My initial response was to a post that inferred we get rid of kids too quick and I feel that, in our recent history, we are much more guilty of holding them for too long.
As for Buckley, I haven't seen him play so can't be definitive on whether he should be held or not. My gut feel is if he (as many say) is undersize and has ability I'd like to see him given one more year. I think there are a few in front of him for de-listing from what I have seen. I guess it comes down to what the coaches see in him and how wide ranging our list turnover is to be. More than happy to leave these kind of decisions to hose who are in a position to know.
No argument and that's exactly why we now have to move on the amount of players we have to.
Geelong for instance have been able to do that because they've had the development systems in place allowing players to flourish within it. We hadn't.
Guess I'm going over old ground here but our list management and development has been sub-standard in recent years.
Fortunately Mick recognized that early and had already implemented changes early in the year and will push his case for changes going forward.
Re. Buckley: We could easily move on enough players to do what we need to do without exiting Buckley.
I'm surprised (shocked to be sitting here) that his name has been brought up so early in the piece. Really surprised.