Dogs Make List Changes

[The Doctor]

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2013-09-03/dogs-make-list-changes

[bulldogtragic]

Wow.

Lower shown the door! Why did we bother getting him?

[comrade]

Cross, Vez, Lower and Marko delisted.

[bulldogtragic]

Still 2 or 3 short I think, plus some rookies.

[Sedat]

Lower is the mild surprise out of that list but I suppose his papers were stamped with the rapid improvement of Wallis. I really liked Lower's attitude and willingness to become a part of the club from day 1, but I understand that he's probably surplus to requirements.

Howard remaining (at the moment) is also something of a surprise.

[Bulldog Joe]

I am sure it is a start, but strong indication that they are prepared to make hard decisions.

You would think Lower may get some interest elsewhere as well as Crossy.

Markovic and Vez are likely to play their future footy at lower grades.

[bulldogtragic]

I am sure it is a start, but strong indication that they are prepared to make hard decisions.

You would think Lower may get some interest elsewhere as well as Crossy.

Markovic and Vez are likely to play their future footy at lower grades.
I bet Lower wishes he resigned at Freo about now.

[bornadog]

I bet Lower wishes he resigned at Freo about now.

Yeah we stuffed him around, but not surprised he is out. I queried from day one why we had recruited him.

[LostDoggy]

I bet Lower wishes he resigned at Freo about now.

He wouldn't have got a game (apart from last week). Right in saying that it must have only been a one year contract then?

[bulldogtragic]

He wouldn't have got a game (apart from last week). Right in saying that it must have only been a one year contract then?
I'd rather be at a top 4 team playing finals as a fringe player, than a bottom 4 team fringe player who just got delisted after committing to a new club 10 months ago. I know which scenario in which he'd be more likely to be re-drafted.

Of course there are no promises, but I feel bad for him.

[Bulldog4life]

I'd rather be at a top 4 team playing finals as a fringe player, than a bottom 4 team fringe player who just got delisted after committing to a new club 10 months ago. I know which scenario in which he'd be more likely to be re-drafted.

Of course there are no promises, but I feel bad for him.

So do I. Met him at the Dromana Club this year and he is a great guy to talk to. Must have been on a one year contract.

[Cyberdoggie]

Disapointing for Lower, seemed like a good clubman, wish him and the others all the best.

Surprised Howard hasn't been cut to be honest, perhaps they thought the above players had no trade value and hence were cut now.

Maybe we'll see the rest after the end of the trade period.

[The Doctor]

Disapointing for Lower, seemed like a good clubman, wish him and the others all the best.

Surprised Howard hasn't been cut to be honest, perhaps they thought the above players had no trade value and hence were cut now.

Maybe we'll see the rest after the end of the trade period.

thats a good point.

[KT31]

Disapointing for Lower, seemed like a good clubman, wish him and the others all the best.

Surprised Howard hasn't been cut to be honest, perhaps they thought the above players had no trade value and hence were cut now.

Maybe we'll see the rest after the end of the trade period.

Maybe why DFA is not listed as well.

[LostDoggy]

There's three or four list lodgements. This is just the start.

[MrMahatma]

Moved fast.

Lower is a surprise.

[mighty_west]

I'm a bit 50/50 with Lower, good tagger but doesn't have alot of other tricks, Wallis coming on and playing that role with also Smith and Picken being able to lock down players has really pushed Lower out, plus we need to inject some more class and polish to the squad, I wonder if Stevens could also play a similar role down the track if required.

[GVGjr]

Wow.

Lower shown the door! Why did we bother getting him?

Players developed a lot quicker than every one thought. I think he was well worth the selection

[GVGjr]

Disapointing for Lower, seemed like a good clubman, wish him and the others all the best.

Surprised Howard hasn't been cut to be honest, perhaps they thought the above players had no trade value and hence were cut now.



Howie has youth on his side and maybe is still in contract.

[Remi Moses]

The lower selection was to add grunt and depth to our midfield.

[Pickenitup]

I reckon Marko Will Captain Our VFL Team and work in player welfare

[The Bulldogs Bite]

A little surprising, but understandable.

Howard and Pearce are the two interesting ones for mine. Personally I hope we cut both.

[bulldogtragic]

A little surprising, but understandable.

Howard and Pearce are the two interesting ones for mine. Personally I hope we cut both.
And DFA.

[Bulldog Joe]

A little surprising, but understandable.

Howard and Pearce are the two interesting ones for mine. Personally I hope we cut both.

I see lots of posts calling for Pearce to go and I just don't understand why.

He has been on the list 2 years and I believe had some injury/illness issue early this year.
Whenever I have seem him play he shows dash and I think he deserves at least a little more time before he is cast aside.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I see lots of posts calling for Pearce to go and I just don't understand why.

He has been on the list 2 years and I believe had some injury/illness issue early this year.
Whenever I have seem him play he shows dash and I think he deserves at least a little more time before he is cast aside.

He'd consider himself very unlucky, but I just don't think he has enough to offer at AFL level. Two years in and I am not really sure what his strengths are -- perhaps appetite for the contest. I would consider rookie listing him.

[Greystache]

These are just the gimmes, I'm expecting a number more in the coming months after the trade/free agency period, then again at final list lodgements.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

These are just the gimmes, I'm expecting a number more in the coming months after the trade/free agency period, then again at final list lodgements.

Who do you think will be cut Grey?

Howard, Pearce and Addison?

