Eade's trading record with us

[Raw Toast]

So after four trade periods under Eade what have learnt about what he's likely to do?

We didn't learn much in the 2004 trading week except that he was willing to give everyone a year to perform (or not).

In 2005 we learnt that he was willing to get rid of under-performing players even if it seemed we lost in the deal (like the Rawlings trade). Looks like we were correct to get rid of both Rawlings and Bowden though their drafted replacements (Baird and Montgomery) didn't give us a great win here.

In 2006 we learnt that Eade's prepared to chase a big name if they become available and can persuade them to demand a trade to us. That he's also keen to think laterally to see if the picks we trade can be put to more than one purpose (getting McDougall and Ackermanis effectively for the same pick). Though we held the upper hand he also seemed to work hard to not damage our relationship with Brisbane (as opposed to Essendon with Mal Micheal and this year with Brennan). And that he's willing to help a player who wants to leave go to the club of their choice (Birss).

This year we learnt that he won't pay over the odds and do a desperate short-term deal to solve a structural weakness (a nice counter-point to Rhode and I reckon Wallace a bit as well). Also that he'll focus on what he identifies as our biggest weakness and try and remedy that first. In this case rucks.

The rest of this trade week followed the patterns of last year. Though McMahon and Power both seem to have been offered contracts by us, there were no public histronics directed at either. We just worked to try and get the best deal.

And again Eade showed the ability to really work to get the most out of the picks that were traded. He was the only one to make use of the new rule that picks could be swapped with picks, and the deal with the Weagles was very impressive imo. Look for other clubs to try and do similar things in coming years.

There's been a bit of confusion about all the picks flying around and the end result of our wheeling and dealing of draft picks. I reckon it makes sense to compare the draft picks we had before with what we have now.

Before the trade period we had seven picks we could use in the national draft (in the unlikely even that we delist another player or so then obviously we'll have more picks):

#5, #22, #38, #54, #70, #86, #102

now as well as basically swapping two players we have:

#5, #19, #35, #43, #48, #66, #70.

It's clearly a marked improvement and I get the sense that Eade's someone who really enjoys trying to nut out this kind of 'value adding'.

Lots of people got freaked with all the rumours flying around, and after the Rhode years who can blame them (with me it was the never-ending stream of Higgins threads late yesterday that scared me). However, though we didn't get all we wanted, at least we can enter future trade week's under Eade with some confidence that he'll have done his homework, won't get stupidly desperate, and will work hard to winkle added advantages out of the trades.

[LostDoggy]

Don't even try to explain to some on BF.

[LostDoggy]

That was an excellent post, and it's helped clear my mind a little.

and whats the go with these Higgins threads or something?

[Go_Dogs]

Good summary. I think Eade and Clayton have shown good nous over the past 2 trade periods, really working hard to maximise deals to our benefit, and think outside the box a bit. The trade of picks with the Eagles clearly shows this, and it enabled us to satisfy the Crows without crucifying ourselves in the process.

[LostDoggy]

Great summary, Eade's been fantastic during trade week as far as keeping in good terms with clubs, and also in moving on players that want to. This year every time I read something on Bigfooty, my mum would end up telling me the same thing the next day after she read the paper, which ended in me saying 'rumour, next' because I'd know who started it, or continued to spread it. Hopefully things work out with those picks, I think giving up McMahon and Power, especially seeing as they wanted to go, for a good ruckman and Callan is a good deal for us, with the improved draft picks another bonus.

[Raw Toast]

That was an excellent post, and it's helped clear my mind a little.

and whats the go with these Higgins threads or something?

Thanks.

Seems like the Higgins drama was a combination of a few things. The Hawks were apparently super-keen on Higgins in 2005 but went for Ellis and a kp (Dowler). They apparently asked if Higgins was available and we (reportedly) said yes but only for Roughead.

This meant his name presumably cropped up in a few rumours, and in addition a lot of Hawks fans believe they need a crumber to complement their foward line structure, and many rate Higgins v highly (despite the crap posted by some Hawks supporters on the main board). Also seemed like a few trolls then decided to have a lot of fun (I certainly didn't enjoy it though).



