List Management

[Rocco Jones]

The thread title is my nice way of saying who are we going to delist.

The way I see it...

Retirements/possible retirements?

Hall- He has announced his retirement. I would love him to recant but he won't.

Hudson- Bit of a tough call. If he doesn't want to go, do we keep him? Roughead and Cordy are both very fraile and we can easily get ourselves into a lot of trouble if Minson gets an injury. Is it too conservative to keep him? I would only do it if he is happy to keep going for the bare minimum.

Gilbee- Hear he has a year left on his contract. I would definitely let him go if not.

Hargrave-I think we are almost obliged to keep him on if his foot is anything resembling OK. Loyalty two way street thing, but I wouldn't be pushing him to stay on unless Wood goes to GWS.

Delist/Trade?

Definitely not into the 'lets trade a great servant because he doesn't fit our needs' line of thinking. Odd that the fans who are strongest in that regard are also the most vocal when a player leaves.

Hill-Just has to go.

Stack-I have seen improvement in him this season but I just cannot see him ever making it.

Reid-I love the boy but he is slow, cannot kick and really struggles with the endurance needed at AFL level.

Addison-Like Reid, I really love the way he goes about it but he just isn't up to it.

Markovic/Mulligan-Really don't rate either but they both probably have to stay because we simply don't have anything else. Only possible change is if they rate Panos enough or see a state league prospect we can get via GWS.

Moles-It's harsh but is there much point in keeping a 26 yo runner who will be nothing more than a good servant in the next few years? Depends on others staying or going for mine.

Upgraded rookies

Dahlhaus-I guess.

Barlow-Ed Barlow being a regular part of our 22 is where we are at. Enjoy.

[AndrewP6]

Dahlhaus-I guess.



If we must... :D

[BulldogBelle]

I think we jumped in a little too quickly when we signed Hooper also

Markovic I would retain, due to our defensive stocks being quite slim if Lake, Williams or Morris get injured

Mulligan - just doesn't offer anything...no football smarts, no rebound, limited skills, gets led to the football etc

If Hargrave's foot is OK he should be kept on - think for the role he plays he could offer us quite a bit into his 30s (eg a Darren Milburn type role). Plus if he is placed on the Veterans list he wouldn't cost much to keep.

[Rocco Jones]

I think we jumped in a little too quickly when we signed Hooper

No doubt about that one. Same with the 3 years DJ got.

[w3design]

If we must... :D
Very droll Rocco and Andrew!

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Barlow-Ed Barlow being a regular part of our 22 is where we are at. Enjoy.

And we actually rushed him back into the side this week.

Christ.

[Ghost Dog]

And we actually rushed him back into the side this week.

Christ.

It ain't pretty, but he was more effective than not V weagles.
Got to admit it.

[macca]

Grant can be added to that list as well. He is a one trick pony, and does not have the heart to play AFL level. Cant kick straight " see this weekends willi lost" . At 3QTR time against the Roos, the ball was kicked to him, Hill and Goldstein. They didnt even bother providing a contest, and the Roos ended running away with the ball. Trade him now before he loses his value, like Hill who has no value.

[kruder]

What about Hooper?

I've been looking for one AFL attribute that the recruiters may have seen in him but I have yet to find one. He cant find the footy, fumbles, average kick, average speed, bad decision maker.

Does he really have a three year deal? If so surely one of the worst deals of all time?

[LostDoggy]

Don't disagree with all of the sentiments here, but won't waste my Monday morning potting players. More than happy to see out the season and see how we deal with it in October.

[LostDoggy]

Grant can be added to that list as well. He is a one trick pony, and does not have the heart to play AFL level. Cant kick straight " see this weekends willi lost" . At 3QTR time against the Roos, the ball was kicked to him, Hill and Goldstein. They didnt even bother providing a contest, and the Roos ended running away with the ball. Trade him now before he loses his value, like Hill who has no value.

Agreed. Thinking about him this morning and i just though "Jarrod Oakley-Nicholls".

Wouldn't put up Mulligan. Persist with him and let him learn from the likes of Morris, Lake and Williams for another year.

Moles - gone
Joss Hill - gone
Johanisen (sic) - gone.
Gilbee (subject to contract) - gone
Hahn - gone
Hall - gone

[Cyberdoggie]

Wouldn't put up Mulligan. Persist with him and let him learn from the likes of Morris, Lake and Williams for another year.

Johanisen (sic) - gone.


Mulligan has had plenty of time and has shown very little improvement.
I'd prefer they kept Panos if they had to, at least he knows how to play the game, even if he has a lack of pace. Markovic as well can at least spoil and beat his man in physical contests unless he's up against a monster.


Johanissen only the 1 year?
He may not be showing much now but he is just a baby. I don't think he's even hit puberty yet he looks so young, another year is a given.

[G-Mo77]

What about Hooper?

I've been looking for one AFL attribute that the recruiters may have seen in him but I have yet to find one. He cant find the footy, fumbles, average kick, average speed, bad decision maker.

Does he really have a three year deal? If so surely one of the worst deals of all time?

I believe it's a 2 year deal.

[LostDoggy]

Mulligan has had plenty of time and has shown very little improvement.
I'd prefer they kept Panos if they had to, at least he knows how to play the game, even if he has a lack of pace. Markovic as well can at least spoil and beat his man in physical contests unless he's up against a monster.


Johanissen only the 1 year?
He may not be showing much now but he is just a baby. I don't think he's even hit puberty yet he looks so young, another year is a given.

He's played 3 games and he's been injured for most of his formative years at the club.

[w3design]

Mulligan has had plenty of time and has shown very little improvement.
I'd prefer they kept Panos if they had to, at least he knows how to play the game, even if he has a lack of pace. Markovic as well can at least spoil and beat his man in physical contests unless he's up against a monster.


Johanissen only the 1 year?
He may not be showing much now but he is just a baby. I don't think he's even hit puberty yet he looks so young, another year is a given.
Johanissen was just drafted he get min 2 years on list automatic

[Mantis]

Johanissen was just drafted he get min 2 years on list automatic

There is no such rule for rookies.

[Dazza]

Bit harsh on Moles in here.

Think he has a place in the side going forward.

I don't think Reid does however.

[The Underdog]

Bit harsh on Moles in here.

Think he has a place in the side going forward.

I don't think Reid does however.

If Moles has a place in the side I'm not sure what it is. He's a depth player at best.
Also agreed that Reid has probably done his dash.

Can't see why we couldn't keep Barlow on the rookie list, especially if they're going to be paid $50,000 per under the new EBA. Don't see the point in upgrading him given the mistakes we've made with Mulligan and Hooper.

[Pickenitup]

Moles is contracted for 1 more year.

[stefoid]

Grant to play at FF in 2012 and dominate - bookmark it!!



Actually I cant back that up in any way , but I am hopeful.

At any rate, you dont delist/trade guys with as much talent as he has, this early.


But anyway, people need to consider how many players they are listing as 'gawn'. You have to replace them from somewhere, and replacing them with late picks in a crap draft is a very low percentage raffle. Making a stupid decision just so you can thump your chest about being decisive doesn't make the decision any smarter.

