Unless SOS had his lupara pointed at a few other recruiters, there's probably a reason why he went pick 53.
Yes, I know such a view will win me no friends around here. I know he's a fave of many. I'm just calling it as I see it. He could become anything (good or bad), but at this point, I see him as an honest toiler.
The main reason he dropped to 53 is that he had a shoulder operation in his draft year and didn't play a lot of footy. From memory he didn't test at the combine either.
He was also under aged for his draft year. There was even a school of thought to say wait 12 months and go the following draft instead.
Respect is earned. We started earning respect last season, and we are continuing this currently.
We may not necessarily win a lot more this year, but this is the first time in a long time, that we seem to be working towards making teams earn the win.
Some interesting questions. I have my own for this week. Consider these: [1]With Alex Silvagni being unavailable for 4 weeks and Rowe being injured long term, do we need to bolster the defence? GC do not have a huge number of tall targets and we do have Caleb Marchbank who can play on any tall not muscled like Arnie. We may consider bring in White, who can play tall or mid. We may also consider bringing in a smaller, quicker defender, as we tend to leak goals to smaller forwards rather than taller ones. Or do we bring in Ciaran Sheahan, who offers smarts, an excellent left foot and excellent concentration and strength? Interesting thought.
[2]Losing a tall like Silvagni, should we bring in a tall forward instead? At present Harry McKay would seem to be the obvious choice. He has some way to go, but he has shown enough in recent times to get him into the selection picture. H can ruck somewhat and he does have mobility and great hands. If we think of going for a taller forward, McKay has the edge over the others at the moment, although there is still competition.
[3]We had a few guys who didn't get a lot of the ball last week; Liam Sumner (9 possessions), Tom Williamson (10), Zac Fisher (12) and Jed Lamb (15) come to mind. There is a case to keep any and all of them, but it is reasonably probably that SPS may come directly into the team this week. Should he? I think SPS is a high probability to be selected. His form has been pretty good and he provides speed and X-Factor to our forward line and midfield. Of the 4 mentioned, Fisher and Sumner appear under the most pressure, as they had very few possessions for guys who spent time in the midfield. Nick Graham (and a few others) put their hands up in the 2nds. I think Fisher could do with a few weeks in the VFL. He is young and would appreciate more time developing his skills in the centre square. That doesn't happen so much in the seniors. Sumner was in the play a lot more than his 9 possessions suggest, but Graham would be more likely to get 18 - 21 possessions per game, based on his form this season.
[4]Should we make ANY unforced changes? When we win, we RARELY change the team. This has been a trend for a long time and I do not expect it to change. I have suggest changes for a long time, but do not heed my calls. Often the performance of those in the team make my contributions look silly. Last week had a clear example: playing Daisy with no time in the VFL to gain form. I was not a fan of this idea. I thought (and still do) that Daisy's body probably needs a warm up game. Instead Daisy really put in.
At this point I am thinking: In: SPS & Harry McKay Out: A Silvagni and Fisher
Now that I have written this, I expect the club to do just about anything except make these 2 changes.
I agree with what you have written, and agree that we largely need to be choosing players based on form, and its conceivable that we get Jaksch back into the team this week as he provides us some flexibility.
We can start him forward, and then if that doesnt work swap him with either of Jones/Weitering.
If we go with Harry, we are pretty much stuck with Harry being up forward, and the only thing we can shuffle is Kreuzer forward, and Levi into the ruck.
We dont really want Harry in the ruck at this stage of the journey as although GC's ruck division isnt the most vaunted, it does have 2 metre Peter who got off the leash last time against us, particularly when resting forward, and we still have Tom Lynch to contend with.
Versatility might win out against form this week at the selection table. We need to make a call on Jaksch this season. It might be time to see what we have (or don't have with him).
I am not sure I like a forward line with H, Casboult & SOS.
Will be interesting to see how it goes, whilst SOS has good ground/tackling pressure, I am still not comfortable we will have enough when the ball goes to ground.
In saying that, it is just that in H's highlights you don't see a lot of ground pressure, those who see him regularly might be able to correct that, which would be great.
I think it depends on the attributes of the other 3.
