Coaches on the edge of irrelevance push hard to trade to keep their team competitive. McMuffin was the Wallace example. Hopper the Dimma example.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Blair "Which?" Project
- Thread starter Tony Braxton-Hicks
- Start date
For sure they would have came with Dimma's blessing.
But Dimma isn't the one who makes the (final) call whether to get a player in. Then do the contract, trade etc. Blair does.
So it's on him. If he believes they are bad list management calls you do what clubs with strong people around the coach do (which we have). You say no.
McMahon at least got us Dusty.
Hopper might get a sponsor with Turf company he is always spread eagle on the grass
What I WANT TO KNOW AND PROBABLY FROM RICHMOND IS
Geelong turnover annually is 65,000,000
Richmond's is 92,000,000.
What advantages are we getting for this huge extra turnover as their must be big advantages ànd mostly on the field or
What's the point.
Geelong turnover annually is 65,000,000
Richmond's is 92,000,000.
What advantages are we getting for this huge extra turnover as their must be big advantages ànd mostly on the field or
What's the point.
Good topic. Leysy I agree with Smokin, Hardwick absolutely was all in on a last dance and the push was irresistible.
Good luck saying no to a three-time premiership coach with Cotchin and Riewoldt going around one last time.
Hartley had little choice and performed at his usual high level in putting it all together.
Of course, we are nowhere now, but that is the cruel legacy of three premierships.
Exactly right, I don’t know what people were expecting after 3 flags in 4 seasons. You don’t get decent draft picks when you do that, and your list ages but usually from a higher setting as you generally need a mature playing group to salute. Hopper and Taranto filled a gap in the age profile, whether they turn out to be good for what we paid, who knows but I’m sure many were happy when we got them like I was.
I don't think any team in this century has ever been succesful after the retirement of all time great players
Not hawthorn, not geelong, and certainly not Richmond
Hawthorn Buddy, Hodge Mitchell
Richmond Riewoldt, Cotchin, Martin, Rance,
Geelong Selwood, Danger, Hawkins
These players cannot be replaced, you can cover one of them moving on, maybe, but history shows that a long stint in mediocrity is inevitable when these players start to decline, or retire .
We have to take our medicine, problem is every one that built the last dynasty, has gone or is leaving
Not hawthorn, not geelong, and certainly not Richmond
Hawthorn Buddy, Hodge Mitchell
Richmond Riewoldt, Cotchin, Martin, Rance,
Geelong Selwood, Danger, Hawkins
These players cannot be replaced, you can cover one of them moving on, maybe, but history shows that a long stint in mediocrity is inevitable when these players start to decline, or retire .
We have to take our medicine, problem is every one that built the last dynasty, has gone or is leaving
Did Brendon Gale authorise those deals to keep the jaded Dogwick at RFC? Did Peggy off the record and privately Benny to do something bold to rejuvenate RFC? Did Clarke's ratings show Taranto and Hopper certain successes at RFC?
Who cares?
The job of selecting and recruiting experienced players to RFC is Blair's. Now that the wreckage of Dogwick's departure is strewn around us we can see the pressure he was under. But in the end Blair signed them.
I rarely group Taranto and Hopper because they are seperate players and seperate deals (I liked one and disliked the other) but in R0 we saw players who looked disorganised or undercommitted. Yep.
Each tore up everything and moved to RFC to be coached by the greatest coach in all the lands only to have him pull the plug on them seven games in. And let us ask here the bigger question - is there any chance the GWS duo rates Yze behind... Cameron?
It doesn't stand to reason that this pair has bought in immediately to the coaching change. Not to say they won't. It stands to reason that the pair is spewing about the situation each now finds himself in.
Even the bleakest Yze sceptics are openminded about his getting the players to actually turn up to play football this week. Yze saw that opening and if he breathes he is devastated. It's up to him to turn all the players around, even those most challenged by the departure of Dogwick. After he does that we'll be in a better position to judge the value of the GWS duo.
Who cares?
The job of selecting and recruiting experienced players to RFC is Blair's. Now that the wreckage of Dogwick's departure is strewn around us we can see the pressure he was under. But in the end Blair signed them.
I rarely group Taranto and Hopper because they are seperate players and seperate deals (I liked one and disliked the other) but in R0 we saw players who looked disorganised or undercommitted. Yep.
Each tore up everything and moved to RFC to be coached by the greatest coach in all the lands only to have him pull the plug on them seven games in. And let us ask here the bigger question - is there any chance the GWS duo rates Yze behind... Cameron?
It doesn't stand to reason that this pair has bought in immediately to the coaching change. Not to say they won't. It stands to reason that the pair is spewing about the situation each now finds himself in.