Guys like Moles, Marcovic and Minson may not be world beaters but they can come in and do a job when required. You need guys like that on a healthy list. Gilbee, Hargrave and Hudson may not be at the peak of their powers but replacing them with a dribbler via pick 80+ in a shallow draft helps us how?

If I was in charge I would be relatively conservative this year (crap draft), stockpile *those* picks for next year (great draft) and prune harder then.

[divvydan]

There is no such rule for rookies.

Isn't there a two year rule for rookies from interstate?

[w3design]

Mulligan has had plenty of time and has shown very little improvement.
I'd prefer they kept Panos if they had to, at least he knows how to play the game, even if he has a lack of pace. Markovic as well can at least spoil and beat his man in physical contests unless he's up against a monster.


Johanissen only the 1 year?
He may not be showing much now but he is just a baby. I don't think he's even hit puberty yet he looks so young, another year is a given.


There is no such rule for rookies.

Sorry you are right he was a rookie but i would still give him more time very young

[w3design]

Trade Grant i don't think he will make it and while he still has some value maybe package with Lake for G.W.S gun 17 year old picks

[LostDoggy]

Trade Grant i don't think he will make it and while he still has some value maybe package with Lake for G.W.S gun 17 year old picks

Sell your house when the market bottoms out? Sell your shares mid-way through a bear market? I don't get trading either of these players - an AA full back and a #5 draft who has had one tough year and one really solid one but both of whose currency is at the bottom of the market. I'd rather trade Higgins who still has solid currency but has a history of injury and is likely to be giving us as good as it gets but not as good as we expected he could. Higgins and an early second round might just get us a Kennedy or an O'Meara if we are lucky.

[Pedro Sanchez]

Might be a tad controversial, but what about putting Cooney and his dodgy knee on the trade block...

A ruthless decision obviously but if he's not going to improve his health then it does offer some merit.

[Rocco Jones]

Might be a tad controversial, but what about putting Cooney and his dodgy knee on the trade block...

A ruthless decision obviously but if he's not going to improve his health then it does offer some merit.

And what do we say whenever a player comes to us saying a rival club has offered them more money? If we treat them like robots, they will treat us like a plastic organisation.

[Pedro Sanchez]

And what do we say whenever a player comes to us saying a rival club has offered them more money? If we treat them like robots, they will treat us like a plastic organisation.

It’s a good point you make... still, it’s worth raising the possibility as all options need to be reviewed in order to reverse the slide from top 4 last year.

[stefoid]

Pedro, even if we did want to be that ruthless, who would take Cooney? His knee is shot.

[Rocco Jones]

On Jarrad Grant...

Obviously his attitude has been poor but I believe unless we get a good deal for him, we need to keep him for 2 reasons. Hall is gone at the end of year and I think we will need Grant for our forward target depth. Also, I would like to see Grant having a go at 'being the man' for a planned, long duration. Perhaps it's what he needs.

[Pedro Sanchez]

Pedro, even if we did want to be that ruthless, who would take Cooney? His knee is shot.

Don't know the answer myself... Could we dangle it infront of GWS to block the approach for Ward?

Anyway its just an idea, personally I really like Cooney and its hard to watch him play under the duress he's currently experiencing.

[AndrewP6]

Might be a tad controversial, but what about putting Cooney and his dodgy knee on the trade block...

A ruthless decision obviously but if he's not going to improve his health then it does offer some merit.

How appealing would that be to a would-be suitor?

"Here we offer you one Brownlow medal winning midfielder, who has a degenerative knee condition that is likely to cause him pain and regularly curtail his training and game performance for the remainder of his career. Now that the sweetener is on the table, let's do a deal"...

Not likely.

[LostDoggy]

If Moles has a place in the side I'm not sure what it is. He's a depth player at best.
Also agreed that Reid has probably done his dash.

Can't see why we couldn't keep Barlow on the rookie list, especially if they're going to be paid $50,000 per under the new EBA. Don't see the point in upgrading him given the mistakes we've made with Mulligan and Hooper.

Depth player at best, so let him go? Where do we then get the depth needed?

The fact injuries have had such a massive toll on our team in recent years makes me read a post twice out of disbelief when posters claim we should trade away all of our youngsters.

[The Underdog]

Depth player at best, so let him go? Where do we then get the depth needed?

The fact injuries have had such a massive toll on our team in recent years makes me read a post twice out of disbelief when posters claim we should trade away all of our youngsters.

Where do we get depth, maybe through astute drafting.

Moles isn't young. He also isn't likely to get any better. I get that you want to support all the players on our list but that doesn't make them worth all keeping. Anyway it appears as though he has another year left on his contract so he'll be around anyway.

[w3design]

Sell your house when the market bottoms out? Sell your shares mid-way through a bear market? I don't get trading either of these players - an AA full back and a #5 draft who has had one tough year and one really solid one but both of whose currency is at the bottom of the market. I'd rather trade Higgins who still has solid currency but has a history of injury and is likely to be giving us as good as it gets but not as good as we expected he could. Higgins and an early second round might just get us a Kennedy or an O'Meara if we are lucky.

Agree Higgins is fragile and maybe we have seen the best he can produce.
I would do that trade. Lake is getting on with age and i cant see us winning a flag in the next 2 years.
Grant i could be swayed on but the intensity he has shown this year is well down on last year.
He needs to mark the ball out in front not chest mark every ball that just gets punched away.

[Dazza]

Where do we get depth, maybe through astute drafting.

Moles isn't young. He also isn't likely to get any better. I get that you want to support all the players on our list but that doesn't make them worth all keeping. Anyway it appears as though he has another year left on his contract so he'll be around anyway.

Might just be me but I don't think Moles has really played that badly in any of his games with us.

He has reasonable pace and is pretty handy around goal for a midfielder.

I'd prefer him as a backup midfielder than a few others.

[Rocco Jones]

Might just be me but I don't think Moles has really played that badly in any of his games with us.

He has reasonable pace and is pretty handy around goal for a midfielder.

I'd prefer him as a backup midfielder than a few others.

Ironically, reasons why I am him delisted.

Not 'that badly', 'reasonable' and 'backup' are not the adjectives (and an adverb!) I am look for from a 26 yo in a team that will be crap for a few years.

[Ghost Dog]

Might just be me but I don't think Moles has really played that badly in any of his games with us.

He has reasonable pace and is pretty handy around goal for a midfielder.

I'd prefer him as a backup midfielder than a few others.

In front of Hill or Stack, Dj, Addison or even Hooper any day.

[Rocco Jones]

In front of Hill or Stack, Dj, Addison or even Hooper any day.

I want all of them gone, just that DJ and Hooper have contracts.

Why keep crap depth players with no long term hope when you're going to be crap/'rebuilding' for at least 3 years? Only sense I can see is if they are are talls/physical types who ease burden on others. Only one like that from group is Addison and he is so far off AFL level he can't even get close enough to action to demonstrate physicality.

[Ghost Dog]

I want all of them gone, just that DJ and Hooper have contracts.

