So what if we finish 9th...it's different this time !

[Opulentus Tigris]

ive answered this before. i have stated that imo we have as many as 27 suspect players including rookies.
i have stated that equates to 9 delistings each yr over 3 yrs.if all 27 dont make it.

i have stated that even though you could easily do 12 this yr i would be happy with a minmum of 9.

i have named the 27 players on other threads it includes impending retirements.
based on performance age and deficiencies in their makeup the first players to go would be.

tivva, hyde, howat, sylvestor, pettifer, jackson, ,cartledge pattison and bowden. its my opinion in dumping these players you have lost nothing.i could have thrown a couple of more talls in there but shoddy list management does not allow for this.

okay yr2 it does get a bit harder for 2 reasons. 1 looking after list structure. 2 the quality of player and what they may be capable of is less defined. most players mentioned are what red likes to call glass half full types. to me they are short term solutions that in time we need to upgrade on.

king, jon, polak, schulz, raines, johnson,meyer,polo, brown . theres another 9. two who will be 32 by then.
it may be that some of the players mentioned do make it but noone can deny they are all in trouble they are all delistable/tradeable.
the second category will be on death row if they cant take that next step. it may be some people think some should be in different categories. it may be that some would argue to keep jackson and put the older johnson in the first category its all just opinion.
i will categorically state that all players mentioned will/should be gone in 3yrs if theres no improvement and age of course dictates there will probably be 5 retirements. imo because of age you can realistically throw simmonds and richo the mix.


you then have your 3rd category or 3rd yr richo simmo and the suspect juniors who dont come on. juniors like hughes graham cartledge they may make it but they have chronic flaws and alarm bells are already ringing.

to me nine is a tad conservative this yr, especially with gc17 and sydney coming into the comp.

I agree with you're year 2 list here Claw, and if I read you correctly, you're advocating that generally, those listed in year 2 should get another year to prove themselves as they may yet be of some value, whether that be as trade bait next draft or as senior players in their own right. There doesn't seem to much wrong with you're year 1 list either.

From my point of view, I don't want TW looking for a quick fix at the draft table, just so he can keep his job. Drafting youth is of the utmost importance.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

I actually agree with that list with two exceptions, Jackson & Pattison, both for list needs, would add Johnson to your list to compensate.
Unfortunately it looks like the two old farts are going to keep playing next year, but I don't think that means we should cut a couple of extra younger guys to compensate for them playing on.

King could easily be added to this year's list.

 

[dimmauchump]

This year we should have seen the end of Tivendale, Hyde, King, Jackson, Howat, Sylvester, Graham, JON(trade), Johnson(retire), Bowden (retire),
Cartledge, Polak(unfortunate, but wont play footy again), Pettifer and maybe Schulz(trade only not delist). That is 13-14 off our list, which will allow us to bring in 1 or 2 recycled youngsters ala Morton, and drafted youngsters and rookies.

We should be targetting a recylcled Ruckman between the age of 22-25. We should also rookie a young ruck prospect.

That would rid us of a considerable amount of dead wood and rabble and allow more talented players to join the current group.

As i've said in previous posts we should be looking at building a premiership side and not a competitive side. Players like Bowden, Johnson will not be in our next premiership side and don't offer anything beyond this year apart from taking the spot of a promising youngster.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

This year we should have seen the end of Tivendale, Hyde, King, Jackson, Howat, Sylvester, Graham, JON(trade), Johnson(retire), Bowden (retire),
Cartledge, Polak(unfortunate, but wont play footy again), Pettifer and maybe Schulz(trade only not delist). That is 13-14 off our list, which will allow us to bring in 1 or 2 recycled youngsters ala Morton, and drafted youngsters and rookies.

We should be targetting a recylcled Ruckman between the age of 22-25. We should also rookie a young ruck prospect.

That would rid us of a considerable amount of dead wood and rabble and allow more talented players to join the current group.

As i've said in previous posts we should be looking at building a premiership side and not a competitive side. Players like Bowden, Johnson will not be in our next premiership side and don't offer anything beyond this year apart from taking the spot of a promising youngster.

So who are these more talented players?Forget about any kids in the top 20.very hard these days to prize a top 20 of a club these days unless your giving up something of quality[Which in someway defeats the purpose].
its all good to say we can get rid of 13-14 players with the majority unproven at AFL level.Whats going to happen in 2yrs time when 7 of the 10 fail to make it and we have to contend with the GC franchise getting 15 or so of the first 25 draft picks.All of a sudden you have a massive gap with spaces at our tail end of our list once again filled with list "Blockers"?

4-5 to go this year
with another of the same next year.
At least we have a stagnate list of the newcomers.

