Roast Bryce Gibbs

Remove this Banner Ad

Kraven said:
I could be clutching at straws here. But surely this is the wrong way to be feeling about being dropped.View attachment 690691
Click to expand...
Yeah, in isolation probably doesn't sound great. He interviewed though immediately post game on Saturday and came across as determined to regain his place back in the 1sts. Maybe he's just tiring of answering the same questions and hearing the same stories
 
1970crow said:
It’s also pointless. You don’t need to deliberately misrepresent the price we paid to mount an argument that it’s looking like being a bad result.
Click to expand...
Fair call, if you don't think Gibbs is worth pick 10 and an early 3rd round pick then we paid over for a 29 year old who has been durable all his career.
The following year, Neale (26 years old) got pick 6 and 19 so I think Gibbs is around the mark we traded for him.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

There’s no doubt the Gibbs trade is shaping as a massive bust. However I’ve come to the view that the fault lies predominantly with the Crows recruiting and selection strategy (wrt to Gibbs) and less with Gibbs himself and his playing ability and form. Here’s why.

The single biggest problem is that we paid for Gibbs (both in picks and in salary cap) as if he were a #1 or 2 team midfielder (which he’d always been at Carlton) but we’ve used him as a #4 or 5 midfielder in our team (until then finally dropping him).

Whatever lack of production and impact he’s delivered for us versus historically at Carlton is IMHO largely (not wholly) a natural consequence of being 4th midfield banana with us versus 1st with Carlton (or playing the similarly stat-filled halfback sweeper role). His defensive deficiencies are nothing new and, notwithstanding obviously low confidence right now, I’m not convinced his supposed off-field issues are the cause either (albeit they’re a convenient smokescreen for a poor recruiting strategy). We should only have paid top dollar if we intended to use him in a high value role - making him a depth player in our midfield rotation sounded nice at the time with premiership stars in our eyes but it’s just not good value.

The secondary problem which undermines even this midfield depth angle is that in reality he’s not a complementary addition to our current midfield group. Specifically his lack of pace accentuated our key weakness (and we now seem to have decided that Sloane, Crouchs x 2 and Gibbs can’t be in the same midfield let alone Greenwood and CEY) even though his quality disposal was meant to be a point of difference. Again we simply got it wrong from a list management POV.

So there’s denying this is a major stuff up but I reckon the finger should be pointed at Reid, et al who wanted “their man” to stem the tide of key player departures and less at Gibbs himself.
 
Bob Neil said:
There’s no doubt the Gibbs trade is shaping as a massive bust. However I’ve come to the view that the fault lies predominantly with the Crows recruiting and selection strategy (wrt to Gibbs) and less with Gibbs himself and his playing ability and form. Here’s why.

The single biggest problem is that we paid for Gibbs (both in picks and in salary cap) as if he were a #1 or 2 team midfielder (which he’d always been at Carlton) but we’ve used him as a #4 or 5 midfielder in our team (until then finally dropping him).

Whatever lack of production and impact he’s delivered for us versus historically at Carlton is IMHO largely (not wholly) a natural consequence of being 4th midfield banana with us versus 1st with Carlton (or playing the similarly stat-filled halfback sweeper role). His defensive deficiencies are nothing new and, notwithstanding obviously low confidence right now, I’m not convinced his supposed off-field issues are the cause either (albeit they’re a convenient smokescreen for a poor recruiting strategy). We should only have paid top dollar if we intended to use him in a high value role - making him a depth player in our midfield rotation sounded nice at the time with premiership stars in our eyes but it’s just not good value.

The secondary problem which undermines even this midfield depth angle is that in reality he’s not a complementary addition to our current midfield group. Specifically his lack of pace accentuated our key weakness (and we now seem to have decided that Sloane, Crouchs x 2 and Gibbs can’t be in the same midfield let alone Greenwood and CEY) even though his quality disposal was meant to be a point of difference. Again we simply got it wrong from a list management POV.

So there’s denying this is a major stuff up but I reckon the finger should be pointed at Reid, et al who wanted “their man” to stem the tide of key player departures and less at Gibbs himself.
Click to expand...
In terms of salary, Ricciuto said he did take a pay-cut to play for the Crows and is on less than McGovern so likely $500K per year (as McGovern signed a $550K contract) but currently he isn't worth what he is on and the pick 10 and an early 3rd rounder that we traded for him (although this trade did look very good in the 1st half of the year when he was one of the early favourite for the B&F at that point, interestingly this was when both Crouches and Sloane were injured).

