How far/near?

[LostDoggy]

How far away is flag?

Ok so we've done it before but the wisdom of crowds and all that. Useful for us older fellas nearer the end than the beginning. If its twenty years off I'll start smoking again and remove the asbestos from the bathroom myself (hope that's not offensive to anyone). :)

[Eastdog]

We are a fair fair way from a flag that's for sure. I think we have a good young crop coming through which is a positive. Whether we can hang onto them all well that's another question.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I like the quote that it's never as good or as bad as it seems.

But it does feel like we're a long, long, long way off the pace.

[AndrewP6]

A flag? Can't see that happening for five years.

[bulldogtragic]

I'm thinking longer, than shorter.

Depends on whether we can actually cull the list despite them all being good guys. We should've gone harder, and if we keep elevating players who shouldn't be on AFL lists, then we won't be bouncing anytime soon. All the rookies rookie time is up, tough calls need to be made. We need to look for trades and continue to recruit well. The sooner we do it properly the sooner the turn tides.

[LostDoggy]

Not this decade. 2018 is chinese year of the dog, as was 2006 (brilliant), 1994 (v good), but also 1982 (yuck).

Looking at the list, and the expansion clubs, I'd say 2021/22 would be early.!

[Webby]

Four years before we enter a window. Then we have four years in which to get it done.

This is why I've been a firm believer that we should look at our list and make a call on all players with 3-4 years left in them and seriously look at trading for picks. I was keen on trading Minson at the end of last year, whilst I'm keen to at least open up dialogue on Griffen this year. Our younger inside kids have absolutely developed over the past two years and are ready to take on more responsibility. So, for me, the best for all concerned is to allow Griffen a move that is beneficial to us and to him.

Certain people on this forum might view that as sacrilege, but honestly, as with Lake, if a player is unlikely to play finals or have a crack at a premiership, a club owes it to the player and themselves to get a win/win trade. Griffen or Minson could've been the ticket to Boyd or Patton last year. Or Lynch or Dixon from GCS.... Sure it'd affect us in the short term, but in the longer term, it'd be a big win. Just as I believe Hrovat for Lake will prove to be.

Failing the above, you continue to get time into the young players we've got, finish bottom 2 or 3, draft the best KPP talent available and continue a slow build.... Either way, we shouldn't be panicking because the third favourite for the premiership towelled us up today..

[lemmon]

Four years before we enter a window. Then we have four years in which to get it done.

This is why I've been a firm believer that we should look at our list and make a call on all players with 3-4 years left in them and seriously look at trading for picks. I was keen on trading Minson at the end of last year, whilst I'm keen to at least open up dialogue on Griffen this year. Our younger inside kids have absolutely developed over the past two years and are ready to take on more responsibility. So, for me, the best for all concerned is to allow Griffen a move that is beneficial to us and to him.

Certain people on this forum might view that as sacrilege, but honestly, as with Lake, if a player is unlikely to play finals or have a crack at a premiership, a club owes it to the player and themselves to get a win/win trade. Griffen or Minson could've been the ticket to Boyd or Patton last year. Or Lynch or Dixon from GCS.... Sure it'd affect us in the short term, but in the longer term, it'd be a big win. Just as I believe Hrovat for Lake will prove to be.

Failing the above, you continue to get time into the young players we've got, finish bottom 2 or 3, draft the best KPP talent available and continue a slow build.... Either way, we shouldn't be panicking because the third favourite for the premiership towelled us up today..

Don't give any credence to the requirement for older players to keep you competitive and set a cultural mindset? Look at Roos and the Demons, had to bring in some more older heads after Neeld shipped them all off prematurely

[Webby]

Don't give any credence to the requirement for older players to keep you competitive and set a cultural mindset? Look at Roos and the Demons, had to bring in some more older heads after Neeld shipped them all off prematurely

But did he have to? Or did he simply have a list packed with seven years worth of first round draft picks which simply needed a better defensive structure?...

.... I know we're one-eyed here, but do we really think Crossy is the difference?

[lemmon]

But did he have to? Or did he simply have a list packed with seven years worth of first round draft picks which simply needed a better defensive structure?...

.... I know we're one-eyed here, but do we really think Crossy is the difference?