I think Eade and Clayton have shown good nous over the past 2 trade periods, really working hard to maximise deals to our benefit, and think outside the box a bit. The trade of picks with the Eagles clearly shows this, and it enabled us to satisfy the Crows without crucifying ourselves in the process.

Yep. And clearly Clayton is a pretty important person in all this. Must be glad like the rest of us to be working with Eade rather than with Rhode.

[Dry Rot]

This year we learnt that he won't pay over the odds and do a desperate short-term deal to solve a structural weakness (a nice counter-point to Rhode and I reckon Wallace a bit as well). Also that he'll focus on what he identifies as our biggest weakness and try and remedy that first. In this case rucks.



Great summary but a query about the above.

Sure we had a need but really Hudson was handed to us on a plate - he wanted to come here.

A big what if - if he wasn't available, then we would have been pitched into getting Wood or King I presume.

I suppose there's also an argument that our need for a tall forward is as great as a ruckman?

Our poor clearances always made me wonder if it was the ruckman's or midfield's fault - suppose we'll find out now....

[dog town]

Eade always comes across very organised and methodical during trade week. They go in with a plan and stick to it.

[Raw Toast]

Great summary, Eade's been fantastic during trade week as far as keeping in good terms with clubs, and also in moving on players that want to. This year every time I read something on Bigfooty, my mum would end up telling me the same thing the next day after she read the paper, which ended in me saying 'rumour, next' because I'd know who started it, or continued to spread it. Hopefully things work out with those picks, I think giving up McMahon and Power, especially seeing as they wanted to go, for a good ruckman and Callan is a good deal for us, with the improved draft picks another bonus.

The internet is a mixed blessing isn't it. I was enjoying the profusion of rumours until the Higgins ones.



Sure we had a need but really Hudson was handed to us on a plate - he wanted to come here.

A big what if - if he wasn't available, then we would have been pitched into getting Wood or King I presume.

I suppose there's also an argument that our need for a tall forward is as great as a ruckman?

My reading of it was that we'd been in Hudson's ear for at least awhile, possible quite a long while. We sounded out some other likely types mid-year, so we may have approached Hudson then, if not before. He was certainly rumoured to be coming to us before the season ended IIRC

Eade said a ruckman was our priority pretty much as soon as our season ended, and I reckon he would've said as much even if we didn't have Hudson in the bag, though he is an astute communicator. Most dogs supporters who thought about it agreed that any kp forward we got was going to get starved of the ball unless the midfield stopped being smashed around the stoppages. (Though as DT noted, our game-plan had come unstuck as well.)

I reckon we would've gone v hard for Wood and/or Meesen if Hudson was unavailable. Doubt we would've gone for King as I think his body's just too big a risk. We did, it seems go in pretty hard after some forwards' (though interestingly Eade seemed to think Robertson would be the answer, so he wasn't necessarily after a tall forward), but this year it was rucks on the move, the kps weren't budging (Charlie Gardner's not a kp in my book, while Playfair if he makes it, it will be as a defender I reckon).


Our poor clearances always made me wonder if it was the ruckman's or midfield's fault - suppose we'll find out now....

The beauty of Hudson is that he should be able to help both with directing the ball to the midfield, and with winning a fair few clearences himself as well.

[Mofra]

The beauty of Hudson is that he should be able to help both with directing the ball to the midfield, and with winning a fair few clearences himself as well.
Bingo, two birds, one stone.

We will make our own KPP rather than trading for one.

[bornadog]

Raw Toast, your right about Gardiner, I also heard Eade say the same thing about him.

[Max469]

I think Eade and co do okay with the trading. It would be a hard job to do - we need this type of player - is this person available, what can we offer, what else can we get? All this decisions have to be made.

At times, I am sure we all think we can do better - I know I did over the years.

We have done some stupid things in my opinion over the years, but that is the nature of trading.

Trading period is when no name is safe from speculation - this year Higgins name who popped up. I for one would have been very disappointed if he had gone to another club. An exciting player to watch - would he have gone on like so many before him and became a brownlow medalist at another club? Thank God at this point of time we wont know.

