Remove this Banner Ad

Prediction Michael Barlow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tex200
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Elite Crow said:
That's the key, the club has a choice to make, grab Barlow and they can't play Thommo.

Next year is going to be a watershed year in our history I reckon and will tell us so much about our club and whether we live up to Elite Standards.

Another year of Thommo, Mackay and Douglas with Barlow instead of Menzel, Hampton, Knight, Milera and Wigg and we are going nowhere.
Click to expand...
Not sure you'll get too many people disagreeing with that sentiment
 
Peter J said:
Ok so answer me this - do you think the following statement would have unreasonable post trade period

We approached trade period with the intent of improving our midfield but unfortunately we were not able to obtain Gibbs via trade.

We will however continue to persue all options available to us to boost our list and in the meantime look forward to the addition of a talented youngster with pick 13 in the draft.

How's that?
Click to expand...

Sure that isn't unreasonable, but didn't the email from Fagan pretty much cover this anyway. Whilst not being one liners as you have posted the message is certainly in his email regarding the trade period/failed Gibbs trade though.
 
Peter J said:
Really? That's your perogative of course, however there are many of us who would like to know, and given we are relied upon both directly and indirectly for revenue I think it's reasonable we be treated with some respect
Click to expand...

Well look at how well trying to keep us informed went RE: Gibbs. I'd rather them keep it in house and get the deal done if it will be the difference.
 
Big Gazoongas said:
Sure that isn't unreasonable, but didn't the email from Fagan pretty much cover this anyway. Whilst not being one liners as you have posted the message is certainly in his email regarding the trade period/failed Gibbs trade though.
Click to expand...
The club line has been that their intent was always to take 13 to the draft. In other words a longer term strategy with ...organic growth to take care of the here and now
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
The club still seems to be trying to balance short term and long term goals. Never going all in on one at the expense of the other. Not giving in to the boom/bust AFL cycle. Trying to always contend.

Hedging bets. Looking at future - Pick 13 + Jarman? Also looking at short term - Barlow/Thompson

Didn't spend big on Gibbs now because that would harm our future.

Real middle ground stuff. Not bold. No time lines attached. No end point. No specific target in mind.
Click to expand...
Yep and no Grand Final or Premiership for almost 20 years but hey...we never bottom out. Well whoop de doo. /sour
 
Peter J said:
The club line has been that their intent was always to take 13 to the draft. In other words a longer term strategy with ...organic growth to take care of the here and now
Click to expand...
I'd like to see what the average team demographic looks like for premiers at the time they win.

If we really do rule out Thompson, MacKay and Douglas as many of us want, I feel our list looks quite young and inexperienced. It can be done, or course, the Bulldogs did it this year, but I feel our window opens wider when our 20-23 year olds are 23-26.

I'm not sure where the idea that it's 17/18 or bust comes from.
 
Niximus said:
I'd like to see what the average team demographic looks like for premiers at the time they win.

If we really do rule out Thompson, MacKay and Douglas as many of us want, I feel our list looks quite young and inexperienced. It can be done, or course, the Bulldogs did it this year, but I feel our window opens wider when our 20-23 year olds are 23-26.

I'm not sure where the idea that it's 17/18 or bust comes from.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree with you on this. It's like there's just been a natural assumption that we are in a window - but are we?

If we are adding 1-2 experienced players to top up on a relatively minor deficiency then yes.

However there also seems to be a view that we've built the forward zone, built the defence - now we need to rebuild the midfield.

This is what's frustrating with mixed messages
 
Peter J said:
Tend to agree with you on this. It's like there's just been a natural assumption that we are in a window - but are we?

If we are adding 1-2 experienced players to top up on a relatively minor deficiency then yes.

However there also seems to be a view that we've built the forward zone, built the defence - now we need to rebuild the midfield.

This is what's frustrating with mixed messages
Click to expand...

I think the 17/18 or bust idea comes from trying to pinch one before GWS become an unstoppable force. Personally I don't think they will be unbeatable (although I agree it will be difficult).
 
