Coach John Longmire

[bedford]

Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis leaving had absolutely nothing to do with money and all to do with opportunity.

For years we were able to use opportunity as a tool to attract players (Mumford, Kennedy, McGlyn, Richards, Mattner etc etc), it goes both ways.

The Tippett/Franklin deals did cost us Mumford and the ability post that date to target experienced players looking for opportunities to add to our depth.

FFS it had everything to do with money. Eddie has won this battle atm.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis leaving had absolutely nothing to do with money and all to do with opportunity.

For years we were able to use opportunity as a tool to attract players (Mumford, Kennedy, McGlyn, Richards, Mattner etc etc), it goes both ways.

The Tippett/Franklin deals did cost us Mumford and the ability post that date to target experienced players looking for opportunities to add to our depth.

Sorry, it was definitely money!

 

[DST]

Sorry, it was definitely money!

None of those three players left for significantly larger sums of money.

It was opportunity first and foremost

Membrey didn't want to wait for another year until Goodes retired.
Biggs the same with Shaw
Nankervis saw himself slip behind Naimsmith and Tippett. Richmond offered him the starting ruck position.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

It was still money mate, Membrey couldn't fit because of Goodes, likewise Biggs. Nankervis did get a contract thrown in front of him but he had a better offer earlier in the year from the Tigers.

 

[bedford]

None of those three players left for significantly larger sums of money.

It was opportunity first and foremost

Membrey didn't want to wait for another year until Goodes retired.
Biggs the same with Shaw
Nankervis saw himself slip behind Naimsmith and Tippett. Richmond offered him the starting ruck position.

It was a big part of it.

 

[DST]

It was still money mate, Membrey couldn't fit because of Goodes, likewise Biggs. Nankervis did get a contract thrown in front of him but he had a better offer earlier in the year from the Tigers.

Well yes, everyone has a salary cap but in the case of Goodes and Shaw I had no issue as club champions with them staying on even if it meant that both Membrey and Biggs were lured for more opportunity elsewhere.

Richmond are paying Nankervis more, but he is being paid as their first choice ruckman and with us he was our third so it's a different pay scale and not a pure money issue.

The three names of Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis were provided as being a casualty in another post for the Tippett money which is just incorrect.

Mumford yes definitely, but he was not mentioned.

Foresight is a great thing, but when Tippett was traded in we had no idea Franklin was coming. In hindsight you keep Mumford on bigger money, pass on Tippett and take Franklin.

But even if that happened, Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis would all still be gone for greater opportunity elsewhere.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[bungee]

3 grand finals is a great record, but at some time you must change what's not working

I want to make 2 points here Bedders.

A) It's fine to question the game plan but the game plan was working fine until the 2016 GF. Well enough that we finished on top and we blitzed the previous two finals games. But footy isn't like chess. You can tell your chess pieces what to do and it does it but a player might not do what's wanted because i) they can't, ii) they forget their training under pressure, or iii) they just have an off day. The first 5 minutes of the game showed that under our game plan we can play really effective footy. That's when the captain and coach's briefings are fresh in the players' minds.

B) I think we owe it to the club to also question the on-field leadership. JPK is a hell of a player, hugely respected and bleeds red and white, but maybe he's struggling as a captain, or perhaps the leadership group aren't performing as a whole. The forward line seems to be functioning but the midfield is starving it of options with quick pressured kicks or dumb kicks inside 50. The defence is under-manned but it's made worse by a midfield not applying enough pressure. GWS were hitting their forwards at will. Some of that was skill but much of it was because of a lack of pressure in the midfield.

Let's not put it all on the game plan. Ours is a game plan that works well when it's being implemented well. It's a game plan that has evolved year on year and tweaked from game to game. Plan A is the plan where we're able to do what we set out to do. We don't have a plan B for when our players lose the plot. Sure, we have contingencies. We shuffle things around like moving Reid back to stop the bleeding while we try to bring the game back onto our terms.

