Don Pyke: The Next Blight or Neil Craig?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I hope so, have no problems with throwing a club legend a cheap 1 year contract to bow out gracefully ... and have the possibility of playing a game or two.

No player is bigger than the club.

It was a pathetic, timid, backwards, gutless decision that makes you doubt all the other good things the club is doing

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Were we having this same discussion about Walsh before he passed?

The question marks over Pyke started earlier in the season than we lost Walsh.

The question whether we would instantly steamroll top four teams away from home?

 

[baldandbroke]

No player is bigger than the club. It was a pathetic, timid, backwards, gutless decision that makes you doubt all the other good things the club is doing

Pretty strong DABM. I reckon you need to take more into account than just the raw number of games he brings to the AFL team. If he plays SANFL then every player that is in the 2's in the midfield will have an in-game coach pointing them in the right direction. I'm sure Dean Gore would benefit from having Thommo at his side in the SANFL ... don't you?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Pretty strong DABM. I reckon you need to take more into account than just the raw number of games he brings to the AFL team. If he plays SANFL then every player that is in the 2's in the midfield will have an in-game coach pointing them in the right direction. I'm sure Dean Gore would benefit from having Thommo at his side in the SANFL ... don't you?

We could have delisted him and played him as our SANFL past-player like Callinan if that is our plan. We didn't, therefore it isn't.

 

[Scorpus]

Pretty strong DABM. I reckon you need to take more into account than just the raw number of games he brings to the AFL team. If he plays SANFL then every player that is in the 2's in the midfield will have an in-game coach pointing them in the right direction. I'm sure Dean Gore would benefit from having Thommo at his side in the SANFL ... don't you?

Possibly. But who says he will just be playing SANFL?

 

[Southerntakeover]

That was a crushing blow to the club

Compare and contrast to the Hawks with Mitchell. A more accomplished player who had a better season was moved on, whilst we doubled down on Thommo, who has no real chance of regaining his best because of a loss of physical attributes.

 

[VKCrow]

Compare and contrast to the Hawks with Mitchell. A more accomplished player who had a better season was moved on, whilst we doubled down on Thommo, who has no real chance of regaining his best because of a loss of physical attributes.

His attributes around his biceptal (not a word) area have not been lost.

 

[Southerntakeover]

His attributes around his biceptal (not a word) area have not been lost.

His ability to catch anyone to clamp them on has.

 

[baldandbroke]

We could have delisted him and played him as our SANFL past-player like Callinan if that is our plan. We didn't, therefore it isn't.

Then he would not have been a break in case of emergency AFL player. Look, I hear what you are saying but I personally think there is enough worth in him having a really cheap 1 year AFL contract.

Possibly. But who says he will just be playing SANFL?

Exactly what I said a few posts above, that will be the proof I guess.

 

[Rotayjay]

It's like dealing with someone struggling with alcoholism. They SAY they'll just have a couple ...

We HOPE Thommo will be an SANFL leader/break glass/depth player, but you can safely predict that he will be played in the best 22 whenever possible. Because veteran, experience, stats, good bloke, he kicked a goal in the semi, Excuse #14, Excuse #15, Excuse #16 ... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and we continue carrying him.

 

[baldandbroke]

Compare and contrast to the Hawks with Mitchell. A more accomplished player who had a better season was moved on, whilst we doubled down on Thommo, who has no real chance of regaining his best because of a loss of physical attributes.

I don't think we "doubled down" on Thommo - he will be on a very small contract. FFS, Sam Mitchell was on a one year deal like the rest of the over 30's at the Hawks and I'm guessing most of the BF posters that were applauding that decision are now changing their tune. Looks like they might lose Lewis now, leaving them with Burgoyne and an injured and ageing Hodge.

I reckon losing a player of Sam Mitchell's class (he won their B&F), and maybe Jordan Lewis (who came second) then gaining JOM and Tom Mitchell is not a great result for the 2017 campaign. Unless all of the posturing and movement is for another big move, I'm not sure that holding that up as a beacon of light is on the money.

Hawks are sliding after a sustained period of success, no matter how hard they yell on the way down. Adelaide are climbing from a sustained period of failure. We are in a different phase to them and so have a different strategy.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I don't think we "doubled down" on Thommo - he will be on a very small contract. FFS, Sam Mitchell was on a one year deal like the rest of the over 30's at the Hawks and I'm guessing most of the BF posters that were applauding that decision are now changing their tune. Looks like they might lose Lewis now, leaving them with Burgoyne and an injured and ageing Hodge.

