Pluto, aka The Thread With Cahill, Snelling, Poster Resumes, Heat Maps & Associated Crap

[Cup_o_Jobe]

Sad that he couldn't cut it at elite level, as Clarke seemed like the kind of loose unit who'd provide maximum value to the team on the end of season trip. He'll be missed.

 

[ghostdog]

So, things that don't make sense;
* Delisting Cahill and then chasing Bobby
* Delisting Gleeson when Heppell is aging and so frequently injured
* Delisting Clarke only to reRookie him (so unlikely)

Things that didn't make sense, but now do;
* Playing Stewart as a key defender to play Hooker forward
* Playing Laverde as a backman
* Recruiting Peter Wright over Ben Brown

50

Ben Brown

Age

31

Ht

200cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.7

3star

K

7.7

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.2

3star

G

2.2

5star

D

7.9

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.6

1star

M

3.7

4star

T

0.9

2star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.0

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.4

4star

G

1.2

4star

Trust is probably going to have to be a thing.

 

[IHurley]

So, thing that don't make sense;
* Delisting Cahill and then chasing Bobby
* Delisting Gleeson when Heppell is aging and so frequently injured
* Delisting Clarke only to reRookie him (so unlikely)

Things that didn't make sense, but now do;
* Playing Stewart as a key defender to play Hooker forward
* Playing Laverde as a backman
* Recruiting Peter Wright over Ben Brown

Trust is probably going to have to be a thing.

Wright over Brown made perfect sense for us at the time. What didn't make sense was the lack of interest in Brown from clubs that were well and truly in their window.

Still doesn't make any sense.

 

[ghostdog]

Wright over Brown made perfect sense for us at the time. What didn't make sense was the lack of interest in Brown from clubs that were well and truly in their window.

Still doesn't make any sense.

Seemed like none would back themselves to change his game or just didn't have faith in his knees. I still think he could have been okay for us, but we needed ruck support as well, so a good option in the end. Interesting to see how much more improvement Wright has.

 

[eth-dog]

Yet he does a lot of the grunt work stuff we need . I am only passing because his body is failing which is why Melbourne have moved on him.

He really doesn't. I'm passing because he doesn't do the stuff and he's injury prone.

 

[owen87]

So, things that don't make sense;
* Delisting Cahill and then chasing Bobby
* Delisting Gleeson when Heppell is aging and so frequently injured
* Delisting Clarke only to reRookie him (so unlikely)

I'm not confident any of these don't make sense.

Gleeson doesn't really play the role Heppell does, and we're not exactly scratching for depth in the role he does play given Reid & Kelly are available down back.

Cahill wasn't going to make it, Bobby Hill was more suited to the small forward role we need.

Clarke's delisting basically gives us a free list spot if we want it, or if we don't, we sign him for free during the SSP for an extra year's depth.

 

[Ants]

So, things that don't make sense;
* Delisting Cahill and then chasing Bobby
* Delisting Gleeson when Heppell is aging and so frequently injured
* Delisting Clarke only to reRookie him (so unlikely)

Things that didn't make sense, but now do;
* Playing Stewart as a key defender to play Hooker forward
* Playing Laverde as a backman
* Recruiting Peter Wright over Ben Brown

Trust is probably going to have to be a thing.

Um, those can make perfect sense.

1. It just needs the coaches to not rate Cahill and rate Hill. They’ve also got very different strengths
2. It just means Gleeson isn’t good enough
3. It makes sense to keep him around in case we decide there isn’t anyone any better.
   
   
   

 

[Keystone agony]

I think Cutlers last 8 weeks basically changed the minds of list mamagement/the club. Im pretty sure mid way through the year we were only keeping one and that was probably leaning towards being Gleeson as a rookie.

 

[Towno78]

So, things that don't make sense;
* Delisting Cahill and then chasing Bobby
* Delisting Gleeson when Heppell is aging and so frequently injured
* Delisting Clarke only to reRookie him (so unlikely)

Things that didn't make sense, but now do;
* Playing Stewart as a key defender to play Hooker forward
* Playing Laverde as a backman
* Recruiting Peter Wright over Ben Brown

Trust is probably going to have to be a thing.

IMO delisting all of Clarke, Gleeson and Cahill made perfect sense, as did chasing Hill.

 

[ghostdog]

Um, those can make perfect sense.

1. It just needs the coaches to not rate Cahill and rate Hill. They’ve also got very different strengths
2. It just means Gleeson isn’t good enough
3. It makes sense to keep him around in case we decide there isn’t anyone any better.
   