Why keep crap depth players with no long term hope when you're going to be crap/'rebuilding' for at least 3 years? Only sense I can see is if they are are talls/physical types who ease burden on others. Only one like that from group is Addison and he is so far off AFL level he can't even get close enough to action to demonstrate physicality.

Why do you think Moles is crap? He's been good in games he has played for us, or at least much improved.

[Rocco Jones]

Why do you think Moles is crap? He's been good in games he has played for us, or at least much improved.

Sorry, 'crap' is a very lazy adjective I am using for anything about us at the moment. I just think he has very little upside and I only see him as a depth player. I really don't rate having having 26+ yo depth mids/runners at sides with poor short term hopes.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Sorry, 'crap' is a very lazy adjective I am using for anything about us at the moment. I just think he has very little upside and I only see him as a depth player. I really don't rate having having 26+ yo depth mids/runners at sides with poor short term hopes.

He's played, what, a dozen games?

You don't automatically know everything about league footy just by being older. He still has to learn what's going on just like any 19yo. He has to become confident that he's actually good enough and he has to get used to the increased pace just like anyone else.

He could still have a Paul Dimattina-like career.

[Ghost Dog]

Sorry, 'crap' is a very lazy adjective I am using for anything about us at the moment. I just think he has very little upside and I only see him as a depth player. I really don't rate having having 26+ yo depth mids/runners at sides with poor short term hopes.

Yeah, I get your pessimism, but have to disagree.

As SS, Brodie has only played a few games and I like the way he tries to make something of his opportunities. I'm a bit frustrated the MC has not shown a bit more faith in him, putting others before him that seem to show less application.
So it goes. You'd be rid of him, I'd be happy for him to stay.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

On Jarrad Grant...

Obviously his attitude has been poor but I believe unless we get a good deal for him, we need to keep him for 2 reasons. Hall is gone at the end of year and I think we will need Grant for our forward target depth. Also, I would like to see Grant having a go at 'being the man' for a planned, long duration. Perhaps it's what he needs.

Hall remains the only class forward we have,
which doesn't auger well for next year.Grant on what he has shown this year isn't worth a
game. When you consider the loss of Johnson,Eagleton and Akermanis from last year their replacements in Sherman, Veszpremi and Djerkura has been a disaster.Without Hall you could be tempted to play Lake up forward to at least provide a contest.

[ledge]

Hall remains the only class forward we have,
which doesn't auger well for next year.Grant on what he has shown this year isn't worth a
game. When you consider the loss of Johnson,Eagleton and Akermanis from last year their replacements in Sherman, Veszpremi and Djerkura has been a disaster.Without Hall you could be tempted to play Lake up forward to at least provide a contest.

I dont agree. look at Aker and Johnson in last year, Djerkurra and Sherman have done more.

[BulldogBelle]

It was advantagous in 2010 we acquired Hall, because Johnson was injured most of the season, and Aker had his own issues

Barry saved us from a big decline from 2009 to 2010 - without him in 2010 we would have been in the same situation we are in now, battling for the 8 (and missing out)

Pretty unlikely that all of Jones, Grant, Gia and Sherman will kick >30 goals each in 2012

We just didnt go deep enough with trades/recruiting from 2007-2008 and we are now seeing the results of those decisions

[Mofra]

We just didnt go deep enough with trades/recruiting from 2007-2008 and we are now seeing the results of those decisions
I'd suggest theuperdraft" year of Everitt, Hill, Stack and Lynch has made a big impact on our list as well - the bext player we took in that year (rookie Harbrow) is gone.

[stefoid]

I'd suggest theuperdraft" year of Everitt, Hill, Stack and Lynch has made a big impact on our list as well - the bext player we took in that year (rookie Harbrow) is gone.

We went tall in 06 with everitt, and the two very next players after our pick were also talls - frawley and riewolt. Ouch.

And it looks like the 07 draft will be going the same way when the best player we picked (Ward) goes to GWS.

I still have high hopes for Grant, however.

[stefoid]

While I think about it, what is it with Clayton and picking tall head cases?

Wight - no intensity
Walsh - no intensity
Wells - no intensity
Everitt - no intensity
Boumann - no intensity
Grant - poor intensity (I wouldnt say none)

When has a talented but outside, laconic tall player ever 'come good'? Certianly not for us. Youre not going to get anywhere as an outside tall defender, and as an outside tall forward, you have to run like maniac.

Grants saving grace is he actually can win a contested ball, so hes not purely an outisde player, despite his skininess. Could make it as a prima-donna FF.

I will be watching with interest the types of talls clayton drafts for the Suns, but I think the lessons he learned here kicked in about 08, when we went for talls that actually gave a rats arse about making a contest, and had some chance of winning it.

[bornadog]

While I think about it, what is it with Clayton and picking tall head cases?

Wight - no intensity
Walsh - no intensity
Wells - no intensity
Everitt - no intensity
Boumann - no intensity
Grant - poor intensity (I wouldnt say none)

When has a talented but outside, laconic tall player ever 'come good'? Certianly not for us. Youre not going to get anywhere as an outside tall defender, and as an outside tall forward, you have to run like maniac.

Grants saving grace is he actually can win a contested ball, so hes not purely an outisde player, despite his skininess. Could make it as a prima-donna FF.

I will be watching with interest the types of talls clayton drafts for the Suns, but I think the lessons he learned here kicked in about 08, when we went for talls that actually gave a rats arse about making a contest, and had some chance of winning it.

Minson, aggressive, Lake aggressive, aren't they Clayton Picks?

Who picked Jones, Roughead, Cordy?

[Mofra]

Minson, aggressive, Lake aggressive, aren't they Clayton Picks?

Who picked Jones, Roughead, Cordy?
Minson -picked as a forward
Lake - picked as a forward

Jones yes, Roughy probable, Cordy a maybe at best

That's it after what, 8, 9 years? Throw in the first rounders who didn't pan out and it appears Clayton's reputation exceeds his output

[LostDoggy]

I think a major problem we are workng through is that from the 05 and 06 drafts we have really only one player, higgins we would say is a walk up regular when fit, the other two still on the list are Stack and DFA neither of whom have yet shown themselves to be in the best 22.

The MC have tried to address this with the acquistion of Sherman, Markovic, Veszpremi, Picken and Djerkurra all of whom are of that vintage but of these again only Picken and maybe Sherman would be in most people's best 22 players.

Compare this to Collingwood list pefromance in that period they have

N Brown, Thomas, Pendlebury, Toovey, Reid, Wellingham and Dawes who are all in the best 22 and Dick, Mccaffer, Buckley and Goldsack pressing up from below.

We had a lean period in 02 and 03 as well with Minson the only surviivor in terms of draft age players from that era with Moles a late inclusion.

every team has gaps but 02-3 and 05-6 really put a hole in our list in years where we should have players between 50-150 games.

[bornadog]

I think a major problem we are workng through is that from the 05 and 06 drafts we have really only one player, higgins we would say is a walk up regular when fit, the other two still on the list are Stack and DFA neither of whom have yet shown themselves to be in the best 22.

