Polec chooses Port

[boffo]

It just looks to me like they are catching up and we are stumbling a bit. Like I said, this is what I am seeing around me.

Let me put it in a language Trigg and Board will understand. Our BRAND is tarnished.

Get rid of Trigg and Chapman and there is hope we will gradually regain some lustre.
Leave them in place and the stench of mistrust and incompetence remains.

 

[Sanders]

GWS also gain slightly by offering to help grease the wheels.

Gain slightly? I thought they made off like bandits, clear winners

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

But is Burgess the difference or is it the programme put in place. Discounting Paulos is naieve and short sighted.

Every other team is trying to improve their team via trades and FA as well. And I was addressing a post that said "the only way to improve your team is to improve the list." Clearly that's not true and improving your list can attract your glib and perfectly useless comment "lets hope other teams don't think of this" just as easily. Just maybe we tried to be ahead of the curve in terms of player physique and trends in game plan.... perhaps without Bailey there was too much "noise" from a previous system.... There are myriads of things that can make us a better team. Kicking out Poulos is not a quick fix.

Identifying the problem and doing something about it is important. If there are not clear indicators of improvement in identified areas then lets reach for the pitchforks. Just slagging off personelle is the easy argument that will get plenty of "likes". But trying to find underlying issues and addressing them is usually more difficult snd the changes required are less likely to attract populist support.

This is all fine and lovely but "identifying the problem and doing something about it" often (always) seems to equal going with the exact same personnel as last season. Oh, I'm sure we make slight changes to the way we do things each season but always stop short of any actual change. How many chances do people get to get a bit smarter about the way they do things? Where is the searching, probing external review to identify our areas for improvement?

 

[kirky]

I agree that this is an over reaction. But if I'm honest, I do feel like the club as a whole is slowly becoming less attractive. I love the Adelaide footy club, it's my club. But I see ports appeal growing rapidly. I think the next generations of fans will slowly even out the numbers. Port seem to be more community based, their merchandise more appealing, marketing more progressive. They get results and are becoming a contemporary and attractive club. I think the crows have become stagnant. Almost gimmicky. Logo is average, merch is unappealing, 19th man is tacky, the club seems less connected to the community. On field success is where we can counter all of that, and I believe we have the better potential. I'm not trying to be negative, I've just been thinking about our appeal as a club. We have great people at our club, but I still have concerns. Any comments?

FFS, they had one good year after a number of poor years. Let's hold judgement.

I know how to piss the Port people off.

Marketing - "We are playing at our oval - The ADELAIDE Oval" - a thing that can never change!

 

[Mattrox]

I would have thought that the quality of the programme put in place was largely dependent on the quality of the fitness professional who comes up with said programme. Whether it was intended or not, your post makes it sound like any old PT from Fitness First could have turned Port's fitness base around like Burgess has.

Whether people around here like to admit it or not, we went after Burgess, and failed to get him. Once Port got him, we did what we seem to do a lot of, and promoted from within. After achieving a great balance of strength and aerobic fitness in 2012, the programme Poulos had us on for the 2013 season failed to maintain that balance. He's had one year in the top fitness job, and it was not a great year. We'll see if he's learned from his mistakes, and how good he is (or at least if he's suited to a head fitness role in he AFL) in 2014.

If we had Burgess and Sando gave instructions that he wanted players stronger and bulkier would we have had better results?

 

[Mattrox]

PS there are 16 other clubs that don't have Burgess and a good number of them are doing quite well. Clearly not having Bugress is not hindering them. I find the "Port got Burgess" argument quite naieve. They had no money until they were bailed out. Appointing anyone to focus on fitness would improve results.... ffs GWS out ran that game better than Port. Of course they got fitter this preseason.

 

[Mike Smyth]

PS there are 16 other clubs that don't have Burgess and a good number of them are doing quite well. Clearly not having Bugress is not hindering them. I find the "Port got Burgess" argument quite naieve. They had no money until they were bailed out. Appointing anyone to focus on fitness would improve results.... ffs GWS out ran that game better than Port. Of course they got fitter this preseason.

Burgess - meh. The Port 2013 story is more about how much they underperformed in 2011/2012 then how much they improved in 2013. With that many 1st round draft picks even Robert Shaw would have had them in the 8.

 

[marty36]

Polec went to Brisbane for effectively 1 pick better than ours. We failed to convince Polec to nominate us. We failed to get Edwards to demand to go to us. We have failed to get one player to use the PSD as a way to get to us.

We failed to get a back up ruck, and as you pointed out, we needed outside run, the two players we failed to get have that.

Now awesome supporter, enjoy watching us win nothing for a long time, but you won't mind.

I thought Brisbane got a 1st round and a 2nd round draft pick for him?