Even the bleakest Yze sceptics are openminded about his getting the players to actually turn up to play football this week. Yze saw that opening and if he breathes he is devastated. It's up to him to turn all the players around, even those most challenged by the departure of Dogwick. After he does that we'll be in a better position to judge the value of the GWS duo.
You are correct. Blaire make the deals and does the contracts etc.
But successful coaches are not easy to tame. They are all egotistical. In our game we have seen it with Clarkson, Lyon and now Hardwick.
It would be no different with Bellamy at the Storm or Klopp at Liverpool.
Once they have tasted the success its bloody hard for them to go back the other way. They demand continued success and the club ultimately falls in line.
So yes in theory those controlling list management should put their foot down but in reality it rarely happens.
This is his biggest mistake. We haven’t made one brave call since 2017.
Resigning MacIntosh and Broad, prime examples. We let Grimes go on one year too long. I got slammed on here for suggesting Vlastuin could be moved on for a pick inside 30 last year.
And I reckon Baker is one you could get something for this year, do you want to resign him for $700k a year? Is $600k too much for a man without a true role? The time for braveness and extra draft picks is now.
Taranto definitely on the sidelines in Round zero. maybe the focus has been Carlton all along? we will soon find out.
I love Baker. Love him.
But unless this ship turns around with some optimism, I'd look to get something for him.
P.S I think 600-700k is going to be the new Average AFL wage soon aka what 300-400 was 3 yes ago
**corrected a bloody autocorrect***
Last edited:
I love him as well. Everything you love as a footballer and four successive top-six best and fairest results over our era of dominance shows his value.
But we have to ask, is his best footy going to help us get back to regular finals or do we try and use Bakes and some of our draft capital to get a top 20 pick from WCE or FREO. And your right 600k will become a semi normal wage. If I'm West Coast, I want a player like this to help rebuild the culture, he walks into the leadership group. It's an advanced version of us getting Houli and Grigg. We could get good value.
Tough calls have to be made.
Its a fair call and as much as I love Bakes energy and endeavour, from a positional position he isn't indispensable to the club. He's not a forward, probably not a mid, he's a half back flanker, and clearly we have Short and Rioli in front of him, even if 1 of those move into the midfield, we have Banks, Brown and Smith that we need to get more games into so if a good offer came in we should be looking at it. I'm sure Bakes would choose Freo over West Coast if they both came knocking. Ports of Collingwoods 1st round picks would probably be around the mark (and Freo have both of them) so they have the currency.
If I'm Matt Clarke and West Coast, a cheap option that I'd be considering for standard setting / experience for a young group is Kmac. Again great servant of our club, but with the younger players on our list being in that role player / outside types rather than your superstar players, these are the roles we need to replace first. I assume he would only be given a 1 or 2 year deal with us, a 3 year deal (for someone as fit as Kmac) wouldn't seem ridiculous to me. Might even net us a 3rd round compo pick.
If we were to do the above trades (let Kmac leave as a FA) we would have an outstanding hand to really get a few picks at the top end of the draft.
1st round - Ours - seems like to be at least top 10 at this point
1st round - Ports or Collingwoods - probably somewhere close to 15-20
2nd round - Ours - somewhere around 25-30
2nd round - Freos - somewhere around 25-30
3rd round - Ours - somewhere around 40-45
3rd round - Compo for Kmac - somewhere around 40-45
3rd round - West Coasts - somewhere around 40
3rd round - Freos - somewhere around 40-45
We might get some value out of our 4ths, 3 of them, 1 is ours so around 60 odd, the other 2 probably aren't worth much (Ports and Collingwoods both somewhere around 70).
Lets assume our pick is top 10, could be top 5 who knows, if we can convert the 2nds and 3rds into another top 10 and maybe a later 2nd, we could be going in with 2 top 10's another 1st and a decent 2nd round pick. Its enough to seriously impact our ability to draft at the top end.
Regardless where we finished..I would want the club to clear the decks.
I want us to use later picks 3rd or 4th round picks on kids like Lamberts, Acres, Griggs, Houlis not stars but good trainers and very good runners.
Then I would unleash on the draft
I want us to use later picks 3rd or 4th round picks on kids like Lamberts, Acres, Griggs, Houlis not stars but good trainers and very good runners.
Then I would unleash on the draft
You don’t do it all in one draft. You spread the risk across multiple years.
A lot of this criticism is valid, but most of it is with the benefit of hindsight.
We planned and executed a 3 flag dynasty, incredible. We can draw a line under it and move on.
We've made 2 major strategic moves to transition to the prolong the dynasty, annex one more flag out of the dynasty (which still could happen, ah la 1980), or cheat the grim reaper. Lets not mince words, dynasties ended back in the olden days, but these modern AFL equalisation policies pretty much guarantees it, barring the footy equivalent of a powerball win, a draft and/or FS bonanza..
