Past 33. Sam Ramsay

[agro]

I'd argue the club doesn't back itself; otherwise we'd never have called a review. Newnes is still there because he hit a games trigger; Ed was still signed by the old regime.

We're getting into supposition, so I'm probably going to leave it there. Suffice to say, I'd have lost both from the list ahead of Ramsay, and I'm angry he's been let go before they were.

And I'm annoyed at the AFL, for waiting until we've finally set up a decent development setup producing quality returns - albeit at VFL level - before bringing in the list size reductions. I'm not saying it was deliberate, but for fu**'s sake when we decided to play a team of kids they cut runners, when we started getting father-sons coming through they changed the bidding rules, and when we started to hit AFL size standards they changed the rules to reduce the interchange cap further.

At what point are they going to change the rules in such a way as to impact us positively?

My favourite was the AFL back in 2006 changing the priority pick rules right in the middle of us being able to to qualify for a priority pick at the beginning of the first round - where we would have had pick 1 and 3 and instead changed it to the end of the first round.

This was because everyone arked up the year before when Collingwood were able to draft Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury - but we ended up copping it up the clacker the next year.

 

[Jimmae]

Hopefully gets re-rookied.

 

[Blue and Blue]

you folks..talking through your clackers again......he clearly wasnt good enough to get a game....regardless of who the coach is.

A shame but happens every year in every team.

Players get picked because they give a coach no option. Or they dont get picked.

 

[jackn]

Players get picked because they give a coach no option. Or they dont get picked.

You really believe that with our club list year? That's some pretty heavy duty naivety unless the they you're referring to is the merchandise team.

 

[KohPhi]

Many in this thread seem to think Ramsay was stiff, and from an outsider looking in, I agree.
If it's such a travesty and im in the 'dont know enough about him' camp to have an opinion, why isn't Power, Okeefe and anyone else associated with the club in some capacity from the past 2 seasons (who would know enough about him) telling Voss what nearly everyone in this thread seems to know?

 

[BigFrizz36]

My favourite was the AFL back in 2006 changing the priority pick rules right in the middle of us being able to to qualify for a priority pick at the beginning of the first round - where we would have had pick 1 and 3 and instead changed it to the end of the first round.

This was because everyone arked up the year before when Collingwood were able to draft Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury - but we ended up copping it up the clacker the next year.

Apologies if I've got this wrong but didn't we get a priority pick 1 in 2007 despite not finishing last. Richmond finished last but we had picks 1 & 3.
We used 1 on Kreuzer and gave 3 to West coast (Maston) as part of the Judd deal. We didn't have too much to complain about then.

From memory though the afl did tighten the criteria for getting a priority pick prior. You had to be bad for longer? They used to be fairly liberal in dishing them out, now apart from gold coast no one gets them.

 

[jackn]

Apologies if I've got this wrong but didn't we get a priority pick 1 in 2007 despite not finishing last. Richmond finished last but we had picks 1 & 3.
We used 1 on Kreuzer and gave 3 to West coast (Maston) as part of the Judd deal. We didn't have too much to complain about then.

From memory though the afl did tighten the criteria for getting a priority pick prior. You had to be bad for longer? They used to be fairly liberal in dishing them out, now apart from gold coast no one gets them.

It was originally win less than 5 games in a season, get a priority pick. After Collingwood did it very close to a gf appearance, afl made it 2 consecutive sub 5 game seasons.

There were changes to the number of wins required too I believe but not sure on the exact numbers.

 

[agro]

Apologies if I've got this wrong but didn't we get a priority pick 1 in 2007 despite not finishing last. Richmond finished last but we had picks 1 & 3.
We used 1 on Kreuzer and gave 3 to West coast (Maston) as part of the Judd deal. We didn't have too much to complain about then.

From memory though the afl did tighten the criteria for getting a priority pick prior. You had to be bad for longer? They used to be fairly liberal in dishing them out, now apart from gold coast no one gets them.

You are correct about the 2007 draft, but I am referring to the 2006 draft - where we were given pick 17 as a priority pick (Shaun Hampson) at the end of the first round rather than a pick at the beginning of the first round.

