Thats a shame, suppose it was always going to happen

No biggie really. I wasn't sure why we were chasing a backman when we have bigger problems at the other end of the ground. 1/2 million+ should tempt someone who knows how to kick a goal or two.

No biggie really. I wasn't sure why we were chasing a backman when we have bigger problems at the other end of the ground. 1/2 million+ should tempt someone who knows how to kick a goal or two.

eh, forwars are overated. Midfield and defence are the key.

no...balance is the key...we dont have balance...yet !!! (soon )

Which brings us back to PSD Pick 1 ...

PSD #1 picks for the last 12 years

1998 - Jamie Shanahan (Melbourne)

1999 - David Calthorpe (Brisbane Lions)

2000 - Shane O'Bree (Collingwood)

2001 - Brett Voss (St Kilda)

2002 - Aaron Lord (Geelong)

2003 - Stephen Powell (St Kilda)

2004 - Jade Rawlings (Western Bulldogs)

2005 - Trent Knobel (Richmond)

2006 - Dylan McLaren (Carlton)

2007 - Cain Ackland (Carlton)

2008 - David Gourdis (Richmond)

2009 - Liam Jurrah (Melbourne)

Not a lot of established stars there and highly unlikely you're going to get a pick the quality of Lake or Burgoyne in the PSD. For players that are serious about moving, they nearly always work a trade first.

Edited September 14, 200915 yr by Maurie Lithen

eh, forwars are overated. Midfield and defence are the key.

It's that wave of thinking that cost Geelong the flag last year, forwards definitely play a big role.

It's that wave of thinking that cost Geelong the flag last year, forwards definitely play a big role.

That's a good point. Personally I reckon all three sections have to be at least functioning, with one or two of them being Elite in terms of quality. And then it's a chicken and egg argument. People win flags with a good defence, suddenly defenders are all the rage in the draft. Then a midfield wins the flag and midfielders are up there. Then the Hawks have this gun forward line, and it's forwards that are suddenly popular. It's a directive that's driven specifically by what kind fo players are dominating the game at the time. During the Cats/Hawks years, it was all about forwards who could kick 100+ goals every year. Ablett, Dunstall, Plugga... then lesser lights like Modra and Jackovich...

I remember hearing an interview on late at night a couple of years ago where a well known tennis identity (I forget her name) fielded a question comparing base-liners and serve-volleyers. The caller said that serve volleyers were a thing of the past, and we'd never see another Sampras. She completely shut him down saying all it takes is one or two, or maybe three great serve-volley players to come through the system, and suddenly they'll be all the rage again.

I think footy, on smaller levels, works the same way. Judd, Ablett... before them Buckley, Voss, Hird (as a mid)... and midfielders ARE football. I reckon if we get a dramatic upturn in talls, then we'll see forwards suddenly being the difference. There again though, this is something you ahve limited control over, unless you buy every pick 1 for 10 years and select a tal EVERY year.

I think the key is staying slightly ahead of the curve. Basically the opposite of what ND did. He took whatever won the flag the year before, and tried to copy it. He always said winning games of footy was his job. But in the end I think it was winning flags... and that was why he was axed. He did exactly what you needed to do to stay in touch for years and years... but if you copy the best sides, you'll never beat them, and so we always struggles against the dominant sides of the era.

So if I was BP, I'd be looking at every draft, as well as existing players under the age of 23ish, and attempt to predict what will define the big games in the next ten years, and draft accordingly. Harder than it sounds of course.

Sorry for the rant.

So if I was BP, I'd be looking at every draft, as well as existing players under the age of 23ish, and attempt to predict what will define the big games in the next ten years, and draft accordingly. Harder than it sounds of course.

I think this is the reason we have Tim Harrington.

That's a good point. Personally I reckon all three sections have to be at least functioning, with one or two of them being Elite in terms of quality. And then it's a chicken and egg argument. People win flags with a good defence, suddenly defenders are all the rage in the draft. Then a midfield wins the flag and midfielders are up there. Then the Hawks have this gun forward line, and it's forwards that are suddenly popular. It's a directive that's driven specifically by what kind fo players are dominating the game at the time. During the Cats/Hawks years, it was all about forwards who could kick 100+ goals every year. Ablett, Dunstall, Plugga... then lesser lights like Modra and Jackovich...

I remember hearing an interview on late at night a couple of years ago where a well known tennis identity (I forget her name) fielded a question comparing base-liners and serve-volleyers. The caller said that serve volleyers were a thing of the past, and we'd never see another Sampras. She completely shut him down saying all it takes is one or two, or maybe three great serve-volley players to come through the system, and suddenly they'll be all the rage again.

I think footy, on smaller levels, works the same way. Judd, Ablett... before them Buckley, Voss, Hird (as a mid)... and midfielders ARE football. I reckon if we get a dramatic upturn in talls, then we'll see forwards suddenly being the difference. There again though, this is something you ahve limited control over, unless you buy every pick 1 for 10 years and select a tal EVERY year.

I think the key is staying slightly ahead of the curve. Basically the opposite of what ND did. He took whatever won the flag the year before, and tried to copy it. He always said winning games of footy was his job. But in the end I think it was winning flags... and that was why he was axed. He did exactly what you needed to do to stay in touch for years and years... but if you copy the best sides, you'll never beat them, and so we always struggles against the dominant sides of the era.

