Roast Bryce Gibbs

Remove this Banner Ad

ABAB said:
Didn't we also receive a 3rd rounder from Carlton for that 2nd rounder so they virtually cancel each other out? Yeah, it would have been better if we finish a lot higher to further cancel this but it's their 2nd rounder (pick 21 before bid trades) in a strong draft which cancel out pick 16 the previous year in a weak draft.
Click to expand...

Pretty ironic that you've been saying all this time that we got over for Levers, yet you continually claim that Gibbs was a great trade for us.

Both trades were almost identical, from a points perspective we paid slighty more for Gibbs than we received for Lever.

So if we push this further and go back to the end of 2017, who was more valuable Lever or Gibbs? I think the general consensus was that Lever had far more value than Gibbs.

Therefore if Lever was more valuable then how did we get overs for him by receiving less value for him than we paid for Gibbs? To claim we won both trades is text book cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
relapse said:
Pretty ironic that you've been saying all this time that we got over for Levers, yet you continually claim that Gibbs was a great trade for us.

Both trades were almost identical, from a points perspective we paid slighty more for Gibbs than we received for Lever.

So if we push this further and go back to the end of 2017, who was more valuable Lever or Gibbs? I think the general consensus was that Lever had far more value than Gibbs.

Given that most of us thought Lever was more valuable then how did we get overs for him by receiving less value for him than we paid for Gibbs? To claim we won both trades is text book cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
We never traded 2nd rounders with Melbourne and gave them our 3rd rounder and then finish last in a strong draft did we? So I am not sure where your argument is going and why you bother with comparing it to the Lever trade. Stuff the points, they are irrelevant, one draft was much stronger than the other and that's where we were smart and where you need to look at the trade more closely. I agree, we logically gave 2 1st rounders for Gibbs on paper but technically we only gave pick 10 in a weak draft for him.

And we actually end up getting slightly under for Lever given we only got pick 10 in a weak draft and pick 16 in a strong draft for him as Melbourne unexpectedly finish much higher than most thought, overs would have been another pick 10 in a strong draft.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Crows123 said:
We never traded 2nd rounders with Melbourne and gave them our 3rd rounder and then finish last in a strong draft did we? So I am not sure where your argument is going and why you bother with comparing it to the Lever trade. Stuff the points, they are irrelevant, one draft was much stronger than the other and that's where we were smart and where you need to look at the trade more closely. I agree, we logically gave 2 1st rounders for Gibbs on paper but technically we only gave pick 10 in a weak draft for him.

And we actually end up getting slightly under for Lever given we only got pick 10 in a weak draft and pick 16 in a strong draft for him as Melbourne unexpectedly finish much higher than most thought, overs would have been another pick 10 in a strong draft.
Click to expand...

We traded Lever, Pick 35 and Pick 47 for Pick 10 and Pick 19.

Whereas we gave Carlton Picks 10, 16 and 33 for Gibbs 24 and 44

Points work out that we paid more for Gibbs than we received for Lever, from a rough calculation we received 1505 points wise for Lever and paid 1878 for Gibbs.

IMO it's impossible to argue that the club won both trades.
 
relapse said:
We traded Lever, Pick 35 and Pick 47 for Pick 10 and Pick 19.

Whereas we gave Carlton Picks 10, 16 and 33 for Gibbs 24 and 44

Points work out that we paid more for Gibbs than we received for Lever, from a rough calculation we received 1505 points wise for Lever and paid 1878 for Gibbs.

IMO It's impossible to argue that the club won both trades.
Click to expand...
It was pick 21 before the bid picks, and don't worry about using points in the argument, they are only generic points system that's used to standardize the bid picks, it doesn't take into account the quality of the pick number from different drafts. And that's my point, pick 21 in a strong draft virtually cancel out pick 16 in a weak draft, and pick 33 (our 2nd) and 44 (their 3rd) is neither here or there, hence like I said, Gibbs was only traded for pick 10 in a weak draft and not 2 1st rounders which on paper it is, but the more you look at it, it isn't.
 
Vhaluus said:
See this is the sort of **** that makes me realize that most of the people who were talking up Gibbs as a superstar and happy we got him never actually watched him play.

He spent a huge amount of time at Carlton as a rebounding half back and it's really the only position he 'excelled' at there.

But the only reason he seemed vaguely good at Carlton was just the density of spuds around him.

You put Gibbs from the weekend in the Carlton side of the weekend and he'd be amongst their best players.
Click to expand...

His best season by far at Carlton was in the midfield.
 
Crows123 said:
It was pick 21 before the bid picks, and don't worry about using points in the argument, they are only generic points system that's used to standardize the bid picks, it doesn't take into account the quality of the pick number from different drafts. And that's my point, pick 21 in a strong draft virtually cancel out pick 16 in a weak draft, and pick 33 (our 2nd) and 44 (their 3rd) is neither here or there, hence like I said, Gibbs was only traded for pick 10 in a weak draft and not 2 1st rounders which on paper it is, but the more you look at it, it isn't.
Click to expand...