No but he has been terrific for them and I guarantee he sets an example at training that they hadn't experienced before. Dawes has been terrific, Vince has played a role ditto Cross even Pedersen has had his moments. These guys come in, they help you be competitive which keeps confidence up and they help the kids develop. No way is packing a list with 18 year olds, no matter how talented, the way to develop a club

[bulldogtragic]

Four years before we enter a window. Then we have four years in which to get it done.

This is why I've been a firm believer that we should look at our list and make a call on all players with 3-4 years left in them and seriously look at trading for picks. I was keen on trading Minson at the end of last year, whilst I'm keen to at least open up dialogue on Griffen this year. Our younger inside kids have absolutely developed over the past two years and are ready to take on more responsibility. So, for me, the best for all concerned is to allow Griffen a move that is beneficial to us and to him.

Certain people on this forum might view that as sacrilege, but honestly, as with Lake, if a player is unlikely to play finals or have a crack at a premiership, a club owes it to the player and themselves to get a win/win trade. Griffen or Minson could've been the ticket to Boyd or Patton last year. Or Lynch or Dixon from GCS.... Sure it'd affect us in the short term, but in the longer term, it'd be a big win. Just as I believe Hrovat for Lake will prove to be.

Failing the above, you continue to get time into the young players we've got, finish bottom 2 or 3, draft the best KPP talent available and continue a slow build.... Either way, we shouldn't be panicking because the third favourite for the premiership towelled us up today..

I would have agreed 100% last year, completely... But I think we missed that opportunity. Minson was AA and at top dollar and it didn't happen, but if an offer similar to what his market value should be then I'm ok, but I can't see a great offer coming. As for Griffen, he's a club captain now and we can't sell a club captain, we cornered ourselves.

Our issue as TD and I have often mused is staggering retirements. I think we can do that as Bob and Dale are going nowhere and Boyd is on a close watch.

The issues as I see them are that we over-estimated the list last year, much like Malthouse did when accepting the Scum job. I don't care what ethic or similar the guts have, Jong, Howard, Greenwood, Redpath, Austin, Goodes should all not have been kept. Now we have to do it a year later, compounded by not trading as you rightfully allude to Webby.

No one seems to think Dahl, Libba or Roughie should go. Unless we get overs for JJ no on him too. So all I can see that we have to trade with (of any value) is Cooney. Best case Hawks want him and we go from 23 to 17. Outside that Grant was bait last year and even his 6 weeks of stat competition leading couldn't get value. Beyond that there's Wallis who I can't see being shopped, and then Jones who people would crack it about over developing him for 6 years only to move him on... As I think now, Higgins may hold value if he keeps fit and form.

Essentially, best case:

Pick 5, 17 and 20 - that's Cooney and Higgins gone (GWS second rounder, yep, I'm reaching!)

Or all of the above to GWS for one of their top KPF guns (Patton, Boyd, Cameron) - But then there's no top end youth this year in the first 40 picks, but, then there's a reason to buy memberships and get excited about a target to kick to?


I feared we overestimated the list 9 months ago, to date I'm still fearing it

[AndrewP6]

Four years before we enter a window. Then we have four years in which to get it done.

I'm keen to at least open up dialogue on Griffen this year. Our younger inside kids have absolutely developed over the past two years and are ready to take on more responsibility. So, for me, the best for all concerned is to allow Griffen a move that is beneficial to us and to him.


Trade the captain? No no no no no no no no. And no.

[G-Mo77]

Long way. Looking at our list and the quality of players we have I really think it needs another cycle of players until we are consistently competitive. Life after Murphy, Morris, Boyd, Gia, Minson looks horrible and that's scary. Lets also say we manage to grab the best KPF in the draft at the end of year. It'll take years to develop and build around him.

I really think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Webby]

I'm not saying we should pack our list with 18 year olds. I'm just saying that the Macraes, Stringers, Wallises, Smiths and Libbas are coming into an age group where they should be the leaders. Griffen's only good for another 3-4 years, yet our window will be open 4-8 years from now.

We badly need KPP's and Roughead aside, we're going to be well short unless we get on the front foot. That aside, I feel very uneasy with us comparing ourselves with Melbourne. They were a disinterested rabble who were completely devoid of endeavour for several years. We don't have that cultural issue. What we lack is key position players and the structure they bring.

Thus, with an abundance of midfielders coming into maturity, we should have a sensible longer term look at the shape of our list.