He still has half this season and the next 2 seasons where the only positive right now is it doesn't look like it's his body that is cooked but he does need to find better defensive action and more importantly a new role for him if we can't fit him into the midfield, I think the improvement of CEY has pushed him out of the midfield. We should play him as a high half forward and use his disposal inside 50 which was what he did against Brisbane and played very well in the 1st half but I think Pyke saw some defensive action which he wasn't doing when he was playing that role, he then challenged Gibbs, who then "respond" with a shocking 2nd half so Pyke dropped him. Mind you, his defensive action did improve against Melbourne with Gibbs doing what he was told very well, I think Pyke is teaching him, like what he did to Jenkins.

Imagine if we did really trade 2 1st rounders for him......this thread would be in melt-down.
 
ABAB said:
In terms of salary, Ricciuto said he did take a pay-cut to play for the Crows and is on less than McGovern so likely $500K per year (as McGovern signed a $550K contract) but currently he isn't worth what he is on and the pick 10 and an early 3rd rounder that we traded for him (although this trade did look very good in the 1st half of the year when he was one of the early favourite for the B&F at that point, interestingly this was when both Crouches and Sloane were injured).

He still has half this season and the next 2 seasons where the only positive right now is it doesn't look like it's his body that is cooked but he does need to find better defensive action and more importantly a new role for him if we can't fit him into the midfield, I think the improvement of CEY has pushed him out of the midfield. We should play him as a high half forward and use his disposal inside 50 which was what he did against Brisbane and played very well in the 1st half but I think Pyke saw some defensive action which he wasn't doing when he was playing that role, he then challenged Gibbs, who then "respond" with a shocking 2nd half so Pyke dropped him. Mind you, his defensive action did improve against Melbourne with Gibbs doing what he was told very well, I think Pyke is teaching him, like what he did to Jenkins.

Imagine if we did really trade 2 1st rounders for him......this thread would be in melt-down.
Click to expand...
+1 We did much better with Gibbs than port with Motlop or Watts. I'd give the guy a break about what his worth deal was done almost 2 years now. He's on decent coin but not overs coin.
 
ABAB said:
Fair call, if you don't think Gibbs is worth pick 10 and an early 3rd round pick then we paid over for a 29 year old who has been durable all his career.
The following year, Neale (26 years old) got pick 6 and 19 so I think Gibbs is around the mark we traded for him.
Click to expand...
We received two first round picks for Gibbs and in return gave you blokes pick 19, so we did get two first round picks for Bryce. But did Bryce cost you two first round picks? The answer is no.
 
RobR said:
We received two first round picks for Gibbs and in return gave you blokes pick 19, so we did get two first round picks for Bryce. But did Bryce cost you two first round picks? The answer is no.
Click to expand...
Two firsts for Bryce and a second innit?
 
If the gambling stuff is true (seems to be pointing in that direction) it's a shame the trade didn't get done in 2017. Might not have changed anything but might've been of benefit to him to be around his fam.

Might also explain the desire to come home to some extent and get away from harmful influences/patterns of behaviour.
 
Bob Neil said:
There’s no doubt the Gibbs trade is shaping as a massive bust. However I’ve come to the view that the fault lies predominantly with the Crows recruiting and selection strategy (wrt to Gibbs) and less with Gibbs himself and his playing ability and form. Here’s why.

The single biggest problem is that we paid for Gibbs (both in picks and in salary cap) as if he were a #1 or 2 team midfielder (which he’d always been at Carlton) but we’ve used him as a #4 or 5 midfielder in our team (until then finally dropping him).

Whatever lack of production and impact he’s delivered for us versus historically at Carlton is IMHO largely (not wholly) a natural consequence of being 4th midfield banana with us versus 1st with Carlton (or playing the similarly stat-filled halfback sweeper role). His defensive deficiencies are nothing new and, notwithstanding obviously low confidence right now, I’m not convinced his supposed off-field issues are the cause either (albeit they’re a convenient smokescreen for a poor recruiting strategy). We should only have paid top dollar if we intended to use him in a high value role - making him a depth player in our midfield rotation sounded nice at the time with premiership stars in our eyes but it’s just not good value.

The secondary problem which undermines even this midfield depth angle is that in reality he’s not a complementary addition to our current midfield group. Specifically his lack of pace accentuated our key weakness (and we now seem to have decided that Sloane, Crouchs x 2 and Gibbs can’t be in the same midfield let alone Greenwood and CEY) even though his quality disposal was meant to be a point of difference. Again we simply got it wrong from a list management POV.

So there’s denying this is a major stuff up but I reckon the finger should be pointed at Reid, et al who wanted “their man” to stem the tide of key player departures and less at Gibbs himself.
Click to expand...