I'm still bemused that 10+19 for Lever was massive overs yet 10+16 for Gibbs was a win for us, trying to play semantics with 2nd and 3rd pick swaps is laughable. The reality is that those picks held little to no value to us especially when you consider that we ended up using them as steak knives in other deals.

We down traded Pick 24 back to the low 30s (which was pretty much the pick that we gave to Carlton) and we just gave away the 3rd round pick (44) to Sydney as steak knives in the McGovern deal.

Both the Lever and Gibbs deals were almost the same so unless you somehow rated Gibbs significantly higher than Lever at the end of 2017 then there's no way that the club could have won both trades.
 
relapse said:
I'm still bemused that 10+19 for Lever was massive overs yet 10+16 for Gibbs was a win for us, trying to play semantics with 2nd and 3rd pick swaps is laughable. The reality is that those picks held little to no value to us especially when you consider that we ended up using them as steak knives in other deals.

We down traded Pick 24 back to the low 30s (which was pretty much the pick that we gave to Carlton) and we just gave away the 3rd round pick (44) to Sydney as steak knives in the McGovern deal.

Both the Lever and Gibbs deals were almost the same so unless you somehow rated Gibbs significantly higher than Lever at the end of 2017 then there's no way that the club could have won both trades.
Click to expand...
I said Lever was now consider unders given where Melbourne finished (who surprise a lot of us), pick 10 in a weak draft and pick 16 in a strong draft is unders for Lever.
And I agree, our 2nd rounder and their 3rd rounder is neither here or there (and should be considered as "steak knife" in the overall trade), it's their 2nd rounder in a strong draft which is of interest given they finish last allowing us to get a "borderline" 1st rounder considering the depth of the draft compared to the previous year where we finish 2nd and gave them a "borderline" 2nd rounder considering the depth of the draft.
 
Is there anyway we could
images
 
Paladin said:
Gibbs dominated his final season at Carlton in the midfield.
Click to expand...
He was good for us last year too but this year to my eye lacks any real intensity to his game no matter where he's playing, something just doesn't seem right. Hopefully he soon puts whatever it is behind it and buys in 100% again because a fit and firing Gibbs will be a very important piece in our Premiership aspirations the next couple of years.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GROTTO said:
Dominated at playing bruise free footy. He could be our answer to North's Brent Harvey in terms of playing well past 35.
Click to expand...
That's probably why he has been so durable, we need to play him as a high half forward who deliver it inside 50 and kick goals but then what happens when he starts to dominate and opposition tag him.....he probably wasn't tag at Carlton as no-one bothered given how crap they are when he was there.
We only gave up pick 10 in a weak draft for him anyway and LoB isn't developing that nicely at Carlton, he might be delisted in a few year.....IMO.
 
Crows123 said:
That's probably why he has been so durable, we need to play him as a high half forward who deliver it inside 50 and kick goals but then what happens when he starts to dominate and opposition tag him.....he probably wasn't tag at Carlton as no-one bothered given how crap they are when he was there.
We only gave up pick 10 in a weak draft for him anyway and LoB isn't developing that nicely at Carlton, he might be delisted in a few year.....IMO.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I dont care if he is durable or not. (Not aimed at you) I just wish he could play the remainder of his contract at an elite level then retire.

We dont need a player deep in his 30s playing bruise free footy. I cant see us extending his contract when its up, his durability helped Carlton not us.
 
Crows123 said:
That's probably why he has been so durable, we need to play him as a high half forward who deliver it inside 50 and kick goals but then what happens when he starts to dominate and opposition tag him.....he probably wasn't tag at Carlton as no-one bothered given how crap they are when he was there.
We only gave up pick 10 in a weak draft for him anyway and LoB isn't developing that nicely at Carlton, he might be delisted in a few year.....IMO.
Click to expand...

We'll thank our lucky stars if he ever plays well enough to attract a tag.

That high high forward role sounds like its working for Ablett, worth a go for Gibblets. Gibbs one side Lynch the other, I like it.
 
Bicks said:
He was good for us last year too but this year to my eye lacks any real intensity to his game no matter where he's playing, something just doesn't seem right. Hopefully he soon puts whatever it is behind it and buys in 100% again because a fit and firing Gibbs will be a very important piece in our Premiership aspirations the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

What’s his name who has inside intel said he carried a groin through preseason. There might be a reason, but surely if that was it we’d know that we need to get him right.
 
1970crow said:
What’s his name who has inside intel said he carried a groin through preseason. There might be a reason, but surely if that was it we’d know that we need to get him right.
Click to expand...
With Steve Saunders now in charge he wouldn't be out there unless he was good to go IMO
 
1970crow said:
What’s his name who has inside intel said he carried a groin through preseason. There might be a reason, but surely if that was it we’d know that we need to get him right.
Click to expand...

Sometimes with injury you can be healed up but mentally you aren't 100% confident to put 100% load into it.
If you even drop 5-10% mentally in the AFL and don't go as hard as everyone else you get exposed. That half a second longer to get to the ball and then not kicking naturally because you are "nursing" your prior injury, being aware of player contact coming because you don't want to kick off balance either. Could explain half his scrubbed kicks this year, where previously he was considered a good kicker.

Has to be mental though if he looks like he is just floating around out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top