Herald Sun

[saintbrat]

The age discusssion on who got what
http://media.smh.com.au/sport/afl-real- ... 61036.html

[Jacks Back]

Anyone who thought we were C+ or average simply has NFI or are perhaps slightly retarded.

Quite possibly - I also agree with the post that it's fine if the general consensus is not super positive we will hopefully prove them wrong on the field in coming years.

One thing I found interesting was that only about a week ago on SEN they were virtually laughing at the saints and talking of Hawthorns trading genius. At the end of proceedings today one of the shows - ox etc ? Graded the teams at trade week - saints best performed - pies 2 - h
Hawthorne 3rd from bottom ahead of swans and last of all Brisbane who were desiimated

Yes, I heard that on the run home on SEN. We came in at number one for best trade period.

And, if you think about it, we have so far got what we wanted and needed in two key backs, a ruckman to replace big boy (who may be our future captain) and a midfielder with 3 early picks to come in the draft.

[Kickit]

Thanks for above

Tis from afl website

under heading losers

St Kilda
IN: Shane Savage, Luke Delaney, Billy Longer, Josh Bruce
OUT: Nick Dal Santo (FA), Ben McEvoy
PICKS: 3, 18, 19, 95

The Saints were very active in the trade period but it's hard to get excited about any of the business they did. The trade for Longer was a steal, paying massive unders for a former pick No.8 ruckman, but other than that it's all a bit 'meh.' Savage, Delaney and Bruce aren't going to make much difference to St Kilda in the short term. Longer could be anything. They don't make up for losing a terrific clubman of 260 games' experience (Dal Santo) and a ruckman the Saints had invested years in (McEvoy). They do hold three top-20 picks, admittedly, but we're not all that convinced by St Kilda's drafting over the past few years anyway. A mixed bag.


Varying views across the media

So if we got pick one it would be s*** because Ross lyon was poor at drafting?

[bigcarl]

Too early to say. Could be an A -plus could be a D-minus. If only I still had that time machine, I'd be able to tell you if Longer breaks his leg in round 1 and McEvoy wins the Brownlow. Or vice versa

[bigcarl]

Too early to say. Could be an A -plus could be a D-minus. If only I still had that time machine, I'd be able to tell you if Longer breaks his leg in round 1 and McEvoy wins the Brownlow. Or vice versa

[The OtherThommo]

Opinions are like....

Opinions from the variously compromised and generally thick are worth even less.

We had a plan, we executed the plan and got what we wanted.

Can't say fairer than that.

I have no interest in people that earn a living talking about the relative performances of sporting diplomats.

[Middo]

Wallace a genius now? Because he made a compliment.... A journos/commentator worth is based on what comment they make about Stk??

Btw
A to A+ IMO
8.5/10

Yeah the same Terry Wallace who recruited Ben Cousins ...LOL..

[ace]

OK we lost Dal Santo a great player but with only a few years left.
Years where he could have helped St Kilda win a few tight scrapes.
But Dal Santo effectively delivered us Delaney, Longer and upgraded pick 24 to 19
Three players with most of their careers ahead of them.

The media seems to like McEvoy they think he is a leader.
Trading him out seems to be the big negative in the Herald Sun assessment.
BUT McEvoy
Can't run
Can't jump
Can't kick fluently
CAN'T RUCK
He can take an uncontested mark and a contested mark if the ball is kicked to his advantage.

In the ruck when the ball is thrown up he prefers to contest by trying to wrestle his opponent instead of going for the ball.
He is trying to nullify his opponent not beat him.
He always takes up the back position at boundary throw-ins.
His opponent stands well back from the probable drop of the ball and then runs to the ball drop palming to his midfielder, meantime McEvoy get trapped behind.

Midfielders learn to rove to the opposition ruckman.
It becomes so ingrained that when McEvoy gets a hitout there is no-one waiting to receive.

I have watched the tape on Longer, I don't know how many hitouts, marks and spoils he gets, but he runs and kicks fluently, not lumbering like McEvoy.
Longer can link up in a play whereas McEvoy can only participate in a static role.
Longer just looks so much more versatile than McEvoy.
Longer has much development ahead of him.
I am just happy he is not going to learn from McEvoy.
Hawthorn wanted a ruckman for next season, long term they would have been far better off going with Longer.

In short McEvoy is the ruckman you have when you don't have a ruckman.

