If we had tanked....

[archiemoses]

I know it is not an option and I am glad we didn't, but how would our recruiting have looked if we didn't win those games at the back end of the season and stayed on 4 wins?

Firstly, we would have finished second last, above Melbourne, giving us a first round priority pick. Our picks would have been as follows:

Pick 2
Pick 4
Pick 19
Pick 35
Pick 51
Pick 67

Assuming the Seaby/Dalziell/Staker trade upgraded our 35 to pick 23 (which the swans would have had if we finished in 15th) which is marginally worse off than the actual trade.

So draft picks taken into the AFL 2009 Draft would have been.

Pick 2
Pick 4
Pick 19
Pick 23
Pick 51
Pick 67

Obviously, this would have the change whole complexion of the draft, with decision by Melbourne to take Trengove or Scully taking a whole new level (and would have made the reverse order a whole lot more interesting).

So how would have our draftees changed?

Pick 2 - Scully or Trengrove
Pick 4 - Morabito
Pick 19 - Sheppard (if not selected by other clubs). If he was, then Tapscott would have slid to us and I am sure the eagles would love another big kicking SA. Alternatively we could have taken Bastinac.
Pick 23 - Weedon as the Eagles would probably still be keen as a fourth selection.

So, basically we exchange Koby Stevens for Mora and Scully/Trengove.

Obviously, there are a number of other things I haven't taken into consideration. Including:

• The fact that we only had 3 senior spots on the list, so taking this path meant that Stenglein would have had to be delisted before draft day.
• We also would have had to pass on picks 51 and 67. Unless list management changed drastically as a result of our position on the ladder.

The impact of that could be quite profound years down the track and highlights the "real" benefits of tanking.

I am not advocating tanking in any way, just highlighting how different it could have been for not only WCE but for Richmond or Freo or North.

 

[94_Eagles]

Nice hypothetical but I won't spend more than about 10 seconds pondering the situation. No point.

 

[DrTomSwift]

BF loves an ol' "What If?". If we tanked I would of lost a lot of faith in the Eagles. Oh and Shepp wouldn't of slipped to 19.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Forget Morabito we would have taken one of Trengove and Scully and then a KPP, in the end i count Sheppard and Stevens as two first round picks so im still happy.

I hope Melbourne regret the day they drafted in such a conservative manner, for me Richmond look winners out of the draft as well. Martin, Griffiths and Taylor are all top 20 selections without question.

 

[strengthwithin]

I would rather win then tank anyday, you can have all the talent in the world but if your continously losing no player is going to want to play for your team.

 

[Haydos]

bad thread

 

[Mattman93]

Of course we would have got a better haul of draft picks had we tanked. Everyone knew this mid-way through the year when there was the big debate about it.

 

[bunsen burner]

I'm still amazed that people don't understand the difference between tanking and losing.

 

[Jafa]

I'm still amazed that people don't understand the difference between tanking and losing.

Had we only won 4 games it would have been down to tanking.

 

[bunsen burner]

Had we only won 4 games it would have been down to tanking.

Denial.

 

[dajesmac]

Denial.

Er, no, it would have been a disgrace had we lost to Richmond and North at the end of the season, both at Subiaco, if we had given 100%. Essendon we may have gotten away with.

 

[bunsen burner]

Er, no, it would have been a disgrace had we lost to Richmond and North at the end of the season, both at Subiaco, if we had given 100%. Essendon we may have gotten away with.

More denial. You just can't see it, can you? Oh that's right, of course you can't, you're in denial

 

[dajesmac]

More denial. You just can't see it, can you? Oh that's right, of course you can't, you're in denial

Are you going to actually make a point or are you just going to keep saying "denial"?

 

[bunsen burner]

Are you going to actually make a point or are you just going to keep saying "denial"?

I've made my point. It's very simple. But you and the other guy keep quoting me and talking about shit that is irrelevant.

You know that hypothetically we could have lost without tanking, right? You know, as in didn't play as well as we did.

For some reason people can't separate losing from tanking. many people here have pulled their hair out in frustation and clearly explained the difference yet people still just can't see it.

 

[dajesmac]

I've made my point. It's very simple. But you and the other guy keep quoting me and talking about shit that is irrelevant.

You know that hypothetically we could have lost without tanking, right? You know, as in didn't play as well as we did.

For some reason people can't separate losing from tanking. many people here have pulled their hair out in frustation and clearly explained the difference yet people still just can't see it.

Of course there is a chance we could have lost, but it was never going to happen. I'm sure if we had lost both those games most of us, and everyone else in the football world, but deduce that we had tanked. Come on, it's Richmond. We played our 100% and won by 80 points, we were never going to lose.

If we had lost to Hawthorn in round 13, the Bombers in round 17, the Dogs in round 18, obviously those would be seen as legit losses, but North and Richmond, I would have been disgusted.

 

[Yellow Feathers]

My favourite West Coast days were always the mid to late 90's. We didnt win a flag, but we were always up there- and that's what made supporting West Coast fun. We were a winning side (and still are) and there was pride in supporting them.

I think taking a spoon or 3 for a shot at a premiership is ridiculous. Seriously, a lot of the half-hearted fans drop off very quickly and i cant see it benefiting the club in the long run.