I didn't like it when I heard Rob Murphy being mentioned to join Wallace and Brown - now that is when I would have had plenty to say.

This year we are saying good bye to Jordy and Power. I liked Jordy, but if they want to go - whether it is for money or to play with someone they think is better or better opportunities, let them go. I don't want anyone to play for the team that I love, if they don't want to be there and aren't going to give 110%. I have knocked Brown for being a Judas many a time - but now I think Karma has played his part and I am over it. So if a player wants to go and thinks he can do better elsewhere - see ya.

All we can do is wish our out going players well and open our arms and hearts to the new ones and hope to God they will be the ones, who will help to realise our dream.

So welcome to the club - Hudson and Callan.

[G-Mo77]

#5, #22, #38, #54, #70, #86, #102

now as well as basically swapping two players we have:

#5, #19, #35, #43, #48, #66, #70.

Excellent, so in the end it was McMahon and Power for Hudson and Callan as well as upgrade in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round. What a fantastic result.

After the Hudson deal went through I really couldn't get my head around it but when you see a before and after result we really did win in all deals IMO.

[westdog54]

Excellent, so in the end it was McMahon and Power for Hudson and Callan as well as upgrade in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round. What a fantastic result.

After the Hudson deal went through I really couldn't get my head around it but when you see a before and after result we really did win in all deals IMO.

I think that's the thing most people forget. People whinge that we lost pick 22 for Hudson, but have a look at the final picture. We picked up 2 players that fill a need, lost two that people have been calling on to be traded anyway, and upgraded all of our picks bar pick 5.

Quite frankly, given the quality of tall forwards available for trade, I dont see how anyone can be all that unhappy with the overall result.

Some very good work done by Eade and Clayton this week. I'd be curious to find out how they pulled off that deal with West Coast to snare Hudson.

[Topdog]

I'd be curious to find out how they pulled off that deal with West Coast to snare Hudson.

It was actually a fairly simple trade from both points of view.

Once WC got pick 35 that gave them 30 and 35. They saw an opportunity to go up 8 spots in the draft and we saw an opportunity to get an extra pick in the 3rd round. We sweetened the deal by letting them go up 8 spots again in the 4th round.

It's very smart trading by both camps and very similar to what we did with them last year.

[Twodogs]

He certainly works pretty hard at it. As a club we arent going to die wondering.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Very good post RT and co

Whilst we love Higgins and would not have wanted to trade him the reality is Higgins for Roughead is one of the few deals that would have made sense.

We would love to have Roughead on our list

[LostDoggy]

Before the trade period we had seven picks we could use in the national draft (in the unlikely even that we delist another player or so then obviously we'll have more picks):

#5, #22, #38, #54, #70, #86, #102

now as well as basically swapping two players we have:

#5, #19, #35, #43, #48, #66, #70.

It's clearly a marked improvement and I get the sense that Eade's someone who really enjoys trying to nut out this kind of 'value adding'.

Lots of people got freaked with all the rumours flying around, and after the Rhode years who can blame them (with me it was the never-ending stream of Higgins threads late yesterday that scared me). However, though we didn't get all we wanted, at least we can enter future trade week's under Eade with some confidence that he'll have done his homework, won't get stupidly desperate, and will work hard to winkle added advantages out of the trades.

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

[Go_Dogs]

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

Interesting post Billy, you raise some good arguments.

From what I can gather, the depth of the draft isn't quite as bad as some people are making out (I'm sure mjp or someone more in the know can correct me if I'm wrong). Someone like Wonaeamirri, who imo would be a reasonable recruit, has barely had his name thrown around in many predictions or top 50's. I think there are certainly going to be good players available, whether we snare the right ones, who knows.

As far as the trades we participated in, I think we would be reasonably happy with the outcomes. Getting Hudson is a big win, he's a quality player and will enjoy Eade's coaching a lot more than I think he was Craig's. Callan is a bit more of a mystery, but he was basically free. Given the amount of depth we lost, we needed someone like that. He was a standout VFL player, training with the league's most successful outfit this past season.

