Bluemour Discussion Thread IV

[Mr_Plow]

Maybe SOS isn't a divine being.

But, when I praise his work, the comparator is the legacy left by Hughes and Rogers.

 

[Pafloyul]

My 2 bobs:

It is far too early to make a call on the 2E trade. Marchbank may go on to be a multiple All Australian and Pickett may become a 200 game norm smith medalist. The jury is still well and truly out. It is quite conceivable, probable arguably, that this trade may turn out in the long run to be a win for CFC. But to say that that trade was stupid would be premature and an ill-conceived statement.

Re SOS's impact/competence generally - he has generally shown himself to be very astute and hard lined. I think with SOS, and Bolton, any judgment will need to be reserved to allow the rebuild period to transpire, as their actions, and the decisions they are making, are geared toward success and results in 2019 not 2017. Thanks,

My main concern is us bringing in too many serviceable types that only have a career at the club of about 3 years max and just add to the list of those who will need to eventually be replaced if we are to become a premiership contender. I like SOS's drafting but he seems to be a bit too generous at giving players a chance who we can't accommodate. We need to delist six senior players minimum for the next three years and try to replace them with players in it for the long haul. Not impossible but I hope the club start to realise that the second hand recruiting needs to be paired down and to become more precise.

 

[passmark]

It's agro.

Lose a few games and he just becomes a miserable campaigner. Everything is ****ed and he would have done better..................in hindsight.

 

[Mr_Plow]

SOS wasn't dealt a great hand when he arrived from GWS but he has played that hand almost perfectly. He hasn't nailed every trade but he has done very nicely leveraging a very ordinary list into some top end talent through excellent drafting. There are a few placeholders / deadwood for want of a better term but it goes with the territory when you turn over huge numbers as we have done the last couple of years.

I miss Tuohy for his elite kicking but we're trying to build a young elite list not a mediocre older list, and sometimes you have to give away talent to achieve that.

Precisely, SOS has unfortunately/fortunately had to sacrifice some players that were entering/in their prime (Tuohy, Henderson, Yarran, Bell, Menzel) to obtain players in the right age bracket (Marchbank, Pickett, Curnow, McKay, Cuningham, Plowman).

It's the hand that he was dealt, an absolutely horrific list with decent ageing midfield talent but little else.

He's trying to rectify 10-15 years of abysmal recruiting by gradually trading away older players with currency.

The 2014 draft that was an utter disaster for us now boasts Marchbank and Pickett.

Gibbs and Casboult are next to go.

 

[majesticseacapt]

So Phillips is a list clogger and we kept him because we have no idea about how to go about finding other ruck-men?

Depth.

 

[Gethelred]

Reliable kicks have the occassional duffer - unreliable kicks get down to 50% on a 'bad day'or worse.

Best accurate kick in defense right now under pressure or not is Jones - by a long way ....and btw - my post was about why I hated losing Tuohy and laugh at the irrational rationalising about it that goes on in here.

Yep.

I don't like it, mind; I think the issue has more to do with the fact that last year, we had Tuohy playing true back pocket, with Doch being intercept and link whilst Simpson played +1, so all three got more space and gave each other a chop out disposal at all times, where now both have to play far more accountably and so have struggled a bit more. Don't think this is a huge slight on him - I think he should be our next captain; bloke's a thinker and a doer, so will be like having a playing coach out there - just, that he's not instinctively an inside player.

Will admit, though, that the biggest impediment that Docherty has to playing midfield full time is his habit of hacking the ball forward by foot when in trouble. If he's playing outside, so he gets more space, watch his disposal suddenly seem elite for a bit again.

 

[agro]

It's agro.

Lose a few games and he just becomes a miserable campaigner. Everything is ****** and he would have done better..................in hindsight.

Really?

 

[Gethelred]

Which was really the point I was making.

If we go on a SOS is the next coming - we'll he doing ourselves a grave disservice.

His work should be discussed and analysed and questioned.

Not deified.

Agreed.

I like the job he's done so far, but just as anyone else his results should be held up to scrutiny, and up to now, they have and do.

