Opinion Brian Cook - Carlton's rebuild still has a fair way to go

[owen87]

As I said unwatchable

Apparently the commentators disagree with you.

Bottom 6 looming IMO

Possibly, Essendon were in the 8 - 12 region in 2021, no reason they won't be similar in 2022. Improvement isn't linear.

Beautifully spun

Says the guy somehow spinning the below:

the early season toxicity

What toxicity? I'd give you credit if you said toxicity at the end of the 2020 season, but at no point did it appear there was any toxicity in 2021. Just a sputtering start to the season as an inexperienced side found their feet.

Unlike an Essendon person to be in denial

Not sure how this is relevant aside from giving insight in to your own denial?

but Carlton are the better bet for future success

You'd hope so given the comments of Sayers, and having spent a fair bit of salary cap on Saad, Williams and Cerra over the past two off-seasons whilst Essendon has been bringing in 18 year old draftees and bargain players like Wright, Hind and now Jake Kelly.

Essendon are not as good as the herald sun and SEN make them out to be

Well they were widely tipped for bottom-4 at the end of 2020, so they weren't as bad as they were made out to be either.

What a delusional , delusional post.

The most accurate thing you said, your post really, really is.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Brian Cook has recently admitted Carlton's rebuild still has "a fair way to go" in his words.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not Cook is the man to lead Carlton out of the wilderness, and whether or not we'll see another historically successful powerhouse club return from the wilderness, given we've recently witnessed other historically successful powerhouse clubs in Richmond and Melbourne both return from the wilderness.

Do people believe Cook is the man to lead Carlton out of the wilderness, and given Carlton and Essendon are the two historically successful powerhouse clubs still in the wilderness, are Carlton more or less likely to see a return to on field success before Essendon do?

There is a lot of "historically successful powerhouse wilderness" going around, eh?

 

[Kaatman]

Wouldn't read much into Cooks comments really. He's a smart operator and his record speaks for itself.

Takes the conservative approach at times but think what he says publicly may be a bit different to what he thinks.

Basically declared Geelong out of the running leading into 2009 finals. Turned out ok.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Watched as much of them as I could . As I said unwatchable. Bottom 6 looming IMO. And thanks for rehash of Essendons season . Beautifully spun , ignoring the early season toxicity that has been swept under the rug . Unlike an Essendon person to be in denial.

But your response is very defensive . I was Just comparing where Carlton and Essendon are at right now .I know it’s hard to hear but Carlton are the better bet for future success . Just saying Essendon are not as good as the herald sun and SEN make them out to be . Sorry if it’s strange , or you do not agree .

What a delusional , delusional post.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I watched all of Essendon’s games and bet on all of them which tends to make you focus a bit. They outperformed my expectations from the start and only got better. Their ball movement was excellent both for its effectiveness and its watchability.

The Bombers lost only 3 games to non-finalists in 2021.

V Richmond in Perth in rd 12, the last time it occurred, where they were in the game until very late, and Richmond of course are of 3 flags in the previous 4 seasons.

V Carlton in rd 7 in a competitive match.

V Hawks in rd 1 by a point when Essendon should simply have won.

So they had zero poor performances v non-finalists. Their only win against a finalist v v Bulldogs rd 21 in a competitive match.

The Bombers’ biggest losses in 2021, there were a few genuine excuses/reasons to explain the margins:

- Unsuitable wet conditions v Lions
- Crippled by injuries v Port in Adelaide rd 2
- Inaccuracy v Bulldogs in the final
- Cats odd shaped ground which would likely hamper their ball movement
- V Tigers only literally blew out in the last few minutes when the Bombers were commendably still trying to win

All their other losses were by 16 points or less including v finals teams Swans twice, Giants twice and Demons once.

Their backline by seasons end was functioning very well considering the ratings of the individual players down there. They were well coached, committed to their game plan and as can see seen from the above, their results were very consistent, ie they were losing to teams who were better than them and beating teams they were better than almost all the time.

They unearthed two potentially brilliant youngsters in Cox and Perkins and Reid is a third one who should come into his own in the next couple of seasons or so. They have a strong midfield now and loads of genuine upside left in their list. Remembering they picked up Caldwell last year as well and he showed some promise but missed most of the season injured.

From where I sit the Bombers have plenty to look forward to. They were definitely one of the better teams to watch in 2021 imo. Not sure how they will go in 2022, Sportsbet have them 9th favourite for the flag. I think they are likely to be somewhere in the middle pack 6th-14th along with the Blues, depending on who gets what luck over the course of the season. But for mine the Bombers have some edges over he Blues going forward:

1. Better coaches.

2. Deeper list of quality young players(26 or under) into the club through the draft:

McGrath Parish Draper Langford Merrett Cox Ridley Perkins Jones Redman Reid Durham(12 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

v

Cripps Weitering McKay Walsh De Koning Fisher Stocker Kemp Curnow(9 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

3. Better salary cap position in they are probably only locked into a couple of potentially bigger contracts that may not be great value. Smith 2 more years. Shiel 3 more years. Wright 2 more years. None others that would concern me at all. Blues have Saad 4 more years, Charlie Curnow 2 more years, Hewett 4 more years, Martin 3 more years, McGovern 2 more years, Cripps 6 more years, Docherty 2 more years, Williams 5 more years. Especially Cripps, Williams, Saad and Martin would worry me a bit, but McGovern and Martin were just bad deals.

