Bomber Thompson cost us the 2008 and 2010 Premeirships

[Landgraft]

I've been lead to believe we were prepared to offer Melb a better deal but after the interviews with Watts the recruiting group decided he wasn't worth the cost.
Something about being far too casual about his career and the lengths he was willing to go to get the "best" out of himself.

It's certainly something that would connect the dots. Don't think I'll ever feel certain about what happened unless we get a more open declaration of what happened when and why, so in other words I'll never feel certain about what happened.

 

[romeohwho]

I'd sacrifice more money to stay with the club I grew up with and to still play along side life long friends.

LOL. Codswallop!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If we are starting from the end of 2013 i'd have traded out a lot of our oldies while they still had some value and gone for a lot of kids, i'd also have planned to finish bottom 6 (by dumping a lot of list cloggers) and try to pickup some genuine quality talls.

Also wouldn't have touched free agency in a rebuild phase.

Revisionism. No one said that at the start of 2013.
Stop talking nonsense.

 

[Spazz Cat]

If we are starting from the end of 2013 i'd have traded out a lot of our oldies while they still had some value and gone for a lot of kids, i'd also have planned to finish bottom 6 (by dumping a lot of list cloggers) and try to pickup some genuine quality talls.

Also wouldn't have touched free agency in a rebuild phase.

I would of done sort of the same. I wouldn't have cared about finishing bottom six or anything, but I certainly wouldn't have bought Rivers in but instead started a young player down back instead.
Would not have given games to Stringer & Sherringham when we were delisting them anyway but instead played younger players.
Obviously would have not gone the Mitch Clark route or Stanley and would've got rid of Cowan and Linc at least 2 years ago.
Also (ducks for cover) I wouldn't have got Scooter.
After all those things we would still be finishing in the same position but would have at least 3 more young players in our best 22 and have more depth to choose from.
Not revisionist either. A lot of people were against all of those decisions at the time.
Most were actually no brainiers.

 

[BotsMaster]

If we are starting from the end of 2013 i'd have traded out a lot of our oldies while they still had some value and gone for a lot of kids, i'd also have planned to finish bottom 6 (by dumping a lot of list cloggers) and try to pickup some genuine quality talls.

Also wouldn't have touched free agency in a rebuild phase.

 

[cynical]

I would of done sort of the same. I wouldn't have cared about finishing bottom six or anything, but I certainly wouldn't have bought Rivers in but instead started a young player down back instead.
Would not have given games to Stringer & Sherringham when we were delisting them anyway but instead played younger players.
Obviously would have not gone the Mitch Clark route or Stanley and would've got rid of Cowan and Linc at least 2 years ago.
Also (ducks for cover) I wouldn't have got Scooter.
After all those things we would still be finishing in the same position but would have at least 3 more young players in our best 22 and have more depth to choose from.
Not revisionist either. A lot of people were against all of those decisions at the time.
Most were actually no brainiers.

I wasn't too worried about Cowan or the injured crew because there are a lot of list spots to fill and they still had some chance of making it. Different if there is a list squeeze.

But yeah the Mitch Clark, Stanley trade and getting VFL quality players to fill holes I dont agree with, Rivers and Scooter also.

Been posting the same stuff for years so I dont know why the proScott crowd are saying its revisionist.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I wasn't too worried about Cowan or the injured crew because there are a lot of list spots to fill and they still had some chance of making it. Different if there is a list squeeze.

But yeah the Mitch Clark, Stanley trade and getting VFL quality players to fill holes I dont agree with, Rivers and Scooter also.

Been posting the same stuff for years so I dont know why the proScott crowd are saying its revisionist.

