List Mgmt. Part 3- And on it goes: The trade and draft megathread

[Pulsedriver]

Bit harsh. Hardly got a look in through injury and Judd/Cousins/Kerr/Fletcher/Braun/Embley/Stenglein

If Butler weren't a failed mid, he'd have been back into the midfield upon Judd and Cousins leaving. At the start of 2008, Butler was entering his prime years.

 

[Pulsedriver]

Not sure I agree with your comments on shuffling the deck chairs, as this has a fairly negative connotation. I think the idea of players such as Duggan or Cole, improving and taking on more responsibility and leadership roles, replacing the void that will be left by Hurn is actually a good thing.

Maybe we should actually be talking about who we draft to replace Duggan and Cole, but then we are probably debating semantics.

The negative connotation absolutely fits, because Duggan and Cole already have a place in the side, even with Hurn there. When Hurn isn't there due to retirement, Cole and Duggan remain in their current roles, but simply have their name on the team sheet moved across to where Hurn's once was. Hence shuffling the deck chairs.

The issue isn't about Cole and Duggan taking on more responsibility and leadership roles, as that's a given with age, experience and a fluid list that drafts in youngsters every year. This issue is about drafting in one or more HBF's to eventually replace Hurn, as the depth WC have at present doesn't fill me with great confidence. Duggan and Cole don't need replacing, as they're already there and not going anywhere.

If we're to talk about replacing Duggan and Cole, then my call wrt the shuffling of deck chairs is apt.

 

[Pulsedriver]

So you dont rate our list management! Noted.

The implication here is that your opinion = WC's list management.

You dont think the club has not yet prepared for Hurn to retire.

Prepared? Somewhat, perhaps in the form of planning. Fulfilled satisfactorily? Not yet. They have an opportunity to rectify that if they draft wisely.

 

[squashface]

The AFL has got to be the most unprofessional professional sporting league in the world.

“We want this player but we can’t because the rules don’t allow it” -Club X
“RULE CHANGE”- Gill

 

[bUCKET__]

The AFL has got to be the most unprofessional professional sporting league in the world.

“We want this player but we can’t because the rules don’t allow it” -Club X
“RULE CHANGE”- Gill

Just wanna check that this means the same thing where you are as it does here

 

[twce13]

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

So Twomey has put out his phantom form guide - not phantom which will be next week once he gets more input from list managers.

He has access to list managers as well as who has had what additional interviews so when he links a club it is usually for a reason.

He has us interested in:-
Taylor
Hill
Sturt
Duursma
O’Halloran

One of Taylor/Hill/Sturt and one of Duursma/O’Halloran would be a decent haul when you add in Cameron.

Obviously we would be keen on earlier listed talent but being realistic. There could also be players outside his top 30 that we are keen on.

 

[Obeanie1]

The implication here is that your opinion = WC's list management.



Prepared? Somewhat, perhaps in the form of planning. Fulfilled satisfactorily? Not yet. They have an opportunity to rectify that if they draft wisely.

Well over the past couple of years Ive read a lot of negative comments about our players, coaches and recruters.

And now we are premiers.

So maybe the club knows a bit more about how to run things than us Big Footy 'experts'!

Just saying.

 

[tigger_ferret]

The negative connotation absolutely fits, because Duggan and Cole already have a place in the side, even with Hurn there. When Hurn isn't there due to retirement, Cole and Duggan remain in their current roles, but simply have their name on the team sheet moved across to where Hurn's once was. Hence shuffling the deck chairs.

The issue isn't about Cole and Duggan taking on more responsibility and leadership roles, as that's a given with age, experience and a fluid list that drafts in youngsters every year. This issue is about drafting in one or more HBF's to eventually replace Hurn, as the depth WC have at present doesn't fill me with great confidence. Duggan and Cole don't need replacing, as they're already there and not going anywhere.

If we're to talk about replacing Duggan and Cole, then my call wrt the shuffling of deck chairs is apt.

Cole and Duggan already have roles, but what I’m saying and I think Obeanie1 is also saying is that players improve over time and their roles adjust and change.

You don’t draft a player and they play the same role over their entire career. They grow and develop. You may draft a midfield who one day will be your No. 1 guy, but he may play a little up forward or as a tagging role, to learn some of the nuances of the game.

Viewing players with traditional names on the board in there positions is a very antiquated way of looking at footy. Something I’d expect of Robert Walls. So players moving positions (names on the board / shuffling deck chairs) or changing roles certainly isn’t a negative for me.

 

[ArdentEagle]

So Twomey has put out his phantom form guide - not phantom which will be next week once he gets more input from list managers.

He has access to list managers as well as who has had what additional interviews so when he links a club it is usually for a reason.

He has us interested in:-
Taylor
Hill
Sturt
Duursma
O’Halloran

One of Taylor/Hill/Sturt and one of Duursma/O’Halloran would be a decent haul when you add in Cameron.

Obviously we would be keen on earlier listed talent but being realistic. There could also be players outside his top 30 that we are keen on.