4. More low cost players of real value,

Tipingwuti, Hind, Draper, Cutler, Guelfi, Snelling, Durham

v maybe Josh Honey, struggling to come up with other Blues, maybe Silvagni

here I am looking for players who were drafted below 40, have done anything noteworthy, are on low contracts and didn’t cost much in a trade and have a fair bit of upside.

Blues have probably the more impressive looking list of traded in players, the problem being they command worryingly large and long contracts:

Williams Saad Cerra McGovern Docherty Martin Marchbank are the ones who look to have possible above average capability.

Shiel Smith Wright Caldwell Stringer are probably the Bombers list.


Overall I see the Blues as having a lower ceiling due to the way they have managed their contracts and timed their run. They may(or may not) edge ahead of the Bombers in the short term, but I would rather be in the Bombers’ shoes overall.

 

[Opine]

I watched all of Essendon’s games and bet on all of them which tends to make you focus a bit. They outperformed my expectations from the start and only got better. Their ball movement was excellent both for its effectiveness and its watchability.

The Bombers lost only 3 games to non-finalists in 2021.

V Richmond in Perth in rd 12, the last time it occurred, where they were in the game until very late, and Richmond of course are of 3 flags in the previous 4 seasons.

V Carlton in rd 7 in a competitive match.

V Hawks in rd 1 by a point when Essendon should simply have won.

So they had zero poor performances v non-finalists. Their only win against a finalist v v Bulldogs rd 21 in a competitive match.

The Bombers’ biggest losses in 2021, there were a few genuine excuses/reasons to explain the margins:

- Unsuitable wet conditions v Lions
- Crippled by injuries v Port in Adelaide rd 2
- Inaccuracy v Bulldogs in the final
- Cats odd shaped ground which would likely hamper their ball movement
- V Tigers only literally blew out in the last few minutes when the Bombers were commendably still trying to win

All their other losses were by 16 points or less including v finals teams Swans twice, Giants twice and Demons once.

Their backline by seasons end was functioning very well considering the ratings of the individual players down there. They were well coached, committed to their game plan and as can see seen from the above, their results were very consistent, ie they were losing to teams who were better than them and beating teams they were better than almost all the time.

They unearthed two potentially brilliant youngsters in Cox and Perkins and Reid is a third one who should come into his own in the next couple of seasons or so. They have a strong midfield now and loads of genuine upside left in their list. Remembering they picked up Caldwell last year as well and he showed some promise but missed most of the season injured.

From where I sit the Bombers have plenty to look forward to. They were definitely one of the better teams to watch in 2021 imo. Not sure how they will go in 2022, Sportsbet have them 9th favourite for the flag. I think they are likely to be somewhere in the middle pack 6th-14th along with the Blues, depending on who gets what luck over the course of the season. But for mine the Bombers have some edges over he Blues going forward:

1. Better coaches.

2. Deeper list of quality young players(26 or under) into the club through the draft:

McGrath Parish Draper Langford Merrett Cox Ridley Perkins Jones Redman Reid Durham(12 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

v

Cripps Weitering McKay Walsh De Koning Fisher Stocker Kemp Curnow(9 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

3. Better salary cap position in they are probably only locked into a couple of potentially bigger contracts that may not be great value. Smith 2 more years. Shiel 3 more years. Wright 2 more years. None others that would concern me at all. Blues have Saad 4 more years, Charlie Curnow 2 more years, Hewett 4 more years, Martin 3 more years, McGovern 2 more years, Cripps 6 more years, Docherty 2 more years, Williams 5 more years. Especially Cripps, Williams, Saad and Martin would worry me a bit, but McGovern and Martin were just bad deals.

4. More low cost players of real value,

Tipingwuti, Hind, Draper, Cutler, Guelfi, Snelling, Durham

v maybe Josh Honey, struggling to come up with other Blues, maybe Silvagni

here I am looking for players who were drafted below 40, have done anything noteworthy, are on low contracts and didn’t cost much in a trade and have a fair bit of upside.

Blues have probably the more impressive looking list of traded in players, the problem being they coomand worryingly large and long contracts:

Williams Saad Cerra McGovern Docherty Martin Marchbank are the ones who look to have above possible average capability.

Bombers Shiel Smith Wright Caldwell Stringer are probably the Bombers list.


Overall I see the Blues as having a lower ceiling due to the way they have managed their contracts and timed their run. They may(or may not) edge ahead of the Bombers in the short term, but I would rather be in the Bombers’ shoes overall.

Excellent post.
Current CFC LM setup is one area that arguably needs major overhauling. I reckon there’ll be significant changes in that Dept over next few years.

 

[Gavin Excell]

This thread about (yawn) Essington?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I dont think Carlton are going anywhere promising any time soon. I think their recruiting philosophy of being very trade heavy and often overpaying in trade assets and salary for the wrong type of player isn't getting them anywhere. It's just a sugar hit for the members thinking they are getting a good player but it's not taking them to finals.