[boydogs]

If Cross & Lower are gone, but Gia & Boyd are staying on, is Brett Goodes in any danger?

[Greystache]

Who do you think will be cut Grey?

Howard, Pearce and Addison?

Yes, no, possibly.

Addison will stay I unless we can find someone during trade week to replace him. Thinking Crameri or similar and I think we'll manage that. So he would be delisted as part of our final list lodgement

I'd delist Cordy but we won't because he has 2 years left on his contract, so I'd try to see if there's any takers out there for him in trade week to get out of his contract, an exchange of picks would be enough. I'd also delist Williams but this was discussed a month or so ago and it won't happen this year. They're both taking up list spots we could better utilise.

So who I predict will also be delisted;

Howard
Addison
Redpath
Greenwood

And potentially 1 or 2 traded out.

[Remi Moses]

A little surprising, but understandable.

Howard and Pearce are the two interesting ones for mine. Personally I hope we cut both.


I see lots of posts calling for Pearce to go and I just don't understand why.

He has been on the list 2 years and I believe had some injury/illness issue early this year.
Whenever I have seem him play he shows dash and I think he deserves at least a little more time before he is cast aside.

I'm staggered to be honest. He was excellent on Garlett a week ago( he was lucky to be recalled) Should be given time .
Howard's in trouble as with Greenwood, and Redpath

[ratsmac]

Really surprised about Lower, but it makes sense if Daniel Cross isn't offered a contract so why should Lower get one. Cross is a better player than Lower.

[ledge]

Really surprised about Lower, but it makes sense if Daniel Cross isn't offered a contract so why should Lower get one. Cross is a better player than Lower.

Cross is a lot better than a few of our players but it's an age factor with him and also the young players who will play his role and need game time

[bornadog]

If Cross & Lower are gone, but Gia & Boyd are staying on, is Brett Goodes in any danger?

Goodes is playing a role in the back line. I would expect next year will be his last if someone else steps up into his role, but for now we need him.

[Scraggers]

With our VFL side up and running, why aren't we retaining some of these lesser players and offering them VFL contracts?

[LostDoggy]

I like that we took Lower on because of his hardness and ability to fill that tagger role. He was there to cover a deficiency. It's no longer a deficiency, hence this decision. That's only good news for us.

I wish Lower all the best.

[LostDoggy]

With our VFL side up and running, why aren't we retaining some of these lesser players and offering them VFL contracts?

Who says we haven't?

[soupman]

Lower is a victim of our development racing ahead of him this season.

He is now behind Boyd, Smith, Wallis as the inside mid who can tag, behind Macrae, Hrovat, Hunter, Stevens as the other midfield options fighting for a place, and as a defender he doesn't get a game ahead of Goodes, JJ, Picken, Young and Wood.

I would also imagine Prudden will be higher priority than him next year, Pearce also possibly, and it isn't like the midfielders we draft will be pure outside types so he will fall behind them too.

Feel sorry for him as he seems to have done everything right and seems like a good clubman but I am happy that the club is making the hard calls.

[bornadog]

I like that we took Lower on because of his hardness and ability to fill that tagger role. He was there to cover a deficiency. It's no longer a deficiency, hence this decision. That's only good news for us.

I wish Lower all the best.

Lets face it it was a mistake. You really find it hard to criticise the club? I would have preferred to elevate someone like Jong to the main list.

At least the club had the guts to say we made a mistake.

[comrade]

Lets face it it was a mistake. You really find it hard to criticise the club? I would have preferred to elevate someone like Jong to the main list.

At least the club had the guts to say we made a mistake.

Why didn't you tell us back in October last year that Wallis was going to become a gun defensive midfielder in the last 2 months of the season and that a Lower type wouldn't be required.

And while you're at it, what Tattslotto numbers should I pick this weekend?

We copped an injury to Boyd early in the year and Lower stood up to provide cover. He was recruited as depth which was required until Wallis' unforeseen emergence.

It won't go down as the greatest recruiting coup of all time but it's not a major mistake like you're interpreting it.

[Go_Dogs]

Players developed a lot quicker than every one thought. I think he was well worth the selection

Agreed. Was a good pick up and played some good roles early in the season against some high level midfielders. The development of Clay Smith earlier in the year and Wallis in the latter part of the season, as well as Gia going around again probably forced the Clubs hand.

Given Crossy has also been playing a shutdown role whilst Wallis has been in the team, and Lower has the ability to play a similar role to Crossy, I was a bit surprised by this decision.

Hopefully we can see him involved with FFC in the VFL next season as I think he's a great influence to have around the club.

[Happy Days]

Why didn't you tell us back in October last year that Wallis was going to become a gun defensive midfielder in the last 2 months of the season and that a Lower type wouldn't be required.

And while you're at it, what Tattslotto numbers should I pick this weekend?

We copped an injury to Boyd early in the year and Lower stood up to provide cover. He was recruited as depth which was required until Wallis' unforeseen emergence.

It won't go down as the greatest recruiting coup of all time but it's not a major mistake like you're interpreting it.

Yep.

We also got Lower as a free agent; ergo, after every other player that any club wanted had been picked by the club that wanted them. He might have not worked out, but he was literally one of, if not the last AFL player selected last year. It's not like we missed out on anyone better, and now that his spot on the list is gone, it's not like we ever will.

[Greystache]

Lets face it it was a mistake. You really find it hard to criticise the club? I would have preferred to elevate someone like Jong to the main list.

