It's easy to trash people in hindsight, but that was an astonishingly bad review.
We ended with 4 picks in the top 20, which is huge, and have continued to add bonus first rounders each year since (not to be known in 2015).
BUT the main argument was that we weren't ruthless enough; that we should have gone full rebuild and cashed in older stars like Murphy and Gibbs and built around our middle-aged core. The article was wayward here again. Ultimately we took the even more aggressive move.
Instead of cashing in 'oldies', SOS actually admitted our middle-aged core wasn't good enough either and traded out the guts of our emerging talent in Henderson / Menzel / Bell / Yarran in one year (ballsy). SOS had decided a wholesale reset was needed and went about building a new core nucleus at the youngest end of the list.
Two years later, the results are amazing. We still have a bottom-10 list (for 2018). But most of our serious talent is 22 and under, with Docherty (24yo), Plowman (23) and Cripps (22) the 'elder statesmen' of our 'list within a list'.
Exactly. We trimmed some fat and replaced it with promising youngsters. To add to that, how good have our 'oldies' in Murph, Kade, Kreuz & Gibbs (average of 22 games and 103 SC points for the for as a reference) and how much have we not missed all that 'emerging talent' in Henderson, Bell, Yarran and Menzel (average of 7 games and 48 SC points)?
Trading the likes of Murph AND Gibbs at that time would have been reminiscent of that Melbourne 'rebuild'/demolition. I'm certainly glad we did it the way we did.