If the other 3 are Matthew Wright, Jed Lamb and a resting midfielder or even a Dennis Armfield (type) then there should be enough accountability going both ways to make it ok.
Wright and Lamb were happy to work up the ground, and JSOS plays as a lead up forward who pitches in around the midfield anyway.
Technically, we play one tall, with another pinch hitting and going Mckay and Levi means we are mixing it up to two talls and a medium.
Even if it doesnt work now, it seems to be a better balance of players for the future which is what we are supposed to be building towards anyway which ratifies the thought process IMHO.
I suppose it signals effort and influence, a bit like the reasons for Daisy being selected.
Maybe a more important measure is the effect it has on team-mates!
Both true enough statements.
Statistically speaking, this stat might be game high for our team, but like all stats, if high for the competition is 30, then 22 is reasonable for a young player. If 15 is high for the competition, then 22 becomes impressive.
The effect it has on team mates, is difficult to measure, but it would be appreciated and that's all that matters there.
The pessimist in me reminds me that our club is looking for as many small wins as it can get, so highlighting stuff like this for a youngster is important as a small win in case we dont get the big win, so the fact we won by a point is important to note in this regard.
To measure a stat, there would be some criteria surrounding what it constitutes.
My guess at what it means is an act where a player is involved in a play without necessarily getting a stat (tackle, disposal, 1%) which results in a turnover.
That becomes tangible.
I reckon its probably a bit like the tennis statistic of the "forced error".
Besides that who knows, but the fact that he scored highly is irrelevant of its own. Its just a number. What becomes important is how the rest of his teamates went, and what the average is.
We are generally finding less new oil than we are using as of 2010. What does this mean for us moving forward?? Generally, power shift. The arab nations have enjoyed the influence and power that comes with owning the resources in the middle east, and its starting to dwindle. This might be what the birth of terrorism is all about. I tend to look at state sponsored terrorism more skeptically than most.
I have yet to meet anyone that takes action for no good reason. The motivation of gains are generally driven by the same constants over time. Fiscal/Power. Everything else is a smokescreen. This isnt about Religion IMHO. The oil reserves are depleting at a faster rate than they are filling, and we are starting to look at non traditional methods of getting it in places where it was much more difficult to get than ever before.
That tells me everything we need to know about where it is going. The emergence of Tesla is also not a coincidence. Those cars show that powered vehicles are the way forward.
What does this mean?? Get ready for much more instability and war, returning to what it has always been about. Money and Power shift. The hard part to figure out is who has the power, but consider this for a moment. USA and the Saudis are effectively the major players in terms of power in the middle east. To give everyone an idea of just how deep and historically powerful, look at the creation of the modern Israeli state. They have their way of establishing power. I have no doubt that this has as much to do with "regime change" as anything else. I wasnt surprised to find Iraq once was a major player in the oil world. no longer. I wonder why...
Except Schache actually came out before the draft and said he would love to play for Brisbane.
Sure MIO. Public statements are barely worth considering IMHO. Even so, the decision of a teenager about their long term future to move interstate might have been perfectly palatable at first, but the reality of doing so is much harder than talking about it.
Quote
I think 1st rounders should be tied to longer contracts to be honest.
As much as I would agree, sometimes clubs need to be protected from themselves. Imagine having been stuck with Kane Lucas for much longer, also, GWS happily traded away no less than 3 first rounders from the 2015 draft in last seasons trade period. Not one of them had fired a shot. This is the exception, but the reality is, that there are enough dodgy first rounders that have gone around that make this idea less palatable for clubs.
Quote
We don't barrack for Brisbane, so it is easy to be dismissive. But a club constantly losing it's stable of players is simply not good for the game.
Tom Scully being pinched by GWS was not good for the game.
I agree with this, its not good for anyone.
Quote
I would have no problem with 1st round picks being signed to 3 or 4 year contracts. Imagine if Weitering wanted out this year.