They've got about 4 or 5 players that could be/are top class but then the rest of the list isn't good enough to support them taking the next step.

They'll be stuck as a mediocre-solid side for a few years yet IMO.

So in this 'recruiting philosophy of being very trade heavy', have you deliberately ignored the years where we hit the draft hard? Our 'philosophy' was very public. Hit the draft hard for 3 years, then look to trade in players to fill gaps and compliment the list.
In 2018 we traded in McGovern, Newman and Setterfield, while still managing to draft Walsh (#1) and Stocker (#19) and Matt Owies as a cat B.
In 2019 we traded in Betts and Pittonet and picked up Newnes via free agency and Jack Martin in the PSD, while still managing to draft Kemp (#17) and Philp (#20). And picked up Honey in the rookie draft.
In 2020 we traded in Fogarty and Saad and picked up Zac Williams as a free agent, while taking a more conservative approach in the draft after hitting it pretty hard for 4-5 years and drafting Durdin (#37) and Carroll (#41) and picking up Oscar McDonald in the supplemental draft.
Now in 2021 we've picked up Hewett as a free agent, traded for Cerra and Young, and will take #25 to the draft.

So trading in players hasn't really upset our draft hand too much, especially when you consider we took 9 top 30 picks in the 3 years prior (2015-2017), with 6 of them being first rounders and the other three being Cuningham, Fisher and DeKoning.
And so far, the salaries we paid them hasn't stopped us from re-signing Cripps and McKay and doubtful it will affect Walsh. And hasn't stopped us chasing Cerra and Hewett.

Whether or not any of that pays off over the next few years is anyone's guess, but 'trade heavy' is just tosh. You can argue how good any/all of the players will be as much as you like, but I'd say the balance between trade and draft is pretty good, especially considering the starting point back in 2015 (or end of 2014).

 

[juss]

So in this 'recruiting philosophy of being very trade heavy', have you deliberately ignored the years where we hit the draft hard? Our 'philosophy' was very public. Hit the draft hard for 3 years, then look to trade in players to fill gaps and compliment the list.
In 2018 we traded in McGovern, Newman and Setterfield, while still managing to draft Walsh (#1) and Stocker (#19) and Matt Owies as a cat B.
In 2019 we traded in Betts and Pittonet and picked up Newnes via free agency and Jack Martin in the PSD, while still managing to draft Kemp (#17) and Philp (#20). And picked up Honey in the rookie draft.
In 2020 we traded in Fogarty and Saad and picked up Zac Williams as a free agent, while taking a more conservative approach in the draft after hitting it pretty hard for 4-5 years and drafting Durdin (#37) and Carroll (#41) and picking up Oscar McDonald in the supplemental draft.
Now in 2021 we've picked up Hewett as a free agent, traded for Cerra and Young, and will take #25 to the draft.

So trading in players hasn't really upset our draft hand too much, especially when you consider we took 9 top 30 picks in the 3 years prior (2015-2017), with 6 of them being first rounders and the other three being Cuningham, Fisher and DeKoning.
And so far, the salaries we paid them hasn't stopped us from re-signing Cripps and McKay and doubtful it will affect Walsh. And hasn't stopped us chasing Cerra and Hewett.

Whether or not any of that pays off over the next few years is anyone's guess, but 'trade heavy' is just tosh. You can argue how good any/all of the players will be as much as you like, but I'd say the balance between trade and draft is pretty good, especially considering the starting point back in 2015 (or end of 2014).

Is there any other club that has more players recruited from other clubs than Carlton? I reckon there would be a reasonable negative correlation between >30% and success.

None of your arguments really counter my point of it not being optimal list management.

 

[BruceTempany14]

I watched all of Essendon’s games and bet on all of them which tends to make you focus a bit. They outperformed my expectations from the start and only got better. Their ball movement was excellent both for its effectiveness and its watchability.

The Bombers lost only 3 games to non-finalists in 2021.

V Richmond in Perth in rd 12, the last time it occurred, where they were in the game until very late, and Richmond of course are of 3 flags in the previous 4 seasons.

V Carlton in rd 7 in a competitive match.

V Hawks in rd 1 by a point when Essendon should simply have won.

So they had zero poor performances v non-finalists. Their only win against a finalist v v Bulldogs rd 21 in a competitive match.

The Bombers’ biggest losses in 2021, there were a few genuine excuses/reasons to explain the margins:

- Unsuitable wet conditions v Lions
- Crippled by injuries v Port in Adelaide rd 2
- Inaccuracy v Bulldogs in the final
- Cats odd shaped ground which would likely hamper their ball movement
- V Tigers only literally blew out in the last few minutes when the Bombers were commendably still trying to win

All their other losses were by 16 points or less including v finals teams Swans twice, Giants twice and Demons once.

Their backline by seasons end was functioning very well considering the ratings of the individual players down there. They were well coached, committed to their game plan and as can see seen from the above, their results were very consistent, ie they were losing to teams who were better than them and beating teams they were better than almost all the time.

They unearthed two potentially brilliant youngsters in Cox and Perkins and Reid is a third one who should come into his own in the next couple of seasons or so. They have a strong midfield now and loads of genuine upside left in their list. Remembering they picked up Caldwell last year as well and he showed some promise but missed most of the season injured.

