List build - where are we? Where are we going next


#3000

Mother of God.
I just heard that besides Sheedy,no Essendon coach has coached Essendon to a finals win since 1968… i mean yeah Sheedy was coach for more than 1/2 of that 50 years…but .fark me.


#3001

Without even looking thru the Record Books, I’m going to attempt naming all the losing Finals coaches since 1968 (apart from Sheeds)…

2014…Bomber
2011…Hird
2009…Knights
1979…Davis

1976… Bill Stephen ?
(Only guessing with this last entry, as I was only 6 at the time)

Edit…forgot Woosha last year :laughing:


#3002

Oliver and Weidemann

Vs

Parish and Francis.

Right now, reckon Jackets is feeling pretty good about himself.


#3003

We did not have chance to pick Oliver


#3004

I know that. I’m not one of the nuffys who don’t understand pick 4 comes before 5&6 :wink:


#3005

I am just saying


#3006

What do these pairs of players have to do with one another? You could pull any combination of the 70 odd players drafted that year and it would have as much meaning


#3007

Well some people tend to unfavourably critique our drafting that year. We had pick 5&6, they had 4&9. I thought it was an interesting weekend for some people to revisit that assertion.

But hey, what I can do if you like is request to the mods that making comments comparing pairs of top 10 picks in the same draft in a list mgmt thread be a bannable offense?

Or maybe next time I want to make a comment I’ll check with you if you think there is enough meaning in it for you?

I trust you will also ask the same question to those comparing Laverde to Boekhorst this weekend?

Edit - yes a little narky…


#3008

Well that was a proportional response…


#3009

He may be feeling narky.


#3010

To play a straight bat.

  • Melbourne jumped the queue to get pick 3.
  • We both had 2 picks inside 10.
  • we were looking at the same players.
  • Parish has been compared to Oliver a lot, obviously Oliver alone has him covered.
  • both teams drafted a mid and a tall.
  • the 2015 draft has been quoted a either questionable or a failure by some blitzers.
  • this is a list mgmt thread.
  • if I compared Francis and Parish to Ben Crocker and Rupert Wills would that have as much meaning as you’ve suggested???

#3011

1972 and 1973 Des Tuddenham


#3012

1968 Jack Clarke


#3014

Ouch. That one really hurt.


#3015

What’s ron with you?


#3016

Seeing Zerk play this week again confirmed that he’s the long term answer down back post Hurley and Hooker. It may be premature but I’m comfortable enough to put it out there. Francis too has the third tall role nailed. Zerk will likely take another year, and Hooker and Hurley have two-three years left each.

In the interim do you trade one of the H’s out, bring in King in the draft(pick 8) to be your long term replacement and then rotate and build up him and Zerk in the seconds over the next 18 months to two years and roll them through the firsts with Ambrose or Hartley part of a key back rotation?. Just a thought…

Let’s assume that it’s Hurley you put up for trade to GWS.

To begin the season you might be playing Francis, Ambrose or Hartley, and Hooker whilst in the reserves we blood and accelerate the development of Zerk and King who become your key defenders for the next 10 years plus. We commit to getting 7 games into them both next year at a minimum. If they play more great… it reduces the role of your back up and/or also helps to preserves Hooker’s career potentially as a key forward again.

The thinking is that the loss in the short term, is offset in with the knowledge that the departing player (Hurley) will soon start to decline (if he isn’t already), you have adequate back up, don’t give up a valuable early first in a trade, and importantly you’ve got an accelerated succession plan in full motion in a part of the ground where we will soon be in decline.

The additional upshot is that you could help GWS in a part of the ground where they need support but you give up less (in future development terms) by packaging up a Hurley up with our first next year for SHIEL… Hell we’ll also give them Matty Dea! .

2020, we commence managing Hooker and reduce games for one of our back ups whilst watching King and Thatcher starting to tear it up and Shiel killing it in the midfield.

Whilst I love Hurls, I’m thinking about the future… thoughts?


#3017

No.


#3018

The truth is EFC don’t trade away players like Hurley unless they want out. So any discussion about it is just theoretical and in the end pointless.


#3019

Let’s just win the flag next year. Trading out Hurley isn’t going to help that goal.


#3020

A hypothetical

  • Assume that pick #8 is either used on a midfielder in the draft or traded for a midfielder.
  • Assume that Leuy retires, Green is delisted, McNiece is delisted, Smack is prmoted and Long is delisted, but can be re-rookied.

That would mean we’d have 3 remaining picks in the ND and 2 in the rookie draft (that can be used on Long). We would have a late 2nd rounder (GWS’s pick), and then a 4th and 5th rounder. So after that first pick a pretty weak hand.

We would also have 2 potential father son selections (Fletcher & Neagle) and an academy player in Hanna.

What would your strategy be? What would you like to see us do?

My preferences:

  • Another small forward who can bring pressure. Parker in the WAFL sounds good, but whether they are fast or sneaky or a good mark, the ability to bring pressure is a non-negotiable.
  • Another two midfielders to keep adding options. I don’t think our depth here is fantastic, as if you don’t rate Colyer the only dedicated midfielders who are depth are Mutch, Clarke, Mynott and Begley. Happy for one of these picks to be a mature player, as I don’t think our midfield depth was tested in 2018, but that need obviously may be tempered depending on who we get with #8. Pickett sounds good (flexible as well), but would likely be gone. One of the two should be outside with preferably a bit of toe as the guys I listed before are more inside. I’m assuming Colyer will be gone in 2019.
  • Rookie Fletcher and Neagle (unfortunately say goodbye to Long), which gives us another small defender option to replace McNiece and another young tall.

So effectively 2 more mids, a small forward, a small defender and another tall. Depending on who #8 is used on, I’d be happy with replacing one of those mids with another small forward with midfield potential.