It's not Lyon's fault!!

[st.byron]

Why were we on the slide?
To overcome our injuries GT gave us the lightest pre-season any team ever had in 2006. And it cost him his job because it did not work.
But regardless we were still a real force in 2006. Its amazing that we could win 10 of last 13 games and for the later part we were carrrying X, Raph, Kosi and Hamill who we needed to win the premiership but were severely under done.
We still only lost to Melbourne because we had 4 players gone by half time.
That was with a team the majority who were 23 years or younger. My major problem is that under RL only BJ, Chips and Monty have gone forward. The rest have stagnated or gone backwards.

We were on the slide because we had played preliminary finals in 04 and 05 and looked like genuine contenders. We didn't look like genuine contenders in 06 and our ladder position reflected that.
To use injuries as an excuse and then trot out X, Raph and Kosi as pert of a must have quartet to win the flag is crap. Hamill I can agree with. He was an awesome force in 04 and 05 but was stuffed in 06. Raph, Kosi and X - yep they were injured, (5,7 and 13 games each) - but not exactly setting the world on fire now they're all fit are they? Kosi and X solid without tearing it up and Raph back in the twos.

[Buckets]

Is this thread still going?


God help us all if we don't have a win tonight!

[Shaggy]

Why were we on the slide?
To overcome our injuries GT gave us the lightest pre-season any team ever had in 2006. And it cost him his job because it did not work.
But regardless we were still a real force in 2006. Its amazing that we could win 10 of last 13 games and for the later part we were carrrying X, Raph, Kosi and Hamill who we needed to win the premiership but were severely under done.
We still only lost to Melbourne because we had 4 players gone by half time.
That was with a team the majority who were 23 years or younger. My major problem is that under RL only BJ, Chips and Monty have gone forward. The rest have stagnated or gone backwards.

We were on the slide because we had played preliminary finals in 04 and 05 and looked like genuine contenders. We didn't look like genuine contenders in 06 and our ladder position reflected that.
To use injuries as an excuse and then trot out X, Raph and Kosi as pert of a must have quartet to win the flag is crap. Hamill I can agree with. He was an awesome force in 04 and 05 but was stuffed in 06. Raph, Kosi and X - yep they were injured, (5,7 and 13 games each) - but not exactly setting the world on fire now they're all fit are they? Kosi and X solid without tearing it up and Raph back in the twos.

Well we disagree.

I made a fortune in 2006 backing the Saints half way mark.

It was obvious we were going to get better and we were still in the 8 despite all the players missing and the blokes being under fit the first half year.

X, Raph, Kosi and Hamill were all much better footballers under GT than RL (IMO). In fact I would say 13 out of 18 of our regulars in 2006 still playing were better footballers under GT than today.

[rexy]

It is Lyons fault, he is the coach. That may be unfair but is the reality of being in charge of something. You are liable for the performance of the people in your direct charge.

[rodgerfox]

We were on the slide because we had played preliminary finals in 04 and 05 and looked like genuine contenders. We didn't look like genuine contenders in 06 and our ladder position reflected that.

Really though, our ladder position was only % off what it was the year before.

We still had 14 wins - the same as 05.

[Shaggy]

We were on the slide because we had played preliminary finals in 04 and 05 and looked like genuine contenders. We didn't look like genuine contenders in 06 and our ladder position reflected that.

Really though, our ladder position was only % off what it was the year before.

We still had 14 wins - the same as 05.

With no pre-season and carrying 4 blokes at the end

[St.Kenny]

Why we must have been on the slide in 2006 infact so much so that we didnt even make the finals in 07. And were still sliding in 08 ! but its all GT's fault of course........and always will be in the eyes of the 'saintsational sickos'of whom the all konowing Barks is the leader.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

This poor list management has lead us to our current dip when with much better drafting and recruiting over the last two periods RL has done much better at improving the quality, balance and structure of the list than the entire period GT was there.

The Hawks started after us....but have now gone passed us.

Why???...because they kept working at improving the quality and balance of their list.

Whereas GT decreased the quality of the list with poor trading....and also by inappropriate recruiting allowing large flaws to open up:

*rucks.....
*midfield

Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. I think the only way recruiting changes the core of the Saints list is if they get lucky, it's just been too hard a team to make and excel in as a rookie. I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn, and I deliberately leave alone the mystery that is how anyone can blame recruitment for going after a mid-skill ruckman (Ackland) to replace Knobel whose head got too big, and then again (Rix) when Ackland's got too big.

