Opinion How much change?

[Moti]

Looking at the team, the question is do we keep making small changes or do we think there is structural and personnel issues that are far too big for us to change without making some significant structural alterations.

So do we decide to make a good half a dozen changes, risking an indifferent 2nd half of the season but potentially creating a genuine Top 4 threat or do we stay the course and keep making small changes to get us there?

 

[Grogg]

I'm not really sure I get what you mean.

Their's only so much fit talent that we have available to make genuine structural changes.

Tarrant and Curran have big question marks over their long term viability, Currie has stagnated, Delaney can't get on the park, etc.

Our hands are fairly well tied, tbh.

If we want relatively long term benefit, then we are talking the tap on the shoulder style retirement of a Petrie or Harvey.

Can we realistically cull one of these guys, free up cap space and land a big fish ala Dal?

Or do we make a call on one of the younger guys deemed untouchable?

Black would be the most obvious, purely on his go home factor and Freo's apparent need.

It's a little late for that I think and unless we are hit with a very serious offer for the likes of Ziebell, Cunnington, Wells(?), Goldstein or Thompson, I think given our penchant for having these guys stitched up to longish term deals, then our hands are tied.

It's the draft and incremental improvement.

 

[archereleven]

If the mini rebuild is a way of saying **** Brad Scott off, then im in...