Maybe Kennedy finds it difficult to play his own natural instinctive game and organise the troops at the same time. Maybe it is just injuries and under-done players who can't execute or sustain the game plan, but we need to look at why the team is unable to keep to the script. That's the elephant in the room.

 

[Keyter]

The elephant in the room - the death of 2 gf's. One insipid, the other, they had nothing more to give but still came up short.
kennedy, buddy, jack, smith, Parker, Hannebery, Tippet, Rohan, - all played '14 & '16 GF. Only 2 can partly hold their head high in '17. (Excuses for Rohan) I am sure they grieved but obviously not in the right way, not with the right context. Time for the axe starting with Jack and another.

 

[The King!]

I want to make 2 points here Bedders.

A) It's fine to question the game plan but the game plan was working fine until the 2016 GF. Well enough that we finished on top and we blitzed the previous two finals games. But footy isn't like chess. You can tell your chess pieces what to do and it does it but a player might not do what's wanted because i) they can't, ii) they forget their training under pressure, or iii) they just have an off day. The first 5 minutes of the game showed that under our game plan we can play really effective footy. That's when the captain and coach's briefings are fresh in the players' minds.

B) I think we owe it to the club to also question the on-field leadership. JPK is a hell of a player, hugely respected and bleeds red and white, but maybe he's struggling as a captain, or perhaps the leadership group aren't performing as a whole. The forward line seems to be functioning but the midfield is starving it of options with quick pressured kicks or dumb kicks inside 50. The defence is under-manned but it's made worse by a midfield not applying enough pressure. GWS were hitting their forwards at will. Some of that was skill but much of it was because of a lack of pressure in the midfield.

Let's not put it all on the game plan. Ours is a game plan that works well when it's being implemented well. It's a game plan that has evolved year on year and tweaked from game to game. Plan A is the plan where we're able to do what we set out to do. We don't have a plan B for when our players lose the plot. Sure, we have contingencies. We shuffle things around like moving Reid back to stop the bleeding while we try to bring the game back onto our terms.

Maybe Kennedy finds it difficult to play his own natural instinctive game and organise the troops at the same time. Maybe it is just injuries and under-done players who can't execute or sustain the game plan, but we need to look at why the team is unable to keep to the script. That's the elephant in the room.

The game plan could not beat the dogs nor the giants and we lost the grand final

Yet have made no tweaks and not evolved. Thats the issue right now

You cant keep doing the same thing over and over and over and expect it to suddenly produce a different result

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Well yes, everyone has a salary cap but in the case of Goodes and Shaw I had no issue as club champions with them staying on even if it meant that both Membrey and Biggs were lured for more opportunity elsewhere.

Richmond are paying Nankervis more, but he is being paid as their first choice ruckman and with us he was our third so it's a different pay scale and not a pure money issue.

The three names of Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis were provided as being a casualty in another post for the Tippett money which is just incorrect.

Mumford yes definitely, but he was not mentioned.

Foresight is a great thing, but when Tippett was traded in we had no idea Franklin was coming. In hindsight you keep Mumford on bigger money, pass on Tippett and take Franklin.

But even if that happened, Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis would all still be gone for greater opportunity elsewhere.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yep, that is true!

 

[Donners]

Foresight is a great thing, but when Tippett was traded in we had no idea Franklin was coming. In hindsight you keep Mumford on bigger money, pass on Tippett and take Franklin.

I'd rather have Tippett and pass on Franklin.

Might have kept COLA a bit longer, and wouldn't have the millstone around our neck when he's well past his prime.

 

[Tedeski]

A question to the 26% of you guys that want to sack Longmire!

Who do you want to replace him, keeping in mind that pretty much every assistant will go as well?

 

[Grongey]

Biggs, Membrey and Nankervis leaving had absolutely nothing to do with money and all to do with opportunity.
For years we were able to use opportunity as a tool to attract players (Mumford, Kennedy, McGlyn, Richards, Mattner etc etc), it goes both ways.
The Tippett/Franklin deals did cost us Mumford and the ability post that date to target experienced players looking for opportunities to add to our depth.