There's plenty of room to criticise GT, but looking at our list, I still think we have a fantastically well balanced list in terms of position, talent and experience. While a good list is requisite to challenge for a premiership, it's no guarentee... and when I watch the Saints these days, it's the difference between a good list and a challenger that I see leave us short again and again.

Why are Hawthorn looking better than St. Kilda? They're innovators. "The box" in the forward line. Set plays from just about every position on the field, and a gamestyle that gets misreported more than anyone. They play from the backline through the corridor and where necessary into the wings very deliberately while having the fundamentals of clearances and harballs down pat. For all Franklin takes most of their scoring at the moment, if Franklin got hurt, they'd keep winning because they have built the plan around their list, not around Buddy.

The Saints have not done the same since deciding defensive accountable footy was more of a priority. Friday night they set themselves a mission and by and large achieved it... that's the kind of unity that they need in their play, and they'll reign in the leaders. Without it, we'll continue to debate where they went wrong until the list really isn't good enough.

[st.byron]

This poor list management has lead us to our current dip when with much better drafting and recruiting over the last two periods RL has done much better at improving the quality, balance and structure of the list than the entire period GT was there.

The Hawks started after us....but have now gone passed us.

Why???...because they kept working at improving the quality and balance of their list.
Whereas GT decreased the quality of the list with poor trading....and also by inappropriate recruiting allowing large flaws to open up:
*rucks.....
*midfield

Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. I think the only way recruiting changes the core of the Saints list is if they get lucky.......

Disagree that recruiting has bupkus to do with our performance.
Look at the draft picks Thomas made from 2003 -2005

2003 2004 2005
8 Raph Clarke 17 McQualter 33 Gilbert
55 Sam Fisher 33 Ackland 49 Rix
65 Callaghan 49 McGough 63 Raymond
77 Grant Oorloff 63 Gwilt 71 Sweeney

Somebody refresh me as to who we traded our second and third picks for in 2003, sure Watts and Brooks are in there somewhere. And refresh me why we didn't have a pick until 33 in 2005. Who did we trade for?

The above is a complete indictment of Thomas' list management.
2 out of 14 (including Brooks and Watts) playing at senior level !!! A yawning gap in our list in the 20 - 23 year old age group from these draft years. Don't tell me that lack of list depth has nothing to do with a team's competitiveness. Lucky our numbers came up in the 2001 draft (Bally (3), X (5) , Dal (13), Goose (21) and Joey (37)) or we'd be completely stuffed in the mid-field.
Look at Wet Toast, take Judd, Cousins and Chick out and they turn from 5 and zip at this point last year to 1-4 and looking very average.
Why? - lack of depth.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. I think the only way recruiting changes the core of the Saints list is if they get lucky.......

Disagree that recruiting has bupkus to do with our performance.
Look at the draft picks Thomas made from 2003 -2005

2003 2004 2005
8 Raph Clarke 17 McQualter 33 Gilbert
55 Sam Fisher 33 Ackland 49 Rix
65 Callaghan 49 McGough 63 Raymond
77 Grant Oorloff 63 Gwilt 71 Sweeney

Somebody refresh me as to who we traded our second and third picks for in 2003, sure Watts and Brooks are in there somewhere. And refresh me why we didn't have a pick until 33 in 2005. Who did we trade for?

The above is a complete indictment of Thomas' list management.
2 out of 14 (including Brooks and Watts) playing at senior level !!! A yawning gap in our list in the 20 - 23 year old age group from these draft years. Don't tell me that lack of list depth has nothing to do with a team's competitiveness. Lucky our numbers came up in the 2001 draft (Bally (3), X (5) , Dal (13), Goose (21) and Joey (37)) or we'd be completely stuffed in the mid-field.
Look at Wet Toast, take Judd, Cousins and Chick out and they turn from 5 and zip at this point last year to 1-4 and looking very average.
Why? - lack of depth.

I believe the aquisition you're referring to in 2003 would have to be Jason Gram, but I could be wrong (going from memory and it fits, haven't looked it up).

I'm not interested in challenging the religiously held view of Thomas' drafting on saintsational - especially since I'm certainly not of the opinion that it was a strength (I do suspect a lot of people need to look through those drafts at what most good teams walked away with). More importantly, such a discussion only leads down well trod roads, and misses the point.

