Where we got delistings wrong.

[Ghost Dog]

Thank you for your service. It's that time of year, out they go!
I feel a bit bad for Jackson Trengrove. Didn't really use him much.

In your mind, which dogs players have been delisted a bit early?

[bornadog]

For me none.

All the players delisted are about right, with maybe Cavarra a bit unlucky. We should have gone deeper and delisted Roarke as well (he comes back in as a rookie)

I would have liked to have seen an all new Rookie list, with perhaps Sweet kept and Buku remaining on Cat B. I can't see Gardner making it either, but good luck to him if he improves.

[GVGjr]

Thank you for your service. It's that time of year, out they go!
I feel a bit bad for Jackson Trengrove. Didn't really use him much.

In your mind, which dogs players have been delisted a bit early?

Jackson Trengove for sure, he had plenty to offer us this year
While not a delisting, Lachie Young was a terrific prospect
Will Hayes is a better player now that when we drafted him. Hard to imagine how much better we expected him to get
Matthew Suckling has another season in him as well.

[Happy Days]

Jarrad Grant and Paddy Veszpremi. They could both still make it I reckon.

[Axe Man]

For me none.

All the players delisted are about right, with maybe Cavarra a bit unlucky. We should have gone deeper and delisted Roarke as well (he comes back in as a rookie)

I would have liked to have seen an all new Rookie list, with perhaps Sweet kept and Buku remaining on Cat B. I can't see Gardner making it either, but good luck to him if he improves.

Given Gardner's improvement and our lack of KPDs he was a no brainer to be retained.

Cavarra could still return.

[bulldogtragic]

About right for mine.

[soupman]

We have never been ruthless enough with our delistings, but to their credit this year we have gotten pretty close.

Prior to the most recent trio being cut I was quite unsatisfied, but now i think we are in a pretty good spot.

I will be very disappointed if we re-draft Hayes/Cavarra, Id much rather we take the punt and give someone else a chance. Our history shows that when we draft someone they show good signs within their first two seasons, and we often shoehorn them into the side a touch early.

For this reason I suspect Khamis may not be a great prospect either, so would've been open to cutting him to, but this year is an anomaly so maybe only counts as half a season.

[hujsh]

I'd rather rookie Ferg than Hayes personally

[bulldogtragic]

We have never been ruthless enough with our delistings, but to their credit this year we have gotten pretty close.

Prior to the most recent trio being cut I was quite unsatisfied, but now i think we are in a pretty good spot.

I will be very disappointed if we re-draft Hayes/Cavarra, Id much rather we take the punt and give someone else a chance. Our history shows that when we draft someone they show good signs within their first two seasons, and we often shoehorn them into the side a touch early.

For this reason I suspect Khamis may not be a great prospect either, so would've been open to cutting him to, but this year is an anomaly so maybe only counts as half a season.

I won't argue here. My guess is that maybe we can just give Hayes & Cavarra a one year rookie contract. Thereby not taking a bet this year with late rookie draft picks with more risk about the kids. Next year these guys know the club and system as depth. If they don't make it next year, then in theory the draft pool is more reliable deeper into the rookie draft next year.

Or, I'm over thinking it.

[hujsh]

I won't argue here. My guess is that maybe we can just give Hayes & Cavarra a one year rookie contract. Thereby not taking a bet this year with late rookie draft picks with more risk about the kids. Next year these guys know the club and system as depth. If they don't make it next year, then in theory the draft pool is more reliable deeper into the rookie draft next year.

Or, I'm over thinking it.

On the other hand if there's going to be a year where some serious talent might slip through to the rookie draft this could well be it

[GVGjr]

We have never been ruthless enough with our delistings, but to their credit this year we have gotten pretty close.

Prior to the most recent trio being cut I was quite unsatisfied, but now i think we are in a pretty good spot.

I will be very disappointed if we re-draft Hayes/Cavarra, Id much rather we take the punt and give someone else a chance. Our history shows that when we draft someone they show good signs within their first two seasons, and we often shoehorn them into the side a touch early.

For this reason I suspect Khamis may not be a great prospect either, so would've been open to cutting him to, but this year is an anomaly so maybe only counts as half a season.

We need to be more ruthless most years

[soupman]

We need to be more ruthless most years

I mean really we could also cut all of Schache, Roarke, Sweet, Khamis and Lloyd and we would be losing maybe 10-15 games from next year and they would mostly be Smith picked as the 22nd man and Lloyd and Schache getting a couple of unimpressive games forward each, with none of them projecting to be probable best 15 players ever.

