Coach Chris Scott re-signs to 2022 (aka the Chris Scott discussion Part IV)

[FredLeDeux]

Had a laugh at the former Carlton assistant coach line

Related to the Benetti/Silvagni clan, I believe.

 

[Man0gwaR74]

How old are you? You keep using all this bad grammar and crying out for mods to back you up? You can't cry poor when someone (nearly everyone) disputes your opinion on something, and then provides a fact to negate your argument.
If you're going to disparage Josh Hunt for being 'soft' and then saying he shouldn't have been best 22, then you're going to get a conflicting opinion. Pick out Motlop, Smedts, Parsons etc. and you'll most likely get a consensus of support.
This isn't an arena where you can just stipulate something and then run away and ask the mods to defend you because you don't like the responses. Especially when what you're provided with is articulated facts and measured responses.
Hunt played 198 games in 12 seasons. He won 2 premierships and he stomped on that mutt, Ballantyne's hand. He's a champion and as tough as they come. Don't like that response, then find me something that's evidence to the contrary. If you're going to use an isolated incident (like a Hawthorn supporter with Worpel v Sel), then it proves nothing. Give me a career of pulling out of contests (Motlop springs to mind), then you have a case. At this point, you don't.

>>>WHOOOOOSH>>> JUST GOES STRAIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD! For someone accusing me of crying, looks like the pot calling the kettle tbh lol <_<
Not surprising that you never noticed how soft and flawed Josh Hunt was...
The only talking point that you offer, shows your lack of reasoning used when reading into his plays coz Hunt stomping on a player's hand doesn't make him good or a tough player, in fact by a football purist's definition, displays the opposite! Hunt's soft nature isn't perceived from an isolated incident coz his were habitual! I knew he was soft before that but there was a time where there was no denying it and that was when Mathew Lloyd and Wayne Carey called him out for it, which I already provided a link for in a previous post here! Sorry to burst your bubble but when it got to become a media talking point, the marshmallow conduct by Hunt was pretty obvious by that stage imo!
Hunt also helped us miss out on a couple of flags, which was already previously mentioned in 2005 prelim when the Cats almost knocked out the eventual premiers, and in the 2008 GF I was hoping that he wouldn't play but he was again exposed for being weak as a 1on1 defender! Watch in that GF how he can't read the flight of the ball and could have grabbed an uncontested mark but runs back and tries to wrestle his opponent before his opponent even has the ball(which is what defenders with zero talent do)! Admittedly, I've seen Hunt play some decent games but that soft tag is undeniable imo! The tough looking exterior of Josh Hunt masked the marshmallow man of that era!

 

[Ricketz]

1. I'm talking about stability during a premiership window, why would a club care so much about stability when they are rebuilding? To win a flag you need stability.
2. Who cares about the older players on their last legs, it's about what is best for the club not individuals.
3. I'd bet my left nut the Dees will at least win 1 flag in the next 5 years. Throwing up useless raw data? the core of their list is 23 and under and a lot of them are already guns at that age.
4. The Richmond guns were all around 25-28 when they won a flag. Selwood, Hawkins, Blicavs, Taylor and Stanley? Selwood and Hawkins are 30, Taylor is 32. Blicavs has become a good player but he isn't a gun and neither is Stanley. Richmond also have a much better 2nd tier.
5. The truth hurts. I'll follow the club I have followed since a kid, whether they do well or not.

1. You mean like the Western Bulldogs. Stability in the modern era is a myth.
2. The good players who want to play for a club serious about having a crack at a premiership. The membership, the club, the tv stations, their audiences. There are a few vested interests, that I am confident will trump yours, keen on seeing us not deliberately plan for failure.