I'm not sure what the age group of 20-23 year olds has to do with anything. In the context of this thread, it's at least premature to grade drafting since Thomas left, and it will remain difficult given the difference in circumstances between today and 2004/5/6.

Friday night, the Saints had 12 players in the lineup drafted from 2000 to 2002 - half the team. Schneider is also in the best 22 and a 2001 draftee. which means those 20-23 year olds are after spots held by players barely older than they are, and those held down by vets aiding in the development of the now 24-26 year olds. Simply put, you've got to play like Sam Fisher, or Sam Gilbert circa 2007 to crack the Saints as a youngster... as much as some on this forum would like to believe otherwise, it's no mean feat for a kid to come from the draft to displace someone like Aaron Fiora or Jason Blake.

Under normal circumstances, you'd like to be rotating in/out about 2 new players a year as regulars, but in practice, when you've got half your list of a certain age group... with 2 from 2003-5, David Armitage and Clinton Jones, we had 6 players in our lineup on Friday night drafted before 2000 (i.e. over 26 years of age).

Looking through those drafts (2003/4/5), it's not like a lot of names jump out, and those that do by and large needed time which they wouldn't have gotten with our predominantly young team. Better recruiting (and even moreso, better development) would absolutely have made the Saints better, but it's no excuse for any slide from the Saints. Unless we pulled out an Adelaide 2004 (Knight, Van Berlo with mid late picks) or Brisbane (Adcock and Rischitelli with mid late picks), there simply aren't that many players from those years who would be core players... if you could have pointed to the Adelaide or Brisbane examples prior to either draft, you should put it in your resume.

My view is whether the list is "the best" or not isn't what decides champion teams. After a minimum level, it's the teams themselves, from last on list like Eljay Connors and rookies ala Van rheenan through to coach and captain. The Saints list is good enough to do that, and complainaing about list strength from where we sit is like a 16 year old complaining that their parents got them a new SUV but not a BMW.

[saintsRrising]

[Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. .

Well we will have to agree to disagree then.

I remember Matthews a year or so back stating that the first duty of a coach was to assemblea good list.

I think the only way recruiting changes the core of the Saints list is if they get lucky, it's just been too hard a team to make and excel in as a rookie. I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn, .

How can you possibly ignore rookies???

From 2002 on in the GT period:

Saints
Murray (15 games)

Hawks
Sewell (69 games) Thurgood (13 games) C Young (49 games) Gilham (33 games)
Osborne (78 games) McGlynn(25 games)
Yes leave out rookies and the comparison would certainly look better. Trouble is that the Hawks rookies are still deilvering benefits on the field.

I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, .

So one player out of Knoble, Guerra, Brooks, Watts, Sugar, Rix, McGough, and Gram is fantastic????

I certainly do not expect anyone to get all their calls right....but 1 in 8 is fantastic???

Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn,

.

Is this not the point???? That GT could not manage him...just as GT could not manage any player with "issues"....with the possible exception of GTrain.

That Guerra is succeeding under another coach is an acknowledgement of GT's failure...and not his success!!!

The Hawks also picked him up in the PSD = cheap.

We used a draft pick on him.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

[Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. .

Well we will have to agree to disagree then. Mission accomplished...

I remember Matthews a year or so back stating that the first duty of a coach was to assemblea good list.

We've got a good list.

I think the only way recruiting changes the core of the Saints list is if they get lucky, it's just been too hard a team to make and excel in as a rookie. I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn, .

How can you possibly ignore rookies???

From 2002 on in the GT period:

Saints
Murray (15 games)

Hawks
Sewell (69 games) Thurgood (13 games) C Young (49 games) Gilham (33 games)
Osborne (78 games) McGlynn(25 games)
Yes leave out rookies and the comparison would certainly look better. Trouble is that the Hawks rookies are still deilvering benefits on the field.

Yeah, those powerhouse Hawks of 2003-5... what diligent list management to find a place for those kids with all the stars that team had...

Seriously, we look stupid for not using the rookie list given our injury troubles - they would have increased our chances of that lucky rookie I refer to. But, your response has nothing to do with the text you've quoted, and neither does it address the point of that text.

I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, .

So one player out of Knoble, Guerra, Brooks, Watts, Sugar, Rix, McGough, and Gram is fantastic????