 

[agro]

It was originally win less than 5 games in a season, get a priority pick. After Collingwood did it very close to a gf appearance, afl made it 2 consecutive sub 5 game seasons.

There were changes to the number of wins required too I believe but not sure on the exact numbers.

This was the inequity for us - changing the qualifying criteria right in the middle of us actually qualifying for it - it was like changing the distance of a race halfway through running the race - a farce for us.

 

[BigFrizz36]

You are correct about the 2007 draft, but I am referring to the 2006 draft - where we were given pick 17 as a priority pick (Shaun Hampson) at the end of the first round rather than a pick at the beginning of the first round.

Yep didn't we take Hampson as the second best ruckman of the draft and leave Goldstein for north as the third best?

Maybe we should have been given priority picks and then Mulligan priority picks to make up for our poor drafting?

 

[Gethelred]

Many in this thread seem to think Ramsay was stiff, and from an outsider looking in, I agree.
If it's such a travesty and im in the 'dont know enough about him' camp to have an opinion, why isn't Power, Okeefe and anyone else associated with the club in some capacity from the past 2 seasons (who would know enough about him) telling Voss what nearly everyone in this thread seems to know?

The problem at present being, the list size reduction, bringing in 3 trades + 3 draftees, I rather think that we were short list space and under the 45 standard list rules he wouldn't be getting let go. Because of the list size and the previous regime re-signing Ed and Newnes hitting his games trigger (because selection kept picking him, despite not performing in the reserves when dropped, over younger players) and bringing in 6+ players (despite the trade of SPS and the retirements) something had to give, and it's easier to justify cutting a bloke who didn't play ones in his second year than it is (for example) cutting some of the others on the chopping block.

This is a consequence of us improving as a club, though. If there are plenty of us who fully think he was stiff given his VFL performances and his gameplay, then it demonstrates that our processes in the reserves and through development could be on the right track.

Still, it galls.

 

[Aramari]

My favourite was the AFL back in 2006 changing the priority pick rules right in the middle of us being able to to qualify for a priority pick at the beginning of the first round - where we would have had pick 1 and 3 and instead changed it to the end of the first round.

This was because everyone arked up the year before when Collingwood were able to draft Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury - but we ended up copping it up the clacker the next year.

You've been nursing this grievance in silence for the past 15 years, haven't you?

 

[Bokan]

For me, my big concern with Ramsay was a VFL game earlier this year where he clearly shirked/pulled out of a contest. It might have just been one, but it looked awful and it just felt tone setting, I was concerned from then on about his prospects

On CPH1877 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Donnini]

No more skinny kids. Strong around hips to have enough power to break tackles is a necessity.

 

[KohPhi]

The problem at present being, the list size reduction, bringing in 3 trades + 3 draftees, I rather think that we were short list space and under the 45 standard list rules he wouldn't be getting let go. Because of the list size and the previous regime re-signing Ed and Newnes hitting his games trigger (because selection kept picking him, despite not performing in the reserves when dropped, over younger players) and bringing in 6+ players (despite the trade of SPS and the retirements) something had to give, and it's easier to justify cutting a bloke who didn't play ones in his second year than it is (for example) cutting some of the others on the chopping block.

This is a consequence of us improving as a club, though. If there are plenty of us who fully think he was stiff given his VFL performances and his gameplay, then it demonstrates that our processes in the reserves and through development could be on the right track.

Still, it galls.

Agree in most part.. but again, and I always fall back to this..
There is a whole selection team that picks a side, it's not (or wasn't just Teague). I mean shit, we have a Selection Committee at my Div 2 EDFL side, so it is absolutely mind boggling that anyone thinks a Coach at an AFL club picks his own side autonomously. So for Newnes to get a game it would have generally been passed by Teague and whoever else (Power, Okeefe etc), a couple of them are still at the club under Voss, and would have briefed him.
Our club has leaked like a sieve, and if any of the ITK's have said that Teague overuled the committee in selection, then I stand to be corrected.

As for Ed, well he deserved another year based on last season, he got it.

