News Shane Rogers has quit Carlton

[The Bighouse]

Board/top admin was meddling previously in their quest for the premiership that they thought was so close.
There should be a different approach moving forward where SOS is compiling the list of players and attracting them to the club for the benefit of the playing list, salaries, age demographics, and without limiting our drafting capabilities.
The board is there to approve the decisions that the football dept. sees fit and the mandate of the list management strategy in play, which appears to be different from previous administrations.

 

[gbatman]

Ok, I'm even starting to tire of myself repeating the same stuff. I'm not a Thomas hater, I'm sure he's all the things you've mentioned, and maybe he will be invaluable to the club this year.
My gripe is the original decision to treat him like he was Chris Judd.
For the last time (maybe), when we signed him, not now, not since, at the time we actually signed him, he was well past his best, no other club was interested in him, all his footy weapons were gone, his own club was not interested, plus an injury cloud. We knew ALL THIS, and yet could not wait to offer him a giant contract. Why????? Seriously, can someone tell me why???? Don't waste your energy, I'll never see it any other way. This was a horrendous decision, who ever is responsible, whoever signed off on it, whoever thought it made any sense at all, did not have Carlton's best interests in mind.

Don't think we saw him as well past his best, he was only just 26 when we got him, take out the injuries and we more than likely would be right. Those are just the rules, restricted free agent we had to offer a big contract to get him.

I wouldn't write off the hater thing all together as you seem to be strongly against us getting him without it having any negative effects towards the club at all (apart from a compensation pick for Betts). There's got to be some genuine reason where it's affecting us in some sort of negative way. The money isn't an issue, we haven't got salary cap issues and we still need to meet our total player payments, we shouldn't have salary cap issues in the near future and then he will be either gone or on a reasonable salary. You seem to have a lot of hate for him getting a big wage, which he probably earned from the 5 or so seasons of elite level football he had played prior, despite injury concerns. Until I see and evidence of Dale Thomas and/or his contract having any negative influence towards club then negative opinions towards this are purely emotional and not practical.

If you're going to have a go at any contract in the last few years then Jones' is the one. Signing an unproven player for 3 years is ridiculous. We ran a risk of having a player who is not up to AFL standard on our list for too long. Not writing him off all together but it's not looking good.

 

[TheCoach16]

Don't think we saw him as well past his best, he was only just 26 when we got him, take out the injuries and we more than likely would be right. Those are just the rules, restricted free agent we had to offer a big contract to get him.

I wouldn't write off the hater thing all together as you seem to be strongly against us getting him without it having any negative effects towards the club at all (apart from a compensation pick for Betts). There's got to be some genuine reason where it's affecting us in some sort of negative way. The money isn't an issue, we haven't got salary cap issues and we still need to meet our total player payments, we shouldn't have salary cap issues in the near future and then he will be either gone or on a reasonable salary. You seem to have a lot of hate for him getting a big wage, which he probably earned from the 5 or so seasons of elite level football he had played prior, despite injury concerns. Until I see and evidence of Dale Thomas and/or his contract having any negative influence towards club then negative opinions towards this are purely emotional and not practical.

If you're going to have a go at any contract in the last few years then Jones' is the one. Signing an unproven player for 3 years is ridiculous. We ran a risk of having a player who is not up to AFL standard on our list for too long. Not writing him off all together but it's not looking good.

I'll go back and read the rest of your post in a minute. But after that first line, I had to respond... "Don't think we saw him as well past his best..."????? The whole football world saw that he was well past his best. His absolute very best still didn't command the contract we offered anyway. But to say he wasn't well past his best, you're in denial. He was done. His next contract was going to be his retirement fund and Mick made sure he got a ripper.

Ok back to your post.

 

[TheCoach16]

Don't think we saw him as well past his best, he was only just 26 when we got him, take out the injuries and we more than likely would be right. Those are just the rules, restricted free agent we had to offer a big contract to get him.

