Training 2021 Pre-Season

[puppy_dog7]

Fans are kidding themselves if they honestly think a busted up Dan Hannebery made the club more appealing to other potential recruits.
His addition has been a huge fail. Anybody who thinks the club does that trade again if given the chance are delusional.
It’s ok to admit we got it wrong, it happens in footy.

Hypothetical...
What if he plays 5 more games for the saints but one is in a premiership team, and he has an impact ala Tom Boyd. Would you change your stance on this?

 

[LiterallyNobody]

Fans are kidding themselves if they honestly think a busted up Dan Hannebery made the club more appealing to other potential recruits.
His addition has been a huge fail. Anybody who thinks the club does that trade again if given the chance are delusional.
It’s ok to admit we got it wrong, it happens in footy.

Yeah I gotta say in hindsight I would not do that deal again - not to mention it started our recent trend of giving up second round picks for future players...

 

[gringo2011]

Hypothetical...
What if he plays 5 more games for the saints but one is in a premiership team, and he has an impact ala Tom Boyd. Would you change your stance on this?

I think that's a rhetorical question.

 

[Moorabbin Ghost]

Hypothetical...
What if he plays 5 more games for the saints but one is in a premiership team, and he has an impact ala Tom Boyd. Would you change your stance on this?

No. The Boyd deal was an absolute shocker too. People carry on as though he was the only player out there in that grand final!

 

[Tyrian Lonestar]

Fans are kidding themselves if they honestly think a busted up Dan Hannebery made the club more appealing to other potential recruits.
His addition has been a huge fail. Anybody who thinks the club does that trade again if given the chance are delusional.
It’s ok to admit we got it wrong, it happens in footy.

Love Hannas when he's up and running but its a bust for sure imo.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Yeah I gotta say in hindsight I would not do that deal again - not to mention it started our recent trend of giving up second round picks for future players...

Meh, we basically gave up Hickey and a pick downgrade and threw him the cash we couldn't spend elsewhere.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

No. The Boyd deal was an absolute shocker too. People carry on as though he was the only player out there in that grand final!

A bit of a difference in the trade cost between the two players too.

While I don't particularly buy the 'Hanners got others through the door' line, I reckon its pretty clear he's been great around the club off field.

A 'shocker' is deals like Beams and Gibbs. Massive money that cost the club other players, significant trade cost that set the clubs back and no production on field.

Hanners ain't any of those.

 

[saintkildaman]

Fans are kidding themselves if they honestly think a busted up Dan Hannebery made the club more appealing to other potential recruits.
His addition has been a huge fail. Anybody who thinks the club does that trade again if given the chance are delusional.
It’s ok to admit we got it wrong, it happens in footy.

I’d say having Hannebery on the list would’ve definitely made the club more appealing to the other recruits??

Even with his injuries a player with his profile would’ve been more appealing than the Dean Kent, Koby Stevens, Logan Austin types we had been targeting..

 

[CaptainRisky]

No. The Boyd deal was an absolute shocker too. People carry on as though he was the only player out there in that grand final!

I have a D1ckhead dogs supporter that works for me and the dumb bastard will say it was a good deal because he won them the flag , but i guess its no different on here how some will support certain players until the cows come home , the old saying ,,, Forest from the trees

 

[CaptainRisky]

I’d say having Hannebery on the list would’ve definitely made the club more appealing to the other recruits??

Even with his injuries a player with his profile would’ve been more appealing than the Dean Kent, Koby Stevens, Logan Austin types we had been targeting..

Do you really think players said wow Hanner's is at the saints , i want to go there ?

 

[borderbarry]

Yeah I gotta say in hindsight I would not do that deal again - not to mention it started our recent trend of giving up second round picks for future players...

I think that trend actually started when we got Jack Steele, but whose complaining?

 

[saintkildaman]

Do you really think players said wow Hanner's is at the saints , i want to go there ?

No, unless they hadn’t watched footy since 2016. However the comment ‘fans are kidding themselves if they honestly think a busted up Dan Hannebery made the club more appealing to other potential recruits’ isn’t fair.

Hannebery was obviously busted up when he came in a clear salary cap dump. I still think having a player of his profile on the list would’ve made the list more appealing than less..

 

[ScrappyDo]

The question over Hanners' value comes down to one single post from one of our training watchers.

Hanners is sitting on the bench watching the squad do a drill.
At the end of the drill session, the players and assistant coaches are all high 5-ing and back slapping each other, at which point Hanners gets off the bench and gives it to the whole group (coaches included), informing them in a no bones manner that what they just did was absolute rubbish.
After the dressing down, the group re does the drill Hanners' way, which apparently is the right way.

