Opinion Don't mention the war (a.k.a. The same old arguments)

[Biggy_Boy]

Biggy, what do you think of Hawthorn's Mitchell trade?

I think it's a dumb idea to trade out a club legend and current B&F for pick 88. However, at least the Hawks will be replacing him with quality midfielders who should be at the club for another ten years.

If we were to compare that with the Chapman/SJ situations, Geelong had no replacements for these players. Their losses just created holes in the side.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Then you'll luv this next one...

Go Catters

You bastard!

 

[dazbroncos]

You bastard!

Badum dum dum...

Sadie... the cleaning lady...

With her trusty scrubbing brush and pail.....

GO Catters

 

[Nickoo]

We don't shut down any posts.

Other sites do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhatBoy]

I simply don't understand why anyone would whinge about Chapman. His form at the bombers was nothing like he was capable of, he wouldn't have made us fare any better so why not let a younger player (s) have a go?

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I simply don't understand why anyone would whinge about Chapman. His form at the bombers was nothing like he was capable of, he wouldn't have made us fare any better so why not let a younger player (s) have a go?

He absolutely would have.

 

[Cataholic]

He absolutely would have.

That will never be proven factually, so it will always remain an assumption.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

That will never be proven factually, so it will always remain an assumption.

No, we can prove it pretty easily. Let's look at the bottom performers in the year 2014 who came in to fill Chapman's spot - the list would include guys like Burbury, Stringer, Sheringham, Smedts, Murdoch and GHS. So the latter three are still at the club, but have stagnated and gone backwards, so that time given was essentially useless, and the others were complete duds who are long gone. Yes, Chapman's output would have exceeded theirs. Those players were racking up single-digit possession counts while Chapman averaged 20 disposals a game at Essendon in 2014.

Chapman wasn't at his best in 2014, but he was still serviceable; more so than what many other players were. This is the same kind of logic that makes people think the difference between trading out a club legend who is still performing being a good decision or not is whether they're the reigning B&F.

 

[Cataholic]

No, we can prove it pretty easily. Let's look at the bottom performers in the year 2014 who came in to fill Chapman's spot - the list would include guys like Burbury, Stringer, Sheringham, Smedts, Murdoch and GHS. So the latter three are still at the club, but have stagnated and gone backwards, so that time given was essentially useless, and the others were complete duds who are long gone. Yes, Chapman's output would have exceeded theirs. Those players were racking up single-digit possession counts while Chapman averaged 20 disposals a game at Essendon in 2014.

Chapman wasn't at his best in 2014, but he was still serviceable; more so than what many other players were. This is the same kind of logic that makes people think the difference between trading out a club legend who is still performing being a good decision or not is whether they're the reigning B&F.

It can't be 'proven' though.

Logic would suggest he'd be serviceable, but we'll never know for certain. The changes in personnel, game plan etc mightn't have bothered him one iota, but it might've too.

It can only be assumed that his output at Essendon would've been replicated at Geelong.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

It can't be 'proven' though.

Logic would suggest he'd be serviceable, but we'll never know for certain. The changes in personnel, game plan etc mightn't have bothered him one iota, but it might've too.

It can only be assumed that his output at Essendon would've been replicated at Geelong.

I think it more likely that his numbers would have been better at Geelong in 2014.

 

[Mr Meow]

He absolutely would have.

He might have pushed us to a semi final win. The thrashing we then would have received from Sydney would have been monumental. We played poorly all year. Signs were there in 2013 despite almost pulling one out against Hawthorn. 50:50 call, hindsight makes it look dicey just because the players who stepped in wasted their chance.

SJ I feel they would have kept if they expected to shoot straight back into contention this year. With the caveat that all other recruits could still be obtained. The expectation from most supporters (that I spoke to) before the season was that 2017-2018 would be our best shot. That Johnson would have one more year, of output 2015 or below that wouldn't make a difference. Bartel and others already had contracts right. So along with Stokes and Kelly he became one of the unlucky few.

Strategy wise they likely anticipated midfield reinforcements would push Motlop forward more and we would have two other "replacements" back in the team in McCarthy and Menzel. Those three did pretty well for a first try out together, hopefully can improve again next year. A Gregson, Lang or Cockatoo should have made the other spot their own this year. As it turned out they didn't and Johnson probably could have had a good year up there, as he ended up doing for GWS. Pretty difficult situation to sum up though. If only we had Biggy in charge.

