Realistic look at our list

[2000 Preliminary Final 0]

No unrealistic expectations on young players improving out of site. The draft pick a particular player was taken at, or their previous form many years ago means little. I am interested in what each player on our list can do now and in the future.

I have put all players in four categories:

1. Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals)
   
2. Might soon be good enough... but need to develop
   
3. Not Good enough ...
   
4. Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them
   

I do not have a 5th category of genuine guns/stars because we don't have any. Mitch Clarke was playing like a gun/star until his season-ending injury, but would need to do that for close to a full season in 2013 for me to categorise him as a "gun".

Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals)

2. Jones

4. Watts

8. Frawley

9. Trengove

11. Clarke

12. Sylvia

13. McKenzie

16. Grimes

18. Green (retiring)

20. Garland

22. Moloney

24. Jurrah

27. Rivers

38. Howe

Might soon be good enough... but need to develop

5. Gysberts

17. Blease

19. Strauss

25. McDonald

34. Martin

35. Tapscott

37. Gawn

42. Spencer

Not Good enough ...

3. Bartram

6. Bate

7. Bennell

10. Morton

14. Dunn

15. Petterd

26. Nicholson

28. MacDonald

30. Sellar

36. Davey

39. Jetta

40. Jamar

44. Bail

49. Magner

Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them

21. Cook

32. Evans

41. Davis

43. Taggart

45. Lawrence

46. Tynan

47. Couch

48. Fitzpatrick

50. Sheehan

51. Williams

Not sure of the way to get or develop more guns or players who are good enough, but that's what we need a hell of a lot more of. I'd say you need about 25-30 who are a gun or "good enough" players, and we probably have 14 (and none of them guns)...

Of those 14, Green is retiring, Jurrah's playing future is very uncertain. Clarke is potentially a genuine star. The rest are of a good enough standard, but we have no one "above" them to rely upon, week in week out, to perform at a consistent level. If we had another 10 players better than these, we'd be fine. But we don't, and we need them...

Trades / Contracts / De-Listings

Of the players who are "good enough", I would be happy to offer most of them new contracts or extensions. No idea what their current contract status is though. However, all would be "on the trade table" so to speak other than Frawley, Trengove, Clarke and Grimes. If we got the right offer,that is...

If we receive even a semi-decent offer for one of the players who "might be good enough", I'd probably take it.

Our list

I understand our list will take time to evolve to the point I would like it to be at, and in the mean time we need to have players of lesser quality to help us get to where we want to be. So we need to carefully manage the type of players we keep who are "not good enough" so that we provide the players who "might be good enough" an environment in which they can develop.

What do you think?

[Sir Why You Little 34,700]

Considering our rebuilding phase supposedly began in 2007-8 we still have a bucketload of players "not good enough" category don't we.

Bewildering is the only word i can think of that isn't rude.

Edited August 23, 2012 by why you little

[Travis Boots 157]

Nicholson and Jamar in the not good enough section?? Lol...what are you smoking?

[Wells 11 4,840]

Good summary....and yes "bewildering" is also a good description of the amount of NGE on that list.

But I do think that "not good enough" tag on Jetta, Nicholson and Bail is still premature and put on Jamar (former AA) and Davey is just plain wrong.

Not sure about where to put Dunn.

[2000 Preliminary Final 0]

It can be hard to take, but a look through the full list and you pretty quickly realise we are a long way off being any "good". But we may as well attack this next "re-build" with vigour!

[The Reverend 1,718]

No unrealistic expectations on young players improving out of site. The draft pick a particular player was taken at, or their previous form many years ago means little. I am interested in what each player on our list can do now and in the future.

I have put all players in four categories:

1. Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals)
   
2. Might soon be good enough... but need to develop
   
3. Not Good enough ...
   
4. Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them
   

I do not have a 5th category of genuine guns/stars because we don't have any. Mitch Clarke was playing like a gun/star until his season-ending injury, but would need to do that for close to a full season in 2013 for me to categorise him as a "gun".

Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals)

2. Jones

4. Watts

8. Frawley

9. Trengove

11. Clarke

12. Sylvia

13. McKenzie

16. Grimes

18. Green (retiring)

20. Garland

22. Moloney

24. Jurrah

27. Rivers

38. Howe

Might soon be good enough... but need to develop

5. Gysberts

17. Blease

19. Strauss

25. McDonald

34. Martin

35. Tapscott

37. Gawn

42. Spencer

Not Good enough ...