I think Eade realised early on that if we were to chase a KP forward of any note, we would have to give up pick 5. Given our recent drafting history, I'm happy to keep the pick and pass on the KP forward. But we must begin to develop a few kids, and give them quality game time up forward. That should be Rocket's goal over the summer.

[LostDoggy]

From what I can gather, the depth of the draft isn't quite as bad as some people are making out (I'm sure mjp or someone more in the know can correct me if I'm wrong). Someone like Wonaeamirri, who imo would be a reasonable recruit, has barely had his name thrown around in many predictions or top 50's. I think there are certainly going to be good players available, whether we snare the right ones, who knows.


Like a lot of drafts some long term value can be found with late selections but this isn't a deep draft at all.


be good players available, whether we snare the right ones, who knows.

As far as the trades we participated in, I think we would be reasonably happy with the outcomes. Getting Hudson is a big win, he's a quality player and will enjoy Eade's coaching a lot more than I think he was Craig's. Callan is a bit more of a mystery, but he was basically free. Given the amount of depth we lost, we needed someone like that. He was a standout VFL player, training with the league's most successful outfit this past season.

Hudson was a good get but not a great one. Callan sounds good but the proof will be in his ability to get a spot, hold it and then become a solid player for us. Honestly it's going to be a big ask for him to achieve all that but he won't be a McMahon.

I think we could have got involved in a trade for Bradley and while he has had a few problems and has a long way to go he does have talent that could be extracted from him.


I think Eade realised early on that if we were to chase a KP forward of any note, we would have to give up pick 5. Given our recent drafting history, I'm happy to keep the pick and pass on the KP forward. But we must begin to develop a few kids, and give them quality game time up forward. That should be Rocket's goal over the summer.

We shouldn't judge Eade on maintaining an early pick because that is just to easy. We should judge Eade on his ability to deliver during the trade week and I don't think he did.

I don't know how it all pans out during the week but did we try to talk the Lions into giving us Wood and Brennan for pick 5? Would our team have been better? I don't know really but I just don't see how Eade can get us back on track let alone challenging as a top team with conservative trading.

[Topdog]

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.


There were no quality keys available though.

It makes me laugh when people refer to Boyle as quality.

[Bulldog Revolution]

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

IMO One of the posts of the year BillyB- and one that I really had to think about - I am normally an optimist but this post made me question that and say - "well, maybe we dont know what we are doing".

Hudson could be an upgrade but we sacrificed McMahon. Whichever way I look at trading McMahon I think it is a major failure for our club - now allocating blame is always difficult when a player does not fully realise their talents with a club but having a player of his enormous potential never reach the heights we suspect he could have is never a good thing - never.

Callan is just a different version of Power - and one with 60 games less experience. He could be a find, but Callan is not going to propel us up the ladder single handedly.

The only way the improving of the draft picks looks any good, is if Clayton does indeed find gems with a good portion of those picks - I mean if we upgrade picks and then select Wells, Baird, McCormack etc well it was a complete waste of time. If however he selects Everitt, Harbrow, Williams etc then clearly we are ecstatic.

When you look at this years trading and last years crop of draftees who need an enormous amount of development before they will be able to have an impact at a senior AFL footy it is really hard to see the direction we are headed in.

The clear outcome of our trading and drafting both this year and last is that we will only go as far as the players who were on the list at the end of 2005 will carry us.

We are almost completely relying on improvement from within - and in my eyes I have major doubts about our abilities to develop players.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I get the impression that Clayton thinks the upgrading of pick 22 to pick 19 is significant. He was very confident on radio over the weekend that we would get the player we had in mind. Perhaps the player involved told us Carlton or Melbourne were interested?

[Topdog]

Regarding player development. There haven't been many players that have developed as I thought they would since 2000 to be honest.

Finding the cause of this is the major thing but I honestly believe 90% of it is up to the player. Scott West emphasised a good point late this year when talking about the preparation of people at our club.

You just have to look at people like Cross and Boyd to realise how much a player can improve once they are in the AFL system.

[mjp]

All interesting stuff.

I went into trade week hoping for three things:

1/.That we got Hudson.
2/.That we kept McMahon.
3/.That we did not pick up any 'mediocre' players.