Niximus said:
I'd like to see what the average team demographic looks like for premiers at the time they win.

If we really do rule out Thompson, MacKay and Douglas as many of us want, I feel our list looks quite young and inexperienced. It can be done, or course, the Bulldogs did it this year, but I feel our window opens wider when our 20-23 year olds are 23-26.

I'm not sure where the idea that it's 17/18 or bust comes from.
Click to expand...
Walshy's plan was to see us be contenders in 17/18.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Walshy's plan was to see us be contenders in 17/18.
Click to expand...
I don't believe his plan was to see us be contenders in only 17/18.

I don't think that we'll not be contenders next year, but I see next year as only the first crack of our window opening. I don't want us to contend 17/18, I want us to genuinely contend for the next decade.
 
Elite Crow said:
We'll have you started it yet?

And when it comes to my footy ******* oath I am miserable.

I want to win premierships.
.
Click to expand...

I want them too but Premierships are hard.

You get the right coach.
Spend years developing kids into players that have the right attributes that you think will be good enough together to be the best.
You have the right staff on/off field.
It's a balancing act and when it's finally clicking after a decade of work you might only have a 2 year window.

I'm guessing our plan was to get Gibbs - unfortunately Carlton weren't going to let us have him for a reasonable price.

We couldn't get any other players that fit our plan to come here.

So we go to the draft.

Meanwhile if there's any way of improving our position via bringing in delisted players - we'd go for that.

I didn't even bother reading the e-mail. Eithier we've got the right guys steering the ship or we don't - I'm not privvy to their plans or what kind of situations they're dealing with. I'd find it hard to believe they wouldn't do whatever they can to get us what we need. Do I trust them? I've got no choice.

At the same time, do we need supporters that ask questions and are critical of any and every move? Absolutely.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Niximus said:
I don't believe his plan was to see us be contenders in only 17/18.

I don't think that we'll not be contenders next year, but I see next year as only the first crack of our window opening. I don't want us to contend 17/18, I want us to genuinely contend for the next decade.
Click to expand...
How many teams contend for a decade?

Can't wait to see what GWS will be like in a few years once their young players get more games under their belt given the top end talent they've had access to...
 
dylan123 said:
How many teams contend for a decade?

Can't wait to see what GWS will be like in a few years once their young players get more games under their belt given the top end talent they've had access to...
Click to expand...
Not many, but the last 12 years has been dominated by 3 teams with that kind of longevity, I want that.

They didn't achieve that by treating strategy as binary - "either we're planning for the future, or we're planning for now, which is it?" - they did both. They planned to be successful, and they planned to stay successful.
 
Niximus said:
Not many, but the last 12 years has been dominated by 3 teams with that kind of longevity, I want that.

They didn't achieve that by treating strategy as binary - "either we're planning for the future, or we're planning for now, which is it?" - they did both. They planned to be successful, and they planned to stay successful.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Sustained success has to be the goal.
 
Niximus said:
I don't believe his plan was to see us be contenders in only 17/18.

I don't think that we'll not be contenders next year, but I see next year as only the first crack of our window opening. I don't want us to contend 17/18, I want us to genuinely contend for the next decade.
Click to expand...
We are nowhere near uncompromising enough to get anywhere near contending for a decade

We should've offered Patrick 1.5 million.

We let our midfield walk out the door.

Maybe he still would've left. At least we would've had an uncompromising crack at contending. Imagine if we had the brownlow medalist this year...unstoppable

Then we had a chance to at least fill part of the hole in our midfield. Gibbs would've cost pick 13 and a future first in the late teens.

But we couldn't decide if we were contending or building. So we compromised.

Got him locked and loaded then chickened out of pulling the trigger.

We should've delisted Thommo. Waste of a list spot.

But we were too confused about whether we are a contender or a career pathways provider for good mates.

So we compromised and did nothing.

Our off field reminds me of the state liberal party. They are just generally incompetent, insular and have no clue how to get to the top despite a lot of things going in their favour. The efforts of a handful of very talented people come to nought, suffocated by the overwhelming malaise of incompetence, compromise and low expectations. The lack of leadership and direction is crippling.
 
