I'm torn...

[HitTheBoundary]

For all the crap that Citywest cops, s/he often starts the longest running threads.

[matrix]

Great thread
Would read again
Prob when I'm doing a s*** and my candy crush lives hhave run out

[saynta]

I want a top 5 pick or below this year - does that mean we beat Dogs? dont know....Does that mean we win week later? not fussed. I cant be clearer than that - I'll letyou pick the wins/losses as Ive stated numerous times (and you clearly neglect to understand) winning right now to me is a nice aside.
We domnt have a list with enough talent to seriously challenge the top end
We need to get talent in
We need to maximise our draft options in the short-medium term and before all our ageing stars go (who are largely propping up our performances.....go check the weekends game...)
Getting all hot and sweaty cause we managed to get lucky and keep Melbourne at bay isnt my idea of success.
I understand for others the bars a lot lower - thats fine too and explains those supporters who accept mediocrity so they can have some short term gratification a win brings.

Away from all the rhetoric, you are still avoiding honesty. You can't tell us how many games you'd be prepared to lose, it makes you look like you want to lose. Keep going with your jokey put downs, but do us the courtesy of answering that question without trying to twist it around.

You are happy to mortgage our present for a big pay off in a few years, but isn't there a football fan screaming inside that reptilian Mr Burns style schemer? Someone who wants Leigh Montagna to do whatever it takes to give all his young teammates some idea of what an AFL win feels like? How many games do you get to? It must frustrate to be surrounded with all those short term losers only caring if we win or lose.

Your points pretend that we have no chance of doing any of them if we finish mid ladder, as if there's only 5 kids in the country that could make a difference.
Its so simplistic, but not really proven yet. You also claim we non tankers are happy just to win in the short term with no sustainable long term vision, a binary argument that even you know is nonsense. The only difference is that you've forgone the pleasures of football because you think you're Chris Pelchen.

Its one thing to console yourself with the rewards of being rubbish, a its another thing entirely to actively seek rubbishness for some theoretical advantage. If this is what Saints fans are like now, no wonder we're getting such low numbers at our home games. All at home playing super coach on the internet and dreaming of Darcy Parish I'll be bound. And you have the termacity to question our ambition.

Is termacity a word even?

I think you mean "temerity".

" Definition of temerity by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temerity
the quality of being confident and unafraid of danger or punishment especially in a way that seems rude or foolish. "

Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010.

We beat Fremantle at Optus Oval much later in the year, so this is what cost us Daniel Wells, and also the integrity argument that we DID NOT TANK and have never tanked.

Still, if we hadn't drawn with the Swans and hence collect 2 points, we would have been eligible for a priority pick.

[ShanghaiSaint]

For all the crap that Citywest cops, s/he often starts the longest running threads.

very true....

still amazed at the longevity of the Essendope thread though!

[plugger66]

I want a top 5 pick or below this year - does that mean we beat Dogs? dont know....Does that mean we win week later? not fussed. I cant be clearer than that - I'll letyou pick the wins/losses as Ive stated numerous times (and you clearly neglect to understand) winning right now to me is a nice aside.
We domnt have a list with enough talent to seriously challenge the top end
We need to get talent in
We need to maximise our draft options in the short-medium term and before all our ageing stars go (who are largely propping up our performances.....go check the weekends game...)
Getting all hot and sweaty cause we managed to get lucky and keep Melbourne at bay isnt my idea of success.
I understand for others the bars a lot lower - thats fine too and explains those supporters who accept mediocrity so they can have some short term gratification a win brings.

Away from all the rhetoric, you are still avoiding honesty. You can't tell us how many games you'd be prepared to lose, it makes you look like you want to lose. Keep going with your jokey put downs, but do us the courtesy of answering that question without trying to twist it around.

You are happy to mortgage our present for a big pay off in a few years, but isn't there a football fan screaming inside that reptilian Mr Burns style schemer? Someone who wants Leigh Montagna to do whatever it takes to give all his young teammates some idea of what an AFL win feels like? How many games do you get to? It must frustrate to be surrounded with all those short term losers only caring if we win or lose.

