The Positives

[eppo67]

Plugger,

You seem to be hanging on this notion that this list got us to 2 GF's so stick with it.

The crux of this is, other teams have improved, we most certainly have not no matter which way you spin it.

Are we sure Plugger isn't actually RL both seem to be afraid of a little bit of change. Change or perish. I am talking evolution not wholesale changes BTW.

[groupie1]

Plugger,

You seem to be hanging on this notion that this list got us to 2 GF's so stick with it.

The crux of this is, other teams have improved, we most certainly have not no matter which way you spin it.

Are we sure Plugger isn't actually RL both seem to be afraid of a little bit of change. Change or perish. I am talking evolution not wholesale changes BTW.

I reckon we should bring in Lynch for Gamble. OH MY GOD! It's gonna be a f****** rebuild and eight five f****** light years before our next premiership window.

[saintbob]

Plugger,

You seem to be hanging on this notion that this list got us to 2 GF's so stick with it.

The crux of this is, other teams have improved, we most certainly have not no matter which way you spin it.

Ditto, can't believe how many on here wear rose coloured glasses!!!

How long do we gift players games on the back 2 GF losses????

[Thinline]

There's gotta be a youthful breeze blowing through this week.

If not, this place is gonna go all Japanese power plant on our arses.

Seriously, though. Time's ripe for a calculated punt on a couple of newbies. Doesn't come off, we've got a fortnight to reload. Comes off and we're c**k-a-hoop on our way to the Gabba to smack the Brions and hit the middle part with momentum.

[spert]

We lost the GF2 because we didn't play like a team, a few contributors and a lot of passengers, mainly midfield and forward line. We have the talent, and a couple of good players in the wings ready to put pressure on the seniors.We are definately not in peak condition, but wait a few more games and I think we will start to get it together

[saintsRrising]

I take from this awful weekend a massive positive.

Lenny's injury gives us an excuse to take a year off. .

Surely you jest?

We are only two rounds in.

[plugger66]

"they got us very close" hmm, see this is the problem in my opinion. Hell, Collingwood WON the thing and they are injecting new players already and will continue to do so. This group, in its current form, is shot. Our bottom 6 or 8 or so are simply shot and in no way up to it. Time to get the youth in there. Its not a resignation of the season or a "rebuild", its simply what we MUST do, or die. That simple.

As i said in another thread the pies have injected 3 players from other clubs and we have injected one from another club and a new player. It isnt that much different at all and by this week it may be 3 new players each.

Exapnd the outlook over 2-3 years. Have a look at the pick ups off the rookie list. Their god damn captain was a rookie. We know what has to happen, I cannto understand those trying to justify the continuance of this list as it is. its NOT anywhere remotely good enough.

So 4 games ago a draw in a GF with pretty much the same list is remotely good enough. Either you dont rate the pies or we had huge luck in the GF.

Anyway as I have said many times before RL made a decision, maybe 3 years ago, that we had a time fame 4-5 years to win a GF so we recruited for that by bringing in many players from other clubs and only giving kids the odd chance. It has nearly paid off but not quite and IMO it may nearly be shut because of the injury to Lenny

However surely we can wait 2-3 more games to see if this current list can come good because they did get us into the last 2 GF's. In my opinion there is no rush to bring in young kids because once we do the window is 100% shut and the reason is simple. Unless any of the young kids can have an immediate impact, and from their form at Sandy that doesnt look likely, they aint going to be at their best for 3-4 years and by then most of our A graders will have retired or will be past their best.

So IMO it isnt as simple as just bring in new players. It is a huge decision because once they do we are looking at the bottom 8 for 5-7 years.

There is absolutely no logic in this.
Kids will take 3-4 years to be at their best by which time the greats are past it, so we'll be look at bottom 8 for 5-7 years. I can't be bothered poking the obvious holes in you mathematics. I'll move onto the logic.

First of all, many of these kids (Steven, Armitage, Geary, McEvoy, Lynch) have been doing RL's infamous 4-year apprenticeship for the purpose of being ready when called in. As you see, three of them are or have been in already.
Second, the Ledgers and Cripps's are not rank amateurs, but established footballers with some experience.
Third, you have entirely discounted the possibility that, just for example, Stanley, Steven, Ledger, and Lynch will perform better than Dempster, Peake, Gamble, Blake. (these names are only examples). It is possible.
Forth, NO PLAYER comes into a senior team at their best. We understand that. Players tend to come in before they're at their best, and retire after they're at their best. So its a false choice to say if they can't come in at their best they can't come in. We'd never get new players in, following your logic! The actual questions are twofold: a/ are they good enough, b are they an improvement on a fading bottom 6?
And fifth, it isn't about when is the premiership window open or shut, christs sake. It was shut in 2008 and 2009 but we finished 4 and 2nd.