I am happy.

Hudson has struggled with discipline? I dont really know his history, but am not sure this is true. I also have him in the top tier of ruckman in the league - I am very pleased with this. Very, Very, Very pleased with this....did I mention I was pleased to have Hudson?

My thoughts on McMahon have been written elsewhere. I remain disappointed.

I am so pleased that we did not trade for any number of tall forwards - including Boyle, White, Schultz, Gardiner, Playfair, Whitnall, Watts etc etc etc - that I can barely speak. Perhaps the old adage that you are never truly finished as a footballer until you have been traded to Footscray as a Full Forward no longer applies? If so, praise the lord.

5 picks in the top 50 of the draft? Well, this is two more than we were otherwise entitled, so I think it is pretty good going. If we want talent brought into the club, this will be where it comes from - not from continuing our obsession with second rate talls we have all endured since (seemingly) the beginning of time.

As for a shallow draft? We always hear this sort of thing - look through the lists season by season and decide which years are best for yourself...the number of good players is usually comparable - it is just not always quite so easy to find them.

[Twodogs]

Callan is just a different version of Power - and one with 60 games less experience. He could be a find, but Callan is not going to propel us up the ladder single handedly.





No offence but Callan and Power are nothing like one another. Callan is a little fella with a lot of mongrel and Power is a mid size 'tweener.



They both have relatives who were/are guns though.;)

[Topdog]

Perhaps the old adage that you are never truly finished as a footballer until you have been traded to Footscray as a Full Forward no longer applies? If so, praise the lord.

That would be reason enough to have a celebretory drink!

If we don't trade for another recycled forward next year I will start believing it to be true.

[Bulldog Revolution]

No offence but Callan and Power are nothing like one another. Callan is a little fella with a lot of mongrel and Power is a mid size 'tweener.

They both have relatives who were/are guns though.;)

I just meant a fringe player rather than performing the same actual role in the team.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Regarding player development. There haven't been many players that have developed as I thought they would since 2000 to be honest.

Finding the cause of this is the major thing but I honestly believe 90% of it is up to the player. Scott West emphasised a good point late this year when talking about the preparation of people at our club.

You just have to look at people like Cross and Boyd to realise how much a player can improve once they are in the AFL system.

Part of me agrees with you, however no footy side is ever going to have a list full of Boyds, Cross' and Wests. Nor would you necessarily win a premiership if you did. A team will always have a range of guys who all walk to the beat of different drums (no I'm not going to quote different strokes too much).

For the guys who dont walk to the same beat of the drum as West, Boyd and Cross then we have to create an environment that helps propel them forward. IMO we just haven't done a good enough job of that. We've had too many players who for too long have not been serious enough about being elite AFL footballers. They want to be good players but I think guys from other clubs have done more.

[Raw Toast]

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

Thanks for the detailed reply BB. You made some interesting points but I think I differ on a few of them, so I'll go through them in turn.



From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

Couple of things to say here. First as MJP and others have noted, previous drafts that have been called weak now stack up pretty well against those that were supposed to be strong. Assessing the potential of potential draftees is a science and an art that I don't have much knowledge of, but I do know it's complicated and that there is significant debate as to the depth of the current lot on offer. One assessment I read was that there were fewer 'complete' players on offer, but lots who had many strengths and one or two weaknesses.

Second, Clayton wanted two picks in the top twenty and worked hard to get the two extra picks in the top 50 so I reckon he rates the potential on offer. I guess the question is whether one trusts Clayton, which I generally do.

My main point however, was that under Eade we've worked hard in the last two drafts to squeeze the maximum value out of trading picks for players, and I like this approach. Even if the extra value accrued by Hudson and Ackermanis trades is small, it will hopefully add up over time.


In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

In as much as you can tell before-hand, recruiting Hudson seems like a big win atm. I would argue that our biggest structural weakness in the second-half of the season was our midfield (our game plan was also exposed but that is a different issue). Our rucks had very little if any positive influence on games and we were continaully smashed in clearences.

