Autopsy Magpies defeat Gary Ablett FC by 15 points

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So they finished bottom 5, 5 years running and this somehow disproves my theory? including a year where they lost 11 on the trot to end out a season?

Im done with this.

Their best players in the GF last year were mainly promoted rookies as well as a number one draft pick that they had poached from another club and hence didnt tank for.

 

[loki04]

I know that you have been championing your cause for a while now but the longer this debate goes on, the more your side of the argument is waivering.

In an 18 team competition, 12th is not bottom 4. It just isn't.

The times of 04 and 05 had priority picks in play. The opportunity to get two first round picks for bottoming out doesn't exist now, so I don't know why you keep going back to this point when it's not a factor in current circumstances. Even with the concessions, we missed the finals in 08 so it's not like we trended straight from bottom to premiers.

You say we have heaps of holes to fill and reeled off a bunch of aging players that need to be replaced, yet your plan is to tank once, get one top 5 pick and climb back up the ladder. Also, you want to draft a KPF with our first pick but the 4 aging players you mentioned play in different positions. Your top 5 pick may be a star, but they can't play everywhere at once.

Following your theory of having one tank year then rebounding, only once has it occurred in the past 15 or so years (maybe longer) being West Coast in 2010. Even then they finished second last 2 years earlier and have bounced up and down since.

As per the large amount of comments above, Hawthorn is a terrible example of a team tanking for picks. If anything it weakens your argument.

"Why are you against improving the list?" C'mon Loki, your points so far for the most part have been good reading. You're better than this strawman junk.

My plan was to hit the FA market (there is nothing stopping a club getting 2 FA except cap space which we should have plenty Reid 600k and get in the Martin race), as well as bottom out in 2017 top 3 pick or maybe look to trade in a player with it if possible.

Then let natural development and win/loss take its course in 2018 and continue to refit the list. I don't think we need a full rebuild but rather need to fill holes and re adjust the balance of inside to outside types.

I think we also need a genuine match winning type player we lack one and outside trading (genuinely hard prospect to land and now with future pick trading often has you mortgaging the house to acquire) they are more often then not found bottom 3-5 of the draft.

I also want to see a restructure or new faces hired into our development and coaching teams, we need to start looking at poaching a few assistants from teams like Hawks, Swans and Geelong.

Want to see a new head of conditioning and also an overhaul of our strength program.

I don't think that 1 single draft pick is the answer to all our woes but it is one of the things I feel we need to bring into the club. Not just a generic first round pick but a top tier pick.

 

[loki04]

Their best players in the GF last year were mainly promoted rookies as well as a number one draft pick that they had poached from another club and hence didnt tank for.

It was 1 promoted rookie JJ.

You equate 1 thing i say to all aspects of the footy club, like you think I think we should have a team full of top 3 picks and should tank for 22 years to achieve it. *******.

 

[loki04]

I think thats a very balanced post and most would agree with the course of action of getting games into kids where appropriate etc. That is a common course many teams employ when out of contention as part of the next seasons preparation.

The contentious part was the suggestion we should, at the selection table and during the course of games, takes measures to lessen our chances of winning the game. That's tanking and tantamount to cheating even if you get away with it. We should not entertain that idea for a minute.

Yeah and getting a lower pick due to that course is just a bonus lmfao. Why don't they try play the best 22 to keep those 1 in 3 winning feels....

Deliberately not fielding your best 22 isn't tanking? oh really now I have read it all.

 

[doppleganger]

In terms of the argument about where our clubs list is at and where the 06 Hawks list was at, it was entirely NOT relevant in how they got it. Pick 1 was on the list already and so was picks 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7 and 12.

Ok so it aint relevant how they acquired the picks…or if the Picks were from 5 years prior when they were making PFs.

So then we have the following:

Pick 1 (Hodge) = Treloar (a pre draft junior selection touted as pick 1)
Pick 2 (Roughy) = ??
Pick 3 (X.Ellis) = Pick 7 (Aish)
Pick 5 (Franklin) = Pick 5 (DeGoey),
Pick 6 (Dowler) = Pick 9 (Moore)
Pick 7 (Lewis) = Pick 13 (Adams)
Pick 14 (Birchall) = Pick 6 (Berg)

The Hawks lucked out that the priority system gave them an extra top end pick in two consecutive years. And they actually recruited well with their later picks.