Yeah true you have. With the injured player thing the last 2 flag teams and even the Swans have had quite a lot of low draft picks and rookies.
I think it's got to the point where every list spot is important and you can find many low picks that can perform a role if you try enough of them.
Just wasting spots for years because you don't have high picks isnt the way to go anymore.
We've really been the experiment subject of that and it hasn't really helped us

 

[cynical]

Yeah true you have. With the injured player thing the last 2 flag teams and even the Swans have had quite a lot of low draft picks and rookies.
I think it's got to the point where every list spot is important and you can find many low picks that can perform a role if you try enough of them.
Just wasting spots for years because you don't have high picks isnt the way to go anymore.
We've really been the experiment subject of that and it hasn't really helped us

An injured player with talent might have a 5-10% chance of making it but someone who has a capped skill level is a lot less. We have continually recruited capped players to fill gaps (and kept injured players) and now the team is full of mainly C and B grade talent.

Swans have a bit of an advantage but their list falls away quickly so they dont have a huge amount of improvement (more than us though due to concessions).

 

[Spazz Cat]

An injured player with talent might have a 5-10% chance of making it but someone who has a capped skill level is a lot less. We have continually recruited capped players to fill gaps (and kept injured players) and now the team is full of mainly C and B grade talent.

Swans have a bit of an advantage but their list falls away quickly so they dont have a huge amount of improvement (more than us though due to concessions).

They don't have to have a capped skill level though. Rookie players eg Dahlhaus, Papley, Johannisen!!! Guns with skill.
Then you have lower pick players with less skill but are fit and ready to play their role at the right time of the year. These players are massively important now with pressure being king.
I just seems to me at the moment every list spot is important as long as you have the right development team as some players could be anything and some are needed as fit role players and depth.
Just throwing away even 2 or 3 spots is too much now IMOO.

 

[Frappe]

They don't have to have a capped skill level though. Rookie players eg Dahlhaus, Papley, Johannisen!!! Guns with skill.
Then you have lower pick players with less skill but are fit and ready to play their role at the right time of the year. These players are massively important now with pressure being king.
I just seems to me at the moment every list spot is important as long as you have the right development team as some players could be anything and some are needed as fit role players and depth.
Just throwing away even 2 or 3 spots is too much now IMOO.

I think nowadays, most players drafted need to be prepared that they'll play at the highest level in their first season. The days of a player developing for even a season in the VFL are done (for the most part). Clubs are also drafting with this in mind too and is in line with your point of us throwing 2 or 3 spots away (Schroeder, Stringer etc).


We've been slower on this for mine. This year is the first year we appear to have drafted players who can play at senior level (not dominate but play a role). Last year we were forced to play first year players (Simpson and Guthrie) who ordinarily would not have got a look in. I think in some respects this may have enlightened the recruiting team to use drafts a little more than we have in previous seasons.

 

[Partridge]

I wasn't too worried about Cowan or the injured crew because there are a lot of list spots to fill and they still had some chance of making it. Different if there is a list squeeze.

But yeah the Mitch Clark, Stanley trade and getting VFL quality players to fill holes I dont agree with, Rivers and Scooter also.

Been posting the same stuff for years so I dont know why the proScott crowd are saying its revisionist.

At least five years by my reckoning.

It’s being called revisionist because they won’t admit the club made mistakes. We were going to be winning premierships in that time.

 

[Vdubs]

I'm not going to lie, that sounds like an absolute recipe for disaster.

Absolutely no assurances that would work- how long has Brisbane been languishing?
Does nothing for team morale and disrespectful to the immortals.

If we are starting from the end of 2013 i'd have traded out a lot of our oldies while they still had some value and gone for a lot of kids, i'd also have planned to finish bottom 6 (by dumping a lot of list cloggers) and try to pickup some genuine quality talls.

Also wouldn't have touched free agency in a rebuild phase.

 

[Cataholic]

At least five years by my reckoning.

It’s being called revisionist because they won’t admit the club made mistakes. We were going to be winning premierships in that time.

We all make mistakes, every day.

To deny it is foolish, to claim immunity is foolish too.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with criticising the club, and all it’s moving parts, whenever / wherever justified. But to delight in it suggests the author has bigger issues than the subject of his disdain.

