Can the 2012-17 cycle compare to 1999-2004?

[saintspremiers]

Thanks for the feedback Bluthy. You make some valid points but the point you're missing is there are 2 monsters that are about to take the AFL by storm. Giants and Suns....in that order. When we hit our peak in 2020 we will still not get to within a bulls roar of those two teams. "Converting" Armo and Jack into eg. picks 2 and 12 at the end of this year will have a 2 fold effect. The first is that if our recruiters get it right, 2 more elite kids (preferably mids) on our list. The second point is that it will probably keep us in the bottom 4 for an extra 2 years meaning high draft picks for an extra 2 years.

A poster made a good point a while ago, if we just go to the draft each year without trading, our picks are (apart from pick 1), almost identical to the premier. If you finish last you get picks 1,19, 37, 55, 73. The premier gets 18, 36, 54, 72. With this point in mind plus the fact that we have 2 monsters about to explode, this is my reasoning why I believe Armo and Jack should be converted to high draft picks at the end of this year. Same scenario as Stanley. I admit I was horrified when we traded him for pick 21, but I was rapt when pick 21 became H Goddard. Also, I would like to add, with another year under our belt our team will be better able to absorb the loss of Armo and Jack. It is my opinion that in 2016 even without Armo and Jack St Kilda will not be any worse than 2015. But the big plus is that we will have an extra 2 young guns on our list.

You still don't get it. Jack is proven, pick 2 is not. Jack is very close to elite. Not many pick 2 become elite. You also cant keep trading away good players. As I have said before what happens in 2020 if we aren't near a flag, do we keep trading all our good players.? Of course not. Really your thinking on footy is either very poor or you just want to cause trouble. I cant see any other reason for your thinking.

Mods. City west IS a troll. I cannot believe he is anything else, given after repeated attempts to educate him, he is incapable to see someone else's POV.

When will you guys ever come to this blatantly obvious conclusion?

Plugger and I also argue a lot, but we do at times agree with each other.

[plugger66]

Thanks for the feedback Bluthy. You make some valid points but the point you're missing is there are 2 monsters that are about to take the AFL by storm. Giants and Suns....in that order. When we hit our peak in 2020 we will still not get to within a bulls roar of those two teams. "Converting" Armo and Jack into eg. picks 2 and 12 at the end of this year will have a 2 fold effect. The first is that if our recruiters get it right, 2 more elite kids (preferably mids) on our list. The second point is that it will probably keep us in the bottom 4 for an extra 2 years meaning high draft picks for an extra 2 years.

A poster made a good point a while ago, if we just go to the draft each year without trading, our picks are (apart from pick 1), almost identical to the premier. If you finish last you get picks 1,19, 37, 55, 73. The premier gets 18, 36, 54, 72. With this point in mind plus the fact that we have 2 monsters about to explode, this is my reasoning why I believe Armo and Jack should be converted to high draft picks at the end of this year. Same scenario as Stanley. I admit I was horrified when we traded him for pick 21, but I was rapt when pick 21 became H Goddard. Also, I would like to add, with another year under our belt our team will be better able to absorb the loss of Armo and Jack. It is my opinion that in 2016 even without Armo and Jack St Kilda will not be any worse than 2015. But the big plus is that we will have an extra 2 young guns on our list.

You still don't get it. Jack is proven, pick 2 is not. Jack is very close to elite. Not many pick 2 become elite. You also cant keep trading away good players. As I have said before what happens in 2020 if we aren't near a flag, do we keep trading all our good players.? Of course not. Really your thinking on footy is either very poor or you just want to cause trouble. I cant see any other reason for your thinking.

Mods. City west IS a troll. I cannot believe he is anything else, given after repeated attempts to educate him, he is incapable to see someone else's POV.

When will you guys ever come to this blatantly obvious conclusion?

Plugger and I also argue a lot, but we do at times agree with each other.

I disagree.