 

[Mike Smyth]

This is all fine and lovely but "identifying the problem and doing something about it" often (always) seems to equal going with the exact same personnel as last season. Oh, I'm sure we make slight changes to the way we do things each season but always stop short of any actual change. How many chances do people get to get a bit smarter about the way they do things? Where is the searching, probing external review to identify our areas for improvement?

jees talk about impatient. Trigg, Chapman and Harper are waiting until after draft day before the in depth internal review commences.

 

[marty36]

Burgess - meh. The Port 2013 story is more about how much they underperformed in 2011/2012 then how much they improved in 2013. With that many 1st round draft picks even Robert Shaw would have had them in the 8.

Agree, on their 2011/2012 that they pulled the pin mid year. They did improve last year, probably not as much as some think due to those years they effectively gave up, but I can give credit where its due. I certainly think Ken Hinkley was the major contributor to their improvement, wont read much into Burgess his worth will show over time if there is any.

 

[Mike Smyth]

I thought Brisbane got a 1st round and a 2nd round draft pick for him?

I believe Port gave up pick 14 and 34 and receive Polec, pick 21 and pick 45.

 

[marty36]

I believe Port gave up pick 14 and 34 and receive Polec, pick 21 and pick 45.

Port did give that but Brisbane received 1st round pick # 22 and second round Pick # 34

 

[marty36]

Port did very well in the trade. Slight downgrades for a young player with plenty of upside. I guess that's what happens when the player nominates a club.

GWS also gain slightly by offering to help grease the wheels.

Brisbane is the loser out of it all.

I wish we could have done this deal, but I guess thems the breaks.

Brisbane Supporters feel they won out of the Polec trade with a 1st and 2nd round draft pick for a very under performing player not capable of making their 22, why wouldnt they? They actually feel like they copped it up the bum over Yeo and Docherty where I think they got 2nd round draft picks for players that were showing signs of becoming established AFL players. Is Brisbane the loser on the Polec deal or the other two?

 

[Mego Red]

Brisbane Supporters feel they won out of the Polec trade with a 1st and 2nd round draft pick for a very under performing player not capable of making their 22, why wouldnt they? They actually feel like they copped it up the bum over Yeo and Docherty where I think they got 2nd round draft picks for players that were showing signs of becoming established AFL players. Is Brisbane the loser on the Polec deal or the other two?

I know they love Yeo, but they at least got back what they spent on him. That was fair.

Docherty was terrible. Pick 12, doing well, got pick 34 for him.

Polec - they ACTUALLY got a third round for him, plus 7 pick improvements on a second and third round. Better than Docherty, worse than Yeo.

 

[Malibu#27]

Brisbane Supporters feel they won out of the Polec trade with a 1st and 2nd round draft pick for a very under performing player not capable of making their 22, why wouldnt they? They actually feel like they copped it up the bum over Yeo and Docherty where I think they got 2nd round draft picks for players that were showing signs of becoming established AFL players. Is Brisbane the loser on the Polec deal or the other two?

I think Port makes out well. Its hard to compare trades where its a straight player for pick swap, with the ones where there are picks flying everywhere. However it feels like Polec is worth the investment, so long as injuries are behind him (and its been a few different ones rather than a chronic injury) being in a home environment should help immensely.

How port ends up fairing in the trade will probably come down to what they do with pick 21. In reality its a 7 pick downgrade on 14, which is close enough to suggest some of the players they had in the frame will be around at 21.

It basically seems to be Polec for a 7 pick downgrade on 14, and an 11 pick downgrade on 34.

If we had done a straight #34 swap, we would have gone to the draft using 14 and 52, we now go to the draft using 21 and 45 (basically we lose 7 picks on #14 but gain 7 on #52). ultimately the 45/52 swap means very little as its a lottery back there. Its much less a lottery in the 14/21 swap, but everything we are reading suggests there's a swag of similar quality players outside the top 10. I guess losing 14 would be a major issue of there was a big slider from the top 10.

You could argue, that as a result of the trade (based on Knightmares analysis that Polec is worth at least #23 in this draft) that we have flipped #14 for two top 23 selections (#21 and Polec) and a downgrade of #34.

 

[marty36]

I know they love Yeo, but they at least got back what they spent on him. That was fair.

Docherty was terrible. Pick 12, doing well, got pick 34 for him.

Polec - they ACTUALLY got a third round for him, plus 7 pick improvements on a second and third round. Better than Docherty, worse than Yeo.

If Port had managed to swap straight pick 34 for Polec that would have compared to # 33 for Docherty. Considering they rate Docherty higher than Polec. Im sure Port would also have been happier with #34 fpor Polec rather than their trade. So no I think Docherty at #33 was a bigger loss and less return. Yes Docherty was a later pick originally but had actually shown more than Polec playing almost as many games this year for Brisbane as Polec did his entire time there. Yes Polec has had injuries, another reason why you would be carefull about paying so much for a player that cant get on the Park.