The MC have tried to address this with the acquistion of Sherman, Markovic, Veszpremi, Picken and Djerkurra all of whom are of that vintage but of these again only Picken and maybe Sherman would be in most people's best 22 players.

Compare this to Collingwood list pefromance in that period they have

N Brown, Thomas, Pendlebury, Toovey, Reid, Wellingham and Dawes who are all in the best 22 and Dick, Mccaffer, Buckley and Goldsack pressing up from below.

We had a lean period in 02 and 03 as well with Minson the only surviivor in terms of draft age players from that era with Moles a late inclusion.

every team has gaps but 02-3 and 05-6 really put a hole in our list in years where we should have players between 50-150 games.

Is it the luck of the draw that out 05/06 players didn't work out or is it the coaching staff?

At least the club has tried to recity it as you say, even though they haven't shown much yet.

[stefoid]

Minson, aggressive, Lake aggressive, aren't they Clayton Picks?

Who picked Jones, Roughead, Cordy?

I did say by the time 08 rolled around, he appears to have learned his lesson.

Minson and Lake are the exceptions to the rule, but you can add Bowden and Wiggins to the list of talls without intesnity.

I would go as far to say that players without intensity almost never go on to become good players, and are best avoided, regardles of being seduced by other factors they might have such as foot skills, speed or height.

Time and again, its lack of intensity in players that Calyton has been prepared to draft that has brung him undone - Power, Bowden, MacMahon, Wiggins...

Is intensity something that can be 'developed' by an AFL club? I think the results say no - picking players that dont have that spark to begin with is wasting a pick.

[LongWait]

I did say by the time 08 rolled around, he appears to have learned his lesson.

Minson and Lake are the exceptions to the rule, but you can add Bowden and Wiggins to the list of talls without intesnity.

I would go as far to say that players without intensity almost never go on to become good players, and are best avoided, regardles of being seduced by other factors they might have such as foot skills, speed or height.

Time and again, its lack of intensity in players that Calyton has been prepared to draft that has brung him undone - Power, Bowden, MacMahon, Wiggins...

Is intensity something that can be 'developed' by an AFL club? I think the results say no - picking players that dont have that spark to begin with is wasting a pick.

Interesting point you make Stefoid. Seems to be true now I've thought about it a bit. Thanks.

[the banker]

I did say by the time 08 rolled around, he appears to have learned his lesson.

Minson and Lake are the exceptions to the rule, but you can add Bowden and Wiggins to the list of talls without intesnity.

I would go as far to say that players without intensity almost never go on to become good players, and are best avoided, regardles of being seduced by other factors they might have such as foot skills, speed or height.

Time and again, its lack of intensity in players that Calyton has been prepared to draft that has brung him undone - Power, Bowden, MacMahon, Wiggins...

Is intensity something that can be 'developed' by an AFL club? I think the results say no - picking players that dont have that spark to begin with is wasting a pick.

We have a few fringe and a couple of profile players that lack intensity. Higgins, Grant, Stack, Hill, Roughead? Intensity may be developed to a degree I would think, only in the early years after some epiphany.

[Dazza]

I did say by the time 08 rolled around, he appears to have learned his lesson.

Minson and Lake are the exceptions to the rule, but you can add Bowden and Wiggins to the list of talls without intesnity.

I would go as far to say that players without intensity almost never go on to become good players, and are best avoided, regardles of being seduced by other factors they might have such as foot skills, speed or height.

Time and again, its lack of intensity in players that Calyton has been prepared to draft that has brung him undone - Power, Bowden, MacMahon, Wiggins...

Is intensity something that can be 'developed' by an AFL club? I think the results say no - picking players that dont have that spark to begin with is wasting a pick.

It would seem this years crop is a pretty good one then.

[BulldogBelle]

It would seem this years crop is a pretty good one then.


Wallis and Libertore were gifts

Dahlhaus has proved an excellent rookie selection

Schofield shows intensity

Skinner is going to take a while

Doubt it will reach the lofty heights of '99 though

Actually the only way I see us getting great outcomes from drafts are with father / son selections - so I have my fingers crossed that a junior Hunter, Beasley, Foster, Cordy 2nd and Templeton etc all come through

[chef]

He's played, what, a dozen games?

You don't automatically know everything about league footy just by being older. He still has to learn what's going on just like any 19yo. He has to become confident that he's actually good enough and he has to get used to the increased pace just like anyone else.

He could still have a Paul Dimattina-like career.

Agree with this

[FrediKanoute]

I'd suggest theuperdraft" year of Everitt, Hill, Stack and Lynch has made a big impact on our list as well - the bext player we took in that year (rookie Harbrow) is gone.

Bingo......this for mine is where we have truly made a mess of things.......

[Desipura]

I did say by the time 08 rolled around, he appears to have learned his lesson.

Minson and Lake are the exceptions to the rule, but you can add Bowden and Wiggins to the list of talls without intesnity.

I would go as far to say that players without intensity almost never go on to become good players, and are best avoided, regardles of being seduced by other factors they might have such as foot skills, speed or height.

Time and again, its lack of intensity in players that Calyton has been prepared to draft that has brung him undone - Power, Bowden, MacMahon, Wiggins...

Is intensity something that can be 'developed' by an AFL club? I think the results say no - picking players that dont have that spark to begin with is wasting a pick.
Totally agree Stefiod and I have made this point a while back about players that lack intensity.
Dale Thomas's intensity was questioned and he is one of the few I can think of.
You are right that historically we have drafted players that lack that intensity.
Our current crop includes
Stack
Grant (at times he has displayed it)
Higgins
Hill

[LostDoggy]

Yes we are only club that recruits players that lack intensity.
If you look at every list you'll find just as many at other clubs.

[bornadog]

Yes we are only club that recruits players that lack intensity.
If you look at every list you'll find just as many at other clubs.

Exactly.

[Rocco Jones]

Yes we are only club that recruits players that lack intensity.
If you look at every list you'll find just as many at other clubs.

Depends. I think some clubs/recruiting teams view 'intensity' as an attribute that can be learned/developed more than most and see it as a reason why a player might be 'unders' during draft/trade time.

[LostDoggy]

Depends. I think some clubs/recruiting teams view 'intensity' as an attribute that can be learned/developed more than most and see it as a reason why a player might be 'unders' during draft/trade time.

I think most if not all see it that way.

[Desipura]

Depends. I think some clubs/recruiting teams view 'intensity' as an attribute that can be learned/developed more than most and see it as a reason why a player might be 'unders' during draft/trade time.
Like Jordan MacMohon and Sam Power?

[Desipura]

Yes we are only club that recruits players that lack intensity.
If you look at every list you'll find just as many at other clubs.

Name the Collingwood players?

[LostDoggy]

Name the Collingwood players?
Collingwood must be perfect then or all robots.
I have no idea I don't watch them but I suggest you look at there reserve players. If you think they have 42 blokes all with same high intensity you are kidding yourself. They delist and trade players every year too.

[Desipura]

Collingwood must be perfect then or all robots.
I have no idea I don't watch them but I suggest you look at there reserve players. If you think they have 42 blokes all with same high intensity you are kidding yourself. They delist and trade players every year too.
Nowhere near as much as they used to. Anyway, not too many of their early picks lacked intensity.