At least the club had the guts to say we made a mistake.

Ling Jong who broke his leg in round 1 and wasn't even close to senior selection this season? How would that have benefited us in any way?

Perhaps we have such clairvoyance that we predicted Jong would break his leg, Boyd would have early season injuries, but Wallis would unexpectedly develop into a gun tagger late in the season, so we recruited Lower for nothing for 1 season to cover the need for a mature run with player early in the year. That McCartney is a genius!

And on the positive side for the first time in years we didn't piss decent draft pick up against the wall recruiting a mature recycled player such as Sherman, McDougal, Djerrkura

[bornadog]

And while you're at it, what Tattslotto numbers should I pick this weekend?
It won't go down as the greatest recruiting coup of all time but it's not a major mistake like you're interpreting it.

What has this got to do with anything. If you look at my comments in the Nick Lower fan club thread I questioned this appointment then. I have not said its a MAJOR mistake.



Ling Jong who broke his leg in round 1 and wasn't even close to senior selection this season? How would that have benefited us in any way?

Perhaps we have such clairvoyance that we predicted Jong would break his leg, Boyd would have early season injuries, but Wallis would unexpectedly develop into a gun tagger late in the season, so we recruited Lower for nothing for 1 season to cover the need for a mature run with player early in the year. That McCartney is a genius!

And on the positive side for the first time in years we didn't piss decent draft pick up against the wall recruiting a mature recycled player such as Sherman, McDougal, Djerrkura

Again my questioning of the recruitment decision is based on my thoughts at the start of the year not clairvoyance. Although we say we got Lower for nothing, he still took up a spot on the list.

I commend the club for admitting they got it wrong and we move on.

[Bulldog4life]

What has this got to do with anything. If you look at my comments in the Nick Lower fan club thread I questioned this appointment then. I have not said its a MAJOR mistake.




Again my questioning of the recruitment decision is based on my thoughts at the start of the year not clairvoyance. Although we say we got Lower for nothing, he still took up a spot on the list.

I commend the club for admitting they got it wrong and we move on.

I don't think they got it wrong BAD. No one knew that the improvement in our youngsters would be so pronounced. Nick Lower was a good selection at the time and was needed but unfortunately now he is not.

[bornadog]

I don't think they got it wrong BAD. No one knew that the improvement in our youngsters would be so pronounced. Nick Lower was a good selection at the time and was needed but unfortunately now he is not.

Sorry don't agree. The guy is 25 years old and was worth recruiting at the start of the year and now he is no good because he is too one dimensional and can't play another role?

[Bulldog4life]

Sorry don't agree. The guy is 25 years old and was worth recruiting at the start of the year and now he is no good because he is too one dimensional and can't play another role?

This No one knew that the improvement in our youngsters would be so pronounced
Unfortunately that is why Crossy too is no longer with us.

[bornadog]

This No one knew that the improvement in our youngsters would be so pronounced
Unfortunately that is why Crossy too is no longer with us.

In a development period we need young players to fill roles.

[1eyedog]

Sorry don't agree. The guy is 25 years old and was worth recruiting at the start of the year and now he is no good because he is too one dimensional and can't play another role?

Agree, should never have drafted him. Why didn't we just rotate our kids - now we look like the pricks who got rid of him after one year, after he moved here from W.A. We had enough kids to rotate through the midfield and we had enough quality to go through there too (Cross, Boyd (when fit), Gia, Dahl, Griffen and Cooney (for stints). We knew Libba would play there most of this year and we seemed to be persisting with Smith and Wally there too. I don't see a reason why we drafted Lower to be honest, especially since we delisted Moles at the end of 2012.

[Mofra]

In a development period we need young players to fill roles.
Disagree - in a development period we need gap players to fill roles until our young players are ready. Lower has done his job and Goodes is doing his.

You could argue that Marko did his too, considering he covered for Lake and managed a top ten B&F finish, although unlike the other two he cost us a main list spot.

Even Austin seems to be a decent rookie pick up given I don't rate Williams' chances of becoming a regular senior player (brittle)

[A Ford]

This No one knew that the improvement in our youngsters would be so pronounced.

Who would have thought young players get better?
And who would have thought a 25yo journey man wouldn't have got better?
Mistake recruitment in anyone's book

[1eyedog]

Disagree - in a development period we need gap players to fill roles until our young players are ready. Lower has done his job and Goodes is doing his.

You could argue that Marko did his too, considering he covered for Lake and managed a top ten B&F finish, although unlike the other two he cost us a main list spot.

Even Austin seems to be a decent rookie pick up given I don't rate Williams' chances of becoming a regular senior player (brittle)

We had enough experienced midfield depth to cover our young brigade.

Lower is a tagger, Picken was being thrown back and forward and all over the place this year and was wasted for large parts of it for mine. He could have played Lower's role just as well if not better IMO.

[Bulldog Joe]

We had enough experienced midfield depth to cover our young brigade.

Lower is a tagger, Picken was being thrown back and forward and all over the place this year and was wasted for large parts of it for mine. He could have played Lower's role just as well if not better IMO.

Lower did allow us to experiment with Picken a little and find out a little more about him.

Nick also provided some cover that allowed us to rest young bodies.

I think he was a good choice that helped our development and just allowed quicker path in that development. He has simply become surplus to requirement a year earlier than expected but, he can pursue opportunites elsewhere.

I am sure the club would be happy to give him a game at VFL level if a better opportunity does not arise.