The list comes first. Look at the list, who are the best 22, pick 'em. That gives us our best shot, however good that shot is. Pretty simple.

The maths makes complete sense. Surely you are joking about that. If it takes 3-4 years for a group of young players to come through and the older ones are past their prime then you also need another group to come through. 22 players dont magically appear at once.

Anyway i dont think you understand what I am saying. Replacing 1-3 players isnt going to be issue but in case you havent read some of the posts on here people want up to 6 changes this week and nearly all have played less than 10 games. If you do that it is rebuilding time. There is no way 6 new players can come into the side and be a top 4 side. Even the pies havent got near doing that. It has been gradual.

And yes i have said that if 6 new players come in they will not perform as good as the guys they will replace because of two simple things, experience and consistancy. Yes the guys they are replacing mightnt look to you thay are doing a job but obviously they are or we must have the greatest side ever because we are still competitive with 16 players.

I am for change but I still say what is 3 weeks in the scheme of things because once we have big changes, like 6 or so players, we will be rebulding again.

Nothing wrong with 3 or 4 changes this week which will hopefully include Steven, maybe Lynch, Schneider and Kosi. I have no idea from any of the posts I have written where I have suggested no change this week. Matter of fact I have always said about 3 changes but hey it may make your argument sound better by suggesting I want everything the same as last week.

[eppo67]

"Nothing wrong with 3 or 4 changes this week which will hopefully include Steven, maybe Lynch, Schneider and Kosi."

100% agree Plugger they are the changes I am after also. I also agree with you that anymore than 4 changes is way over the top ATM. I'm sure RL thinks this way as well as he keeps using the phrase 'bleed in youth' when referring to changes.

[Teflon]

Only extremists and Barks wants 6-7 changes all else Ive seen are moderate in theor thinking.

FWIW Im a huge advocate of 2-3 NEW faces....not Kosi/Schneider...these are walk ups.

Now wemay introduce these new faces gradually but for mine right now we need to look at Steven, Smith, Lynch and maybe Johnson. Cripps/Ledger get a close look when fit and they come in at the expense of the other "new" faces.

Point is at any 1 time Id like to see 2-3 new faces - they can come from any of the above and I reckon their output will at the least equal that of Eddy/Mqualters of the last year.

Gram said it after the game - he even mentions "Rossy just said maybe we need to inject youth to get ENERGY back into the side"......IMHO this is the intangible youth can give - IF we can unearth a player or two this season, who can come in and hold their own, offer some run/create and excitement we wont begin to understand the positiive impacts that can have on a Riewoldt, Goddard, Dal Santo et al......ofcourse theres a risk,...but for mine that has to be assessed against the output these new faces are replacing....and right now that aint a lot. Further, there is 1 thing these new faces can introduce and improve in our side that the "role" players simply wont be able to improve IMHO - skill level.

[groupie1]

"they got us very close" hmm, see this is the problem in my opinion. Hell, Collingwood WON the thing and they are injecting new players already and will continue to do so. This group, in its current form, is shot. Our bottom 6 or 8 or so are simply shot and in no way up to it. Time to get the youth in there. Its not a resignation of the season or a "rebuild", its simply what we MUST do, or die. That simple.

As i said in another thread the pies have injected 3 players from other clubs and we have injected one from another club and a new player. It isnt that much different at all and by this week it may be 3 new players each.

Exapnd the outlook over 2-3 years. Have a look at the pick ups off the rookie list. Their god damn captain was a rookie. We know what has to happen, I cannto understand those trying to justify the continuance of this list as it is. its NOT anywhere remotely good enough.

So 4 games ago a draw in a GF with pretty much the same list is remotely good enough. Either you dont rate the pies or we had huge luck in the GF.