You want Gold Coast 2.0. No AFL player wants to sign up to a club for ten years, knowing they are just foot soldiers for an assault when they are retired. The good players you pick up through the draft will jump ship as soon as they can, and you will find yourself having to build culture and footy smarts from the ground up. Like Gold Coast. Or Carlton. Or Melbourne. You end up with washed up older rejects, and fringe players, from other clubs teaching your star studded draft haul (which you say will disrupt them). It's a recipe for disaster, to be honest, and it should be obvious to you through observation of real world events.
3.Useless raw data? I thought age profile was king these days. I believe you tried to tell me that. Do you think I haven't looked at the subsets? Happy to go down the path of a blow by blow comparison. The simple truth is their list profile is very similar to ours. Some very old, a few in their prime, and a bunch of younger players. They aren't special, you are just more inclined to see virtue in just about any other team than Geelong.

Bet whatever you like, I am using your arguments against you. If Melbourne win a premiership with this current list they will be lucky. Like West Coast, Richmond, and the Dogs before them. This isn't the era of the great Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney sides of the previous ten years. The current lists pale in comparison. Anyone from the 8 is a chance.
4. You are doubling down on stupid with this comment. Blicavs isn't a gun? And Richmond had which stars before they actually won the flag? You are kidding only yourself here. Jumping the shark is not the way to win an argument.
5. It's not truth at all. It's howling at the moon kind of s**t. Far more objective observers with demonstrated footy nouse disagree with you. I just don't get what satisfaction you get from making such outlandish statements.

 

[Ricketz]

#5 looks absolutely horrible when you explain it like that.
Couple of very good players but compared to other teams it's shocking.
Looks like Selwood, Danger and Tommy will have some sore shoulders again.
You just answered your own question as to why a few clubs will finish ahead of us.

I guess it is a matter of perspective, isn't it? You name your clubs and let's rate their same core group by comparison.

But yeah, you are right. Tom, Joel, Paddy, Gaz and Harry will shoulder the burden for the next couple of years. They will do it better than the teams you think have players better than our core, too. So it is kind of nice we have guys with their credentials on our list.

As they retire, we will pick up more mature players to solidify that core group we have. And we will remain competitive.

Our core are a very decent bunch. Not the core you build a team around, but that isn't what Geelong are doing. They are leveraging off our aging stars, their skill, their experience, their leadership. And whether you are humble enough to acknowledge it or not, it is working. Despite our losses, our group never hung its head and gave up, we were never flogged. You can't say that for Melbourne or Richmond in some of their losses last year.

We have some very exciting youth, and just keep turning rookies, rejects and late picks into genuine players, some even stars. To downplay guys like Stewart, Menegola, Blicavs, Henderson, Tuohy, Bews and Kolo is a pretty transparent attempt to boost your own argument that we are failing with our current strategy.

Are they world beaters? No. But I haven't seen an era of such unskilled and bog average teams win flags for a while, in fact ever. And despite the media hype, all of West Coast, Richmond and Bulldogs won flags with about half of their list unrated even halfway through the seasons they won.

It's amazing how a flag can polish a historical turd.

 

[Shadow89]

>>>WHOOOOOSH>>> JUST GOES STRAIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD! For someone accusing me of crying, looks like the pot calling the kettle tbh lol <_<
Not surprising that you never noticed how soft and flawed Josh Hunt was...
The only talking point that you offer, shows your lack of reasoning used when reading into his plays coz Hunt stomping on a player's hand doesn't make him good or a tough player, in fact by a football purist's definition, displays the opposite! Hunt's soft nature isn't perceived from an isolated incident coz his were habitual! I knew he was soft before that but there was a time where there was no denying it and that was when Mathew Lloyd and Wayne Carey called him out for it, which I already provided a link for in a previous post here! Sorry to burst your bubble but when it got to become a media talking point, the marshmallow conduct by Hunt was pretty obvious by that stage imo!
Hunt also helped us miss out on a couple of flags, which was already previously mentioned in 2005 prelim when the Cats almost knocked out the eventual premiers, and in the 2008 GF I was hoping that he wouldn't play but he was again exposed for being weak as a 1on1 defender! Watch in that GF how he can't read the flight of the ball and could have grabbed an uncontested mark but runs back and tries to wrestle his opponent before his opponent even has the ball(which is what defenders with zero talent do)! Admittedly, I've seen Hunt play some decent games but that soft tag is undeniable imo! The tough looking exterior of Josh Hunt masked the marshmallow man of that era!