I like this list a lot!
If we get Sturt, I'll squirt. (Duursma is much harder to rhyme with)

BRING ON THE DRAFT!!!

 

[flamingEMBERS]

So Twomey has put out his phantom form guide - not phantom which will be next week once he gets more input from list managers.

He has access to list managers as well as who has had what additional interviews so when he links a club it is usually for a reason.

He has us interested in:-
Taylor
Hill
Sturt
Duursma
O’Halloran

One of Taylor/Hill/Sturt and one of Duursma/O’Halloran would be a decent haul when you add in Cameron.

Obviously we would be keen on earlier listed talent but being realistic. There could also be players outside his top 30 that we are keen on.

This is the thing I don't get. Why would recruiters and list managers tell Twomey what they are after?

 

[Cornelius Roy]

This is the thing I don't get. Why would recruiters and list managers tell Twomey what they are after?

They won't. Particularly not ours, which is why any player around 20 is oh possibly linked to eagles at 20, 22. He doesn't know, just throwing darts.

 

[Monocle]

This is the thing I don't get. Why would recruiters and list managers tell Twomey what they are after?

They don't but he gets a lot of information from player managers regarding which Clubs have interviewed which particular kids.
Remember home visits need to be run by the Managers and controlled so that kids don't get inundated with multiple Clubs interviews in the weeks leading into or on Exam weeks, therefore he will get intel on that side of things. He gets further info from his Mates at the AFL Institute and TAC Coaches as to which of their players Clubs have enquired about.

It's not fool proof or 100% inclusive and accurate but some of the "join the dots" stuff is pretty easy to do.

So his " Club X have shown interest in player Y " comments come from this information .

 

[LittleGreekGod]

The negative connotation absolutely fits, because Duggan and Cole already have a place in the side, even with Hurn there. When Hurn isn't there due to retirement, Cole and Duggan remain in their current roles, but simply have their name on the team sheet moved across to where Hurn's once was. Hence shuffling the deck chairs.

The issue isn't about Cole and Duggan taking on more responsibility and leadership roles, as that's a given with age, experience and a fluid list that drafts in youngsters every year. This issue is about drafting in one or more HBF's to eventually replace Hurn, as the depth WC have at present doesn't fill me with great confidence. Duggan and Cole don't need replacing, as they're already there and not going anywhere.

If we're to talk about replacing Duggan and Cole, then my call wrt the shuffling of deck chairs is apt.

I'm sure that's not how the club thinks.
When Hurn and Jetta retire then its absolutely the time that Duggan and Cole need to step with a more responsible role.
Just as Darling will be the main man up forward when Kennedy retires.
At this point we need to replace Duggan, Cole and Kennedy.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

With Schofield, nelson, watson and Rotham as spare defenders, i dont see any need for drafting backs this year.
Fowardline also well stocked with Allen, Brander, petch, Ah chee and maybe cameron.

But to cover our 5 starting midfield positions, we dont have much. It would be frightening if we lost 2 or 3 starting mids next year to injury.

Midfield depth worries me. While the kids drafted may not play next year, at least they will put pressure on players like M allen, Brayshaw and Ainsworth, as well as the senior mids.

For me, mids, mids, mids and a ruckman.

 

[Pulsedriver]

Well over the past couple of years Ive read a lot of negative comments about our players, coaches and recruters.

And now we are premiers.

So maybe the club knows a bit more about how to run things than us Big Footy 'experts'!

Just saying.

Your comment here stems from the strawman you created in your previous post to me, which stated: "So you don't rate our list management! Noted." None of what you've said here has anything to do with the subject of whether WC need a Hurn replacement or not. It's deflection.

Btw, I'm discussing what I believe WC should be doing now, not back then. Stay on track, Obeanie.

 

[Pulsedriver]

View attachment 584868

Go back to the Facebook Eagles page if you want an echo chamber.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

With Schofield, nelson, watson and Rotham as spare defenders, i dont see any need for drafting backs this year.
Fowardline also well stocked with Allen, Brander, petch, Ah chee and maybe cameron.

But to cover our 5 starting midfield positions, we dont have much. It would be frightening if we lost 2 or 3 starting mids next year to injury.

Midfield depth worries me. While the kids drafted may not play next year, at least they will put pressure on players like M allen, Brayshaw and Ainsworth, as well as the senior mids.

For me, mids, mids, mids and a ruckman.

Good post. The current depth you mention all have question marks over them as well. Assuming we add Cameron, I really want 20 and 22 to be mids

 

[Eagle Wrath]

Good post. The current depth you mention all have question marks over them as well. Assuming we add Cameron, I really want 20 and 22 to be mids

Absolutely. Ainsworth could be one of the best ball magnets in the game but cant kick on his left and forget about his right foot.
Brayshaw looks too slow.
M Allen Im undecided on. Could be good.
Mutimer would be gone if i was in charge.

That doesnt really cover our 5 mid positions.

We have 3 like Riolli, venables and Ah Chee that could move through the midfield but dont have the stamina yet to stay there.

