You're talking about a multiple goal scenario. Yes, we absolutely pick a side to win each win but it's balanced with an eye to the future. It's what BS meant when he spoke about playing the Farewell Four if 2017 was the last year on earth - that would be going all out with no eye to the future, and it's what we are stepping away from. Which is a good plan.Sorry you are right, I was more thinking about selecting a team with less chance of winning, you still try your guts out.
Suxb moves would be playing Mountford over Gibson, Hibberd over Gibson, Vickers-Willis instead of a Wright or an Atley. Dumont instead of Swallow. Durdin/McKay instead of Petrie etc
We might get worse, we might improve... I obviously prefer the latter, however I'm happy to go through 2 years of absolute pain to stockpile what we need for the next 7-10 years.
I'm unsure of your own definition of aggressive reset, but to me that is what it entails.
To me, aggressive reset, rebuild, refresh, are all meaningless terms. Every side does the same thing every year - you decide what you want to achieve in the short and long term and you work towards that. My personal view is that we need some experienced heads around and to inject a few young players at the start, then give priority to younger players whenever a vacancy appears in the firsts. Banish the phrase "not ready" from the lexicon, give them a go and see what happens.
Gibson is an absolute must in the side for mine for the first half of 2017, but his spot is up for grabs beyond that. He is grossly undervalued by many in this forum, but if someone younger can take his place, then brilliant.