I'm not saying we do this but if we turned our list over a lot more we wouldn't have all these mediocre depth guys that have been given 4+ years on a couple of glimpses.

[Ghost Dog]

I mean really we could also cut all of Schache, Roarke, Sweet, Khamis and Lloyd and we would be losing maybe 10-15 games from next year and they would mostly be Smith picked as the 22nd man and Lloyd and Schache getting a couple of unimpressive games forward each, with none of them projecting to be probable best 15 players ever.

I'm not saying we do this but if we turned our list over a lot more we wouldn't have all these mediocre depth guys that have been given 4+ years on a couple of glimpses.

But just to check, because I missed a lot of footy, Josh has performed better than Bruce this year on average. Is this correct?

For the archives I always felt Roughy was delisted a touch premature. But am biased seeing he's a Ballarat boy and favourite of mine.

[bornadog]

But just to check, because I missed a lot of footy, Josh has performed better than Bruce this year on average. Is this correct?

For the archives I always felt Roughy was delisted a touch premature. But am biased seeing he's a Ballarat boy and favourite of mine.

Josh played two games and was injured for about 6 or 7 and never regained any form.

[Axe Man]

But just to check, because I missed a lot of footy, Josh has performed better than Bruce this year on average. Is this correct?

For the archives I always felt Roughy was delisted a touch premature. But am biased seeing he's a Ballarat boy and favourite of mine.

Roughead wasn't delisted - he wanted to leave as a free agent so we facilitated a trade for next to nothing to Collingwood.

[soupman]

But just to check, because I missed a lot of footy, Josh has performed better than Bruce this year on average. Is this correct?


Not sure you have the sample size with Schache for averages to be reliable measure of anything.

[EasternWest]

Matthew Suckling has another season in him as well.

Please refrain from saying things like this until all available spots are filled.

[jeemak]

I think the commentary around us not being ruthless enough is a bit overplayed, in that I understand it but I don't think it's an issue to the extent others do.

If we were as ruthless every year as some want, and it's an opinion based game I get it, we'd actually never see if players develop and we'd massacre our depth. Some of the players we retain aren't going to be world beaters, and may not be long term considerations for us however, we're in the business of winning games and there's a balance between perpetually developing and being able to field a team that can compete. And for the most part over the last five or six years, during a rebuild over the most recent three, I think we've struck that balance pretty well.

There's always going to be your Declan Hamilton head scratchers, there's always going to be your lineball Honeychurch's. But cutting deep and trying to be good at the same time isn't easy and there's a bit to be said for keeping players, sometimes who are higher quality people than they may be talented footballers, in a program if the program is solid and they can contribute on the field if needed and more holistically.

[boydogs]

We've always been conservative on delistings so it's hard to recall a misstep
One trade though that doesn't get a mention often is Shaun Higgins as part of the exodus in 2014, where Griffen and Cooney took the focus, both of which hobbled through the rest of their careers, whilst Higgins went on to be a brownlow chance

[SquirrelGrip]

I think the commentary around us not being ruthless enough is a bit overplayed, in that I understand it but I don't think it's an issue to the extent others do.

If we were as ruthless every year as some want, and it's an opinion based game I get it, we'd actually never see if players develop and we'd massacre our depth. Some of the players we retain aren't going to be world beaters, and may not be long term considerations for us however, we're in the business of winning games and there's a balance between perpetually developing and being able to field a team that can compete. And for the most part over the last five or six years, during a rebuild over the most recent three, I think we've struck that balance pretty well.

There's always going to be your Declan Hamilton head scratchers, there's always going to be your lineball Honeychurch's. But cutting deep and trying to be good at the same time isn't easy and there's a bit to be said for keeping players, sometimes who are higher quality people than they may be talented footballers, in a program if the program is solid and they can contribute on the field if needed and more holistically.

Well said. There can be value in having quality people on the training track and around the club even if they aren’t playing in the AFL team. Hayes, Cavarra and Trengove all fitted into this category. Would love them to all be at Footscray next year if they don’t get an AFL opportunity.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Well said. There can be value in having quality people on the training track and around the club even if they aren’t playing in the AFL team. Hayes, Cavarra and Trengove all fitted into this category. Would love them to all be at Footscray next year if they don’t get an AFL opportunity.

A couple is fine. Every good club has them.

The problem is we routinely have 10 players on our list who aren't good enough to play regular AFL footy. This year it was Hayes, Cavarra, Trengove, Lloyd, Khamis, Gowers, Porter, Greene, Lynch, Smith, Lach Young - that's way too many.