We needed a ruckman who could step in straight away. Hudon not only had far better 2007 form than anyone else on offer (King, Wood and Meesen in that order), he also led the league in clearences until he got a leg injury late in the year. So he's better at palming the ball to advantage than anyone we've currently got (though Minson has at times been promising in this area), and he should also be able to win the ball at stoppages which we clearly need to do more of.

As far as I know Hudson broke the very strict Adelaide curfew once, so I'm not sure it's fair to question his ability to be disciplined enough to make it as an elite player.

McMahon is a big loss, although there were questions regarding his ability to fulfill his great promise. I certainly don't class losing him as a win, but am glad that we got close to the most we currently could for him.

As I've written before, I would've liked Power to stay but he wanted to go and I think we did ok to get pick 48 for him. We got Callan basically for free and again he matches the profile of what we need - someone with hardness who can play a shut-down role in defence or the midfield. It will be a bonus if he can cement a place in our first 22.


The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

The key part of your post here is that Eade wanted to add a quality forward. Eade was clearly keen to get a forward and was disappointed to fail in this aim. He clearly worked hard to get Robertson and thought he had him, White failed a medical (and the asking price was very high), and Brisbane refused to trade Brennan in the hope that he re-signs with them.

What many of us are delighted with, is that when Eade realised he was not going to be able to get a forward that he rated as quality, he didn't take the desperate option of gambling on a dud or a journeyman like Playfair or Boyle. Our trading history is littered with the speculative recruitment of recycled talls who failed to make the grade. Rhode specialised in this but was not alone.

Instead of trading away picks in a gamble that history has shown is likely to fail, Eade and Clayton not only kept the picks, they managed to create a few more of them that were better (even if only slightly) than the ones we had. Now we have the chance to keep building our list from the ground-up, ala Hawthorn. I'm much happier with this than with paying over the odds for someone like Boyle who has been ok as a third tall, but seems likely to be smashed if asked to be the key target.

[Raw Toast]

I just meant a fringe player rather than performing the same actual role in the team.

If Power and Callan are both the same in terms of being fringe players (and I rated Power more highly than most), then getting pick 48 for Power, and only downgrading pick 62 to 66 to get Callan seems a decent win.

I'm not sure it is as simple as this but Callan's purported attributes (defensive, hard-at-it) are something we need. I however, still thought Power had a chance of becoming a damaging player for us and would've liked to have them both.

[Bulldog Revolution]

As for a shallow draft? We always hear this sort of thing - look through the lists season by season and decide which years are best for yourself...the number of good players is usually comparable - it is just not always quite so easy to find them.

This is always an interesting one isn't it. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and Clayton must believe there is talent there to want 5 of the first 50 picks.

[Mantis]

I however, still thought Power had a chance of becoming a damaging player for us and would've liked to have them both.

I can't see how.

He had no real position and at his height he had to use his marking to an advanatge. His kicking also has no real depth. I think we made the right call to cut our loses.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Regarding player development. There haven't been many players that have developed as I thought they would since 2000 to be honest.

Finding the cause of this is the major thing but I honestly believe 90% of it is up to the player. Scott West emphasised a good point late this year when talking about the preparation of people at our club.

You just have to look at people like Cross and Boyd to realise how much a player can improve once they are in the AFL system.

Perhaps you've been caught up in the "every draftee is going to be a gun" mentality? Have our draftees come on any more slowly than any others?

I hear Hudson got some pretty ordinary text messages from some teammates. If someone is a bit of a pratt and then leaves, the others tend to think 'thank Christ he's gone' and he is soon forgotten. If the pratt(s) are staying and someone leaves because of them, he would often get one last spray.

I think Adelaide have major problems within their club and Hudson has simply had enough of them.

[Go_Dogs]

I think Adelaide have major problems within their club and Hudson has simply had enough of them.

I think your on the money.

[Twodogs]

Perhaps you've been caught up in the "every draftee is going to be a gun" mentality? Have our draftees come on any more slowly than any others?




I think for various reasons they have. I've got no empirical evidence to prove it but theres an observable trend that we are fairly average at developing the talent on our list.