3. Bartram

6. Bate

7. Bennell

10. Morton

14. Dunn

15. Petterd

26. Nicholson

28. MacDonald

30. Sellar

36. Davey

39. Jetta

40. Jamar

44. Bail

49. Magner

Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them

21. Cook

32. Evans

41. Davis

43. Taggart

45. Lawrence

46. Tynan

47. Couch

48. Fitzpatrick

50. Sheehan

51. Williams

Not sure of the way to get or develop more guns or players who are good enough, but that's what we need a hell of a lot more of. I'd say you need about 25-30 who are a gun or "good enough" players, and we probably have 14 (and none of them guns)...

Of those 14, Green is retiring, Jurrah's playing future is very uncertain. Clarke is potentially a genuine star. The rest are of a good enough standard, but we have no one "above" them to rely upon, week in week out, to perform at a consistent level. If we had another 10 players better than these, we'd be fine. But we don't, and we need them...

Trades / Contracts / De-Listings

Of the players who are "good enough", I would be happy to offer most of them new contracts or extensions. No idea what their current contract status is though. However, all would be "on the trade table" so to speak other than Frawley, Trengove, Clarke and Grimes. If we got the right offer,that is...

If we receive even a semi-decent offer for one of the players who "might be good enough", I'd probably take it.

Our list

I understand our list will take time to evolve to the point I would like it to be at, and in the mean time we need to have players of lesser quality to help us get to where we want to be. So we need to carefully manage the type of players we keep who are "not good enough" so that we provide the players who "might be good enough" an environment in which they can develop.

What do you think?

You don't think Nathan Jones is a must keep?

[PaulRB 5,985]

Gone

18. Green (retiring)

22. Moloney

45. Lawrence

In limbo land, but keep if works out

24. Jurrah

3. Bartram

36. Davey

Shown Sufficient potential/improvement Should Make it

17. Blease

19. Strauss

25. McDonald

34. Martin

35. Tapscott

26. Nicholson

44. Bail

49. Magner

Have potential but too early or too injured to tell

5. Gysberts

37. Gawn

42. Spencer

30. Sellar

39. Jetta

21. Cook

32. Evans

41. Davis

43. Taggart

46. Tynan

47. Couch

48. Fitzpatrick

50. Sheehan

51. Williams

[syl 40]

Nicholson will be good enough.

Petterd will be good enough at another team.

Jamar is good enough, regardless, he is not going anywhere until he retires.

I think Dunn has a role to play.

[2000 Preliminary Final 0]

But I do think that "not good enough" tag on Jetta, Nicholson and Bail is still premature and put on Jamar (former AA) and Davey is just plain wrong.

Not sure about where to put Dunn.

From an objective point of view, there weren't many I agonised over. Jetta, Nicholson and Bail can all do some really good things and look to be handy players when they're on form. But they just can't seem to string it together for more than a few moments in each game or over any extended period of time.

Most players (at any level) will look better in a superior team with more high quality players around them. That is certainly the case for all of the players I thought are "good enough". So we can say that about Jetta, Nicholson and Bail, but I just don't think event he very best I have seen of them will get us very far.

Jamar took a long time to develop and put a good season together. I appreciate that can be the case with any ruckman. But Jamar had one really good season (when he was an All Australian). Outside of that I reckon he has been serviceable but not much more than that.

Davey is the one I was thinking of when I said "previous form many years ago means little. I love Davey. About three or four years ago I wished we had three of him (one to pick out pin-point passes out of the back line; one to run off the back of our inside midfielder and work the ball forward; and another to hit targets inside forward fifty) such was his amazing foot skills and movement around the field. When Green was announced captain I actually wanted it to be Davey. But since then he's been nothing but heart-ache and has gone downhill much faster than many would like to admit to.

Dunn makes a great VFL player, but we have plenty of those on our list. Happy for him to plug gaps until we have more who are "good enough", but that's it.

[2000 Preliminary Final 0]

You don't think Nathan Jones is a must keep?

Not in a "I don't care what you are offering, I won't even look at it" kind of way. I'm not in any way in favour of getting rid of Jones, but there is a difference between that and being completely "untouchable".

[Biffen 12,380]

All looks good on paper.

I reckon Jetta will be top 22.

Nicholson and Evans also.

We clearly need leg speed and mids with quick reflexes.

[Clark_Kent 315]

I think as our team plays more games together and gels better we may start to realise we do have some decent players.

I think our biggest problem is a lack of trust in one another and a lack of cohesion.

A champion team will beat a team of champions and once we have that unity I think we will

see how good our side really is.

[pm24 451]

Here are my thoughts:

Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals)

2. Jones

3. Bartram

4. Watts

8. Frawley

9. Trengove

11. Clarke

12. Sylvia

13. McKenzie

16. Grimes

17. Blease

20. Garland

22. Moloney

24. Jurrah

27. Rivers

38. Howe

40. Jamar

Might soon be good enough... but need to develop

5. Gysberts

10. Morton

14. Dunn

19. Strauss

25. McDonald

26. Nicholson

34. Martin

35. Tapscott

37. Gawn

39. Jetta

42. Spencer

44. Bail

Not Good enough ...

