The SOS thing might work well and Carlscum come out big winners… or it could be like the coach that brings in his favourite (think Thomas) pet project from his last club and it never quite works out.
I realise GWS can’t keep everybody… but they sure are letting a lot go.
I think we’ve definitely asked the question. But I also think the SOS factor is too strong and he will probably end up at the Blues.I wouldn't be playing around with our 2016 picks too much. Not with Jaegar at stake.I’d prefer we trade 24 and 25 for Tomlinson and 10.
Do you really think we are a chance at Tomlinson? That would be AWESOME (I really rate him) … and yes… far better than what I was suggesting.
Noooooooooo
Trade away 3 picks to move up 14 spots? And then... 2 PSD picks or DFAs or use pick 90?Nopity nope nope.
Sorry, not understanding what you mean. We won’t need to use Pick 57 or Pick 90 but Pick 90 has no point value. We still get our PSD picks… they are not affected… nor is our ability to pick up DFA’s… so not sure…
Forget the other stuff, we would be trading Pick 25 this year and 2nd round pick next year for #10. It is a good deal for us. It may mean we can pick up a guy like Ah Chee or Curnow…
Really the trade works if you back us in to improve next year. If we finish 6th… it would mean we have traded #25 and #30 for #10… which is a steal.
Wouldn’t do that, either.
As it stands we need 4 newbies (outside Leuey, Bird, SMack), taking one at 10 and one at 90 to me is a worse result than 25 & 57 - let alone with another 2nd rounder into the bargain.
I’ll say it again, if we only add 3 kids in the national draft, we’re stuffed.
The list is old and tired, we need to get a bunch of kids in.
Pick 25 and next yrs 2nd rnd
Get 10.
Get Rioli.
Trade away 3 picks to move up 14 spots? And then... 2 PSD picks or DFAs or use pick 90?Nopity nope nope.
Sorry, not understanding what you mean. We won’t need to use Pick 57 or Pick 90 but Pick 90 has no point value. We still get our PSD picks… they are not affected… nor is our ability to pick up DFA’s… so not sure…
Forget the other stuff, we would be trading Pick 25 this year and 2nd round pick next year for #10. It is a good deal for us. It may mean we can pick up a guy like Ah Chee or Curnow…
Really the trade works if you back us in to improve next year. If we finish 6th… it would mean we have traded #25 and #30 for #10… which is a steal.
Wouldn’t do that, either.
As it stands we need 4 newbies (outside Leuey, Bird, SMack), taking one at 10 and one at 90 to me is a worse result than 25 & 57 - let alone with another 2nd rounder into the bargain.
I’ll say it again, if we only add 3 kids in the national draft, we’re stuffed.
The list is old and tired, we need to get a bunch of kids in.
We would still be adding 4 kids. 4,5,10 and 25.
The list isn’t as old and tired as you think. The age spread is a lot better and removing Fletcher dropped our average by about 1.3 years.
Looking at guys born in 1986 or before (turning 30+ in 2016): Watson, Stanton, Goddard, Cooney and Gwilt.
So only 5 guys that are likely in the last 3 years of their careers, of that Cooney and Gwilt are probably not locks for best 22.
We don’t need to pick up 6 kids every draft to be successful.
Born 88 or earlier
Watson
Goddard
Cooney
Stanton
Gwilt
Baguley
Dempsey
Hocking
Leuenberger
Hooker
Howlett.
11 blokes… i reckon two, maybe 3 that have more than 3 seasons footy ahead of them.
Bird makes 12.
Trade away 3 picks to move up 14 spots? And then... 2 PSD picks or DFAs or use pick 90?Nopity nope nope.
Sorry, not understanding what you mean. We won’t need to use Pick 57 or Pick 90 but Pick 90 has no point value. We still get our PSD picks… they are not affected… nor is our ability to pick up DFA’s… so not sure…
Forget the other stuff, we would be trading Pick 25 this year and 2nd round pick next year for #10. It is a good deal for us. It may mean we can pick up a guy like Ah Chee or Curnow…
Really the trade works if you back us in to improve next year. If we finish 6th… it would mean we have traded #25 and #30 for #10… which is a steal.
Wouldn’t do that, either.
As it stands we need 4 newbies (outside Leuey, Bird, SMack), taking one at 10 and one at 90 to me is a worse result than 25 & 57 - let alone with another 2nd rounder into the bargain.
I’ll say it again, if we only add 3 kids in the national draft, we’re stuffed.
The list is old and tired, we need to get a bunch of kids in.We would still be adding 4 kids. 4,5,10 and 25.
The list isn’t as old and tired as you think. The age spread is a lot better and removing Fletcher dropped our average by about 1.3 years.
Looking at guys born in 1986 or before (turning 30+ in 2016): Watson, Stanton, Goddard, Cooney and Gwilt.
So only 5 guys that are likely in the last 3 years of their careers, of that Cooney and Gwilt are probably not locks for best 22.
We don’t need to pick up 6 kids every draft to be successful.
Have a look at the actual numbers:
Source: http://public.tableau.com/profile/liam.mannix#!/vizhome/AFLLists2015AgeProfile/AgeCohorts
Born 88 or earlierWatson
Goddard
Cooney
Stanton
Gwilt
Baguley
Dempsey
Hocking
Leuenberger
Hooker
Howlett.11 blokes… i reckon two, maybe 3 that have more than 3 seasons footy ahead of them.
So that gives you a theoretical list profile of:
In the Best 22:
4 Senior Players (29+)
8 Core Range (25-28)
6 Developing (21-24)
4 Rookies (18-20)
Rest of the List (18 spots - exc Rookie List)
6 Depth/Experienced (25+)
10 Rookie Years 2-3 (20-24)
2 Draft Class (18/19)
So overall you end up with a list profile of something like:
4 Senior Players (29+)
14 Core Range (50/50 split between playing 22 and depth)
16 Developing Players (Aged 20-25 and represent an average of 3 solid picks per draft class)
6 Rookies (3 players in first and second years - minimum contract length)
So, I don’t think there is an exact science but the suggestion that we have an old list is inaccurate. We had a huge hole in our list due to woeful recruiting in 2001 - 2006 (and some dodgy years after too) but we have addressed that solidly over the last few years.
I’m not sure you would want to add more than 4 kids from the draft + Smack + 3 Rookies.
Sorry, no. Numbers are numbers, they don't lie. 2015 we had one of the oldest 2 lists in the league, by the raw numbers. Even though it was an arguably worthwhile gamble, it turned out to be a mistake: we shouldn't have gotten Cooney and we should've let Winders retire.So, I don’t think there is an exact science but the suggestion that we have an old list is inaccurate. We had a huge hole in our list due to woeful recruiting in 2001 - 2006 (and some dodgy years after too) but we have addressed that solidly over the last few years.
We definitely can’t make the same mistake twice. We’re just not that good, there’s not that much coming through. We need to work hard & smart to make up for it.
So far we’ve lost 3 oldies and a 27 year old, but brought in 2 x 27 year olds.
Like an 80s children’s entertainer, we need more kids.
Agreed, the 2001 - 2006 thing was real.
I agree that we filled it.
That was fine when these blokes were topping us up for finals in the hope of getting Watson a flag. That’s gone, and now that strategy (somewhat forced upon us) has become a liability.
We should be turning over the list hard. We still have a number of blokes on our list that are SFA chance of making it. Get them out, and get in blokes that may not play a game, but on the other hand may be a good long term player.
And those blokes don’t need to be kids.
Bird makes 12.
Not unless 89 comes before 88
Sorry, no. Numbers are numbers, they don't lie. 2015 we had one of the oldest 2 lists in the league, by the raw numbers. Even though it was an arguably worthwhile gamble, it turned out to be a mistake: we shouldn't have gotten Cooney and we should've let Winders retire.So, I don’t think there is an exact science but the suggestion that we have an old list is inaccurate. We had a huge hole in our list due to woeful recruiting in 2001 - 2006 (and some dodgy years after too) but we have addressed that solidly over the last few years.
We definitely can’t make the same mistake twice. We’re just not that good, there’s not that much coming through. We need to work hard & smart to make up for it.
So far we’ve lost 3 oldies and a 27 year old, but brought in 2 x 27 year olds.
Like an 80s children’s entertainer, we need more kids.
It’s also about quality not just quantity, there is no point adding in 3 more kids after pick 57 this year in a shallow draft.
If you take the profile and assume that Watson, Goddard and Stanton are the next batch to go over 2-3 years, we need to find 3-4 players over 2 years which means we need to draft probably 6-10 players to find them. With higher picks hopefully that is easier and more efficient.
It also means that chasing a 22-25 year old gun would speed up the process as you don’t have to draft 3 to find them. But you do give up the picks.
As an idea, maybe we need to load up on the draft again next year, give away some future picks and then poach a free agent in 17 as we start the next tilt.
Exactly… saying that ‘we need kids’ and hence we should pick up 6 of them in one draft is just going to lead to younger deadwood.
Far better to add 4 high quality (4,5,10,25) youngsters and do the same again next year if we can…
Yes you can sometimes get lucky with picks in the 50’s but it is exception and not the rule.
Agree we shouldn’t have got Cooney… that was a mistake last year but it might have paid off if other stuff didn’t happen.
We have taken Chapman, Fletcher and Winders off the list and could replace them with picks 4,5 and 10… that is a really good start to a list rebuild. Especially when we already have guys like Zerrett, Langford, Laverde, Fantasia,Daniher and Gleeson in the Under 21 bucket.
Sorry, no. Numbers are numbers, they don't lie. 2015 we had one of the oldest 2 lists in the league, by the raw numbers. Even though it was an arguably worthwhile gamble, it turned out to be a mistake: we shouldn't have gotten Cooney and we should've let Winders retire.So, I don’t think there is an exact science but the suggestion that we have an old list is inaccurate. We had a huge hole in our list due to woeful recruiting in 2001 - 2006 (and some dodgy years after too) but we have addressed that solidly over the last few years.
We definitely can’t make the same mistake twice. We’re just not that good, there’s not that much coming through. We need to work hard & smart to make up for it.
So far we’ve lost 3 oldies and a 27 year old, but brought in 2 x 27 year olds.
Like an 80s children’s entertainer, we need more kids.
It’s also about quality not just quantity, there is no point adding in 3 more kids after pick 57 this year in a shallow draft.
If you take the profile and assume that Watson, Goddard and Stanton are the next batch to go over 2-3 years, we need to find 3-4 players over 2 years which means we need to draft probably 6-10 players to find them. With higher picks hopefully that is easier and more efficient.
It also means that chasing a 22-25 year old gun would speed up the process as you don’t have to draft 3 to find them. But you do give up the picks.
Those group of guys all still going strong in 2-3 years is fantasy land.
As an idea, maybe we need to load up on the draft again next year, give away some future picks and then poach a free agent in 17 as we start the next tilt.Agree with the idea: go hard at kids now, build a base, and when we've got 5-6 more kids we're really sure of, we can start to mess around with picks a bit.
Exactly.. saying that 'we need kids' and hence we should pick up 6 of them in one draft is just going to lead to younger deadwood. Far better to add 4 high quality (4,5,10,25) youngsters and do the same again next year if we can.. Yes you can sometimes get lucky with picks in the 50's but it is exception and not the rule.Agree we shouldn’t have got Cooney… that was a mistake last year but it might have paid off if other stuff didn’t happen.
We have taken Chapman, Fletcher and Winders off the list and could replace them with picks 4,5 and 10… that is a really good start to a list rebuild. Especially when we already have guys like Zerrett, Langford, Laverde, Fantasia,Daniher and Gleeson in the Under 21 bucket.
As it stands, we add 4 high quality ones, and take 2 with a few more risks attached.
I’ve got full faith Disco & Merve can find something in the 3rd round, it’s the 4th/5th where it gets really murky. Hopefully we can find a Gleeson/Fanta/Hooker type (talented kid, but needing a little more development) and maybe a Pig/Bellcho/Hocking/Howlett/Crameri type (all rookies or PSD picks, who’ve had decent careers).
I can’t see how getting a kid who might not be there in 3 years is any worse than keeping an older bloke who we know won’t be there. Some chance vs no chance - simple call. We’ve got one of the older lists around, we’re not going to be uber raw.
Aish deal is done, off to collingwood.
/done.
Think brisbane lost out again and Collingwood one again. Brisbane make big statements about what they are / are not going to do and don’t follow through. I think you lose a lot of credibility if you keep doing this.
Think brisbane lost out again and Collingwood one again. Brisbane make big statements about what they are / are not going to do and don't follow through. I think you lose a lot of credibility if you keep doing this.
*won
wtf
can someone explain this deal to me
- Collingwood received Aish and pick No.34 and 53, and gave up picks No.26, 28, 47 and a 2016 second-round pick;- The Lions received Bastinac and picks No.38 and 40, a 2016 second-round pick (St Kilda) and a 2016 third-round pick (North), and gave up Aish and pick No.17; and - North received picks No.17, 26, 28 and 47, and gave up Bastinac and picks No.34, 38, 40, 53 and its 2016 third-round pick.</blockquote>is it just me or are the lions getting absolutely rogered in that. how the hell is Bastinac + 34 +@ +38 +40+52 worth 17, 26,28 and 47. lions don’t get any decent pick back this year. just baffling.
wow just wow