 

[cmndstab]

Gain slightly? I thought they made off like bandits, clear winners

It was a decent deal for them. Couple of picks in the early 20s, they bolster one of them up to 14, and drop the other one down to 29. Since the value of picks is not linear, it's a win, but not a massive one. Still very much worth doing.

Unless there's part of the deal I missed. I'll admit, I only looked at it briefly yesterday afternoon so it's quite possible.

I guess the real question is whether pick 14 is worth that much more than pick 21. Where does the top-end talent run out this year?

 

[marty36]

I think Port makes out well. Its hard to compare trades where its a straight player for pick swap, with the ones where there are picks flying everywhere. However it feels like Polec is worth the investment, so long as injuries are behind him (and its been a few different ones rather than a chronic injury) being in a home environment should help immensely.

How port ends up fairing in the trade will probably come down to what they do with pick 21. In reality its a 7 pick downgrade on 14, which is close enough to suggest some of the players they had in the frame will be around at 21.

It basically seems to be Polec for a 7 pick downgrade on 14, and an 11 pick downgrade on 34.

If we had done a straight #34 swap, we would have gone to the draft using 14 and 52, we now go to the draft using 21 and 45 (basically we lose 7 picks on #14 but gain 7 on #52). ultimately the 45/52 swap means very little as its a lottery back there. Its much less a lottery in the 14/21 swap, but everything we are reading suggests there's a swag of similar quality players outside the top 10. I guess losing 14 would be a major issue of there was a big slider from the top 10.

You could argue, that as a result of the trade (based on Knightmares analysis that Polec is worth at least #23 in this draft) that we have flipped #14 for two top 23 selections (#21 and Polec) and a downgrade of #34.

Dont know how a home environment improves injuries, if your body cant handle AFL football doesnt matter if you play on the moon or where ever, Port have had players of its time that have showed great talent but just couldnt get their body right. What I am saying is Port probably paid overs for Polec, maybe not their fault, maybe the Crows had them a little spooked and offered something. The crows may have not offered anything, no one knows. Having pick 14 is no doubt an advantage otherwise no one would care what pick they had, the lower pick the greater percentages you will get a gun or at least a solid performer.

Comparing picks is a bit harsh I agree, but when three players of similar ages get traded from the same club of course the comparison can be made. And it appears West Coast and Carlton semmed to have got much more for their buck than Port. Leaving people to the assumption the Power paid overs.

Im not saying low picks are a waste of time, you only have to look at James Hird. It will come off sometimes, but only sometimes.

 

[marshallfender]

Don't really think they care.

sad but true

 

[Bacon8]

Whether people around here like to admit it or not, we went after Burgess, and failed to get him. Once Port got him, we did what we seem to do a lot of, and promoted from within. After achieving a great balance of strength and aerobic fitness in 2012, the programme Poulos had us on for the 2013 season failed to maintain that balance. He's had one year in the top fitness job, and it was not a great year. We'll see if he's learned from his mistakes, and how good he is (or at least if he's suited to a head fitness role in he AFL) in 2014.

This whole "promoted from within" in regards to Poulos is bollocks. Season 2013 was his SECOND year with us. He hired him from outside to replace Schwerdt, with a one year handover. We helped facilitate Schwerdt move away, after all.

When Burgess became available, it was due diligence to chase him (he's a more qualified candidate), but we didn't secure him, so we went with our original plan.

It's not like we promoted the tea lady because of it.

 

[Malibu#27]

Dont know how a home environment improves injuries, if your body cant handle AFL football doesnt matter if you play on the moon or where ever, Port have had players of its time that have showed great talent but just couldnt get their body right. What I am saying is Port probably paid overs for Polec, maybe not their fault, maybe the Crows had them a little spooked and offered something.

You are 100% correct, injury doesn't disappear by moving home. MY point was the injures he's had don't seem to be a systematic thing. Ankle, knee strain, foot etc all don't seem related (although a biomechanic may be able to mount a good argument of stresses on the body).

Comparing picks is a bit harsh I agree, but when three players of similar ages get traded from the same club of course the comparison can be made. And it appears West Coast and Carlton semmed to have got much more for their buck than Port. Leaving people to the assumption the Power paid overs.

I'm not saying low picks are a waste of time, you only have to look at James Hird. It will come off sometimes, but only sometimes.

Yes you are right on face value -however in the Yeo/Docherty deals are straight swap, ie - both clubs lose picks. We still have the same number of picks, they have just slid. If we pick a dud at 21, and there ends up being 2 or 3 guns selected in the 14-20 range, well its hurt us. If the field of players in that range all ends up being around the same then we make out very well.

