The graveyard thread for endless off topic posturing on persons causing bi-polar responses

[TeeKray]

This is not necessarily incorrect, but it is failing to see the forest for the trees.

Dixon's output as a KPF in the era of Bassettball hasn't been much better than a Butcher level player. Nor has the output of Dougal Howard, Justin Westhoff, Paddy Ryder, Jay Schulz, Todd Marshall, Billy Frampton, or any other poor bugger unlucky enough to be saddled with a KPF role in our forward line. The problem is not that Dixon isn't a better footballer than Butcher. The eye test tells you that he clearly is. The issue is that Bassettball reduces the output of any and every KPF unfortunate enough to be a part of it into that of a Butcher level player.

We haven't had a single player have a 50 goal season since we hired Bassett. Outside of 2017 we haven't even had a 40 goal season. The way we're going this year we might not even have a 30 goal season. And that's a forward line which has at various times included 4 time All-Australian Robbie Gray, 2 time All Australian Chad Wingard and 2 time All-Australian Travis Boak, so we're not talking about a bunch of scrubs here.

Is Charlie Dixon a better footballer than John Butcher? Absolutely.
Could we replace Charlie Dixon with John Butcher in our current side with our current gameplan and not see much of a drop off? Probably, but we could replace peak Wayne Carey with John Butcher in our gameplan and not see much of a drop off. The gameplan is the problem.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a s**t gameplan that doesn't maximise the output of its players AND have players within that system who themselves aren't much chop.

I would be willing to bet that Jay Schulz could still put up good numbers under the current regime. Being able to do things like mark and kick straight always keeps you in the game, even in the most dysfunctional of forward lines.

 

[Schulzenfest]

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a s**t gameplan that doesn't maximise the output of its players AND have players within that system who themselves aren't much chop.

I would be willing to bet that Jay Schulz could still put up good numbers under the current regime. Being able to do things like mark and kick straight always keeps you in the game, even in the most dysfunctional of forward lines.

Jay Schulz played a season under the current regime. He managed 7 games for 10 goals and was delisted at the end of the year. And I know he was getting on in years at the time but his age hadn't stopped him kicking a combined 100+ goals in the two preceding seasons before Bassett showed up.

Schulz would be better with his set shot conversion than Dixon under our current regime but that's about it. All those contested marking attempts where Dixon gets the ball dumped on his head, uses his size and athleticism to get his hands to but ends up dropping, Schulz would've struggled to get to at all. Aside from the occasional specky, he was never really a pack marker. He made his living off of forward craft, but there's no room for forward craft under Bassettball. Jack Watts as a forward plays a bit like a poor man's Schulz and he was a total failure in our forward time too.

 

[TeeKray]

Jay Schulz played a season under the current regime. He managed 7 games for 10 goals and was delisted at the end of the year. And I know he was getting on in years at the time but his age hadn't stopped him kicking a combined 100+ goals in the two preceding seasons before Bassett showed up.

Schulz would be better with his set shot conversion than Dixon under our current regime but that's about it. All those contested marking attempts where Dixon gets the ball dumped on his head, uses his size and athleticism to get his hands to but ends up dropping, Schulz would've struggled to get to at all. Aside from the occasional specky, he was never really a pack marker. He made his living off of forward craft, but there's no room for forward craft under Bassettball. Jack Watts as a forward plays a bit like a poor man's Schulz and he was a total failure in our forward time too.

Dixon gets two hands to the ball and drops it 4-5 times a game. Yes he gets put in impossible pack situations quite often but he also drops plenty of very gettable marks. Schulz would take those marks.

And set shot conversion matters big time, it's not some side issue.

 

[bomberclifford]

Schulz would take those marks.

So would Butcher.

 

[ozph1870]

How the fk have we put up with Hinkley and Bassett for so long at the club.
Its obvious where the problem is, the defensive chump we got from Norwood, and the fact Ken went away from that attacking flair that made us a good side in his first couple of years, to the defend, you must defend, defend first the rest will sort itself out crap, the has killed the club since 15.
Id almost, almost be ok with Ken another year (given we can't afford to pay him out) as along as we sent bass packing and rid ourselves of the defensive first mantra.

Our forwards deserve better.

 

[Portmanteau]

BIG MATTY T

 

[Doctor Feel]

Butcherposting

 

[Willsy10]

I think Todd Marshall is more talented than Butcher and has a far greater chance of making it.

 

[Spadge]

If only Butch had an accurate kick for goal.......

 

[Willsy10]

I think Todd has a better chance of being an AFL something than Butcher, but Butcher had more chance of becoming a focal KPF than Marshall does

Marshall is a similar size to Butcher with a more durable body, better skills, higher work rate and appears mentally tougher. Butcher had plenty of talent but his body let him down and he always appeared to me to have serious doubts about his own ability, he just looked too down on confidence to ever be a quality KPF.

 

[Pappagallo]

But why? Butcher was terrible at AFL level, and actually got worse every year.

Marshall has the ability to make other forwards around him better and create space. Butcher was only ever good if every other forward was working for him, and his shot at goal killed all the value of that gameplan IMO.

I just can’t see a single way that Butcher helps us beat modern zone defences in a way that Marshall doesn’t do better. Taking one contested mark a game isn’t useful when you miss the shot anyway, and every other time defenders get to the fall of the ball first because of the effect of flooding/zoning.

Marshall: 20 games, 22 goals (1.1 per game)

Butcher: 31 games, 41 goals (1.32 per game)

His set shot was akin to a Jackson Pollock. It’s ugly, but it’s art.

 

[Tibbs]

If only Butch had an accurate kick for goal.......

View attachment 774225

It was more than that really. If we are really being honest after the fact, Butch was like an unco windmill in every contest. Flailing arms and legs everywhere. I loved his efforts, but skill-wise, intuitiveness-wise, Marshall runs rings around him. Still has a way to go, but MUST be persisted with.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

Marshall: 20 games, 22 goals (1.1 per game)

Butcher: 31 games, 41 goals (1.32 per game)

His set shot was akin to a Jackson Pollock. It’s ugly, but it’s art.

I guess the question is whether you believe more games would have added to that goal tally at the same rate? It seems a divisive question.

Butcher also didn’t actually do anything other than kick goals from what I saw, so he probably needed to be up near 2 goals a game to make it.

 

[Pappagallo]

I guess the question is whether you believe more games would have added to that goal tally at the same rate? It seems a divisive question.

Butcher also didn’t actually do anything other than kick goals from what I saw, so he probably needed to be up near 2 goals a game to make it.

He kicked 4 goals and had 20 disposals in his 2nd last game. My man had the magic but he was too weird to live.

 

[El_Scorcho]

But why? Butcher was terrible at AFL level, and actually got worse every year.

Marshall has the ability to make other forwards around him better and create space. Butcher was only ever good if every other forward was working for him, and his shot at goal killed all the value of that gameplan IMO.

I just can’t see a single way that Butcher helps us beat modern zone defences in a way that Marshall doesn’t do better. Taking one contested mark a game isn’t useful when you miss the shot anyway, and every other time defenders get to the fall of the ball first because of the effect of flooding/zoning.

Butcher was a pack busting focal point marking tall who sucked defenders out of position and brought his teammates into the game. If he'd gone to another club or played under a different coach he'd still be in the league as 150 gamer in his prime right now.

It was the wrong decision to delist him when we did and that ended in the farcical situation we find ourselves in now where we've come off a season where Ryder and Westhoff were our main targets for most of the season and we just had to bring in Wylie Buzza so we have any KPF depth at all.

Marshall has better skills and a better football brain, but lacks the presence Butcher had. He still won't develop himself.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I guess the question is whether you believe more games would have added to that goal tally at the same rate? It seems a divisive question.

Butcher never played more than 5 games in a row under Hinkley. He was never given a good run of games to establish himself. He was never backed in.

People used to tell me that Butcher was the problem and we wouldn't make the same mistake with Howard or Marshall. Lol.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

I strongly disagree Butcher brought his team mates into the game. Most times he played well his team mates were creating space for him and using him as the first option at every opportunity. His breakout game against the Bulldogs, and his game against Brisbane were pretty strong examples of that.

Butcher never played more than 5 games in a row under Hinkley. He was never given a good run of games to establish himself. He was never backed in.