[G-Mo77]

Disagree - in a development period we need gap players to fill roles until our young players are ready. Lower has done his job and Goodes is doing his.

You could argue that Marko did his too, considering he covered for Lake and managed a top ten B&F finish, although unlike the other two he cost us a main list spot.

Even Austin seems to be a decent rookie pick up given I don't rate Williams' chances of becoming a regular senior player (brittle)

Well said Mofra and completely agree. Lower did his job this year, set the bar early and the kids stepped up to the challenge. Getting games by default or just pumping games into players because their young doesn't always help development. Recruiting players young or experienced isn't just black and white. Surprising to see so many short sited.

[LostDoggy]

Lets face it it was a mistake. You really find it hard to criticise the club? I would have preferred to elevate someone like Jong to the main list.

At least the club had the guts to say we made a mistake.

No, I just don't go second-guessing professionals. They gave us the reason he was drafted and it was a solid one. Just because we don't need him any more does it mean we should never have drafted him? Of course not.

I think sometimes people forget that we're all just keyboard warriors. Sure, there are some here with various levels of expertise and access, but for the most part, without any glaring mistakes we should back the club as much as we can.

[LostDoggy]

I commend the club for admitting they got it wrong and we move on.

Nobody at the club has “admitted” they got it wrong. Get over it.

[A Ford]

If Lower's role/job was to take the place of someone that might have made it then he succeeded.

[mighty_west]

Who seriously gives a toss whether the club got it right ir wrong with Lower? Seriously we are going to continue to make many more mistakes but also succeed with draft picks and trades just like every other club...just like upgrading Mulligan for some strange reason, was baffling at the time and was a mistake, we continue on.

[ledge]

I don't believe it was a mistake as it was pointed out we got him for zip and he played senior football that's a plus in a lot of cases.

[MrMahatma]

Surely the Vez one was a bigger mistake than Lower?

[bornadog]

Surely the Vez one was a bigger mistake than Lower?

The biggest mistake with Vez was keeping him on the list the past few years.

[Ghost Dog]

Nobody at the club has “admitted” they got it wrong. Get over it.

Have to agree with you scragger. I think the club got it right. We needed some brute force. There was a thread on here about a year ago questioning our ticker and it was all up for debate. Lower was a means of giving us options, even if we didn't always use them.

[comrade]

The biggest mistake with Vez was keeping him on the list the past few years.

So picking him up was no problem but keeping him for too long was?

Why do you have a problem with the Lower selection then? And in this instance, we're moving him after the unexpectedly rapid development of some of our kids rather than keep him too long.

[bornadog]

So picking him up was no problem but keeping him for too long was?

Why do you have a problem with the Lower selection then? And in this instance, we're moving him after the unexpectedly rapid development of some of our kids rather than keep him too long.

On Vez - yes he shouldn't have been picked up in the first place and probably stayed two years too long.

On Lower - I said from day one that I didn't understand why we needed another inside mid as well as a tagger. With Boyd, Cross, Libba, Wallis, Smith and one of the best taggers in the AFL in Picken, we ended up wasting a spot on the list when maybe we should have been targeting an outside running type. However, while Lower played his 13 games, he helped the team and played some good games and some ordinary games.

That's all, no big deal.

[A Ford]

So picking him up was no problem but keeping him for too long was?

Why do you have a problem with the Lower selection then? And in this instance, we're moving him after the unexpectedly rapid development of some of our kids rather than keep him too long.
Huge difference.
Lower had already played at been twice delisted. Tagger at best. We already had one.
Vez was a high pick that never fulfilled his talent. Could always use a goal kicking forward.
The kids were always going to develop, it wasn't rapid, it was expected.

[bornadog]

Huge difference.
Lower had already played at been twice delisted. Tagger at best. We already had one.
Vez was a high pick that never fulfilled his talent. Could always use a goal kicking forward.
The kids were always going to develop, it wasn't rapid, it was expected.

You read my mind, I was going to say the same thing.

[G-Mo77]

The kids were always going to develop, it wasn't rapid, it was expected.

No it wasn't. A lot of questions were asked on our recruiting and youth over the past 2 - 3 years. It's a pity so many crystal balls weren't used back then. There is no guarantee a player is going to make it, absolutely none.

I don't think Wallis would have progressed so much in the last half of the year if Lower wasn't there. The policy of youth, youth, youth just doesn't work.

[Mofra]

The kids were always going to develop, it wasn't rapid, it was expected.
12+ months ago we had posters questioning whether Wallis would even make it, and now his rapid rise in the second half of the season was expected?

He was dropped to Willy during the year - was that expected as well?

Lower was brought in to cover for the kids as they developed - if mature players aren't required to help develop players, why do GWS & GCS bother with senior players at all?

We picked up a mature body - for nothing as a DFA pick after Freo let him go - he played more games than many draftees and we still have fans complaining.

[LostDoggy]

But, but, but, but he took up salary cap space !!!!

[jeemak]

12+ months ago we had posters questioning whether Wallis would even make it, and now his rapid rise in the second half of the season was expected?

He was dropped to Willy during the year - was that expected as well?

Lower was brought in to cover for the kids as they developed - if mature players aren't required to help develop players, why do GWS & GCS bother with senior players at all?

We picked up a mature body - for nothing as a DFA pick after Freo let him go - he played more games than many draftees and we still have fans complaining.

If I recall, 18 months ago Wallis was only a 50/50 chance to make it, then 12 months ago he was going to be a gun. 2 months ago he went back to about 65-35 and now he's up to around 90-10.