[LostDoggy]

Nowhere near as much as they used to. Anyway, not too many of their early picks lacked intensity.
You're so right again.
These were all 1st round and there were definite question marks over the intensity of some them.
Chris Egan, Luke Mullins, Billy Morrison, Richard Cole, Josh Fraser and Danny Roach.

[Desipura]

You're so right again.
These were all 1st round and there were definite question marks over the intensity of some them.
Chris Egan, Luke Mullins, Billy Morrison, Richard Cole, Josh Fraser and Danny Roach.
You really are an ignorant fool are you? Have a look at the years they were drafted.
Whether you like it or not, we have historically drafted players who lack intensity more than tjhe better clubs.
And to think we would have added to the list had Clayton had the opportunity to draft Cale Morton from Melbourne.
I dont say I am right, I give my opinion and that is it.

[LostDoggy]

? All those players were drafted since 99 the year we got a number of our good players.
They got some right since but so did we. They haven't used a first round since 2008. None in 2007.
You're not saying your right but your opinion is wrong.

[The Coon Dog]

Chops & Desipura, you are both spoiling a bloody goody website with your childish antics. How about you take your pissing contest private & just PM your insults to each other & spare the rest of us! Please.

[Rocco Jones]

I think most if not all see that way.

Yep but they do some in varying degrees. Do you really think Clayton rated intensity as highly as most? I am not saying he was wrong, just that different clubs rate intensity (as with other traits) to varying degrees.

I know you are one for think changing/altering/varying degrees as a sign of weakness or whatever and would stick to your guns even if the club and everyone ever associated released a press statement saying 'yes, we love going to weak, puny althletes, it's a thing!'.

[LostDoggy]

Yep but they do some in varying degrees. Do you really think Clayton rated intensity as highly as most? I am not saying he was wrong, just that different clubs rate intensity (as with other traits) to varying degrees.


Yes.
I just showed a heap of Collingwood failed 1st rounds that may have lacked intensity.
How do you judge whether someone is intense or not at 17yo?
Maybe we thought Jessie Wells was intense but we just confused it with being dumb.
Maybe many thought Buddy Franklin was lazy.

[Rocco Jones]

Yes.
I just showed a heap of Collingwood failed 1st rounds that may have lacked intensity.
How do you judge whether someone is intense or not at 17yo?
Maybe we thought Jessie Wells was intense but we just confused it with being dumb.

You really don't think you can judge whether someone has intensity or not at 17? I can have a fair crack at it with the 6 and 7 year olds I teach!

Once again though, you have formed an opinion and I know you despise the thought of altering it at all. Fair enough to you.

[LostDoggy]

You really don't think you can judge whether someone has intensity or not at 17? I can have a fair crack at it with the 6 and 7 year olds I teach!


They are kids, you don't thing there is a big possiblity that could change either way?

[Rocco Jones]

They are kids, you don't thing there is a big possiblity that could change either way?

Definitely but I also think a fair bit is innate and very early set when it comes to intensity. I think at 17 that intensity is pretty easy to judge and well set. Of course things can change though and just because you lack intensity doesn't mean you can be motivated in different ways, just a lot of hard work.

Intensity can also be very relative to the cause. People can be tense in one area and relaxed in another. These kids have been playie ng for awhile by the time they are 17. It's not about them just being intense or not as people, it's about them being intense about footy.

[immortalmike]

Is it just me but does anyone else seem to remember the old 'lacks intensity' charge levelled at (in no particular order) Ryan Hargrave, Daniel Giansiracusa, Robert Murphy, Adam Cooney, and Linsay Gilbee in their early years?

[LostDoggy]

Had we picked only intense players we would have drafted Colin Sylvia over Adam Cooney.

[Mantis]

Had we picked only intense players we would have drafted Colin Sylvia over Adam Cooney.

Would we have?

Was Sylvia seen as an 'intense' player at u/18 level?

[The Pie Man]

Had we picked only intense players we would have drafted Colin Sylvia over Adam Cooney.

Coons doesn't lack for intensity at the contest though....at least from my perspective.

I do remember him being challenged vs Brisbane in 05 when he had a quiet night, and proceeded to effect (for memory, this figure likely rubbery) 7 centre clearances in the last quarter

[Desipura]

Cooneys ability to get the ball in heavy traffic as well as being able to break away with pace is the reason he was always going to go at pick 1.

[LostDoggy]

Would we have?

Was Sylvia seen as an 'intense' player at u/18 level?

That's my view on it all. At 17yo its pretty much a guess. We all know Cooney was maybe a bit full of himself.
To me that means maybe he could try harder.
Have they got a test for it at the draft camp yet? How do you measure it apart from taking opinions and they are often wrong.

[Greystache]

Cooneys ability to get the ball in heavy traffic as well as being able to break away with pace is the reason he was always going to go at pick 1.

And the fact he'd performed strongly against men in the SANFL, including a good game in the GF.

[Desipura]

And the fact he'd performed strongly against men in the SANFL, including a good game in the GF.
That helps even if he did get beaten in the grand final by that North reject who escapes my mind.

[Mantis]

And the fact he'd performed strongly against men in the SANFL, including a good game in the GF.

Nah not really.

Eddie Sansbury kicked 5 that day and kicked quite a few on Adam.

[stefoid]

Had we picked only intense players we would have drafted Colin Sylvia over Adam Cooney.

What is intense? I have never thought of Cooney, Guido or Gilbee lacking intensity. Hagrave maybe, but is that more due to the way he looks when he plays rather than his actual results? Id say he is a borderline case.

I dont think of lack of workrate as lack of intensity, which is going to affect the players ability to get to where he should be, to make it to contests, to run hard both ways, etc... Thats a seperate issue.

I think of intensity as a a mixture of initiative, sharpness and decisiveness.

Players lacking intensity are reactionary - they watch things unfold and try to react to what other players are doing. When they get the ball, they dont instinctively have a plan for what to do with it -- they need 'thinking time'. Even if they have good leg speed, they appear slow because they are slow to act. they have 'slow hands'

OTOH, intense players dont 'die wondering' -- they act first, they make instinctive decisions, they have quick brains. regardless of legspeed, they have 'quick hands'.

To sum it up in one sentence, maybe intensity is the ability of the player to make instinctive decisions

Agree / disagree?

[bornadog]

What is intense? I have never thought of Cooney, Guido or Gilbee lacking intensity. Hagrave maybe, but is that more due to the way he looks when he plays rather than his actual results? Id say he is a borderline case.

I dont think of lack of workrate as lack of intensity, which is going to affect the players ability to get to where he should be, to make it to contests, to run hard both ways, etc... Thats a seperate issue.

I think of intensity as a a mixture of initiative, sharpness and decisiveness.

Players lacking intensity are reactionary - they watch things unfold and try to react to what other players are doing. When they get the ball, they dont instinctively have a plan for what to do with it -- they need 'thinking time'. Even if they have good leg speed, they appear slow because they are slow to act. they have 'slow hands'

OTOH, intense players dont 'die wondering' -- they act first, they make instinctive decisions, they have quick brains. regardless of legspeed, they have 'quick hands'.