[samuraisaint]

Getting rid of players in their prime, Armitage, Jack and Geary, is a ridiculous thing to consider because these are the guys who should be leading the club. You need some veterans age players too, and we have five of those. Trading away players to gain a higher draft pick can be okay if the strategy is sound (Stanley), or if the player needs a change and wants to leave (BJ) - provided they are old (Dal) or before their prime (McEvoy).
Take Geary for example; who was mentioned as a possible trade at on point, to Geelong - how much did we miss his grunt last year? - absolutely heaps. He offers something that the younger players can't offer, and that the veterans can't either. There are too many question marks over our younger group of fringe players to get rid of guys in their prime who are in our starting 22.
Jack Steven is going to be a star in the next few years and we must not entertain the idea of trading him. Threads like this are a waste of time.

[bergholt]

There are two reasons to keep guys like Armo, Steven and Geary - Ray, Gilbert and Delaney also fall into this category to a lesser extent:

- because they shelter the kids and give them time to develop at their own pace
- because they set a great example for the kids to follow

The first of those is true of most of them, especially someone like Delaney. Having him at full-back means we don't have to throw Goddard to the wolves, and we have flexibility in how we use Bruce to get the most out of him. I'm not sure it's so true of someone like Fazza, because he just wanders around through the midfield in a role many others could play.

The second is more important, I reckon. But it depends on the individual. Does Jack set a good example for the kids? I don't know. I don't go to training and I don't have mates at the club. If he does then definitely keep him around. But if not, if for instance he's lackadaisical at training and doesn't listen in team meetings, and does stupid things off the field - then we're better off not having him.

As I say, I have no inside information, so I don't know. But saying we should definitely keep these guys without knowing how they're affecting the players around them is pretty short-sighted.

[plugger66]

There are two reasons to keep guys like Armo, Steven and Geary - Ray, Gilbert and Delaney also fall into this category to a lesser extent:

- because they shelter the kids and give them time to develop at their own pace
- because they set a great example for the kids to follow

The first of those is true of most of them, especially someone like Delaney. Having him at full-back means we don't have to throw Goddard to the wolves, and we have flexibility in how we use Bruce to get the most out of him. I'm not sure it's so true of someone like Fazza, because he just wanders around through the midfield in a role many others could play.

The second is more important, I reckon. But it depends on the individual. Does Jack set a good example for the kids? I don't know. I don't go to training and I don't have mates at the club. If he does then definitely keep him around. But if not, if for instance he's lackadaisical at training and doesn't listen in team meetings, and does stupid things off the field - then we're better off not having him.

As I say, I have no inside information, so I don't know. But saying we should definitely keep these guys without knowing how they're affecting the players around them is pretty short-sighted.

But this person is saying get rid of them with any knowledge either. I would suggest that as we have no knowledge of what happens inside the club then we can only go from what we see outside on the ground and very occasionally at training and using that information I would suggest it is plainly stupid to get rid of either player. Also I think we can guess pretty accurately that Armo is very good inside the club as he is a leader. As for Jack I do know he work amazingly hard on the track as well.

[matrix]

ive got a great idea

how about....

some of you hit the freakin enter button every now and then?

perhaps

[samuraisaint]

I think Petracca's injury today highlights why clubs shouldn't be too quick to trade for high draft picks.

[PJ]

I honestly can't believe anyone would argue trading our remaining experienced mids.WTF

Neither Armo or Steven are going anywhere.

[citywest]

I honestly can't believe anyone would argue trading our remaining experienced mids.WTF

Neither Armo or Steven are going anywhere.

Did you actually read my reasoning behind why I would do it?

[plugger66]

I honestly can't believe anyone would argue trading our remaining experienced mids.WTF

Neither Armo or Steven are going anywhere.

Did you actually read my reasoning behind why I would do it?

Im sure he did and that is why he said what he said.

[SaintPav]

There are two reasons to keep guys like Armo, Steven and Geary - Ray, Gilbert and Delaney also fall into this category to a lesser extent:

- because they shelter the kids and give them time to develop at their own pace
- because they set a great example for the kids to follow

The first of those is true of most of them, especially someone like Delaney. Having him at full-back means we don't have to throw Goddard to the wolves, and we have flexibility in how we use Bruce to get the most out of him. I'm not sure it's so true of someone like Fazza, because he just wanders around through the midfield in a role many others could play.