Dropping list sizes is a consequence of the times we live in, there'll be hard luck stories at every club.

But I agree, it would have been good to see Ramsay in action.. it is what it is.

 

[KohPhi]

This was the inequity for us - changing the qualifying criteria right in the middle of us actually qualifying for it - it was like changing the distance of a race halfway through running the race - a farce for us.

I agree. It wasn't great for us.
But I do remember the AFL also changing the rules one season that allowed Gibbs get to us and not to Adelaide as a Father/son.

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Gethelred]

Agree in most part.. but again, and I always fall back to this..
There is a whole selection team that picks a side, it's not (or wasn't just Teague). I mean sh*t, we have a Selection Committee at my Div 2 EDFL side, so it is absolutely mind boggling that anyone thinks a Coach at an AFL club picks his own side autonomously. So for Newnes to get a game it would have generally been passed by Teague and whoever else (Power, Okeefe etc), a couple of them are still at the club under Voss, and would have briefed him.
Our club has leaked like a sieve, and if any of the ITK's have said that Teague overuled the committee in selection, then I stand to be corrected.

I don't disagree.

However, how many coaches have we moved on? How many of those coaches would've had influence over selection? I think you can unequivocally confirm Barker had a significant influence over the midfield, as you can visibly observe the turnover of players who went through there before and after his dismissal.

There are certainly more than just Teague to blame, but it bothers me a bit that for whatever reason we supposedly shouldn't blame him. I'd be interested to hear why in terms of who instead should be blamed. I want names. I want faces to attach to a dartboard.

In seriousness, if you cannot blame Teague, then others must be responsible. If you cannot nominate others, then I'm sorry but I'm unwilling to remove Teague from my crosshairs.

As for Ed, well he deserved another year based on last season, he got it.

I don't agree at all, but that's fine.

Dropping list sizes is a consequence of the times we live in, there'll be hard luck stories at every club.

But I agree, it would have been good to see Ramsay in action.. it is what it is.

Agreed.

 

[KohPhi]

I don't disagree.

However, how many coaches have we moved on? How many of those coaches would've had influence over selection? I think you can unequivocally confirm Barker had a significant influence over the midfield, as you can visibly observe the turnover of players who went through there before and after his dismissal.

There are certainly more than just Teague to blame, but it bothers me a bit that for whatever reason we supposedly shouldn't blame him. I'd be interested to hear why in terms of who instead should be blamed. I want names. I want faces to attach to a dartboard.

In seriousness, if you cannot blame Teague, then others must be responsible. If you cannot nominate others, then I'm sorry but I'm unwilling to remove Teague from my crosshairs.
I don't agree at all, but that's fine.


Agreed.

Im not saying don't blame Teague.. All im saying is it's generally a selection committee decision.. a selection committee that most likely involved the highly rated Okeefe, and Assistant Coach of the Year Power. Both of whom could/would have tried to persuade Voss to giving him a chance. Why didn't they? Maybe they don't rate him as well?.
As for wanting names of who is responsible? Why? The club don't need to run their drafting/trading/delisting/contractual decisions by us plebs..
Maybe a different story if Ramsay is picked up and plays 150 games with another club, then questions can be asked, and probably would be internally.

 

[Gethelred]

Im not saying don't blame Teague.. All im saying is it's generally a selection committee decision.. a selection committee that most likely involved the highly rated Okeefe, and Assistant Coach of the Year Power. Both of whom could/would have tried to persuade Voss to giving him a chance. Why didn't they? Maybe they don't rate him as well?.

I think it's expediency and bad timing more than 'they don't rate him', but that's supposition.

As for wanting names of who is responsible? Why?

To stop posters on this site from using the hypothetical shadowy cabal that is the Carlton Selection Committee to derail discussion or deflect away from the fact that the last two years were very much a waste of time and resources, and has certainly cost us players.

There's plenty of blame to be spread around - MLG for not upscaling development at a faster rate than list management, Lloyd for allowing Teague to overrule Russell (allegedly, to prevent people with an axe to grind from sending me another PM about 'facts'), Liddle for getting involved with list management, Barker for being just a stellar bloke but a rubbish coach, etc - but until someone names the selection committee, Teague's taking the flak for them.