From where I sit the Bombers have plenty to look forward to. They were definitely one of the better teams to watch in 2021 imo. Not sure how they will go in 2022, Sportsbet have them 9th favourite for the flag. I think they are likely to be somewhere in the middle pack 6th-14th along with the Blues, depending on who gets what luck over the course of the season. But for mine the Bombers have some edges over he Blues going forward:

1. Better coaches.

2. Deeper list of quality young players(26 or under) into the club through the draft:

McGrath Parish Draper Langford Merrett Cox Ridley Perkins Jones Redman Reid Durham(12 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

v

Cripps Weitering McKay Walsh De Koning Fisher Stocker Kemp Curnow(9 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

3. Better salary cap position in they are probably only locked into a couple of potentially bigger contracts that may not be great value. Smith 2 more years. Shiel 3 more years. Wright 2 more years. None others that would concern me at all. Blues have Saad 4 more years, Charlie Curnow 2 more years, Hewett 4 more years, Martin 3 more years, McGovern 2 more years, Cripps 6 more years, Docherty 2 more years, Williams 5 more years. Especially Cripps, Williams, Saad and Martin would worry me a bit, but McGovern and Martin were just bad deals.

4. More low cost players of real value,

Tipingwuti, Hind, Draper, Cutler, Guelfi, Snelling, Durham

v maybe Josh Honey, struggling to come up with other Blues, maybe Silvagni

here I am looking for players who were drafted below 40, have done anything noteworthy, are on low contracts and didn’t cost much in a trade and have a fair bit of upside.

Blues have probably the more impressive looking list of traded in players, the problem being they coomand worryingly large and long contracts:

Williams Saad Cerra McGovern Docherty Martin Marchbank are the ones who look to have above possible average capability.

Bombers Shiel Smith Wright Caldwell Stringer are probably the Bombers list.


Overall I see the Blues as having a lower ceiling due to the way they have managed their contracts and timed their run. They may(or may not) edge ahead of the Bombers in the short term, but I would rather be in the Bombers’ shoes overall.

Good post , thanks for sharing .

I think you are very kind about Essendon.
Goalless in 2nd half of a final , four shots less than doggies and an eight goal loss in shitty conditions.
All sides hurt by injuries , can’t buy that .


Saad Williams Cripps Walsh McKay Weitering Curnow and now Cerra are IMO a helluva lot more potent than the Bombers best . I’m a little insecure on Carlton’s potential . Nobody wants Carlton to succeed , I get it , but if they get the licence to just enjoy their footy then watch out .

McKay and Curnow make for success . Dons just don’t have anything to compare .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[La Dispute]

I watched all of Essendon’s games and bet on all of them which tends to make you focus a bit. They outperformed my expectations from the start and only got better. Their ball movement was excellent both for its effectiveness and its watchability.

The Bombers lost only 3 games to non-finalists in 2021.

V Richmond in Perth in rd 12, the last time it occurred, where they were in the game until very late, and Richmond of course are of 3 flags in the previous 4 seasons.

V Carlton in rd 7 in a competitive match.

V Hawks in rd 1 by a point when Essendon should simply have won.

So they had zero poor performances v non-finalists. Their only win against a finalist v v Bulldogs rd 21 in a competitive match.

The Bombers’ biggest losses in 2021, there were a few genuine excuses/reasons to explain the margins:

- Unsuitable wet conditions v Lions
- Crippled by injuries v Port in Adelaide rd 2
- Inaccuracy v Bulldogs in the final
- Cats odd shaped ground which would likely hamper their ball movement
- V Tigers only literally blew out in the last few minutes when the Bombers were commendably still trying to win

All their other losses were by 16 points or less including v finals teams Swans twice, Giants twice and Demons once.

Their backline by seasons end was functioning very well considering the ratings of the individual players down there. They were well coached, committed to their game plan and as can see seen from the above, their results were very consistent, ie they were losing to teams who were better than them and beating teams they were better than almost all the time.

They unearthed two potentially brilliant youngsters in Cox and Perkins and Reid is a third one who should come into his own in the next couple of seasons or so. They have a strong midfield now and loads of genuine upside left in their list. Remembering they picked up Caldwell last year as well and he showed some promise but missed most of the season injured.

From where I sit the Bombers have plenty to look forward to. They were definitely one of the better teams to watch in 2021 imo. Not sure how they will go in 2022, Sportsbet have them 9th favourite for the flag. I think they are likely to be somewhere in the middle pack 6th-14th along with the Blues, depending on who gets what luck over the course of the season. But for mine the Bombers have some edges over he Blues going forward:

1. Better coaches.

2. Deeper list of quality young players(26 or under) into the club through the draft:

McGrath Parish Draper Langford Merrett Cox Ridley Perkins Jones Redman Reid Durham(12 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

v

Cripps Weitering McKay Walsh De Koning Fisher Stocker Kemp Curnow(9 who can reasonably be expected to be decent AFL players)

3. Better salary cap position in they are probably only locked into a couple of potentially bigger contracts that may not be great value. Smith 2 more years. Shiel 3 more years. Wright 2 more years. None others that would concern me at all. Blues have Saad 4 more years, Charlie Curnow 2 more years, Hewett 4 more years, Martin 3 more years, McGovern 2 more years, Cripps 6 more years, Docherty 2 more years, Williams 5 more years. Especially Cripps, Williams, Saad and Martin would worry me a bit, but McGovern and Martin were just bad deals.