These are young players. Nankervis is 22yro! We couldn't afford to keep these boys, opportunity or not. It was an open secret that we had to reduce our wages bill.

Big Nanka was listed in the best players against Melbourne last night.

 

[The King!]

A question to the 26% of you guys that want to sack Longmire!

Who do you want to replace him, keeping in mind that pretty much every assistant will go as well?

Right now anyone could have the same record

 

[The King!]

I'd rather have Tippett and pass on Franklin.

Might have kept COLA a bit longer, and wouldn't have the millstone around our neck when he's well past his prime.

Small part of me says get neither and stick to what did work, targeting needed players and development of our own

 

[scaryness]

Small part of me says get neither and stick to what did work, targeting needed players and development of our own

If Buddy Franklin says I want to play for your club though you don't say no.

 

[Donners]

If Buddy Franklin says I want to play for your club though you don't say no.

If it takes an unprecedented - arguably ludicrous - deal for him to do so, then it's evident that playing for the particular club is not his primary motivation.

If the cost is compromising the strength of your side for years to come, then maybe saying no is the smart move.

 

[scaryness]

If it takes an unprecedented - arguably ludicrous - deal for him to do so, then it's evident that playing for the particular club is not his primary motivation.

If the cost is compromising the strength of your side for years to come, then maybe saying no is the smart move.

I think he always wanted to play for Sydney if he was to leave. Pickering has said that Buddy floated the idea after the 2012 grand final. I assume we only offered a ridiculous deal to prevent Hawks matching and GWS pursuing him.

 

[Tedeski]

Right now anyone could have the same record

Next year?

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I think he always wanted to play for Sydney if he was to leave. Pickering has said that Buddy floated the idea after the 2012 grand final. I assume we only offered a ridiculous deal to prevent Hawks matching and GWS pursuing him.

This.

Everything needs to be reviewed in context:
Reid's lucrative 5 year deal - came off the back of Hall being cast aside and us not having an alternative key forward
Tippet's big deal - was the best Key forward looking for a move at the time
Buddy's big deal - it's Buddy, and Hawks would have matched a decent deal, we had to go ludicrous.

 

[Weasely]

A question to the 26% of you guys that want to sack Longmire!

Who do you want to replace him, keeping in mind that pretty much every assistant will go as well?

And we definitely need to keep Blakey, there's a lot riding on him sticking around!

 

[Tedeski]

If it takes an unprecedented - arguably ludicrous - deal for him to do so, then it's evident that playing for the particular club is not his primary motivation.

If the cost is compromising the strength of your side for years to come, then maybe saying no is the smart move.

I tend to agree with this Donners. This is the thing. Swans do it & will continue to do it because he is a crowd/sponsor/member puller!
Now having said that, it really doesn't matter because we have him right now & will need to utilise him for the next few years yet.
P'ships the greater aim but recognition & relevance in this proven fickle market a very key factor in such a decision to bring Bud in!
Magnify that 10 fold because the team he was being 'pushed' towards is now our bitter & hostile rival, GWS!
Now imagine that!

 

[The King!]

If Buddy Franklin says I want to play for your club though you don't say no.

Agree

But 9 years ...

 

[Tedeski]

And we definitely need to keep Blakey, there's a lot riding on him sticking around!

Bang! That's the winner!
We lose Horse, we lose Blakey! Good mates & all that!

Anyway! Won't happen because Horse has overseen the debuts of 13 players, the bulk of whom will form the backbone of our next challenge for a p'ship & he loves the club & vice versa according to any material I have read!

 

[The King!]

Bang! That's the winner!
We lose Horse, we lose Blakey! Good mates & all that!

Anyway! Won't happen because Horse has overseen the debuts of 13 players, the bulk of whom will form the backbone of our next challenge for a p'ship & he loves the club & vice versa according to any material I have read!

Horse wont be going anywhere correct