Lyon's comments on Fri night

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by jc67
Essendon don't really renovate it's more like a coat of paint over a solid structure every year.
they do it by trading exeptionally well and by picking the kids with the most improvement in front of them ( Sheedy has said many times that "it's about the attitude of a youngster more so than what he has achieved", ability goes without saying)
Their strategy (players) is a simple people managment one, empower and reward.
Strategy for recruiting is more of a banking thing where they will get and develop someone well before they are needed and trade them if there is a gain to be had.
As with all clubs the spine is what the rest of the side is built around, and as i said ours just needs a CHF and a Ruck, at this stage in time.

Exactly but the question is are we in position to trade away some quality for draft picks like Essendon have done in the past??????

My answer is no because our depth is appauling.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Really? I would think we seem to have an embarrassment of riches there at the moment...Rutten will be persisted with at FB and has been very impressive, while McGregor is one of the best CHB in the competition and Bassett is very good as a third tall.

We also have the highly rated Parker waiting in the wings, the apparently massively improved Smith and possibly even Bock.

Our forward line isn't a lost cause - Perrie at CHF, Welsh at FF and Watts and Hentschel developing has the makings of a very good forward line.

Spinny, we're not too badly off in defence. Oddly enough over the years our only suspect spot in defence has been FB, and maybe, just maybe, Rutten may have solved that problem.

But DT is right on the rest of it.

The rucks just don't get enough possessions around the ground or have the ability to play up forward when resting.

The key forwards are totally unproven at this stage with the exception of the emerging Hentschel.

The mid-field is now minus Johnson and Bickley, and possibly will be minus Stenglein at year's end. We need two young emerging midfielders. One to go where angels fear to tread to do the hard grunt, and one who can run like the living b'jesus to give the mid-field some real toe.

We're on the right track but there's still a fair bit of work to be done yet.

 

[jc67]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Exactly but the question is are we in position to trade away some quality for draft picks like Essendon have done in the past??????

My answer is no because our depth is appauling.

While I agree with that my first concern would be about our first 22, and that can be managed in a short space of time.
To get the depth of Essendon , Brisbane or port we would have to wait a few years (about 4).

To get White and Gardenier I would part with, McLeod,Stenglien and Edwards. No early picks but everthing after the 2nd round as well, and I do realise what sort of hole that leaves in the midfeild but I thing Reily ,stiffy and begs will come up , Roo stays.

 

[spindoctor]

So effectively we're losing McLeod, Stenglein and Edwards for an injury-riddled ruckman who hasnt played much for two years?

Because White would cost maybe a second-rounder, no more.

There is NO WAY we're giving up those three for that kind of return.

 

[jc67]

Originally posted by spindoctor
So effectively we're losing McLeod, Stenglein and Edwards for an injury-riddled ruckman who hasnt played much for two years?

Because White would cost maybe a second-rounder, no more.

There is NO WAY we're giving up those three for that kind of return.

You are undervaluing White

 

[conVINCEd]

You scare me, jc.

Like spinny and macca23 have said, I think we are pretty well off in defence. Not just with McGregor, Rutten, Parker, Smith and maybe Basset as talls, but also with Torney, Hart, Begley and Mattner as medium/smalls.

I think Perrie could be useful next year. He is contracted and we wouldn't get much in a trade, so why not stick him at CHF and make the most of what we have. I'd play Welsh and Jericho out of the square, give them space to lead into and use their pace, with Schuback as a crumber. Hentschel can float around, plus we have Watts and Bock, so we're not exactly lacking in options.

Midfield is our true achillies (sp?). We have Stiffy, Reilly and Schuback as our future, but who the hell is going to give it to them? If (and probably when) we lose Stenglein at year's end, our only tagging option is Shirley who's skills, IMO, are terrible.

Look at Brisbane. They are the best side possibly ever, yet they still have just as many, if not more, promising young players. As an example, look at their tagging options for life after Hart; Copeland, MacDonald, Hadley, Rischitili. Scary.

We DESPERATELY need to draft a couple of tough inside midfielders in the Jude Bolton/Brett Kirk mould. We also obviously need a gun ruckman. I'd prefer a youngster over Ottens.

(And I want Burton traded for a draft pick, but thats probably for another thread)

 

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by jc67
You are undervaluing White

You have to be kidding me. A very, very low draft pick, with a history of injuries, who has only played 4 games and shown only glimpses of potential, and who has not exactly set the SANFL alight.

How in the world am I undervaluing him? Given that history, a second-rounder would be a very good return for Port for him.

 

[iceman21]

have to agree about going after a player like white, but who or what would you give up? I recon he could be the sort of player who could make a real impact at this club as he barely gets a chance at the moment

 

[spindoctor]

Second-rounder?

Burton?

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Really? I would think we seem to have an embarrassment of riches there at the moment...Rutten will be persisted with at FB and has been very impressive, while McGregor is one of the best CHB in the competition and Bassett is very good as a third tall.

We also have the highly rated Parker waiting in the wings, the apparently massively improved Smith and possibly even Bock.

Our forward line isn't a lost cause - Perrie at CHF, Welsh at FF and Watts and Hentschel developing has the makings of a very good forward line.

*McGregor is the only proven defender of consistent quality.

*Bassett is hot and cold and can rarely go with the best FFs in the comp.

*Rutten has been promising, but let's wait awhile before we start talking he's the answer to our prayers - the likes of Andrew Eccles and David Gallagher looked tops after 10 games.