6. Bate

7. Bennell

15. Petterd

28. MacDonald

30. Sellar

36. Davey

Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them

21. Cook

32. Evans

41. Davis

43. Taggart

46. Tynan

47. Couch

48. Fitzpatrick

49. Magner

50. Sheehan

51. Williams

Other (retiring/left the club)

18. Green (retiring)

45. Lawrence (gone anyway)

There's a couple of players I'm feeling a bit more optimistic about at the moment, but I'm still a little uncertain about them. Players like Dunn and MacDonald have shown real improvement this year. Bartram was also showing some improvement with his disposal, but there are obviously some question marks over his future. I think there are a lot of players that have further development left in them, purely based on the fact that I don't think they've truely been developed until this season.

I'm probably a tad optimistic about our list, but I think there's still plenty of growth left in players and that the way the football department is structured and funded now bodes well for the development of the team moving forward.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Nicholson will be good enough.

Petterd will be good enough at another team.

Jamar is good enough, regardless, he is not going anywhere until he retires.

I think Dunn has a role to play.

For some strange reason some Demonlanders have had Jamar gone for the last 5 or 6 years, even when he signs a new contract they say he will be traded before the season starts. I just can't understand the logic(?) behind it, as you say he is a Demon until he retires.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Seriously, no Jamar? He may have deteriorated as a forward target and around the ground but he's a beast in the ruck, usually gets way more hitouts than his opponent.

By the way, what has happened to Magner? Everyone loved him in the preseason, he dominated the first 2 games and everyone kept loving him. He has been nowhere near that since but surely he should still get a game and not be in emergency/sub limbo. Is it because Neeld moved him to be a more defensive sort of player? I've seen great toughness from him but maybe it hinders his impact on games. I think we should throw Magner in a more key midfield role again and see if he has the same impact again.

Am I the only one who's not too sure about Frawley? He's fallen short this year for mine. He doesn't look as comfortable using the ball in defence and isn't as good a 1-on-1 defender as he has been in the past two seasons. Hopefully he can fix this over the preseason, though

Edited August 23, 2012 by Neeld Aniher

[jackaub 1,402]

Nicholson and Jamar in the not good enough section?? Lol...what are you smoking?

He probably has really watched them play! I agree completly with tose two in the not good enough Big mistake extending Jamar contract

[rjay 23,970]

Moloney not good enough.

[old dee 22,951]

All looks good on paper.

I reckon Jetta will be top 22.

Nicholson and Evans also.

We clearly need leg speed and mids with quick reflexes.

Biffen Jetta is in the "not good enough" pile for me

Fitness problems worry me with Evans bad backs never seem to go away when you are trying to play AFL.

Nicholson gets the ball but he cannot kick, this is IMO a major problem

[old dee 22,951]

Moloney not good enough.

Doubt he will be around next year anyway rjay

fruitless discussion

[hardtack 10,127]

Not in a "I don't care what you are offering, I won't even look at it" kind of way. I'm not in any way in favour of getting rid of Jones, but there is a difference between that and being completely "untouchable".

I would actually argue that of all our players, Jones and Clark are pretty much untouchable.

[rjay 23,970]

Doubt he will be around next year anyway rjay

fruitless discussion

Think you are right on both counts "old dee".

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

FWIW (nothing) my assessment is that apart from the uncertainty around Bartram, Moloney, Davey and Jurrah, there are almost no write-offs for mine.

I have serious doubts about what Bate, Morton, Magner, Sellar, and Bennell might do for us but they are still in it.

I honestly see a good dozen names there that have a good chance of becoming A-grade players, at the moment though only Jones and Clark are close (if not already there).

For mine, Howey has to be the big ticket, he's just highly adept at pretty much every aspect of the game. Between him and Watts, Trengove, Grimes, Blease and McDonald there's an awful amount of class on the field if it all comes together, and its class in important places. Worth noting that group of 6 players has an average of 39 games each to their name and as such will be 'priming' in 2-3 years time.

Grimesy said what we are seeing on field is the 'tip of the iceberg', here's hoping he's right.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Curry & Beer

[stuie 7,374]

We could start making threads like this for the threads like this soon...

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

We could start making threads like this for the threads like this soon...

yeah and the value of posts like the one just made contribute so much to the community, we should all take a leaf out of your book mate

[stuie 7,374]

FWIW (nothing)

yeah and the value of posts like the one just made contribute so much to the community, we should all take a leaf out of your book mate

ummmmm..... *cough*cough*