This is all getting a tad tiresome. In some ways getting Lower was a good decision, in other ways it was a bad decision. The club has moved him on now, and hopefully we will have a better list balance after the draft, rookie draft and preseason draft as a result.

Why things need to be placed in one of two columns, at opposite ends of the spectrum I'll never know............

[Mofra]

Why things need to be placed in one of two columns, at opposite ends of the spectrum I'll never know............
Most of the pro-Lower discussion has been centred around "he's played his role" as opposed to "what a star, great decision".

Role players do tend to get a raw deal in perception terms

[LostDoggy]

Why things need to be placed in one of two columns, at opposite ends of the spectrum I'll never know............

We gots to post about sumfink!

[A Ford]

Maybe Wallis would have starting tagging in round 1 not round 15? That would have been rapid development. Doubts on him were about his disposal and speed and that's still the case. Besides we are talking about the tagger role and not your no1 midfielder.
I don't buy the knowing more about Picken argument either. He had played 90 or so games. We already knew his disposal was poor and may be a liability in the back pocket.

[1eyedog]

No it wasn't. A lot of questions were asked on our recruiting and youth over the past 2 - 3 years. It's a pity so many crystal balls weren't used back then. There is no guarantee a player is going to make it, absolutely none.

I don't think Wallis would have progressed so much in the last half of the year if Lower wasn't there. The policy of youth, youth, youth just doesn't work.

Why? Do you think Lower on the fringes pushed Mitch to greater heights to keep his spot, or gave him an opportunity to rest his young body?


12+ months ago we had posters questioning whether Wallis would even make it, and now his rapid rise in the second half of the season was expected?

He was dropped to Willy during the year - was that expected as well?

Lower was brought in to cover for the kids as they developed - if mature players aren't required to help develop players, why do GWS & GCS bother with senior players at all?

We picked up a mature body - for nothing as a DFA pick after Freo let him go - he played more games than many draftees and we still have fans complaining.

There were many also who knew he was going to be good and expected an increase in output in 2013, which we got - same with Libba and Smith.

We have many many more mature bodies than GWS and GCS who are predominately just kids.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Maybe Wallis would have starting tagging in round 1 not round 15? That would have been rapid development. Doubts on him were about his disposal and speed and that's still the case. Besides we are talking about the tagger role and not your no1 midfielder.
I don't buy the knowing more about Picken argument either. He had played 90 or so games. We already knew his disposal was poor and may be a liability in the back pocket.
Picken has performed well in recent weeks in the back pocket and lends valuable experience to the likes of Murphy and Morris. The difficulty with Wallis I believe from the outset was the comparisons being made between him and Liberatore. It takes time sometimes to establish where players are best suited. Roughead is another example of having been moved to FB he has now grown in confidence, to be a top 10 place getter in our best and fairest.

[G-Mo77]

Why? Do you think Lower on the fringes pushed Mitch to greater heights to keep his spot, or gave him an opportunity to rest his young body?

I believe players like Goodes and Lower were recruited for these reasons. It astounds me that people think taking them on is wasteful.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Was Lower on a 1 year deal or a 2 year deal? If the former then he knew when he came over that his fortunes beyond 2013 were open to a number of variables. Therefore he has not been cheated or deceived into coming over. If that was not appealing to him he could have signed with Freo an stayed put.
If he was on a 2 year deal then his delisting would have seen him receive a payout for his 2nd year, and therefore would offset, to some extent, the disappointment of being cut.
As to whether it was a mistake to sign him in the first place based on him being cut after 1 season, that's really only something the club can answer. If by picking him we missed out on someone else who could have been better then maybe. But who else was in contention?
Personally, I think he filled a perceived list need at the time and at the end of the year the club has calculated that either the role is no longer needed or that he has not met the role requirements as originally envisaged.

[G-Mo77]

1 year only. I always thought 2 years as well.

It was a risk that paid off on Monday when the Dogs signed Lower, 25, for a season as a free agent.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/third-time-lucky-as-nick-lower-is-high-on-future-with-the-western-bulldogs/story-fnelctok-1226530832343

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

1 year only. I always thought 2 years as well.

It was a risk that paid off on Monday when the Dogs signed Lower, 25, for a season as a free agent.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/third-time-lucky-as-nick-lower-is-high-on-future-with-the-western-bulldogs/story-fnelctok-1226530832343

The quotes attributed to Lower in that article make it very clear that he was under no illusions that there were any long term guarantees with him making the move. It is testament to his character and self belief that he took the gamble. No harm no foul on anyone's part.
I hope he gets another chance somewhere else in 2014.

[GVGjr]

On Lower - I said from day one that I didn't understand why we needed another inside mid as well as a tagger. With Boyd, Cross, Libba, Wallis, Smith and one of the best taggers in the AFL in Picken, we ended up wasting a spot on the list when maybe we should have been targeting an outside running type. However, while Lower played his 13 games, he helped the team and played some good games and some ordinary games.



This is not correct though. Lower was selected specifically to play against bigger bodied midfielders like Jobe Watson so that Picken could play more against the likes of Boomer Harvey. They also hoped he could be pitted against the mid sized forwards. This was to give the list the flexibility it lacked from the previous season when we were receiving some bad beatings. Cross and Boyd were not earmarked for tagging roles, Wallis was seen as a creative player and moved into a tagging role because he wasn't playing all that well and Smith went into the midfield and the tagging roles to cover some injuries (Boyd etc)

With Smith and Wallis making such significant impact in their new roles, the club acknowledged that Lower was somewhat surplus to the requirements going forward and through exceptionally good list management were in a position to let him go with no impact.