I dont think its necessary. All it means is that you keep a bloke that doesnt really want to be there longer. In a game where passion is important, having someone going through the motions is not ideal, nor fiscally does it work out.
we all gamble when we pick an interstater. People think they know what they are getting into, but then when they make their move and reality hits, it might not have been all its cracked up to be and relationships in practise are very different than in reality. The harsh reality of the budding AFL footballer who thinks that its going to be easy once they get established and then it all sinks in, the recovery sessions, the running sessions, the dietary requirements, the limits you have to push yourself to in order to be driven harder and harder and harder to get the most out of yourself, only to do it in an environment you are not used to, and dont really want to be in??
So, I think I have a different scenario (all ofthem have their difficulties, this one is no different). Said player is forced back into the draft rather than traded. Again its not perfect, but at least they cant just be white anted out of the club easily. Nor will they go glory hunting.
Clubs shouldn't be able to cut loose first round draft picks too if you want them to be made to stay against their wishes.
The onus is on the club to do due diligence and draft players that want to play for them. They can draft who they like but if it was made clear on draft day that player x really doesn't want to play for Brisbane they might want to think of trading that pick for players to get more value, or run the risk of players signalling their intention to go.
Im not going to pretend that the media are honest/dishonest.
Its probably that they are being used as tools to misinform and shape public interest for other political aims.
I tend to prefer things as the media being the 3 ringed circus. Designed specifically to misinform, distract and shape public opinion, promote political gains that result in the population being dumb enough to control, and not ask the hard questions.
Read through this link. It provides a better backdrop to why there are so many issues in this area, and from what I can understand it all goes back the same reasons why wars have always, and will always be fought.
$$$$$$$$$$$ and Power.
People like to blame the evils of religion for mans evils, but the reality is, that the unscrupulous seek only fiscal reward, monetary gain, and will use any excuse in the book to say that its about something else, and people like to believe they are enlightened and buy these lies hook, line and sinker.
No, you plonked me in the middle of a One Nation rally... where I felt most uncomfortable.
Sorry I thought the emoticons conveyed that I wasn't too concerned.
As I've said I largely agree with most of what you write but I suspect we do see Trump in different degrees.
I'm seeing Trump's efforts so far as buffoonish and amateur, but I'm also seeing a bit of an hysterical over-reaction to his ascendancy and questioning of his legitimacy from his opponents that has been apparent even before he took office.
The end result now seems to be a government in paralysis. But I'm not overly concerned because things will sort themselves out..and I'm not overly concerned about Trump because the checks and balances built into the American system will keep him in line. We're nearly an eighth of the way through his term and we're still spinning around.
I actually do see myself as very much in the middle of the political spectrum. My voting at a local level has been pretty much divided over the years. I followed and admired Obama "before he was a superstar." I would have preferred Hilary over Trump...but she was weighed, measured and found wanting. Not all her own fault...but she does have significant responsibility as does her party. That she couldn't wipe the floor with a candidate as flawed as Trump is a condemnation.
The more you move away from the middle on either side the more 'hate' becomes a factor and if you hate the individual or idea then it does impact on your thinking.
While some individuals and ideas are worthy of condemnation there must also be an understanding of the reasons and causes behind them other than that's just "leftist rubbish" or "redneck thinking."
Finally, someone who understands exactly what I have been trying to state for a while.
The one thing I will state one thing to add.
The more you move over to one side of the spectrum, the more in common you have with someone at the other end of spectrum but driven by different ideologies.
Some issues need to be dealt with according to one ideology, other issues, need to be dealt with the opposing ideology. (For arguments sake, left/right).
The thing is, that which way you swing will be dictated more by where society currently sits, and what the better outcome "for now and moving forward" is and some people will argue stubbornly about what is right and wrong, based on a political allegiance, rather than what the correct decision and outcome is, because they lack the critical and analytical thinking to arrive at the appropriate conclusion.
this is why when people say "the looney left, or the Fascist right" I start thinking to myself, why?? Because their idology is different surrounding a subject?? Nature conservationists, can be nationalists and still campaign for Green wedges to remain. Its called protecting our environment and making responsible decisions for future generations, whilst still achieving good outcomes for both now, and future generations.
this is where politics falls over. People think they are sports team to support without question and seem to revel in the glory of victory when their chosen ideology has a win. Its rubbish. thats how you end up with the extremes in politics which are generally negative in outcome.