 

[Vdubs]

I would of done sort of the same. I wouldn't have cared about finishing bottom six or anything, but I certainly wouldn't have bought Rivers in but instead started a young player down back instead.
Would not have given games to Stringer & Sherringham when we were delisting them anyway but instead played younger players.
Obviously would have not gone the Mitch Clark route or Stanley and would've got rid of Cowan and Linc at least 2 years ago.
Also (ducks for cover) I wouldn't have got Scooter.
After all those things we would still be finishing in the same position but would have at least 3 more young players in our best 22 and have more depth to choose from.
Not revisionist either. A lot of people were against all of those decisions at the time.
Most were actually no brainiers.

I wasn't too worried about Cowan or the injured crew because there are a lot of list spots to fill and they still had some chance of making it. Different if there is a list squeeze.

But yeah the Mitch Clark, Stanley trade and getting VFL quality players to fill holes I dont agree with, Rivers and Scooter also.

Been posting the same stuff for years so I dont know why the proScott crowd are saying its revisionist.

At least five years by my reckoning.

It’s being called revisionist because they won’t admit the club made mistakes. We were going to be winning premierships in that time.

You all make it sound that the alternative way of recruiting would have assured us future flags.
No way.
We couldn't get the 08/10 flags with an insanely great team.
Stanley was recruited as a fit alternative ruckman; not an bbvious flop.
Scooter was critical in many games last year.
Stringer and Sheringham, albeit they were poor players, were young themselves and hardly featured in keeping out others.
Cowan- agreed.
Clark- agreed
Linc- many still think he's going to be something special
At least 3 more young players in our best 22- no way- no guarantees there at all. We were not in positions to pluck out the pick of the crop.
Even now, I still believe the 5 we recruited (Stanley, Danger, SS, Smith, Hendo) is exactly the way to go when you still had the likes of Harry, Joel , Hawkins, Boris, Mackie, Bartel, SJ, & Duncan, ie the nucleus of a very competitive team.
Nothing "no brainer" about this at all.

 

[Partridge]

We all make mistakes, every day.

To deny it is foolish, to claim immunity is foolish too.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with criticising the club, and all it’s moving parts, whenever / wherever justified. But to delight in it suggests the author has bigger issues than the subject of his disdain.

I don’t see that as being part of it. The claim was made that complaints voiced now are revisionist thinking. Some of us have been voicing the same concerns for years. Giving up draft picks for players of dubious quality and/or durability (McIntosh, Clark, Stanley). Recruiting players with existing massive injury concerns (McIntosh, Scott Selwood). Keeping injury prone players who haven’t looked like justifiying it (Cowan, Vardy, McCarthy).

You can agree or disagree all you want. But to claim it is revisionist thinking to say that now is flat out wrong. Those arguments are not new.

 

[Cataholic]

I don’t see that as being part of it. The claim was made that complaints voiced now are revisionist thinking. Some of us have been voicing the same concerns for years. Giving up draft picks for players of dubious quality and/or durability (McIntosh, Clark, Stanley). Recruiting players with existing massive injury concerns (McIntosh, Scott Selwood). Keeping injury prone players who haven’t looked like justifiying it (Cowan, Vardy, McCarthy).

You can agree or disagree all you want. But to claim it is revisionist thinking to say that now is flat out wrong. Those arguments are not new.

Yep.......mistakes have been made by the club, players, coach and administration. No doubt.

Mistakes have also been made by many here either by heralding or criticising someone too early.

On that note, when posting is heavily biased to the negative, or positive........well, then it’s either driven by agenda or unbalanced.