I certainly do not expect anyone to get all their calls right....but 1 in 8 is fantastic???

Oh come on sRr, I can see how it's easier to respond to the habitual ss discussion than what I said, but that's pretty facile. Please do not try to put words into my mouth (lines into my keyboard?).

Gram's fantastic. I didn't say anyone else was, I just said they "weren't a problem". The mistake with Guerra as it turns out (and we seem to agree) was letting him go. Knobel and Ackland walked themselves while AFL listed and getting games. Brooks and Watts are straight bust., Rix has served his purpose (though I wish he'd stop!). Surely we can see what teh objective was with those players and respect that... if we want to bash drafting with the benefit of hindsight, fish in barrels come to mind (for example, I'd score Gram, Guerra, Knobel, Ackland, and Rix all as passes. The only out and out win I'd give would be Gram. Based on results I'd say the Saints didn't do well with the mature recruits, but I wouldn't fault the objective for that).

Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn,

.

Is this not the point???? That GT could not manage him...just as GT could not manage any player with "issues"....with the possible exception of GTrain.

That Guerra is succeeding under another coach is an acknowledgement of GT's failure...and not his success!!!

he Hawks also picked him up in the PSD = cheap.

We used a draft pick on him.

This may be the point of countless threads in saintsational past, but I was merely using Guerra to illustrate that not all the mature age recruits were bad ideas.

What I'm saying is that recruiting's impact on the current list is being overplayed. The Saints have had average results since 2002, partly as an effect of 2000-02 players in the list, partly because there should have been more done in terms of scouting, development, use of rookie list.

What I'm saying is that Grant Thomas' recruiting has zero to do with the legacy of Ross Lyon, who took over a team that had missed a 3rd consecutive top 4 finish by percentage... except in the eyes of a narrow demographic of die-hard St. Kilda fans who can first recite the draftees we're talking about AND second interpret that data a certain way (and I'm not necessarily judging whether those fans are right or wrong, regardless of whether I agree with them or not).

[saintly]

This poor list management has lead us to our current dip when with much better drafting and recruiting over the last two periods RL has done much better at improving the quality, balance and structure of the list than the entire period GT was there.

The Hawks started after us....but have now gone passed us.

Why???...because they kept working at improving the quality and balance of their list.
Whereas GT decreased the quality of the list with poor trading....and also by inappropriate recruiting allowing large flaws to open up:
*rucks.....
*midfield

Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. I think the only way recruiting changes the core of the Saints list is if they get lucky.......

Disagree that recruiting has bupkus to do with our performance.
Look at the draft picks Thomas made from 2003 -2005

2003 2004 2005
8 Raph Clarke 17 McQualter 33 Gilbert
55 Sam Fisher 33 Ackland 49 Rix
65 Callaghan 49 McGough 63 Raymond
77 Grant Oorloff 63 Gwilt 71 Sweeney

Somebody refresh me as to who we traded our second and third picks for in 2003, sure Watts and Brooks are in there somewhere. And refresh me why we didn't have a pick until 33 in 2005. Who did we trade for?

The above is a complete indictment of Thomas' list management.
2 out of 14 (including Brooks and Watts) playing at senior level !!! A yawning gap in our list in the 20 - 23 year old age group from these draft years. Don't tell me that lack of list depth has nothing to do with a team's competitiveness. Lucky our numbers came up in the 2001 draft (Bally (3), X (5) , Dal (13), Goose (21) and Joey (37)) or we'd be completely stuffed in the mid-field.
Look at Wet Toast, take Judd, Cousins and Chick out and they turn from 5 and zip at this point last year to 1-4 and looking very average.
Why? - lack of depth.

who is Grant Oorloff ?

[saintsRrising]

We've got a good list.
.

But that is not what the discussion was about..

It was the state of the list that RL inherited....vs the state of the list that GT found himself the custodain of.


One of a coaches tasks is to build a team and add value..


In my view RL has done his best to improve the list he gained. GT did not.


I think our list is now once again quite good. However RL has to gain greater motivation and commitment from his top end players. This is currently lacking.

It may well be that history will prove GT a better motivator...and RL a better list builder.....but that both did not get the "whole package" together.

RL is still in his second year.....and we can assess where he is at late this year.

Calls to sack RL now are to my way of thinking premature. At seasons end a reasonable assesment can be made.