It pays to remember that at one point in time our only player with finals experience was Nate Brown. We also had, under the Richo regime, the same bunch of assistants that had worked with RTB, and of course, we had Richo.

What Lethers did by getting Hanners, is insert a prize winning pit-bull into a bunch of nervous insular little muma's boys, who through no fault of their own, didn't know their ****holes from their elbows when it came to "high performance"

In the pre Ratts era, Hanners' first year, I have little doubt that he was the only person in the footy department, seemingly apart from Lethers, that knew about something called standards and mindset. And that is why we went and got him.

In terms of our list rebuild, the cornerstone is obviously Lethers, but the next stone was Hanners. He was the guy driving standards of performance when there was no one else.
His effect on the group when he came back late last season was clear and obvious to all, and he played an important part in out 2 finals.

Our football department and list had become a bunch of pussies who were full of sh1t. Enter Dan Hannebery

 

[StCicatriz]

The question over Hanners' value comes down to one single post from one of our training watchers.

Hanners is sitting on the bench watching the squad do a drill.
At the end of the drill session, the players and assistant coaches are all high 5-ing and back slapping each other, at which point Hanners gets off the bench and gives it to the whole group (coaches included), informing them in a no bones manner that what they just did was absolute rubbish.
After the dressing down, the group re does the drill Hanners' way, which apparently is the right way.

It pays to remember that at one point in time our only player with finals experience was Nate Brown. We also had, under the Richo regime, the same bunch of assistants that had worked with RTB, and of course, we had Richo.

What Lethers did by getting Hanners, is insert a prize winning pit-bull into a bunch of nervous insular little muma's boys, who through no fault of their own, didn't know their ****holes from their elbows when it came to "high performance"

In the pre Ratts era, Hanners' first year, I have little doubt that he was the only person in the footy department, seemingly apart from Lethers, that knew about something called standards and mindset. And that is why we went and got him.

In terms of our list rebuild, the cornerstone is obviously Lethers, but the next stone was Hanners. He was the guy driving standards of performance when there was no one else.
His effect on the group when he came back late last season was clear and obvious to all, and he played an important part in out 2 finals.

Our football department and list had become a bunch of pussies who were full of sh1t. Enter Dan Hannebery

well said!

have people already forgotten the WB performance?

maybe we should have just kept persisting with Dunstan who was anointed future captain for years

 

[ScrappyDo]

well said!

have people already forgotten the WB performance?

maybe we should have just kept persisting with Dunstan who was anointed future captain for years

Most people can't remember what they did yesterday. Expecting them to remember 6, 12, 18 months ago is p155ing into the wind.

I'd like to see the knockers provide a list of which other high end players were beating the door down to come to Seaford and play for Richo.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

The question over Hanners' value comes down to one single post from one of our training watchers.

Hanners is sitting on the bench watching the squad do a drill.
At the end of the drill session, the players and assistant coaches are all high 5-ing and back slapping each other, at which point Hanners gets off the bench and gives it to the whole group (coaches included), informing them in a no bones manner that what they just did was absolute rubbish.
After the dressing down, the group re does the drill Hanners' way, which apparently is the right way.

It pays to remember that at one point in time our only player with finals experience was Nate Brown. We also had, under the Richo regime, the same bunch of assistants that had worked with RTB, and of course, we had Richo.

What Lethers did by getting Hanners, is insert a prize winning pit-bull into a bunch of nervous insular little muma's boys, who through no fault of their own, didn't know their ****holes from their elbows when it came to "high performance"

In the pre Ratts era, Hanners' first year, I have little doubt that he was the only person in the footy department, seemingly apart from Lethers, that knew about something called standards and mindset. And that is why we went and got him.

In terms of our list rebuild, the cornerstone is obviously Lethers, but the next stone was Hanners. He was the guy driving standards of performance when there was no one else.
His effect on the group when he came back late last season was clear and obvious to all, and he played an important part in out 2 finals.

Our football department and list had become a bunch of pussies who were full of sh1t. Enter Dan Hannebery

I love that anecdotal part - from what I heard when Hanners first joined the club he was keen to insert himself into everything and learn all he could about how the club was run and everything - I think for him, the off-field stuff seems to be more important than people realise.

I think that a lot of people are just frustrated he can't get on the park. Started the first three or four rounds last year and then missed the rest of the year until the end and that's after not playing until past halfway the year before and only on for about four or five games.

The point is from a financial; perspective this was a bust - we need to get more games out of him to truly get our money's worth. Never mind what he's achieved off-field, that's frankly a bonus - he wasn't recruited to change the culture, he was recruited because we needed that type of player for us.

