Would have to agree.Everyone knows it we are a team of A to A plus midfielders. A handful of skilful non key position players such as Caleb and Daniel. One key position topliner in Naughton who cannot kick. One ruckman that is very good around the ground and terrible in the ruck with no backup. We have couple of B graders like Keath and Bruce when fit. The rest are C or D graders at present with couple of the young ones such as Jamarra and Sam Darcy when he gets on the park the chance to be very good.
When we get the game on our terms and execute well we are capable of being a top 4 team as proven in the finals last season. When we do not we are very average like our last 7 H &A games (21/22) one win.
I will pluck a team to compare our team at the moment. Just at random the Blues who still have a lot to prove and have an the advantage of early picks for being crap for so long. They are probably still a bit behind us in the midfield however head shoulders above us in key position with Mckay, Curnow, Weitering and improved McGovern down back. A bash and crash ruckman in Pittonet and up and coming De Koning.
So it is what is dominate the midfield or we get beat. It got us to the GF in 2021 but it is hard to see us going that far this season.
If we look at premiers from the past decade or so, obviously two lists stand out - Hawks and Tigers. They drafted their core (like most sides do), but traded or went to free agency for players who were key to taking them over the top and/or keeping them there - Burgoyne/Gunston/Gibson/Lake, Prestia/Nankervis/Lynch/Caddy etc. They were willing to part with draft capital because they knew they needed to get there and stay there.
Melbourne obviously identified KPD as an area of weakness when their build elsewhere looked fairly solid, giving up a lot of draft capital and presumably salary cap for May and Lever. Didn't look like a certainty at the time, but became one of the foundational pieces of their flag and potentially an era of dominance. Their weakness might be KPFs - if one came on the market in the next year or two my guess is that they'd trade or give up picks to get that done.
The dogs have been hamstrung to some extent by JUH and Darcy bids - but if that's the case then how about sacrificing some depth in established areas to get it done? Most of us might not like it in isolation, but trade out a Dunkley (or whoever will get you that capital) and try and address the weaknesses on the list.
Good list managers or GMs in other sports swing for the fences when they can to maximise when they're competitive - I know a lot of people don't like parallels with US sports but with drafting, some trading and free agency it's probably the best comparison we have. Toronto aren't a destination club in the NBA, but they had a contending list that couldn't get to the end of the postseason so put a lot in a trade for effectively one year of Kawhi Leonard and they won a title. LA Rams have just won a superbowl by mortgaging their draft future. I don't think any of those fan bases will look back on those with regret.
Now there are obviously other instances where teams tried similar things, it didn't work out and the club cratered. I don't know about anyone else, but I think/hope I'd be understanding if we traded out e.g. Dunkley and Dale plus out next two first rounders and it got us AFL-standard ruck/KPD performers in an effort to balance the team and maximise the prime of the majority of this list.