In the case of say Docherty/Yeo, it was probably fine for the straight swap as both Carlton and West Coast had picked up equivalent picks elsewhere, so they still have 2 picks in basically the same positions. We haven't moved on any players in trades, so our currency was picks. And yes, having the Crows sitting around made it harder to deal.


Put it this way, I reckon we have done better than Brisbane in this deal. They lose Polec for an upgrade of 29 to 22 and 45 to 34.

 

[marty36]

You are 100% correct, injury doesn't disappear by moving home. MY point was the injures he's had don't seem to be a systematic thing. Ankle, knee strain, foot etc all don't seem related (although a biomechanic may be able to mount a good argument of stresses on the body).



Yes you are right on face value -however in the Yeo/Docherty deals are straight swap, ie - both clubs lose picks. We still have the same number of picks, they have just slid. If we pick a dud at 21, and there ends up being 2 or 3 guns selected in the 14-20 range, well its hurt us. If the field of players in that range all ends up being around the same then we make out very well.

In the case of say Docherty/Yeo, it was probably fine for the straight swap as both Carlton and West Coast had picked up equivalent picks elsewhere, so they still have 2 picks in basically the same positions. We haven't moved on any players in trades, so our currency was picks. And yes, having the Crows sitting around made it harder to deal.


Put it this way, I reckon we have done better than Brisbane in this deal. They lose Polec for an upgrade of 29 to 22 and 45 to 34.

So by having picks further down the order, without a doubt in anyones mind, it reduces the chances or percentages of getting a quality player. That is a fact or else we wouldnt have a draft to equalise the competition.

It appears that you feel you have won thats great and it appears by reading the Brisbane board they feel they have won on the Polec Trade. I am looking at the Carlton / West Coast trade to see how far Brisbane would have gone, which probably leads to my conclusuion that you paid overs. Judging by what the Brisbane supporters are saying about those deals they feel they have been screwed big time for promising players. The club losing the player generally loses on most occassions , it appears Brisbane does not feel they have on Polec, maybe because they picked Polec up at Pick # 5, enough has been written about his attitude and injury problems and lack of game time, and they have got a reasonable value for a player most of their supporters think wont make it.

 

[Malibu#27]

So by having picks further down the order, without a doubt in anyones mind, it reduces the chances or percentages of getting a quality player. That is a fact or else we wouldnt have a draft to equalise the competition.

It appears that you feel you have won thats great and it appears by reading the Brisbane board they feel they have won on the Polec Trade. I am looking at the Carlton / West Coast trade to see how far Brisbane would have gone, which probably leads to my conclusuion that you paid overs. Judging by what the Brisbane supporters are saying about those deals they feel they have been screwed big time for promising players. The club losing the player generally loses on most occassions , it appears Brisbane does not feel they have on Polec, maybe because they picked Polec up at Pick # 5, enough has been written about his attitude and injury problems and lack of game time, and they have got a reasonable value for a player most of their supporters think wont make it.

No, I don't think we have won, I think we have broken even. I agree that lower picks reduce %, however I? am saying gaining Polec somewhat offsets the rreduced % on 14 and don't really care about 34/45 because its a lottery in this years draft.

 

[skoobydoo]

I agree that this is an over reaction. But if I'm honest, I do feel like the club as a whole is slowly becoming less attractive. I love the Adelaide footy club, it's my club. But I see ports appeal growing rapidly. I think the next generations of fans will slowly even out the numbers. Port seem to be more community based, their merchandise more appealing, marketing more progressive. They get results and are becoming a contemporary and attractive club. I think the crows have become stagnant. Almost gimmicky. Logo is average, merch is unappealing, 19th man is tacky, the club seems less connected to the community. On field success is where we can counter all of that, and I believe we have the better potential. I'm not trying to be negative, I've just been thinking about our appeal as a club. We have great people at our club, but I still have concerns. Any comments?

I agree with a lot of this and in particular the 'appeal as a club'. Opening up a discussion here on what constitutes a 'club' would probably exceed War and Peace, but maybe some introspection and adjustment by AFC could really help improve the public perception of the Club. I don't want to go here into comparing with PA, and I do realise that what each of us gets from the club is proportional to what we each put in (eg the more money you provide the more belonging you probably feel), but the AFC is somewhat monolithic, distant and inaccessible to most supporters. Sure it is now a big-business organisation, but the club must still heed the need to remain a 'club' where people feel that 'inclusiveness' of belonging. I also appreciate that the AFC has so much on its plate at the moment with 2nds side, Adelaide Oval etc etc and priority must be given to the important things, but I also can't help but feel there is a lack of real imaginative stimulation from the club with presenting itself to supporters and the public. The 19th man is certainly a 'tacky' failure.

 

[boffo]

Did any other club give up their first round pick? Melbourne and Port only I think.

Seems to be most other clubs desperately held onto their first round picks with a helluva lot of trading for second round picks.