There are so many grammatical errors here, I'm not sure what to do with this.

First of all, the Ballantyne comment was an obvious joke. I believe 'Whoosh, straight over your head', applies here.

Secondly, using a woman basher and a sniper as your evidence of substantiation for your argument, is not doing you any favours.

Thirdly, the media...seriously? There are a handful of good reporters, with the rest like Tom Browne, Caro Wilson, Robbo, Mclure, Jon Ralph, Barrett etc. being absolutely atrocious.

Fourth, you can't use the term 'undeniable', when you've been provided evidence to the contrary.

Fifth, there were 21 other players in 2005 and 2008...Pretty sure Mooney and Stokes and their ability to convert cost us more than Hunt's 'softness.' Hawthorn's dirty rush behind 'tactic' being the other key factor.

Sixth, it's because or 'cause...not 'coz.' If you're over the age of 15, then you most likely shouldn't be using 'text talk.'

Seventh, Not sure how I'm 'sooking' when I'm just calling you out. It would be pot/kettle if I was saying something you didn't like and then running away and crying for the mods. I'm a big boy. If I get a day off to cool off, then I'll wear it. I'm not going to hide behind a mod though if someone says something I don't like.

Lastly, for someone pointing out how 'soft' Josh Hunt is, you sure don't seem too thick-skinned yourself. Might want to just let this one go and reconvene when you have something a little less controversial and based a little more inside reality.

 

[dazbroncos]

Mitchell, Wingard and O'Meara are a lot better than our batch

they are the second worst and will join us at the bottom of the ladder in 3-4 years

its not trolling if its the truth

let me know the other teams

Wingard...

Better than Selwood..

It early in 2019 but clubhouse leader on reach the year

Go Catters

 

[Spazz Cat]

Wingard...

Better than Selwood..

It early in 2019 but clubhouse leader on reach the year

Go Catters

Don't think you read his posts at all. Not at all what he was saying.
Anyway, I think Wingard is shocking now and not getting his mojo back. Poor trade.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I guess it is a matter of perspective, isn't it? You name your clubs and let's rate their same core group by comparison.

But yeah, you are right. Tom, Joel, Paddy, Gaz and Harry will shoulder the burden for the next couple of years. They will do it better than the teams you think have players better than our core, too. So it is kind of nice we have guys with their credentials on our list.

As they retire, we will pick up more mature players to solidify that core group we have. And we will remain competitive.

Our core are a very decent bunch. Not the core you build a team around, but that isn't what Geelong are doing. They are leveraging off our aging stars, their skill, their experience, their leadership. And whether you are humble enough to acknowledge it or not, it is working. Despite our losses, our group never hung its head and gave up, we were never flogged. You can't say that for Melbourne or Richmond in some of their losses last year.

We have some very exciting youth, and just keep turning rookies, rejects and late picks into genuine players, some even stars. To downplay guys like Stewart, Menegola, Blicavs, Henderson, Tuohy, Bews and Kolo is a pretty transparent attempt to boost your own argument that we are failing with our current strategy.

Are they world beaters? No. But I haven't seen an era of such unskilled and bog average teams win flags for a while, in fact ever. And despite the media hype, all of West Coast, Richmond and Bulldogs won flags with about half of their list unrated even halfway through the seasons they won.

It's amazing how a flag can polish a historical turd.

Absolutely horrible was going a bit far.
We are a team that will make the 8.
But looking at that, even with the top players shouldering the load, Top4, even Top 6, I dunno man.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Related to the Benetti/Silvagni clan, I believe.

I should of ignored the whole thing when someone is s**t talk needling lol

 

[Landgraft]

I guess it is a matter of perspective, isn't it? You name your clubs and let's rate their same core group by comparison.