4. More low cost players of real value,

Tipingwuti, Hind, Draper, Cutler, Guelfi, Snelling, Durham

v maybe Josh Honey, struggling to come up with other Blues, maybe Silvagni

here I am looking for players who were drafted below 40, have done anything noteworthy, are on low contracts and didn’t cost much in a trade and have a fair bit of upside.

Blues have probably the more impressive looking list of traded in players, the problem being they coomand worryingly large and long contracts:

Williams Saad Cerra McGovern Docherty Martin Marchbank are the ones who look to have above possible average capability.

Shiel Smith Wright Caldwell Stringer are probably the Bombers list.


Overall I see the Blues as having a lower ceiling due to the way they have managed their contracts and timed their run. They may(or may not) edge ahead of the Bombers in the short term, but I would rather be in the Bombers’ shoes overall.

Decent summary. I don’t believe Essendon have the higher ceiling, but they do have enough young talent on that list to be a realistic possibility.

Also if you’re going to include guys like Guelfi and Cutler as low cost value for the Bombers you can also add in Newman and Newnes for the Blues.

TPP allocation isn’t as much of a concern with Jones retiring, step downs in salaries for Saad, Williams and Martin, who is now being paid peanuts. I’d hazard a guess our salary cap will peak next year following a big recruiting push over the past 4 years, with McGovern, Martin, Williams, Saad, Cerra and Hewett being signed.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Good post , thanks for sharing .

I think you are very kind about Essendon.
Goalless in 2nd half of a final , four shots less than doggies and an eight goal loss in shitty conditions.
All sides hurt by injuries , can’t buy that .


Saad Williams Cripps Walsh McKay Weitering Curnow and now Cerra are IMO a helluva lot more potent than the Bombers best . I’m a little insecure on Carlton’s potential . Nobody wants Carlton to succeed , I get it , but if they get the licence to just enjoy their footy then watch out .

McKay and Curnow make for success . Dons just don’t have anything to compare .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Blues definitely have the big ticket items amongst their young key players, in McKay, Weitering, Curnow(if his body stands up) and Walsh. Cripps Saad Williams have a bit to prove based on their output last season at the Blues and in Cripps’ case his last couple of seasons. Cerra I have looked at carefully and he looks a good recruit but needs to prove he can keep tracking as well in Blues colours as he did at Freo. Whilst likely, it is never a sure thing.

But the Bombers have better players than I think many give them credit for, let’s do some comparisons around the ground:

Rucks: Draper/Wright are better than DeKoning/Pittonet at this stage. Better first ruck, better ruck/forward. DeKoning probably the highest ceiling of them all though. Essendon hold sway for now.

Inside Midfield: Parish, Merrett, Shiel, Stringer, McGrath, Langford, Caldwell v Walsh, Cripps, Cerra, and then the Blues drop off a cliff to Kennedy, Setterfield and other players like Dow who just haven’t looked anywhere near up to it. Perhaps they try Williams in there again. Right now, the Bombers have it all over the Blues in this crucial area. Bombers clearly stronger.

Wingers: The Blues have Newnes and others but none of them have looked good enough, it is a clear and known weakness. They also don’t look to have a lot of upside there, maybe Fisher shapes as a decent winger if he can master the position. The Bombers are not overly strong here but Cox looked sensational in his first year until predictably tiring later in the season, Durham had a really solid last 7 matches there after being taken in the Mid-season draft. Unsure who else played here for the Bombers, but maybe Snelling, or some spillover mids like Caldwell or Shiel. The Bombers are clearly stronger on the wings. Bombers clearly stronger.

Centre forward: You are probably looking at Stringer/Langford v Martin/god knows. The Blues don’t really have this type of player, it is a no contest in this area. Bombers clearly stronger.

Key forwards: Also a no contest but in the Blues favour. MacKay and Curnow deKoning v Francis, Jones and Wright. It is thought the Bombers are looking at making a big play for Ben King, and this would not surprise. The Blues are miles stronger here, clear weak area for the Bombers at this point, but their tall forwards are not useless, and Cox is already on hte list who could be a very strong key forward prospect as he matures. Blues a lot stronger, no contest at this stage.

Other forwards(hybrid and small): McGovern, Silvagni, Fogarty, Owies, Martin, Fisher v Tipingwuti, Stringer, Snelling, Smith, Perkins. Quite different mixture of players but for mine the Bombers have much better options and Snelling, Smith and Tipingwuti offer quality defensive pressure the Blues small forwards cannot get near. Bombers stronger.

Key and tall defenders: Blues have Weitering, who is top shelf, but beyond him, Young, who wasn’t considered in the Dogs best 3, an area perceived as a bit of a weakness for the Dogs. Beyond that, Marchbank, Oscar McDonald, and Plowman. Bombers Stewart, Zerk and maybe Hurley, otherwise will run with the similar hybrids to last year, Laverde, Ridley. Importantly they have Reid coming through who is expected to be very good. Overall I am not sure I see either team having a clear edge for tall defenders right now, but the Bombers outlook is stronger in this area.