Surely if you think we should be tanking to get pick 3, that Hawthorn should have also…considering they were in a worse position in 2006 after R17?

They had low end talent in 06 so there priority was not draft focus rather developing the picks they had already required. How many times do I need to repeat myself surely you aren't this stupid?

One extra compared to our position right now.

*Teams who have already been at the bottom have a different focus to one who has not been there and is trending in that direction. Your Hawks argument is not what I am arguing as every teams position and list is different year to year.*

My argument is that your proposition that wanting to lose game is the ‘smart’ thing to do is rubbish.

We on other hand have not bottomed out and acquired low end pick talent since that 05 draft, for us dropping and getting that access is more important then winning a few extra games in 2017. We need to improve our list as best we can.

We have plenty of top end picks, more than most teams

Who are the Dogs top end picks??

Boyd = Treloar
Bont = DeGoey
Macrae = Aish
Stringer = Moore

We also have Berg and Adams…..

MM was moving our team around in games late in 05 100% outside of that he put people into the drs office who would others wise play, he blooded youth to orchestrate lower chances of winning.

Oh yeah those momentum killing moves he made against North that stopped our momentum and prevented us from taking the lead…

Yes I do think with our best 22 in we are chance to win another 4 games which in context of our year and list is dumb to achieve and does less for us then losing would.

Yeah we might end up with pick 6 if that happened…..what a nightmare!

 

[doppleganger]

So they finished bottom 5, 5 years running and this somehow disproves my theory? including a year where they lost 11 on the trot to end out a season?

Im done with this.

They finished
2012 15th
2013 15th
2014 14th

That is three years, and never fully bottomed out to get that top3 pick that is supposedly vital for our long term prosperity.

Perhaps you should give it a rest, clearly are battling.

 

[loki04]

Ok so it aint relevant how they acquired the picks…or if the Picks were from 5 years prior when they were making PFs.

So then we have the following:

Pick 1 (Hodge) = Treloar (a pre draft junior selection touted as pick 1)
Pick 2 (Roughy) = ??
Pick 3 (X.Ellis) = Pick 7 (Aish)
Pick 5 (Franklin) = Pick 5 (DeGoey),
Pick 6 (Dowler) = Pick 9 (Moore)
Pick 7 (Lewis) = Pick 13 (Adams)
Pick 14 (Birchall) = Pick 6 (Berg)

The Hawks lucked out that the priority system gave them an extra top end pick in two consecutive years. And they actually recruited well with their later picks.

Surely if you think we should be tanking to get pick 3, that Hawthorn should have also…considering they were in a worse position in 2006 after R17?



One extra compared to our position right now.



My argument is that your proposition that wanting to lose game is the ‘smart’ thing to do is rubbish.



We have plenty of top end picks, more than most teams

One last time.

They at the time had a heap of low end (lower then pick 5) talent picked up, they no longer needed to care for position in the draft as a priority at that stage winning is more important. In their decision making for 06 they don't have the luxury of knowing a couple of those picks would be poor decisions either.

We in comparison have not dipped low like the the *Hawks winning culture* did. We have average talent and need more high end match winners like Hodge Franklin and Roughy.

Treloar was touted top 3 by Sheedy, but when you look at the other people who went in his draft or pre selected like himself its doubtful pick 1.

Patton, Cameron, Shiel, Smith, Coniglio, Wingard and Tyson. All are the 2011 crop, Treloar was pre selected like Cameron, Shiel and Smith a year earlier then the draft age so gaints could develop them.

 

[loki04]

They finished
2012 15th
2013 15th
2014 14th

That is three years, and never fully bottomed out to get that top3 pick that is supposedly vital for our long term prosperity.

Perhaps you should give it a rest, clearly are battling.

Top 3-5 pick depending on the draft, you keep trying to twist the words to suit your argument...who's battling?