But yeah, you are right. Tom, Joel, Paddy, Gaz and Harry will shoulder the burden for the next couple of years. They will do it better than the teams you think have players better than our core, too. So it is kind of nice we have guys with their credentials on our list.

As they retire, we will pick up more mature players to solidify that core group we have. And we will remain competitive.

Our core are a very decent bunch. Not the core you build a team around, but that isn't what Geelong are doing. They are leveraging off our aging stars, their skill, their experience, their leadership. And whether you are humble enough to acknowledge it or not, it is working. Despite our losses, our group never hung its head and gave up, we were never flogged. You can't say that for Melbourne or Richmond in some of their losses last year.

We have some very exciting youth, and just keep turning rookies, rejects and late picks into genuine players, some even stars. To downplay guys like Stewart, Menegola, Blicavs, Henderson, Tuohy, Bews and Kolo is a pretty transparent attempt to boost your own argument that we are failing with our current strategy.

Are they world beaters? No. But I haven't seen an era of such unskilled and bog average teams win flags for a while, in fact ever. And despite the media hype, all of West Coast, Richmond and Bulldogs won flags with about half of their list unrated even halfway through the seasons they won.

It's amazing how a flag can polish a historical turd.

Not just West Coast, but also Collingwood are viewed as this shining example of what a build should be and are viewed as one of the top teams. Because they... beat Richmond once?

I think that often it is possible to actually say something when discussing footy, but plenty definitely fall into the trap of using the assumption that the way things played out is the only outcome that could have been. Which is just utterly bizarre to me, and involves denying fundamentals of competition. But then again...

 

[FredLeDeux]

I should of ignored the whole thing when someone is s**t talk needling lol

What you "should of" not done was make a silly comment, then double down on it, then deny you made it.

 

[cynical]

Wingard...

Better than Selwood..

It early in 2019 but clubhouse leader on reach the year

Go Catters

Yes 2019 leader for not knowing what the post was about and then posting something ridiculous based on false assumptions.

Well done.

 

[cynical]

Not just West Coast, but also Collingwood are viewed as this shining example of what a build should be and are viewed as one of the top teams. Because they... beat Richmond once?

I think that often it is possible to actually say something when discussing footy, but plenty definitely fall into the trap of using the assumption that the way things played out is the only outcome that could have been. Which is just utterly bizarre to me, and involves denying fundamentals of competition. But then again...

No one rates WC or Collingwood as great examples of how to build a list.

I'd like to see the post where someone did.

 

[Landgraft]

No one rates WC or Collingwood as great examples of how to build a list.

I'd like to see the post where someone did.

As a construction model, maybe. But both are regarded as among the strongest lists in the AFL currently.

There's no reliable model for list construction outside of just making good transactions to get good players and retaining those players. Everything else is hit and miss.

 

[Down at K Park]

No one rates WC or Collingwood as great examples of how to build a list.

I'd like to see the post where someone did.

Yeah, you don’t make or win grandfinals trading in players. It causes incohesion and the players don’t bond like they would coming up as a group

 

[OddYears]

I guess it is a matter of perspective, isn't it? You name your clubs and let's rate their same core group by comparison.

But yeah, you are right. Tom, Joel, Paddy, Gaz and Harry will shoulder the burden for the next couple of years. They will do it better than the teams you think have players better than our core, too. So it is kind of nice we have guys with their credentials on our list.

As they retire, we will pick up more mature players to solidify that core group we have. And we will remain competitive.

Our core are a very decent bunch. Not the core you build a team around, but that isn't what Geelong are doing. They are leveraging off our aging stars, their skill, their experience, their leadership. And whether you are humble enough to acknowledge it or not, it is working. Despite our losses, our group never hung its head and gave up, we were never flogged. You can't say that for Melbourne or Richmond in some of their losses last year.

We have some very exciting youth, and just keep turning rookies, rejects and late picks into genuine players, some even stars. To downplay guys like Stewart, Menegola, Blicavs, Henderson, Tuohy, Bews and Kolo is a pretty transparent attempt to boost your own argument that we are failing with our current strategy.