   

How much sense does it make from the outside though?
Cahill really wasn't given much of a chance to develop in his preferred role; he was tried as a small defender after limited opportunities as a small forward and even thrown into the middle. Of course it makes sense if you're a coach, but I'm not. Are you? Why wasn't he given the same opportunity to develop as, say, Dyl Clarke? Instead we delisted and chased a contracted player, and now we have neither. Doesn't make a lot of sense from my perspective, but as I said, trust has to be a thing.

Gleeson wasn't best 22, no, but he is a very serviceable player and the type you keep on the list as depth. I had forgotten we brought Kelly in, though, so probably a moot point. Still could have provided valuable leadership and mentoring to a player like BZT or Cody Brand in the VFL though.

Clarke is very stiff to have been delisted IMO. As it is, we aren't keeping him around until a better option appears. By delisting him we're effectively saying he's available for anyone, so I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. If he gets rerookied, oh well, but at this stage, when we can already see the available player landscape, what's the point of delisting? But again, as I said, I know not the strategy of our architects and remain but a willing yardsman to the game.

 

[ghostdog]

I'm not confident any of these don't make sense.

Gleeson doesn't really play the role Heppell does, and we're not exactly scratching for depth in the role he does play given Reid & Kelly are available down back.

Cahill wasn't going to make it, Bobby Hill was more suited to the small forward role we need.

Clarke's delisting basically gives us a free list spot if we want it, or if we don't, we sign him for free during the SSP for an extra year's depth.

Soz, just saw this. Response as per the above.

 

[boncer34]

How much sense does it make from the outside though?
Cahill really wasn't given much of a chance to develop in his preferred role; he was tried as a small defender after limited opportunities as a small forward and even thrown into the middle. Of course it makes sense if you're a coach, but I'm not. Are you? Why wasn't he given the same opportunity to develop as, say, Dyl Clarke? Instead we delisted and chased a contracted player, and now we have neither. Doesn't make a lot of sense from my perspective, but as I said, trust has to be a thing.

Gleeson wasn't best 22, no, but he is a very serviceable player and the type you keep on the list as depth. I had forgotten we brought Kelly in, though, so probably a moot point. Still could have provided valuable leadership and mentoring to a player like BZT or Cody Brand in the VFL though.

Clarke is very stiff to have been delisted IMO. As it is, we aren't keeping him around until a better option appears. By delisting him we're effectively saying he's available for anyone, so I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. If he gets rerookied, oh well, but at this stage, when we can already see the available player landscape, what's the point of delisting? But again, as I said, I know not the strategy of our architects and remain but a willing yardsman to the game.

A lot.

We didn't delist Cahill because of Hill, we delisted him because he's no good.

We didn't chase Hill because we Cahill, he came to us.

You've acknowledged Kelly so the Gleeson one can't be that confusing any more. You don't waste list spots on VFL leadership, you get that from your VFL list.

We delisted Clarke because we hope there is a better option, if not we'll take him back. You can't say we know the available player landscape, otherwise why does any club invite players to train over pre-season?

 

[ghostdog]

A lot.

We didn't delist Cahill because of Hill, we delisted him because he's no good.

We didn't chase Hill because we Cahill, he came to us.

You've acknowledged Kelly so the Gleeson one can't be that confusing any more. You don't waste list spots on VFL leadership, you get that from your VFL list.

We delisted Clarke because we hope there is a better option, if not we'll take him back. You can't say we know the available player landscape, otherwise why does any club invite players to train over pre-season?

Okay, so what I actually said was that Cahill wasn't given the same opportunity to prove himself as some others.
I also didn't say that we delisted Cahill to chase Hill. I said we delisted Cahill only to then chase Hill.

The notion that Hill nominated us is irrelevant, when you consider that Dunstan also wanted to join us, but we ignored him.

I find the notion of delisting a decent depth player in the hope that there just might be a better one out there perplexing. That's like dumping your decent girlfriend because there just might be a better one... somewhere... and we don't even know the girlfriend landscape. So in the meantime we're left to satisfy ourselves, night after night after night. As I said though, trust will have to be a thing. There must be someone they've got their dirty eye on.

 

[Towno78]

Okay, so what I actually said was that Cahill wasn't given the same opportunity to prove himself as some others.
I also didn't say that we delisted Cahill to chase Hill. I said we delisted Cahill only to then chase Hill.

The notion that Hill nominated us is irrelevant, when you consider that Dunstan also wanted to join us, but we ignored him.

I find the notion of delisting a decent depth player in the hope that there just might be a better one out there perplexing. That's like dumping your decent girlfriend because there just might be a better one... somewhere... and we don't even know the girlfriend landscape. So in the meantime we're left to satisfy ourselves, night after night after night. As I said though, trust will have to be a thing. There must be someone they've got their dirty eye on.

Or, and call me crazy if you will, perhaps we did not rate Cahill. And we do rate Hill.

