Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
You sound like an ignorant fool who has no basic understanding of what you are talking about. On what basis do you presume to judge Dank a charlatan? This is a guy who has worked with numerous professional sports clubs & athletes for more than a decade. This is a guy who, unlike yourself has actual qualifications & experience in the field. You can choose to believe he has subverted the WADA code but FFS to call him a charlatan shows gross ignorance on your part & its a claim you have no basis for & no credible evidence to support.
BTW - I’ve heard Sheedy described as a charlatan too & his success was not built on passively waiting for success to happen. Sheedy pushed boundaries his whole career & the rules of the game were changed numerous times as a result of his influence. That’s what most success is actually built on - risk, taking a chance, pushing boundaries & breaking new ground. Your imagined manuscript is an ignorant lie you tell yourself. The club was well behind the competition & no amount of past glory was going to change that.
When did I chuck anything in? Once again you are either misinformed, deliberately obtuse or just a bit of a dill.
Sheeds has nothing to do with this ■■■■■, so ■■■■ off on that score.
You sound like someone who would be cannon fodder for a charlatan.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
I honestly have no idea what your definition of a charlatan is, but it sounds like anyone recommending more than running up sand dunes and a lemsip before bed.
LOL Lemsip?
You’re right. Who knows what’s really in that stuff.
I mean you’d think it would be lemons, but how would you know for sure?
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
I honestly have no idea what your definition of a charlatan is, but it sounds like anyone recommending more than running up sand dunes and a lemsip before bed.
LOL Lemsip?
Interesting sidebar - In some countries Lemsip contains phenylephrine which is banned for athletes.
There wasn’t scientific evidence supporting the supplements supposedly used. Reid pointed this out in early 2012, as well as that it would look bad in the media. He was a master of understatement as it turned out.
Legal, illegal, it does not change the fact that we left the door wide open by not keeping decent enough records or kept a closer eye what was going on, we let rogues go behind the back of the club doctor. Pretty much leaving the next 3 years as a wide open target for anyone associated to the club in any fashion, sure other clubs may have done the same but we were dumb enough to have our pants pulled down by it.
Maybe the program could have been managed better, but illegality didn’t happen, and the “rogues” if you mean Dank and the Weapon ran similar programs elsewhere without issues, and less record keeping.
We let our pants be pulled down and spread our own cheeks.
So are you saying if we shut up, none of this would have happened?
My Dad advised me a very long time ago that silence is golden when being questioned by anyone in authority. He said that the truth is often used against you and many innocents end up in jail. We probably both know many black fellas who have been screwed over and some white ones as well.
All I am saying Ben, is nothing illegal was found, but three years of investigation and all the rest has ruined us all. If our Chairman had told the AFL to fark off and ASADA to go root itself, we may have won a premiership.
Most guilty blokes confess, it is the innocent who suffer the system.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
You sound like an ignorant fool who has no basic understanding of what you are talking about. On what basis do you presume to judge Dank a charlatan? This is a guy who has worked with numerous professional sports clubs & athletes for more than a decade. This is a guy who, unlike yourself has actual qualifications & experience in the field. You can choose to believe he has subverted the WADA code but FFS to call him a charlatan shows gross ignorance on your part & its a claim you have no basis for & no credible evidence to support.
BTW - I’ve heard Sheedy described as a charlatan too & his success was not built on passively waiting for success to happen. Sheedy pushed boundaries his whole career & the rules of the game were changed numerous times as a result of his influence. That’s what most success is actually built on - risk, taking a chance, pushing boundaries & breaking new ground. Your imagined manuscript is an ignorant lie you tell yourself. The club was well behind the competition & no amount of past glory was going to change that.
When did I chuck anything in? Once again you are either misinformed, deliberately obtuse or just a bit of a dill.
Sheeds has nothing to do with this ■■■■■, so ■■■■ off on that score.
You sound like someone who would be cannon fodder for a charlatan.
You obviously are too simple to even know what a charlatan actually is. Like I said, Sheedy does have something to do with this because he pushed boundaries & it was part of his success. Anyone suggesting a conservative continuation of the club lagging behind the competition was somehow the "Essendon manuscript" is simply showing they have no understanding or appreciation of where the club was before Sheedy & what he actually did to help the club succeed. You want a conservative approach to modern sport & no boundaries approached let alone pushed then that equals failure. I get that many don't see, don't know & can't appreciate where professional sport has progressed. Its a part of sport that's not romantic, not publicised much, not even talked about openly but again I ask you a simple question - WTF do you think Dank did at GC? What do you think sports scientists actually do in all sports? Are you claiming all sports science is bunk? Do you have even a high school level science basis for your position because its certainly not 1 supported by the medical & scientific community & its certainly not 1 shared by the world sports community who spend millions on sports science programs. Got anything of any substance at all because frankly so far all you've provided is dribble.