Finishing bottom 5 all those years is bottoming, especially when you trade your captain among other senior talent to acquire low picks from other teams.

Should we trade Pendles to be like them? like you want to be? a winning culture team ?

Also need another few years in the bottom 5 to be like them and oh and multiple bottom 3 years to be like the Hawks of 06 and have their strong winning culture.

 

[doppleganger]

Top 3-5 pick depending on the draft, you keep trying to twist the words to suit your argument...who's battling?

What is the difference between pick 5 and pick 6?

I am not twisting anything, I just cant keep up with you changing your tune.

Supposedly it is important that we tank to get a top 3 pick, but now there is no difference between 3-5 so just important to get a top 5 pick?

Finishing bottom 5 all those years is bottoming, especially when you trade your captain among other senior talent to acquire low picks from other teams.

Is there really a huge difference in finishing 14th/15th or 12th? Pick 4,5 v Pick 7?

Dogs traded out their captain and a first rounder for Boyd.
We have traded out a vice captain Beams, and traded first rounders for Treloar.

Dogs top end picks were 4,5,6 and traded for Boyd
Ours have been 5,6,7,9 and traded for Treloar (and Adams).

When will you realise that top end picks aren’t the answer?

Should we trade Pendles to be like them like you want to be? a winning culture team ?

We traded a vice captain Beams who like Griffen wanted out.

Also need another few years in the bottom 5 to be like them and oh and multiple bottom 3 years to be like the Hawks of 06 and have their strong winning culture.

Why?
The Dogs don’t have more top end picks than us, they aint the answer.

 

[Anzacday]

loki04 I admire your tenacity.
So we can get the thread back on topic, who do you think were our best players

 

[doodles98]

Yeah I have and we are a good chance to win up to 4 games. Also this draft outside the top 3, not much separates the next 7 will be a lottery who ends up better.

We have a plenty of picks sans pick 5 running around and many who look like average players. Pendles , Varcoe and wells are 30 30 and 33 next year. So 3 of our best balls users and better players are all on the downhill stretch.

Doppleganger and Timmy both are to stupid to separate the arguments going on.

Dopple is trying to be *clever* and say all low teams should tank then as I am advocating it is best for us...in 2017. 1 size fits all apparently.

Then Links to the 06 Hawks as a GOOD WINNING club who played the year out but fails to recognize where there list is at and the bevvy of already stocked low end draft picks which included pick 1,2,3,5,6.

How they obtained 1 of those picks is irrelevant the fact they had it allowed them to put winning as a priority in *that* season (06) as it would be detrimental to further stay low so many years running.
Is it really that hard to understand lists are not the same or static and what is good for 1 team in 1 year maybe not be good for another in another year?

A team trying to rise after having sat a few years bottom 3 and collecting the picks from it is no longer needing to dip!

Our position of :
A. List composition and balance , Lack of classy outside types and lack of KPP.
B. Not having a lower pick then 5 since the 05 season. Traded out of a stupid amount of drafts for grunt mids.
C. Lack of stand out juniors with good ball use. (Treloar is a stand out bakll winner, but racks it up and is also worse then Adams for disposal efficiency and clangers.)
D. having a few mid ranged picks fail to fire Freeman Kennedy Broomhead Schaz (can still turn it around but to what level) etc.
E. Ageing better players, Pendles is 30 next Jan, Varcoe 30, Wells 33, Reid 29, Dunn 31. You don't wait for these players to all drop off a cliff you need to start looking to get their replacements in and developing in the next 2 years. It takes 3-4 years for youth to become consistent afl quality, we don't want to be replacing stars with average good types. A star out a star in keep the talent levels up not average.

Treloar worse DE than Adams !!! FMD that is depressing. Wouldn't have thought we could top Tay... Amazing what you can get for 2 first rounders!

Looking forward to reading your posts when we select Mayne and Blair this week and drop Scharenberg again.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Shows how well you know footy, confirming what most of us already know...delusional.