I wonder how this thread would look if we had lost to Richmond in the GF.
It would have been from lack of pace and the engine room getting beaten and most of us wouldn't have been shocked.

 

[Chris_6678]

Yep 100% need more mids. You can never have enough in my view.

I am confident enough we can develop future defenders, forwards and rucks within the next few years but we struggle some what with mids so the more we have the more chance we will to striking gold.

 

[ZergMinion]

I wonder how this thread would look if we had lost to Richmond in the GF.
It would have been from lack of pace and the engine room getting beaten and none of would have been shocked.

We stack up against Richmond better than we do against Melbourne and Collingwood. Also Richmond weren't in great form heading in to the finals. I think Collingwood gave us a better game than Richmond would have.

 

[Chris_6678]

We stack up against Richmond better than we do against Melbourne and Collingwood. Also Richmond weren't in great form heading in to the finals. I think Collingwood gave us a better game than Richmond would have.

I agree.

Collingwood have one of the best midfield's in the league and i was surprised we took it up to them 3 times through out the year. We were missing out clearance beast in Nic Nat too.

 

[Pulsedriver]

Cole and Duggan already have roles, but what I’m saying and I think Obeanie1 is also saying is that players improve over time and their roles adjust and change.

No, Obeanie is saying that the recruitment of Cole and Duggan's was due to WC having foresight toward the retirement of Hurn and Jetta, so as to be their eventual replacements. I question Obeanie's logic given that Cole and Duggan are in the team in their own right, not simply waiting around to fill the void left by Hurn and Jetta when they retire. Given that Cole and Duggan are playing and virtually set in their roles suggests the drafting of Cole and Duggan was done for reasons other than those put forward by Obeanie.

If Hurn and Jetta only have 1-2 years left, now is the right time to bring in another HBF or two.

You don’t draft a player and they play the same role over their entire career.

I know you want to talk about 'roles' since it's convenient for your argument and goes away from the discussion on drafting for a certain position to be filled, in this case a HBF.

In many cases, a HBF, for example, will always remain a HBF. Said HBF may get tested in another role, but he predominantly remains a HBF.

They grow and develop.

That's not in question.

You may draft a midfield who one day will be your No. 1 guy, but he may play a little up forward or as a tagging role, to learn some of the nuances of the game.

A rookie midfielder isn't expected to immediately be a better player than the incumbents, so he has to wait his turn. The point you're making is besides the point. Some players drafted with a specific role in mind change if they've failed at said role and need to reinvent themselves to stay relevant, etc, but most do not. Most players get drafted with a role in mind and remain in that role.

Viewing players with traditional names on the board in there positions is a very antiquated way of looking at footy. Something I’d expect of Robert Walls. So players moving positions (names on the board / shuffling deck chairs) or changing roles certainly isn’t a negative for me.

I don't care if an idea is old or new, I only care about what works. WC have tried slotting midfielders in on a HFF, and that's been a disaster. It hasn't worked. WC finally decided to draft small-medium forwards for the roles traditionally played by small-medium forwards and it worked. 'But but but, traditional roles are antiquated.' I suggest that WC follow the same pattern when drafting for other positions. I reject the idea of drafting bulk mids and simply slotting the failed ones in flank or pocket positions as a strategy under the rationalization: 'it has worked at times, see here, see see see'.

 

[KO_KO]

Would not read again


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

No, Obeanie is saying that the recruitment of Cole and Duggan's was due to WC having foresight toward the retirement of Hurn and Jetta, so as to be their eventual replacements. I question Obeanie's logic given that Cole and Duggan are in the team in their own right, not simply waiting around to fill the void left by Hurn and Jetta when they retire. Given that Cole and Duggan are playing and virtually set in their roles suggests the drafting of Cole and Duggan was done for reasons other than those put forward by Obeanie.

If Hurn and Jetta only have 1-2 years left, now is the right time to bring in another HBF or two.



I know you want to talk about 'roles' since it's convenient for your argument and goes away from the discussion on drafting for a certain position to be filled, in this case a HBF.

In many cases, a HBF, for example, will always remain a HBF. Said HBF may get tested in another role, but he predominantly remains a HBF.



That's not in question.



A rookie midfielder isn't expected to immediately be a better player than the incumbents, so he has to wait his turn. The point you're making is besides the point. Some players drafted with a specific role in mind change if they've failed at said role and need to reinvent themselves to stay relevant, etc, but most do not. Most players get drafted with a role in mind and remain in that role.



I don't care if an idea is old or new, I only care about what works. WC have tried slotting midfielders in on a HFF, and that's been a disaster. It hasn't worked. WC finally decided to draft small-medium forwards for the roles traditionally played by small-medium forwards and it worked. 'But but but, traditional roles are antiquated.' I suggest that WC follow the same pattern when drafting for other positions. I reject the idea of drafting bulk mids and simply slotting the failed ones in flank or pocket positions as a strategy under the rationalization: 'it has worked at times, see here, see see see'.

Gunner - that you?