I wouldn't write off the hater thing all together as you seem to be strongly against us getting him without it having any negative effects towards the club at all (apart from a compensation pick for Betts). There's got to be some genuine reason where it's affecting us in some sort of negative way. The money isn't an issue, we haven't got salary cap issues and we still need to meet our total player payments, we shouldn't have salary cap issues in the near future and then he will be either gone or on a reasonable salary. You seem to have a lot of hate for him getting a big wage, which he probably earned from the 5 or so seasons of elite level football he had played prior, despite injury concerns. Until I see and evidence of Dale Thomas and/or his contract having any negative influence towards club then negative opinions towards this are purely emotional and not practical.

If you're going to have a go at any contract in the last few years then Jones' is the one. Signing an unproven player for 3 years is ridiculous. We ran a risk of having a player who is not up to AFL standard on our list for too long. Not writing him off all together but it's not looking good.

Ok, I'm not a Thomas hater, not even when he was at Collingwood. This isn't about him personally. This is about the decision to chase a player and give him a massive contract, who had very little to offer on field. It's the decision I hate, not Daisy.
You go on to say, "we had to offer a big contract to get him..." No, no we didn't. Nobody else wanted him, his own club didn't want him. We didn't "have to" do anything. And even if that was the case, you assess it and walk away.
Also you state his big contract has no negative effect on the club. That's not my argument. My argument is there never should have been a big contract for a player that added next to no value to the club. Are you getting it now? It's the DECISION to sign him on a big contract. Not the contract itself and certainly not him personally that I have an issue with.
As for Jones, unproven is one thing, you take a punt on unproven. Sometimes it works , other times it goes terribly wrong, as is the case with Jones. But Daisy was proven, proven to be a shadow of the player he once was. But we just had to have him, at any cost.

 

[gbatman]

Ok, I'm not a Thomas hater, not even when he was at Collingwood. This isn't about him personally. This is about the decision to chase a player and give him a massive contract, who had very little to offer on field. It's the decision I hate, not Daisy.
You go on to say, "we had to offer a big contract to get him..." No, no we didn't. Nobody else wanted him, his own club didn't want him. We didn't "have to" do anything. And even if that was the case, you assess it and walk away.
Also you state his big contract has no negative effect on the club. That's not my argument. My argument is there never should have been a big contract for a player that added next to no value to the club. Are you getting it now? It's the DECISION to sign him on a big contract. Not the contract itself and certainly not him personally that I have an issue with.
As for Jones, unproven is one thing, you take a punt on unproven. Sometimes it works , other times it goes terribly wrong, as is the case with Jones. But Daisy was proven, proven to be a shadow of the player he once was. But we just had to have him, at any cost.

Not really, Thomas was proven to be injured and carrying an injury with a long recovery time, there was some doubt that he was not going to get back to his best but not heaps, now with a bit extra age you'd suggest that to be right but I don't think that matters if he's not at his best providing he plays good football.

Well I really don't see the issue with his contract, if that's what you have to do to get a good player then so be it, providing it doesn't have any negative effects. We had to match Collingwood's offer whatever that was. He will be useful as a leader and a player while we are rebuilding. For where we are at now I probably wouldn't do another deal like this unless it is a short length contract or we're able to heavily front load it, either way we have the right mix of experience and youth and I would like to climb the ladder substantially before going that way again.

Yeah Jones was a hope, not a sure thing, his contract was a year too long. Three years was far too many for an unproven player.

 

[KnobHead]

Not really, Thomas was proven to be injured and carrying an injury with a long recovery time, there was some doubt that he was not going to get back to his best but not heaps, now with a bit extra age you'd suggest that to be right but I don't think that matters if he's not at his best providing he plays good football.

Well I really don't see the issue with his contract, if that's what you have to do to get a good player then so be it, providing it doesn't have any negative effects. We had to match Collingwood's offer whatever that was. He will be useful as a leader and a player while we are rebuilding. For where we are at now I probably wouldn't do another deal like this unless it is a short length contract or we're able to heavily front load it, either way we have the right mix of experience and youth and I would like to climb the ladder substantially before going that way again.

Yeah Jones was a hope, not a sure thing, his contract was a year too long. Three years was far too many for an unproven player.

Coming off a great 2011, Pies started paying Daisy similar to what we are paying him now. When his contract come up for renewal for 2014, Pies were no longer willing to pay Daisy that after not playing for 2 years - not anywhere near it - and that's when we stepped in.

Problem with paying a player so much when he isn't performing - and more importantly wasn't when signing the contract - is that it screws our salary cap. Limits our ability to get a number of good players, for example.

Look at Hawthorn. They've got a number of players who could get paid better elsewhere. But they want to win premierships, so they sacrifice salary for success. Buddy wanted more. Hawks went bye bye Buddy. Cats didn't match Gold Coast for Ablett. SOS is wise to that - we weren't willing to pay excess for Carlisle, we're not entertaining JoM's asking price.

Put simply, premiership success is built on sharing the salary cap amongst a large number of very good players who are willing to take unders. Paying $700 K for players who hadn't been on the field for two years won't get you there.

 

[gbatman]

Coming off a great 2011, Pies started paying Daisy similar to what we are paying him now. When his contract come up for renewal for 2014, Pies were no longer willing to pay Daisy that after not playing for 2 years - not anywhere near it - and that's when we stepped in.

Problem with paying a player so much when he isn't performing - and more importantly wasn't when signing the contract - is that it screws our salary cap. Limits our ability to get a number of good players, for example.

Look at Hawthorn. They've got a number of players who could get paid better elsewhere. But they want to win premierships, so they sacrifice salary for success. Buddy wanted more. Hawks went bye bye Buddy. Cats didn't match Gold Coast for Ablett. SOS is wise to that - we weren't willing to pay excess for Carlisle, we're not entertaining JoM's asking price.

Put simply, premiership success is built on sharing the salary cap amongst a large number of very good players who are willing to take unders. Paying $700 K for players who hadn't been on the field for two years won't get you there.

Agree with that except it isn't affecting our salary cap, not for where we are at. Not while we're cleaning out and trying to get younger. Not performing and being out injured is purely bad luck, could have easily gone the other way. For where we are at this is harmless.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No but he was responsible for feedback, if there is an important member of staff of the football department not doing a great job like the recruiter, the coach surely must be aware of it, unless they are oblivious. Why would the head of the football department ignore the coach? Not that we were known for good practice but that's really poor. I've had a theory that Ratten wasn't an elite judge of football talent for a while. Promises of top 4 finishes, continually signing and playing sub par players, allegations of pushing to recruit Lucas over Talia. It all points to the fact he rated a heap of young players we had 4-6 years ago who never made it. Getting Malthouse in points to the fact that our board and footy department did as well. A whole club living in delusion.

Theories and opinions. The first point is obvious and has already been made ... how do we know that Ratten had not expressed concerns about recruiting?

Secondly, much like Mick's 'can't see where we will lose a game' became we won't lose a game, this top 4 promise is also overstated.

"With our games experience and from an age point-of-view we're ready to take the next step.

"As we do every year we've raised the bar. Imagine if we had come here and said 'We're going to finish fifth again'? We're not doing that.

"We want to finish in the top four, we want to give ourselves the best chance of having a crack at that last day in September and we'll be striving for that."

Given we were coming off 3 years of finals, and were a kick away from finishing 4th there was nothing wrong with what he said, until it didn't happen. Mick's was far worse and that was out of context as well. People need to get past it.

Lucas over Talia allegations .... you said it, allegations. We might do well to remember that we had a very strong WA recruiting network and a liking for taking WA boys early.

As for continually signing and playing sub par players, I assume you mean trading and re-signing as he isn't responsible for drafting.

I keep hearing about Aaron Joseph who was given a 2 year extension after 56 games in 3 seasons including a rising star nomination. It wasn't the biggest shock horror event out. Davies probably should have got a 1 year deal. Played finals for us in 2011 and had only played 2 seasons. No way he needed to be delisted after 2 years but a one year extension was appropriate assuming no other team was interested.