Shirley you cant be serious

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

loki04 I admire your tenacity.
So we can get the thread back on topic, who do you think were our best players

Langdon Varcoe Blair Moore seemed to be tanking the best

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It was 1 promoted rookie JJ.

You equate 1 thing i say to all aspects of the footy club, like you think I think we should have a team full of top 3 picks and should tank for 22 years to achieve it. *******.

Totally incorrect.

Picken and M Boyd both promoted rookies
L Dalhous pick 70...closer to a rookie pick than top five!!
Macrae the only drafted top ten pick...but not the magical top five....six ...
T Boyd traded in

These are the best named.

 

[Anzacday]

Langdon Varcoe Blair Moore seemed to be tanking the best

Thanks Ricky P

 

[loki04]

Langdon Varcoe Blair Moore seemed to be tanking the best

Blair gets full votes great team player.

 

[loki04]

What is the difference between pick 5 and pick 6?

I am not twisting anything, I just cant keep up with you changing your tune.

My tune has stayed constant it is you who failed to grasp it ...repeatedly.

 

[doppleganger]

My tune has stayed constant it is you who failed to grasp it ...repeatedly.

Your tune being that losing to get a lower draft pick is the smart long term play. We need a pick 3 instead of our current pick 5.

The remaining games are meaningless, winning them is counter productive to long term success.

It is better to lose and shoot for a top 3 draft picK.

But when questioned on which strong sides have actually done this....crickets.

Point out that the Dogs have no top 3 picks, goal posts shift to top 5.

When point out that teams like Hawthorn are the Dogs actually won the meaningless end of season games, costing themselves draft position, you shift into list management analysis mode and that it is only on special circumstances when you should want to lose.

When pointed out that Hawthorn traded for pick 1 you then declare that how you actually get the picks isn't relevant.

You then start claiming MM deliberately sabotaged a 2005 game against North, but your recollection proven to be way off the mark.

All over the shop, because your premise that losing to improve draft pick position is no guarantee of better long term outcome, it ain't the smart move.

Go Eagles ay!

 

[loki04]

Your tune being that losing to get a lower draft pick is the smart long term play. We need a pick 3 instead of our current pick 5.

The remaining games are meaningless, winning them is counter productive to long term success.

It is better to lose and shoot for a top 3 draft picK.

But when questioned on which strong sides have actually done this....crickets.

Point out that the Dogs have no top 3 picks, goal posts shift to top 5.

When point out that teams like Hawthorn are the Dogs actually won the meaningless end of season games, costing themselves draft position, you shift into list management analysis mode and that it is only on special circumstances when you should want to lose.

When pointed out that Hawthorn traded for pick 1 you then declare that how you actually get the picks isn't relevant.

You then start claiming MM deliberately sabotaged a 2005 game against North, but your recollection proven to be way off the mark.

All over the shop, because your premise that losing to improve draft pick position is no guarantee of better long term outcome, it ain't the smart move.

Go Eagles ay!

My tune remains the same and pointed to sides who have done it. It is better for this list to shoot for top 3 in this season and this draft.

Hawks 06 was not in their best interest to continue to lose after stockpiling for years prior.

Hawks in 04/05 fielded youth and weren't actively trying to get wins until the pick was sewn up to end up a PP. Can't get much simpler for you nupty you can't compare teams of differing years with different lists to our situation.

If winning didn't prevent us moving out of top 3 for example then Id be all for it much like the Hawks in mid 00s winning a few late was not going to move them out of top 3 in 04/05.

All over the shop is your comprehension of what I have said, you are a **** MM/club 100% did tank 2005 tanking is more then just positional moves of which he made in some games late in 05.

It is fielding a team with lesser chances of winning, blooding youth and experimenting with senior players all of which we did in 05.


Its not that hard although being that you seem intellectually impaired to comprehend it, maybe it is.

 

[Collingwoodity]

We traded for pick 5 and got a bonus pick 6 via free agency compo recently…..not that different.

Yeah they nailed their picks…..and our elite top guys – Berg, Freeman, Aish, DeGoey, Moore – aren’t developing as hoped.

This is correct but is also the reason why we need top draft picks.