He cost us nothing to acquire and we haven't had to wait out a long and expensive contract.
In hindsight some might agree with you that he wasn't a great selection but I still maintain he was a solid one with little to no risk. His work with the youngsters and the standards he set at training etc I think are underrated positives about the Lower selection.

[Bulldog Joe]

Brilliant post GVG

[bornadog]

This is not correct though. Lower was selected specifically to play against bigger bodied midfielders like Jobe Watson so that Picken could play more against the likes of Boomer Harvey. They also hoped he could be pitted against the mid sized forwards. This was to give the list the flexibility it lacked from the previous season when we were receiving some bad beatings. Cross and Boyd were not earmarked for tagging roles, Wallis was seen as a creative player and moved into a tagging role because he wasn't playing all that well and Smith went into the midfield and the tagging roles to cover some injuries (Boyd etc)

With Smith and Wallis making such significant impact in their new roles, the club acknowledged that Lower was somewhat surplus to the requirements going forward and through exceptionally good list management were in a position to let him go with no impact.

He cost us nothing to acquire and we haven't had to wait out a long and expensive contract.
In hindsight some might agree with you that he wasn't a great selection but I still maintain he was a solid one with little to no risk. His work with the youngsters and the standards he set at training etc I think are underrated positives about the Lower selection.

Lets agree to diagree, because as far as I am concerned the MC agrees they don't need him.

[1eyedog]

Do they need him now with Wallis playing his role? I felt we shouldn't have got him full stop, but I understand why he has been cut now.

[1eyedog]

This is not correct though. Lower was selected specifically to play against bigger bodied midfielders like Jobe Watson so that Picken could play more against the likes of Boomer Harvey. They also hoped he could be pitted against the mid sized forwards. This was to give the list the flexibility it lacked from the previous season when we were receiving some bad beatings. Cross and Boyd were not earmarked for tagging roles, Wallis was seen as a creative player and moved into a tagging role because he wasn't playing all that well and Smith went into the midfield and the tagging roles to cover some injuries (Boyd etc)

With Smith and Wallis making such significant impact in their new roles, the club acknowledged that Lower was somewhat surplus to the requirements going forward and through exceptionally good list management were in a position to let him go with no impact.

He cost us nothing to acquire and we haven't had to wait out a long and expensive contract.
In hindsight some might agree with you that he wasn't a great selection but I still maintain he was a solid one with little to no risk. His work with the youngsters and the standards he set at training etc I think are underrated positives about the Lower selection.



Yep good post, I never thought of it like that, well put. I guess having depth down back on mid-sized forwards was a prerequisite given the unknowns around Dale's injury and Wood's form.

[GVGjr]

But, but, but, but he took up salary cap space !!!!

As does every player on the list

[GVGjr]

In a development period we need young players to fill roles.

And yet the beatings we endured 12 months earlier when we played an unprecedented level of younger players were seen by many as totally unacceptable, a reflection of the competency of the coach and a potential risk to the clubs viability.

We needed youngish experienced players with mature bodies and targeted four players in Lower, Stevens, Young and Goodes and I'm still very confident that we did the right thing. Who knows if the remaining players might play 100 games for us but given the way we managed the Lower delisting I don't see a lot of risk for us.

For example, if we draft Scharenburg and then Roberts develops into a key defender then I could see us easing Young off the list sooner rather than later. Tom's been great but he is probably already close to his ceiling as a player.
If we drafted Sheed who can play as a forward or in the midfield, Stevens might become more of a role player for us.

From what I can see there will not be guaranteed spots for players.

It's early days but to me there seems to be far more direction around list management with the view of developing players rather than just maintaining them than we have ever had.
Lower came in and did his job and unfortunately due to the development of a couple of younger guys we didn't need him for next season. We made the change and we move on.

I'm sure this will be a list management trait for us over the next few seasons.

[jeemak]

Lets agree to diagree, because as far as I am concerned the MC agrees they don't need him.

I think we can all acknowledge the match committee don't need him, considering he hasn't been offered a contract extension. I think given he was only awarded a one year deal the football department may have viewed him as a player who might only need to be on the list for one year.

[azabob]

From what I can see there will not be guaranteed spots for players.

It's early days but to me there seems to be far more direction around list management with the view of developing players rather than just maintaining them than we have ever had.
Lower came in and did his job and unfortunately due to the development of a couple of younger guys we didn't need him for next season. We made the change and we move on.

I'm sure this will be a list management trait for us over the next few seasons.

Agree totally with your views on this topic.

With our new found direction and ability to make the tough decision where do you think Williams and Higgins futures lie?

[GVGjr]

With our new found direction and ability to make the tough decision where do you think Williams and Higgins futures lie?

Williams is regarded highly and I'm sure Higgins is as well. If clubs come knocking on the door wanting to check the availability of Higgins then we might be interested in having that chat.

I think we would be comfortable to have them in the red, white and blue next season.

[A Ford]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

[chef]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

He was needed 12 months ago and now he's not. Not a mistake just list management.

[azabob]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

Didn't we enter the season one short on the main list anyway?

He didn't cost us a draft pick.

[GVGjr]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?