The same applies to Crouch and Hill - big ticket items they may all be but we need to get everything we can done to ensure all three are there at the pointy end of the season and in red hot form if we're to be any chance.

 

[phantom13]

Fans are kidding themselves if they honestly think a busted up Dan Hannebery made the club more appealing to other potential recruits.
His addition has been a huge fail. Anybody who thinks the club does that trade again if given the chance are delusional.
It’s ok to admit we got it wrong, it happens in footy.

It can be (and argurably is) both though.

Im not sure too many people were interested in the Saints as a club before Hanners and the fact we made that (and then Crouch, Ryder, Carlisle etc etc) happen means players know if we want you and you wanna come, it will happen (Papley not getting to Carlton i think will hurt them longer term).

But he has been a ridiculous bust on field and im not sure we would want him again.

Its interesting all round really.

 

[Desperate saint]

What a bust he has turned out to be.

just hopeless

 

[SaintOfLondon]

I’m appreciative we are in a position to debate if Hanners was a bust. Wasn’t long ago I was pinning our hopes on Tom Ledger

Tom Ledger

Age

32

Ht

178cm

Wt

79kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

6.1

4star

M

2.1

2star

T

1.8

4star

CL

1.5

4star

No current season stats available

D

11.8

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

1.6

2star

T

1.2

3star

CL

1.4

4star

...

 

[LiterallyNobody]

I’m appreciative we are in a position to debate if Hanners was a bust. Wasn’t long ago I was pinning our hopes on Tom Ledger...

Yep, it's great to be having conversations like "Why did we spend x amount on Hill/Crouch/Hanners?" instead of "Why did we go for Logan Austin when up and comer Dustin Martin is out of contract (I admit I know nothing about Logan Austin so not sure if we picked him up when Dusty was classed as an "up-and-comer" but you get my point...)

 

[StCicatriz]

Most people can't remember what they did yesterday. Expecting them to remember 6, 12, 18 months ago is p155ing into the wind.

I'd like to see the knockers provide a list of which other high end players were beating the door down to come to Seaford and play for Richo.

wasn't a very long list

tbh i think the trade on paper in its most basic form of "player X for Y contract and trade collateral Z" it would be a bust.

but when you factor in what hanners has been able to do with a reduced footy department spend where there is suddenly a massive premium on players who can help develop those around him, plus his performance in that final, and i think we come out in front in that trade and he's not done yet. like you pointed out.

people need to remember how tight that footy dept spend is now.

plus i think we are getting more out of being able to develop the guys around one player, then the output of one player alone. what i mean by that is i think we get more out hanners developing players like Clark etc. than we do from bringing in say a crouch or jones. the collective of what we are doing seems to be paying dividends over an individual trade or draft selection.

same with the roughy acquisition, although not a trade.

plus its not like the hanners trade has an opportunity cost associated with it, for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[StCicatriz]

It can be (and argurably is) both though.

Im not sure too many people were interested in the Saints as a club before Hanners and the fact we made that (and then Crouch, Ryder, Carlisle etc etc) happen means players know if we want you and you wanna come, it will happen (Papley not getting to Carlton i think will hurt them longer term).

But he has been a ridiculous bust on field and im not sure we would want him again.

Its interesting all round really.

*cough* jones *cough*

 

[bergholt]

In the pre Ratts era, Hanners' first year, I have little doubt that he was the only person in the footy department, seemingly apart from Lethers, that knew about something called standards and mindset. And that is why we went and got him.

Yep, spot on. Not sure he was 100% worth the price but you can't underestimate what he brought to the table on standards.

 

[ScrappyDo]

wasn't a very long list

tbh i think the trade on paper in its most basic form of "player X for Y contract and trade collateral Z" it would be a bust.

but when you factor in what hanners has been able to do with a reduced footy department spend where there is suddenly a massive premium on players who can help develop those around him, plus his performance in that final, and i think we come out in front in that trade and he's not done yet. like you pointed out.

people need to remember how tight that footy dept spend is now.

plus i think we are getting more out of being able to develop the guys around one player, then the output of one player alone. what i mean by that is i think we get more out hanners developing players like Clark etc. than we do from bringing in say a crouch or jones. the collective of what we are doing seems to be paying dividends over an individual trade or draft selection.

same with the roughy acquisition, although not a trade.

plus its not like the hanners trade has an opportunity cost associated with it, for the reasons you mentioned.

Robbo's last contract has been equally poor for games return, but fans like him and accept he's doing what he can for the club.
Hanners isn't afforded the same good faith for reasons l can't understand..

 

[pebblesofsand]

Treloar

No - we had cap space we had to spend in 19/20 and we spent it on Hanners. Only other options were to overpay existing underperformers on the list or give the money back to the AFL.