The big test is whether we get value for national draft picks 3, 18, 19 and pre season pick 3.
Even if the dog eats the homework our draft team can't do any worse than 2005 to 2011.

[Hurricane]

We went in with a plan and we executed it to perfection.

We got what we wanted and more.

Gains: 2 young big bodied key position defenders that will walk into the team if fit for at least the NAB Cup, a significant upgrade on our #1 ruckman and a quick mid with nice skills. Not to mention not losing any high draft picks and gaining picks in the top 20 at the same time. A+

Losses: Nick Dal Santo will be a short term painful loss. A lot of people commented early in the season that he was cruising and collecting easy touches across half back, didn't seem interested and leaving the hard stuff to guys like Armo and Steven. Will retire in 3-4 years at absolute most and with the emerging midfield brigade I think we can cover that loss in time. McEvoy's loss will be in a less significant way. Taking out the fact we paid way unders for a guy who was taken pick 8 a couple of years ago and has his best footy in front of him MacEvoy was a poor ruckman at best. Used his body ok but won a diabolically low percentage of hitouts. Yes he was a good mark and found a decent amount of the ball but he is as slow as a wet week and he wont get any quicker. We did lose draft picks but that being said we only lost draft picks we probably wouldn't have used anyway. B-

Overall my (admittedly one eyed) assessment is that we came away from trade period with an A.


BANG BANG

[Kate]

So only two clubs fared worse, Brisbane (F) and Essendon (C). Several other clubs with us on C+.

Not Sam Edmund's finest work.

[Statsman]

We traded an aging midfielder and a deficient ruckman for what will (hopefully) be a #1 ruckman, 2 dependable key defenders and a pacy wingman that could all have 8-10 year careers with the Saints. On top of that, we upgraded our 2nd and 3rd round picks to picks inside the top 20. At our stage in the premiership cycle that is outstanding work and definitely a A+.

[Spinner]

I thought it was a bit of an overreaction.

We did well but we paid for it.

The outs easily match the ins. So what does that equal, I reckon there abouts.

[samoht]

We are thereabouts in the short term, spinner.

However, C+ equates to 65-70%.

Hopefully, picks 3, 18 and 19 will deliver a couple of topline midfielders and a goal-kicking midfielder/half forward.

[mohannair]

A C+???

I guess it depends if there's a bell curve or not.

If there isn't, then maybe a C+ is remotely close to fair. If there is, then they're deadset off their nut!

Don't know what bell curve but Sam Edmund is a bell end & is copping a pasting on Twitter from Saimts supporters!

Not only Saints supporters also the other clubs. I heard the list Manager (Terry Wallace) & he said that Saints along with Pies are the winners of the trade period. I bet he know better than these journos who have never played even local footy let alone AFL.

In the end it does not matter who thinks what the only thing matters is what our list manager thinks.

[SaintPav]

But Dal Santo effectively delivered us Delaney, Longer and upgraded pick 24 to 19

Excuse my ignorance ace, but how did Dal help us upgrade our pick 24 to 19? I thought that was part of the McEvoy deal?

[spert]

Any newspaper that pays Andrew Bolt to write for them should be treated as a joke.

[St Ick]

So only two clubs fared worse, Brisbane (F) and Essendon (C). Several other clubs with us on C+.

Not Sam Edmund's finest work.

I lol'd that Hawks lost Buddy, Ellis and Savage, downgraded their picks 18 & 19 to pick 24, only bring in McEvoy - and get a B for their trade week.

We lose Mac and Dal, bring in Delaney, Bruce, Savage and Longer - not only drafting for needs, but also helping our list profile getting four players who should be around for our next crack, we turn our three live picks from picks 3, 24 & 41 into picks 3, 18, & 19 in a draft which is very even from 6-20 means this bloke has clearly not done his homework.

[plugger66]

I still think it depends how you look at it. If the draft was used to improve our side next year olny then a C+ maybe fair enough because the drafting will make us weaker IMO next year. If its looked at in the long run then its close to an A depending on our we draft and hoe some of the younger trades come on. make no mistake though we will be worse next year but it should quicken up our rebuiding by a year or two with some luck in drafting.

