Resource Beyond the "66 Game" Rebuild

[Malifice]

I think you needed to say “Round 1 picks” because this has somehow come across as every single pick in the draft for 5 years.

Well no, that would be unreasonable.

But with only 4 drafts to do it in (the '66' games) even factoring in trading in more 1sts (Gibbs, Henderson etc) and assuming 9 x 1sts over that time (which is roughly how many we ended up with) we'd basically need to get all 9 of them spot on (at least 100 gamer quality, and hopefully a few stars) with maybe room for 1 bust at most.

Even that would have left us with Cripps, Docherty, say [2 stars and 5 'OK' players] at the start of season 2020, with now all of our established older players (Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Kruezer, Simpson) basically gone or about to be, so all we have really done there is maintain the status quo (replacing those older blokes who left with younger ones).

The damage of those drafts is still there in 2020, even assuming a strike rate of 7 AFL quality players from 8 x 1st round picks; we're basically left with 9 AFL quality players, including a few absolute guns, and another 30 odd blokes (less any players picked up in the 2nd and later rounds) who are not going to make it.

We were in a hole so massive, it was going to take a total reversal of the prior 7 drafts of near total misses, by having 4-5 drafts of near total hits, just to make up the ground we lost in 2008-2014.

The blue colored glasses led many to underestimate just how ****ed we were in 2015 (pre draft) list wise, and just how much work we had to do (and how much we had to nail those drafts from 2015-2019), simply to assemble a functional and competitive AFL list again.

For the record, from those 4 drafts/ 9 x 1sts picks we got McKay, Weitering, Walsh, Curnow (guns), Stocker (improving rapidly), Cunners, Dow, SPS and LOB. Cant complain with the first 4 (they're AA's or should be), the middle two are AFL quality 100 gamer territory at least (so OK) but the last 3 are looking like busts for us at the moment (SPS definitely was).

We need a strike rate as good for the blokes taken after those drafts (Durdin, Kemp etc) at least as good, if not better than the strike rate for the drafts before them. Kemp looks the goods so far, but the others don't have enough exposed form to tell.

I think we'll see a bit of them this year, and I'll be able to see if we've done enough, or are in need of a further list correction.

 

[Malifice]

That's pretty optimistic.

No team nails 'every single pick' for 5 years,

I said 'nail nearly every single early pick for 5 years'. Later picks are largely crap-shoots, but we needed to get more wins than losses in that column as well to even be close to assembling a competitive list, considering the hole we were in at the start of this rebuild.

List wise (during the rebuild) our problems are that while our haul of 1sts was good in 2015-18 (bearing in mind it cost us picks 1, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 10, 12, 18) we look to have struck out with 3 of those picks (and 1 for sure), netting 6 quality players (4 x Guns in Walsh, Weitering, McKay, Curnow and 2 x AFL quality players in Stocker and Cunners) to add to the 2015 playing list.

In that same time we gained those 6 players (4 x guns and 2 x AFL quality), Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Kruezer, Carazzo, Walker, Simpson, Jamison, Thomas, Armfield, Rowe, Touhy, Henderson and Yarran (By my count that's 5 x Guns and 9 x AFL quality players) left the list.

So with that in mind, looking at our 1st round strike rate over the 4 drafts, in 2019 we were 6 quality players on our list behind were we were in 2015 (Murphy and Simps0n hadnt left yet, it becomes worse if you factor them in). Even if we pluck another star with a later pick (or Free agent) and find 5 more AFL quality players with later (2nd round and later picks) over those 4 drafts, we're basically only at the status quo of where we were in 2015 (albeit with a much younger list, and the talent concentrated at the younger bracket, and not at the top age bracket like it was in 2015).

Melbournes (and Richmonds before them) rebuilds took a long time and some astute drafting (after some early blunders) before it paid off. A lot longer than 4-5 years.

We really need to see many of the draftees of 2019-2021 show something this year, and hope to God Dow and/or LOB (or even a few of our other draftees from earlier drafts/ later rounds) also come on this year, and we likely also need at least one of them to reveal they're actually a 'gun' player (or to get one in via Free Agency).

Im bullish the list is looking a lot better, and we're on the right path, but Im not as convinced the list is in as good shape and ripe for a serious shake of the finals just quite yet, as people think it is.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If you look at the top 4 sides last season then they had the following amount of players play in the first final who were on their list at the start of our rebuild.