The second is more important, I reckon. But it depends on the individual. Does Jack set a good example for the kids? I don't know. I don't go to training and I don't have mates at the club. If he does then definitely keep him around. But if not, if for instance he's lackadaisical at training and doesn't listen in team meetings, and does stupid things off the field - then we're better off not having him.

As I say, I have no inside information, so I don't know. But saying we should definitely keep these guys without knowing how they're affecting the players around them is pretty short-sighted.

But this person is saying get rid of them with any knowledge either. I would suggest that as we have no knowledge of what happens inside the club then we can only go from what we see outside on the ground and very occasionally at training and using that information I would suggest it is plainly stupid to get rid of either player. Also I think we can guess pretty accurately that Armo is very good inside the club as he is a leader. As for Jack I do know he work amazingly hard on the track as well.

Pick 12 for Armo would have been tempting though.

[plugger66]

There are two reasons to keep guys like Armo, Steven and Geary - Ray, Gilbert and Delaney also fall into this category to a lesser extent:

- because they shelter the kids and give them time to develop at their own pace
- because they set a great example for the kids to follow

The first of those is true of most of them, especially someone like Delaney. Having him at full-back means we don't have to throw Goddard to the wolves, and we have flexibility in how we use Bruce to get the most out of him. I'm not sure it's so true of someone like Fazza, because he just wanders around through the midfield in a role many others could play.

The second is more important, I reckon. But it depends on the individual. Does Jack set a good example for the kids? I don't know. I don't go to training and I don't have mates at the club. If he does then definitely keep him around. But if not, if for instance he's lackadaisical at training and doesn't listen in team meetings, and does stupid things off the field - then we're better off not having him.

As I say, I have no inside information, so I don't know. But saying we should definitely keep these guys without knowing how they're affecting the players around them is pretty short-sighted.

But this person is saying get rid of them with any knowledge either. I would suggest that as we have no knowledge of what happens inside the club then we can only go from what we see outside on the ground and very occasionally at training and using that information I would suggest it is plainly stupid to get rid of either player. Also I think we can guess pretty accurately that Armo is very good inside the club as he is a leader. As for Jack I do know he work amazingly hard on the track as well.

Pick 12 for Armo would have been tempting though.

Its a myth though. Richmond showed interest but we have no idea what they wanted to use to trade him. If we went by every rumour on footy forums then we would go totally insane.

[SaintPav]

There are two reasons to keep guys like Armo, Steven and Geary - Ray, Gilbert and Delaney also fall into this category to a lesser extent:

- because they shelter the kids and give them time to develop at their own pace
- because they set a great example for the kids to follow

The first of those is true of most of them, especially someone like Delaney. Having him at full-back means we don't have to throw Goddard to the wolves, and we have flexibility in how we use Bruce to get the most out of him. I'm not sure it's so true of someone like Fazza, because he just wanders around through the midfield in a role many others could play.

The second is more important, I reckon. But it depends on the individual. Does Jack set a good example for the kids? I don't know. I don't go to training and I don't have mates at the club. If he does then definitely keep him around. But if not, if for instance he's lackadaisical at training and doesn't listen in team meetings, and does stupid things off the field - then we're better off not having him.

As I say, I have no inside information, so I don't know. But saying we should definitely keep these guys without knowing how they're affecting the players around them is pretty short-sighted.

But this person is saying get rid of them with any knowledge either. I would suggest that as we have no knowledge of what happens inside the club then we can only go from what we see outside on the ground and very occasionally at training and using that information I would suggest it is plainly stupid to get rid of either player. Also I think we can guess pretty accurately that Armo is very good inside the club as he is a leader. As for Jack I do know he work amazingly hard on the track as well.

Pick 12 for Armo would have been tempting though.

Its a myth though. Richmond showed interest but we have no idea what they wanted to use to trade him. If we went by every rumour on footy forums then we would go totally insane.

