Roast The Cull needs to start

[Quigley]

Number 4 gets another game because the kicking in the back half was not as good as the coaching team hoped and Johnstone who should help in that regard and when on song is a very capable AFL player. If the kick up the backside works and he plays as well as he can then he is a valuable player for us. It is a mental thing with Johnstone and performing in the reserves would be less important than focusing him on the things he needs to do. Whilst he is on the list you make use of him.

I find it incredible that you are writing off Sheldon. The kid has just turned 21 FFS. He has played less than 20 games and came to us as a very physically immature player. From memory I think he played as a midfielder and occasional forward at junior level but was asked to play as a negating defender in most of his senior games (a few games as a negating forward last year). Playing a new role he did the job he was asked to do pretty well but did not get all that much of it. From reports he played as a tagger last week in the reserves and did a pretty good job getting a fair bit of it himself. There is a definate spot for a tagger in our team and if he can do the defensive jobs and work the other way I would be stoked. He has been a very disciplined player and I would really like to see him get let of the chain to chase the ball a bit but Voss does seem to have control issues with the young guys and they are rarely given licence to just play which is a shame. Sheldon is a kid with a lot of talent and improvement in him.

Drummond is a hugely valuable player and if the current staff can not keep him on the park find someone who can.

 

[Gabbatoir]

I Agree. Short term thinking at the end of 2009 may well deliver long term pain as we move into the next decade.

Recalling number 4 this week and giving Sam Sheldon a game just shows how desperate we are and how, despite all the colour and movement of the trading period, how little Voss actually achieved with his trading.

On what basis is number 4 getting another game? Has he been ripping it up in the twos? Ditto Sheldon, he was ordinary for much of last year in the seniors, has he suddenly lifted his game to a new level? Rather than naming him as an emergency, Voss should have given Bartlett a run. He has got massive raps on him from my Geelong mates who reakon he was an absolute a gun at the Falcons and that Geelong would have snapped him up if they had the opportunity. It's not like either number 4 or Sheldon is going to add anything to our horridly out of touch midfield, where Bartlett just might.

On another matter, if Drummond can't get fit and stay fit we should flick him. He is no value to us off the park and his history of soft tissue injuries, combined with his current condition, does not bode well for the future.

Did Travis run over your cat?

 

[3KZ is Football]

Did Travis run over your cat?

That was Craig Bolton.

 

[Old Den]

I Agree. Short term thinking at the end of 2009 may well deliver long term pain as we move into the next decade.

Recalling number 4 this week and giving Sam Sheldon a game just shows how desperate we are and how, despite all the colour and movement of the trading period, how little Voss actually achieved with his trading.

On what basis is number 4 getting another game? Has he been ripping it up in the twos? Ditto Sheldon, he was ordinary for much of last year in the seniors, has he suddenly lifted his game to a new level? Rather than naming him as an emergency, Voss should have given Bartlett a run. He has got massive raps on him from my Geelong mates who reakon he was an absolute a gun at the Falcons and that Geelong would have snapped him up if they had the opportunity. It's not like either number 4 or Sheldon is going to add anything to our horridly out of touch midfield, where Bartlett just mig

On another matter, if Drummond can't get fit and stay fit we should flick him. He is no value to us off the park and his history of soft tissue injuries, combined with his current condition, does not bode well for the future.

Short term thinking eh.....yet again I put it to a poster....who of Clouston,Dalziell,Roe,Tyler,Macdonald,Harding and Hooper would you have retained and why? (presuming that they all wanted to stay).

If none (which I think will be the answer) and ignoring the Fev trade which has already been done to death,what should have been done instead of recruiting Raines and Clarke for draft picks (Buchanan and Staker were part of horse trading).

We finished up with second and third round picks in the draft after trading away the originals,one of which landed the boom recruit mentioned above,Bartlett and we are happy with Harwood as a 3rd rounder - also it seems likely that in O'Brien,we picked up a player that we would have been happy to get with the pick traded away for Clarke.

So the long term pain mentioned above seems to rest on not having Henderson and whoever we would have drafted with pick 12 on the list - surely Banfield is proof enough that you don't need picks 12 to 16 to recruit good players - in fact McGrath is the only one in that category on our current list.

In the light of the long list from several posters on this thread of players to cull (including Drummond...Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha excuse my mirth) - I would be interested to hear how we will be competitive in the short term and look forward any magical quick fixes that are proposed.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Would we currently have been any worse off if we had only drafted kids? I don't think so.

Would that have offered more upside as we consider the medium to long term prospects for the club? I do think so.

Would we have got the same kids without trading that involved draft choices? I don't know.

Would we have been worse off given the kids we might have drafted using the picks we had? Impossible to tell.

Would the drafting of kids improved our salary cap position and our ability to retain players who may be targetted by other clubs at the end of this season? I do think so.

 

[chopperduck]

Why are people throwing the baby out with the bath water so quick. Claiming the trading has been a waste and we should have drafted kids doesn't help. Might i remind people of our 4-0 start to the season when we were playing some top footy, Brown and Fev were kicking 10 between them each week, and we were missing black for 1 and 1/2 of those 4 games.

We have hit a form slump, but we haven't been playing like this all year. If this was our form line for the year i would be just as annoyed, but its not. We can play much much better than what we are. I didn't see any of these claims when we were 4-0.

 

[Old Den]

Would we currently have been any worse off if we had only drafted kids? I don't think so.

Would that have offered more upside as we consider the medium to long term prospects for the club? I do think so.

Would we have got the same kids without trading that involved draft choices? I don't know.

Would we have been worse off given the kids we might have drafted using the picks we had? Impossible to tell.

Would the drafting of kids improved or salary cap position and our ability to retain players who may be targetted by other clubs at the end of this season? I do think so.

I assume that the answer as to who we would have retained on the list is none of them.

We took 4 young players in the National Draft and were very active in the Rookie Draft after cleaning last year's rookie list out - I am sure we tried our hardest to get draft picks for Macdonald,Hooper and Harding who are all sitting happily on other lists now - upgrading draft picks ain't easy to manage and especially in the current expansion climate.

Being better off in the long term by not recruiting Raines and Clarke and having a slightly better 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick is probably not so as we recruited Harwood and O''Brien as I mentioned.

So yes,it would have been nice to have had,say, Lucas but I do not want to get into the Fev,Hendo and Bradshaw thing on this thread and it has been done to death elsewhere as I have said.

So extra draft picks for kids would have would most likely been after Maguire or perhaps instead of getting Maguire and,as I have posted elsewhere we virtually did that by putting Golby and Dyson from Victoria on the rookie list as they were both well regarded by our recruiters before the National Draft.

List management at year's end will be interesting with Gold Coast lurking and salary cap issues and hard decisions on player's futures being factors and of course the poachers (always there) and let's not forget the possibility of the wanna go home factor.

 

[Dylan12]

Might i remind people of our 4-0 start to the season when we were playing some top footy

I wouldn't go as far as to say we were playing top footy. I thought the only time we looked good were the first 3 quarters of the game against Port and certain parts against the Dogs who were clearly off.

I remember plenty of claims during the 4-0 start of people questioning the recruited players, bar Maguire. I am not calling for the heads of people, although I do question the validity of primarily Buchanan and Stiller. As I have said elsewhere, I think we exceeded our own expectations last year which gave the club and a lot around here the false idea that we were a couple of players shy of a premiership. For a fleeting moment b/w rounds 1 and 4, I thought we may turn into that side considering that we were churning out wins w/o playing that well. Either way, I would expect to see more players like Collier and Hanley play to see if they are up to it for one last judgement before the culling does actually begin.

I suspect we are a fair way off being a top 4 side though, and will be lucky to make the 8. This can only change when we finally win games that we are not expected to win. Like our forward line, we are one of the most predictable teams to pick on a weekly basis and will not advance until we can pick up some "unexpected" wins.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I wouldn't go as far as to say we were playing top footy. I thought the only time we looked good were the first 3 quarters of the game against Port and certain parts against the Dogs who were clearly off.

Yeah I thought our fourth quarter vs the Dogs was our best quarter of team footy we've played this year. Our structures just clicked perfectly and our zone was practically inpenetrable, largely due to the work rate of EVERY single player. I think we restricted the dogs to about 3-4 inside 50s that quarter which is just amazing.

The old adage that you play your next game the way you finished the last certainly didn't apply. Melbourne just came out and smashed us and we haven't been the same side since. Injuries have played their part but other things are amiss. Work rate and skills have both declined sharply.

 

[chopperduck]

I do agree Dylan12 that we certainly weren't the benchmark team or anything. But we were playing some pretty good footy early on, not great, but we were pretty good, and we weren't settled as a team either. I certainly felt after the dogs game that we were just starting to get settled and our best footy was now ahead of us, clearly that hasn't happened.

Agree 100% with TBD, work rate and skills just dropped right off along with the confidence. The shots at goal our 2 big forwards were getting dropped off along with it. We don't work hard enough to get the ball, and then turn it over within 3 disposals if we do. Injuries have hurt, but aren't the reason for this happening. We are a much better side than we look now, and i guess that's just the thing people have to remember.

 

[Quigley]

Short term thinking eh.....yet again I put it to a poster....who of Clouston,Dalziell,Roe,Tyler,Macdonald,Harding and Hooper would you have retained and why? (presuming that they all wanted to stay).

If none (which I think will be the answer) and ignoring the Fev trade which has already been done to death,what should have been done instead of recruiting Raines and Clarke for draft picks (Buchanan and Staker were part of horse trading).

I would have kept:

Clouston - thought he had definate potential and as a big guy he could mature late. He also could have provided the depth we are sorely missing. I do not think he was given the chance to succeed.

Dalzeill - more than happy to keep him. He is a gut runner and provides an option. We are not seeing this at all at the moment. His usage of the ball needs to improve but if time was actually put into it I am sure it could be improved. I still much prefer him to Staker and think he is more needed in our structure.

Macdonald - better player than Raines. He is an experienced player at the back and would certainly be handy at the moment. He was played out of position on third talls last year but I was shocked we forced him out.

On what I would have done I was okay with the Fev trade in theory although concerned with the clubhouse effect. Still am. I was dead against the Buchanan, Raines and Staker trades and still are. Moronic trades and this is being borne out. Clarke cost us little and I was okay with that similarly with Maguire.

Instead of Buchanan, Raines and Staker I personally do not make any trades and just take Ball in the second round and Dennis-Lane in the third round as additional picks. These are in addition to the picks we had and that gives us a top flight in and under which we need and a mature aged goal kicking small forward also a major need. TDL has had some injury issues but look for him to appear for Sydney in the next couple of weeks. We don't have anyone like him in our current list and would have been a good get instead of guys who repeat the skills of others and are really just list cloggers.

Instead of listening to me cool we are lumbered with a 4 year deal for Staker apparently and god knows what for Buchanan and Raines. Voss also seems to feel obligated to play these guys whether they are deserving or not which is troubling. The landscape changed with those trades and not for the better.

 

[Dylan12]

Macdonald - better player than Raines. He is an experienced player at the back and would certainly be handy at the moment. He was played out of position on third talls last year but I was shocked we forced him out.

I agree Quigs, saw no reason and still bewildered why we got rid of MacDonald...which, surely he was more worthy than nothing and we bring in Raines. Whilst MacDonald wasn't spectacular, he was pretty solid, capable of playing tall and small and yes, much, much better than Raines.

 

[John]

I would have kept:

Clouston - Was reported as saying that he found training a hard grind and was losing interest. No AFL club picked him up. Why?
He also had a opportunity to play SANFL and WAFL and knocked that back for Uni and a gig at Redlands.

Dalzeill - Was reported constantly as home sick hence traded.

Macdonald - Was reported as asking to be traded to a Melbourne. Club was reported as trying to trade but no interest shown so took a punt in the PSD. I was told late last year that if a trade was also not satisfactory the club would let him go into the PSD to get a better contract. That's hearsay by the way. Someone maybe able to conform that. I liked him and would have kept him but if a player wants to go why bother.

 

[Quigley]

I acknowledge there were reasons for each leaving and player management had a huge part in each of those guys leaving. The question was asked which I would have kept and those are the guys I would have liked to have kept nws they each might have contributed to leaving. On Macdonald it seemed pretty clear that he was shown the door as part of the fun buster policy that was implemented last year.

 

[John]

On Macdonald it seemed pretty clear that he was shown the door as part of the fun buster policy that was implemented last year.

Why is it "pretty clear"?
What is a fun buster policy?

I heard what I have written about Joel. Happy for conformation otherwise but the only people who know are the club and Joel and neither has said a word publicly as far as I know.

 

[acuguy]

Okay i think we should cut our 186cm to 191cm running midfielders, oh that is right we don't have any.

 

[Old Den]

Clouston - Was reported as saying that he found training a hard grind and was losing interest. No AFL club picked him up. Why?
He also had a opportunity to play SANFL and WAFL and knocked that back for Uni and a gig at Redlands.

Dalzeill - Was reported constantly as home sick hence traded.

Macdonald - Was reported as asking to be traded to a Melbourne. Club was reported as trying to trade but no interest shown so took a punt in the PSD. I was told late last year that if a trade was also not satisfactory the club would let him go into the PSD to get a better contract. That's hearsay by the way. Someone maybe able to conform that. I liked him and would have kept him but if a player wants to go why bother.

I am aware of the above suggestions which is why I added the "if they all wanted to stay" rider to my list of players that are no longer at the club.

 

[blynd_freddie]

Okay i think we should cut our 186cm to 191cm running midfielders, oh that is right we don't have any.

Are you suggesting Black-186cm and Redden-189cm are plodders and not runners acuguy?

 

[acuguy]

Are you suggesting Black-186cm and Redden-189cm are plodders and not runners acuguy?

Freddie, i once had quite a long conversation with Blacky and i can assure you that he isn't 186cms and if Redden is 189cm i will walk from Brisbane to Melbourne

Seriously though on recruiting we need to look for those taller running types.

 

[blynd_freddie]

Freddie, i once had quite a long conversation with Blacky and i can assure you that he isn't 186cms and if Redden is 189cm i will walk from Brisbane to Melbourne

Seriously though on recruiting we need to look for those taller running types.

Fair enough I can see the irony suggesting Simon is a Collingwood six footer, it must have been his ‘hard boy’ hair cut when measured at 6’1” and that I rounded up Jack as he was drafted measuring 188.6cms but I’m not going to split hairs and argue the fact to get you to walk a double Cliffy Young marathon, happy for you to stay up there.

 

[POBT]

On Macdonald it seemed pretty clear that he was shown the door as part of the fun buster policy that was implemented last year.

I am lead to believe that Jmac is focusing more on his career, post-footy. His request for a trade to Melbourne is part of that.

I also think that he's been serviceable only at the Dees. I also don't see Jmac v Raines as a fair comparison - very different styles of player, in my opinion. I'd see Jmac v Hawksley or even Patfull as a better comparison....those are the guys who he would have been in competition with this year, in my opinion.

 

[chopperduck]

Agree with that POBT. I think Hawksley is the player that has really taken Jmac's spot, and even though they aren't real similar players, they are used for a similar role in our team.

 

[Nuggo]

Hawksley is a player who I think can develop into a solid player. Still has a long way to go but. In his last two games he only had two tackles. Two last week and zero the week before (noted that round 7 he had 4). I think that this is an area of his game that he needs to pick up on. Let see how he goes tonight.

 

[Football Pope]

Cull!!!..Pfft...We stuck it up them lions...

 

[acuguy]

Rockliff, Hawksley and Collier gave Vossy the old give me another 2 years tonight!