Port 6.
Cats 7.
Melbourne 9.
Brisbane 6. including the unused sub

Carlton played with 4. Cas and Murphy would push us out to 6 so maybe say 5.

Interesting that Melbourne clearly needed to do the least work to their list over the last 6 seasons.
There’s not really any excuse for us to be behind Port, Cats or Brisbane considering how much more capital we have had to play with. Geelong have gone down a different path so you imagine we will go past them soon but I think Port and Brisbane have just been better run. It’s going to be very interesting how it plays out over the next few seasons. If we don’t have a sustained run of contending similarly to Brisbane and Port I think we have really failed.

 

[Jeremias]

I said 'nail nearly every single early pick for 5 years'.

No you didn't. You said this:

We really needed to nail every 1st rounder with at least an AFL capable 100 gamer, with a few stars in there.

They're two very different statements.

 

[Malifice]

It was a mess but looking at the list in 2016.
Weitering, Curnow, McKay, Cripps, Plowman, Curnow, Cuningham, Doc and SOJ. I think that would be as strong as a lot of clubs from 2016.

We finished 14th in 2016, with 7 wins and 14 losses, and still had Simpson, Murphy, Gibbs and Kruezer (plus Walker, Jamison, Thomas, Rowe etc) on the list propping us up.

It was those blokes, and a handful of kids (you cant expect much from 18 year olds), plus an ultra defensive game plan from Bolton that saw us avoid getting slaughtered most weeks (but still lose).

Our list is in a much better place now than it was at the start of 2015, with the main difference being the talent is now mostly in the 25 and under bracket (rather than the 25 and over bracket).

The amount of players with (exposed) talent and form is only moderately better now than it was then though (even if it is mostly concentrated with our younger players), which is why we're seeing the results we're seeing at present (mid table finishes, and inability to compete with the stronger clubs).

We really need some of the lesser lights or newer draftees to take a step this year to lift the side up the ladder (and show we have the list we though we would have by now). If they cant, we might find ourselves in a bit of a 'one step backwards to take two steps forward' situation.

 

[JustaBattler]

If Malthouse was never appointed - we wouldn't have had to go into a 'full high risk rebuild' - he was more to blame than a run of crappy drafts and in fact played a large hand in continuing a run of crappy drafts.

 

[Malifice]

Interesting that Melbourne clearly needed to do the least work to their list over the last 6 seasons.

Look at the players Melbourne have brought in since 2014.

Petracca, Brayshaw, Neale-Bullen, Oliver, Weideman, Spargo, Jackson etc.

For the first 5 years of the rebuild (staring in 2009 with Scully, Trengrove etc) they butchered the draft and went no-where (but landed a few good-uns in Gawn etc). It took them 12 years to go from where we were at in 2015 (for them, 2009) to the flag in 2021.

They've made some ballsy calls (they traded up to get Oliver), targeted free agents, got lucky with Brown falling to them for free (and the Saints leaving them Petracca at 2), and made some astute drafting calls in recent years.

Dont get me wrong, we're on the right track and I've been happy with the drafting overall (our free agency bids have left me seriously underwhelmed though), but we needed to be 'excellent and near flawless' with our drafting to fix the problems of 2015 totally by now.

The team I really worry about is the Saints. They've ****ed their rebuild totally, and have added some bizzare free agents (Steele is a gun, but they could have Petracca and Bontempelli instead of Billings and no-one). Max King looks a beast and should explode this year or next, but they're still light on elsewhere to be a genuine threat, and need to make some serious list corrections fast to be a genuine threat.

But I digress.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

We finished 14th in 2016, with 7 wins and 14 losses, and still had Simpson, Murphy, Gibbs and Kruezer (plus Walker, Jamison, Thomas, Rowe etc) on the list propping us up.

It was those blokes, and a handful of kids (you cant expect much from 18 year olds), plus an ultra defensive game plan from Bolton that saw us avoid getting slaughtered most weeks (but still lose).

Our list is in a much better place now than it was at the start of 2015, with the main difference being the talent is now mostly in the 25 and under bracket (rather than the 25 and over bracket).

The amount of players with (exposed) talent and form is only moderately better now than it was then though (even if it is mostly concentrated with our younger players), which is why we're seeing the results we're seeing at present (mid table finishes, and inability to compete with the stronger clubs).

We really need some of the lesser lights or newer draftees to take a step this year to lift the side up the ladder (and show we have the list we though we would have by now). If they cant, we might find ourselves in a bit of a 'one step backwards to take two steps forward' situation.