[bulldogtragic]

I really think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

This is what I'm affraid of. I thought that was 2012. Then I thought it was 2013. Now I think it's 2014.

In boxing terms, if we go to our corner and hear and think this round after round, we are going to struggle if we hear that next round (2015) to the point many will just lie back on the canvass rather than take another hit to head.

I remember thinking earlier this year when Peter said "we are the danger" (etc) incremental improvement might be not dreaming enough... I'd like even the tiniest improvement...

[GVGjr]

I was keen on trading Minson at the end of last year, whilst I'm keen to at least open up dialogue on Griffen this year. Our younger inside kids have absolutely developed over the past two years and are ready to take on more responsibility. So, for me, the best for all concerned is to allow Griffen a move that is beneficial to us and to him.



Give me a rough idea of what we would get for him in terms of draft picks?
I'd also like to hear what impact it would have on the supporters and the players to trade a captain and best player?
Does making a move of that magnitude signal to all players that loyalty towards all WB players isn't a strong point of the club?

I don't mind the notion of any or all players being potential trade candidates but there must be some serious downsides to the morale of a club to move a player like Griffen if he has just taken the captaincy and hasn't been cashing the big dollars or opportunities elsewhere.

[Scorlibo]

Give me a rough idea of what we would get for him in terms of draft picks?
I'd also like to hear what impact it would have on the supporters and the players to trade a captain and best player?
Does making a move of that magnitude signal to all players that loyalty towards all WB players isn't a strong point of the club?

I don't mind the notion of any or all players being potential trade candidates but there must be some serious downsides to the morale of a club to move a player like Griffen if he has just taken the captaincy and hasn't been cashing the big dollars or opportunities elsewhere.

I've been strong on this point before, if the Club were to trade senior players like commodities against their will, I would make it my personal agenda to remove the people who made such decisions from the Club. Loyalty must run both ways, I can only assume those who make the suggestions to trade away Bulldog people aren't the same as those who lambast Callan Ward for leaving.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

General consensus is we are at least 4 years off.

Given we are 3 years into a rebuild, that obviously equates to 7 years. Ridiculous.

Current coaching group simply cannot take us any further. That includes Grant, King and Monty.

[chef]

Trading Griffen would be *!*!*!*!ing ridiculous.

[LostDoggy]

Trading Griffen.

Ahhhh, the sweet stench of post-loss desperation.

[Bulldog Joe]

Trading Griffen.

Ahhhh, the sweet stench of post-loss desperation.

We are over-reacting to the loss.

We were really in the game and we are not far away. Yes we need to do better with our forward entries.

I do want us chasing a big target at GWS or Gold Coast. Charlie Dixon would suit me.

[Mantis]

General consensus is we are at least 4 years off.

Given we are 3 years into a rebuild, that obviously equates to 7 years. Ridiculous.

And here I was thinking it was just a refresh. ;)

I think we are even further away... In 2 or 3 years we will be without Murf, Morris, Boyd, Cooney and maybe Minson... They will leave a big hole.

This doesn't take into account the fact that Port, GC & GWS will only improve in the next 3 or 4 years which makes our task even harder.


Current coaching group simply cannot take us any further. That includes Grant, King and Monty.

Are you including B-Mac & Smith too?

[Webby]

All valid points, though I really do think it’s a discussion worth having. To address a few of the points directed my way:


Give me a rough idea of what we would get for him in terms of draft picks?

This is a bit dependent upon who finishes where. However I think that if you gave up Griffen on his own, you’d be a good chance to pick up a decent young(ish) KPP player. If, just for example, Sydney were to offer Sam Reid in a straight swap, I’d seriously look at it. Following that, there are dozens of various examples of potential Griffen plus a pick in exchange for an upgraded pick or a player, or Griffen + our first round pick if there’s a rolled gold prodigy tall forward available, or perhaps Adelaide would be interested - seeing as they’d perceive themselves to be pretty close to contending in the next 2-3 years.


I'd also like to hear what impact it would have on the supporters and the players to trade a captain and best player?

The last time I can remember the club trading its captain and best player was the end of 1982 when we traded Templeton for $150k. We used the money to lure the previously reluctant Brian Royal from Bairnsdale and Andrew Purser from WA. Namely a first ruck and first rover. An area in which we were clearly deficient. On the back of that, we then lured Brad Hardie. Between the three of them, they won the 1983 B&F, the 1984 B&F and the 1985 Brownlow Medal... Meanwhile, young key position forward, Jim Edmond, stepped up to the captaincy and full forward Simon Beasley became the club’s record goal kicker. We went from pathetic wooden spooners with a club legend to whom we held SO MUCH pride and affection, to a bee’s dick from a grand final in 3 years..

Different times, I know, but the principle is the same. If you’ve got a good supply of young key forwards, an undersupply in midfield, and a key forward with huge trade value, a trade should be looked at. The idea certainly shouldn’t be shot down out of hand. At present, we’ve got the exact same scenario – but in reverse. (Admittedly, the Templeton trade wasn’t proactive o our part, but the outcome was clearly beneficial and the lesson should be learned).


Does making a move of that magnitude signal to all players that loyalty towards all WB players isn't a strong point of the club?

I understand the notion, but personally, I find this a bit of a tired excuse to do nothing. Is Hawthorn a disloyal club? They traded like crazy in the early 2000’s and have built a dynastic list on the back of it. Just as Purser and Royal were no names and KT’s loss was mourned in 1982, Luke Hodge was the no name and Trent Croad’s loss was mourned in 2001.


I don't mind the notion of any or all players being potential trade candidates but there must be some serious downsides to the morale of a club to move a player like Griffen if he has just taken the captaincy and hasn't been cashing the big dollars or opportunities elsewhere.

I fully understand and respect your take on this. However I question the thinking whereby the club is assumed to be disloyal for trading players in a mutually beneficial manner. Do you think Brian Lake is resentful towards us? Or was his trade actually the most honourable and beneficial thing for both parties? The flipside is the resentment that the club actually locks players in like the Mafia (ie. you can’t get out – even if the outlook for your remaining 2-3 years is simply trying not to get flogged each week!) That’s an equally serious downside for morale. Think about it, when your work colleagues leave your company to take on other opportunities elsewhere with the blessing and good wishes of management, is it demoralising? Particularly when those moves provide colleagues with progression opportunities? Or is it more demoralising when you’re all stale and feel trapped in a company that’s bereft of ideas and going nowhere?

I just think that we need to be a bit ‘bigger picture’ in our thinking. Everybody over-analyses the Melbourne situation. A bunch of garbage was written about their problems. Point is, Melbourne bottomed out in the worst possible period in which to do so. They were dipping into compromised drafts. Claytons drafts where the cream of the crop was already spoken for. Therefore the rebuilding process takes longer. The 2014 draft will be the first one in years where clubs like us have an opportunity to make some good strides.

As for supporter morale, I was ABSOLUTELY DISTRAUGHT when the club sold Kelvin Templeton. I was a kid and my world came crashing down. I’d never heard of Purser or Royal and I didn’t care for them. Unknown duds! Then, of course, we started winning games on the back of the trade and I learned a valuable lesson. The club is much bigger than the individual. Getting too carried away over individuals can be disastrous. Our friends on the north side of the Maribyrnong would be wise to take that point on board! Don’t get trapped in personality cults! The club is the first, second, third.... hundredth priority.


I've been strong on this point before, if the Club were to trade senior players like commodities against their will, I would make it my personal agenda to remove the people who made such decisions from the Club. Loyalty must run both ways, I can only assume those who make the suggestions to trade away Bulldog people aren't the same as those who lambast Callan Ward for leaving.

This assumption that a 27 year old player with 3-4 good years left in him wouldn’t necessarily want to move is misplaced, IMO. If, for example, Griffen was offered a 4 year contract on good coin to move to Adelaide (a club who are probably within 2 years of a potential window. A club for whom Griffen could perhaps be a catalyst for putting them right amongst the top 3-4 clubs), would he not take the well worn Kim Koster/Tony McGuinness path of ‘reluctance’ home to Adelaide? I think it’s naive to think that everyone is desperate to stay with us. Players with 3-4 good years left in them and no premierships under their belt would surely be keen to contend for them. Players DO NOT think of the club in the same way that supporters do.

