Think he's talking about Keppel !
Bluemour Discussion Thread VII (cont. in pt VIII)
- Thread starter barass70
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
SHOWEY
All Australian
- Jul 5, 2011
- 699
- 2,405
- AFL Club
- Carlton
We need mature big bodies at the coalface to give a chopout to the kids, Rockliff was most likely identified as the best available without having to give up any picks (currency aside) and that's why I believe we went hard. All this talk of scully etc is our noise here, not discussions externally in the media.
Can't speak to Smith , time will tell if we got lucky or not re: his dodgy knees. It would be nice for more established higher rated players to want to come here as opposed to kids and discarded players, but it takes time AND PATIENCE. Some players want immediate success abd that's why a club like * or port look appealing. We are building for long term success.
We are getting better and we are on the right track and we are a club on the up and we will be a place players will want to come to. All you have to do is watch bolts in the box to know how much we want to win and succeed. We wanted Rockliff because it's essentially free player $$ aside.
Weitbricks
Senior List
- Aug 18, 2015
- 278
- 937
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Don't think they'd be disappointed, he's not exactly the type of character we want around.
Blue and Silver
Brownlow Medallist
If we're looking for big bodies to help protect kids for a season the VFL/WAFL/SANFL has plenty of options, not to mention quite a few DFA's
Rumour is Baloney is known as Mortadella in Australia.
- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #5,407
Clearly talking about Keppel.
We did, could have drafted him in place of Weitering. Just sayin.
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 27,373
- 64,379
- AFL Club
- Carlton
1. The additive and multiplicative probability rules were correctly applied by Ferris to derive expected returns over multiple years of attempts ( IF we ignore the fact that the probabilty distribution period under question by definition is based on less sample than required for normative analysis
2. Even so with this aside, the expected returns though do not speak to the needs of the particular position to be filled (eg are HBF more likely to deliver 150 games than ruckmen chosen etc etc ) AND
3. There is a massive assumption regarding a constant probability outcome for picks 3 Vs pick 7+ pick in the figuring...
This is why list management exists and idiosyncratic skill in player rating is important and will remain so.
2. Even so with this aside, the expected returns though do not speak to the needs of the particular position to be filled (eg are HBF more likely to deliver 150 games than ruckmen chosen etc etc ) AND
3. There is a massive assumption regarding a constant probability outcome for picks 3 Vs pick 7+ pick in the figuring...
This is why list management exists and idiosyncratic skill in player rating is important and will remain so.
HBF
Flying Scotsman
- Sep 24, 2002
- 156,177
- 101,044
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Not true.
SOS had some concerns, but he was still ranked high within the club.
Neither Dusty or Rockliff were free agents in those years and clubs would have to trade for them. This year they were and there was no shortage of interest in either.
- Jun 4, 2016
- 12,300
- 37,258
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Didn't you say a while ago that your source said hopper to bombers. So he wasn't right about that then...?
2blue4u
Team Captain
- Jul 7, 2017
- 374
- 1,373
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Different person. I had 2 people telling me 2 different things. I just went with the one i thought was more reliable. Turns out he wasnt.
- Oct 8, 2017
- 1,481
- 9,407
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Crows desperate regarding Bryce Gibbs. So the question is - would it be better to keep him (and not help a flag tilt) or accept 10 and 16 (and build to 2020)?
Wouldn’t Gibbs, Kennedy, pick 3 and Puopolo be enough to improve significantly in 2018?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Wouldn’t Gibbs, Kennedy, pick 3 and Puopolo be enough to improve significantly in 2018?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Jun 4, 2016
- 12,300
- 37,258
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Heh?
I'm not sure the club is that disappointed on missing out on Rockliff.
From what Rockliff said after the Port deal was done, it would seem we weren't prepared to offer him as long a contract as what Port did (4 years). Rockliff actually stated that he chose Port over us because of the security of a long-term deal. I would suggest we were only offering 3 years, which would be fair enough for a player turning 28 prior to the commencement of next season.
Reading this thread it seems like every second post predicts a trade of Gibbs as the cornerstone of our trading.
Our club has stated that we want to keep him, Adelaide has stated that they've moved on and it doesn't appear that Gibbs has asked to be traded or, at least, is determined to leave.
Gibbs would not have won Adelaide a premiership this year and neither is he likely to win one for them next year and I think Adelaide would be delusional to think he would. Remember Dangerfield, younger and better, has not won a premiership with Geelong.
With Lever and Cameron out I find it hard to believe that Adelaide would think they need a 29 yo, particularly if they have to give what we believe is his worth to us.
Lots of other names been thrown around on here most would cost too much in picks and the rest are unlikely to be any upgrade on what we already have. I think the club is aware of this hence we haven't delisted Boekhurst, Graham and Buckley.
I said very early in this thread that I couldn't see another year of double figure list changes and that seems to be the way it's panning out.
I'd rather just get Kennedy and go to the draft. Rebuilding doesn't mean buying more steak knives.
Our club has stated that we want to keep him, Adelaide has stated that they've moved on and it doesn't appear that Gibbs has asked to be traded or, at least, is determined to leave.
Gibbs would not have won Adelaide a premiership this year and neither is he likely to win one for them next year and I think Adelaide would be delusional to think he would. Remember Dangerfield, younger and better, has not won a premiership with Geelong.
With Lever and Cameron out I find it hard to believe that Adelaide would think they need a 29 yo, particularly if they have to give what we believe is his worth to us.
Lots of other names been thrown around on here most would cost too much in picks and the rest are unlikely to be any upgrade on what we already have. I think the club is aware of this hence we haven't delisted Boekhurst, Graham and Buckley.
I said very early in this thread that I couldn't see another year of double figure list changes and that seems to be the way it's panning out.
I'd rather just get Kennedy and go to the draft. Rebuilding doesn't mean buying more steak knives.
- Oct 8, 2017
- 1,481
- 9,407
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I guess the point is, if we keep Gibbs we gain by adding 3 players for now: and don’t help Adelaide (we’ve done enough with Betts) or do others think pick 10 and 16 and no immediate improvement for us is ok?
I think the view is - it’s time to visibly improve sooner.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Moderator
- #5,421
- Oct 8, 2017
- 1,481
- 9,407
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Natural improvement, midfield ball extractors, damaging forward, new mid.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I think we have to do what's best for us and not worry about whether or not we are helping the Crows with a premiership tilt.
I think we should trade Bryce for picks and take these picks to the draft. We should be investing as many assets as we realistically can into the Docherty/Cripps/Plowman and below age group, as unfortunately the window for Gibbs and Murphy is gone IMO. It would be very disappointing if we traded Gibbs out to ultimately bring Scully in using what we get from the Crows, as we are sinking picks into an age group that I don't think we can win a premiership with (especially with Gibbs leaving who is a better player than Scully). We need to be prepared to take a step back by trading Gibbs to ultimately end up taking two steps forward, not shuffling sideways from Gibbs to Scully.
I don't think that necessarily means that the club wouldn't be disappointed.
- Moderator
- #5,425
- Status