From that list above you could make a case for Hayes, JT and Lloyd but that's about it.

[jeemak]

A couple is fine. Every good club has them.

The problem is we routinely have 10 players on our list who aren't good enough to play regular AFL footy. This year it was Hayes, Cavarra, Trengove, Lloyd, Khamis, Gowers, Porter, Greene, Lynch, Smith, Lach Young - that's way too many.

From that list above you could make a case for Hayes, JT and Lloyd but that's about it.

You would also say Lach Young and Gowers had shown they were capable of contributing at the level. Greene had prior to injury last year, while Cavarra was only in his second year after being drafted and his first of being injury free. Smith is unfashionable, though most agree he's earned his spot for another year.

I don't know what the expectation is, though routinely I'd have thought that roughly up to ten players who are not ready to contribute consistently at the level is pretty normal for AFL lists.

[comrade]

I don't know what the expectation is, though routinely I'd have thought that roughly up to ten players who are not ready to contribute consistently at the level is pretty normal for AFL lists.

And for Essendon, they've gone the opposite route over the last 15 years and only kept 10 players who are ready to contribute.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

You would also say Lach Young and Gowers had shown they were capable of contributing at the level. Greene had prior to injury last year, while Cavarra was only in his second year after being drafted and his first of being injury free. Smith is unfashionable, though most agree he's earned his spot for another year.

I don't know what the expectation is, though routinely I'd have thought that roughly up to ten players who are not ready to contribute consistently at the level is pretty normal for AFL lists.

I never really thought Young showed anything and I was surprised to see he had a few backing him TBH. He had good endurance, but he was slight, neither strong nor fast and his foot skills were pretty average.

Gowers had the 1 good season but most here knew what he was at the end of last year. Greene had been on the list for 3-4 years for 5 games.

Agree on Smith and forgot about him, but this is the first year since I can remember where we've cut as deep as we should into the list.

** Most sides may have that 8-12 players either not good enough or unknown, but taking out recent draftees I think we hold onto players who we know won't actually make it for far too long.

[jeemak]

I never really thought Young showed anything and I was surprised to see he had a few backing him TBH. He had good endurance, but he was slight, neither strong nor fast and his foot skills were pretty average.

Gowers had the 1 good season but most here knew what he was at the end of last year. Greene had been on the list for 3-4 years for 5 games.

Agree on Smith and forgot about him, but this is the first year since I can remember where we've cut as deep as we should into the list.

** Most sides may have that 8-12 players either not good enough or unknown, but taking out recent draftees I think we hold onto players who we know won't actually make it for far too long.

I think we held onto Gowers for the right amount of time, same with Greene given he was coming good and then didn't progress after a serious injury. The former I appreciate that he was ordinary in 2019 and retrospectively it would have been the right thing to do to offload him however, not doing so even with the knowledge of what we know now still isn't unreasonable. I suppose offering up what we did in terms of tenure for Lynch is the one that sticks out in this lot.

Interesting but understandable comments on Young. I was pretty well 50-50 on him and I think offering him a short term contract was OK but at the same time I'm not fussed about him moving on. It's the right decision for him and given the club didn't offer him more tenure I think it's a win all round.

As for how far we've cut this year, I think we have a bit of confidence with respect to who is in our core group and who can help take us where we want to go. The numbers are a bit inflated with the likes of Suckling and Dickson retiring, though looking at who we've let go I can't really fault the actions of the club. Bringing in Martin really stamped Trengove's papers, I get why some think he can still be of value as a back up, but a bit like Roughead (and Minson before him) rightly or wrongly the MC just isn't going to play him.

[ledge]

And for Essendon, they've gone the opposite route over the last 15 years and only kept 10 players who are ready to contribute.

Haha love it.

[ledge]

Of all the way players we cut it seems to be Suckling is the one who is most likely to be picked up again by someone, which shows how good he is when you look at his age and injury concerns nowadays.
I think he was a great pick up for us and would have liked another year , he would be extremely handy if he could have a year and no injuries .

[jeemak]

Of all the way players we cut it seems to be Suckling is the one who is most likely to be picked up again by someone, which shows how good he is when you look at his age and injury concerns nowadays.
I think he was a great pick up for us and would have liked another year , he would be extremely handy if he could have a year and no injuries .

WesternEast likes this.

[EasternWest]

WesternEast likes this.

I'm concerned about ledge's day drinking

[jeemak]

And for Essendon, they've gone the opposite route over the last 15 years and only kept 10 players who are ready to contribute.

And after this weekend's comms from the club re wages they're doing their best to marginalise them as well.