Your points pretend that we have no chance of doing any of them if we finish mid ladder, as if there's only 5 kids in the country that could make a difference.
Its so simplistic, but not really proven yet. You also claim we non tankers are happy just to win in the short term with no sustainable long term vision, a binary argument that even you know is nonsense. The only difference is that you've forgone the pleasures of football because you think you're Chris Pelchen.

Its one thing to console yourself with the rewards of being rubbish, a its another thing entirely to actively seek rubbishness for some theoretical advantage. If this is what Saints fans are like now, no wonder we're getting such low numbers at our home games. All at home playing super coach on the internet and dreaming of Darcy Parish I'll be bound. And you have the termacity to question our ambition.

Is termacity a word even?

I think you mean "temerity".

" Definition of temerity by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temerity
the quality of being confident and unafraid of danger or punishment especially in a way that seems rude or foolish. "

Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010.

We beat Fremantle at Optus Oval much later in the year, so this is what cost us Daniel Wells, and also the integrity argument that we DID NOT TANK and have never tanked.

Still, if we hadn't drawn with the Swans and hence collect 2 points, we would have been eligible for a priority pick.

Yep and the same with the other 5 wins. Its usually games later in the season that you look at to say that cost you a pick, not a round 5 game.

[saynta]

I want a top 5 pick or below this year - does that mean we beat Dogs? dont know....Does that mean we win week later? not fussed. I cant be clearer than that - I'll letyou pick the wins/losses as Ive stated numerous times (and you clearly neglect to understand) winning right now to me is a nice aside.
We domnt have a list with enough talent to seriously challenge the top end
We need to get talent in
We need to maximise our draft options in the short-medium term and before all our ageing stars go (who are largely propping up our performances.....go check the weekends game...)
Getting all hot and sweaty cause we managed to get lucky and keep Melbourne at bay isnt my idea of success.
I understand for others the bars a lot lower - thats fine too and explains those supporters who accept mediocrity so they can have some short term gratification a win brings.

Away from all the rhetoric, you are still avoiding honesty. You can't tell us how many games you'd be prepared to lose, it makes you look like you want to lose. Keep going with your jokey put downs, but do us the courtesy of answering that question without trying to twist it around.

You are happy to mortgage our present for a big pay off in a few years, but isn't there a football fan screaming inside that reptilian Mr Burns style schemer? Someone who wants Leigh Montagna to do whatever it takes to give all his young teammates some idea of what an AFL win feels like? How many games do you get to? It must frustrate to be surrounded with all those short term losers only caring if we win or lose.

Your points pretend that we have no chance of doing any of them if we finish mid ladder, as if there's only 5 kids in the country that could make a difference.
Its so simplistic, but not really proven yet. You also claim we non tankers are happy just to win in the short term with no sustainable long term vision, a binary argument that even you know is nonsense. The only difference is that you've forgone the pleasures of football because you think you're Chris Pelchen.

Its one thing to console yourself with the rewards of being rubbish, a its another thing entirely to actively seek rubbishness for some theoretical advantage. If this is what Saints fans are like now, no wonder we're getting such low numbers at our home games. All at home playing super coach on the internet and dreaming of Darcy Parish I'll be bound. And you have the termacity to question our ambition.

Is termacity a word even?

I think you mean "temerity".

" Definition of temerity by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temerity
the quality of being confident and unafraid of danger or punishment especially in a way that seems rude or foolish. "

Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010.

We beat Fremantle at Optus Oval much later in the year, so this is what cost us Daniel Wells, and also the integrity argument that we DID NOT TANK and have never tanked.

Still, if we hadn't drawn with the Swans and hence collect 2 points, we would have been eligible for a priority pick.

Yep and the same with the other 5 wins. Its usually games later in the season that you look at to say that cost you a pick, not a round 5 game.

None of which changes the fact that Wulf's point cost us a priority pick

[plugger66]

None of which changes the fact that Wulf's point cost us a priority pick

Not necessarily. Who knows what happens if we lose that game. To early in the season. Like picking out a wrong free in a game when there are 3 quarters to go.

[saintsRrising]

Wells? One player does not make a premiership team. Did not then, and will not now.

Besides we made plenty of drafting mistakes that could have made more of a difference. ie Ball over Judd.

What matters more is getting most things right. That is why our drafting and trading has been so could the last 2 years. It was not because we picked up Billings, it is because we got most things right.

You have to get most things right...drafting, trading, coaching, player development, offield etc etc.. This is what the club is now doing.

Not one club has won a flag by tanking, not one.

Teams that play well build success. The majority of your players all lift and develop more. Lesser lights become better. It is not just about your lowest pick.

We need to also become a club that good players will want to join, and that our best young players will want to stay at. Being wooden spooners on a regular basis will achieve none of that.

The idea that you can play dreadfully for several years collecting low draft picks, and then suddenly become a good team is just utter nonsense. You need to have the guys all drilled it what they need to to do so that it is instinctive. This takes years.

Poor performing clubs often do not have players reach their potential because the kids are not stretched when they come in. Whi knows Jack Watts might even have becomea half-decent player if he had not joined a basket case, and instead had joined a club from day one where it was drilled into him what he needed to to do.

There are no short-cuts.

[saynta]

Wells? One player does not make a premiership team. Did not then, and will not now.

Besides we made plenty of drafting mistakes that could have made more of a difference. ie Ball over Judd.

What matters more is getting most things right. That is why our drafting and trading has been so could the last 2 years. It was not because we picked up Billings, it is because we got most things right.

You have to get most things right...drafting, trading, coaching, player development, offield etc etc.. This is what the club is now doing.

Not one club has won a flag by tanking, not one.

Teams that play well build success. The majority of your players all lift and develop more. Lesser lights become better. It is not just about your lowest pick.

We need to also become a club that good players will want to join, and that our best young players will want to stay at. Being wooden spooners on a regular basis will achieve none of that.

The idea that you can play dreadfully for several years collecting low draft picks, and then suddenly become a good team is just utter nonsense. You need to have the guys all drilled it what they need to to do so that it is instinctive. This takes years.

Poor performing clubs often do not have players reach their potential because the kids are not stretched when they come in. Whi knows Jack Watts might even have becomea half-decent player if he had not joined a basket case, and instead had joined a club from day one where it was drilled into him what he needed to to do.

There are no short-cuts.

Oh for gawd's sake, while I agree with most of your comments, what I actually said was "Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010."

I never said that he would make a premiership team and are you going to deny that he would have been handy. That he isn't a better player than the bottom four we played in those grannies?

[falka]

These hypotheticals are dumb.lets look at them from a negative

If we drafted Judd with our medical / training services team he may have got major op and never played to the same level.
he may have done a knee in a training accident.

Wells may have got to us of wulf didn't intercept and kick the point, but then that may have meant he fell across Roos knee at training and ended his career.

It never ends.

[asiu]

Not one club has won a flag by tanking, not one.

... not real sure about that.
Collingwood tanked (as per earlier in this thread) to 2 x high picks plus a Priority in 05
... they won a flag after that exercise.

[saintsRrising]

Oh for gawd's sake, while I agree with most of your comments, what I actually said was "Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010."

I never said that he would make a premiership team and are you going to deny that he would have been handy. That he isn't a better player than the bottom four we played in those grannies?

And if the Dees hadn't have had 3 more free kicks than us 2 weeks later the Saints may have won rather than lost by three points. And then there goes Wells again.

It is pretty pointless to re-invent history by trying to change one kick, or tackle, or free kick here or there. If one could, then I would alter that last bounce near Milney, or that spoil by Zac that went straight to Scalett's boot.

Anyway Teffers keeps changing what he says and so you really never know what he actually means, but on the whole he wants us to lose, and lose a lot, and to not just lose one less game. He wants us to deliberately lose games and embrace a culture of losing.

[plugger66]

Wells? One player does not make a premiership team. Did not then, and will not now.

Besides we made plenty of drafting mistakes that could have made more of a difference. ie Ball over Judd.

What matters more is getting most things right. That is why our drafting and trading has been so could the last 2 years. It was not because we picked up Billings, it is because we got most things right.

You have to get most things right...drafting, trading, coaching, player development, offield etc etc.. This is what the club is now doing.

Not one club has won a flag by tanking, not one.

Teams that play well build success. The majority of your players all lift and develop more. Lesser lights become better. It is not just about your lowest pick.

We need to also become a club that good players will want to join, and that our best young players will want to stay at. Being wooden spooners on a regular basis will achieve none of that.

The idea that you can play dreadfully for several years collecting low draft picks, and then suddenly become a good team is just utter nonsense. You need to have the guys all drilled it what they need to to do so that it is instinctive. This takes years.

Poor performing clubs often do not have players reach their potential because the kids are not stretched when they come in. Whi knows Jack Watts might even have becomea half-decent player if he had not joined a basket case, and instead had joined a club from day one where it was drilled into him what he needed to to do.

There are no short-cuts.

Oh for gawd's sake, while I agree with most of your comments, what I actually said was "Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010."

I never said that he would make a premiership team and are you going to deny that he would have been handy. That he isn't a better player than the bottom four we played in those grannies?

Whatever you say you cant put it down to that draw anyway it doesn't matter now as PP don't really exist. It certainly meant more back then to finish with 5 wins or less. means nothing now apart from ladder position. And who even knows if he would have been at the club than or we may have had to lose players to keep him because we were on the max of our SC. That is why looking back and usingthis crap is pointless because there are so many variables.

[Austinnn]

Is termacity a word even?

I think you mean "temerity".

" Definition of temerity by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temerity
the quality of being confident and unafraid of danger or punishment especially in a way that seems rude or foolish. "

Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010.

Oops. Good call. Sorry. Not sleeping much ATM.

[Teflon]

Im an amazing guy/gal so not surprised my response is amazing (I could be cat woman...)
I've already said I want to win every game including the flag!! (whose with me!!)
But that's unrealistic
How are Carltin/Melbourne even relevant to what happens at an entirely different club in St Kilda..... again, nonsensical airy fairy, poorly thought out examples that don't relate!!
So what we want and what we need right now IMO are poles apart
I've also stated winning isn't the most important thing in our sides development right now IMO
I don't feel I can be much more categoric than that
Responding to simplistic questions on when talking about long term planning is irrelevant
I hope you find this response amazing too!!

But Richmond are some how relevant. That is your problem. When you mention sides its relevant but when others mention them it isn't. Talk about complete rubbish. Again you have just displayed no courage. Talking in riddles because you don't want to say we will hopefully lose games.

Clearly you cant, wont or dont understand the discussion.
In the context of finishing 9th I think Richmond are entirely relevant....
Carlton/Melbourne have no resemblance to us in anyway so whatever point you continue to try and make makes no sense.
It really is very simple.
Now I think you are Robin.....never quite good enough in your own right to be a super hero and always just a little to closely admiring of Batman coming down that rope for my liking...

Yes simple is the right word. This thread is about finishing near the bottom to get good picks. Carlton and Melbourne are certainly relevant. Richmond really isn't. Now whats going on in your head I cant explain but not everything is about finishing 9th on this thread. matter of fact most isn't. Its on whether finishing near the bottom for years helps you get to the top eventually. There is bugger all sides that proves that happens. And anyway you must live in fantasy land if you think we can suddenly go from bottom 3 for 4 years and then into the 8. We may actually have to finish ninth. That may mentally effect you. Will you need some help to get through that?

In another post you say we need to maximise our picks. Not nearly maximise or maybe maximise. To maximise our picks we need to lose every game. If we win games we may not maximise our picks. If you could explain what you think maximise means that may clear things up but people who understand the word maximise realise that would mean you don't want to win anymore games this season. Please have the courage to say that. It wont hurt No one knows you. Over to you Penguin.

Am I still amazing ?
Grasping a concept isn't your strong suit -it's all black and white with you like..... "AFL footy in schools is struggling because of women teachers.....".... Yeah.... that's the only reason...lol
Again, who says we need to be down as long as Melbourne or floating like Carlton? Where in this thread has it been stated we should emulate their approach? Do provide some proof (use your internet courage meter to work out if you'll answer it ..) As always, and so predictable, you make up what people gave said and pretend it's fact .... not very honest is it?
Anyway, let's try the "maximise" concept ...
I want to be a millionaire. To do that I need to "maximise" my savings potential. In your simplistic view of the word that means EVERY single cent I earn has to go into my bank...... but can I really afford to invest EVERY (again your view of maximise), single penny into my bank? Or do I have to also take into consideration my living circumstances and therefore the proposition becomes:
Maximise my current savings in the context of where my living expenses is currently at???
It's exactly the same premise for the Saints
Does maximising our chances to land a top 5 pick mean we have to drop EVERY single game? In the context of our development (where we are currently at), is that a good thing?? Of course not and no one has said that on this thread....
But if the choice comes where winning 1 extra game puts that pick opportunity in jeopardy I see no long term measurable benefit in the win...... especially IF that win meant the difference between gaining a midfield gunkike Parish OR if it means removing any possible chance for a priority pick (which is not off the table).
I expect you won't understand and that's ok.... cause it ain't black or white like you'd like it to be - maybe you should a followed the Pies??

Really Teffers you have sunk to a new low. Firstly please don't lie about the only reason footy is struggling is because of women teachers. Complete lie. Well saying I said that is anyway. And when did I say you said we need to down as long at Melbourne or carlton. Another lie. They are down for so long because your concept of maximising draft picks doesn't mean you get up the ladder. My cat could understand that but she a
doesn't have lot in common with cat woman.

And now to the top 5 pick which amazingly has come down from a top 3 pick over the pages but im not surprised because I doubt you even know what you have said in this thread. Very wishy washy. And what is this one extra game win. From what you have written you suddenly think we have the ability to just switch on and off our ability. I will give you the tip. We aren't that good. And that example you used is very poor but consistent with your posts on this thread.

Teffers in 30 pages you have talked in riddles, walked like a penguin, prowled like cat woman but still haven't had the courage to say win wise, what you would like to happen. Just used words like that is the system, maximise picks but win when it suits teffers, used examples that suit you but then call others out with better examples, emotive names like Parish when the draft in 6 months away and never answered a basic question. I will give you another simple question teffers. What happens in a week if draft experts have Parish at 3 Teffers. That will require us to probably lose most if all games for the rest of the year. Should we do that Teffers? By the way how many times have you seen Parish play? You use his emotive name a hell of lot. You do provide humour though. The problem is when you try actual humour it isn't funny but when you talk about this subject it is hilarious.

And one last tip. learn the rules on the priority pick if you are going to discuss the draft. All it does is embarrass you.

Beautifully worded drivel that avoids my previous post completely (which tells me you may just have finally gotten hold the concept).

Your a tad dull upstairs (except when denigrating women), by golly I think the boys finally got it!!
Must say I didn't get to read it all but I'm sure it's same type drivel to avoid a serious discussion that you don't get anyway !

[Teflon]

Wells? One player does not make a premiership team. Did not then, and will not now.

Besides we made plenty of drafting mistakes that could have made more of a difference. ie Ball over Judd.

What matters more is getting most things right. That is why our drafting and trading has been so could the last 2 years. It was not because we picked up Billings, it is because we got most things right.

You have to get most things right...drafting, trading, coaching, player development, offield etc etc.. This is what the club is now doing.

Not one club has won a flag by tanking, not one.

Teams that play well build success. The majority of your players all lift and develop more. Lesser lights become better. It is not just about your lowest pick.

We need to also become a club that good players will want to join, and that our best young players will want to stay at. Being wooden spooners on a regular basis will achieve none of that.

The idea that you can play dreadfully for several years collecting low draft picks, and then suddenly become a good team is just utter nonsense. You need to have the guys all drilled it what they need to to do so that it is instinctive. This takes years.

Poor performing clubs often do not have players reach their potential because the kids are not stretched when they come in. Whi knows Jack Watts might even have becomea half-decent player if he had not joined a basket case, and instead had joined a club from day one where it was drilled into him what he needed to to do.

There are no short-cuts.

Oh for gawd's sake, while I agree with most of your comments, what I actually said was "Anyway Teffers has a point. The point that Daniel Wulf kicked in the dying seconds of the match against the swans which drew the match, cost us a priority pick and Daniel Wells who just may have been more than handy in 2009 and 2010."

I never said that he would make a premiership team and are you going to deny that he would have been handy. That he isn't a better player than the bottom four we played in those grannies?

Hang in there Saynta - I know it's tough work
You see what you actually post and what some dullards want to read... ain't always the same!!

[plugger66]

Beautifully worded drivel that avoids my previous post completely (which tells me you may just have finally gotten hold the concept).

Your a tad dull upstairs (except when denigrating women), by golly I think the boys finally got it!!
Must say I didn't get to read it all but I'm sure it's same type drivel to avoid a serious discussion that you don't get anyway !

Drivel but didn't read it. You cant even remember what you type in the one post. What hope do you have in a thread going over 30 pages. And please don't lie about denigrating women. Probably sums up your ability to actually think and type in the one decade. Its really sad. Anyway I hope we beat the WB.What about you teffers? Do you want to win that game?

Funny that man can argue about draft picks for 30 pages and doesn't even know how the priority pick works now. God help him. Well anyone help him. Please.

[asiu]

re the question of the moment ,
i could look it up i suppose ... dr google n all

... how does it work nowadays ?
... berg commented that things changed after the Maggots rorted the system
... last i heard ... there were no more
... then i heard a whisper that if we were sh1t this year we'd get a leg up
... glad we aint s*** this year
... pity Dimmy didnt leave a year earlier though

Oh well ... timing n all the jazz.

So , i summised , when i heard that whisper
Priority is by Royal decree.

[citywest]

Where was Jay Kennedy-Harris on the weekend for dee's chitywest?

Someone with the class and skill like him you would think would be getting a game for them?

You are a liar LTN16. I have asked you before to post a link of where I have said anything about Jay Kennedy-Harris. Very poor form that you are continuing this lie. I am reporting you to the Mods.

Truth hurts chitywest.. Run to the mods like a little girl.

If it's true liar, post the link.

[asiu]

... after We apply for it of course.
Obviously.

[plugger66]

re the question of the moment ,
i could look it up i suppose ... dr google n all

... how does it work nowadays ?
... berg commented that things changed after the Maggots rorted the system
... last i heard ... there were no more
... then i heard a whisper that if we were sh1t this year we'd get a leg up
... glad we aint s*** this year
... pity Dimmy didnt leave a year earlier though

Oh well ... timing n all the jazz.

So , i summised , when i heard that whisper
Priority is by Royal decree.

Exactly. The last line anyway. The royal being the AFL. Mark Evans said it would have to be extraordinary circumstances to get a priority now and it may be at the end of the first round anyway.

[Austinnn]

OK I'm done with this I'm moving on. Your opinion and mine won't effect the club's direction in the end Teflon, thankfully. Since you can't be bothered to deal honestly with the subject and prefer to clog up the thread being arrogant and abrasive, I'd rather not read what you write any more.

My final word is that although our opinions don't matter, a stadium full of dull emotive fans screaming for a win like stupid fools might turn you off football but I love it. Same for a fan forum. I shiver to think of a mind that considers being emotive about their football team as a negative, unless that mind is inside the body of our list manager. If I ever imagined that our head coach subscribed to your theory, I'd want him sacked immediately.

Wouldn't you?

[asiu]

Ta.

Answer another question for me ?

[asiu]

lol

... does Plugger trust me




'n thats not the question , btw.

[Austinnn]

Go ahead WS.