To sum it up in one sentence, maybe intensity is the ability of the player to make instinctive decisions

Agree / disagree?

If you look at the strict definition of intense in sporting terms its:

a component of motivation that relates to the amount of effort an athlete makes in particular situations. So some of what you have described relates to this.

I think Hargrave shows intensity, he never shirks a contest and goes in hard and makes huge efforts towrads the ball.. Stack is often criticized for not being intense but I disagree, his issue is more decision making. He has often run his guts out to make a spoil on an opponent, however, he isnot an in and under player and this may be the reason why supporters criticize him. To me Everitt never showed any intensity and Hill rarely does.

[soupman]

Getting back to the topic of the thread here are the players I see in danger:

8. Mitch Hahn (Rookie): Obviously no longer part of our plans, and really this year was surely more about loyalty than anything else.

9. Lindsay Gilbee: Looking increasingly like a fringe player, and atm is just taking games away from Howard. Is contracted for next year though, so unless we can convince him that us parting ways is ideal for both parties then we keep him.

11. Sam Reid: It's been said on here by a few, but there is no room for someone who is slow and can't kick. It's a shame, because I like his endeavour, but I can't see that being enough for him to make it as an AFL player.

14. Callan Ward: Obviously GWS is the big threat.

15. Ben Hudson: Time for the tap on the shoulder? I think so. Even if we believe he is still AFL quality, Minson and Roughead is enough, and Hudson playing another year limits everyone else's claims on the 1st ruck spot.

18. Brennan Stack: I like Stack and want to kkep him, but he may be in danger. I think he's shown he is capable at AFL level, and of the likely de-listings he is probably the one I think is the most realistic chance of being an AFL player.

20. Josh Hill: So talented, but yet again his attitude may mean he doesn't make it. Gone to the highest bidder or othwerwise delist him.

22. Dylan Addison: Similiar to Reid, doesn't offer enough at AFL level and whilst his endeavour is good, he's probably not going to make it. Needs to be moved on.

25. Ryan Hargrave: Didn't really consider him in this group until reading some of the posts in another thread and really I'm not sure we need him anymore with the defensive group coming through. I'd be happy to keep him for another year, but maybe just sound him out and see how he feels and if he's happy to go let him go, otherwise make sure he is aware that next year he is by no means a regular selection (whether our MC follow through on that who knows)

27. Will Minson: If Hudson stays surely Will would leave. Otherwise next year is his big opportunity to show he can hold the number 1 ruck spot.

28. Barry Hall: Retired

31. James Mulligan: Pros: is young, tall, athletic and plays as a key defender. Cons: many. Not sure he is going to make it, but may be worth persisting with, especially considering we are light on for key defenders already and this draft is meant to have very few prospects. I know in another thread we were talking about State league prospects and they might be better value.

34. Jason Tutt: A "project player", but at his height can you afford to be? Surely he needs to make his debut before the season is out if he wants to retain his spot on the list. Could we rookie downgrade him?

Out: Hahn (r), Reid, Hudson, Hill, Addison, Hall...maybe: Ward, Hargrave, Gilbee, Mulligan, Tutt

In: Dahlhaus (p), Barlow (p)

The promoted rookies above are promoted based on extended exposed form in the AFL, unlike other recent rookie promotions like Hooper and Mulligan. Give Barlow 1 year contract, Dahlhaus 10;)

*Djerrkura, Hooper, Moles and Veszpremi were all omitted from this due to being under contract.

[Drunken Bum]

Getting back to the topic of the thread here are the players I see in danger:

Pretty good summation, hard to disagree with much at all here

[LostDoggy]

Pretty good summation, hard to disagree with much at all here

Good summary except that there is no Panos, Prato, Johannisen. Don't see Mulligan (i know i'm always defending him lately) and Tutt moving on.

[soupman]

Good summary except that there is no Panos, Prato, Johannisen. Don't see Mulligan (i know i'm always defending him lately) and Tutt moving on.

Fair enough. Not really qualified to comment on them but here goes.

39. Jason Johannisen: Seems to be primarily in the VFL reserves, and doesn't seem to be overly impressive there like Dahlhaus was for example. As shown with Tutt we are obviously happy to wait for the small guys to develop as well, but it would be interesting to see where the club see JJ at at the moment. Probably gets another year.

45. Eddie Prato: Was recruited as our Mike Pyke/Shae McNamara type of no experience but very athletically gifted ruckman, but unlike those two is yet to do anything at VFL senior level. The problem with project players at the Doggies is that they seem to get extra chances to show something because they are "projects", but surely we must be starting to question his future at the club. You could argue that with Roughead, Minson and Cordy all playing in the ruck for Willy's seniors he hasn't had a chance, but really if he was good enough he'd probably be pushing them out of their spots. I've heard no indication of him demanding selection. Is still eligible for a 3rd year on the rookie list I believe.

48. Matthew Panos: Seen by some as the old fashioned straight kicking full forward, others as the one dimensional liability, Panos is an interesting prospect. He was picked up a lot later than the Bigfooty groupthink expected, but has shown an ability to kick big bags at VFL reserves level, and smaller bags at VFL level. Has been tried down back, and has changed his body shape drastically which suggests the want is certainly there. Like Prato is elgible for a third year, but only one of himself and Prato can claim it.

So I expect Johanissen to get another year based on the Tutt decision and one of Panos or Prato to get another year, despite Prato probably not demonstrating he deserves it. If any of the above get promoted and worse still get given a multiple year contract like Hooper and Mulligan were I'd be dissapointed though.

[Rocco Jones]

I now think Stack should stay and Shaggy should go.

Stack gives us depth with some potential to grow.

[Desipura]

I now think Stack should stay and Shaggy should go.

Stack gives us depth with some potential to grow.

You just want to reinstate the Stack a go go bandwagon

[bornadog]

You just want to reinstate the Stack a go go bandwagon

I still have your post book marked for when he hits 50 games:D

[Desipura]

I still have your post book marked for when he hits 50 games:D
So he is suddenly a regular fixture?

[Maddog37]

I now think Stack should stay and Shaggy should go.

Stack gives us depth with some potential to grow.


Stacky runs fast

And Shaggy can't last

I guess come years end the answer we will know.:D

[bornadog]

So he is suddenly a regular fixture?

a bit of humour Desi. Who knows what happens.

[Rocco Jones]

Stacky runs fast

And Shaggy can't last

I guess come years end the answer we will know.:D

I am a poet and I don't even know it.

Due to the positivity displayed towards Stack I assumed bornadog posted that. I had to look twice!

[bornadog]

I am a poet and I don't even know it.

Due to the positivity displayed towards Stack I assumed bornadog posted that. I had to look twice!

I was stirring Desi as he once posted if Stack makes it to 50 games he will do such and such (can't remeber now)

[Rocco Jones]

I was stirring Desi as he once posted if Stack makes it to 50 games he will do such and such (can't remeber now)

I meant maddog's post.