Maybe a different story if Ramsay is picked up and plays 150 games with another club, then questions can be asked, and probably would be internally.

Yep.

 

[thylacine60]

My favourite was the AFL back in 2006 changing the priority pick rules right in the middle of us being able to to qualify for a priority pick at the beginning of the first round - where we would have had pick 1 and 3 and instead changed it to the end of the first round.

This was because everyone arked up the year before when Collingwood were able to draft Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury - but we ended up copping it up the clacker the next year.

bang! sometimes it ain't what's done, it's when it's done...........we were still in damage control from 2002........a seriously anus moment in the game for us

 

[agro]

I agree. It wasn't great for us.
But I do remember the AFL also changing the rules one season that allowed Gibbs get to us and not to Adelaide as a Father/son.

Swings and roundabouts.

There was no rule changed for that - the father and son rule game qualification was in place for a few years prior to that.

And in fact it was Ian Collins who changed the games that a father needed to play from 25 to 100 in order for the son to ge able to qualify for this rule - it meant that we missed out on Matthew Lloyd under this rule because his father John had only played 29 games for us.

 

[thylacine60]

Many in this thread seem to think Ramsay was stiff, and from an outsider looking in, I agree.
If it's such a travesty and im in the 'dont know enough about him' camp to have an opinion, why isn't Power, Okeefe and anyone else associated with the club in some capacity from the past 2 seasons (who would know enough about him) telling Voss what nearly everyone in this thread seems to know?

maybe, now hear me out, just maybe, those at the club are more involved with the player and his circumstances than posters on a sporting forum who only have past performances to go by..........go on, call me nuts...........

 

[KohPhi]

There was no rule changed for that - the father and son rule game qualification was in place for a few years prior to that.

And in fact it was Ian Collins who changed the games that a father needed to play from 25 to 100 in order for the son to ge able to qualify for this rule - it meant that we missed out on Matthew Lloyd under this rule because his father John had only played 29 games for us.

Im pretty sure the rule was changed for SANFL father/sons from 100 to 200, or something like that, which meant Ross Gibbs didn't play enough games for Glenelg to the Crows to take Bryce..
Hmmm.. something for me to check.
Cheers

 

[KohPhi]

I think it's expediency and bad timing more than 'they don't rate him', but that's supposition.
To stop posters on this site from using the hypothetical shadowy cabal that is the Carlton Selection Committee to derail discussion or deflect away from the fact that the last two years were very much a waste of time and resources, and has certainly cost us players.

There's plenty of blame to be spread around - MLG for not upscaling development at a faster rate than list management, Lloyd for allowing Teague to overrule Russell (allegedly, to prevent people with an axe to grind from sending me another PM about 'facts'), Liddle for getting involved with list management, Barker for being just a stellar bloke but a rubbish coach, etc - but until someone names the selection committee, Teague's taking the flak for them.

Yep.

Yes, there is plenty of blame to spread around.. and by all accounts many of the 'ills' you mentioned have been changed/acknowledged/rectified.

Getting back to Ramsay though, this is an opinion based forum and I respect your opinion that Teague is to blame.

For me, I'll run with he wasn't rated by the Coaching staff (past AND current) and that they are in a position to know far more than any pleb here (me included) and combined with list size cuts has been let go..
Simples

 

[agro]

There was no rule changed for that - the father and son rule game qualification was in place for a few years prior to that.

Im pretty sure the rule was changed for SANFL father/sons from 100 to 200, or something like that, which meant Ross Gibbs didn't play enough games for Glenelg to the Crows to take Bryce..
Hmmm.. something for me to check.
Cheers

It wasn’t changed specifically for the Bryce Gibbs situation, as it had been in place for many years prior to 2006.

It was changed after 2006 because it was felt unfair that Ross Gibbs who had played over 250 games for Glenelg didn’t play the requisite 100 games for the period after 1991 when the Crows had entered the AFL.