In my view RL is doing well in many areas, but not all...I think he has improved the level of available talent of the list compared to when he took over and that we are now back in the business of producing a regular stream of AFL players.

If RL did get the chop at the end of this season then his successor would be ina better position by far than when RL took over.

But there is also no doubt that the list as it now stands has a reasonable group to work with...and RL needs to get more from his upper and middle bands of players.

[spert]

Maybe our some of our "top end players" have the talent but haven't got the self-motivation to lift? The coach can do so much, but quality players know how to do the rest. I think our recruiters in the past have always been sucked in by raw talent, but didn't look any deeper at leadership qualities of recruits. Look though all clubs in the AFLs history and you will find that the champion players are the ones who lifted when the going got tough in a game, and inspired others to play better.
I look at Kozi and at the moment and he is a servicable player just doing enough, where I expect him to be crashing packs, grabbing the telling marks and making a physical statement, but he is not. Apart from a good season early in his career, he might just be one of the under-achievers?

[st.byron]

[quote="BAM! (shhhh)"]

I'm not sure what the age group of 20-23 year olds has to do with anything.

Friday night, the Saints had 12 players in the lineup drafted from 2000 to 2002 - half the team........which means those 20-23 year olds are after spots held by players barely older than they are,......[quote]

Fact is BAM that there aren't the 20-23 year olds putting pressure on the 23+ age group. This underscores Thomas' draft failings. The crop of draftees from 2001 and 2002 is under bugger all pressure from anyone picked up between 2003-2005. 3 wasted years.
Gilbert is 21. Apart from him and BJ there are no others in the 20-23 y.o age group from Thomas' time pushing for spots.
Raph (22) , Gwilt (22), Mini (21) are the only others in this age group from the 2003 -2005 drafts still on the list and none of them them are looking like turning into quality AFL players.
You have to go to 2006 and 2007 to find young players whom Lyon drafted that are pushing for starting 22 spots. Geary (19), Armo (19), Allen (20), Schneider (23), Attard (22).
So purely with regard to Thomas' drafting and list development, he was a failure.

[Otiman]

The one thing Lyon has done so far is stick with his guns for a certain amount of time, if things don't show improvement then the strategies are reworked.

Some people would assume knee-jerk reactions to any percieved weakness, but I believe sticking it out and trying to break through issues can be better in the long run. Of course after a few weeks of addressing the same issues, a change of tact may be needed.

[st.byron]

[quote="BAM! (shhhh)"] (for example, I'd score Gram, Guerra, Knobel, Ackland, and Rix all as passes[quote]


Gram yes, Rix - ordinary, the others - completely wasted opportunities to develop depth in our list. Not "passes" as far as the Saints are concerned. Complete and utter failures.

[st.byron]

[
What I'm saying is that recruiting's impact on the current list is being overplayed. T
What I'm saying is that Grant Thomas' recruiting has zero to do with the legacy of Ross Lyon

Of course it does. Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.

[st.byron]

who is Grant Oorloff ?

Exactly

[BAM! (shhhh)]

This poor list management has lead us to our current dip when with much better drafting and recruiting over the last two periods RL has done much better at improving the quality, balance and structure of the list than the entire period GT was there.

[Couldn't disagree more, but I can respect the opinion.

I think drafting and recruiting has bupkus to do with any "slide" the Saints have experienced. .

Well we will have to agree to disagree then. Mission accomplished...

I remember Matthews a year or so back stating that the first duty of a coach was to assemblea good list.

We've got a good list.
.

But that is not what the discussion was about..

It was the state of the list that RL inherited....vs the state of the list that GT found himself the custodain of.

Gone back and put back in some of the thread of conversation we've previously removed so we can talk about it without arguing about what we're talking about.

To address what you're saying, my view has been that the list Lyon ahs had to work with has been at least as good as the one Thomas had. Last year included a horrific run with injury, and so Lyon gets a free pass, but this year is where in my view the proverbial hits the fan, and Lyon must produce on the field, where it counts... it is my view that any "slide" under Thomas was more injury related than recruiting related, and there's only been any true regression since changing coaches. List management shows potential under Lyon... but potential it had under the last guy, and unless it translates on field, it's deckchairs and big boats.

That is not meant as any sort of ringing endorsement of Thomas. His only relevance is as a benchmark of on field performance that I'm not discounting for Lyon on account of recruitment.