Probably because it wasn't a mistake. They had a plan on how they wanted to use him but as other younger players came on a lot quicker than expected.
Pro-active list management I would have thought.

[Sedat]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 5 years of Mulligan, or 3 years of Panos, or 4 years of Hooper, or 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

[bornadog]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 5 years of Mulligan, or 3 years of Panos, or 4 years of Hooper, or 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

As I said earlier I commend the club for making the decision to delist. This is the value of a list manager.

[Mofra]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 5 years of Mulligan, or 3 years of Panos, or 4 years of Hooper, or 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.
Bingo - I see it as Lower being picked for what would have been anticipated as a 2 year role, Wallis' rise made him redundant after one - and even then it would have been a relatively close call.

GWS took McDonald, Brogan and Cornes - were they wasted picks too?

[LostDoggy]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

We're going in circles here, but I do want to throw the question back at you: Why does it have to be viewed as a mistake? Why are you so keen to highlight the folly of the decision with the benefit of hindsight, without looking at the decision in the context of the period it was made and the perceived state of the club at that time?

If it was a mistake (and I don't believe it was) it was the right mistake to make.

[Happy Days]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

Moles was worthwhile if for nothing else but introducing the world to his fantastic twitter account.

[Greystache]

Moles was worthwhile if for nothing else but introducing the world to his fantastic twitter account.

He also made everyone's favourite whipping boy in Nathan Eagleton look like a courageous inside ball winner by comparison too. :eek:

[1eyedog]

Bingo - I see it as Lower being picked for what would have been anticipated as a 2 year role, Wallis' rise made him redundant after one - and even then it would have been a relatively close call.

GWS took McDonald, Brogan and Cornes - were they wasted picks too?

With a whole team of kids? Of course not! We were not in the same position as GWS in terms of the number of kids vs the number of experienced personnel we had at the club.

[LostDoggy]

If you see the team as constantly in development / improvement phase, then it stands to reason that you will get players who improve faster than others and who are superseded by others. As players are developed and screened against the best opposition, we see their weaknesses and whether they can learn and overcome them. Video sessions with the coach.......competition with their team mates. It's natural progression. It's hitting the ceiling for some; it's exponential growth for others.

In such a world it is entirely feasible that we trade in players who are excellent choices at the time, but who are replaced by others whose trajectory is much greater. It is not a mistake - but what it shows is that we are improving such that players who used to get a game no longer can.

Take Tory Dickson for example. I am a fan of his because I think he does a lot of unrecognised work. I think he has been great for the team, given the injury he suffered. But if I was honest with myself, I'd have to say that, unless he makes further progress and works on his weaknesses, I would not expect him to be in a grand final team. I would have thought other players - either by being traded in or through natural growth - would have taken his place.

At the start of the journey we therefore need players like Lower who provide that competition. If we weren't improving he would still be getting a game.

It's how I see us getting to be a premiership side. The gradual but continuous lifting of the bar making it harder and harder to get a game.

[LostDoggy]

With a whole team of kids? Of course not! We were not in the same position as GWS in terms of the number of kids vs the number of experienced personnel we had at the club.

You sure about that?

[bornadog]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/Buttons%20icons/1vy5_zps377730dd.jpg (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/mmsalih/media/Buttons%20icons/1vy5_zps377730dd.jpg.html)

[1eyedog]

You sure about that?


GWS;

200+ games - Chad Cornes (Did Chad even play this year?) Include McDonald if you want.
150-200 games - Bret Thornton (only played 1 game), Dean Bogan
100-150 games- Gilham
=4 (2 of which played 1 game or less)

Bulldogs;

200+ games Gia, Boyd, Cross, Murphy
150-200 games- Cooney, Griffen, Minson and Morris
100-150 games - Picken, Higgins.
=10 (8 of which have played over 150 games).

Yeah, pretty sure.

[Mofra]

With a whole team of kids? Of course not! We were not in the same position as GWS in terms of the number of kids vs the number of experienced personnel we had at the club.
We were not too dissimilar, and we got 13 games out of a guy who didn't cost us a draft pick and constantly flew the flag for the younger kids on the paddock.

I'd take 12 months of Lower over the majority of our late round draft picks - heck, I'd take 12 months of Lower over most of Clayton's first rounders!

[A Ford]

Clayton's first rounders were once rated. Lower never was.

[bornadog]

We were not too dissimilar, and we got 13 games out of a guy who didn't cost us a draft pick and constantly flew the flag for the younger kids on the paddock.

I'd take 12 months of Lower over the majority of our late round draft picks - heck, I'd take 12 months of Lower over most of Clayton's first rounders!

The reason I have felt that Lower was not required was because he was never a long term pick. I would have preferred us to pick a kid who will be around longer than 13 games, someone would could develop. I cannot buy into this, he was needed while others developed. The young guys were always going to develop as they gained experienced. In fact we had Cross who could help them develop, but instead we told Cross he is no longer in the best 22 and only came back when Boyd was injured. What better inside player than Cross to help develop young midfielders, someone that sets an example.

You can spin it how you want, but Lower was not required and now gone because he is not up to it.

[Mofra]

The reason I have felt that Lower was not required was because he was never a long term pick. I would have preferred us to pick a kid who will be around longer than 13 games, someone would could develop. I cannot buy into this, he was needed while others developed. The young guys were always going to develop as they gained experienced. In fact we had Cross who could help them develop, but instead we told Cross he is no longer in the best 22 and only came back when Boyd was injured. What better inside player than Cross to help develop young midfielders, someone that sets an example.

