Our backward looking recruiting

[lacrow]

Peeps,

Maybe it's just my naive view of things, but it seems as though our recruiting decisions are made the wrong way around.

Every year we look back and say what went wrong and then try to correct that instead of looking forward at the potential competition for the year and adjusting our picks to suit that.

Case in point: our defense was very good this year, but we got chewed up by ONE guy in ONE game (the regular season loss to Brisbane didn't mean anything to our season). Now, a huge part of our focus is on finding a solution to a problem that probably isn't going to occur next year because Brisbane is probably NOT going to be a serious contender next year. Even if they are, there's a good chance we wouldn't even meet them unless it was the GF (doubtful).

Our defensive unit did very well against all the other sides - including Matthew Lloyd, who is a much better FF than Lynch, IMHO. So why the big crisis about a key FB?

Last year's decision to go after a big FF was different because it was glaringly obvious that we had a big hole in that position and our decision to get Carey was done with a forward-looking eye.

I think the AFC should be looking around the league at next year's possible flag contenders and sizing them up for what we need to beat them, not looking at LAST year's flag winners and using them as our guide.

Thoughts?

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by lacrow
Case in point: our defense was very good this year, but we got chewed up by ONE guy in ONE game (the regular season loss to Brisbane didn't mean anything to our season).

In our last three games against Brisbane, Lynch has kicked 7, 7 and 6 goals against us. This is no isolated case. We have no one to match him. In the semi final, Ayres left Perrie on him who was clearly struggling. We can only assume that Ayres felt there was no one better for the job. That's not a good thing.

Now, a huge part of our focus is on finding a solution to a problem that probably isn't going to occur next year because Brisbane is probably NOT going to be a serious contender next year.

You're kidding, right? They'll be serious flag contenders again next year. At worst, they'll be around the mark.

Even if they are, there's a good chance we wouldn't even meet them unless it was the GF (doubtful).

We can't plan our season on luck. We've met Brisbane in the last two finals series and have been soundly beaten.

Our defensive unit did very well against all the other sides - including Matthew Lloyd, who is a much better FF than Lynch, IMHO. So why the big crisis about a key FB?

Lloyd is a leading full forward. Smart and Bassett can handle these guys. But Lynch is a body-on-body full forward, and we just have no answer to that.

I think the AFC should be looking around the league at next year's possible flag contenders and sizing them up for what we need to beat them, not looking at LAST year's flag winners and using them as our guide.

If you were looking at the previous years flag winners as a yardstick in 2003 or 2002, you'd be right on the money. Why should next year be any different?

You would expect next year's flag contenders will be out of this year's top four. Namely Brisbane, Collingwood, Sydney and Port Adelaide.

Against only one of those four sides - i.e. Sydney - have we had even reasonable passable against in recent times. Against the other three sides? We're their bitches.

Thoughts?

As you can see I pretty much disagree with you.

 

[maccas_no1]

Not many clubs do actually have a player that can shut down Lynch, as Dave said he is a body on body forward and he is damn good, I guess you just have to try and shut him down as best you can but Perrie was never the answer to stop him in that semi-final that was just suicide Surely Ayres wouldnt pull a move like that in a Grand Final

 

[lacrow]

In our last three games against Brisbane, Lynch has kicked 7, 7 and 6 goals against us. This is no isolated case.

Dave, you are kidding me right? So, we are going to spend a ton of money to take care of ONE guy we struggled with - a guy who turns 35 next year? C'mon, give me a break. That's ridiculous.

They'll be serious flag contenders again next year. At worst, they'll be around the mark.

If you were looking at the previous years flag winners as a yardstick in 2003 or 2002, you'd be right on the money. Why should next year be any different?

This is just wrong on all counts. First off, Brisbane finished fourth this year - not first or even second. The coming season they will be even weaker, IMHO, because age and injuries are starting to catch up to them. If you need any examples, just look at our 97 and 98 teams who won the premiership back-to-back and then ended up where...11th?

No modern team is going to win 4 premierships in a row. I guarantee that.

So basically what you're saying is that we should spend a ton of cash to combat a very specific situation which we have a very good chance of not encountering again next year. That just doesn't make sense.

We can't plan our season on luck. We've met Brisbane in the last two finals series and have been soundly beaten.

Planning on meeting Brisbane again in the finals is what I'd call luck. Remember that if Port hadn't choked AND we didn't fade away like losers we probably wouldn't have even played Brisbane in this year's finals or at least we would've played them in Adelaide.

In the semi final, Ayres left Perrie on him who was clearly struggling. We can only assume that Ayres felt there was no one better for the job. That's not a good thing.

Are you serious? Didn't we all go over this? Personally, I think Smart would've been a much better choice to tackle Lynch - although that would've cost us run out of defence. But it was worth a shot. Ayres decision was ok at the start of the game... actually, no, it wasn't... but sticking to it was plain idiocy, no other excuse.

Against only one of those four sides - i.e. Sydney - have we had even reasonable passable against in recent times. Against the other three sides? We're their bitches.

