Skip to main content
Topic: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond (Read 48894 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #240
I'm rapt we've got Jack aboard. Watching him run around reminds me of his dad so much and of our glory days - a ray of hope for the future. We need something to cling on to atm.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #241
I'm rapt we've got Jack aboard. Watching him run around reminds me of his dad so much and of our glory days - a ray of hope for the future. We need something to cling on to atm.

The other good thing about having Jack on board, is a kid called Ben!

" (June 2016)  Ben Silvagni, 16, also available for the 2018 draft, will likely play school football until his final TAC Cup year.

He kicked eight goals — five in the first quarter — in a recent Xavier Year 10 game

He already is 195cm — his father is 194cm — and has an exceptional tank.

Ben been receiving coaching from Hawthorn premiership captain Luke Hodge, who is part of the Xavier program.

2023

HF:  J Silvagni        B Silvagni       C Curnow

F:   Pickett              McKay         (Small forward pick up)

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #242
For a strong long term list you can't rely solely on early picks becoming stars. Jack being later pick is a positive as his early signs Seem to point to him being a regular AFL player.

Been a long time since we have had a pick outside the top 20 that goes on to be a 200 plus game player. As we hopefully improve in the rebuild we are less likely to snare bunches of early options so your mid and late picks become vital to get the depth you need to be at the top for a sustained time.

All the good teams have several mid to late picks that become very important players.




Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #243
All the good teams have several mid to late picks that become very important players.

Simmo  45    Denis A 46     Sam Jacobs 72 (ouch!)   Nick Duigan 70     Sam Rowe 44   Jack Silvagni  53  And that's all folks!!

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #244
first dissent i read about bolts

"he going to have to deliver more than footy cliches"

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #245
Simmo  45    Denis A 46     Sam Jacobs 72 (ouch!)   Nick Duigan 70     Sam Rowe 44   Jack Silvagni  53  And that's all folks!!

Are you sure?

So the 2017 Carlton list we have 4 players in that bracket?

That in itself sums up where the bulk of our problems are.

Quietly confident we will add Fisher and Mccreadie in a few years.

 

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #246
Are you sure?

So the 2017 Carlton list we have 4 players in that bracket?

That in itself sums up where the bulk of our problems are.

Quietly confident we will add Fisher and Mccreadie in a few years.

Besides a few elevated rookies, yes. 

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #247
first dissent i read about bolts

"he going to have to deliver more than footy cliches"

I agree with that assessment.

As supporters we require progress, not perfection. We should look to build on the 7 wins last year and not
Look to go backwards. How is everyone ok with us finishing on anything less then 8 wins this year.

The world has gone mad!!!

 

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #248
I agree with that assessment.

As supporters we require progress, not perfection. We should look to build on the 7 wins last year and not
Look to go backwards. How is everyone ok with us finishing on anything less then 8 wins this year.

The world has gone mad!!!

The problem is that people measure "progress" differently, or have different ideas about what constitutes progress. Some people believe that progress is a simple linear movement, where each season we have more wins, better ladder position etc., leading to a flag. Others believe that if we are "on the right path" (whatever that means), then history shows that successful teams (in recent times think Hawks and Cats) will be up and down in the early years of their "rebuild", then stabilize and move on to have sustained success.

It's ok - as Chomksy said, outside of a very limited set of facts and knowledge, humanity doesn't really understand much about anything, so you can have whatever opinion or theory you like. The discussion and the questions are where it's at.

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #249
The problem is that people measure "progress" differently, or have different ideas about what constitutes progress. Some people believe that progress is a simple linear movement, where each season we have more wins, better ladder position etc., leading to a flag. Others believe that if we are "on the right path" (whatever that means), then history shows that successful teams (in recent times think Hawks and Cats) will be up and down in the early years of their "rebuild", then stabilize and move on to have sustained success.

It's ok - as Chomksy said, outside of a very limited set of facts and knowledge, humanity doesn't really understand much about anything, so you can have whatever opinion or theory you like. The discussion and the questions are where it's at.

That's true and it's why I don't completely dismiss the possibility we could go backwards in terms of ladder position.
I still feel though that given the list we have this year should be a 'step forward' year.

The real test is how a club holds it's nerve in the down times.
Folk are saying that this time it's different and all parties have bought into the rebuild.....but that's yet to be tested under the pressure of continual poor performance.
We won't know whether we can all stay the course until we feel that pressure.
Some will drop off!
Cracks and criticism will appear.
Are we strong enough to resist those pressures or will the panic button be pressed.
Will some crazy billionaire think they can do a better job and turn the whole thing upside down again.

It's a 'wait and see'...and a testing year.

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #250
Simmo  45    Denis A 46     Sam Jacobs 72 (ouch!)   Nick Duigan 70     Sam Rowe 44   Jack Silvagni  53  And that's all folks!!

This is the main reason we are where we are, and our recent first round selections haven't been much better apart from Cripps (Weitering too but it's hard to stuff up pick 1).
No club could butcher the draft for as long as we have and possibly hope for success.
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #251
Simmo  45    Denis A 46     Sam Jacobs 72 (ouch!)   Nick Duigan 70     Sam Rowe 44   Jack Silvagni  53  And that's all folks!!

Betts
Garlett
Jacobs (was a rookie, the 72 is an elevation number)
White
Casboult
Byrne
Sheehan
Ed Curnow

....all rookies

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #252
Betts
Garlett
Jacobs (was a rookie, the 72 is an elevation number)
White
Casboult
Byrne
Sheehan
Ed Curnow

....all rookies
Jamison was a rookie
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #253
Jamison was a rookie

So was Bret Thornton, and so were Matt Priddis, Matthew Boyd and Dean Cox.
Which is all very well, but the great majority of the cream comes from the National Draft and that's what we've made a mess of.
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.

Re: 2017 Rd 1 Post Game Analysis: Carlton vs Richmond

Reply #254
Betts
Garlett
Jacobs (was a rookie, the 72 is an elevation number)
White
Casboult
Byrne
Sheehan
Ed Curnow

....all rookies

Betts was a PSD but, yes, same thing, not in the main draft.