People used to tell me that Butcher was the problem and we wouldn't make the same mistake with Howard or Marshall. Lol.

He played 8 games in a row in 2013.

It’s incredibly easy to make the argument that he would’ve magically come good with more games, but you could make that argument for literally any player that didn’t make it. I get that you saw enough to think he was going to come good, but I just think he had a great couple of breakout games in 2011 and then pretty much went backwards. Yes it could be the fault of coaching or something, I mean it’s literally impossible for us to tell. Hinkley being the worst coach in history wouldn’t prove that Butcher would have made it under the best coach.

I think he got a shitload of benefit of the doubt from the supporters because he showed glimpses of becoming a powerhouse key forward. But I still can’t really understand why it lasted so long?

Have we ever had a player show that little for years and then come good? Perhaps I haven’t been following footy long enough but I just honestly can’t think of a single example.

Maybe if he did make it people would have said the signs were there? But for me they just weren’t, especially after that game against North Melbourne where he showed absolutely nothing.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Butcher may or may not have come good if we'd played him more, the reality is nobody can answer that question definitively either way. But given the best case scenario if he as an 197cm super athletic contested marking beast had come good, we would've been much better served putting a few of Jake Neade's 66 games under Hinkley into Butch instead.

 

[El_Scorcho]

He played 8 games in a row in 2013.

No he didn't.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

No he didn't.

Damn it, I double checked that too haha what an idiot I was reading the tables wrong.

 

[Willsy10]

The intense Butcher love on this board is one of those things i'll never wrap my head around.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

The intense Butcher love on this board is one of those things i'll never wrap my head around.

Yea it's befuddling the guy had terminal flaws from the get-go.

 

[Janus]

The intense Butcher love on this board is one of those things i'll never wrap my head around.

A text-book definition of an egregore at work.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I strongly disagree Butcher brought his team mates into the game. Most times he played well his team mates were creating space for him and using him as the first option at every opportunity. His breakout game against the Bulldogs, and his game against Brisbane were pretty strong examples of that.


He played 8 games in a row in 2013.

It’s incredibly easy to make the argument that he would’ve magically come good with more games, but you could make that argument for literally any player that didn’t make it. I get that you saw enough to think he was going to come good, but I just think he had a great couple of breakout games in 2011 and then pretty much went backwards. Yes it could be the fault of coaching or something, I mean it’s literally impossible for us to tell. Hinkley being the worst coach in history wouldn’t prove that Butcher would have made it under the best coach.

I think he got a shitload of benefit of the doubt from the supporters because he showed glimpses of becoming a powerhouse key forward. But I still can’t really understand why it lasted so long?

Have we ever had a player show that little for years and then come good? Perhaps I haven’t been following footy long enough but I just honestly can’t think of a single example.

Maybe if he did make it people would have said the signs were there? But for me they just weren’t, especially after that game against North Melbourne where he showed absolutely nothing.

I strongly disagree Butcher brought his team mates into the game. Most times he played well his team mates were creating space for him and using him as the first option at every opportunity. His breakout game against the Bulldogs, and his game against Brisbane were pretty strong examples of that.


He played 8 games in a row in 2013.

It’s incredibly easy to make the argument that he would’ve magically come good with more games, but you could make that argument for literally any player that didn’t make it. I get that you saw enough to think he was going to come good, but I just think he had a great couple of breakout games in 2011 and then pretty much went backwards. Yes it could be the fault of coaching or something, I mean it’s literally impossible for us to tell. Hinkley being the worst coach in history wouldn’t prove that Butcher would have made it under the best coach.

I think he got a shitload of benefit of the doubt from the supporters because he showed glimpses of becoming a powerhouse key forward. But I still can’t really understand why it lasted so long?

Have we ever had a player show that little for years and then come good? Perhaps I haven’t been following footy long enough but I just honestly can’t think of a single example.

Maybe if he did make it people would have said the signs were there? But for me they just weren’t, especially after that game against North Melbourne where he showed absolutely nothing.

Jay Schulz was 24 (71 games) when he was effectively thrown on the scrap heap by Richmond.

John Butcher was 24 (31 games) when Port dumped him.

So yes players have shown that little and then come good (even with more opportunities).

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TheFVK]

Thread is now about John Butcher.

I'm ok with that.