Do you know any sane people on here?

Jacksons the mole confirmed it was true.

[No77778]

disappointing forwards in White and Lee. White has 4 goals in 2 games that's not bad

[plugger66]

There are two reasons to keep guys like Armo, Steven and Geary - Ray, Gilbert and Delaney also fall into this category to a lesser extent:

- because they shelter the kids and give them time to develop at their own pace
- because they set a great example for the kids to follow

The first of those is true of most of them, especially someone like Delaney. Having him at full-back means we don't have to throw Goddard to the wolves, and we have flexibility in how we use Bruce to get the most out of him. I'm not sure it's so true of someone like Fazza, because he just wanders around through the midfield in a role many others could play.

The second is more important, I reckon. But it depends on the individual. Does Jack set a good example for the kids? I don't know. I don't go to training and I don't have mates at the club. If he does then definitely keep him around. But if not, if for instance he's lackadaisical at training and doesn't listen in team meetings, and does stupid things off the field - then we're better off not having him.

As I say, I have no inside information, so I don't know. But saying we should definitely keep these guys without knowing how they're affecting the players around them is pretty short-sighted.

But this person is saying get rid of them with any knowledge either. I would suggest that as we have no knowledge of what happens inside the club then we can only go from what we see outside on the ground and very occasionally at training and using that information I would suggest it is plainly stupid to get rid of either player. Also I think we can guess pretty accurately that Armo is very good inside the club as he is a leader. As for Jack I do know he work amazingly hard on the track as well.

Pick 12 for Armo would have been tempting though.

Its a myth though. Richmond showed interest but we have no idea what they wanted to use to trade him. If we went by every rumour on footy forums then we would go totally insane.

Do you know any sane people on here?

Jacksons the mole confirmed it was true.

Well then it must be true. And mark Williams is coaching us now.

[evertonfc]

Jack Steven is a ripping player but the notion of having two of the top five picks, perhaps even the first two picks, for a player who will be 26 in R1 next year, is worthy of consideration. Just saying.

[citywest]

I think Petracca's injury today highlights why clubs shouldn't be too quick to trade for high draft picks.

I'm sorry to say samuraisaint, your comment above wins the prize for the dumbest post of the year. Please tell me how Petracca's injury highlights why we shouldn't be too quick to trade for high draft picks.

I am eagerly awaiting your reply.

[plugger66]

Jack Steven is a ripping player but the notion of having two of the top five picks, perhaps even the first two picks, for a player who will be 26 in R1 next year, is worthy of consideration. Just saying.

But when do you stop getting rid of your best players. Say newnes improves out of site and in 4 years when he is a FA and the Saints are still struggling do we get rid of him also because he is nearly 26 and we may get another top pick. Sometimes you just need to keep your players and back that they will still be an important part of our side when we next challenge for the flag.

Losing Jack at the end of this year would ensure a bottom finish again. That is most to be 3 in a row with the pick for Jack probably having little influence for a couple of years. The club could easily be in turmoil if we cant compete.

[SMS]

Steven?
Only if we get 2 first rounders. Not one. TWO.

Armitage is needed as he is a leader and value as a clubman is irreplacable

I believe 2020 we'll be contenders.

Core group 23-26.

Imo we are building something very special.
Team of leaders
Thanks to ROOEY and co. While they didnt quite get there have instilled culture going forward and if we keep drafting the way we have the last 3 years which have been brilliant, flags are on the way. 2020 to 2026 will be a fantastic time.

[stinger]

I honestly can't believe anyone would argue trading our remaining experienced mids.WTF

Neither Armo or Steven are going anywhere.

fully agree with you......only a troll would suggest otherwise....

[gringo]

Jack Steven is a ripping player but the notion of having two of the top five picks, perhaps even the first two picks, for a player who will be 26 in R1 next year, is worthy of consideration. Just saying.