*Parker is yet to make his AFL debut.

*Ditto Smith.

*Bock is yet to be tried and tested down back - although that is his natural position.

Our strength in defence rests on plenty of ifs, buts and maybes - when I say we lack a key/tall defender or two I'm talking about a proven quantity who is ready now, which is why I say we're 2-3 years away provided the lads listed above keep improving at the current rate.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by spindoctor
You have to be kidding me. A very, very low draft pick, with a history of injuries, who has only played 4 games and shown only glimpses of potential, and who has not exactly set the SANFL alight.

How in the world am I undervaluing him? Given that history, a second-rounder would be a very good return for Port for him.

1) At what # pick were Goodes, McGregor and Hird drafted?

2) He had a bad ankle but he seems to be over that now - and I read on the Port board it was his ankle trouble which prevented him being taken higher in his year.

3) Only played 4 games where he has presented like a demon, taken marks and kicked goals.

4) He's kicked a few 5 and 6 goal bags in the SANFL this season.

Port won't give us a promising CHF for a second-rounder in a soft draft.

 

[relapse]

I think some of what happens will depend on what Damon wants also. He may not be happy with having alot of competition for positions and finding himself playing some weeks and missing other weeks. You also have to wonder the value of having a player that you dont always have use for, it does also hinder a players development and with playing lists being much smaller do you overload with that type of player or try to spread your list out a bit more.

If port are willing to sensibly trade then Adelaide should definately look into it. Knowing Port, Mark Williams will ask for Fergus Watts, luke jericho and a draft pick as a trade

 

[Mego Red]

Originally posted by dyertribe
1) At what # pick were Goodes, McGregor and Hird drafted?

2) He had a bad ankle but he seems to be over that now - and I read on the Port board it was his ankle trouble which prevented him being taken higher in his year.

3) Only played 4 games where he has presented like a demon, taken marks and kicked goals.

4) He's kicked a few 5 and 6 goal bags in the SANFL this season.

Port won't give us a promising CHF for a second-rounder in a soft draft.

Well, McGregor is a bit of a red herring - each club was only allowed one 17 year old, so if other clubs took theirs earlier on, you could sit back and draft yours later, like we did with McGregor. Hird - well, I think going back ten+ years is a stretch, because blind freddy knows we spend a lot more time and effort on drafting these days, and there are fewer players slipping through the cracks. Goodes? Okay - he should have been drafted earlier.

But the fact is - late draft picks very very rarely come up these days. The club's recruiting intelligence is too good. And the idiots on the Port board and going to spout all sorts of reasons why he slipped that year - every club thinks they have drafted these incredible players, who they would have picked earlier and it's miraculous they slipped.

At the end of the day - he's a nice looking footballer, who's done a bit in a lower league and been starved of chances. But he's proven nothing.

Even Scott Stevens looked good for the Swans for a few games.

 

[spindoctor]

And Ryan Fitzgerald kicked 5 goals in his first AFL game.

 

[marvin]

Originally posted by Kristof
Well, McGregor is a bit of a red herring - each club was only allowed one 17 year old, so if other clubs took theirs earlier on, you could sit back and draft yours later, like we did with McGregor. Goodes? Okay - he should have been drafted earlier.

Goodes, in fact, is a red herring like Kenny in that he slipped lower down than his true "worth" under the one 17 year old rule.

Full list of 17 year olds in 1997

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Kristof
At the end of the day - he's a nice looking footballer, who's done a bit in a lower league and been starved of chances. But he's proven nothing.

And here I was thinking he had 200 games, 3 Brownlow Medals, 6 AA guernseys and a Coleman Medal under his belt...

Of course he's "proven nothing" - he's only played 4 games!

Seriously...

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Kristof
Well, McGregor is a bit of a red herring - each club was only allowed one 17 year old, so if other clubs took theirs earlier on, you could sit back and draft yours later, like we did with McGregor. Hird - well, I think going back ten+ years is a stretch, because blind freddy knows we spend a lot more time and effort on drafting these days, and there are fewer players slipping through the cracks. Goodes? Okay - he should have been drafted earlier.

But the fact is - late draft picks very very rarely come up these days. The club's recruiting intelligence is too good. And the idiots on the Port board and going to spout all sorts of reasons why he slipped that year - every club thinks they have drafted these incredible players, who they would have picked earlier and it's miraculous they slipped.

At the end of the day - he's a nice looking footballer, who's done a bit in a lower league and been starved of chances. But he's proven nothing.

Even Scott Stevens looked good for the Swans for a few games.

I believe the story with Hird is supposed to be that in 1992 Essendon were the only team scouting the ACT, so no one else had seen him.

 

[Mr Crow!]

I find Gary Lyon's comments to be laughable!

He is probably ****ed because a Neil Craig coached team defeated his beloved Melbourne. Sure, against Brisbane, it was our worst ever game... but Lyon, you should try your hand at REAL coaching, not the Mickey Mouse International Rules.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Mr Crow!
I find Gary Lyon's comments to be laughable!

He is probably ****ed because a Neil Craig coached team defeated his beloved Melbourne. Sure, against Brisbane, it was our worst ever game... but Lyon, you should try your hand at REAL coaching, not the Mickey Mouse International Rules.

room of mirrors dude.

 

[Mr Crow!]

What do you mean?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Mr Crow!
What do you mean?

good hard look at yourself, your post was over the top.

 

[Mr Crow!]

I apologize if I offended you.