Anyway as I have said many times before RL made a decision, maybe 3 years ago, that we had a time fame 4-5 years to win a GF so we recruited for that by bringing in many players from other clubs and only giving kids the odd chance. It has nearly paid off but not quite and IMO it may nearly be shut because of the injury to Lenny

However surely we can wait 2-3 more games to see if this current list can come good because they did get us into the last 2 GF's. In my opinion there is no rush to bring in young kids because once we do the window is 100% shut and the reason is simple. Unless any of the young kids can have an immediate impact, and from their form at Sandy that doesnt look likely, they aint going to be at their best for 3-4 years and by then most of our A graders will have retired or will be past their best.

So IMO it isnt as simple as just bring in new players. It is a huge decision because once they do we are looking at the bottom 8 for 5-7 years.

There is absolutely no logic in this.
Kids will take 3-4 years to be at their best by which time the greats are past it, so we'll be look at bottom 8 for 5-7 years. I can't be bothered poking the obvious holes in you mathematics. I'll move onto the logic.

First of all, many of these kids (Steven, Armitage, Geary, McEvoy, Lynch) have been doing RL's infamous 4-year apprenticeship for the purpose of being ready when called in. As you see, three of them are or have been in already.
Second, the Ledgers and Cripps's are not rank amateurs, but established footballers with some experience.
Third, you have entirely discounted the possibility that, just for example, Stanley, Steven, Ledger, and Lynch will perform better than Dempster, Peake, Gamble, Blake. (these names are only examples). It is possible.
Forth, NO PLAYER comes into a senior team at their best. We understand that. Players tend to come in before they're at their best, and retire after they're at their best. So its a false choice to say if they can't come in at their best they can't come in. We'd never get new players in, following your logic! The actual questions are twofold: a/ are they good enough, b are they an improvement on a fading bottom 6?
And fifth, it isn't about when is the premiership window open or shut, christs sake. It was shut in 2008 and 2009 but we finished 4 and 2nd.

The list comes first. Look at the list, who are the best 22, pick 'em. That gives us our best shot, however good that shot is. Pretty simple.

The maths makes complete sense. Surely you are joking about that. If it takes 3-4 years for a group of young players to come through and the older ones are past their prime then you also need another group to come through. 22 players dont magically appear at once.

Anyway i dont think you understand what I am saying. Replacing 1-3 players isnt going to be issue but in case you havent read some of the posts on here people want up to 6 changes this week and nearly all have played less than 10 games. If you do that it is rebuilding time. There is no way 6 new players can come into the side and be a top 4 side. Even the pies havent got near doing that. It has been gradual.

And yes i have said that if 6 new players come in they will not perform as good as the guys they will replace because of two simple things, experience and consistancy. Yes the guys they are replacing mightnt look to you thay are doing a job but obviously they are or we must have the greatest side ever because we are still competitive with 16 players.

I am for change but I still say what is 3 weeks in the scheme of things because once we have big changes, like 6 or so players, we will be rebulding again.

Nothing wrong with 3 or 4 changes this week which will hopefully include Steven, maybe Lynch, Schneider and Kosi. I have no idea from any of the posts I have written where I have suggested no change this week. Matter of fact I have always said about 3 changes but hey it may make your argument sound better by suggesting I want everything the same as last week.

This is a bit like I say you don't like brown, green and purple and you say 'whatta mean I don't like red, orange and blue?'

I have no idea who you're arguing with in some of your points as they don't relate to anything I said.

I'm not sure either that we were discussing introducing 3 new players or 6.

All my point was was that you have drawn an arbitrary line somewhere around the 4.5-5 player mark and call anymore coming into the team as a 'rebuild, and 6-7 years in the bottom 8', and anything under 4.5-5 players as a non-rebuild.'
And my argument to that is as i said:
Some of these new players are not rank rookies
Some of them are already in or have been in
Most are 3-4 years into a RL 4-year apprenticeship
there is logically no arguing that a player BEFORE his best might not be better than a player BEYOND his best.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, if 19 of our players were s*** and we could improve our side by bringing in 19 new guys, even if those 19 new guys weren't called Judd, Cousins and Harvey, then we should do that as it will give us improvement - you can call that a rebuild if you like, I call it picking the best side. Just giving something a name - REBUILD - does not consign the team necessarily to failure.

I offered no prescription as to should we bring 3 or 6 or 47 next week; all I say is pick the best f****** side, and you've contorted the entire thing into a debate about whether a rebuild is defined as 6.2467597 new players or 5.98134486 new players... and argue not a rebuild = success; rebuild = failure. For 6-7 years, no less.!

Logically speaking, some monkey can pipe up on this forum and say if we pick one new kid this year it is a rebuild, by my definition, and therefore it will take us 85 thousand years to get back into the top 8.