Rohan Kerr a year too long maybe. I've heard Mitchell and McCarthy but they were taken in the 2010 draft. Ratten could only delist them a year later as he wasn't involved in 2012. All in all, 2 talls got 3 seasons. Nothing really out of the ordinary there. Didn't the Hawks have Grimley for 6 years?

Malthouse was hired to win and build a winning side. Wasn't able to get all the players he wanted to add to the squad.

What players? Cloke? Who else did he want?

Wasn't able to change the culture and get around those issues without losing key players.

I'm not sure he was doing much to change the off field culture. Others at the club were far more vocal.

Found out the list wasn't nearly as good as he was told.

Sure he didn't find out that his game plan was not workable any more? At any rate, he had coached against those players, planned against those players, had a year in the media commentating on some of those players and time to watch video of those players. I'm just not buying it. You expect the club to tell him the list was bad 12 months after they were actually pretty good?

Had we got the players he wanted and retained players and had good youth coming through we would have probably been able to play finals but that wouldn't have been a good path to go down. Rumors Malthouse went to the board and wanted to rebuild and was denied. Might be true, might be false but if true this is an indictment on the board.

Rumours, usually from Malthouse sympathisers. Just not buying in. Can go around and around and around like this.

 

[Doro]

I'm actually finding it refreshing that this board has made a 'shift' in the way we analyse and discuss the issues the club has had. You can't fix it when you're in denial it's broken. Hopefully it can be done in the present from now on, rather than retrospectively.

 

[NOCLUE]

It's about Mick Rogerhouse.

It's a redundant thread since Rogers left a year ago and is no longer at Carlton to discuss. I'm thinking about making it a camping and boating thread next month.

As we're already a week into February, I have to ask what happened to the camping and boating thread.

 

[thylacine60]

Russian Blue homie has a point.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As we're already a week into February, I have to ask what happened to the camping and boating thread.

I know ... I know ... it's just that ... things are a little messed up at the moment.

 

[TheCoach16]

Coming off a great 2011, Pies started paying Daisy similar to what we are paying him now. When his contract come up for renewal for 2014, Pies were no longer willing to pay Daisy that after not playing for 2 years - not anywhere near it - and that's when we stepped in.

Problem with paying a player so much when he isn't performing - and more importantly wasn't when signing the contract - is that it screws our salary cap. Limits our ability to get a number of good players, for example.

Look at Hawthorn. They've got a number of players who could get paid better elsewhere. But they want to win premierships, so they sacrifice salary for success. Buddy wanted more. Hawks went bye bye Buddy. Cats didn't match Gold Coast for Ablett. SOS is wise to that - we weren't willing to pay excess for Carlisle, we're not entertaining JoM's asking price.

Put simply, premiership success is built on sharing the salary cap amongst a large number of very good players who are willing to take unders. Paying $700 K for players who hadn't been on the field for two years won't get you there.

Contrary to what your name suggests, you are a wise wise man. Perfect assessment of the situation.

 

[gbatman]

Theories and opinions. The first point is obvious and has already been made ... how do we know that Ratten had not expressed concerns about recruiting?

Secondly, much like Mick's 'can't see where we will lose a game' became we won't lose a game, this top 4 promise is also overstated.

Yep, going for top 4 and a tongue in cheek comment of not losing a game. Both equally bad statements in my opinion.

Given we were coming off 3 years of finals, and were a kick away from finishing 4th there was nothing wrong with what he said, until it didn't happen. Mick's was far worse and that was out of context as well. People need to get past it.

Lucas over Talia allegations .... you said it, allegations. We might do well to remember that we had a very strong WA recruiting network and a liking for taking WA boys early.

As for continually signing and playing sub par players, I assume you mean trading and re-signing as he isn't responsible for drafting.

I keep hearing about Aaron Joseph who was given a 2 year extension after 56 games in 3 seasons including a rising star nomination. It wasn't the biggest shock horror event out. Davies probably should have got a 1 year deal. Played finals for us in 2011 and had only played 2 seasons. No way he needed to be delisted after 2 years but a one year extension was appropriate assuming no other team was interested.