Don’t be a dunce. Dank and his "science"wasn’t good for Essendon Football Club.
Wasn’t it? What are you basing that on? You are the one making these defined claims but providing no substance to support them. You’re the dunce who basically is unable to give an even mildly intelligent response. Maybe Essendon football club wasn’t good enough for Dank’s science. Maybe you are too uneducated to be in position to make any claim about anything remotely scientific. Maybe you are just a troll. The evidence suggest the players were bigger & stronger. The evidence supports the position that the overall program (including Weapon’s regime) had the players performing at a better level in 2012 than they were in 2011. Its also strongly supports the position that many players were unable to maintain & sustain that level & broke down, while others (Jobe for example) had their best ever years.
Now if you are in any way capable of mounting an evidenced based scientific case to support the notion that it was Dank’s supplements & not Weapons weights program that caused the soft tissue injuries then by all means, the world is waiting to read your insights. Until that time your ignorant opinions on the validity & efficacy of Dank’s or any other sports science program is frankly as useful as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.
Legal, illegal, it does not change the fact that we left the door wide open by not keeping decent enough records or kept a closer eye what was going on, we let rogues go behind the back of the club doctor. Pretty much leaving the next 3 years as a wide open target for anyone associated to the club in any fashion, sure other clubs may have done the same but we were dumb enough to have our pants pulled down by it.
Maybe the program could have been managed better, but illegality didn’t happen, and the “rogues” if you mean Dank and the Weapon ran similar programs elsewhere without issues, and less record keeping.
We let our pants be pulled down and spread our own cheeks.
So are you saying if we shut up, none of this would have happened?
My Dad advised me a very long time ago that silence is golden when being questioned by anyone in authority. He said that the truth is often used against you and many innocents end up in jail. We probably both know many black fellas who have been screwed over and some white ones as well.
All I am saying Ben, is nothing illegal was found, but three years of investigation and all the rest has ruined us all. If our Chairman had told the AFL to fark off and ASADA to go root itself, we may have won a premiership.
Most guilty blokes confess, it is the innocent who suffer the system.
I’m with you there, though I do think there is a chance TB4 was given to the players but seeing as it can’t really be tested for we will never know.
So I think you are right, hindsight is we should not have said or did anything, but hey it was the hand we played.
This won’t be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
The 'validity and efficacy' of Steve Danks sports science 'program' can never be tested and, as he is banned for life it never will be.
Reckon the results at Geelong and the other gigs show it was effective. And the Bombers were looking good in my view as well. And nothing was illegal, or so they say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This won't be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
Maybe Ben, you may not agree but in my view James Hird is a progressive thinker and he would have adapted his game-plan and list of players over the next years. That said, he still had a great win/loss ratio especially if you take out this year.
And if you critically review the last three Hawthorn flags, while the team has some constants they have adapted over the time to be more effective when it counts. Clarkson and his crew seem to have a more holistic approach to footy than anyone else, and it is all about the Grand Final day performance.
This won't be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
Verbatim what was said about Clarkson in his first two seasons.
This won't be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
Verbatim what was said about Clarkson in his first two seasons.
If the 2015 list didn’t pull off the game plan this year or next, it wouldn’t be ‘physically capable’ to do much for another five years.
Note: No idea what list Clarkson had in the first two years.
This won't be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
Verbatim what was said about Clarkson in his first two seasons.
If the 2015 list didn’t pull off the game plan this year or next, it wouldn’t be ‘physically capable’ to do much for another five years.
Note: No idea what list Clarkson had in the first two years.
This won't be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
Verbatim what was said about Clarkson in his first two seasons.
I know that, and they adjusted their list accordingly, hard to say how we would have gone about that given the restrictions we had at the draft
This won't be popular, but I think Jim had a game plan that we would never have been able to execute sustainably with the cattle we had, much the same as the game plan Knights has could not be sustained physically. Though at least with Jims in theory it could be done without causing significant harm to the players.
Verbatim what was said about Clarkson in his first two seasons.
I know that, and they adjusted their list accordingly, hard to say how we would have gone about that given the restrictions we had at the draft
Probably better off asking in the draft forums, but what players would we have been looking at with our draft picks, assuming we didn’t get drop kicked out?