And you would say he's exaggerating.

I would say he's created his own definitions and drawn logically unsound conclusions.

[groupie1]

"they got us very close" hmm, see this is the problem in my opinion. Hell, Collingwood WON the thing and they are injecting new players already and will continue to do so. This group, in its current form, is shot. Our bottom 6 or 8 or so are simply shot and in no way up to it. Time to get the youth in there. Its not a resignation of the season or a "rebuild", its simply what we MUST do, or die. That simple.

As i said in another thread the pies have injected 3 players from other clubs and we have injected one from another club and a new player. It isnt that much different at all and by this week it may be 3 new players each.

Exapnd the outlook over 2-3 years. Have a look at the pick ups off the rookie list. Their god damn captain was a rookie. We know what has to happen, I cannto understand those trying to justify the continuance of this list as it is. its NOT anywhere remotely good enough.

So 4 games ago a draw in a GF with pretty much the same list is remotely good enough. Either you dont rate the pies or we had huge luck in the GF.

Anyway as I have said many times before RL made a decision, maybe 3 years ago, that we had a time fame 4-5 years to win a GF so we recruited for that by bringing in many players from other clubs and only giving kids the odd chance. It has nearly paid off but not quite and IMO it may nearly be shut because of the injury to Lenny

However surely we can wait 2-3 more games to see if this current list can come good because they did get us into the last 2 GF's. In my opinion there is no rush to bring in young kids because once we do the window is 100% shut and the reason is simple. Unless any of the young kids can have an immediate impact, and from their form at Sandy that doesnt look likely, they aint going to be at their best for 3-4 years and by then most of our A graders will have retired or will be past their best.

So IMO it isnt as simple as just bring in new players. It is a huge decision because once they do we are looking at the bottom 8 for 5-7 years.

There is absolutely no logic in this.
Kids will take 3-4 years to be at their best by which time the greats are past it, so we'll be look at bottom 8 for 5-7 years. I can't be bothered poking the obvious holes in you mathematics. I'll move onto the logic.

First of all, many of these kids (Steven, Armitage, Geary, McEvoy, Lynch) have been doing RL's infamous 4-year apprenticeship for the purpose of being ready when called in. As you see, three of them are or have been in already.
Second, the Ledgers and Cripps's are not rank amateurs, but established footballers with some experience.
Third, you have entirely discounted the possibility that, just for example, Stanley, Steven, Ledger, and Lynch will perform better than Dempster, Peake, Gamble, Blake. (these names are only examples). It is possible.
Forth, NO PLAYER comes into a senior team at their best. We understand that. Players tend to come in before they're at their best, and retire after they're at their best. So its a false choice to say if they can't come in at their best they can't come in. We'd never get new players in, following your logic! The actual questions are twofold: a/ are they good enough, b are they an improvement on a fading bottom 6?
And fifth, it isn't about when is the premiership window open or shut, christs sake. It was shut in 2008 and 2009 but we finished 4 and 2nd.

The list comes first. Look at the list, who are the best 22, pick 'em. That gives us our best shot, however good that shot is. Pretty simple.

The maths makes complete sense. Surely you are joking about that. If it takes 3-4 years for a group of young players to come through and the older ones are past their prime then you also need another group to come through. 22 players dont magically appear at once.

Anyway i dont think you understand what I am saying. Replacing 1-3 players isnt going to be issue but in case you havent read some of the posts on here people want up to 6 changes this week and nearly all have played less than 10 games. If you do that it is rebuilding time. There is no way 6 new players can come into the side and be a top 4 side. Even the pies havent got near doing that. It has been gradual.

And yes i have said that if 6 new players come in they will not perform as good as the guys they will replace because of two simple things, experience and consistancy. Yes the guys they are replacing mightnt look to you thay are doing a job but obviously they are or we must have the greatest side ever because we are still competitive with 16 players.

I am for change but I still say what is 3 weeks in the scheme of things because once we have big changes, like 6 or so players, we will be rebulding again.

Nothing wrong with 3 or 4 changes this week which will hopefully include Steven, maybe Lynch, Schneider and Kosi. I have no idea from any of the posts I have written where I have suggested no change this week. Matter of fact I have always said about 3 changes but hey it may make your argument sound better by suggesting I want everything the same as last week.

This is a bit like I say you don't like brown, green and purple and you say 'whatta mean I don't like red, orange and blue?'