Running defenders: Saad, Williams, Stocker, Kemp, Newman, Docherty(if he plays) v Hind, Cutler, Redman, Heppell. Probably Blues but the Bombers found a couple of budget guys last season in Cutler and Hind. Blues look a bit deeper with a better future outlook as well.

So while the Blues do have the high profile high draft pick types, the Bombers look better in a lot of areas personnel wise. In terms of ball movement or team cohesion, well you never know if the Blues might improve but they would need to in order to get near matching he Bombers in this area. The Bombers have coaches who have proven they know how to make teams function well, the Blues coaches need to prove that they can do this.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Decent summary. I don’t believe Essendon have the higher ceiling, but they do have enough young talent on that list to be a realistic possibility.

Also if you’re going to include guys like Guelfi and Cutler as low cost value for the Bombers you can also add in Newman and Newnes for the Blues.

TPP allocation isn’t as much of a concern with Jones retiring, step downs in salaries for Saad, Williams and Martin, who is now being paid peanuts. I’d hazard a guess our salary cap will peak next year following a big recruiting push over the past 4 years, with McGovern, Martin, Williams, Saad, Cerra and Hewett being signed.

I guess it is debatable about guys like Newnes and Newman. For mine Newnes has peaked at a level not really good enough to play best 22 in a contending team, and Newman I think might be the same. Guelfi I wouldn’t say I have a great handle on him as a player, so prepared to take the views of others. Cutler can really cover ground, and is a good size, but just seemed clueless when needing to run both ways on a wing. He was moved to defence maybe half way through last season and I watched him carefully down there, and he looked a different player, much more at home. He is a 192cm 26yo, with some pretty serious weapons so I think the Bombers may have found the key to him, and if so, total bargain. Let’s see if he proves it over a longer period, but I fancy he can.

This is what I think has undermined the Blues list build a bit. They are paying premium draft picks and huge wages for really good running backs in Saad and Williams. Other teams, definitely the Bombers, are unearthing players like Hind and Cutler who can do almost as well in the role for peanuts. It obviously allows more resources to be ploughed into other areas of the ground. If they landed Ben King, then look out. And they are in a great position to get him if he is gettable, they should be able to afford multiple first round picks, other picks and maybe even players to get him, not to mention a very hefty contract. As much as it pains me to say it, they are one move like that away from having a contending team, assuming normal rates of improvement from developing players.

 

[Gethelred]

Is there any other club that has more players recruited from other clubs than Carlton? I reckon there would be a reasonable negative correlation between >30% and success.

None of your arguments really counter my point of it not being optimal list management.

Out of interest, how many traded players played in the 2017 AFL Richmond list? I seem to remember a few.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Is there any other club that has more players recruited from other clubs than Carlton? I reckon there would be a reasonable negative correlation between >30% and success.

None of your arguments really counter my point of it not being optimal list management.

There's a few people that seem to trot this one out regularly. Why does it matter?
They're either good players, or they're not. They either fit the team, or they don't. Doesn't matter where they came from.
Correlation =/= causation.

There's zero evidence that it's not a valid list management strategy, but you claimed that it was a 'trade heavy' strategy, which is demonstrably false, so I'm not sure why I would put much weight in the rest of your 'analysis'.

 

[juss]

Out of interest, how many traded players played in the 2017 AFL Richmond list? I seem to remember a few.

Wouldn't have been close to 35% I don't think, could work it out but would need the 2017 list. I know that now we are between 10-20%

 

[juss]

There's a few people that seem to trot this one out regularly. Why does it matter?
They're either good players, or they're not. They either fit the team, or they don't. Doesn't matter where they came from.
Correlation =/= causation.

There's zero evidence that it's not a valid list management strategy, but you claimed that it was a 'trade heavy' strategy, which is demonstrably false, so I'm not sure why I would put much weight in the rest of your 'analysis'.

Several reasons, among them:
-Generally speaking they cost more in trade assets to acquire
-Generally speaking they cost more salary to bring across rather than to pay your own
-Generally speaking they are limited footballers with known ceilings and flaws, that's why they are often very acquirable (not the premium high cost players, but the numerous middle range players Carlton have acquired)
-Generally speaking the team chemistry and long term culture isn't as easily built bringing in so many other players or having a high percentage of the list from elsewhere

You don't have to rate my thoughts. The proof has been in the pudding with their long term mediocrity using this strategy, and their list percentage which without doing the maths on every club, would be one of the highest percentages as a prediction, and my prediction is it will continue to be a flawed approach if they keep going down this path. Not to mention that go through recent flag teams, and it doesn't support the strategy either.

It's great if your view differs from mine, you're welcome to make your own prediction and we can see who will end up being right.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Out of interest, how many traded players played in the 2017 AFL Richmond list? I seem to remember a few.

There were 7 players who had played at other clubs on the whole list in 2017. Grigg, Houli, Nankervis, Prestia, Caddy, Townsend and Miles. Six played in the Premiership team.