IIRC Gibbs was really good at the start of last year when the Crouch bro's were having injury issues and out of the side wasn't he?

He's never been great at half back and we hadn't played him there since early in his career.

In his last few years with us he had a number of ridiculously huge games, like 30+ possessions, 2 goals, 7 tackles type games playing as a ball hunting mid.
You've hit the nail on the head, he's being played out of position now and ultimately isn't the kind of player you need given you have the Crouch bros, Sloane, CEY and Greenwood.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ABAB said:
Fair call, if you don't think Gibbs is worth pick 10 and an early 3rd round pick then we paid over for a 29 year old who has been durable all his career.
The following year, Neale (26 years old) got pick 6 and 19 so I think Gibbs is around the mark we traded for him.
Click to expand...
Just stop rewriting history. We gave up 2 first rounders, and upgraded our second plus some rubbish picks later.
If we didnt give up two firsts for Gibbs then we didnt get two firsts for Lever.
 
Cleric said:
Just stop rewriting history. We gave up 2 first rounders, and upgraded our second plus some rubbish picks later.
If we didnt give up two firsts for Gibbs then we didnt get two firsts for Lever.
Click to expand...
Go and do the draft points, it will tell you what we gave. With Lever, we didn't trade future 2nd rounders with Melbourne (where we finished last and they also got our 3rd rounder) but technically you can say we got a 1st rounder and a borderline early 2nd rounder (given they finish so high).
 
ABAB said:
Go and do the draft points, it will tell you what we gave. With Lever, we didn't trade future 2nd rounders with Melbourne (where we finished last and they also got our 3rd rounder) but technically you can say we got a 1st rounder and a borderline early 2nd rounder (given they finish so high).
Click to expand...
Draft points mean nothing outside of fs and academy picks.
Picks 26 and 27 are worth as much as pick 10 on draft points. Would you or anyone be stupid enough to swap them for pick 10 if you didnt need points?
Of course not. Dont be ridiculous with this. We handed over 2 firsts for Gibbs.
 
Cleric said:
Draft points mean nothing outside of fs and academy picks.
Picks 26 and 27 are worth as much as pick 10 on draft points. Would you or anyone be stupid enough to swap them for pick 10 if you didnt need points?
Of course not. Dont be ridiculous with this. We handed over 2 firsts for Gibbs.
Click to expand...
That's why I said the convoluted draft points back this argument.....even Carlton supporters and Kane Cornes are saying it, we gave 2 1st rounders but got a pick back (the pick 21 which is close to pick 16 that we gave the previous year). We didn't hand over 2 1st rounders for Gibbs.
 
ABAB said:
That's why I said the convoluted draft points back this argument.....even Carlton supporters and Kane Cornes are saying it, we gave 2 1st rounders but got a pick back (the pick 21 which is close to pick 16 that we gave the previous year). We didn't hand over 2 1st rounders for Gibbs.
Click to expand...
Just so not true.
If we didnt trade for Gibbs would we have had pick 10 and 16 in the draft? After we did the trade for Gibbs did we have pick 10 and 16 in the draft.
Cut this nonsense out and keep your club honest by making someone responsible for it.
 
Cleric said:
Just so not true.
If we didnt trade for Gibbs would we have had pick 10 and 16 in the draft? After we did the trade for Gibbs did we have pick 10 and 16 in the draft.
Cut this nonsense out and keep your club honest by making someone responsible for it.
Click to expand...
I will give credit when the club deserves it and they do in this instance, they took a calculated risk that Carlton would finish last to make this trade work in our favour.
If we didn't do the trade, we wouldn't have this pick 21 in last year's draft, and if we didn't have this pick we wouldn't have traded pick 16 (before the bid picks) and our future 1st rounder to Carlton for their 1st rounder this year (as we wanted a pick in this range), and if we didn't have this pick 21, we wouldn't have trade it to GWS for a 4 picks downgrade and Carlton's 2nd rounder this year.
 
P
Cleric said:
Just so not true.
If we didnt trade for Gibbs would we have had pick 10 and 16 in the draft? After we did the trade for Gibbs did we have pick 10 and 16 in the draft.
Cut this nonsense out and keep your club honest by making someone responsible for it.
Click to expand...
We did spend 2 firsts.

We got change though, including an early second.
 
dogs105 said:
P
We did spend 2 firsts.

We got change though, including an early second.
Click to expand...
And gave up a second. The only realistic way to view it is he cost us two firsts and we upgraded our second rounder and got a third.
People can talk points all they like, but first round talent is hard to get. If we put Gibbs on the trade table at the end of the year we would be lucky to get a third rounder for him. It was a stupid trade that will cost us in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top