I reckon losing a player of Sam Mitchell's class (he won their B&F), and maybe Jordan Lewis (who came second) then gaining JOM and Tom Mitchell is not a great result for the 2017 campaign. Unless all of the posturing and movement is for another big move, I'm not sure that holding that up as a beacon of light is on the money.

Hawks are sliding after a sustained period of success, no matter how hard they yell on the way down. Adelaide are climbing from a sustained period of failure. We are in a different phase to them and so have a different strategy.

We're not climbing. We're stagnant at the 'not good enough, can't compete in big games' stage. Which is where we've always been. A strategy which involves retaining deteriorating players is in no way likely to lead to an improvement in that regard.

You can talk about our strategy needing to be different to hawthorns because of where we are in cycles, but our strategy has never been alike at any time of the cycle, and at no point has Hawthorn's strategy included maintaining a 'good but not great' position, and retaining under performing seniors.

They built a dynasty through utter ruthlessness, and bottoming out, and they've maintained it through utter ruthlessness. Even towards four time premiership players. A club like us? We retain players out of loyalty based upon their achievements in losing preliminary finals in their careers.

 

[baldandbroke]

We're not climbing. We're stagnant at the 'not good enough, can't compete in big games' stage. Which is where we've always been. A strategy which involves retaining deteriorating players is in no way likely to lead to an improvement in that regard.

You can talk about our strategy needing to be different to hawthorns because of where we are in cycles, but our strategy has never been alike at any time of the cycle, and at no point has Hawthorn's strategy included maintaining a 'good but not great' position, and retaining under performing seniors.

They built a dynasty through utter ruthlessness, and bottoming out, and they've maintained it through utter ruthlessness. Even towards four time premiership players. A club like us? We retain players out of loyalty based upon their achievements in losing preliminary finals in their careers.

Bulldust - that's revisionism. Hawthorn built their success on priority and low draft picks - and they have had deteriorating players in their squad as back ups in the VFL.

We are climbing, I cannot see how you think we are stagnant ... but if you do think we are stagnant, then are you suggesting we go for a balls and all rebuild? Sell off our players - bottom out and get the draft picks and go for it in 5 years? Maybe we could get Terry Wallace to oversee the plan? Not performing on the big stage ... well we did last year under ridiculous circumstances and we got showed up by Sydney this year. I understand the anger - not sure why it is being directed at Pyke after one year OR the decision to sign up Thompson for a year. I'm happy to leave you to your venom and backwards looking approach... and instead I'll look ahead to what we are doing to continue our climb. If we don't land any new players in the trade period that make a difference and play Thommo for the majority of the year then I'll be the first to question what the hell we are doing ... but I won't jump in before the bell rings for the second round and throw in the towel.

 

[GreyCrow]

I reckon losing a player of Sam Mitchell's class (he won their B&F), .

If Thommo had won our B&F or came top 3 you would not hear 1 person on this Board say we shouldn't sign Thommo.

 

[baldandbroke]

If Thommo had won our B&F or came top 3 you would not hear 1 person on this Board say we shouldn't sign Thommo.

So was what the Hawks did good or bad - are they the example we should follow / are they doing something we disagree with? Personally, as I said above - I don't think much of what Hawthorn do is relevant to the Crows. They are in a different world to us right now.

Thommo wins our B&F and we move him on - people would be screaming.
Thommo wins our B&F and we don't move him on - people would be screaming.
Thommo forced to retire like Boomer - people would be screaming.
Thommo not forced to retire like Boomer - people are screaming.

I am starting to think that maybe there is not a happy answer to this that does not involve screaming.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Bulldust - that's revisionism. Hawthorn built their success on priority and low draft picks - and they have had deteriorating players in their squad as back ups in the VFL.

We are climbing, I cannot see how you think we are stagnant ... but if you do think we are stagnant, then are you suggesting we go for a balls and all rebuild? Sell off our players - bottom out and get the draft picks and go for it in 5 years? Maybe we could get Terry Wallace to oversee the plan? Not performing on the big stage ... well we did last year under ridiculous circumstances and we got showed up by Sydney this year. I understand the anger - not sure why it is being directed at Pyke after one year OR the decision to sign up Thompson for a year. I'm happy to leave you to your venom and backwards looking approach... and instead I'll look ahead to what we are doing to continue our climb. If we don't land any new players in the trade period that make a difference and play Thommo for the majority of the year then I'll be the first to question what the hell we are doing ... but I won't jump in before the bell rings for the second round and throw in the towel.