I have no idea who you're arguing with in some of your points as they don't relate to anything I said.

I'm not sure either that we were discussing introducing 3 new players or 6.

All my point was was that you have drawn an arbitrary line somewhere around the 4.5-5 player mark and call anymore coming into the team as a 'rebuild, and 6-7 years in the bottom 8', and anything under 4.5-5 players as a non-rebuild.'
And my argument to that is as i said:
Some of these new players are not rank rookies
Some of them are already in or have been in
Most are 3-4 years into a RL 4-year apprenticeship
there is logically no arguing that a player BEFORE his best might not be better than a player BEYOND his best.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, if 19 of our players were s*** and we could improve our side by bringing in 19 new guys, even if those 19 new guys weren't called Judd, Cousins and Harvey, then we should do that as it will give us improvement - you can call that a rebuild if you like, I call it picking the best side. Just giving something a name - REBUILD - does not consign the team necessarily to failure.

I offered no prescription as to should we bring 3 or 6 or 47 next week; all I say is pick the best f****** side, and you've contorted the entire thing into a debate about whether a rebuild is defined as 6.2467597 new players or 5.98134486 new players... and argue not a rebuild = success; rebuild = failure. For 6-7 years, no less.!

Logically speaking, some monkey can pipe up on this forum and say if we pick one new kid this year it is a rebuild, by my definition, and therefore it will take us 85 thousand years to get back into the top 8.

And you would say he's exaggerating.

I would say he's created his own definitions and drawn logically unsound conclusions.

Here's a good way to illustrate my problem with your argument.

Compare our 2004-2005 side with our 2009-2010 side.

There's probably half a team difference - about 11 players.

Agree?
Top of my head the outs are:
Harvey, Gehrig, Hamill, Peckett, Thompson, Black, Jones, Hudghton, Macguire, Voss, Powell, Ball, X Clarke.

There's 13. More than half a side.

So, do you accept, that, by your standards, one could argue that a rebuild occurred in 2006, 2007, 2008?

Yet we didn't spend 6-7 years in the bottom 8.

We spent only 2007 not playing finals.

Do you get my point?

[plugger66]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

[NoMore]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

[groupie1]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Right... so it isn't NECESSARILY the case that when you rebuild you spend 6-7 years in the doldrums. What your point is now is that if we rebuild now we'll spend 6-7 years in the doldrums BECAUSE our recruiting wasn't very good, not because we are rebuilding.

And I agree with that.

It's an entirely different subject and I agree with you that if you recruit badly, you will see failure.

[plugger66]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Please I fell over when you said a top 10 pick for Kosi. Anyway what you are saying is giving up. Why anyone even is thinking of giving up after 2 games in beyond me. i will take it you arent old enough to have seen 1997 season?

[NoMore]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Right... so it isn't NECESSARILY the case that when you rebuild you spend 6-7 years in the doldrums. What your point is now is that if we rebuild now we'll spend 6-7 years in the doldrums BECAUSE our recruiting wasn't very good, not because we are rebuilding.

And I agree with that.


It's an entirely different subject and I agree with you that if you recruit badly, you will see failure.

I actually thought what plugger was trying to say is that when we rebuilt in the early 2000's we did it on the back of the absolute cream of the draft. Lots of picks under 10. These players became superstars

Therefore when we had to do a slight rebuild in 06/07 we did it on the back of superstars while they were in there prime making it much easier to rijig the list.

The next time we have to rebuild unless we plan for it very well will be becoz these superstars have gone past it and the players we have drafted since have been mid range picks and not genuine top 10 picks. There fore the next time we rebuild it could be a long and painful process. The key is i think to not hold on to the unrealistic expectation that these players will keep on going and get something for them while u can allowing u to continually being in a building phase while challenging at the same time

[groupie1]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Please I fell over when you said a top 10 pick for Kosi. Anyway what you are saying is giving up. Why anyone even is thinking of giving up after 2 games in beyond me. i will take it you arent old enough to have seen 1997 season?

Gee whizz, the thought of trading NDS or Joey tough to think of. I don't reckon teams generally try to trade their really good players, especially at their prime, do they?

I don't think its about giving up, mate. It's about preparing for 2012. We didn't lose Lenny Hayes in round 2 of 1997. I think we are all aware that this year is written off for all the reasons mentioned ad nauseum, so a pause in 2011 to set up for a red hot go in 2012 looks like a goer to me. And an important part of that process is seeing who in our kids can take over from Blake and Baker who will surely retire, and MaQ, Peake, Gamble and Dempster who are clearly not good enough.