 

[Gethelred]

My 2 bobs:

It is far too early to make a call on the 2E trade. ,

This.

 

[Cliffords Blues]

Really?

Got anything positive to say...anything?

 

[agro]

Got anything positive to say...anything?

The average wait time between premiership's 9 and 16 is 3.25 years.

It's now 22 years since our last and next year will equal our longest premiership drought of 23 years.

I'll have plenty of positive things to say when we win 17.

 

[LanceRomance]

The average wait time between premiership's 9 and 16 is 3.25 years.

It's now 22 years since our last and next year will equal our longest premiership drought of 23 years.

I'll have plenty of positive things to say when we win 17.

Need to find another barassi

 

[Jimmae]

As it turns out,


It was most definately Plowman, SOS had him earmarked out long before the trade period.

Tomilson was completely different. We were prepared to offer up Pick 11 from memory for him but GWS baulked at the last minute.

Tomlinson was contracted... Was almost ours and then freo went all nuff nuff over mccarthy.. Also contracted.... GWS refused to let either go.


Carlton were ready to pull the trigger on an announcement for Tomlinson too. Set up their media and everything in the last 30 mins of 2015 trade week.

I actually think it was pick 19 or whatever it was we used for Cuningham

Every time this comes up, it's painfully obvious SOS wouldn't have thrown 11 for Tomlinson into the mix. I run the rule over my theories each time, and here's my latest.

Trade deadline was 2 PM that day, and we officially completed the trade with Dogs at 1:33 PM; paperwork wouldn't have been submitted much longer before.

The Yarran trade was then completed shortly after. I'd suggest SOS was looking around for a pick, and was trying to leverage Richmond's first in the Yarran trade with us sending them one of our early second rounders and them giving us another pick.

This would have been a way to select Charlie, while bringing Tomlinson in:

Yarran and 21 for 12 and 31

Richmond obviously wanted to keep the high pick, and traded their future 2nd with their current 2nd to get 19, 3 days prior.

With 31, we would have been keen on Sier (info leaked after Collingwood took him), Adams (WA network big on his season) and Balic (SOS' interest continues) based on the wash-up from rumourland. It's also possible that Cuningham might have slipped through.

So it was likely pick 20 for Tomlinson. And FWIW, the valuation of Yarran in that trade was pick 18 using the DVI.

Had we secured Tomlinson it would have cost us Charlie Curnow. I say thank God we didn't get Tomlinson.

This is 100% correct, but people confuse this statement with the pick we used for Charlie. I sincerely doubt it was offered.

 

[HARKER]

Phillips isn't very good GWS didn't want him.

I don't think we've drafted a ruckman since Matthew Kreuzer.

Anything that I've missed?

a. GWS did want Phillips. Ask their supporters.
Fair enough if you're not convinced, but I don't share your view.......and oddly, neither does the CFC.

b. We did draft a ruckman; Jacobs. We just let him go.

c. We should have taken Preuss when we were interested in him. That now seems like a big mistake by us.

d. You still haven't addressed why we can't pick-up ruck-men. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?

 

[therubbernub]

Every time this comes up, it's painfully obvious SOS wouldn't have thrown 11 for Tomlinson into the mix. I run the rule over my theories each time, and here's my latest.

Trade deadline was 2 PM that day, and we officially completed the trade with Dogs at 1:33 PM; paperwork wouldn't have been submitted much longer before.

The Yarran trade was then completed shortly after. I'd suggest SOS was looking around for a pick, and was trying to leverage Richmond's first in the Yarran trade with us sending them one of our early second rounders and them giving us another pick.

This would have been a way to select Charlie, while bringing Tomlinson in:

Yarran and 21 for 12 and 31

Richmond obviously wanted to keep the high pick, and traded their future 2nd with their current 2nd to get 19.

With 31, we would have been keen on Sier (info leaked after Collingwood took him), Adams (WA network big on his season) and Balic (SOS' interest continues) based on the wash-up from rumourland. It's also possible that Cuningham might have slipped through.

