I think the problem is with our 2nd and 3rd picks in the ND. I don’t think they were clear best or fitting a need. We could have addressed a ruck or crumbing gap but didn’t.
Given that’s in the past, I think the strategy today was ok. We took a project ruckman and we needed to do this. We kept Smack as backup knowing the project ruckman would not be ready this year. I just hope we give him a reasonable go and don’t delist him after 1 season.
Re Eades we took him and contracted him for 2 years knowing his background was difficult. We are honoring the contract which also seems correct.
Nov 2015: Great move drafting Yestin, such an imaginative and progressive move by the club.
Nov 2016: Terrible move drafting Yestin, why can’t the club be more imaginative and progressive?
Take a look at him: Yestin Eades, he’s at zero
Yes he’s at zero
That’s all that he’s gonna be if he don’t get together make a new start and be somebody better
All that he’ll be if he don’t get together now!
Here is my problem with the Eades thing, and it kind of has nothing to do with Eades specifically.
I said words to this effect on the blitzcast. You draft a kid like Eades in the knowledge that he is a work in progress athletically and socially. It takes time, patience and understanding.
With that being said what I would hate to see happen (and yes it’s on him to an extent) Is it falls on its face and is gone at years end and Yestin Eades will be forever the reference point as to why we don’t give kids like that a go anymore. I would like to think the club (and blitz) are better than that.
I reckon 12 months is plenty of time to know if a kid isn’t going to turn it around. Reckon probably would’ve worked this out in the first week.
I’m going to lobby to the AFL to ban us adding our own delisted players to our own rookie list.
Why is everyone crying about wasting picks on McKernan and Eades, despite the club openly saying that they were going to do it the whole time?
We may have lost out on two rookie picks, but we also gained two national draft picks in Mutch and Clarke. I’d much rather have those picks than two extra rookie spots.
I’m crying about it because we keep doing it and it keeps not working, and I’m kind of hoping one day the pile of re-rookied players gets big enough that we stop wasting list spots doing it.
Most rookies don’t make it, whether they’ve been on a list or not. Nor are Essendon the only club to do so, either today or in past years.
Either way, McKernan is the only ruck depth we have outside our first choice pair aside from a 17year old, and we aren’t stacked with tall forwards either. Eades has all the raw skills and physical attributes to make it as an AFL player and plays a position that we’ve been crying out for someone to fill for years.
I understand the rationale, but at 0 from 8 over the last 10 years at what point do you acknowledge that the rationale is flawed? 0 from 10? 0 from 20?
Or you could judge each situation on its individual merits and make a decision from there.
Why is everyone crying about wasting picks on McKernan and Eades, despite the club openly saying that they were going to do it the whole time?
We may have lost out on two rookie picks, but we also gained two national draft picks in Mutch and Clarke. I’d much rather have those picks than two extra rookie spots.
I’m crying about it because we keep doing it and it keeps not working, and I’m kind of hoping one day the pile of re-rookied players gets big enough that we stop wasting list spots doing it.
Most rookies don’t make it, whether they’ve been on a list or not. Nor are Essendon the only club to do so, either today or in past years.
Either way, McKernan is the only ruck depth we have outside our first choice pair aside from a 17year old, and we aren’t stacked with tall forwards either. Eades has all the raw skills and physical attributes to make it as an AFL player and plays a position that we’ve been crying out for someone to fill for years.
I understand the rationale, but at 0 from 8 over the last 10 years at what point do you acknowledge that the rationale is flawed? 0 from 10? 0 from 20?
Or you could judge each situation on its individual merits and make a decision from there.
Don’t mind what the club did here. This was exactly as it was always going to pan out after Friday. The most glaring omission on the list is a developing ruck. Go a lumbering 24 year old state leaguer and you have an average ruck who’ll only ever be average. That’s a strategy for a team that’s Top 4 and needs insurance or a team like ours that needs one to pinch hit should our two go down, but we need to have an eye on the future in every key post. As someone said he has the tools and being so new to the game he has a higher ceiling for improvement than most. If he was the clubs number one developing ruck prospect they had to lock him in at the first pick. The second pick is the back up and McKernan was the clubs choice for insurance, he knows the game plan and if nothing else is a competitive and flexible. After that who was really left for the x factor? The only thing I’m disappointed with is no spot for Lil’ Hepp, but we drafted very similar types Friday so perhaps his fate was sealed then.
Look Blitz it could be worse. West Coast picked up Drew Petrie as a backup ruckman. A player who is more cooked than some dim sim sitting in the bay marie at 4am of that dodgy takeaway joint you always swear you’ll never go back to no matter how drunk.
As a ruckman he had 12 hit outs in the 22 games he played in 2016.
Look Blitz it could be worse. West Coast picked up Drew Petrie as a backup ruckman. A player who is more cooked than some dim sim sitting in the bay marie at 4am of that dodgy takeaway joint you always swear you'll never go back to no matter how drunk.
As a ruckman he had 12 hit outs in the 22 games he played in 2016.
Agreed. That is outrageous by West Coast. He is as cooked as any AFL player I’ve seen. Simpson helping out an old mate.
I think the problem is with our 2nd and 3rd picks in the ND. I don't think they were clear best or fitting a need. We could have addressed a ruck or crumbing gap but didn't.
Given that’s in the past, I think the strategy today was ok. We took a project ruckman and we needed to do this. We kept Smack as backup knowing the project ruckman would not be ready this year. I just hope we give him a reasonable go and don’t delist him after 1 season.
Re Eades we took him and contracted him for 2 years knowing his background was difficult. We are honoring the contract which also seems correct.
That’s because you are not inside the club and do not have a clue what the strategy was. You have applied your strategy and declared the club failed because they didn’t do what you wanted.