Contending sides pock up "old spuds" all the time to fill gaps and tide the side over short term.

If Hawthorn picks up Barlow, watch the commentary. "Master stroke" provides depth because.... Fills a gap as a contested player.


Adelaide picks him up..... hear the whinging from fans. People are literally writting Rooch's next article for him. Cut and past the best rants. Edit for readability, money for jam.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jenny61_99 said:
Walshy's plan was to see us be contenders in 17/18.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was wrong - well, not wrong to have that as a plan, but maybe there's not much if anything about what the club has done since his passing that would differ greatly from what people might assume would be "Walshy's plan". Cue endless posts about playing Thommo, Dmac etc - OK, yes, yes, I get that - but.... I don't think "Walshy had a plan for us to be contenders in 17/18" is in conflict with the idea of being contenders beyond that timeframe.

Anyway, 17/18 (and especially 18) haven't happened yet, so let's see.
 
Mattrox said:
Contending sides pock up "old spuds" all the time to fill gaps and tide the side over short term.

If Hawthorn picks up Barlow, watch the commentary. "Master stroke" provides depth because.... Fills a gap as a contested player.


Adelaide picks him up..... hear the whinging from fans. People are literally writting Rooch's next article for him. Cut and past the best rants. Edit for readability, money for jam.
Click to expand...
I don't think MB is an old spud at all.

I actually have no problem with us picking him if he is what the club thinks we need. Close to making a GF, just lacked a big body that could match Kennedy, missed Gibbs, fine go with MB.

What I object to is that strategy doesn't align with the party line - we never intended recruiting a ready made mid, our intention was always just to go to the draft and rely on organic growth.
 
Niximus said:
I'd like to see what the average team demographic looks like for premiers at the time they win.

If we really do rule out Thompson, MacKay and Douglas as many of us want, I feel our list looks quite young and inexperienced. It can be done, or course, the Bulldogs did it this year, but I feel our window opens wider when our 20-23 year olds are 23-26.

I'm not sure where the idea that it's 17/18 or bust comes from.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make if those experienced players aren't providing output commensurate with their experience? If our window opens wider when our 20-23 year olds are 23-26, then we should be making certain that we're getting AFL games into that segment of players now. Either we're contending right now and going all out for it, or we aren't and should be developing the players who will allow us to. I'd like to see the club pick one and then show they've done so by employing actions that align with their choice.
 
headache1 said:
What difference does it make if those experienced players aren't providing output commensurate with their experience? If our window opens wider when our 20-23 year olds are 23-26, then we should be making certain that we're getting AFL games into that segment of players now. Either we're contending right now and going all out for it, or we aren't and should be developing the players who will allow us to. I'd like to see the club pick one and then show they've done so by employing actions that align with their choice.
Click to expand...
I agree that we should be getting games into those players now. I don't want to see Thompson, Douglas, or MacKay getting games as their output isn't up to their experience.

I think we want to aim to do both so that we can achieve sustained success. I don't want to pop up and challenge for a couple of years and drop away again, rinse and repeat. I want the Sydney/Geelong/Hawthorn of being in with a shot every year.

To do that there'll be some decisions that provide short term benefits, some that provide longer term benefits. Each decision needs to be made on its own worth.
 
Dare say Barlow would be a good replacement for Mitchell at Sydney as well.


Peter J said:
I don't think MB is an old spud at all.

I actually have no problem with us picking him if he is what the club thinks we need. Close to making a GF, just lacked a big body that could match Kennedy, missed Gibbs, fine go with MB.

What I object to is that strategy doesn't align with the party line - we never intended recruiting a ready made mid, our intention was always just to go to the draft and rely on organic growth.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of that.

Just on Kennedy, he's not really someone with much speed and his disposal is pretty suspect but it's easy to overlook/ignore those things when you consider all the tough stuff he does. The good easily out ways the bad. Not that Barlow is on his level but I think Kennedy is proof there there's still plenty of room in the game for someone that doesn't really possess much speed or punish the opposition with sharp skills.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom