Re: For Discussion Reply #15 – December 15, 2015, 11:54:50 pm Quote from: TheSheik – on December 15, 2015, 11:47:49 pmWe will finish 17th-18th next year, it would be a miracle to get any higher than that based on the list we are building. Which teams will we finish higher than should be the question.Some of the new draftees will be given games so they get a taste of what it is like at senior level but only if they warrant the selection.Four games ?? Might not win that many actually.The win/loss column in 2016 doesn't worry me one iota, its the gradual development of the players both individually & collectively that has me seriously interested.2018 is when we will start to push for finals.I'm with you Sheik.We are all riding the wave of optimism following the SOS/Bolts renaissance, but the reality is that it will take several seasons before it bears fruit. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #16 – December 16, 2015, 12:19:36 am I'm the opposite.If we're looking at 17-18 it means we're looking at a similar season to this year.Yet we won't have the coaching debacle and uncertainty that plagued our first half of the year.We won't have board and admin pushing the rebuild message after round two and sucking the life out of the place.We won't have the half-hearted performances of some senior players that must have affected the players around them.They're gone...and hopefully so has any division in the playing ranks.We (hopefully) won't be playing the last half of the year with an eye to draft Pick 1.Bolton will want to establish his credentials...he'll be looking for development... but he'll also be looking for as many wins as possible.We're all pretty much aware that for the long term development it wouldn't hurt to have another low finish next year.The problem with that is that if we do finish 17th or 18th you won't see a noticeable improvement in the team, their attitude or their play.It just doesn't work that way.We'll look very average....and as much as people declare that they're prepared to be patient, a 17th or 18th position will have one or more of the board, admin, coach and recruiting personnel under pressure. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #17 – December 16, 2015, 12:40:23 am Someone look at the Doggies' 2015 list and explain how the made the 8 - and almost won a final?Is that list better than ours?I think not. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #18 – December 16, 2015, 06:52:18 am Quote from: flyboy77 – on December 16, 2015, 12:40:23 amSomeone look at the Doggies' 2015 list and explain how the made the 8 - and almost won a final?Is that list better than ours?I think not.Our list is not comparable to the Doggies 2015, more the Doggies 2012.We still have a shallow midfield, lack pace around the ground, Lack kicking skills and lack defensive pressure. Bolton will not come in and fix this all in one year. Our draftees need 3-5 years, our GWS boys are still a question mark due to injury and no playing time. Kerridge was probably our best experienced player pick up and he could barely get a game for Adelaide last season.I doubt we will win more than 5 games and wooden spoon is still a very real probability. In the development of the side it doesn't matter, we need another 2-3 drafts of top line talent obtained by finishing bottom 4 then we start to rise. Happened to Bulldogs, Saints, Port, West Coast.... if we continue to have off seasons like 2015 then there is no reason we will not do the same.We were asked to be patient, we asked for no quick fixes, so why have a go at an article that is probably right and fits in with the clubs plan? Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #19 – December 16, 2015, 08:31:37 am Quote from: Raydan – on December 16, 2015, 06:52:18 amWe were asked to be patient, we asked for no quick fixes, so why have a go at an article that is probably right and fits in with the clubs plan?If you accept the "no quick fix/patience" line then it's probably a bit rich to have a go at the club.On the other hand if you feel it's more a line to lower expectations...then it's quite reasonable to expect a bit more.The club has nothing to gain by talking up a rapid improvement if it can convince people to sign on with the promise of a steady calculated rebuild.Folk are signing up anyway...and many of those would be signing because they see some positive signs. They don't think it will take as long as has been suggested.It suits the club to say "it will take time".On the other hand produce an 8-12 ladder finish next year and it can be 'pats on the back' all around and a "look how well we've done".(That's actually what I'm expecting and I suspect it's where the club's real target is.)We finished with the spoon...Is that a real indication of our ability?Well that's where we finished I guess.But we had so much off-field crap last year and it would have created a great deal of uncertainty among the playing group.We had players who were already ''elsewhere'' and playing accordingly....and we had injuries to key players as indicated by Crash here..Quote from: crashlander – on December 15, 2015, 09:48:46 pmHowever, having Gibbs, Thomas, Byrne, Sheehan, Kreuzer, Murphy and Graham in and contributing, where Yarran, Henderson and Menzel did not or could not, will make us more competitive. I do not expect miracles, but if we can keep something like our best 20 odd on the field, we will win games against 'good' sides. And that is not considering any reasonable contributions from our newbies.For me the real problem is our attack.We had few, if any functioning forwards for much of the year.Over the last three years the number of goals kicked has been...2013-3042014-2762015-219Down nearly 100 goals in 3 seasons!(We all know where they've gone)...but an attack that scores only 219 goals That's our worst ever under the 22 game a year system (since 1967).Fix that one area alone with a few contributors and you're well on the way to solving a big part of our problems. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #20 – December 16, 2015, 09:04:29 am Quite simply it is better to under-hype and over-deliver than to do the opposite, which we have done all too often in past years. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #21 – December 16, 2015, 09:27:29 am QuoteFor me the real problem is our attack.We had few, if any functioning forwards for much of the year.Over the last three years the number of goals kicked has been...2013-3042014-2762015-219Down nearly 100 goals in 3 seasons!(We all know where they've gone)...but an attack that scores only 219 goals That's our worst ever under the 22 game a year system (since 1967).Fix that one area alone with a few contributors and you're well on the way to solving a big part of our problems.Hard to kick goals when the delivery inside F50 is lethargic, slow and poor. Fix that and you'll fix the forward line....look at the guys who kicked goals for the Dogs..... Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #22 – December 16, 2015, 09:36:08 am I repeat, i don't see this list as any better than ours.....and they were missing Liba too. Put Walker up forward - show some ticker and intensity - the results will follow.Run through the names...1 Luke Dahlhaus 276 12 314 13.7 590 25.7 77 3.3 0 0 90 3.9 120 5.2 85 3.7 17 0.7 10 0.42 Jack Macrae 287 13.7 267 12.7 554 26.4 97 4.6 8 0.4 92 4.4 117 5.6 88 4.2 5 0.2 6 0.33 Matthew Boyd 321 16.9 195 10.3 516 27.2 148 7.8 3 0.2 29 1.5 40 2.1 45 2.4 1 0.1 6 0.34 Liam Picken 248 11.8 249 11.9 497 23.7 94 4.5 2 0.1 75 3.6 135 6.4 75 3.6 13 0.6 9 0.45 Robert Murphy 324 15.4 147 7 471 22.4 96 4.6 0 0 11 0.5 32 1.5 63 3 2 0.1 2 0.16 Mitch Wallis 205 10.2 263 13.1 468 23.4 66 3.3 1 0 123 6.1 95 4.7 74 3.7 15 0.7 13 0.67 Marcus Bontempelli 261 12.4 183 8.7 444 21.1 69 3.3 50 2.4 105 5 116 5.5 102 4.9 17 0.8 10 0.58 Jason Johannisen 270 13.5 128 6.4 398 19.9 107 5.3 0 0 13 0.6 35 1.7 84 4.2 7 0.3 3 0.19 Easton Wood 224 10.2 167 7.6 391 17.8 155 7 0 0 9 0.4 31 1.4 51 2.3 5 0.2 0 010 Jake Stringer 236 10.7 78 3.5 314 14.3 77 3.5 6 0.3 36 1.6 59 2.7 69 3.1 56 2.5 32 1.511 Tory Dickson 172 7.5 126 5.5 298 13 71 3.1 0 0 18 0.8 72 3.1 56 2.4 50 2.2 12 0.512 Lachie Hunter 147 11.3 140 10.8 287 22.1 64 4.9 0 0 16 1.2 28 2.2 38 2.9 3 0.2 5 0.413 Stewart Crameri 140 7.8 146 8.1 286 15.9 71 3.9 3 0.2 15 0.8 45 2.5 51 2.8 32 1.8 21 1.214 Jarrad Grant 135 7.1 141 7.4 276 14.5 74 3.9 20 1.1 24 1.3 39 2.1 47 2.5 11 0.6 14 0.715 Koby Stevens 113 9.4 131 10.9 244 20.3 34 2.8 9 0.7 46 3.8 73 6.1 37 3.1 4 0.3 4 0.316 Michael Talia 126 9 109 7.8 235 16.8 82 5.9 2 0.1 1 0.1 19 1.4 14 1 2 0.1 1 0.117 Shane Biggs 141 14.1 56 5.6 197 19.7 34 3.4 0 0 7 0.7 21 2.1 27 2.7 3 0.3 0 018 Lin Jong 74 5.7 116 8.9 190 14.6 24 1.8 31 2.4 38 2.9 70 5.4 31 2.4 8 0.6 4 0.319 Jordan Roughead 82 5.1 78 4.9 160 10 66 4.1 170 10.6 13 0.8 54 3.4 17 1.1 4 0.2 2 0.120 Dale Morris 70 5 85 6.1 155 11.1 69 4.9 0 0 1 0.1 35 2.5 5 0.4 0 0 0 021 Caleb Daniel 55 5.5 76 7.6 131 13.1 23 2.3 0 0 6 0.6 22 2.2 19 1.9 6 0.6 2 0.222 Mitch Honeychurch 65 5.9 65 5.9 130 11.8 26 2.4 1 0.1 15 1.4 41 3.7 11 1 9 0.8 9 0.823 Fletcher Roberts 55 4.6 61 5.1 116 9.7 41 3.4 0 0 0 0 19 1.6 7 0.6 0 0 1 0.124 Tom Boyd 74 5.3 41 2.9 115 8.2 47 3.4 41 2.9 10 0.7 33 2.4 19 1.4 16 1.1 6 0.425 Joel Hamling 64 5.8 47 4.3 111 10.1 53 4.8 1 0.1 1 0.1 15 1.4 4 0.4 0 0 0 026 Lukas Webb 65 6.5 44 4.4 109 10.9 38 3.8 0 0 5 0.5 14 1.4 14 1.4 1 0.1 3 0.327 Jack Redpath 80 6.7 28 2.3 108 9 50 4.2 43 3.6 7 0.6 30 2.5 22 1.8 19 1.6 9 0.728 Will Minson 62 6.2 40 4 102 10.2 17 1.7 265 26.5 35 3.5 41 4.1 18 1.8 3 0.3 3 0.329 Nathan Hrovat 44 6.3 54 7.7 98 14 19 2.7 0 0 9 1.3 22 3.1 14 2 2 0.3 4 0.630 Brett Goodes 53 7.6 31 4.4 84 12 17 2.4 3 0.4 17 2.4 21 3 21 3 2 0.3 1 0.131 Bailey Dale 42 4.2 36 3.6 78 7.8 15 1.5 0 0 7 0.7 14 1.4 13 1.3 6 0.6 4 0.432 Tom Campbell 24 4 43 7.2 67 11.2 14 2.3 137 22.8 14 2.3 13 2.2 12 2 0 0 3 0.533 Toby McLean 28 7 34 8.5 62 15.5 18 4.5 0 0 5 1.2 6 1.5 8 2 2 0.5 0 034 Ayce Cordy 23 3.3 31 4.4 54 7.7 13 1.9 69 9.9 9 1.3 17 2.4 7 1 2 0.3 0 035 Josh Prudden 26 6.5 24 6 50 12.5 16 4 0 0 2 0.5 8 2 5 1.2 0 0 0 036 Sam Darley 23 11.5 14 7 37 18.5 8 4 0 0 1 0.5 6 3 3 1.5 0 0 0 037 Clay Smith 13 4.3 15 5 28 9.3 5 1.7 1 0.3 3 1 10 3.3 5 1.7 1 0.3 0 0 Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #23 – December 16, 2015, 09:46:32 am Slow delivery around the boundary was never going to cut it! We need a plan that will assist power forward in the future. Then let our power forwards develop..... Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #24 – December 16, 2015, 10:44:23 am Quote from: flyboy77 – on December 16, 2015, 09:36:08 amI repeat, i don't see this list as any better than ours.....and they were missing Liba too. Put Walker up forward - show some ticker and intensity - the results will follow..Difference is the age/talent bracket. They had done their apprenticeship, worked 3-5 years at the bottom and were ready to flourish. They had pace and skill around the ball, great ball movement off half back, they had targets up forward and a whole team that works both ways - Tom Boyd aside. We don't have that yet.We have traded away 4 first 18 players, plus through retirements and delistings let go 11 more. We are talent poor, and not quick around the ground. We have potential but that is all at the moment, for example Graham, we would trade him in a heartbeat for any of the Doggies mids, yet he will start for us this season. In fact Cripps aside we would trade any of our mids for theirs. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #25 – December 16, 2015, 10:59:20 am Quote from: Raydan – on December 16, 2015, 10:44:23 am.Difference is the age/talent bracket. They had done their apprenticeship, worked 3-5 years at the bottom and were ready to flourish. They had pace and skill around the ball, great ball movement off half back, they had targets up forward and a whole team that works both ways - Tom Boyd aside. We don't have that yet.We have traded away 4 first 18 players, plus through retirements and delistings let go 11 more. We are talent poor, and not quick around the ground. We have potential but that is all at the moment, for example Graham, we would trade him in a heartbeat for any of the Doggies mids, yet he will start for us this season. In fact Cripps aside we would trade any of our mids for theirs.ok, leaving the capitualtion aside - that you believe CFC are schizen across the park.WB midfield in 2015 (excl. Liba):BiggsBontempelliMatty BoydDalhausHamiltonLin JongMacraePruddenSmithStevensWallisAnd you'd trade who for who exactly! Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #26 – December 16, 2015, 11:29:23 am I would trade Murphy, Gibbs, Curnow, Thomas, Graham for Dalhaus, Macrae, Stevens, Wallis, Daniel. Bontempelli is probably a Cripps equal.That would be a huge win for us. Quote Selected Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 11:37:19 am by Raydan
Re: For Discussion Reply #27 – December 16, 2015, 11:30:28 am Quite surprised really that so many believe we will get another spoon, and I thought I was a pessimist. As others have suggested BARRING injuries I can't see us coming last. We only just got there last year when Brisbane got over a sub-standard doggies unit in the last round. We were only 2 points away from the suns at 16th. Granted sides will imporve (Ablett returns for GC) but by the same token other teams drop off. Cannot accept that the Lions are a better unit than us. Bloody hell we still managed to beat Melbourne when we were on our knees!Think with everyone on deck, fit and well, and a couple of players improving will make all the difference.Forward line is our achilles. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #28 – December 16, 2015, 12:26:20 pm A good season could see us win 6-10 games, which would see us finish somewhere between 12 & 16th.A couple of key in-season injuries would lower that expectation. I'm really hoping for an injury free season, for once, at least compared to recent years. Quote Selected
Re: For Discussion Reply #29 – December 16, 2015, 12:33:24 pm Quote from: Raydan – on December 16, 2015, 11:29:23 amI would trade Murphy, Gibbs, Curnow, Thomas, Graham for Dalhaus, Macrae, Stevens, Wallis, Daniel. Bontempelli is probably a Cripps equal.That would be a huge win for us.Each to their own.... Quote Selected
Topic: For Discussion (Read 46086 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: For Discussion (Read 46086 times)
previous topic - next topic