I think our list is now once again quite good. However RL has to gain greater motivation and commitment from his top end players. This is currently lacking.

It may well be that history will prove GT a better motivator...and RL a better list builder.....but that both did not get the "whole package" together.

Or it may be that King and Gardiner both break down with injury. It may be that McEvoy doesn't pan out, Schneider doesn't click here but goes on to star in the back pocket for Melbourne. Gehrig could break down completely while someone we overlooked at the end of the draft develops into a star. Dempster and/or Charlie Gardiner goes on to be the next Jason Blake, maligned for staying on the list ahead of <insert forum hero here>.

I'll still regard the off season moves made by Lyon as worthwhile if his risks don't come off, similar to my view on Thomas... The only one of them that I'm really going to head nod Lyon with this early is Schneider + Dempster for a 2nd rounder (highway robbery IMO); I regard the rest as good, solid opportunism, and pass marks rather than big wins for now. i.e. either Gardiner can make him look like a genious from here, but as with the last guy, that will require deliver on the potential.

But there is also no doubt that the list as it now stands has a reasonable group to work with...and RL needs to get more from his upper and middle bands of players.

I knew that if two posters as verbose as you and I kept at it eventually we'd find something we agreed on.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

[
What I'm saying is that recruiting's impact on the current list is being overplayed. T
What I'm saying is that Grant Thomas' recruiting has zero to do with the legacy of Ross Lyon

Of course it does. Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.

If with the quality he has on the list in the 24-26 bracket, Lyon's legacy is decided by the 21-23 year olds, then he doesn't deserve much of a legacy.

[Dan Warna]

pointless thread TBH, the whatiff blame game.

none of the sides will agree on the issues so there is really little point in regurgitating the same dross that the last 18 months have delivered.

we have the team we have.

we have the coach we have.

GT is gone adn is unlikely to return.

we have a new managemetn at the club and whether you are RL fan or not, you are just feeding on the same tripe as we've been dished up before, myself included.

guys like nexxuss and to a lesser degree B4E feed of this shyte (at least B4E buys his membership and is seen around the grounds)

Cheers

Dan

[NeXuss]

The fact is, when GT was our coach we played finals.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I'm not sure what the age group of 20-23 year olds has to do with anything.

Friday night, the Saints had 12 players in the lineup drafted from 2000 to 2002 - half the team........which means those 20-23 year olds are after spots held by players barely older than they are,......

Fact is BAM that there aren't the 20-23 year olds putting pressure on the 23+ age group. This underscores Thomas' draft failings. The crop of draftees from 2001 and 2002 is under bugger all pressure from anyone picked up between 2003-2005. 3 wasted years.
Gilbert is 21. Apart from him and BJ there are no others in the 20-23 y.o age group from Thomas' time pushing for spots.
Raph (22) , Gwilt (22), Mini (21) are the only others in this age group from the 2003 -2005 drafts still on the list and none of them them are looking like turning into quality AFL players.
You have to go to 2006 and 2007 to find young players whom Lyon drafted that are pushing for starting 22 spots. Geary (19), Armo (19), Allen (20), Schneider (23), Attard (22).
So purely with regard to Thomas' drafting and list development, he was a failure.

2006 and 7 have turned out better than 2003-5? Wow, Lyon must be a genious! For 16 teams (well, 15, I'm not going to hold it against him that he can't save Fremantle)!

Look at the quality we got from the 2000 and 2001 draft. Then be thankful we got the Goddard pick. Then look at the cast of "oh is that where they came from" coming out of the rest of the 2002, 3 and 4 draft (then please tell me who a good recruiter would have known without fail was going to be able to push Dal, push Kosi, push Gram to carry us). 2005 looks like a decent batch, but not in the same vein as 2006 or 2007. We certainly didn't do a great job, but the "fact is" that I'd rather have the kids from the last 2 drafts pushing now... it wasn't a problem until last year (I ask again, did our finals really hinge so centrally on Frankie Peckett?), and it doesn't appear to be the problem this year.

Pressure for spots is well and good, but once they're in the system, that's more development that drafting. Thomas certainly shouldn't write the recruiters handbook, but his draftees were always going to be hard up to make it. Lyon's the coach, if he can't get the same level of motivation from the group as his predecessor, then blaming it on prior recruiting is just scapegoating.