This leads me to Callan Ward. I was certainly not one of the people who lambasted him. Quite the opposite. I completely understood and respected his decision. A kid who grew up a Bombers fan and whose grandfather played for the Swans, he was offered HUGE coin to move to another club. Or more accurately, take up a job offer with another company. I saved my disappointment for our administrators – who were asleep at the wheel and failed to tie up a clearly fantastic young player.

I think as a club we need to shake up our thinking a little bit. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.... In fact, I expect quite the opposite!.... However I think it’s important that the consensus thinking is challenged somewhat. It’d do us some good to have the dialogue and be a bit more open minded about the possible options. I assure you, my thoughts are measured and not based on the hysteria of a (completely expected) loss to the third premiership favourite.

I think it’s important that the club don’t get all ‘modern Australian politics’ on us. By that I mean having a fear of being bold, making decisions and leading. Instead, we listen to polling and try to pander to the masses. Therefore (and please don’t take offence!) this comment:


I would make it my personal agenda to remove the people who made such decisions from the Club

Sounds very Alan Jones-ish!

[Sedat]

General consensus is we are at least 4 years off.

Given we are 3 years into a rebuild, that obviously equates to 7 years. Ridiculous.
Technically it would be 8 years, as the final year of Rocket's tenure was clearly the commencement of a (long overdue) rebuild. That really is an awful long time for the faithful to be made to accept unattractive, poor and mediocre performances without complaint. It is actually completely unrealistic to do this and expect there to be no impact on the commercial elements of the club (ie: sponsorships and memberships), remembering that there is no club without these elements running smoothly. A measured, methodical and IMO relatively conservative business plan for our on-field improvement at the start of BMac's tenure would read as follows:

* 2012 was crap but we accepted this as part of the radical overhaul and transformation of the game plan
* 2013 started very alarmingly (with a tough draw mind you) but the rate of improvement in 2nd half of 2013 was very encouraging
* 2014, bearing in mind our easy draw thus far, has been a major step backwards to date - 1-2 game improvement on 2013 not unrealistic
* 2015 minimum goal should be 10-13 wins, pushing the 8/sneaking in
* 2016 minimum should be making finals and winning one
* 2017-2020 should be sustained run at the top 4 with a premiership tilt (would prefer this to commence in 2016)

We look miles behind our goals right at the moment - if our goals are more modest, we should almost pack it in.

[Greystache]

Technically it would be 8 years, as the final year of Rocket's tenure was clearly the commencement of a (long overdue) rebuild. That really is an awful long time for the faithful to be made to accept unattractive, poor and mediocre performances without complaint. It is actually completely unrealistic to do this and expect there to be no impact on the commercial elements of the club (ie: sponsorships and memberships), remembering that there is no club without these elements running smoothly. A measured, methodical and IMO relatively conservative business plan for our on-field improvement at the start of BMac's tenure would read as follows:

We look miles behind our goals right at the moment - if our goals are more modest, we should almost pack it in.

I hear that quite often but it's not true. We still had Hall as our main forward, Grant and Jones were in and out and playing second fiddle. We brought in mature players in Sherman, Djerkurra, and Veszpremi into the club and gave them games. Hudson played as many games as he could manage and Minson played mostly reserves, and Markovic and Morris were our primary defenders. There was no development in any of that.

We had a number of players debut, but very few were given anything more than a token appearance.

Libba played plenty of games, but he was always going to.

Dahlhaus smashed the door down but only debuted in round 12

Wallis only played 6

Skinner played 1 quarter

Cordy and Tutt came in for 2 games each in round 21 after Williams took over

Mulligan played 3 games out of necessity

Schofield only played 7 when his form warranted more.

Even second year players like Roughead only played 9 games, when he played 18 the next year.

We very much played the most mature team we could field every week. Only Libba and Dahlhaus went into their 2nd season with anything like a grounding at AFL level.

[Topdog]

Its so far away I cant see it

[KT31]

So,So, So Far Away.:(


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hVKG9wFelk

[Sedat]

I hear that quite often but it's not true. We still had Hall as our main forward, Grant and Jones were in and out and playing second fiddle. We brought in mature players in Sherman, Djerkurra, and Veszpremi into the club and gave them games. Hudson played as many games as he could manage and Minson played mostly reserves, and Markovic and Morris were our primary defenders. There was no development in any of that.

We had a number of players debut, but very few were given anything more than a token appearance.

Libba played plenty of games, but he was always going to.