 

[boncer34]

Okay, so what I actually said was that Cahill wasn't given the same opportunity to prove himself as some others.
I also didn't say that we delisted Cahill to chase Hill. I said we delisted Cahill only to then chase Hill.

The notion that Hill nominated us is irrelevant, when you consider that Dunstan also wanted to join us, but we ignored him.

I find the notion of delisting a decent depth player in the hope that there just might be a better one out there perplexing. That's like dumping your decent girlfriend because there just might be a better one... somewhere... and we don't even know the girlfriend landscape. So in the meantime we're left to satisfy ourselves, night after night after night. As I said though, trust will have to be a thing. There must be someone they've got their dirty eye on.

That analogy doesn't make any sense at all mate.

You've clearly decided to take issue with the decisions mate. I think you've missed the boat but to each their own.

 

[ghostdog]

That analogy doesn't make any sense at all mate.

You've clearly decided to take issue with the decisions mate. I think you've missed the boat but to each their own.

Yes it does. By your rationale, we've dumped Clarke because there just might be a better player, somewhere. And I've even changed it to accommodate your notion of the player landscape. It is actually a fantastic analogy.

 

[ghostdog]

Or, and call me crazy if you will, perhaps we did not rate Cahill. And we do rate Hill.

*Sigh*
This is like explaining climate change to Tony Abbott.
We did not give Cahill the same opportunity to prove himself as we did for some other players. I have no issue in the finding, nor the rating of Hill.

 

[Nifft]

Okay, so what I actually said was that Cahill wasn't given the same opportunity to prove himself as some others.
I also didn't say that we delisted Cahill to chase Hill. I said we delisted Cahill only to then chase Hill.

The notion that Hill nominated us is irrelevant, when you consider that Dunstan also wanted to join us, but we ignored him.

I find the notion of delisting a decent depth player in the hope that there just might be a better one out there perplexing. That's like dumping your decent girlfriend because there just might be a better one... somewhere... and we don't even know the girlfriend landscape. So in the meantime we're left to satisfy ourselves, night after night after night. As I said though, trust will have to be a thing. There must be someone they've got their dirty eye on.

Not to mention the frequent trips to the optometrist...

 

[Ants]

Yes it does. By your rationale, we've dumped Clarke because there just might be a better player, somewhere. And I've even changed it to accommodate your notion of the player landscape. It is actually a fantastic analogy.

It’s a terrible analogy. Since Clarke wouldn’t be the girlfriend, the best 22 would be. Or if Clarke is the partner, he’s not decent he’s bad.

You seem to have an inflated view of how good Clarke is, or our need for depth.

*Sigh*
This is like explaining climate change to Tony Abbott.
We did not give Cahill the same opportunity to prove himself as we did for some other players. I have no issue in the finding, nor the rating of Hill.

We didn’t give Gown opportunities. Or Johnson. Or Mynott. Etc.

Clubs cut players who weren’t good enough to be given senior games all the time. Why is Cahill any different?

 

[Hazardinho]

That analogy doesn't make any sense at all mate.

You've clearly decided to take issue with the decisions mate. I think you've missed the boat but to each their own.

I've never heard an analogy talking about the "girlfriend landscape"

 

[Hazardinho]

Yes it does. By your rationale, we've dumped Clarke because there just might be a better player, somewhere. And I've even changed it to accommodate your notion of the player landscape. It is actually a fantastic analogy.

You're something else!!

 

[boncer34]

Yes it does. By your rationale, we've dumped Clarke because there just might be a better player, somewhere. And I've even changed it to accommodate your notion of the player landscape. It is actually a fantastic analogy.

This is why we need the head slap reaction.

 

[ghostdog]

It’s a terrible analogy. Since Clarke wouldn’t be the girlfriend, the best 22 would be. Or if Clarke is the partner, he’s not decent he’s bad.

You seem to have an inflated view of how good Clarke is, or our need for depth.

We didn’t give Gown opportunities. Or Johnson. Or Mynott. Etc.

Clubs cut players who weren’t good enough to be given senior games all the time. Why is Cahill any different?

What? Clarke gave us his best. And I would not have 22 girlfriends.
Cahill showed a little bit when he got an opportunity in his preferred position. Anyway, as I've said already, it is what it is.

 

[Ants]

What? Clarke gave us his best. And I would not have 22 girlfriends.
Cahill showed a little bit when he got an opportunity in his preferred position. Anyway, as I've said already, it is what it is.

Which is why the analogy sucks.

 

[Duckworth]

I think I've got it. Clarke is the girl you have on the side when your other 22 concubines can't quite get it done.
edit: or maybe it's because there are just some things you don't do to your main 22.