Since then Weller was added for one season, Lynch, Parker and now Tarrant. There are now just 6 players on the Richmond list who have played AFL for another club: Nankervis, Prestia, Caddy, Parker, Lynch, and Tarrant. Four of those look best 22.

The Blues look like having 11-12 in their best 22 and 17 on the list at present. It is a massive amount, even recent committed recyclers like Hawks and Cats didn’t get above about 14 pre-loved players on their lists.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

There's a few people that seem to trot this one out regularly. Why does it matter?
They're either good players, or they're not. They either fit the team, or they don't. Doesn't matter where they came from.
Correlation =/= causation.

There's zero evidence that it's not a valid list management strategy, but you claimed that it was a 'trade heavy' strategy, which is demonstrably false, so I'm not sure why I would put much weight in the rest of your 'analysis'.

The bolded parts of your post are straight out wrong if we take the word “valid” to mean good..

 

[schmuttt]

Can't disagree with what he is saying, and if anything, it takes a significant amount of pressure off the new coach. Nothing worse than for a new coach to take over the Club and the CEO comes out publicly to express something to the effect that the list is ready to challenge.

Didn't Sayers already do that?

 

[LordLucifer]

Is there any other club that has more players recruited from other clubs than Carlton?

Ask Hawthorn.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Hewett and probably Cerra are astute trades but they have been few and far between on a list chocablock with players found when SOS visited the local school fete.

Few of those hauled in from GWS have been better than average. Plowman, a former pick 3 at GWS is their mascot.

The SOS drafting years had the benefit of many high picks but this too this can only be registered as a near complete fail, beyond two Number1s plus Cripps and McKay. At best players like Stocker, O'Brien, Kennedy, Dow etc look set for average careers. The two FS recruitments are best not commented upon because I am a polite old fella.

I have no doubt Voss will not put up with high priced trades or former first round draftees failing to deliver what is asked of them. All will be equal. For example if Cripps is not fit enough to chase he will not play.

So I think Cook is right about the rebuild being incomplete. They have shown a big improvement in trading this year. It remains to be seen how they go at the draft.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Several reasons, among them:
-Generally speaking they cost more in trade assets to acquire
-Generally speaking they cost more salary to bring across rather than to pay your own
-Generally speaking they are limited footballers with known ceilings and flaws, that's why they are often very acquirable (not the premium high cost players, but the numerous middle range players Carlton have acquired)
-Generally speaking the team chemistry and long term culture isn't as easily built bringing in so many other players or having a high percentage of the list from elsewhere

You don't have to rate my thoughts. The proof has been in the pudding with their long term mediocrity using this strategy, and their list percentage which without doing the maths on every club, would be one of the highest percentages as a prediction, and my prediction is it will continue to be a flawed approach if they keep going down this path. Not to mention that go through recent flag teams, and it doesn't support the strategy either.

It's great if your view differs from mine, you're welcome to make your own prediction and we can see who will end up being right.

It's not that I don't rate your thoughts. It's that your logic is flawed.
"Long term mediocrity using this strategy".
What? The whole 3-4 past years that we've chased and acquired some half decent players after spending the previous 3 years drafting heavily from a ground up rebuild?
Don't lump Carlton's previous struggles prior to 2015 with our current list and/or strategy. They are eons apart.
You've listed potential reasons why it may not be an ideal strategy, not evidence of it not working.

"Having a high percentage of the list from elsewhere".
Yes, Carlton does have a high percentage of players from other clubs. Possibly (probably) the highest in the league, but we're talking about a difference of 4 players compared to 2021 top 8 teams Brisbane, Essendon and Geelong (by my reckoning, 15 players vs 11 players).
Port had 10 this year and the two grand finalists had 9 each.
It's really not that much of a difference on lists of 40ish players. And if we scrape into finals next or start becoming regular top 8 players over the next few years, while delisting some of those fringe players (say maybe a Kennedy, Fogarty, Newnes, Marchbank, Plowman or McDonald types) and replace them with our own players moving up the ranks, all of a sudden we only have the 9-10 and nobody remembers 15 on the list in 2021.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The bolded parts of your post are straight out wrong if we take the word “valid” to mean good..

Where's the evidence?

How is Carlton's list strategy 'trade heavy' when they've still managed to draft strongly over the past 5-6 years?
How does Carlton's trades vs top 30 draft picks compare to other teams over the past 5-6 years?

If these things are 'straight out wrong', you should easily be able to prove them wrong. To claim that, you must already have the answers.

 

[franjon]

So what? Jeez bring up every marketing slogan any time any team is mentioned.

Exactly. Besides, apart from that, it wasn't exactly rocket science.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Where's the evidence?

How is Carlton's list strategy 'trade heavy' when they've still managed to draft strongly over the past 5-6 years?
How does Carlton's trades vs top 30 draft picks compare to other teams over the past 5-6 years?

If these things are 'straight out wrong', you should easily be able to prove them wrong. To claim that, you must already have the answers.

Let me try to unpack your position here and you tell me what I am getting wrong.

You stated there was no evidence that trading in as many as 17 recycled players, 10-12 in your best 22, is not a valid list management strategy.