You can spin it how you want, but Lower was not required and now gone because he is not up to it.
What was that about going around in circles?

Nice little dig relating to "spin" as well - at least some of are mature enough to accept other people will have opinions that differ to ours.

[Mofra]

Clayton's first rounders were once rated. Lower never was.
Tim Walsh?

If we kept Lower for an extra year would it change opinions? If Wallis had developed less rapidly I would expect Lower to have been kept for an extra year, ditto if Wallis had foudn a different role in the side.

Lower & Cross don't really compare for mine either - Crossy simply doesn't tag because he lacks the footspeed.

To me Lower was brought in for the same reason we took Goodes; the person to fill that spot needs to step up and earn it. Wallis did, nobody has taken Goodes' spot yet. As much as I have a soft spot for Goodes, part of me wants us to take Docherty from Brisbane and his development see Goodes' spot be made redundant.

[A Ford]

Tim Walsh?

If we kept Lower for an extra year would it change opinions? If Wallis had developed less rapidly I would expect Lower to have been kept for an extra year, ditto if Wallis had foudn a different role in the side.

Lower & Cross don't really compare for mine either - Crossy simply doesn't tag because he lacks the footspeed.

To me Lower was brought in for the same reason we took Goodes; the person to fill that spot needs to step up and earn it. Wallis did, nobody has taken Goodes' spot yet. As much as I have a soft spot for Goodes, part of me wants us to take Docherty from Brisbane and his development see Goodes' spot be made redundant.

Tim Walsh yes. He was rated at 17yo, maybe a highly at pick 4 but still a talented junior and a chance of making it. Didn't make it just like Lower.
Maybe if we got Lower at 17. He was 25 and twice delisted already and we knew he was a tagger at best.

To me Goodes was taken 4 years to late and at 29 doesn't make for Howard mistake.

[G-Mo77]

To me Lower was brought in for the same reason we took Goodes; the person to fill that spot needs to step up and earn it. Wallis did, nobody has taken Goodes' spot yet. As much as I have a soft spot for Goodes, part of me wants us to take Docherty from Brisbane and his development see Goodes' spot be made redundant.

Exactly Mofra.

By midway next year I'd like to see someone like Goodes forced out of the side by a hungrier younger player. Weather it's a player we trade for or growth from the inside it's what I'd like to see. These players set a bar and show what's required to make it into the team. I don't like the idea of playing someone by default. See Melbourne for the results of that philosophy.

[Go_Dogs]

Clayton's first rounders were once rated. Lower never was.

Nick was a second round selection when he was drafted by Port.

[Mofra]

By midway next year I'd like to see someone like Goodes forced out of the side by a hungrier younger player. Weather it's a player we trade for or growth from the inside it's what I'd like to see. These players set a bar and show what's required to make it into the team. I don't like the idea of playing someone by default. See Melbourne for the results of that philosophy.
I think that's the rub - nobody, including young players, should just be gifted games. Everyone on the list should be made to earn it and if that means young kids have to wait an extra year until the physically mature, and then push a senior player out of the way, then so be it.

Most Geelong players seem to get a very limited run in the seniors in the first year they are drafted and are made to earn their debuts, I think that's the way to go.

[LostDoggy]

Nick was a second round selection when he was drafted by Port.

Freo also agreed to re-draft him if he wanted. A now top four side wanted to keep him on their list for depth.

[LostDoggy]

What was that about going around in circles?

Nice little dig relating to "spin" as well - at least some of are mature enough to accept other people will have opinions that differ to ours.

I can't accept that.

[OLD SCRAGGer]

Can anyone tell us ANYTHING about Ben Brown from Werribee? Saw him at club yesterday. Big Tall lad with shock of red curly hair.. maybe a possible draft selection????

[azabob]

Can anyone tell us ANYTHING about Ben Brown from Werribee? Saw him at club yesterday. Big Tall lad with shock of red curly hair.. maybe a possible draft selection????

I'm not going to be much help but he has been mentioned on a thread somewhere on WOOF. Perhaps do a search with Key Words Ben Brown.

[w3design]

Have heard a few good things about him, but gee he would want to play a hell of a lot better than he did last weekend. It was a seriously ordinary performance, even in a winning side.

[Bulldog4life]

Have heard a few good things about him, but gee he would want to play a hell of a lot better than he did last weekend. It was a seriously ordinary performance, even in a winning side.

Yes Paul only got 6 possessions.

[ledge]

He is very raw , very skinny. Would take him as a rookie at best.

[Bulldog Revolution]

The Lower delisting for me is interesting for a number of reasons

Firstly, the thing that became apparent to me in the first part of this year was that we could not play Boyd, Wallis, Cross and Lower all in the same team. In modern footy you just cant have too many guys that arent playmakers, and dont hurt the opposition with the ball in hand. Wallis seems to be able to accumulate more of the footy than Lower could in that role and is sharper by hand, and found ways to sneak forward and kick a few goals.

Secondly, I'm delighted we made a swift decision in the clubs best interests - we made superb decisions last year on Skinner and DJ, since the McCartneys have been together we've made excellent decisions about the list.

[LostDoggy]

Didn't Skinner and DJ 'retire'? Not discounting what you're saying though. Nothing was lost with them.

[AndrewP6]

Didn't Skinner and DJ 'retire'? Not discounting what you're saying though. Nothing was lost with them.

Yep, both decided to return to their respective homes.