 

[the claw]

So who are these more talented players?Forget about any kids in the top 20.very hard these days to prize a top 20 of a club these days unless your giving up something of quality[Which in someway defeats the purpose].
its all good to say we can get rid of 13-14 players with the majority unproven at AFL level.Whats going to happen in 2yrs time when 7 of the 10 fail to make it and we have to contend with the GC franchise getting 15 or so of the first 25 draft picks.All of a sudden you have a massive gap with spaces at our tail end of our list once again filled with list "Blockers"?

4-5 to go this year
with another of the same next year.
At least we have a stagnate list of the newcomers.

if say us negative types are right and we have 22 suspect players plus 5 future retirees turning over just 4 or 5 players is tantamount to cutting ones own wrist.in bringing in 5 you are likely to get 2 wrong thats the stats. so you are in effect advocating a long term turn over of just 3 players.
i just dont understand why people would rather hang onto long term underachievers and critically deficient players. you want to hang onto players you know are no good. me i would be happy to turn over those players they are clogging the list and i would rather give kids a shot at it.
yeah you may use 4 picks between say 60 and 85 if just one of those 4 becomes a decent player you are miles in front. if the 4 dont make it you have lost nothing you have in effect replaced a dud with a dud. at richmond alone white, tuck,simmonds thursfield,moore king, graham gourdis foley collins and raines have been taken after pick 60. by after pick 60 i mean psd and rookie list they were available to us in the nd and after pick 60.or in simmonds case he was taken originally by melb in the psd after the nd had been run. i just dont get this fear of useing lateish picks as long as they are in proportion to your early and mid range picks. as i have stated we can turn over 9 without going past 72 doing just one trade. why would you not turn over long term underachievers or those who have shown themselves to be chronically deficient players.
to me the only reason you would not do this and i will reiterate this the only reason you would not do this is if you think the players being thrown up are good players. clearly people on here think we have few poor playersif this is the case theres no point even having this debate.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

if say us negative types are right and we have 22 suspect players plus 5 future retirees turning over just 4 or 5 players is tantamount to cutting ones own wrist.in bringing in 5 you are likely to get 2 wrong thats the stats. so you are in effect advocating a long term turn over of just 3 players.
i just dont understand why people would rather hang onto long term underachievers and critically deficient players. you want to hang onto players you know are no good. me i would be happy to turn over those players they are clogging the list and i would rather give kids a shot at it.
yeah you may use 4 picks between say 60 and 85 if just one of those 4 becomes a decent player you are miles in front. if the 4 dont make it you have lost nothing you have in effect replaced a dud with a dud. at richmond alone white, tuck,simmonds thursfield,moore king, graham gourdis foley collins and raines have been taken after pick 60. by after pick 60 i mean psd and rookie list they were available to us in the nd and after pick 60.or in simmonds case he was taken originally by melb in the psd after the nd had been run. i just dont get this fear of useing lateish picks as long as they are in proportion to your early and mid range picks. as i have stated we can turn over 9 without going past 72 doing just one trade. why would you not turn over long term underachievers or those who have shown themselves to be chronically deficient players.
to me the only reason you would not do this and i will reiterate this the only reason you would not do this is if you think the players being thrown up are good players. clearly people on here think we have few poor playersif this is the case theres no point even having this debate.

I think that is it in a nutshell

 

[craig]

to me the only reason you would not do this and i will reiterate this the only reason you would not do this is if you think the players being thrown up are good players. clearly people on here think we have few poor playersif this is the case theres no point even having this debate.

Not me i believe the list is racked with mediocre players with deficiencies and many who simply arent up to it.

Last time i looked at the list i could give 15 odd the arse without thinking about it.

 

[ronnit]

well..i guess we're lucky you arent the coach

 

[Ridley]

well..i guess we're lucky you arent the coach

Yeah coz our other coaches have ben so successful. Our list is still very medicocre.

 

[Tigerbob]

Yeah coz our other coaches have ben so successful. Our list is still very medicocre.

:clap

 

[Dyer'ere]

I don't think it's a bad thing. But 2009 is the worry year for me.

There are three posters on this site who don't think that North are useless. I'm one of them. We'll pass North next year. And they won't necessarily plummet.

Fifth is not a hard assignment. We've already shown that we can compete with Footscray or StKilda. And we will flog Collingwood the next few times we meet them.

But all that proves is that we've scaled the lofty heights of mediocrity. Remember our scorn for mediocrity?

And the bloke who took five years to get us back there, Terence Wallet, will tell us what a good job he's done and remind us of his revised forecasts. And then our 30yos will pack it in and we'll be back in the hole.

2009 has to be Terry's last year. And we have to draft and trade aggressively from here.

Because for the first time in forever we have something to build on for a premiership. If only we have the balls to do it. Instead of settling for another 2001. (Was it North we passed for third then?)

 

[RainsyBaby]

great year lads :clap :clap :clap

 

[ROLLS ROYCE]

I don't think it's a bad thing. But 2009 is the worry year for me.