Berg - Fail
Berg is likely to become a pass. Potential to be better than a pass.


Freeman - Fail
Freeman was a fail.


Aish - Fail
Aish is likely to become a fail. Potential to be a pass.
Not a draftee.


DeGoey - Pass
Berg is likely to become better than a pass. Potential to be a hit.

Moore - Pass
Berg is likely to become better than a pass. Potential to be a hit.

For whatever reason Collingwood need high draft picks when you have rival clubs with draftees "better than a pass" or "hits" from years 2 or 3.

 

[doppleganger]

This is correct but is also the reason why we need top draft picks.

Berg - Fail
Berg is likely to become a pass. Potential to be better than a pass.


Freeman - Fail
Freeman was a fail.


Aish - Fail
Aish is likely to become a fail. Potential to be a pass.
Not a draftee.


DeGoey - Pass
Berg is likely to become better than a pass. Potential to be a hit.

Moore - Pass
Berg is likely to become better than a pass. Potential to be a hit.

For whatever reason Collingwood need high draft picks when you have rival clubs with draftees "better than a pass" or "hits" from years 2 or 3.

It simply highlights that getting a top pick isn't the answer to long term success.

Hawks did better from pick 7, 12 and 14 to get Lewis, Rioli and Birchall compared to 3, 6 and 6 in X.Ellis, Downer and Thorpe.

The dogs showed you don't need top 3 picks to move up and win a flag.

We have more than our fair share of top end draft picks, wanting to lose to slide down a couple of spots in the draft is not going to ensure we are in a better position for the future.

Much better to win the 'meaningless' games.

 

[Jasper84]

My tune remains the same and pointed to sides who have done it. It is better for this list to shoot for top 3 in this season and this draft.

Hawks 06 was not in their best interest to continue to lose after stockpiling for years prior.

Hawks in 04/05 fielded youth and weren't actively trying to get wins until the pick was sewn up to end up a PP. Can't get much simpler for you nupty you can't compare teams of differing years with different lists to our situation.

If winning didn't prevent us moving out of top 3 for example then Id be all for it much like the Hawks in mid 00s winning a few late was not going to move them out of top 3 in 04/05.

All over the shop is your comprehension of what I have said, you are a **** MM/club 100% did tank 2005 tanking is more then just positional moves of which he made in some games late in 05.

It is fielding a team with lesser chances of winning, blooding youth and experimenting with senior players all of which we did in 05.


Its not that hard although being that you seem intellectually impaired to comprehend it, maybe it is.

You know that calling people "numpty" "intellectually impaired" and whatever "****" is, only weakens any point that you make?

 

[Collingwoodity]

It simply highlights that getting a top pick isn't the answer to long term success.

Hawks did better from pick 7, 12 and 14 to get Lewis, Rioli and Birchall compared to 3, 6 and 6 in X.Ellis, Downer and Thorpe.

The dogs showed you don't need top 3 picks to move up and win a flag.

We have more than our fair share of top end draft picks, wanting to lose to slide down a couple of spots in the draft is not going to ensure we are in a better position for the future.

Much better to win the 'meaningless' games.

I think it highlights that you do need top picks and you need to get them right to succeed.

Re Bulldogs, top 3 picks maybe. But Bulldogs success is significantly built on Bontempelli (Pick 4), Stringer (Pick 5) & Macrae (Pick 6).

 

[doppleganger]

I think it highlights that you do need top picks and you need to get them right to succeed.

Re Bulldogs, top 3 picks maybe. But Bulldogs success is significantly built on Bontempelli (Pick 4), Stringer (Pick 5) & Macrae (Pick 6).

Bulldogs success was built on good drafting full stop.

They didn't need any top 3 picks.

We have had access to more top picks since 2012 than the Bulldogs - having our own pick 5, pick 6, pick 9 and pick 10.

We have also traded in young highly rated juniors in Aish (pick 7), Adams (pick 12) and Treloar (pre draft concession).

Our problem ain't been a lack of top picks, our problem has been poor recruitment/development.

 

[TW Sherrin]

WTF has done Blair done to Darcy and why is he carrying his head around?