[Desipura]

I was stirring Desi as he once posted if Stack makes it to 50 games he will do such and such (can't remeber now)

I know you were, just letting you know I am not nervous:D

[bornadog]

I know you were, just letting you know I am not nervous:D

or are you:D

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Getting back to the topic of the thread here are the players I see in danger:

8. Mitch Hahn (Rookie): Obviously no longer part of our plans, and really this year was surely more about loyalty than anything else.

9. Lindsay Gilbee: Looking increasingly like a fringe player, and atm is just taking games away from Howard. Is contracted for next year though, so unless we can convince him that us parting ways is ideal for both parties then we keep him.

11. Sam Reid: It's been said on here by a few, but there is no room for someone who is slow and can't kick. It's a shame, because I like his endeavour, but I can't see that being enough for him to make it as an AFL player.

14. Callan Ward: Obviously GWS is the big threat.

15. Ben Hudson: Time for the tap on the shoulder? I think so. Even if we believe he is still AFL quality, Minson and Roughead is enough, and Hudson playing another year limits everyone else's claims on the 1st ruck spot.

18. Brennan Stack: I like Stack and want to kkep him, but he may be in danger. I think he's shown he is capable at AFL level, and of the likely de-listings he is probably the one I think is the most realistic chance of being an AFL player.

20. Josh Hill: So talented, but yet again his attitude may mean he doesn't make it. Gone to the highest bidder or othwerwise delist him.

22. Dylan Addison: Similiar to Reid, doesn't offer enough at AFL level and whilst his endeavour is good, he's probably not going to make it. Needs to be moved on.

25. Ryan Hargrave: Didn't really consider him in this group until reading some of the posts in another thread and really I'm not sure we need him anymore with the defensive group coming through. I'd be happy to keep him for another year, but maybe just sound him out and see how he feels and if he's happy to go let him go, otherwise make sure he is aware that next year he is by no means a regular selection (whether our MC follow through on that who knows)

27. Will Minson: If Hudson stays surely Will would leave. Otherwise next year is his big opportunity to show he can hold the number 1 ruck spot.

28. Barry Hall: Retired

31. James Mulligan: Pros: is young, tall, athletic and plays as a key defender. Cons: many. Not sure he is going to make it, but may be worth persisting with, especially considering we are light on for key defenders already and this draft is meant to have very few prospects. I know in another thread we were talking about State league prospects and they might be better value.

34. Jason Tutt: A "project player", but at his height can you afford to be? Surely he needs to make his debut before the season is out if he wants to retain his spot on the list. Could we rookie downgrade him?

Out: Hahn (r), Reid, Hudson, Hill, Addison, Hall...maybe: Ward, Hargrave, Gilbee, Mulligan, Tutt

In: Dahlhaus (p), Barlow (p)

The promoted rookies above are promoted based on extended exposed form in the AFL, unlike other recent rookie promotions like Hooper and Mulligan. Give Barlow 1 year contract, Dahlhaus 10;)

*Djerrkura, Hooper, Moles and Veszpremi were all omitted from this due to being under contract.

Gilbee and Hargrave are also still under contract and it would be surprising to see if either of them would be wanted elsewhere. Tutt needs to be played asap in the seniors to gauge if he is going to be good enough.Veszpremi likewise needs to be promoted. Hudson should go which means Minson stays. Too big a risk at this stage to go in with two inexperienced ruckmen in Roughead and Cordy.Barlow because of his size and endurance could become a handy utility player and a one year contract would enable the club to assess his long term future.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Barlow because of his size and endurance could become a handy utility player and a one year contract would enable the club to assess his long term future.

Or you could leave him on the rookie list for another year and then delist him.

[LostDoggy]

Maybe someone knows better than me, but can we delist guys with contracts left?

My personal opinion is that Gilbee and Hargrave should be delisted based on current form, but with both having 1 year contracts this might be difficult.

[The Coon Dog]

Maybe someone knows better than me, but can we delist guys with contracts left?

My personal opinion is that Gilbee and Hargrave should be delisted based on current form, but with both having 1 year contracts this might be difficult.

Yes you can, but you would have to pay them out & that figure would go towards the salary cap.

[LostDoggy]

Yes you can, but you would have to pay them out & that figure would go towards the salary cap.

Would this be an option? Do we have salary cap Issues?

[LostDoggy]

If Cal goes then there'd likely be plenty of room, but it'd be cost vs benefit.

[The Coon Dog]

Would this be an option? Do we have salary cap Issues?

Yeah it would be an issue on a number of fronts. Firstly it would cause salary cap problems. most clubs manage their lists so they're roughly about where they need to be.

Looking at the 2 you mentioned, both would be entitled to be on the Veterans List next year, so that in itself gives us some relief. If you delist them, they aren't on the Veterans List & whatever you pay then is added to the salary cap. Bear in mind when you negotiate a players contract & through its life they go onto the VL, you tend to 'back end' their contact, so instead of 3 installments of 33.33%, it may be 30% + 30% + 40% (that in itself provides a bit of relief in the first 2 years also).

The other reason it wouldn't be good is that you have x number of players with a contract. If you start to rip them up part way through & pay them out it tends to suggest a degree of mismanagement. Not good for morale or attracting players either.

[Greystache]

If Cal goes then there'd likely be plenty of room, but it'd be cost vs benefit.

It's taken out of the year the player is delisted, so if Ward left it wouldn't help.

[anfo27]

Maybe someone knows better than me, but can we delist guys with contracts left?

My personal opinion is that Gilbee and Hargrave should be delisted based on current form, but with both having 1 year contracts this might be difficult.

Shaggy hasn't set the world on fire with his return but this year has been a write off for him. He had no pre-season for starters and he was having back spasms in the warm up on Saturday night so that might have had something to do with his woeful performance.

[soupman]

Gilbee and Hargrave are also still under contract and it would be surprising to see if either of them would be wanted elsewhere. Tutt needs to be played asap in the seniors to gauge if he is going to be good enough.Veszpremi likewise needs to be promoted. Hudson should go which means Minson stays. Too big a risk at this stage to go in with two inexperienced ruckmen in Roughead and Cordy.Barlow because of his size and endurance could become a handy utility player and a one year contract would enable the club to assess his long term future.

All these are points I agree with in my post. I only mentioned Minson because if Hudson does stay he personally would have to look otherwise his career is in danger of never advancing past the fringe ruckman stage. Hudson needs to go, because like you say neither Roughead nor Cordy is ready, and we can't afford to be relying on an old Hudson with Minson probably gone.

I've also put Tutt and Veszpremi in our senior lineup in the selection thread for the above reasons.

I think we'll see Barlow promoted and given a two year contract based on past dealings, but I'd like us to take a similiar approach to what Freo do and only promote rookies who are definite best 22 players (like Dahlhaus). Thus Barlow spends another year as a rookie, and most likely could play from round 1 anyway because we always have unlucky long term injuries.

Obviously the Gilbee and Hargrave co ntracts limit us somewhat, and thats why they are in the maybe pile, which is really only dependant on them taking the initiative to retire early and forfeit their last year of the contract (or if not possible could we negotiate for a smaller sum to be paid out to make this more fair on them?).