[NoMore]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Please I fell over when you said a top 10 pick for Kosi. Anyway what you are saying is giving up. Why anyone even is thinking of giving up after 2 games in beyond me. i will take it you arent old enough to have seen 1997 season?

Gee whizz, the thought of trading NDS or Joey tough to think of. I don't reckon teams generally try to trade their really good players, especially at their prime, do they?

I don't think its about giving up, mate. It's about preparing for 2012. We didn't lose Lenny Hayes in round 2 of 1997. I think we are all aware that this year is written off for all the reasons mentioned ad nauseum, so a pause in 2011 to set up for a red hot go in 2012 looks like a goer to me. And an important part of that process is seeing who in our kids can take over from Blake and Baker who will surely retire, and MaQ, Peake, Gamble and Dempster who are clearly not good enough.

Not saying giving up. Just don't believe that with the battles these players have put there bodies through already that there best footy is in front of them. This is where the problem is. Do we wait till there best football is clearly behind them and chase one top 10 pick or do we trade one of them now and get 2. It is an issue that i believe needs to be thrown up.

Also before we bag kosi again could i remind u of a few names
Jonathon Hay
Nathan Thompson
Jade Rawlins
David Hale
Trent Croad

All Gumbies who traded for top 10 picks

[plugger66]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Please I fell over when you said a top 10 pick for Kosi. Anyway what you are saying is giving up. Why anyone even is thinking of giving up after 2 games in beyond me. i will take it you arent old enough to have seen 1997 season?

Gee whizz, the thought of trading NDS or Joey tough to think of. I don't reckon teams generally try to trade their really good players, especially at their prime, do they?

I don't think its about giving up, mate. It's about preparing for 2012. We didn't lose Lenny Hayes in round 2 of 1997. I think we are all aware that this year is written off for all the reasons mentioned ad nauseum, so a pause in 2011 to set up for a red hot go in 2012 looks like a goer to me. And an important part of that process is seeing who in our kids can take over from Blake and Baker who will surely retire, and MaQ, Peake, Gamble and Dempster who are clearly not good enough.

You dont want to have a go this year because Lenny is out but wait until next year when we have no idea about Lenny, Milney a year older and probably worse, Rooy certainly not improving and the way he plays could be going backwards and Bj, Joey,Dal all stagnating because they have reached their prime. There is also Fisher, Kosi, CJ, Gram and Clarke who will not probably improve and some may go backwards. This leaves us with probably Big Ben and Armo as the only improvers plus high draft picks who at best will only be role players due to lack of experience and as is common with high draft picks, just not good enough.

Id rather keep going this year, well at least till we are out of it because i dont share the optimism that next year could be better no matter how many games we get into the young guys.

[MCG-Unit]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Why trade your better players for high draft picks - especially with GWS (and maybe more GC) draft concessions in the next 2 years
You would never get a top 10 pick for Kosi - unless he comes back and has a massive year - I hope he does.

Trade your better players and likely get trampled most weeks ? Not real keen on seeing that - or watching former Saints tearing it up elsewhere

[NoMore]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Please I fell over when you said a top 10 pick for Kosi. Anyway what you are saying is giving up. Why anyone even is thinking of giving up after 2 games in beyond me. i will take it you arent old enough to have seen 1997 season?

Gee whizz, the thought of trading NDS or Joey tough to think of. I don't reckon teams generally try to trade their really good players, especially at their prime, do they?

I don't think its about giving up, mate. It's about preparing for 2012. We didn't lose Lenny Hayes in round 2 of 1997. I think we are all aware that this year is written off for all the reasons mentioned ad nauseum, so a pause in 2011 to set up for a red hot go in 2012 looks like a goer to me. And an important part of that process is seeing who in our kids can take over from Blake and Baker who will surely retire, and MaQ, Peake, Gamble and Dempster who are clearly not good enough.

You dont want to have a go this year because Lenny is out but wait until next year when we have no idea about Lenny, Milney a year older and probably worse, Rooy certainly not improving and the way he plays could be going backwards and Bj, Joey,Dal all stagnating because they have reached their prime. There is also Fisher, Kosi, CJ, Gram and Clarke who will not probably improve and some may go backwards. This leaves us with probably Big Ben and Armo as the only improvers plus high draft picks who at best will only be role players due to lack of experience and as is common with high draft picks, just not good enough.