These 2 moves have been 1. Hitting the 2021 draft hard. It was great planning and great work by Blair. It hasn't worked out as well as we'd hoped, thats footy, but I'd say if you sat down and crunched the numbers, it would be under par, but not by much. I'd say the numbers would say you'd expect 2 good players from that haul, I'd say we've got 1 and a couple of maybes. Obviously we were hoping for 4 or 5. I buy powerball tickets.
So to assess: Idea/ plan 10/10, execution 7/10 (thats based on thinking at the time, NOT hindsight), how its worked out 5/10
2, Tarranto/ Hopper; In hindsight, probably the wrong move, we overpaid (contract-wise, not trade-wise). But at the time, me, and a lot of us if not most, were popping the champagne.
So to assess: Idea/ plan 7/10, Execution 8/10 (convincing them to come to us, getting the deals done), how its worked out* 4/10 (TTs B&F saves it somewhat)
I think Blair is not the problem at all. I think he has done and continues to be the best in the business. We, and he, will now know where we're at and adapt accordingly.
As for trading a K-mac, broad or whatever, fiddling around the edges, no great structural benefits. You can make arguments either way. Premiership champs playing to long? This is quite ridiculous IMO. Our easing out of old starts has been exemplary, DTLD, Bachar, Shed, Cotch, Jack, all bang-on the money. You can argue Grimes has played a year too long, but its one game in, and even if he spends half a season in the seconds, is it really that big a deal in the wider scheme of things? One player out of half a dozen flag heroes plays a year too long? Personally I think he'll be valuable experience even if he is over the hump, but we'll see. (edit, Dion will just do what Dion does, play 10 or 12 games, 8 of them great).
I place a lot of cred on the PRE consensus. Over the years I reckon its been correct or valid a lot. There was strong support at the time for both of these moves. I'd say unanimous for the 21 draft, and 70% (just a guess) for the TT JH deal.
Re the 21 draft, thats just how it goes. Re TT and JH, the wrong move in hindsight, but won't be a disaster IMO. They are professionals who will help a developing side, OR we can trade them. You play the cards you have.
We planned and executed a 3 flag dynasty, incredible. We can draw a line under it and move on.
We've made 2 major strategic moves to transition to the prolong the dynasty, annex one more flag out of the dynasty (which still could happen, ah la 1980), or cheat the grim reaper. Lets not mince words, dynasties ended back in the olden days, but these modern AFL equalisation policies pretty much guarantees it, barring the footy equivalent of a powerball win, a draft and/or FS bonanza..
These 2 moves have been 1. Hitting the 2021 draft hard. It was great planning and great work by Blair. It hasn't worked out as well as we'd hoped, thats footy, but I'd say if you sat down and crunched the numbers, it would be under par, but not by much. I'd say the numbers would say you'd expect 2 good players from that haul, I'd say we've got 1 and a couple of maybes. Obviously we were hoping for 4 or 5. I buy powerball tickets.
So to assess: Idea/ plan 10/10, execution 7/10 (thats based on thinking at the time, NOT hindsight), how its worked out 5/10
2, Tarranto/ Hopper; In hindsight, probably the wrong move, we overpaid (contract-wise, not trade-wise). But at the time, me, and a lot of us if not most, were popping the champagne.
So to assess: Idea/ plan 7/10, Execution 8/10 (convincing them to come to us, getting the deals done), how its worked out* 4/10 (TTs B&F saves it somewhat)
I think Blair is not the problem at all. I think he has done and continues to be the best in the business. We, and he, will now know where we're at and adapt accordingly.
As for trading a K-mac, broad or whatever, fiddling around the edges, no great structural benefits. You can make arguments either way. Premiership champs playing to long? This is quite ridiculous IMO. Our easing out of old starts has been exemplary, DTLD, Bachar, Shed, Cotch, Jack, all bang-on the money. You can argue Grimes has played a year too long, but its one game in, and even if he spends half a season in the seconds, is it really that big a deal in the wider scheme of things? One player out of half a dozen flag heroes plays a year too long? Personally I think he'll be valuable experience even if he is over the hump, but we'll see. (edit, Dion will just do what Dion does, play 10 or 12 games, 8 of them great).
I place a lot of cred on the PRE consensus. Over the years I reckon its been correct or valid a lot. There was strong support at the time for both of these moves. I'd say unanimous for the 21 draft, and 70% (just a guess) for the TT JH deal.
Re the 21 draft, thats just how it goes. Re TT and JH, the wrong move in hindsight, but won't be a disaster IMO. They are professionals who will help a developing side, OR we can trade them. You play the cards you have.
Last edited:
