Predator day.
Love it.
Would be amazed if it wasnât BrisbaneâŚ
Sydney also perhaps
Got spanked for outside run by Cats
Thatâs because they didnât play Shredwards. Am I doing this right?
Could be Port Adelaide if they are after Jerrett
Suffering from premature baldness.
Not us we need inside mids and clearance kings
move on
A running machine capable of getting high possessions who is soft at the contest and prone to butchering the ball. Havenât we all just breathed a sigh of relief that our version of same retired this season (sorry if this sounds disrespectful)?
No thanks.
Itâs because they werenât allowed to water the ground.
âPlayer X is slightly better than Current Player Y, therefore we should get Player Xâ is not a smart argument.
Brent Harvey would currently be an upgrade on Colyer. Doesnât mean we should get him.
If we were to just incrementally upgrade our sh/t players to slightly-less-sh/t players, then we would never go to the draft and try to get some not-sh/t players.
Iâm a bit confused.
I presume you mean Harvey would not be a good pick up because of his age, which isâŚI mean I donât mean to state the obvious, but itâs clearly not the case with Hartung
And you mention the draft, which is irrelevant here.
Hartung is a spud. Im just glad no club was dumb enough to give Hawthorn pick 20 for him like they would have 3 years back when everyone was mesmorised by how much better all their admin people, all their board members, all their scrap players were.
Iâm not interested. Teams canât afford to carry players who are that weak in contested situations. Yes, he would be an upgrade on Merrett, Long and Morgan, but Iâd rather they werenât re-signed for the same reason.
Look at how Sydney bullied us in the final. We need players who can stand up to that sort of pressure, not just front runners who can win outside ball in open play.
Itâs not at all about his age, though I can understand why you would think that.
It you analysed whether Harveyâs output would be better than Colyers then the answer would be yes. But that doesnât mean his output is good, it would still be poor, but not quite as sh/t as Colyers. And filling your list with poor players is not a good list management strategy.
Itâs the same question that Carlton have been grappling with in terms of their 15-16 GWS reject strategy. Are the players they brought in slightly less sh/t then those they replaced? Yep. Regardless, are they good players? No.
The aim of list management is to build a great list, a premiership capable list. Merely upgrading poor players to ever so slightly less poor players does not achieve that aim. Going to the draft, or the rookie draft, and trying to draft a good player has a better chance of success.
Lastly, the draft is always a relevant consideration. Every spot you give to a not particularly good recycled player is one you donât give to a kid from the draft. Itâs a wasted opportunity to find a good player.
Alright.
I still think i have some pretty fundamental disagreements with what youâre saying.
What part of nah donât you understand?
Thank you, but no thank you.
No doubt. And if your disagreement is that you think Hartung is a good player, or could turn into one, then fair enough, and thatâs a perfectly acceptable argument.
But arguing that we should get him purely on the basis that heâs marginally better than the bottom few players on our list just doesnât make sense, imo