Id rather keep going this year, well at least till we are out of it because i dont share the optimism that next year could be better no matter how many games we get into the young guys.

Agreed Plugger

We should definitly keep going this year because as this list ages it is going to get worse. However with the way a few of the boys have looked over reseason and during the first 2 rounds this is also a good season to begin rotating 2 or 3 kids through the last 2 or 3 spots in the side each week. If nothing else it might stand us in better stead for future years as well as giving us that x factor this year.

It is interesting that we are bagging draft picks that aren't top 10 but out of those players u have mentioned above only kosi, BJ and clarke were top 10 so it is almost proof there are still some players around if the recruiting is good enough.

Personally i am very impressed with Steven, Armo and Cripps. I watched on TV sandy on the weekend and although a bit light Winmar looks like he could be a very good half back maybe even a wingman. What i loved that when the game was on the line these young guys ket taking risks and were the reason sandy ended up winning. They don't seem to have been jaded by the defensive nature of the senior team yet

[NoMore]

Why trade your better players for high draft picks - especially with GWS (and maybe more GC) draft concessions in the next 2 years
You would never get a top 10 pick for Kosi - unless he comes back and has a massive year - I hope he does.

Trade your better players and likely get trampled most weeks ? Not real keen on seeing that - or watching former Saints tearing it up elsewhere


Yes but they will only tear it up for maybe 2 years. We could get a player or 2 that might tear it up for 10 years. I am not saying trade them all. Identify who on our list we could maybe cover and see what is around. We could trade to GWS for one of there early picks. I don't want to trade everyone but imagine if we got rid of kosi and say NDS and got a top 5 pick, a top 10 pick and one in the late teens. That could be 3 superstars for 10 years if we draft well and is enough to build our next tilt at a flag around

[groupie1]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Right... so it isn't NECESSARILY the case that when you rebuild you spend 6-7 years in the doldrums. What your point is now is that if we rebuild now we'll spend 6-7 years in the doldrums BECAUSE our recruiting wasn't very good, not because we are rebuilding.

And I agree with that.


It's an entirely different subject and I agree with you that if you recruit badly, you will see failure.

I actually thought what plugger was trying to say is that when we rebuilt in the early 2000's we did it on the back of the absolute cream of the draft. Lots of picks under 10. These players became superstars

Therefore when we had to do a slight rebuild in 06/07 we did it on the back of superstars while they were in there prime making it much easier to rijig the list.

The next time we have to rebuild unless we plan for it very well will be becoz these superstars have gone past it and the players we have drafted since have been mid range picks and not genuine top 10 picks. There fore the next time we rebuild it could be a long and painful process. The key is i think to not hold on to the unrealistic expectation that these players will keep on going and get something for them while u can allowing u to continually being in a building phase while challenging at the same time

OK, except I might argue that you remove Ball and Kozi and Maguire and X Clarke from this list of 2000-2001 high draft pick superstars, you're left with Goddard, Roo, NDS, Raph Clarke.
San Fisher was a low draft pick, Lenny was a bit earlier and Gwilt was from nowhere. Joey I don't know where he was picked.

Are these basically our best 7-8 players now?

Point being I'm not sure our 2009-2010 team was a team rebuilt based on a raft of superstar high draft picks. Half the team was rejects and we had in Fisher, Gwilt some surprise gems.

Also, Geelong built slowly with, ok father-and-son picks helped, but they went a decade without access to high draft picks.

Richmond: two decades with almost unfettered access to high draft picks. Look where it got them.

So not getting high draft picks doesn't guarantee you future failure, although it clearly is harder to get the gems.

[groupie1]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Ok i can see where ur coming from with this but if we are thinking that we can't rebuild on the back of these stars because they are to old logic suggests we trade tham and get some low draft pics. Example with McEvoy now stepping up and archer and stanly in the ressies maybe it is time to really see if we can get a low top 10 pick for kosi or maybe we look at dal or joey and see what we can get for them. I imagine any of those 3 would get us 1 maybe 2 top 10 picks. While losing 1 or 2 0f these players would not send us to the bottom it would let us draft the next superstar of the club while bringing them into a competitive culture

Please I fell over when you said a top 10 pick for Kosi. Anyway what you are saying is giving up. Why anyone even is thinking of giving up after 2 games in beyond me. i will take it you arent old enough to have seen 1997 season?