So if I was BP, I'd be looking at every draft, as well as existing players under the age of 23ish, and attempt to predict what will define the big games in the next ten years, and draft accordingly. Harder than it sounds of course.

Sorry for the rant.

simple answer is there are not enough quality players for 16 clubs, ( GC17 and WS is a whole other thread) not every club has a power forward, WC Tigers Doggies Cats and Dees come to mind. So coaches coach to their teams strengths. Look at the current structures on the 4 remaining teams. each of the 4 would argue their structure is the rage.

Footy Classified tonight.

Hutchie said there was no such offer made to Lake by Melbourne.

Caro believes that Lake will sign to stay with the Dogs.

Footy Classified tonight.

Hutchie said there was no such offer made to Lake by Melbourne.

Caro believes that Lake will sign to stay with the Dogs.

Caro said Melbourne were going to make an offer and had put plans in place.

well it seems that the Dogs haven't sured up Lake like they thought, and that there's still some sticking points in the negotiations... I wonder if we're one of those two clubs, especially with McLean leaving, we could probably offer him more than our initial offer...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5012432,00.html

The Bulldogs were confident they had struck a lucrative four-year deal with the full-back, but mystery now surrounds why Lake has not yet put pen to paper.

Lake, 27, has been offered at least $1.8million over four years, which was initially thought to be enough to secure him for the remainder of his career.

But Lake has been in no hurry to agree to terms, even with a substantial pay rise.

well it seems that the Dogs haven't sured up Lake like they thought, and that there's still some sticking points in the negotiations... I wonder if we're one of those two clubs, especially with McLean leaving, we could probably offer him more than our initial offer...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5012432,00.html

from same article:

"It is understood two Melbourne-based clubs, who played in the finals, are now circling after initially believing Lake had been secured by the Bulldogs. "

thats not us !!!

I heard that, and the question is, why would we need him?

We've got much bigger holes than our defence.

Your point?

Lake is a million miles ahead of ANY Dee defenders and it'd be stupid not to take him if the cost was going to be absolutely minimal

While we may not pick up any of the bigger names touted as on the move we are circling like vultures to feast on any collateral damage caused by last minute salary cap squeeze outs and disgruntled under-paid team-mates.

If trade week ends up as busy as it looks, someone decent is probably going to slip through.

Your point?

Lake is a million miles ahead of ANY Dee defenders and it'd be stupid not to take him if the cost was going to be absolutely minimal

Exactly. I wouldn't say a million miles ahead, but definitely ahead, there is no such thing as too much quality.

Bulldogs have 2 options

Pick 11 and Newton for Brian Lake

Pick 18 for Everitt

They can make their minds up between now and the trade week

I'm not sure Lake is a good get.

1. His second half this year was very good. But, if I remember correctly, his first half wasn't, and Eade had question marks about him

2. He's 27

3. He wants a 4 year deal

4. We have plenty of good backs who should only get better

I don't think we'll trade any of our top 20 draft picks and Schwab has said as much.

I don't think we'll trade any of our top 20 draft picks and Schwab has said as much.

To be fair I think he said that when we only had 1 2 and 18.. but now its 1 2 11 and 18 ..jsut for starters you have to think it only sensible to re-evaluate what migh tbe around with utilising 18 and 34.

Not saying we will but then who'd have thought today we would be including 11 and excluding Borck even 4 days ago ?

Things change

Pick 18 for Everitt

My understanding is Everitt wants to become a Visy employee and Bulldogs are resigned to the fact they may have to accept Pick 27 Blues second rounder .... so hence Pick 18 would be way over the odds.

Surely if we really wanted him ... anything better than 27 would get the deal done assuming Everitt was prepared to come.

Wonder if the Dees could get involved somehow in the Gibson trade and get either Norths or Hawthorns 2 round pick, which is better than the Blues then they on trade to Dogs for Everitt?

Im not sure if id really want to have any player that would rather be at the Blues than the Dees !! ..not any of them;)

Bulldogs have 2 options

Pick 11 and Newton for Brian Lake

Pick 18 for Everitt

They can make their minds up between now and the trade week

Why is everyone so hooked on Everitt? And #18 to boot - he's done nothing, shown nothing and if he was any good, why can't he get a game with his own team?

Yeh, #18 for a ressies player - good call.

Harsh call about Everitt i think,the kid has plenty of upside & naturally it will take time.Going by your call that hes only a reserves player well he would fit in at Melb quiet fine as hes a reserves player at a top 4 club & has played in the 1s.We would have a dozzen players that wouldnt make theyre side & they play every game for us.Now im not bagging our club so dont say that im just pointing out that hes at a club with a far stronger list than ours & alot of people rate him

My understanding is Everitt wants to become a Visy employee and Bulldogs are resigned to the fact they may have to accept Pick 27 Blues second rounder .... so hence Pick 18 would be way over the odds.

Surely if we really wanted him ... anything better than 27 would get the deal done assuming Everitt was prepared to come.

Wonder if the Dees could get involved somehow in the Gibson trade and get either Norths or Hawthorns 2 round pick, which is better than the Blues then they on trade to Dogs for Everitt?

Everitt signed a new two year contract during the season. The Dogs don't have to trade him if they don't want to.