Much better place now, I was showing that a lot of those top 4 sides have managed to bring in 15 odd best 22 players over the time we have been rebuilding with alot less assets then we have had.

That’s why I think picking up Cerra has been a little understated. Absolutely perfect age bracket and so much safer then a draft pick who probably won’t be ready until 2026. I think we are only a tall defender away from having a core as strong as anyone’s and as all decent teams have shown, you can find 3-4 role players a season if you have the core to carry them. I think Richmond brought in something like 10 premiership players in 3 off-seasons before their 2017 flag. Melbourne probably had about 8 or so come in over the 3 years before their flag

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Look at the players Melbourne have brought in since 2014.

Petracca, Brayshaw, Neale-Bullen, Oliver, Weideman, Spargo, Jackson etc.

For the first 5 years of the rebuild (staring in 2009 with Scully, Trengrove etc) they butchered the draft and went no-where (but landed a few good-uns in Gawn etc). It took them 12 years to go from where we were at in 2015 (for them, 2009) to the flag in 2021.

They've made some ballsy calls (they traded up to get Oliver), targeted free agents, got lucky with Brown falling to them for free (and the Saints leaving them Petracca at 2), and made some astute drafting calls in recent years.

Dont get me wrong, we're on the right track and I've been happy with the drafting overall (our free agency bids have left me seriously underwhelmed though), but we needed to be 'excellent and near flawless' with our drafting to fix the problems of 2015 totally by now.

The team I really worry about is the Saints. They've f’ed their rebuild totally, and have added some bizzare free agents (Steele is a gun, but they could have Petracca and Bontempelli instead of Billings and no-one). Max King looks a beast and should explode this year or next, but they're still light on elsewhere to be a genuine threat, and need to make some serious list corrections fast to be a genuine threat.

But I digress.

Had Saints taken Petracca I think they would have a better list then Melbourne. No one is as good or as bad as they seem.

 

[gbatman]

I think SOS did an outstanding job strategy wise, we needed to get more picks in the top 30 of the draft and he did that. Fail to do that and just cycle through the draft you get to the finish line short of too many players. His recruiting has been ok, we'll know how good it's been this season.

We had the worst list imaginable, it needed a complete cleanout. We have needed to bring in a huge amount of players and we have done that.

It's up to the finer details now. Coaching, leadership, fitness etc.

We need some luck. Brought in two high draft picks a few years ago in Kemp and philp who have been injured nearly all that time. Brought in some players from other clubs like Setterfield, McGovern, Marchbank who have been injured all the time. That's the thing to having success, you need a good run with injuries.

 

[The Return of the Paf]

Well no, that would be unreasonable.

But with only 4 drafts to do it in (the '66' games) even factoring in trading in more 1sts (Gibbs, Henderson etc) and assuming 9 x 1sts over that time (which is roughly how many we ended up with) we'd basically need to get all 9 of them spot on (at least 100 gamer quality, and hopefully a few stars) with maybe room for 1 bust at most.

Even that would have left us with Cripps, Docherty, say [2 stars and 5 'OK' players] at the start of season 2020, with now all of our established older players (Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Kruezer, Simpson) basically gone or about to be, so all we have really done there is maintain the status quo (replacing those older blokes who left with younger ones).

The damage of those drafts is still there in 2020, even assuming a strike rate of 7 AFL quality players from 8 x 1st round picks; we're basically left with 9 AFL quality players, including a few absolute guns, and another 30 odd blokes (less any players picked up in the 2nd and later rounds) who are not going to make it.

We were in a hole so massive, it was going to take a total reversal of the prior 7 drafts of near total misses, by having 4-5 drafts of near total hits, just to make up the ground we lost in 2008-2014.

The blue colored glasses led many to underestimate just how f’ed we were in 2015 (pre draft) list wise, and just how much work we had to do (and how much we had to nail those drafts from 2015-2019), simply to assemble a functional and competitive AFL list again.

For the record, from those 4 drafts/ 9 x 1sts picks we got McKay, Weitering, Walsh, Curnow (guns), Stocker (improving rapidly), Cunners, Dow, SPS and LOB. Cant complain with the first 4 (they're AA's or should be), the middle two are AFL quality 100 gamer territory at least (so OK) but the last 3 are looking like busts for us at the moment (SPS definitely was).

We need a strike rate as good for the blokes taken after those drafts (Durdin, Kemp etc) at least as good, if not better than the strike rate for the drafts before them. Kemp looks the goods so far, but the others don't have enough exposed form to tell.