[QUOTE="Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods, post: 72991217, member: 160960"
1. There's zero evidence that it's not a valid list management strategy, 2. but you claimed that it was a 'trade heavy' strategy, which is demonstrably false, so I'm not sure why I would put much weight in the rest of your 'analysis'.
[/QUOTE]

1. You could defend the truth of the first part of that statement by saying any list management strategy is valid so long as it complies with AFL list management rules. But I don’t think that is what you meant. I think what you meant is there is zero evidence it is not a good list management strategy - in terms of winning premierships, which is surely what we are discussing.

There is in fact loads of available evidence to say that building a team with a lot of recycled players does not work. But it is perhaps easiest demonstrated by flipping the question, where is the evidence to say it does work? Four teams in the last 21 seasons have won 3 or more flags. None of them built their team this way. I think in one of its trio of flags 2013-15 the Hawks may have had as many as 8 foreign agents in their team. That was the most. Other Premiership teams this century I think have tended to have between 2 and 7 players in their team who had played for other clubs. I cannot think of any precedent to a premier winning a flag with Carlton’s current level of 17 pre-loved players on their list, nor roughly half their best 22. Carlton didn’t start out trying to build a Premiership team, they just grabbed whoever would come to them, and overpaid for many of them, thus:

(ages at start of 2021 season)

29yo Newman
29yo Newnes
28yo Docherty
27yo Saad
27yo Plowman
27yo Williams
27yo McGovern
27yo Martin
26yo Hewett
26yo McDonald

These players are list fillers or top up players. But Carlton didn’t have a team that was worth topping up. Your good young players weren’t ready to contend, and still aren’t. Docherty alone among those above is possibly a relic of a previous failed attempt to actually build a successful team. This was quickly scuppered by bad drafting outcomes. The YOUNGEST of these players above will be about 29 by the time Carlton could possibly contend seriously, in the event of things going well for them.

Then we get the players you have traded in that could form part of a strong future team over a sustained period:

Marchbank 25yo - stiff, cruelled by injuries
Cerra - looks a fair enough recruit but the wage seems too high

Then you get the younger players brought in who don’t look good enough at this stage:

Pittonet 25yo
Kennedy 25yo
Setterfield 24yo
Young 23yo
Fogarty 23yo

Show us another successful team built this way. For every one you show me that is even vaguely like that I will show you 10 that are nothing like it.


2. As for your statement that Carlton have managed to draft strongly over the last 5-6 years, and any claim Carlton has had employed a trade heavy strategy is “demonstrably false”:

Weitering, McKay, Curnow, Cuningham, Silvagni Carlton drafted after a total cleanout in 2015, when they had a very strong draft hand and near nailed it.

Since then of current tradeable value above a 3rd round pick in the 5 most recent drafts: Fisher, De Koning, Walsh, Stocker, Kemp. Five players, that is it. There are a few yet to be determined.

Brought in from other clubs in that period are all of the 17 above bar Docherty, plus:

Kerridge, Lamb, Phillips, Sumner, Smedts, Pickett, Palmer, Alex Silvagni, Gorringe, Wright, Lobbe, Lang, Mullett, Shaw, Fasolo, Goddard, Bugg, Betts, Moore, Garlett, O’Shea.

So that is 16 currently on your list and another 21 players, therefore 37 in all, recycled players brought into your club since 2015. 7 trade and draft periods, 37 players(so far) at an average of over 5 per season.

The club actually used useful draft picks or player capital on Docherty Saad Plowman McGovern Kennedy Setterfield Fogarty Smedts that could easily have been converted into at least 3-4 players in the draft who would be much more likely to play in future successful Carlton teams than any of these guys.

For one comparison, Richmond since 2015 have brought in the following players who had played elsewhere:

Townsend, Yarran, Prestia, Nankervis, Caddy, Weller, Lynch, Tarrant, Parker. Since 2015 Richmond 9 players from other clubs v Carlton’s 37 players from other clubs.

The Tigers gave up useful draft capital for 3 of those players. The Blues gave up useful draft capital for the above list of 8 players plus Cerra, 9 in all.

The Tigers have drafted players since 2015 with a current trade value above a 3rd round pick, and/or who have proven themselves as multiple Premiership players: Rioli, Broad, Bolton, Graham, Higgins, Coleman-Jones, Balta, Baker, Pickett, Stack, Collier-Dawkins. Also a few yet to be determined.

So from 2015 onwards Carlton would have drafted 8 players who have proved of value or would be valuable to trade, v Richmond 11. Remember this is cut off to exclude the 2014 season where Richmond drafted 5 Premiership players, and Carlton drafted nobody of value.

So we can let people decide what they think of your statement that the claim that Carlton has employed a trade heavy strategy in that time is demonstrably false. How do you propose to demonstrate that, given the above? You had one good draft and got Walsh courtesy of finishing last on the ladder. That is about it.

The truth is that in the 7 periods since Carlton “went to the draft” no club in recent memory would have brought in more players from other clubs. Brisbane Bears when they started with I think a mandatory 2 players from each club would be the only ones I can recall who would come close, but of course that was a one off scenario not relevant to Carlton’s list build.