[Mofra]

I think Adelaide have major problems within their club and Hudson has simply had enough of them.
Given they had fights at training last year, the wives saga, a number of players who left or wanted to leave (Ken McGregor would have left if a club was interested enough) and an aging list, all is not well at Crowland.
I wouldn't judge a few texts from the Crows as a judge of character - especially if we had been in contact with Hudson from the middle of the year as Eade had indicated.

[Topdog]

I think for various reasons they have. I've got no empirical evidence to prove it but theres an observable trend that we are fairly average at developing the talent on our list.

Gotta agree with that. Brad Murphy was someone who disappointed me greatly but even Ray, Jordan and Faulkner haven't come on as I expected.

I'm actually rather pessimistic anyhow and think most of our draftees won't be good so it certainly isn't an issue of getting caught up in the hype. The only 3 I've been excited about have been Williams, Everitt and West. 2 out of 3 is a good strike rate.

[Go_Dogs]

Gotta agree with that. Brad Murphy was someone who disappointed me greatly but even Ray, Jordan and Faulkner haven't come on as I expected.

I'm actually rather pessimistic anyhow and think most of our draftees won't be good so it certainly isn't an issue of getting caught up in the hype. The only 3 I've been excited about have been Williams, Everitt and West. 2 out of 3 is a good strike rate.

You don't feel that the 'kids' who Rocket has had complete control over have done well? I've been pretty happy with the output of Griff and Williams, Higgins and Addison, Everitt so far. They all have a long way to go as young players who need strength and motors etc, but their development to this point has been pleasing, imo.

[Mantis]

You don't feel that the 'kids' who Rocket has had complete control over have done well? I've been pretty happy with the output of Griff and Williams, Higgins and Addison, Everitt so far. They all have a long way to go as young players who need strength and motors etc, but their development to this point has been pleasing, imo.

Along with the group of kids you mentioned I think you can add Cooney and Ray as young players who improved last year. The 2 you haven't mentioned who I was most impressed with were Harbrow and to a lesser extent Tiller. I thought Harbrow was super in his first year coming off the rookie list, he is a real player for the future. Tiller came from the clouds to be quite effective as a leading forward late in the season, still raw, but I think he can become a pretty good player for us.

[Go_Dogs]

Along with the group of kids you mentioned I think you can add Cooney and Ray as young players who improved last year. The 2 you haven't mentioned who I was most impressed with were Harbrow and to a lesser extent Tiller. I thought Harbrow was super in his first year coming off the rookie list, he is a real player for the future. Tiller came from the clouds to be quite effective as a leading forward late in the season, still raw, but I think he can become a pretty good player for us.

Yep, good call on Harbrow and Tiller. I actually think Eade is a pretty good development coach from what I've seen. Some who have been in the system longer are probably harder to 'work on'.

[Mofra]

Yep, good call on Harbrow and Tiller. I actually think Eade is a pretty good development coach from what I've seen. Some who have been in the system longer are probably harder to 'work on'.

Probably add "fringe" players like Hargrave & Gilbee to the list of those who have benefitted from Eade.

[FrediKanoute]

Yep, good call on Harbrow and Tiller. I actually think Eade is a pretty good development coach from what I've seen. Some who have been in the system longer are probably harder to 'work on'.

I think you're on the money there. McMahon (I rated as a player) from all accounts had a lot of bad habits from the Wallace and Rhode days. Power (who I didn't rate) was allowed to drift into some poor habits. Paddy Bowden, was a frustrating one b/c physically he had all of the ability. Again though, his early development through Wallace and Rhode meant that he only ever produced just enough - Eade worked him out pretty quick, Faulkner, was unlukcy with injury, but then again never developed the side to his game that Eade wanted.

Success stories, Hahn, really met Eade's challenge, Ray - has taken huge steps forward and for me is a guy that will step up in the next couple of years, Skipper - fringe player under Wallace and Rhode, but someone who Eade rates and who seems to listen and want to do the team things, Gilbee - nuff said on him really, Morris - same as gilbee, Boyd - a slow, bit part tagger under Rhode, who has developed into a rugged inside mid under Eade. To say eade doesn't develop players is wrong - what I think eade does do is set a challenging standard for the guys and some just fall by the wayside.