I'm not sure of the stats anymore but I remember the stats for playing 100 AFL games were around a few years back. It went something like a player taken in the top 10 had about a 40% chance of playing 100 games, next 10 about 20% then down to players in the 40s at low single figure percentages of playing 100 games. To me if you have a good player you don't get cute and try to trade up. I'm not sure on the accuracy of those figures but it was a pretty stark reminder. If you had a porsche and someone came and said they have a special prize draw where you could win a slightly newer model or an old bomb but there was a less than 30% chance of being an upgrade you would have to be a problem gambler to go for it.

[bergholt]

I'm not sure of the stats anymore but I remember the stats for playing 100 AFL games were around a few years back. It went something like a player taken in the top 10 had about a 40% chance of playing 100 games, next 10 about 20% then down to players in the 40s at low single figure percentages of playing 100 games.

Nah. It's something like this:

picks 1 - 10: 60% - 70% chance of playing 100 games
picks 11 - 20: 50% - 60% chance of playing 100 games
picks 21 - 30: 30% - 40% chance of playing 100 games
picks 31 and up: 20% - 30% chance of playing 100 games

Looking at 200 games is something like:

picks 1 - 10: 30% - 50% chance of playing 200 games
picks 11 - 20: 10% - 40% chance of playing 200 games
picks 21 - 30: 0% - 20% chance of playing 200 games
picks 31 and up: 0% - 10% chance of playing 200 games

You're very unlikely to get a 200 gamer with picks above 20. It's just not going to happen. So the only way to get really good guys that you can build a team around is with sub-20 picks, especially sub-10 picks. The only way to get them is to give up someone good in their prime.

Look, we can bank the entire rebuild on hoping that we get good players with late picks. That's worked for some teams. But the high percentage way is to have picks in the top ten. Getting one top 10 pick every year is the same as the team who finishes 9th - if we want a more certain path then we need more.

Jack will have played 100+ by the start of next year, and be about to start the ninth year of his career. Not many AFL players have 18 year careers so it's safe to say he's in the second half. He could easily play another five or six years (until maybe 2022) at 20 games a year so that's 100+ games remaining in his career. Could he be doing a Shaun Burgoyne role in a grand final side when he's 30+? Maybe.

But could he be given up in exchange for a 50% chance of a 200 gamer? If so, I think we're duty bound to take it. There's no certainty but if we get that 200 gamer, they'll be a more important part of a 2020, 2021, 2022 grand final side than Jack would have been.

[plugger66]

I'm not sure of the stats anymore but I remember the stats for playing 100 AFL games were around a few years back. It went something like a player taken in the top 10 had about a 40% chance of playing 100 games, next 10 about 20% then down to players in the 40s at low single figure percentages of playing 100 games.

Nah. It's something like this:

picks 1 - 10: 60% - 70% chance of playing 100 games
picks 11 - 20: 50% - 60% chance of playing 100 games
picks 21 - 30: 30% - 40% chance of playing 100 games
picks 31 and up: 20% - 30% chance of playing 100 games

Looking at 200 games is something like:

picks 1 - 10: 30% - 50% chance of playing 200 games
picks 11 - 20: 10% - 40% chance of playing 200 games
picks 21 - 30: 0% - 20% chance of playing 200 games
picks 31 and up: 0% - 10% chance of playing 200 games

You're very unlikely to get a 200 gamer with picks above 20. It's just not going to happen. So the only way to get really good guys that you can build a team around is with sub-20 picks, especially sub-10 picks. The only way to get them is to give up someone good in their prime.

Look, we can bank the entire rebuild on hoping that we get good players with late picks. That's worked for some teams. But the high percentage way is to have picks in the top ten. Getting one top 10 pick every year is the same as the team who finishes 9th - if we want a more certain path then we need more.

Jack will have played 100+ by the start of next year, and be about to start the ninth year of his career. Not many AFL players have 18 year careers so it's safe to say he's in the second half. He could easily play another five or six years (until maybe 2022) at 20 games a year so that's 100+ games remaining in his career. Could he be doing a Shaun Burgoyne role in a grand final side when he's 30+? Maybe.