We are their bitches not because we don't have a tall defender though. Weren't you watching those games? The reason we lost was because they flooded their half-back lines and we didn't have a key FORWARD so we couldn't score.

As you can see I basically disagree with your assessment too. But hey, you have more experience than me, so if we were really picking next year's team I'd let you do the choosing.

 

[DaveW]

Brisbane have showed time and again we have no answer to a strong bodied full forward.

And the Lions will be up there again in 2004, you can bet on it. No modern team was supposed to win three premierships in a row, but they've achieved that.

And yes a big defender wasn't the only thing we were lacking. We were smashed at the clearances during our late season slump - very disheartening for a team such as ours that prides itself on having a strong midfield.

Forward line effiency was also a problem - but what's new?

I like the idea of going after Ben Holland. It gives a guy who can play tall down back and contest up forward.

 

[Stiffy_18]

lacrow, I think you are deluding yourself if you think we shouldn't get a big strong key defender. Lynch has given us the head aches for yonks but its not only Lynch that we have trouble against (Although his role is to kick goals and he kicks bags).

Tredrea, Richardson, Whitnall and to some degree Neitz have done us damage in the last 2-3 years. We simply don't have anyone that will be a good match up for those. Tredrea always kills us, Richo, if he gets half decent supply has a field day and we were lucky that Neitz had to be moved onto Perrie in the only game we played them this year, cos Perrie kicked 4 goals in 15 minutes.

Lloyd, Hall, Croad, Longmuir, Tarrant and others are the forwards we have match ups on but the big strong forwards ALWAYS kill us. Thats why we need a key defender.

I would also say that we were one of the shortest defences last year and Smart is not getting any younger. Another reason for a key defender.

So, I disagree with you and agree with Dave.

Also Brisbane are stacked with Talent. They finished 3rdt his year and went on to win a flag without having a week off. Even if some players retire and as you say slow down there are some EXTREMELY good youngsters coming through the system that would get a game at any other AFL side. Someone like Brennan is a freak. Headley is a player adn Corrie is a dashing flanker that reminds a lot of people of a young Gavin Wanganeen.

The only reason Lions didn't finish higher up the lader is because they had a pretty rotten run with injuries.

 

[lacrow]

Stiffy,

With all due respect, all the key forwards you mentioned play for sh*t teams. Whitnall? If we are gearing our recruiting towards teams like Carlton, then I fear for the Crows.

I'll be the first to admit I don't have the experience of you Aussie guys, however I stand by my comments.

Lynch - at 35 years old - is not going to be as big a factor next year. I just don't believe he'll chop us up.

As for Brisbane, I don't believe the hype about their youngsters. Please explain to me how being at the top of the ladder and as a result, having the worst draft picks for the last 3 years, has given them an amazing crop of youngsters.

Again, read the stats. Our defence, short or not, was one of the best in the league all year (with exception for the end of the season). The fact is, of all the teams that have a chance next year (Carlton and Melbourne have no chance, IMO), none of them have a big strong full forward except for Brisbane.

So I say again, we are looking at spending a ton of money for something that I just don't think is that necessary.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by lacrow
Stiffy,

With all due respect, all the key forwards you mentioned play for sh*t teams. Whitnall? If we are gearing our recruiting towards teams like Carlton, then I fear for the Crows.

I'll be the first to admit I don't have the experience of you Aussie guys, however I stand by my comments.

Lynch - at 35 years old - is not going to be as big a factor next year. I just don't believe he'll chop us up.

As for Brisbane, I don't believe the hype about their youngsters. Please explain to me how being at the top of the ladder and as a result, having the worst draft picks for the last 3 years, has given them an amazing crop of youngsters.

Again, read the stats. Our defence, short or not, was one of the best in the league all year (with exception for the end of the season). The fact is, of all the teams that have a chance next year (Carlton and Melbourne have no chance, IMO), none of them have a big strong full forward except for Brisbane.

So I say again, we are looking at spending a ton of money for something that I just don't think is that necessary.

I didn't realise Tredrea played for a sh|t team. Melbourne will be good next year. (Remember its an even year)

Everyone was saying the same thing about Lynch's influence at the end of last year. Will be a year older, won't have as much impact and all that yet he put in as good a year this time around if not better.

The reason Brisbane have a few good youngsters coming through the ranks is because they traded good players for early draft picks and on top of that they have THE BEST recruiting department in the country. They picked up Black at pick 31, Bradshaw at pick 70 odd, McDonald at pick 70 odd. They know their work. Last year they picked Brennan at pick 3 and the bloke is an absolute freak. Corrie was to go in top 15 but somehow fell through. He is another freak.

Stats can be interpreted in any way you like BUT if you really want to know why we were statistically 2nd best defence in AFL, its got to do with our midfield being awsome in the 2/3rds of the season. If we didn't win the midfield convincingly any team with half decent forward line had a good run.