There are three posters on this site who don't think that North are useless. I'm one of them. We'll pass North next year. And they won't necessarily plummet.

Fifth is not a hard assignment. We've already shown that we can compete with Footscray or StKilda. And we will flog Collingwood the next few times we meet them.

But all that proves is that we've scaled the lofty heights of mediocrity. Remember our scorn for mediocrity?

And the bloke who took five years to get us back there, Terence Wallet, will tell us what a good job he's done and remind us of his revised forecasts. And then our 30yos will pack it in and we'll be back in the hole.

2009 has to be Terry's last year. And we have to draft and trade aggressively from here.

Agree and disagree Jacky boy.

If the tanning machine has got us to here in four years I think he deserves to have a crack at the ultimate.
Sure some of the trade decisions have been bad but how many were made by the tanning bed and how many by Miller??

Because for the first time in forever we have something to build on for a premiership. If only we have the balls to do it. Instead of settling for another 2001. (Was it North we passed for third then?)

 

[the claw]

I don't think it's a bad thing. But 2009 is the worry year for me.

There are three posters on this site who don't think that North are useless. I'm one of them. We'll pass North next year. And they won't necessarily plummet.

Fifth is not a hard assignment. We've already shown that we can compete with Footscray or StKilda. And we will flog Collingwood the next few times we meet them.

But all that proves is that we've scaled the lofty heights of mediocrity. Remember our scorn for mediocrity?

And the bloke who took five years to get us back there, Terence Wallet, will tell us what a good job he's done and remind us of his revised forecasts. And then our 30yos will pack it in and we'll be back in the hole.

2009 has to be Terry's last year. And we have to draft and trade aggressively from here.

Because for the first time in forever we have something to build on for a premiership. If only we have the balls to do it. Instead of settling for another 2001. (Was it North we passed for third then?)

spot on jack we have only just begun. so many factors say we must continue to aggresively pursue a youth policy, and have the guts to turn over ordinary players or glass half full type players. believe me we have plenty.failure to do this and the nasty cycle we all know will undoubtedly begin all over again.

 

[TIGEREXTRA]

It is different this time.

We finaly have a great bunch of kids coming through together. They will only get better.

Still have a promising list of kids to come at VFL level.

Agree with posts above.

Must draft and trade aggressively and progress further.


Very happy to have finsihed the season on three in a row and a 80 pt victory!

Also it was good to have a better year than the Blues who finished their season off with a flogging. :hihi

I just hope TW toughens up and is aggressive with list management at years end!

 

[the claw]

It is different this time.

We finaly have a great bunch of kids coming through together. They will only get better.

Still have a promising list of kids to come at VFL level.

Agree with posts above.

Must draft and trade aggressively and progress further.


Very happy to have finsihed the season on three in a row and a 80 pt victory!

Also it was good to have a better year than the Blues who finished their season off with a flogging. :hihi

I just hope TW toughens up and is aggressive with list management at years end!

its no different we lack depth quality and structure. sheesh projecting to 2011 i can count only a dozen or so players who you could definately say will be there.
we are once again on the cusp of finally progressing the list to a top 4 list in 2 or 3 yrs time, or slipping back into utter medocrity, clearly only a small part of what needs to be done has been, and our future rests in our own hands.
im hoping whoever takes over from greg miller and craig cameron recognise this i think gary march does.

 

[hellenictiger]

They currently have 4 players in their backline (Scarlett/Harley/Taylor/Mackie) all taller than our biggest backman. And that does not include the biggest Egan, (gun AA CHB) at 195 & about 100kg. Not tall hey???

Milburn, at 189cm, is a gun, but only because of the support around him. Put him at CHB in our side and he would be exposed for size.

So Thursfield & McGuane will end up the same size as the Geelong boys?

Fair dinkum, I feel like spewing up every time I read crap about our backline being big enough as it is. Get real.

Our backman are tall enough but they need to bulk up. I dont see them getting between for height. If I recall correctly small forwards like Milne kick the biggest bags against us.

You will need a buckt for years to come, our backline has been our biggest improve this year. They look steady and they are rarely the cause for our defeats. I dont see panic like a I did a few years ago when Gaspar was there.

 

[Dyer'ere]

spot on jack we have only just begun. so many factors say we must continue to aggresively pursue a youth policy, and have the guts to turn over ordinary players or glass half full type players. believe me we have plenty.failure to do this and the nasty cycle we all know will undoubtedly begin all over again.

I fully cred t80's scoop that the board (maybe just March) has vetoed Kerr. This March bloke has the nuts IMO.

If he holds his nerve, and I think he will, he can be the visionary we've been looking for.

Getting Cotchin at #2 is the luck we needed. We've got to play for (informed) luck from here. If we don't take our chances we'll have none. It's risk taking time.