But could he be given up in exchange for a 50% chance of a 200 gamer? If so, I think we're duty bound to take it. There's no certainty but if we get that 200 gamer, they'll be a more important part of a 2020, 2021, 2022 grand final side than Jack would have been.

Im pretty sure lenny was important in 2009 and 10 GF. The thing is we can keep Jack and baring injury have 100% chance of him playing another 100 games or we can get rid of him and get a player with 60- 70% chance of playing 100 games. And its only his 8th season at the start of 2016. You just cannot keep getting rid of your best players. Doesn't help anyone.

[bergholt]

Im pretty sure lenny was important in 2009 and 10 GF. The thing is we can keep Jack and baring injury have 100% chance of him playing another 100 games or we can get rid of him and get a player with 60- 70% chance of playing 100 games. And its only his 8th season at the start of 2016. You just cannot keep getting rid of your best players. Doesn't help anyone.

He was drafted in 07 so he's been on the list for 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 16 will be his 9th.

Lenny was 29 in 2009. At the moment Jack doesn't compare to Lenny, in game style or impact on the club. If this season shows him to be approaching that level then you have my vote. But he might stabilise at about the level of Armo, being good to very good but not elite. In that case I'm happy for him to go somewhere where he can have more impact and give us a solid chance of a 200 gamer. Win-win.

Having a bunch of good players all peaking at different times doesn't win premierships. You need to have a group who all peak at about the same time. Jack's peak is the next four years or so, but we won't be playing finals for most of that time. That doesn't mean he's useless to us, and I certainly wouldn't let him go lightly, but I agree with those who think it should be considered.

[gringo]

I'm not sure of the stats anymore but I remember the stats for playing 100 AFL games were around a few years back. It went something like a player taken in the top 10 had about a 40% chance of playing 100 games, next 10 about 20% then down to players in the 40s at low single figure percentages of playing 100 games.

Nah. It's something like this:

picks 1 - 10: 60% - 70% chance of playing 100 games
picks 11 - 20: 50% - 60% chance of playing 100 games
picks 21 - 30: 30% - 40% chance of playing 100 games
picks 31 and up: 20% - 30% chance of playing 100 games

Looking at 200 games is something like:

picks 1 - 10: 30% - 50% chance of playing 200 games
picks 11 - 20: 10% - 40% chance of playing 200 games
picks 21 - 30: 0% - 20% chance of playing 200 games
picks 31 and up: 0% - 10% chance of playing 200 games

You're very unlikely to get a 200 gamer with picks above 20. It's just not going to happen. So the only way to get really good guys that you can build a team around is with sub-20 picks, especially sub-10 picks. The only way to get them is to give up someone good in their prime.

Look, we can bank the entire rebuild on hoping that we get good players with late picks. That's worked for some teams. But the high percentage way is to have picks in the top ten. Getting one top 10 pick every year is the same as the team who finishes 9th - if we want a more certain path then we need more.

Jack will have played 100+ by the start of next year, and be about to start the ninth year of his career. Not many AFL players have 18 year careers so it's safe to say he's in the second half. He could easily play another five or six years (until maybe 2022) at 20 games a year so that's 100+ games remaining in his career. Could he be doing a Shaun Burgoyne role in a grand final side when he's 30+? Maybe.

But could he be given up in exchange for a 50% chance of a 200 gamer? If so, I think we're duty bound to take it. There's no certainty but if we get that 200 gamer, they'll be a more important part of a 2020, 2021, 2022 grand final side than Jack would have been.

The only way to get a 200+ gamer is to give up a good player and duty bound sound emotive but the way we have got our high picks is by finishing down the bottom of the ladder. I have a different view point in that swapping an a grade player that could end up being for another Scully, Grimes, Tambling, Thorp, Kruizer etc is almost criminally stupid. The AFL has the discretion to hand out compensation as they see fit. What if we let Steven walk then the AFL attempt to scare off the bottom teams trading out all their high quality and give us an end of first round pick for him? I hope we play to win every game and are aiming to stay off the bottom of the ladder this year and that we keep all our quality players and add to it with our quality drafting which has been very good in the last couple of years.