Rohan Kerr a year too long maybe. I've heard Mitchell and McCarthy but they were taken in the 2010 draft. Ratten could only delist them a year later as he wasn't involved in 2012. All in all, 2 talls got 3 seasons. Nothing really out of the ordinary there. Didn't the Hawks have Grimley for 6 years?

Plenty of players there that should have never been re-signed. Look at where we are now, Holman got delisted, wouldn't have happened in the Ratten era, we signed anyone who could half play.

Any footy fan with basic knowledge would look at three years of finals/improvement and do the basic maths and expect an upwards trend. 3 years of finals and our peak was 5th, that's what a thin list can achieve. Plenty of sides do this, look a million bucks, finish bottom 4 of the 8 and then drop right out. We're nothing special, we're just one of those sides that built a half good side that wasn't up to taking the next steps.

If it's your job coach the side or manage the list you need know better. I'm sorry but if you're in this role it's your job to know that all these young guys who are expected to come on aren't good enough, it's your job to know you have holes and other problems in your side, it's your job to scrutinise the recruiting. It's what you get with unqualified people in positions. You need to know if someone's not doing a good enough job whether player or staff.

Aaron Joseph, clearly a reasonable midfield tagger who had absolutely no idea how to play in the backline, poor decision by Ratten and his men to use him that way or was it we had no one else to fill the role because we simply had no quality of depth.

What players? Cloke? Who else did he want?

Wanted him and more speed. Couldn't get it.

I'm not sure he was doing much to change the off field culture. Others at the club were far more vocal.

Got stuck into blokes who weren't doing the right thing, some left because of it. I can tell you this for sure but I won't elaborate further. Some got moved on, some couldn't handle it and left, that's obvious. We're better for it now.

Sure he didn't find out that his game plan was not workable any more? At any rate, he had coached against those players, planned against those players, had a year in the media commentating on some of those players and time to watch video of those players. I'm just not buying it. You expect the club to tell him the list was bad 12 months after they were actually pretty good?

You can't rate a coach's game plan if they haven't much to work with. You can have the greatest game plan of all time and still finish last. Game plan wasn't an issue at Collingwood. We still had the same result in 2013 that we did in 2012, two different coaches. You need to coach players and work with them to know what they can do, apply your methods, know what they are like on the track and off and how they perform in various roles. Unless someone is glaringly bad you need a crack at them before judging them.

Rumours, usually from Malthouse sympathisers. Just not buying in. Can go around and around and around like this.

I know footy well enough to know what happens to sides heavily reliant on individuals that have no depth and no youth coming through when those individuals start to decline or retire. Can't maintain anything without at least a steady influx of talent coming in, we may as well have been banned from the national draft for 4 years (seen how that destroys sides). Shouldn't be too hard to see where things went wrong.

 

[ShanDog]

Contrary to what your name suggests, you are a wise wise man. Perfect assessment of the situation.

It is true, but not an issue for us. We are on the minimum salary cap spend this year. There is plenty of money to use going ahead, and if/when Thomas is gone, that money will become available too (probably at a perfect time in our rebuild to grab a free agent).

 

[Wiggo4PM]

Ok, I'm not a Thomas hater, not even when he was at Collingwood. This isn't about him personally. This is about the decision to chase a player and give him a massive contract, who had very little to offer on field. It's the decision I hate, not Daisy.
You go on to say, "we had to offer a big contract to get him..." No, no we didn't. Nobody else wanted him, his own club didn't want him. We didn't "have to" do anything. And even if that was the case, you assess it and walk away.
Also you state his big contract has no negative effect on the club. That's not my argument. My argument is there never should have been a big contract for a player that added next to no value to the club. Are you getting it now? It's the DECISION to sign him on a big contract. Not the contract itself and certainly not him personally that I have an issue with.
As for Jones, unproven is one thing, you take a punt on unproven. Sometimes it works , other times it goes terribly wrong, as is the case with Jones. But Daisy was proven, proven to be a shadow of the player he once was. But we just had to have him, at any cost.