Dahlhaus smashed the door down but only debuted in round 12

Wallis only played 6

Skinner played 1 quarter

Cordy and Tutt came in for 2 games each in round 21 after Williams took over

Mulligan played 3 game out of necessity

Schofield only played 7 when his form warranted more.

Even second year players like Roughead only played 9 games, when he played 18 the next year.

We very much played the most mature team we could field every week. Only Libba and Dahlhaus went into their 2nd season with anything like a grounding at AFL level.
Fair enough 'stache. It certainty felt like more of a changing of the guard than your analysis suggests. PS - you forgot to mention the blooding of that exciting young colt Ed Barlow ;)

Irrespective, the conservative blueprint for improvement under BMac feels like it is quite a bit behind schedule. I didn't feel like it was at the end of last season

[Greystache]

Fair enough 'stache. It certainty felt like more of a changing of the guard than your analysis suggests. PS - you forgot to mention the blooding of that exciting young colt Ed Barlow ;)

Irrespective, the conservative blueprint for improvement under BMac feels like it is quite a bit behind schedule. I didn't feel like it was at the end of last season

It definitely felt like a changing of the guard. It was confirmation of what most of us knew, we were in serious decline, Hall had papered over the cracks in 2010, but we were well off the pace by 2011.

How could I forget Cheesy!

That's how I feel too, I thought we were making steady progress, whereas now it feels like a slow crawl. The question is how much of our improvement is the development work we're doing with our young players, and how much is natural progression without serious decline from our veterans? That's the scary question.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

And here I was thinking it was just a refresh. ;)

I think we are even further away... In 2 or 3 years we will be without Murf, Morris, Boyd, Cooney and maybe Minson... They will leave a big hole.

This doesn't take into account the fact that Port, GC & GWS will only improve in the next 3 or 4 years which makes our task even harder.

Agreed. We can replace Boyd (eg. yesterday) and maybe Cooney (nowhere near what he once was), but the rest will leave a huge hole.

If we had our key posts down, these losses wouldn't be felt as much as they will be, but alas we have no key posts aside from Roughead to build around so taking out the quality that we do have will sting.


Are you including B-Mac & Smith too?

Absolutely.

[bornadog]

I hear that quite often but it's not true. We still had Hall as our main forward, Grant and Jones were in and out and playing second fiddle. We brought in mature players in Sherman, Djerkurra, and Veszpremi into the club and gave them games. Hudson played as many games as he could manage and Minson played mostly reserves, and Markovic and Morris were our primary defenders. There was no development in any of that.

We had a number of players debut, but very few were given anything more than a token appearance.

Libba played plenty of games, but he was always going to.

Dahlhaus smashed the door down but only debuted in round 12

Wallis only played 6

Skinner played 1 quarter

Cordy and Tutt came in for 2 games each in round 21 after Williams took over

Mulligan played 3 games out of necessity

Schofield only played 7 when his form warranted more.

Even second year players like Roughead only played 9 games, when he played 18 the next year.

We very much played the most mature team we could field every week. Only Libba and Dahlhaus went into their 2nd season with anything like a grounding at AFL level.

All fine but the point is 8 young players got some game time, which is important going forward.

[Greystache]

All fine but the point is 8 young players got some game time, which is important going forward.

And that's fine as a pure statistic, but they got almost nothing out of it. The rebuild didn't start until 2012. 2011 was just a wasted season where we played veterans in a declining team.

[Hot_Doggies]

I would have agreed 100% last year, completely... But I think we missed that opportunity. Minson was AA and at top dollar and it didn't happen, but if an offer similar to what his market value should be then I'm ok, but I can't see a great offer coming. As for Griffen, he's a club captain now and we can't sell a club captain, we cornered ourselves.

Our issue as TD and I have often mused is staggering retirements. I think we can do that as Bob and Dale are going nowhere and Boyd is on a close watch.

The issues as I see them are that we over-estimated the list last year, much like Malthouse did when accepting the Scum job. I don't care what ethic or similar the guts have, Jong, Howard, Greenwood, Redpath, Austin, Goodes should all not have been kept. Now we have to do it a year later, compounded by not trading as you rightfully allude to Webby.