Are they world beaters? No. But I haven't seen an era of such unskilled and bog average teams win flags for a while, in fact ever. And despite the media hype, all of West Coast, Richmond and Bulldogs won flags with about half of their list unrated even halfway through the seasons they won.

It's amazing how a flag can polish a historical turd.

What reject have they turned into a star?

 

[Max Milburn]

What reject have they turned into a star?

Kelly.

 

[cynical]

As a construction model, maybe. But both are regarded as among the strongest lists in the AFL currently.

There's no reliable model for list construction outside of just making good transactions to get good players and retaining those players. Everything else is hit and miss.

Collingwood doesn't have an overly strong list they just have an overly strong midfield.
WC have a strong list but it is aging. Their midfield is also not that great.

There is a good model for it I have mentioned it many times. Making good transactions makes no difference if you dont have a longterm plan to peak your list.

We can topup forevermore and make good transactions and finish 5th-14th for the next 10 years. Not going to matter wont be winning a flag without a good age profile.

 

[cynical]

Yeah, you don’t make or win grandfinals trading in players. It causes incohesion and the players don’t bond like they would coming up as a group

You trade in players when you have a strong core that isn't past it's prime.

Bit too complex for some.

 

[Max Milburn]

You trade in players when you have a strong core that isn't past it's prime.

Bit too complex for some.

No. You trade in players when you identify a need for a certain type of player that is missing on your list.
By the way, who says that players traded in have to be older?
Trading in players does not have to effect the age balance of a team.

 

[Man0gwaR74]

Fourth, you can't use the term 'undeniable', when you've been provided evidence to the contrary.

LOLK am gonna go easy on ya but on your 4th point, what evidence has been provided?!? Providing evidence of Hunt sniping opponents only reinforces my argument that he was a gutless coward! <_<
I dun wanna keep this offtopic so Chris Scott Needs to go!

 

[Partridge]

How do Collingwood and Melbourne have better teams than ours?

Collingwood's age profile is as bad as Hawthorn's, and well worse than ours. They had what was considered one of the softest draws, while we were universally considered to have one of the hardest. We beat them convincingly when we played them.

Melbourne, whilst handing us a bit of a dishing, had the worst capitulation in the finals series. So much hype about their players, but I don't really see it - they are downhill skiers, who look shiny when they have the run, but they have no guts to dig in when they are behind. Our list is substantially more competitive when the chips are down.

Happy for you to have this sort of rose coloured view of other lists, but I am confident we will finish above both of them.

Finishing higher on the ladder would be a reasonable indication.

What else, Collingwood made the Grand Final while we got comprehensively beaten in the first week. Melbourne unfortunately were playing far better footy at the end of the year and accounted for us easily. Then knocked Hawthorn out as well. I'd say those facts indicate they might be better right now.

 

[Partridge]

The concession that AA Stewart is a "good player" brought tears to my eyes.

Such a nice change to the shitcanning the list endures from that poster.

Tears of joy or tears in having to acknowledge someone with a different view?

 

[Partridge]

Fair enough. I hear ya. I looooved Tommy's year though. Even the games he was getting s**t for not doing enough, I still thought he was playing well.
I wouldn't have Kelly up there, was good but had a slump mid season.
Danger always gets underrated IMO. Had another great year.

I thought Hawkins was clearly our best player in 2018. Thought he was an excellent chance for AA selection and our best and fairest. Amazed he got neither.

 

[dazbroncos]

Finishing higher on the ladder would be a reasonable indication.

What else, Collingwood made the Grand Final while we got comprehensively beaten in the first week. Melbourne unfortunately were playing far better footy at the end of the year and accounted for us easily. Then knocked Hawthorn out as well. I'd say those facts indicate they might be better right now.

But when we finished higher on the ladder that wasn't an indication we were a good team. That was just home ground advantages and playing poor teams and getting lucky if you read this thread and its 45000 posts.

Funny how ladder position now is an indication of a good team.

Go Catters