I really only just gave this a thought - so its a 40 seconds snapshot on an opnion I just shat out right now...

Call me silly but dont you think (other than the reason to re unite Daisy with Malthouse) the reason why they got Dale for x dollars etc was because Eddie Betts had just left and got the cash he is now on ? Clearly they needed a replacement - in regards to talents and skills - and Dale was the best available at the time in teh FA.

Cant fault the club wanting to go in that direction, it also lets us recruit a KPP instead of a mid in that draft. Eddie is still eddie in the finals and pressure moments - non existent to an extent fyi. In fact all our forwards etc who have left have only been good for 1 finals - if they make it further they do exactly what they did for us in the 2nd finals = f all.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Jesus gbatman, make it hard to quote.

1. 2012 we had more injuries than 2013. I've shown that.

2. This I know for a fact but can't elaborate thing. Heard that before. Not sure why I should take it on faith. However, laying into players that aren't doing the right thing is a far cry from being the catalyst for a delisting in order to improve culture. I'm sure all coaches lay into players who aren't doing the right thing. Again, I think of Shaw and Didak and think this culture thing depends on how important the player is.

3. It's one thing to have a lack of depth and to need to move on some players, it's another thing altogether to supposedly make a conscious decision to take 3 years to bottom out so you can take another 3 years to get back up again .... after you have lost Judd, Carrazzo, Waite, Betts, Garlett, Yarran, Henderson and likely Walker, Simpson and maybe Murphy and Gibbs to retirement, indifference or loss of form.

Doesn't matter because that's not what happened.

4. Playing players out of position? Yeah there's been some interesting ones. All coaches do it out of necessity whether because the depth isn't coming on or because of injury.

Joseph was in the midfield tagging as much as he was in the backline but sure he got used back there a fair bit. We used Davies, Yarran, Laidler, Duigan, Chris Johnson, tried to use O'Keeffe but couldn't get him on the park, Joey Anderson, Benjamin didn't make it, Tuohy, White, Bannister, McInnes, Houlihan ... tried them all in a smaller defender role at different times. We were bagging the club constantly for recruiting flankers all the time.

5. Mick's game plan. The media, the commentators, the fans ... everyone thought the game plan was outdated, messy and confusing. The pundits would sit around on TV shows and try to understand what it was we were trying to accomplish. But sure, the game plan was great because he won a flag with it a few years before with completely different types of players, like it is a universal truth where time stands still. Must be because this s**t truck of a team who were playing an exciting brand of football, many of who were in decent form, were really a rabble wooden spoon side in waiting no matter what we did after the 2011 offseason and completely fluked any winning form they had, so we may as well throw the baby out with the bathwater and start again ... right?

Not possible that Mick had to put his thinking cap on and compromise on his game plan a little to keep the whole thing from falling apart, and then gradually implement subtle changes when they had everything else down pat? Rather upset the whole apple cart because you don't want to bend a little? Pagan won a flag with Pagan's Paddock three years before he came to Carlton too. How well did clearing out the forward line work for him once he arrived without Carey?

 

[DaVillaBlues]

Has anyone actually wondered maybe, JUST MAYBE, we shouldn't have traded for Judd, and kept pick #3 and Josh Kennedy?

Although in hindsight, 2007 was a pretty poor draft year (Cyril Rioli probably being the pick of the bunch) but getting Juddy changed the course of our drafting and perhaps we paid too high a price for a club still in rebuild mode at that time.

Sometimes I do wonder whether getting Judd (champion as he was) was the right thing for the club to do, in hindsight ?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Has anyone actually wondered maybe, JUST MAYBE, we shouldn't have traded for Judd, and kept pick #3 and Josh Kennedy?

Although in hindsight, 2007 was a pretty poor draft year (Cyril Rioli probably being the pick of the bunch) but getting Juddy changed the course of our drafting and perhaps we paid too high a price for a club still in rebuild mode at that time.

Sometimes I do wonder whether getting Judd (champion as he was) was the right thing for the club to do, in hindsight ?

Can't question getting one of the greatest superstars of the game to your club.