So it was likely pick 20 for Tomlinson. And FWIW, the valuation of Yarran in that trade was pick 18 using the DVI.

 

[Jimmae]

Haha!

I've said 20 or 21 for Tomlinson for a while, and it's good to see SOS had a few plans to optimise our outgoings and incomings.

Given how many talls we play, I'd be stoked if we had more with the running capacity of Weitering, Curnow, Adams and Tomlinson. Way more mobile than Rowe and White, with some midfield potential.

 

[agro]

a. GWS did want Phillips. Ask their supporters.
Fair enough if you're not convinced, but I don't share your view.......and oddly, neither does the CFC.

b. We did draft a ruckman; Jacobs. We just let him go.

c. We should have taken Preuss when we were interested in him. That now seems like a big mistake by us.

d. You still haven't addressed why we can't pick-up ruck-men. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?

It's not up to GWS supporters to "want" Phillips it's up to their List Management to want him and they didn't.

We drafted Jacobs after Kreuzer, so as I've said we haven't really drafted a ruckman since Matthew Kreuzer still stands as a fact unless you want to include Matt Korcheck and your (d) seems to have been answered by your (c).

 

[Magruder]

It's not up to GWS supporters to "want" Phillips it's up to their List Management to want him and they didn't.

We drafted Jacobs after Kreuzer, so as I've said we haven't really drafted a ruckman since Matthew Kreuzer still stands as a fact unless you want to include Matt Korcheck and your (d) seems to have been answered by your (c).

agree with a fair chunk of what you've put forward - but this appears contradictory

Jacobs was re-drafted with pick 76 in the 2008 rookie draft - so being a pedant - we drafted Jacobs after Kruezer

 

[HARKER]

It's not up to GWS supporters to "want" Phillips it's up to their List Management to want him and they didn't.

We drafted Jacobs after Kreuzer, so as I've said we haven't really drafted a ruckman since Matthew Kreuzer still stands as a fact unless you want to include Matt Korcheck and your (d) seems to have been answered by your (c).

Right. Jacobs was taken before Kreuzer...........time flies.
I did raise my point re. Preuss but that wasn't your point.

Phillips can ruck and move around the ground well. We haven't seen that yet........so it can't come about?

Anyway, to suggest that we know how to recruit/draft forwards, backs, mids..............but just can't do so with rucks........is a little odd.

 

[Blueyourmyboy!!]

As it turns out,


It was most definately Plowman, SOS had him earmarked out long before the trade period.

Tomilson was completely different. We were prepared to offer up Pick 11 from memory for him but GWS baulked at the last minute.

And that pick got us Charlie Curnow!

 

[agro]

agree with a fair chunk of what you've put forward - but this appears contradictory

Jacobs was re-drafted with pick 76 in the 2008 rookie draft - so being a pedant - we drafted Jacobs after Kruezer

I'll stick to the pedantry in this instance

If we first drafted Jacobs in the rookie draft of 2006.

We drafted him before Kreuzer.

Delisting him (which was for convenience and list management reasons) and redrafting him again doesn't change the fact that we drafted him before Kreuzer.

 

[agro]

Right. Jacobs was taken before Kreuzer...........time flies.
I did raise my point re. Preuss but that wasn't your point.

Phillips can ruck and move around the ground well. We haven't seen that yet........so it can't come about?

Anyway, to suggest that we know how to recruit/draft forwards, backs, mids..............but just can't do so with rucks........is a little odd.

Show me the ruckman we've drafted and I'll change my view on why we can't draft them.

 

[agro]

Now flower me its 4.30pm - leave me alone today I've got 30 minutes to get some work done.

 

[HARKER]

Show me the ruckman we've drafted and I'll change my view on why we can't draft them.

Really? Is that it?
So; We didn't draft ruck-men in recent years.....therefore we'll never be able to.

Am I on the right track? Just be straight with the answer.

 

[__Bobcat__]

Our target was not Plowman - it WAS Tomlinson.


You may want to go back and check your facts challenger.

And whom said Tomlinson was out Target!

I heard it was Lobbe! ( GWS)!