It's far from revisionism. You just havent understood what has occurred.

How do you think they got to the position to access those priority and low draft picks? What do you think they did with the team that was alright, but not good enough, before that?

They went on a deliberate course of trading out senior players, and got themselves access to elite talent.

We're stagnant. 6th and smashed in a semi to 6th and smashed in a semi. Literally no progress. A wasted year. We're short on elite talent to win a flag. Our long term strategy of just sit around and hope it falls in our lap has never worked. If we can't bring that talent in through trade/free agency recruitment (and all indicators are that we can't), then we should give serious consideration to our future, and take the only other steps available to access that talent.

You can raise Richmond all you want- their problem was execution, not having access to the elite talent. They botched their draft picks. You need to back yourself not to do that.

 

[baldandbroke]

It's far from revisionism. You just havent understood what has occurred.

How do you think they got to the position to access those priority and low draft picks? What do you think they did with the team that was alright, but not good enough, before that? They went on a deliberate course of trading out senior players, and got themselves access to elite talent.

We're stagnant. 6th and smashed in a semi to 6th and smashed in a semi. Literally no progress. A wasted year. We're short on elite talent to win a flag. Our long term strategy of just sit around and hope it falls in our lap has never worked. If we can't bring that talent in through trade/free agency recruitment (and all indicators are that we can't), then we should give serious consideration to our future, and take the only other steps available to access that talent.

You can raise Richmond all you want- their problem was execution, not having access to the elite talent. They botched their draft picks. You need to back yourself not to do that.

I understand exactly how they got their picks, they tanked. They finished low on the ladder, got priority pick#2, and moved on some established players for some currency and used those picks in both the draft and to trade other mature players. Saying Hawthorn "traded their old guys" to fund the rebuild is a fallacy.

Trade-wise:

2001
Traded out = Trent Croad for PICK 1 !!
Traded in = none

2002
Traded out = Daniel Chick Age 26 (pick 8)
Traded in = Peter Everitt (pick 6), Kingsley Hunter (pick 35)

2003, 9th/16
Traded out = Daniel Harford Age 26 and Brett Johnson (pick 51), David Loats (player), Lochlan Veale (the Veale Deal)
Traded in = Trent Croad (10), Danny Jacobs (the Veale Deal)

2004, 15th/16
Traded out = Nathan Thompson Age 26 (picks 10, 26)
Traded in = Bo Nixon (complex swaps)

2005, 14th/16
Traded out = Jonathan Hay Age 26 (pick 18), Nathan Lonie Age 22 (pick 14)
Traded in = none

2006, 11th/16
Traded out = Peter Everitt Age 32 (Pick 33)
Traded in = none

2007, 5th/16
Traded out = none
Traded in = none

2008 = 2nd/16 and won the flag

I also understand how they used picks once they were established. Hawthorn traded out their first round pick nearly every year once they arrived. 2009 first pick 39, 2010 first pick 19, 2011 first pick 33, 2012 first pick 28, 2013 first pick 24, 2014 first pick 31, 2015 first (and only) pick 25 ...

I don't mind anyone looking at the Hawks and seeing how they did what they did - same goes for Geelong ... but don't try and whitewash it as something it wasn't.

As far as AFC being stagnant, in 2016:

• We had a league high 7 players in the under 22 squad of 50
• We had a league high 6 in the All-Australian squad of 40
• We had a new coach
• We had a new setup minus our most pivotal player from the previous few years.

In 2015 we won 13 games on a moderate fixture, scraped into 7th.
in 2016 we won 16 games on a tough fixture, dropped down to 5th in the last game of the year.

Talk it down all you want, but I see a clear progression and plan ... heading us in the right direction. Will we take the next step and make some big decisions to push us into real contention? Or will we play it safe and start to drop? That is this thread's point ... and I am firmly in the "we will know soon enough" camp.

 

[Mike Smyth]

By continually playing the badly out of form McKay, Douglas and thommo and resigning the later I think you have your answer.