I look at it this way. We were lost, the players were dispirited, they hated losing and we were every chance of losing the likes of Murphy and Gibbs if we didn't get some professionalism and respect into the playing group. Kennedy had not shown very much to that point, though Fev got all the delivery and Eagles fans almost considered him steak knives in that deal at the time.

No regrets. Juddy did his part, the rest just weren't up to it and Kennedy probably wouldn't be half the players he is today had he stayed.

 

[RAPPA]

Has anyone actually wondered maybe, JUST MAYBE, we shouldn't have traded for Judd, and kept pick #3 and Josh Kennedy?

Although in hindsight, 2007 was a pretty poor draft year (Cyril Rioli probably being the pick of the bunch) but getting Juddy changed the course of our drafting and perhaps we paid too high a price for a club still in rebuild mode at that time.

Sometimes I do wonder whether getting Judd (champion as he was) was the right thing for the club to do, in hindsight ?

Putting aside some of the one-man performances he displayed which literally pulled us over the line in matches, he brought a semblance of leadership that was missing. Even the hope he instilled in fans shouldn't be underestimated.

 

[therubbernub]

Can't question getting one of the greatest superstars of the game to your club.

I look at it this way. We were lost, the players were dispirited, they hated losing and we were every chance of losing the likes of Murphy and Gibbs if we didn't get some professionalism and respect into the playing group. Kennedy had not shown very much to that point, though Fev got all the delivery and Eagles fans almost considered him steak knives in that deal at the time.

No regrets. Juddy did his part, the rest just weren't up to it and Kennedy probably wouldn't be half the players he is today had he stayed.

I agree. I see our rehab out of the football purgatory the we were in , was multi- step. One of the first steps was to restore some professionalism and respect as you say. Trading Josh was, in hindsight a big price to pay, but without Judd we were in for a lot more pain

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Seriously, can someone tell me why???? Don't waste your energy, I'll never see it any other way.

And there it is right there.
I could offer the opinion that maybe he wanted somebody that he was familiar with, somebody that was familiar with him, his style of coaching, his gameplan. Somebody that had tasted success with him and knew what it took to get there (not forgetting that I think Judd was the only other premiership player we had). Somebody that was outgoing to balance out a team of introverts. A leader on and off the field.
He's exactly the kind of person our team needed. All you can do is put your faith in the medical team with his ankle, even if they supposedly went against the majority of advice. Is he worth the money he is on? Of course not, but who cares? It hasn't shackled the club in any way.

...but what's the point? Your mind is already made up and won't be changed.


BTW, I think you are underselling him as a player by a fair bit. To say that his best was behind him before he came to us. His last year at Collingwood was destroyed by injury, so you can't use that as a gauge. 2012 he played 20 games and averaged just under 22 touches, 3 tackles, 3 inside 50's, 3 clearances and kicked 22 goals. Hell, even out of the 5 that he played in 2013, ignoring the game where it looks like he injured himself and only played 32% game time, he averaged 25 touches in those other 4 games, so there's nothing to suggest that his best was past him.
Even his first year with us. He clearly had a low fitness base and had to get back some strength and confidence in his ankle, but aside from that, he was pretty solid.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'll go back and read the rest of your post in a minute. But after that first line, I had to respond... "Don't think we saw him as well past his best..."????? The whole football world saw that he was well past his best. His absolute very best still didn't command the contract we offered anyway. But to say he wasn't well past his best, you're in denial. He was done. His next contract was going to be his retirement fund and Mick made sure he got a ripper.

Ok back to your post.

Where is the evidence of this? One injury riddled season?

 

[NOCLUE]

I know ... I know ... it's just that ... things are a little messed up at the moment.

View attachment 213265 View attachment 213266

That looks a lot like the last time I went camping.

 

[NOCLUE]

A bit harsh his first year was still recovering from a full ankle reco, It takes time to heal and regain full fitness.
Last year he did his shoulder, I think he should be judged after this year.

By your standards we should of got rid of Kreuzer a couple of years ago as he's done nothing either.