[BulldogBelle]

Stacky runs fast

And Shaggy can't last

I guess come years end the answer we will know.:D



Shaggy didnt have a preseason, has had foot and back difficulties all year - so we cant expect him to slot back into the line up and play like he did in 09 straight away.

Similar to Darren Milburn, I could see him playing games well into his 30s - given that he doesn't rely on breakneck speed, or +55m kicks, but whose strength lies in his intensity and football smarts.

I would be saying to Gilbee "Listen you aren't going to be in our best 22 in 2012, we need to player younger players, so do you want to spend the year at Williamstown, or would you look at a season or 2 elsewhere?"

[soupman]

I would be saying to Gilbee "Listen you aren't going to be in our best 22 in 2012, we need to player younger players, so do you want to spend the year at Williamstown, or would you look at a season or 2 elsewhere?"

...at state league level. There isn't a single AFL club that would consider trading or drafting for Gilbee. The only players that get recruited at his age are those who fill a gaping hole in the clubs list (Barry Hall) or are going to sell numerous memberships and have a major impact on the side (Ben Cousins)

[LostDoggy]

...at state league level. There isn't a single AFL club that would consider trading or drafting for Gilbee. The only players that get recruited at his age are those who fill a gaping hole in the clubs list (Barry Hall) or are going to sell numerous memberships and have a major impact on the side (Ben Cousins)

would normally say you are right.. St kilda picking up steven king was a 'gaping hole' type thing, but with the new clubs looking for a few senior players to help out their young lists there may a chance to pull a fast one a la josh fraser to the suns. Just keep harping on the line that he's the best kick in the comp and hope someone hasn't been watching footy in three years and bites!

[LostDoggy]

Shaggy hasn't set the world on fire with his return but this year has been a write off for him. He had no pre-season for starters and he was having back spasms in the warm up on Saturday night so that might have had something to do with his woeful performance.

I don't see any benefit in delisting shaggy. I think he is an inspiration to all at club how he has carried himself with his range of injuries. Casting him aside sends a terrible message, plus I think he has plenty to add assuming he remains healthy next year. With Morris potentially gone for an extended period (which may include start of 2012) we need experienced backmen otherwise we can get used to 10 goal thumpings on a regular basis. Our team will be younger and lack experience next year - we need some wise heads out there

[stefoid]

Gilbee and Hargs have been great servants of the club and deserve to play out their contracts and then ahve the situation reviewed based on form at that time.

If a younger player is capable of playing better then play the young replayer, and use Gilbs and Hargs for depth. thats fair enough isnt it?

We wont be wanting for spots on the list with the number of retirements and delistings of uncontracted battlers to come.

[LostDoggy]

If we pay them out, where is this money for new players gonna come from?

[GVGjr]

Gilbee and Hargs have been great servants of the club and deserve to play out their contracts and then ahve the situation reviewed based on form at that time.

If a younger player is capable of playing better then play the young replayer, and use Gilbs and Hargs for depth. thats fair enough isnt it?

We wont be wanting for spots on the list with the number of retirements and delistings of uncontracted battlers to come.

They are on veterans contracts but I am under the impression that if you pay them out early then their full contract will go against the salary cap. I don't think we have the wiggle room in the salary cap to accommodate that
If they retire then I think it works out better for the club.

[Maddog37]

Better to keep them for a year and go shallow in this draft.

Cut deeper next year and go hell for leather in the 2012 superdraft.

[Rocco Jones]

Just thinking of a possible 22 for next season to see where our biggest short term weaknesses lie.

I haven't put Lake or Cooney in as I don' think we can rely on them being regular starters.

B: Wood Markovic Morris
HB: Picken Williams Murphy
C: Tutt Boyd Cross
HF: Higgins Jones Sherman
F: Dahlhaus Grant Gia
R: Roughead Griffen Liberatore
I/C: Howard Barlow Schofield DJ

- Lake would replace Markovic/Grant depending on whether he plays back or forward
- Cooney for random runner
- Higgins needs to be a bit of a swingman

The obvious problems I see
- still too slow, especially through the midfield
- Grant and Jones as tall forward target
- the most dangerous small forward targets we have struggle to apply defensive pressure
- lack of depth down back if Lake isn't right
- obvious lack of experience with more than half of the 22 well and truly still just finding their feet

[Ghost Dog]

Just thinking of a possible 22 for next season to see where our biggest short term weaknesses lie.

I haven't put Lake or Cooney in as I don' think we can rely on them being regular starters.

B: Wood Markovic Morris
HB: Picken Williams Murphy
C: Tutt Boyd Cross
HF: Higgins Jones Sherman
F: Dahlhaus Grant Gia
R: Roughead Griffen Liberatore
I/C: Howard Barlow Schofield DJ

- Lake would replace Markovic/Grant depending on whether he plays back or forward
- Cooney for random runner
- Higgins needs to be a bit of a swingman

The obvious problems I see
- still too slow, especially through the midfield
- Grant and Jones as tall forward target
- the most dangerous small forward targets we have struggle to apply defensive pressure
- lack of depth down back if Lake isn't right
- obvious lack of experience with more than half of the 22 well and truly still just finding their feet

I dunno. Haus seems fast enough. Vezpremi has a burst, but not sure if he has a tank, and was funny watching him on a fist pumping trot after a goal. Thought to myself, yeah, settle down Mr.... It's only Port, and besides, where the hell have you been all season!
Josh Hill is doing a little dance now Mr Eade has left. Has a new spring in his step by all accounts. Maybe too late for this team

[mjp]

Better to keep them for a year and go shallow in this draft.

Cut deeper next year and go hell for leather in the 2012 superdraft.

The 2012 Super Draft?

Oh yeah...the one missing all of those 17yo's like Garlett and OMeara and Taylor who have been able to nominate a year early because of GWS?

Hmmm. Super.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I dunno. Haus seems fast enough. Vezpremi has a burst, but not sure if he has a tank, and was funny watching him on a fist pumping trot after a goal. Thought to myself, yeah, settle down Mr.... It's only Port, and besides, where the hell have you been all season!


A touch harsh GD, Vez was understandably excited about kicking his first goal in his first game for the Dogs. Its been a tough year for him, played VFL all year and badly broke a finger. I liked the celebration and effort.

[LostDoggy]

The 2012 Super Draft?

Oh yeah...the one missing all of those 17yo's like Garlett and OMeara and Taylor who have been able to nominate a year early because of GWS?


Thats what comes to my mind when people mention this 2012 superdraft. What actually constitutes a super draft anyway? I thought it really was more a reflective term.

[Maddog37]

The 2012 Super Draft?

Oh yeah...the one missing all of those 17yo's like Garlett and OMeara and Taylor who have been able to nominate a year early because of GWS?

Hmmm. Super.


I meant to write "super draft" as in the so called super draft.

My question remains though. Are we better to hang on to older guys for one more year and go deep in 2012 or cut deep and draft heavily this year?

[Mantis]

My question remains though. Are we better to hang on to older guys for one more year and go deep in 2012 or cut deep and draft heavily this year?

Which 'older' guys are you talking about?