[saintbrat]

nice visual of Trade week moves

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/how- ... 2w773.html





pps was sam Edmund one who went hard on the saints a couple of years ago----- maybe didn't like being proved wrong after his misdiagnosis on the schoolgirl

[oldie60]

With the exception of Melbourne and Brisbane you'd have to say he graded according to ladder position and form from the past season. We lost two players that were not going to win us big games and added some young guys that should improve by getting good game time and we also managed 3 relatively early picks which we have not had for ages.

[Jacks Back]

I still think it depends how you look at it. If the draft was used to improve our side next year olny then a C+ maybe fair enough because the drafting will make us weaker IMO next year. If its looked at in the long run then its close to an A depending on our we draft and hoe some of the younger trades come on. make no mistake though we will be worse next year but it should quicken up our rebuiding by a year or two with some luck in drafting.

Well our backline is surely stronger now with 2 KPP's. This frees up guys like Fisher and Gwilt from playing on the big guys to playing on guys more their own size. It also alleviates Dal picking up the easy possies down the back half with Fisher, Gwilt and guys like Gears, Roberton and Webster also chopping out the big guys.

We are also at least the same in the ruck department because McEvoy didn't do too much in winning the taps. Big boy helped out in defense however, as I just mentioned, the addition of the two big guys down back means that they or Fisher/Gwilt can sag off and take those chop off marks.

I can't see how we will be worse off next year. I think we can win more games than this year - maybe 6-8 as the new look team gains experience in playing together.

[plugger66]

I still think it depends how you look at it. If the draft was used to improve our side next year olny then a C+ maybe fair enough because the drafting will make us weaker IMO next year. If its looked at in the long run then its close to an A depending on our we draft and hoe some of the younger trades come on. make no mistake though we will be worse next year but it should quicken up our rebuiding by a year or two with some luck in drafting.

Well our backline is surely stronger now with 2 KPP's. This frees up guys like Fisher and Gwilt from playing on the big guys to playing on guys more their own size. It also alleviates Dal picking up the easy possies down the back half with Fisher, Gwilt and guys like Gears, Roberton and Webster also chopping out the big guys.

We are also at least the same in the ruck department because McEvoy didn't do too much in winning the taps. Big boy helped out in defense however, as I just mentioned, the addition of the two big guys down back means that they or Fisher/Gwilt can sag off and take those chop off marks.

I can't see how we will be worse off next year. I think we can win more games than this year - maybe 6-8 as the new look team gains experience in playing together.

We have lost one of our best mids and best forwards and a ruckman who works very hard around the ground. Our backline is stronger and our midfield is much weaker. That will easily cancel oot the improvement of the backline. And also to go up the ladder other sides must drop down. No side above us will drop down IMO. Brisbane won 5 more games than us so even if they drop a bit the gap is to much. Melbourne will improve and so will GWS. Last place is a real chance and again will probably help quicken up our rebuild. First pick in the draft and first pick in the PSD if we can talk a really player into leaving their club. Still a year to early for FA next year IMO but come 2015 we can go real hard on FA as well.

[LTN16]

So only two clubs fared worse, Brisbane (F) and Essendon (C). Several other clubs with us on C+.

Not Sam Edmund's finest work.

I lol'd that Hawks lost Buddy, Ellis and Savage, downgraded their picks 18 & 19 to pick 24, only bring in McEvoy - and get a B for their trade week.

We lose Mac and Dal, bring in Delaney, Bruce, Savage and Longer - not only drafting for needs, but also helping our list profile getting four players who should be around for our next crack, we turn our three live picks from picks 3, 24 & 41 into picks 3, 18, & 19 in a draft which is very even from 6-20 means this bloke has clearly not done his homework.

Yes I had to have a laugh at that myself! How can we get rated the same as the likes of Gold Coast who did nothing in the trade period!? Seems to rate McEvoy to saying that Hawthorn are beside them selves after getting him. Would honestly not surprise me if he gets dropped back to the VFL at stages next year as hawthorn look to go for a more mobile side..

[The Mullet]

Barrett on AFL website's Trade Wrap video gave us an A, equal with Collingwood as the best performers over trade period.

[OldGeorgeYoung]

As mentioned, the problem with the rating is the time frame & most footy followers (other clubs) are only interested in the next year.
IMHO, we would rate:
C for 2014 as there is a strong probability that we'll miss the experience.
A for 2016 as there is potential for our trades to result in improvements but no guarantees.

If we traded the way we 'needed' to trade. No guarantees that it will be a good trade outcome but was the best strategic approach to provide the best probability.