I thought Fantasia was no longer eligible after being nominated last round of 2015?
I thought Fantasia was no longer eligible after being nominated last round of 2015?
It’s games played and age that makes you ineligible. Quite a few have been nominated twice.
I thought Fantasia was no longer eligible after being nominated last round of 2015?
Nah, I don’t think previous years nomination makes you ineligible the following the year. So Fanta should be right unless he doesn’t meant either of the two conditions; that coming into the season the player must be under 21 yrs old and have played less than 10 games. Just checked he is 20 years old and has played 8 games in his career so can be nominated again!
EDIT; But while he might get games this year I’ll be very surprised to see him win it or come very close. His got potential definitely but not rising star high and I still have some doubts on his game.
Didn’t Heps get nominated twice?
Heppell??? No chance. Played too many games in his first year.
He did win in his first year…
Carlisle was destined to win it in his second year. The MRP went full Fark Carlton on him early though.
Carlisle was destined to win it in his second year. The MRP went full Fark Carlton on him early though.Who is this Carlisle person you talk about?
Hey how about some perspective, the Bulldogs played finals last year!! Our squad is better......I agree, we were taking it up to the top teams regularly a couple of years ago. S$$t Happened. The core of that team hasn’t changed, there’d have to be some strong belief that whatever gap between window and ledge there was still exists, and should do for the next 2-3 years. Fingers crossed all is clear and with a new everything the grounds for player enthusiasm are re-laid. Throw the house at an established homesick gun mid next year and. You. Never. Know.
#cruelandunusualoptimism
#tippa
I know this belongs in the pessimism/realism thread moreso, but sorry, the core of the team has changed. Stanton, Watson and Goddard have gone from being in their prime years to the wrong side of 30. We’ve lost Ryder, Fletcher, Crameri, Melksham, Winderlich, Davey and Carlisle. Dempsey is a shadow of his 2012/2013 self while Belly has become an injury crock. Myers played 20 games in 2013 - only one of two seasons he’s played more than 14 - so the odds of him replicating that are low. Zerret and Colyer have come through, but that doesn’t offset the deterioration in the side.More generally (and answering Frosty), that is part of the reason I think we’re 4-5 years away. We need to transition out Watson, Stanton, Goddard, Bags, Gwilt and to lesser extent probably Howlett, Myers (due to injury) and Dempsey. You look at the sides around about the mark, and usually they take 5-7 years, even for the midfield. Look at WCE this year - a big chunk of the midfield was from 2007 to 2009. Geelong took 8 years from 1999 to 2007. There are exceptions - Collingwood had key elements from the 2008 draft, our 1993 side. But 5-7 years is pretty common. Now, we’ve already started - 2013 & 2014 netted us Zerrett, Langford, Laverde & Fantasia. But that narrows the period from 5-7 years to 3-5 years. Hence my estimate.
Also to Frosty, I don’t think we have pace issues, but not fussed over the Redman/Morgan picks. Don’t know enough about them, and clearly no talls anyone else rated available either.
A lot depends on Hartley/Brown. History isn’t encouraging for talls taken that late. If Dodorro beats the odds and we’ve added two long term good options, then that does solve a lot of medium term and some of the longer term issues. Of course, if Francis transitions into the midfield/Goddard style and we’ve effectively used our first four picks on smalls - that’s a problem. We’ll see how they all develop.
Hodge born 84
Mitchell born 82
Lewis born 86Watson born 85
Stanton born 86
Goddard born 85At a glance I’d throw Hurley, Zaha, Heppell, Hooker, Hocking into that ‘core’. I’m a natural pessimist but I’m trying to be positive here, and I don’t think I’m off the mark with my initial read. Of course it’s changed, I should’ve qualified that better, but apart from Ryder I don’t think it’s been anything more substantial than par for course for a mid table team and the fabric hasn’t exactly gone from tartan to paisely. The way we drafted I reckon backs this up.
Hawthorn is a terrible example because they have a fantastic team around those players. We do not. And even with Hawthorn there is a lot of talk about how they manage the transition of those guys out. We’ve got a team who finished bottom 4, where Goddard was top 5 in the B&F and Stanton co-won the Nobby, which then has to handle a (probable) reduced output from them in the future on top of that. So we have to improve the list to get to premiership level, while also having a reduced impact from those players.
Ants' point does make some sense, in that this 2-3 year period just passed we really should have made hay with Watson/Goddard/Stanton in their peaks, and Fletch still around. That's gone now.What he doesn’t mention is that those 3 are about our only (important) players in or even near that age group.
Other than there’s Bags (28) and a handful guys who are 26-27 (Hooker, Belcho, Howlett, Bird are all within a year). We’re not heading (any further) off a cliff, at least not because of age.You can’t view a list as being a single unit of age X - any list. Our list in particular, our best 10 players are strewn between Zerrett who’s 20 and Jobe who’s almost 31.
While that’s true and outside those three the list age of our best players is ok, we’re also missing a chunk of them since Ryder, Carlisle and Crameri defected. Plus key members of the list from 2013/2014 (Winders, Fletch, Dempsey) have either retired or dropped way off in form. So yes, the base isn’t terrible - if you ignore it was only good enough for 15th this year.
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Heppelltitis>To say we have focussed on short term success in the draft is complete bs. We brought in 12 new players. 12!
You simply cannot bring in 12 kids, as the depth of talent simply isn't there to allow it, particularly this year, and if we did, we would get absolutely monstered around the ball as Melbourne did when they went for the all kids approach.
More so, if you look at some of the 12! players we lost, our mature pickups are direct replacements at a similar age bracket in positions where we absolutely needed those replacements - Ruck, KPP, inside mid - as was demonstrated very clearly last year.
Carlisle -> Brown
Giles (Ryder) -> Leuey
Melksham -> Bird
Stein -> Hartley
To bring in these mature age players is not a focus on instant success. That's a focus on making sure we are not a complete basket case in the short term, whilst we push towards a longer term success in 3-4 years. If we brought in kids for those players, we would be looking squarely in the face of the first spoon in a long long time.
</blockquote>
You mean like how the Bulldogs brought in 10 new ones was it two years or three years ago? That really hit them hard, no success for a while for them....
<p>We already had ‘mature’ players of Jobe, Stanton, Goddard, Hurley, Bags, Hooker, Hibberd, Dempsey, Heppell, Belly, Zaha, Hocking, Howlett, Myers and Cooney. JD, McKernan and Colyer have been around the club (or other clubs) a while. Its not like there was no experience to lean on if we’d taken kids instead of Leunberger, Bird and Hams. Its not like Melbourne where they gutted the senior players. And finishing low (preferably not a spoon - but have you seen Carlton’s list??) would probably be good for the long term health of the club.</p>
<p>Finally, of course we took a spread of players. We took 12. You expected us to get 8 inside mids or something? And with so many (rightfully) out, some are being replaced by the mature players.</p>
Carlisle was destined to win it in his second year. The MRP went full Fark Carlton on him early though.
Fark Carlisle
I thought Fantasia was no longer eligible after being nominated last round of 2015?Nah, I don’t think previous years nomination makes you ineligible the following the year. So Fanta should be right unless he doesn’t meant either of the two conditions; that coming into the season the player must be under 21 yrs old and have played less than 10 games. Just checked he is 20 years old and has played 8 games in his career so can be nominated again!
EDIT; But while he might get games this year I’ll be very surprised to see him win it or come very close. His got potential definitely but not rising star high and I still have some doubts on his game.
What’s “rising star high”?
Rising star winner will be the guy who plays 20 games and gets a bit of the ball. That is not outside the realms of possibility.
And is far more likely from fantasia than some others discussed.
Rising Star Availability
Fantasia
Morgan
Laverde
Langford
Eades
Parish
Francis
Redman
Hams
Long
Nyuon
Wallis
McKenna
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Heppelltitis>To say we have focussed on short term success in the draft is complete bs. We brought in 12 new players. 12! You simply cannot bring in 12 kids, as the depth of talent simply isn't there to allow it, particularly this year, and if we did, we would get absolutely monstered around the ball as Melbourne did when they went for the all kids approach. More so, if you look at some of the 12! players we lost, our mature pickups are direct replacements at a similar age bracket in positions where we absolutely needed those replacements - Ruck, KPP, inside mid - as was demonstrated very clearly last year. Carlisle -> Brown Giles (Ryder) -> Leuey Melksham -> Bird Stein -> Hartley To bring in these mature age players is not a focus on instant success. That's a focus on making sure we are not a complete basket case in the short term, whilst we push towards a longer term success in 3-4 years. If we brought in kids for those players, we would be looking squarely in the face of the first spoon in a long long time. </blockquote> You mean like how the Bulldogs brought in 10 new ones was it two years or three years ago? That really hit them hard, no success for a while for them.... </blockquote> Genuinely not sure which year you're referring to? Dogs took 4 (main list) picks this year, 6 last year, 3 the year before that, 5 the year before that, 5 the year before that. <p>ie pretty consistently turning over about 5.</p>
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Heppelltitis>To say we have focussed on short term success in the draft is complete bs. We brought in 12 new players. 12! You simply cannot bring in 12 kids, as the depth of talent simply isn't there to allow it, particularly this year, and if we did, we would get absolutely monstered around the ball as Melbourne did when they went for the all kids approach. More so, if you look at some of the 12! players we lost, our mature pickups are direct replacements at a similar age bracket in positions where we absolutely needed those replacements - Ruck, KPP, inside mid - as was demonstrated very clearly last year. Carlisle -> Brown Giles (Ryder) -> Leuey Melksham -> Bird Stein -> Hartley To bring in these mature age players is not a focus on instant success. That's a focus on making sure we are not a complete basket case in the short term, whilst we push towards a longer term success in 3-4 years. If we brought in kids for those players, we would be looking squarely in the face of the first spoon in a long long time. </blockquote> You mean like how the Bulldogs brought in 10 new ones was it two years or three years ago? That really hit them hard, no success for a while for them.... <p>We already had ‘mature’ players of Jobe, Stanton, Goddard, Hurley, Bags, Hooker, Hibberd, Dempsey, Heppell, Belly, Zaha, Hocking, Howlett, Myers and Cooney. JD, McKernan and Colyer have been around the club (or other clubs) a while. Its not like there was no experience to lean on if we’d taken kids instead of Leunberger, Bird and Hams. Its not like Melbourne where they gutted the senior players. And finishing low (preferably not a spoon - but have you seen Carlton’s list??) would probably be good for the long term health of the club.</p> <p>Finally, of course we took a spread of players. We took 12. You expected us to get 8 inside mids or something? And with so many (rightfully) out, some are being replaced by the mature players.</blockquote><br> I’m confused, are you referencing the 2012 draft when WB brought in 9 new players, 4 of whom were mature aged or the 2014 draft where they brought in 12 new players, 5 of whom were mature aged? Either way, not sure how that supports your point in any way whatsoever. In fact, allow me to state the obvious… it supports my point.</p> <p>I don’t support the tank for the betterment of your club and don’t think it’s necessary anymore with free agency anyway.</p> <p>Your last paragraph actually doesn’t make sense in response to anything I wrote… Was that part intended for someone else? Genuine question.</p>
Rising Star AvailabilityFantasia
Morgan
Laverde
Langford
Eades
Parish
Francis
Redman
Hams
Long
Nyuon
Wallis
McKenna
All tied first.
Rising Star AvailabilityFantasia
Morgan
Laverde
Langford
Eades
Parish
Francis
Redman
Hams
Long
Nyuon
Wallis
McKennaAll tied first.
TIPPA forced to win Norm Smith instead.
1 Like
Has anyone heard the rumor that Tippa becomes the greatest player in the history of the game?
Rising Star AvailabilityFantasia
Morgan
Laverde
Langford
Eades
Parish
Francis
Redman
Hams
Long
Nyuon
Wallis
McKennaAll tied first.
Kinky
what happened to the “shallow draft” theory ?