 

[Cataholic]

I think it more likely that his numbers would have been better at Geelong in 2014.

You're possibly right, but it will never be substantiated.

 

[Cattery]

How could anyone here know the answer? The club gave the award - we don't know why. Steve Hocking said things about his influence and off-field behaviour, but for obvious reasons didn't go into detail. There's no conspiracy. It's just opaque.

Did he mention his off field behaviour in another interview or is that the ABC Grandstand interview you're referring to?

 

[PhatBoy]

He absolutely would have.

I keep forgetting how Chapman's remarkable first season at the bombers would have won us another title.

I don't know how it keeps slipping my mind.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I keep forgetting how Chapman's remarkable first season at the bombers would have won us another title.

I don't know how it keeps slipping my mind.

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[Cattery]

Lol. So you can't give an answer as to why he received the reward because you don't know why, yet whenever someone asks why SJ was shipped out, they are emphatically dealt with the off-field behaviour excuse, despite there being nothing tangible to substantiate that assertion. It's treated here as fact.

Not sure if it was mentioned by Hocking or someone else at the club elsewhere, but all the "reasons" by people here as to why he was moved on seem to stem from the Hocking interview posted here at the time, and he makes no mention of Johnson's off field behaviour in that whatsoever, so to suggest he gave that as the reason is erroneous at best.

After listening to that interview (again) I'm more convinced then ever it was nothing more sinister then a list management decision, whether it was the right one or not (and I think it was a howler) never the less that's all it was.

I never said anything of the sort.

Won't stop people saying you did though as long as it supports whatever position they take.

 

[Cattery]

Just gets betterer and betterer don't it, kept Jimmy ahead of SJ because he's more versatile (according to Wells) twelve months later Jimmy is put out to pasture while SJ (who had a better year then Jimmy) is saddling up for another crack next year.

Won't go as far as to say the wheels have fallen off just yet, but heck they sure do seem mighty wobbly unfortunately.

 

[Partridge]

Just gets betterer and betterer don't it, kept Jimmy ahead of SJ because he's more versatile (according to Wells) twelve months later Jimmy is put out to pasture while SJ (who had a better year then Jimmy) is saddling up for another crack next year.

Won't go as far as to say the wheels have fallen off just yet, but heck they sure do seem mighty wobbly unfortunately.

They can't.

Wells just traded them out for a pogo stick.

 

[Cattery]

They can't.

Wells just traded them out for a pogo stick.

Another great deal pulled off by the master?

 

[Vdubs]

So your argument essentially boils down to: he should be carried by the rest of the team because on occasions he can execute a tackle while in the midfield? And on some of those occasions he can even do it without giving away a free kick...

Someone should call Mark Blake and get him out of retirement, because apparently now it's ok to carry dead weight in the AFL.

Not fair- he was very much a key member of 2007-2010, particularly, 08, 09.

 

[4quarter_cat]

Not fair- he was very much a key member of 2007-2010, particularly, 08, 09.

Should have been traded instead of King. Was so pissed at the club, and lost all respect for the guy after his comments. Might not have lost Mummy either if he hadn't been around Blake was a utensil up. A big one.

 

[Partridge]

Should have been traded instead of King. Was so pissed at the club, and lost all respect for the guy after his comments. Might not have lost Mummy either if he hadn't been around Blake was a utensil up. A big one.

No he shouldn't have. King was finished.

 

[4quarter_cat]

No he shouldn't have. King was finished.

We're never going to agree P. Shall we agree to leave it in the past? It was nearly 10 years ago (Damn that went quick)

Who did we pick up with the pick(s) we got for trading he and Gardiner to Saints?

 

[Partridge]

We're never going to agree P. Shall we agree to leave it in the past? It was nearly 10 years ago (Damn that went quick)

Who did we pick up with the pick(s) we got for trading he and Gardiner to Saints?

Yep, fair enough.

Not much from memory. I think it was the "give away a player to a new home" deal.

 

[Lana]

We're never going to agree P. Shall we agree to leave it in the past? It was nearly 10 years ago (Damn that went quick)

Who did we pick up with the pick(s) we got for trading he and Gardiner to Saints?

No one, King was the payment to get Gardiner out of our salary cap.