I think we'll see a bit of them this year, and I'll be able to see if we've done enough, or are in need of a further list correction.

Durdin, Caroll, and even Motlop were reach selections taken because our draft position was compromised. I'm not saying they weren't 'thereabouts' but rather that our inability to trade up the draft or get ideal 'stake knifes' with our trades meant that our draft position was less than ideal (or, to put it another way, less than optimum). That's bound to add up. People are going to put it down to natural attrition if those players don't make it, given that they weren't high picks, the context is important but it will escape people.

We do have to nail every pick (and add more picks through trading) but more importantly, we need to be in a draft position that makes it easier to nail those picks.

 

[Jeremias]

Durdin, Caroll, and even Motlop were reach selections

Based on what?

 

[Manhattanite]

The list is absolutely better than it was in 2015. However we still have some way to go - it’s not hard to cut ten players today - which would be hard to do at the clubs with the best lists

If we had to cut ten overnight we wouldn’t be very different without the following:
O’Brien
Parks
Williamson
Newnes
Curnow
Setterfield
Cottrell
Boyd
McDonald
Philp

Plus if they have further injuries in 2022 the following also may not survive to 2023:
Marchbank
McGovern
Cuningham

I should add the only reason Curnow and Newnes are on the list above is they’re unlikely to play on in 2023 so would be expendable compared to others - but I see them adding value in 2022.

I also hope LOB and Philp make it - and I think McDonald has some value as depth for a year or two more. But overall none are walk on best 22.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Metalcrusher]

The list is absolutely better than it was in 2015. However we still have some way to go - it’s not hard to cut ten players today - which would be hard to do at the clubs with the best lists

If we had to cut ten overnight we wouldn’t be very different without the following:
O’Brien
Parks
Williamson
Newnes
Curnow
Setterfield
Cottrell
Boyd
McDonald
Philp

Plus if they have further injuries in 2022 the following also may not survive to 2023:
Marchbank
McGovern
Cuningham

I should add the only reason Curnow and Newnes are on the list above is they’re unlikely to play on in 2023 so would be expendable compared to others - but I see them adding value in 2022.

I also hope LOB and Philp make it - and I think McDonald has some value as depth for a year or two more. But overall none are walk on best 22.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Whilst I dont agree with your list completely, that bottom ten still has a heap of talent in it ..

We are getting better ... improving that depth.

 

[La Dispute]

Carroll was the complete opposite of a reach selection, having slid down the order.

Durdin and Motlop are classic mid-range picks. I would have been happy taking Jesse as a late first if that’s the pick we had.

 

[onesilop]

I always took the 66games to be get the old out and the new in. Not a premiership in 66 games but a list rebuild.

I think that is largely true but ended up being a year or so longer as we just stunted a bit.

The core of our team is from the 2015-2018 drafts with some older players and some mature recruits.

 

[Jeremias]

Carroll was the complete opposite of a reach selection, having slid down the order.

Durdin and Motlop are classic mid-range picks. I would have been happy taking Jesse as a late first if that’s the pick we had.

Yeah it's a bizarre take.

It would be great to get an explanation and I've asked for one, though I asked somewhat facetiously because we won't get one. Said poster has a habit of criticising our recruiting yet disappearing back under his rock when asked to expand on his position.

 

[thylacine60]

not as many grenade throwers as there used to be.........

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember Andy Maher on his Blues podcast mention he had spoken to SOS about the 66 game rebuild. SOS told him it was go to the draft heavily in that period then expected it to be approx 7 years for that to come to light with the growth of our players. Again, just what I think the convo went like but I can't fully remember...

I think the 2021 season was the 7th season? Some injuries along the way, some picks and trades will and won't work out. Some coaches clearly haven't worked out. But what we have now is a few A grade players that will be on our books for many years to come. And if 2022 isn't the year we play finals, we won't be too far off when it comes to players required or holes to fill imo.

 

[Malifice]

Durdin, Caroll, and even Motlop were reach selections taken because our draft position was compromised.

What?

Every phantom had Durdin and Motlop around exactly where they were taken, and Caroll was called out as the biggest steal of his draft:

STEAL — Jack Carroll (Pick 41, Carlton)

Not just any ordinary slider. The biggest slider of the night — and by quite some margin.

A classy midfielder with agility, great evasion skills and clean ball use, Carroll was rated among the top 20 players in foxfooty.com.au’s power rankings.

After a full season of WAFL Colts footy, Carroll has lifted his prospects, averaged 23.1 disposals and using it reasonably well off his left boot.

“Absolute steal. In my opinion he’s the steal of the draft so far,” Ablett said.

“Absolutely elite in the way he prepares himself.

“I’ve seen him play as an intercept defender and counter-attacker, I’ve seen him in the midfield with quality inside ball -inning traits and then he goes forward and kicks goals.

“Carlton have got an absolute steal.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...l/news-story/f8ceb1e46b7de420d72d1ba4b7264834

 

[Blues90]

Went to finish off the night watching the new mulan 5 mins in heard the words green shoots and turned it off

 

[BigBreakfast]

Durdin, Caroll, and even Motlop were reach selections taken because our draft position was compromised. I'm not saying they weren't 'thereabouts' but rather that our inability to trade up the draft or get ideal 'stake knifes' with our trades meant that our draft position was less than ideal (or, to put it another way, less than optimum). That's bound to add up. People are going to put it down to natural attrition if those players don't make it, given that they weren't high picks, the context is important but it will escape people.

We do have to nail every pick (and add more picks through trading) but more importantly, we need to be in a draft position that makes it easier to nail those picks.

Wait what?

 

[RPCB]

What?

Every phantom had Durdin and Motlop around exactly where they were taken, and Caroll was called out as the biggest steal of his draft:



https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...l/news-story/f8ceb1e46b7de420d72d1ba4b7264834

Motlop, Durdin and Carroll were drafted…. using draft picks that Carlton had. If Carlton didn’t have those draft picks, Motlop, Durdin and Carroll would not have been drafted by Carlton.

 

[Accidental genius]

My thoughts are that when we started our rebuild we did not have enough experienced talent or leadership to guide the younger players through. As an earlier poster mentioned Malthouse made things worse. Lost a few good players.

Also, Sos recycled too many players that were cheap but no good (O’Shea etc). Bolton threw the youngsters in the middle and that was probably a mistake as well. They were too raw against the more experienced opposition players. Would those young mid players been better off playing in a group that included a couple of more experienced players? I think so.

 

[gbatman]

My thoughts are that when we started our rebuild we did not have enough experienced talent or leadership to guide the younger players through. As an earlier poster mentioned Malthouse made things worse. Lost a few good players.

Also, Sos recycled too many players that were cheap but no good (O’Shea etc). Bolton threw the youngsters in the middle and that was probably a mistake as well. They were too raw against the more experienced opposition players. Would those young mid players been better off playing in a group that included a couple of more experienced players? I think so.

We didn't have a good culture and a culture enforced by a good group of leaders which sucks for us through this rebuild. We really could have done with a Luke Hodge or Jordan Lewis. Probably an area we have failed in with this thought we did have our own. The rebuild has had nothing to do with Malthouse who is the greatest excuse and scape goat by fans, former players and former board members this club has ever seen which says a lot for a club who has had a lot of them over the past 20 years. It's an unpopular opinion but Malthouse was good for Carlton. He exposed all the reason why we were failing, he exposed weak individuals, weak cultural areas and he forced the cultural and talent rebuild we have gone through the last 7 years. Yep he cracked a few eggs but that had to happen because if it didn't nothing may have ever been done about it.

IMO the players who went were the ones who were harbouring the poor cultural traits and that was a good thing they were gone despite their footballing talents. IMO throwing Ratten into a coaching position raw like we did saw the negative development of players which could not be undone by the following coaches. Giving players too much authority, not enough discipline, creating disciplinary issues. We knew this was going on under Ratten. These issues could not be undone and that's why a lot of the former regime had to go to change that culture and get this out of the club. Fortunately for us guys like Curnow and Simpson (should have been our captains) stayed on and have been a part of what we are building. Players who were not harbouring the poor cultural traits of the past and had the right attitudes.

Culture has been a massive issue for us, it is the number one reason why Malthouse and most of the other coaches have been short lived failures. Culture determines how you play, how you compete, how selfless you are, how you train and how you prepare. Culture encourages professionalise, sacrifice, discipline and hard competitive football. Things that have been absent at Carlton for 20 years. IMO our culture died way back when the Kernahan, Bradley, Silvagni era ended. After that things went toxic at Carlton. Ratten turned up and changed things a bit but he made far too many mistakes culturally and developmental. He wasn't hard enough on discipline and authority but he was a young rookie coach who was deplorably under resourced and out of his depth so no wonder!