I'm a firm believer that if a person can make it to AFL level, they must have something going for them. How much talent will transfer to AFL level in a 17 year old kid? I think a few years in the system, and having the player get experience in their position is a lot more important than the number they were selected at in the draft.

Lets look at Melbourne for example; some people think they will improve significantly next year. Scully and Trengrove are a good 3-4 years off making a serious impact, and the rest of the team spent 09' playing to lose. Melbourne have some serious ground to make up, as im sure you'll see next year.

I'm happy we didn't tank I hardly consider Hawthorn as a side that has successfully done so. Their grand final was won the efforts of players who weren't selected through tanking anyway.

 

[EagleEgo]

then, we will become the West Coast DEMON, with a lot of good picks but no premiership !!

 

[bunsen burner]

Of course there is a chance we could have lost, but it was never going to happen. I'm sure if we had lost both those games most of us, and everyone else in the football world, but deduce that we had tanked. Come on, it's Richmond. We played our 100% and won by 80 points, we were never going to lose.

If we had lost to Hawthorn in round 13, the Bombers in round 17, the Dogs in round 18, obviously those would be seen as legit losses, but North and Richmond, I would have been disgusted.

Hypothetically we could have tanked. Hypothetically we could have actually lost without tanking. Two totally different concepts that people like you are still having trouble grasping. Do you lick your elbow much?

And this "we were never going to lose" demonstrates your denial. We could have lost that match without tanking. We'd only won 7 or so games out of 40 odd before coming into that match.

How many times do you people need it explained? Do you just not get it or do you forget?

 

[bunsen burner]

then, we will become the West Coast DEMON, with a lot of good picks but no premiership !!

Are you saying if we had lost and picked up trengrove and morabito we would be in a worse position?

And if you don't think the Demons are coming then you're very short sighted.

I think we'll be in flag contention within 3 years and make no mistake, it will come off the back of losing.

 

[dajesmac]

Hypothetically we could have tanked. Hypothetically we could have actually lost without tanking. Two totally different concepts that people like you are still having trouble grasping. Do you lick your elbow much?

And this "we were never going to lose" demonstrates your denial. We could have lost that match without tanking. We'd only won 7 or so games out of 40 odd before coming into that match.

How many times do you people need it explained? Do you just not get it or do you forget?

I do in fact know what you are saying, but essentially you're just expressing the view that that anything at all could happen, however unlikely, because it hasn't been proven impossible. I think that is stupid.

 

[EagleMan87]

Hypothetically we could have tanked. Hypothetically we could have actually lost without tanking. Two totally different concepts that people like you are still having trouble grasping. Do you lick your elbow much?

And this "we were never going to lose" demonstrates your denial. We could have lost that match without tanking. We'd only won 7 or so games out of 40 odd before coming into that match.

How many times do you people need it explained? Do you just not get it or do you forget?

This thread is about West Coast tanking, yet you somehow picked a fight arguing the difference between tanking and losing on merit.

If you want to argue the semantics I suggest you start a thread entailed: "If we had only won 4 games".

Also, f**k tanking.

 

[EagleEgo]

Are you saying if we had lost and picked up trengrove and morabito we would be in a worse position?

And if you don't think the Demons are coming then you're very short sighted.

I think we'll be in flag contention within 3 years and make no mistake, it will come off the back of losing.

Our hearts are all with you - we love to have superstars playing for us. Also I dont think you are too wrong in what you have suggested; certainly it is a way to get good players to the Team.

Unfortunately, there are costs of non-performance. While some clubs would like to use this strategy to get good players through non-performance, it should be stopped once the numbers are right. Otherwise when a losing culture is developed, it will be difficult to turn it over. Look at the recent Calton, Richmond and probably Melbourne (or even Freo), they are bad examples that we have to be mindful of.

I believe the exist players (before this draft) are talent, solid and hardworking enough to challenge the flag in the next few years.

 

[bunsen burner]

This thread is about West Coast tanking, yet you somehow picked a fight arguing the difference between tanking and losing on merit.

If you want to argue the semantics I suggest you start a thread entailed: "If we had only won 4 games".

Also, f**k tanking.

You accusing someone else of arguing semantics?

And be wary, next time Larrikin won't be around to drag you away from a horrendous arse-whipping.

btw, how's your mansion and your view over the common people from your box? Waaaanker.

 

[bunsen burner]

Unfortunately, there are costs of non-performance.

Not for us there's not. Last time we couldn't perform we got Judd. This time we got Naitanui and Swift.

While some clubs would like to use this strategy to get good players through non-performance, it should be stopped once the numbers are right.

You know it doesn't have to be a strategy, right? You know you can try and win and end up losing, right?

This is my exact point, yet you don't get it. You can't see it, can you?

 

[EagleMan87]

You accusing someone else of arguing semantics?

And be wary, next time Larrikin won't be around to drag you away from a horrendous arse-whipping.

btw, how's your mansion and your view over the common people from your box? Waaaanker.

Jesus, is it really that hard for people to distinguish us?

Look at the name. You're thinking of Eagle87, I'm EagleMAN87.