Gehrig, Tredrea, Richardson, Neitz, Lynch and others of similar ilk ALWAYS give us headaches. A strong key defender, and a young up and coming ruckman ARE the priorities

 

[lacrow]

Sorry, I forgot to include an exception for Tredrea. However, he plays CHF, not FF - and though he takes a great contested mark, he is about the worst kick for goal in the AFL. So I'm not that worried about Treadrea.

Again, all of the other guys you mentioned play for sh*t teams. Richardson and Richmond... are you serious?

Not to mention there's the the little fact that the nature of competition in the AFL is moving away from big imobile FF's like Lynch towards guys like Lloyd. If we are going to plan for players of the past then we have problems, IMO.

Personally I would take Lloyd over Lynch any day and so would you - but the thing is that we do well against players like Lloyd.

I think our REAL problem is that we don't have a hard, nuggety guy to do the in-and-under work in the midfield since K. Johnson left and THAT is why we got beaten at stoppages by other teams.

 

[Scotty's_Girl]

Originally posted by lacrow
he is about the worst kick for goal in the AFL. So I'm not that worried about Treadrea.

He has improved his kicking though.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by lacrow
Sorry, I forgot to include an exception for Tredrea. However, he plays CHF, not FF - and though he takes a great contested mark, he is about the worst kick for goal in the AFL. So I'm not that worried about Treadrea.

You obviously haven't watched to many Port games this year. Tredrea has spend more time inside 50 that he has in the past. In fact on a number of occasions Port had Tredrea play out of the goal square and Cornes be a floating CHF further up the ground. His kicking has improved out of sight this year. He had converted 68% of shots from memory. And he gets plenty of looks

Again, all of the other guys you mentioned play for sh*t teams. Richardson and Richmond... are you serious?

You talk about "forward recruiting" yet all of these play for sh*t teams. St. Kilda is a gun team in the making, they'll make the finals next year and Gehrig would cause us a lot of headaches.

Richo is judged very unfairly IMHO. His teammates let him down. Even in a sh*t team he still plays well against us.

Melbourne were 5th in 2001 and haven't changed their team all that much. Do you really think they won't bounce back with their youngsters improving and getting some good talent in the draft?

And what does it matter if they play for sh*t teams?????? We lost to supposed sh*t teams this year. Upsets occur left right and centre and just because those big forwards play for sh*t teamms it doesn't mean we should not adress our defeciencies.

Not to mention there's the the little fact that the nature of competition in the AFL is moving away from big imobile FF's like Lynch towards guys like Lloyd. If we are going to plan for players of the past then we have problems, IMO.

Lynch is far from imobile. In fact he is one of the quickes on the lead and thats why not many FBs can stop him. He is big and strong and quick. There are a number of big strong youngsters coming through at FF. Quentin Lynch is a big strong strapping FF coming through the ranks with West Coast. Last time he played against us he KILLED us. He is still only 21.

Personally I would take Lloyd over Lynch any day and so would you - but the thing is that we do well against players like Lloyd.

So would I but Lloyd is one rare player. He is by far the best FF in the AFL.

I think our REAL problem is that we don't have a hard, nuggety guy to do the in-and-under work in the midfield since K. Johnson left and THAT is why we got beaten at stoppages by other teams.

Midfielders are the easiest players to find. Strong key defenders, strong key forward and good ruckman are as rare as diamonds. If you have a chance to get one, you have got to have a crack

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by lacrow
Our defensive unit did very well against all the other sides - including Matthew Lloyd, who is a much better FF than Lynch, IMHO. So why the big crisis about a key FB?

Throw in Tarrant, Cornes, Tredrea, Sav Rocca, Anthony Rocca... we always get ripped apart by big forwards - and while we're at it small forwards of the likes of Milne, Phil Matera, Medhurst, the Burgoyne bros and Jeff Farmer all had days out against us too.

We lack a tall key defender and a small defender who can look after the short people... Nigel Smart and Ian Perrie as stopgaps on talls and Ben Hart forced to play on smalls says it all about what we lack in our back 6.

 

[lacrow]

OK, OK, I can see I'm being outvoted and I succumb to your collective wisdom here.

I still think a big key defender is not as much as a priority as you guys do and would rather spend our time and $$$ on another big key forward, but hey in the end whatever improves the team works for me.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Re: Our backward looking recruiting

Originally posted by dyertribe
Throw in Tarrant, Cornes, Tredrea, Sav Rocca, Anthony Rocca... we always get ripped apart by big forwards - and while we're at it small forwards of the likes of Milne, Phil Matera, Medhurst, the Burgoyne bros and Jeff Farmer all had days out against us too.

We lack a tall key defender and a small defender who can look after the short people... Nigel Smart and Ian Perrie as stopgaps on talls and Ben Hart forced to play on smalls says it all about what we lack in our back 6.

I agree. We also need a player that can take care of slippery little suckers.

Milne, Matera, Farmer, Medhurst and Burgoyne bros usually have field days against us. This is the main reason I would keep Crowell on the list. He can play on those and it would give a bit more time for someone like Jericho to develop into that role.