People are the same all their lives, young adults are no different to kids. You bring kids up where there is no discipline, hardly told "no" and let them have too much authority, then you take that away with a change of parenting tact, start trying to do things right, what happens? This kids crack it, hate the parents, rebel and cause a lot of grief for everyone. Tantrum city. Compare that to kids who are brought up like this from day dot with discipline and the right level of parental authority, they have no issues with it. It's comparable to footballers and how the coach develops them...

Malthouse, one of the games most successful coaches, not long off a grand final appearance, clearly still at a minimum a better than average coach, comes to Carlton... A know disciplinarian and strong on authority unlike the previous coach. Had no issues with his former teams/players, had a lot of success with them, seemed to have good professional relationships with the players. Comes to Carlton and everything is different. Why? For the reasons I mentioned above about kids. Players are the same. The culture of the club that had been manifesting for over a decade could not be changed without changing the people/players who harboured it. The damage done to the players because of how they had been brought up (developed) under the previous regime could not be undone. They were too far gone. This is why our players reacted poorly and responded poorly to Malthouse and The Collingwood players responded very well and were very successful under him. Their players were brought up and developed right, ours weren't and they were at a stage where that could not be undone. To change our culture and to develop the next crop properly, those players had to go. If not they would be the rotten apples that would send the whole bunch off and around we would go again.

The difference between Malthouse at Collingwood and Malthouse at Carlton was that he had brought those players up (developed them) at Collingwood where at Carlton they were already mature and brought up (developed) by a different coach who had done a poor job of it. The poor culture that was at the club prior to Ratten's arrival and was something no one could not get rid of. He was a raw rookie coach who didn't know what he was doing, who should not have got the top job in the first place and was poorly under resourced by the football department and board at the time so not all his fault. Malthouse coming to Carlton unearthed a toxic culture at the club and that came out in how some of our players responded. It unearthed what players harboured these undesirable traits from years of poor development and being a part of a poor club culture which was a long way from where a professional AFL club should be. These players lacked the capabilities to change, they were too far gone, so as part of our rebuild they had to go. You don't want the current generation being like that.

This is why Teague had to go, he was making the same development mistakes Ratten had. It's going to take some solid work from Voss and co to undo this and hope there aren't too many tantrums.

People can continue to blame Malthouse and scape goat him all they like, truth is hiring a coach like that exposed a deep cultural and development problem that had existed at the club for over a decade and had already embedder itself deep within most of our playing list. It didn't help that our list was terrible at the time, as another poster pointed out, we had no talented youth, there were only a couple of players under 25 at the time who would go on to become good AFL footballers. Our list was one of the worst in the AFL despite a few good top end talents.

Had we got Alistair Clarkson to Carlton at the time instead of Malthouse, the result would have been exactly the same and he would have been our scapegoat. We would have made excuses for our club and players and blamed Clarkson. Getting in a coach who knew what he was doing and tried to do the right things and undo the damage might have upset a few players and cause a few tantrums but it was the best thing to happen to the club in recent times. It desperately needed to happen. The rebuild and the cultural clean out it brought on had to happen for this club to ever become any serious premiership threat and move forward.

Our clean out has not been just about replacing old with young and poor talent with high talent. It's been about cleaning out that old culture that has seen us repeatedly fail and replacing it with a new one and that has meant that some of the older players with football talent had to go. Part of the reason it's going to take at least 7 years to achieve success from this.

And no SOS did not recycle too many players who were cheap and no good. He picked them because we needed some senior bodies and at those picks they were the best available. He was also managing the total player payments so that our long term players weren't paid too much too early, this is why despite paying some new recruits big money, we don't have salary cap issues now. You want to take a look at Hawthorn, Richmond in particular and have a look at how many cheap O'Shea types they sat on their list while they were building up to their premiership dynasty. Heaps.

It's contradicting to say we played too many kids but we drafted too many mature aged duds. The alternative to drafting mature aged players who could not play was to draft kids who could not play which is a whole lot worse. End of the day those players are not important, they come in, fill a spot and go out and have no bearing on the final outcome. Again it's about focusing on what we have, not our misses and who we have had who couldn't play. They aren't relevant, there are always going to be these types on the list along the way, every club has them. IMO what we have is pretty good and we have done a full rebuild in pretty good time.

Bolton had his ideas and in the end they weren't very good ideas and he's gone because of that.

This is the year where we find out if we have come out the other side of the rebuild with enough talent and a fresh new and strong culture that leads to success.