It’s an old management technique where you rank all your workers every year and fire the bottom 10%. Amazon do/did a version of it.
Accountant? WTF, I thought he was a musician.
Ambrose can be great defensively when in form. But gives zero value in attack. Ditto Matt Dea. With the emergence of Francis, I definitely don’t see either of them as a best 22 lock. They are nice depth as they can be expected to play a role when injury hits but to me they are on the bottom of our list food chain.
The perfect blueprint for a back 6 is having 6 players who can all attack and defend - we have that already with Hooker, Hurley, Saad, McKenna…and possibly Francis if he improves the defensive aspect just a little. In terms of having the perfect back 6 structure, I still think we lack a young Baguley back pocket type who can really shutdown the oppositions best small forward whilst also having reasonable pace, skills and ability overhead so they aren’t a liability in attack.
Yeah nah. He’s not.
I’m still waiting for you to apologise for suggesting we need to cut some players.
I know right.
Can’t wait for BJ to turn up to Crichton, “wait you cut me and he’s still here”
Goddard will play the Goddard role even in retirement.
Yep, I’m with you on this one.
Our list currently has far, far too many options for the Key Defender and Medium defender roles.
Hurley, Hooker, Hartley, Ambrose, Francis, Gleeson, Dea, Ridley, Redman, Zerk-thatcher and Mitch Brown if needed. That’s 10-11 guys to fill a maximum of 4 senior spots.
Dea and Hartley are decent enough role-players, who would be fine if they weren’t on a list with this much quality depth in their roles. But on that list? They are expendable. Hartley could get a third-rounder imo. Dea we’d have to delist, and most likely will.
I have no issue going late in the draft, even if it’s just to get some State league role players. Now sure, that’s essentially what Dea is, but we could replace him with a role we actually need.
Getting Guelfi and Zerk-thatcher late in the ‘worst draft ever,’ shows you can find players at any stage of any draft.
But, hanging onto Jerrett was a hardly great move this year.
We literally had a spot on the list for a guy who we knew wasn’t good enough, we knew we were getting rid of, and provided zero depth for anything.
Hanging onto guys for the sake of it is far more ridiculous imo.
I reckon the coaches think he is. He’s only played VFL in the last 3 years when returning from injury.
So, you hope he’s no longer best 22 going forward. That’s what you’re really saying
I think this was true before the emergence of Francis. I think now Hurley will go back to playing more as a defender who can attack as opposed to playing looser to facilitate more attack (which to be fair he did that most of this year compared to last year anyway). Ambrose isn’t going to push Hooker or Hurley out and with a bit more experience Francis will be a very dangerous 3rd tall.
If they go with a Hooker, Hurley and Francis backline (which I assume at this stage they will, unless Hooker moves forward again but I think they’ll go with JD and Smack early on) then Ambrose will become backup/brought in if they need a fourth tall (which most clubs don’t really do anyway despite fans constantly saying it should happen).
Yeah, as much as I think he’s been great (and very underappreciated “at times” i.e. when we were playing poorly and a scapegoat was needed) Dea is still a smaller player that plays a medium/tallish style game and thus is behind plenty of other players. You could replace him with a state league player who has potential to make a good back pocket and the list would already be more balanced.
There’s a lot of goal post moving going on in this conversation
If I cared to carry on, I’d ask how. But I don’t.
Not really. No one is hoping Francis comes on next year, we all saw it. Anyone suggesting Ambrose is best 22 is saying Ambrose is still ahead of Francis (which he unequivocally is not), or that we can fit all of Hurley Hooker Francis Ambrose in one backline, or that Hooker shifts forward again. I would say that argument is far far more hopeful than the reverse.
How can you be arguing at 6:40am?
The urge to argue has no sense of time.
But surely I’m telling you something you already know?
You have a point.
(See what I did there?)