Gee whizz, the thought of trading NDS or Joey tough to think of. I don't reckon teams generally try to trade their really good players, especially at their prime, do they?

I don't think its about giving up, mate. It's about preparing for 2012. We didn't lose Lenny Hayes in round 2 of 1997. I think we are all aware that this year is written off for all the reasons mentioned ad nauseum, so a pause in 2011 to set up for a red hot go in 2012 looks like a goer to me. And an important part of that process is seeing who in our kids can take over from Blake and Baker who will surely retire, and MaQ, Peake, Gamble and Dempster who are clearly not good enough.

You dont want to have a go this year because Lenny is out but wait until next year when we have no idea about Lenny, Milney a year older and probably worse, Rooy certainly not improving and the way he plays could be going backwards and Bj, Joey,Dal all stagnating because they have reached their prime. There is also Fisher, Kosi, CJ, Gram and Clarke who will not probably improve and some may go backwards. This leaves us with probably Big Ben and Armo as the only improvers plus high draft picks who at best will only be role players due to lack of experience and as is common with high draft picks, just not good enough.

Id rather keep going this year, well at least till we are out of it because i dont share the optimism that next year could be better no matter how many games we get into the young guys.

Fair point.

[NoMore]

I am not going to quote all that stuff but as you say there are 10 or so new players since 2005. The problem of those 10 or so new players we are now wanting to get rid of most of them because they arent good enough in peoples opinions. And why they arent good enough is because of the low draft picks we had to success in the middle 2000's. This then leaves us with ageing stars we got because we were no good in 2000-01 plus low draft picks of which many wont be stars because that is what happens with low draft picks and that is fact.

We rebuilt in 2006-7 on top of superstars and that isnt going to happen in 2011 because as I say low draft picks on average will not produce the stars required to replace the retired or ageing stars.

Surely you agree when your stars are past your best you must go down the ladder. That is how the system is designed.

And that is why i continue to say it is ok to make changes as long as it isnt over the top. I have not altered my position on that at all.

Right... so it isn't NECESSARILY the case that when you rebuild you spend 6-7 years in the doldrums. What your point is now is that if we rebuild now we'll spend 6-7 years in the doldrums BECAUSE our recruiting wasn't very good, not because we are rebuilding.

And I agree with that.


It's an entirely different subject and I agree with you that if you recruit badly, you will see failure.

I actually thought what plugger was trying to say is that when we rebuilt in the early 2000's we did it on the back of the absolute cream of the draft. Lots of picks under 10. These players became superstars

Therefore when we had to do a slight rebuild in 06/07 we did it on the back of superstars while they were in there prime making it much easier to rijig the list.

The next time we have to rebuild unless we plan for it very well will be becoz these superstars have gone past it and the players we have drafted since have been mid range picks and not genuine top 10 picks. There fore the next time we rebuild it could be a long and painful process. The key is i think to not hold on to the unrealistic expectation that these players will keep on going and get something for them while u can allowing u to continually being in a building phase while challenging at the same time

OK, except I might argue that you remove Ball and Kozi and Maguire and X Clarke from this list of 2000-2001 high draft pick superstars, you're left with Goddard, Roo, NDS, Raph Clarke.
San Fisher was a low draft pick, Lenny was a bit earlier and Gwilt was from nowhere. Joey I don't know where he was picked.

Are these basically our best 7-8 players now?

Point being I'm not sure our 2009-2010 team was a team rebuilt based on a raft of superstar high draft picks. Half the team was rejects and we had in Fisher, Gwilt some surprise gems.

Also, Geelong built slowly with, ok father-and-son picks helped, but they went a decade without access to high draft picks.

Richmond: two decades with almost unfettered access to high draft picks. Look where it got them.

So not getting high draft picks doesn't guarantee you future failure, although it clearly is harder to get the gems.

I would argue that our 09/10 team was only built around these players. Roo, Joey, BJ, Kosi, NDS, S. Fisher, Hayes and Milne. They were the core and the reason we were able to rejig our list for another tilt after 04/05

I think history tells u that if u draft well and plan well each group should get 2 cracks at it. The class of 99-02 might even get 3 if we really lean our lesson well. Just like Harvs got 3 cracks at it. The best of the class of 93-96 got 2 cracks at it in 97 and in 04/05 and collingwoods young players got a crack in 02/03 and then there older players retired and we waited for them to become the senior players to have another crack at it now