 

[Mike Smyth]

You got to remember that Blight coached in what 5 or 6 gf's so he is in the top 2% of coaches in the history of the afl competition only equaled by Matthews, Clarkson, Malthouse and to a lesser extent Thomson.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I understand exactly how they got their picks, they tanked. They finished low on the ladder, got priority pick#2, and moved on some established players for some currency and used those picks in both the draft and to trade other mature players. Saying Hawthorn "traded their old guys" to fund the rebuild is a fallacy.

Trade-wise:

2001
Traded out = Trent Croad for PICK 1 !!
Traded in = none

2002
Traded out = Daniel Chick Age 26 (pick 8)
Traded in = Peter Everitt (pick 6), Kingsley Hunter (pick 35)

2003, 9th/16
Traded out = Daniel Harford Age 26 and Brett Johnson (pick 51), David Loats (player), Lochlan Veale (the Veale Deal)
Traded in = Trent Croad (10), Danny Jacobs (the Veale Deal)

2004, 15th/16
Traded out = Nathan Thompson Age 26 (picks 10, 26)
Traded in = Bo Nixon (complex swaps)

2005, 14th/16
Traded out = Jonathan Hay Age 26 (pick 18), Nathan Lonie Age 22 (pick 14)
Traded in = none

2006, 11th/16
Traded out = Peter Everitt Age 32 (Pick 33)
Traded in = none

2007, 5th/16
Traded out = none
Traded in = none

2008 = 2nd/16 and won the flag

I also understand how they used picks once they were established. Hawthorn traded out their first round pick nearly every year once they arrived. 2009 first pick 39, 2010 first pick 19, 2011 first pick 33, 2012 first pick 28, 2013 first pick 24, 2014 first pick 31, 2015 first (and only) pick 25 ...

I don't mind anyone looking at the Hawks and seeing how they did what they did - same goes for Geelong ... but don't try and whitewash it as something it wasn't.

As far as AFC being stagnant, in 2016:

• We had a league high 7 players in the under 22 squad of 50
• We had a league high 6 in the All-Australian squad of 40
• We had a new coach
• We had a new setup minus our most pivotal player from the previous few years.

In 2015 we won 13 games on a moderate fixture, scraped into 7th.
in 2016 we won 16 games on a tough fixture, dropped down to 5th in the last game of the year.

Talk it down all you want, but I see a clear progression and plan ... heading us in the right direction. Will we take the next step and make some big decisions to push us into real contention? Or will we play it safe and start to drop? That is this thread's point ... and I am firmly in the "we will know soon enough" camp.

I'm not really sure how that doesnt demonstrate what I was suggesting. A number of senior players traded out at the expense of initial ladder position.

As far as stagnation goes: I don't think winning additional home and away games means anything if you don't advance further in the finals. We finished precisely where, and in precisely the same noncompetitive manner, as the year previous.

What's the clear progression? Meaningless home and away wins that didnt alter our end result?

 

[GreyCrow]

So was what the Hawks did good or bad -

Hawthorn had other reasons to move him on. $$ etc. I don't think we are in the same position ( or seem to be)

Thommo wins our B&F and we move him on - people would be screaming.
Thommo wins our B&F and we don't move him on - people would be screaming.
Thommo forced to retire like Boomer - people would be screaming.
Thommo not forced to retire like Boomer - people are screaming.

Maybe from your end. I will repeat. If Thommo won the B&F or finished top 3 only the truly pessimistic or trolls would scream if he was given another year.

Its a problem now because he finished 13th in the Club Championship and looked slow.

 

[cosman123]

You got to remember that Blight coached in what 5 or 6 gf's so he is in the top 2% of coaches in the history of the afl competition only equaled by Matthews, Clarkson, Malthouse and to a lesser extent Thomson.

Even got woodville close to playing in a grand final when they pushed the bays all the way in the 86 prelim.

 

[GreyCrow]

Even got woodville close to playing in a grand final when they pushed the bays all the way in the 86 prelim.

7 points?

 

[Sanders]

Jeff Kennett was right today when he said Hawthorn are ruthless clinical and professional

The sort of high performance, elite standards that only come from exceptional governance. With one goal only - premierships

Our club either doesn't have that goal or worse it has more than one.

I suspect it has myriad goals of which ultimate onfield success is just one of them

If you define success broadly then your chances of achieving it or some are much greater

 

[cosman123]

7 points?

21 points in the end but there was nothing in it the whole game.