 

[Spazz Cat]

You all make it sound that the alternative way of recruiting would have assured us future flags.
No way.
We couldn't get the 08/10 flags with an insanely great team.
Stanley was recruited as a fit alternative ruckman; not an bbvious flop.
Scooter was critical in many games last year.
Stringer and Sheringham, albeit they were poor players, were young themselves and hardly featured in keeping out others.
Cowan- agreed.
Clark- agreed
Linc- many still think he's going to be something special
At least 3 more young players in our best 22- no way- no guarantees there at all. We were not in positions to pluck out the pick of the crop.
Even now, I still believe the 5 we recruited (Stanley, Danger, SS, Smith, Hendo) is exactly the way to go when you still had the likes of Harry, Joel , Hawkins, Boris, Mackie, Bartel, SJ, & Duncan, ie the nucleus of a very competitive team.
Nothing "no brainer" about this at all.

I don't think we would've won more flags, I'd say we'd be around where we are now just with some more players to choose from and a bit more of an eye on the future.
One thing we know for sure though is that bringing in really big names hasn't won flags since Greg Williams.
Will we be the first since then? Who knows? We'd wanna be giving it a good shake though.

 

[Partridge]

On that note, when posting is heavily biased to the negative, or positive........well, then it’s either driven by agenda or unbalanced.

It’s not outrageous to state that the club had far too many injury prone players on the list at once. Also that many of them were unproven. That’s neither unbalanced nor driven by agenda. It’s simply a fact.

I hope they’ve learned from it.

 

[Benny78]

Where did the slap on the arse come from? Last couple seasons I've noticed Hawkins and others slapping team mates on the arse like it's a pat on the back.

Highly unusual. It's soft amongst other things and needs to go if we're to win a premiership.

 

[Cataholic]

It’s not outrageous to state that the club had far too many injury prone players on the list at once. Also that many of them were unproven. That’s neither unbalanced nor driven by agenda. It’s simply a fact.

I hope they’ve learned from it.

Not unbalanced to suggest it, but when there’s no other purpose to posting, well...........

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I don’t see that as being part of it. The claim was made that complaints voiced now are revisionist thinking. Some of us have been voicing the same concerns for years. Giving up draft picks for players of dubious quality and/or durability (McIntosh, Clark, Stanley). Recruiting players with existing massive injury concerns (McIntosh, Scott Selwood). Keeping injury prone players who haven’t looked like justifiying it (Cowan, Vardy, McCarthy).

You can agree or disagree all you want. But to claim it is revisionist thinking to say that now is flat out wrong. Those arguments are not new.

No. Cynical’s are revisionist and that’s the case having read some 2012-13 list management related threads today. At best advocating a mini rebuild in 2013 to strike again in 2014-15 whilst also advocating the acquisitions of Caddy, McIntosh and Boak. Some proper rebuild if you’re still trading players in.

Openly state in 2018 you don’t think our plan will work but don’t piss into the wind and tell me it’s raining.

 

[Landgraft]

Why do people still say that we gave a draft pick for Clark?

 

[Vdubs]

Why do people still say that we gave a draft pick for Clark?

Only my favourite player (after Wojo left0

 

[Spazz Cat]

Why do people still say that we gave a draft pick for Clark?

We all know Varcoe, Lebumba,Clark was a worth a second round pick. All 3 clubs said it at the time.
You can pretend it was lower than that if you want.
Also we were trading Varcoe anyway and would of got at least a second rounder regardless.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

We all know Varcoe, Lebumba,Clark was a worth a second round pick. All 3 clubs said it at the time.
You can pretend it was lower than that if you want.
Also we were trading Varcoe anyway and would of got at least a second rounder regardless.

For the 23,000th time. Seeing as some don’t want to listen.
We needed to offload $$$ so that we could make a Dangerfield FA bid 12 months later.

The only club interested in Travis was Collingwood and they were intent on a player swap to facilitate trading Lumumba. Picks wasn’t an option.

As it turned out that FA bid was deemed not feasible given Adelaide were hell bent on matching to get a better deal so we got Paddy cheaper and the spare cash became Selwood. So we did even better out of our plan