No one seems to think Dahl, Libba or Roughie should go. Unless we get overs for JJ no on him too. So all I can see that we have to trade with (of any value) is Cooney. Best case Hawks want him and we go from 23 to 17. Outside that Grant was bait last year and even his 6 weeks of stat competition leading couldn't get value. Beyond that there's Wallis who I can't see being shopped, and then Jones who people would crack it about over developing him for 6 years only to move him on... As I think now, Higgins may hold value if he keeps fit and form.

Essentially, best case:

Pick 5, 17 and 20 - that's Cooney and Higgins gone (GWS second rounder, yep, I'm reaching!)

Or all of the above to GWS for one of their top KPF guns (Patton, Boyd, Cameron) - But then there's no top end youth this year in the first 40 picks, but, then there's a reason to buy memberships and get excited about a target to kick to?


I feared we overestimated the list 9 months ago, to date I'm still fearing it


So we should have delisted 10 players last year, in what many recruiters thought was a shallow draft?? Interesting...

[bornadog]

And that's fine as a pure statistic, but they got almost nothing out of it. The rebuild didn't start until 2012. 2011 was just a wasted season where we played veterans in a declining team.

You love to twist facts.

You look at most games that year we had half the players with less than 100 games. It was mainly out of necessity due to injuries, but it still happened.

[Greystache]

You love to twist facts.

You look at most games that year we had half the players with less than 100 games. It was mainly out of necessity due to injuries, but it still happened.

I like to look at facts, you love to look back on those years with rose tinted glasses.

Tell me how giving Skinner one quarter achieved anything other than being a KPI at the end of the season of a player we debuted, same with Cordy and Tutt playing the last 2 rounds of the season in their 2nd and 3rd years at the club. 2011 had nothing to do with rebuilding.

[Murphy'sLore]

At the end of last year, most of us here felt hopeful about our progress - even that we had turned the corner. We had some wins and things were looking positive.

Then this year happened... So my question is, what's changed between then and now, what are we doing differently, to account for the fact that we now seem to be going backwards? It's not just J Grant, is it??

[Maddog37]

The club has repeatedly stated they will be very active and follow every viable path in this off season when it comes to the best outcome for our list. I would expect trades, free agency and a full overhaul of our rookie lists at the moment. Full salary cap expenditure is guaranteed although I am not sure what % we are paying now to compare to.

I think the instigation of our own VFL team bought several players another year at the club when they would otherwise have been gone.

[bornadog]

I like to look at facts, you love to look back on those years with rose tinted glasses.

Tell me how giving Skinner one quarter achieved anything other than being a KPI at the end of the season of a player we debuted, same with Cordy and Tutt playing the last 2 rounds of the season in their 2nd and 3rd years at the club. 2011 had nothing to do with rebuilding.


I certainly don't have rose coloured glasses.

How many games did Roughead, Libba, Wallis, Dahl, and yes add on Tutt, Cordy play?

When is the start of a rebuild anyway.

Lets look at 2012

Smith debut round 1

Pearce Debut round 9

we gave a few games to Roberts, Talia and Campbell towards the end of season- but as you say waste of time.

[bulldogtragic]

So we should have delisted 10 players last year, in what many recruiters thought was a shallow draft?? Interesting...

Howard. Yes, he shouldve been delisted.
Green, Jong & Redpath should have been cut, and three rookies replaced. Yes.
Goodes shouldn't have been elevated. Yes.
Gia should have moved into coaching. Yes.

The recruiter you speak of, are they the same ones who picked Dahl to go first round, or pick 20 in the rookie draft. Are they the same recruiters who didn't like Keiran Jack, Dean Cox and Sandilands. Worse yet, are they the same recruiters who said Mitch Thorp and Howard should be first round picks.

If you're going to use a glib title of people, I will respond like this every time. Recruiters never get it right all the time, for god sake James Hird and Chris Grant couldn't crack the top 100 kids in their draft year. The suggestion keeping list cloggers on the list because of a perceived depth is redundant, Greenwood offers no more than any state best and fairest winner from last year, probably less. We had pick 4 in the rookie draft, a draft that has done wonders for this club and we forewent it. You may say that we thought it was shallow, I say we didn't make the right decision to take a top kid with a question mark over an element of their game. All our rookies still have question marks all over their games. Even Jayden Foster, who is a clearly talented young man from my watching him, was worth a punt in my book. If he gets drafted this year, was it a good or bad decision not to take him last year?