th. Happy to experiment with personnel, perhaps even bringing someone like McMahon in for a game or 2.

On last season I think the Board made a massive mistake in not instructing Rawlings and the footy department to pull their horns in. You have to remember Rawlings was an applicant for the Coaching job and what better way to ice your CV than with a few wins as caretaker, meaningless or not. He should have been instructed to use strategies (more kids) to ensure we stayed under the 5 wins. After the first half of the season it should have been a no brainer.

With the development we are seeing in the kids as the season progresses we are a chance to again win more than 5 and even hand the spoon to another team. I don't think this achieves anything as in all likelihood we have only beaten teams that are going to be with us in the bottom 4.

The coming draft is probably the last chance, if our development continues, to take advantage, even if the pickings are slim. The strategy must be to get 3-5 top 35 picks through draft position and trading if at all possible.

We still need another clean out and the addition of more quality in the starting 22 and for depth. The lack of game time for Morton Polo Thursfield may provide us with a little ammunition at the trade table as they now appear on the outer.

Because Rawlings was an applicant that was never going to happen, they should have kept terry till the end of the season to guarantee the draft picks.

Can you imagine if the board had instructed Rawlings to be creative and then he leaves and blurts like the worm did to carlton........except we arent carlton we would have been hung drawn and quartered by the Media and The AFL.

They should have appointed a lame duck if they didnt want wallace, give it to someone like north did.

 

[_RT_]

You fail to mention that in my post that you quoted, I mentioned that the saints may not have had many top 5 picks but they had plenty of 1st and 2nd rounders which netted them players like dal santo, montagna, hayes et al. You still can get some very good players in the 2nd round, they were able to get a headstart by getting extra draft picks from players like Hall and Everitt. This gave them enough quality to build around.

Just to clear up a few points:

Montagna was taken with pick 37 not a first round pick like you suggest.
Dal Santo was picked up as a result of the Hall trade to Sydney which also netted the Saints Heath Black.
The Everitt trade netted the Saints picks 6 & 22 which the Saints then traded pick 6 & 31 on to Port for Barry Brooks while pick 22 netted them Matthew Ferguson a player whose career ended after 12 games.

In summary for trading away both Hall and Everitt the Saints gained Dal Santo & Black who were of any real service and Dal Santo was the only one who was around long enough to play in last year GF.

Geelong always had a quality side like claw said as well as the necessary resources to nurture and develop, add a couple of cracking f/s picks as well as using the draft effectively and there you have it. Both these sides were in a much better space than we are now, they had something top build upon, some class, some extra draft picks, we are building from scratch and only now our nucleus/core of lids/martin/cotch/reiwoldt is being setup. We need an extra kick that a few extra bluechip draft picks will give us

By the end of this season we'll have Deledio(1) Cotchin(2) Martin(3) Tambling(4) & pick 4 thats 5 top 5 picks, plus handy first rounders in Vickery(8) & Riewoldt(13).

Surely thats enough top end talent to start winning games next year rather than going through another season of aiming to win no more than 4 games in the hope that picks 4 & 6(could be 8 if GC finish last) next year will solve our problems.

What happens if after adding picks 4, 4, 6(8), 27, 28 & 29 over the next 2 years we still find ourselves struggling to win games?