Yeah, guys, start a new thread and I will cut and paste stuff from the other 30 threads on it in the last 5 years.

Actually, no I won't.

This is a Blease and Tapscott thread, not a 'let's recount past failures for the zillionth time' thread. Take it somewhere else.

Tamato, Tomato

The real issue is that during Baileys time, we drafted mainly for Speed, kicking ability etc., and not for competitiveness, strength in the contest, which is what is needed now.

The real issue is that during Baileys time, we drafted mainly for Speed, kicking ability etc., and not for competitiveness, strength in the contest, which is what is needed now.

The game was changing to that style and everybody saw it except us...

Should keep this lot because some may come on and if not we still have to find 3 players to delist next year.

It's a bit like prepaying players to keep room in the salary cap for future years.

Should keep this lot because some may come on and if not we still have to find 3 players to delist next year.

It's a bit like prepaying players to keep room in the salary cap for future years.

Don't take this personally skills32 but that must be close to the worst reason I have heard to keep players.

Unfortunately for us it will probably happen.

The game was changing to that style and everybody saw it except us...

exactly were Off the pace of game direction. our footy smarts were poor.

reflections of our off field leadership, for generations, starting at board level. & then the people employed by those directors, over decades... created a weak culture.

Should keep this lot because some may come on and if not we still have to find 3 players to delist next year.

It's a bit like prepaying players to keep room in the salary cap for future years.

Don't worry there'll still be plenty to choose from next year.

I think Blease and Tapscott have more to offer than the likes of Bail, Strauss, Peterson and Jetta. I would rather be trading/delisting these players before we touch Blease and Tapscott. Blease, especially is a player I can see dominating when the midfield is sorted. His pace could be a real assett. Tapscott could be a useful backman/forward. Rather give Roos 12 months to see what he can do with them. If nothing changes by 2014, then bye bye!

Don't worry there'll still be plenty to choose from next year.

Jeepers, with this crowd coming out of contract next year, we could be taking another very long handle to the list next year...

2014

Frawley (RFA), Tapscott, McDonald, Blease, Strauss, Spencer, Bail, Dunn, Byrnes, Barry, Kent, Jones, Terlich

I count at least 7 who would want to have pretty good years next year.

Gilbert Gardiner

Dees will be heavily involved over the next few days, room to move and have a couple likely types Blease, Tapscott on the table

1:07 PM

I posted this in another thread, but thought it deserved its own topic...

What do people think we could get for them?

So apart from this tweet from old mate that works for HS, was there ever any truth to this or was it just a rumour that Blease and Tapscott were floated as bait?

So apart from this tweet from old mate that works for HS, was there ever any truth to this or was it just a rumour that Blease and Tapscott were floated as bait?

I guess we will never know.

So do you trade two high draft picks off for nothing or do you give them a year under their first decent coach ever? Their value isn't going to go down.

First decent coach? Bailey was OK given his hands tied behind his back.

You must also be saying that their value is close to zero now? And I would suggest that if they are close to zero then we are better off bringing in an unknown draft pick with potential than a known potential that isn't very high. Think Cale Morton - the decision to cut him should have been made years ago. You can't keep giving people 73 games for nothing. Think Newton, think Danny Hughes - the list is endless..

First decent coach? Bailey was OK given his hands tied behind his back.

You must also be saying that their value is close to zero now? And I would suggest that if they are close to zero then we are better off bringing in an unknown draft pick with potential than a known potential that isn't very high. Think Cale Morton - the decision to cut him should have been made years ago. You can't keep giving people 73 games for nothing. Think Newton, think Danny Hughes - the list is endless..

agree,there are far to many players with the moniker

"played 85 games AFL"

other clubs ditch players with 12 games after 2 years because they are not going to be

r'o'os history says he will cut deadwood,no excuses

First decent coach? Bailey was OK given his hands tied behind his back.

You must also be saying that their value is close to zero now? And I would suggest that if they are close to zero then we are better off bringing in an unknown draft pick with potential than a known potential that isn't very high. Think Cale Morton - the decision to cut him should have been made years ago. You can't keep giving people 73 games for nothing. Think Newton, think Danny Hughes - the list is endless..

Their value is low. All you're going to do is replace them with someone just as bad. There's no such thing as a trade bargain or one sided deal anymore.

Gysberts and Pedersen say hello.

But if you think we're better off delisting them and paying out their contracts so we have list space to take a player with pick #103 then David Rodan says hello also.

First decent coach? Bailey was OK given his hands tied behind his back.

You must also be saying that their value is close to zero now? And I would suggest that if they are close to zero then we are better off bringing in an unknown draft pick with potential than a known potential that isn't very high. Think Cale Morton - the decision to cut him should have been made years ago. You can't keep giving people 73 games for nothing. Think Newton, think Danny Hughes - the list is endless..

This part of your argument is where you fall apart.

Any pick we would use to replace Blease or Tapscott would some late pick (I don't know, 60-something maybe). By the nature of a pick like that, the player we take will be just as likely to succeed as Blease/Tapscott would be. Your argument would be correct if the discussion was trading Blease for pick 30. But it's not.

Stuie's point is valid. This is the first regime for both of these two to get the most out of themselves. If neither of them come on in 2014, the decision will be made. There's no need to replace them now, though, when all we'll get back is a 2-year commitment to someone who represents no greater chance of success than these two.

Think Cale Morton - the decision to cut him should have been made years ago. You can't keep giving people 73 games for nothing. Think Newton, think Danny Hughes - the list is endless...

Short memory apparently.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-west-coast-eagles--cale-morton

76 games, career average 19 disposals.

2009: 21 games, average 22.6 disposals, not a bad second year is it?

In fact he played 50 games in his 1st 3 years and averaged 18.3, 22.6 and 20.9 disposals in those three seasons.

In season 3 he injured his knee on the NAB cup, missed about 10 weeks including the first 8 of the AFL season, struggled to regain form but found some at the end of the season and obviously finished with getting a bit of it.

In season 4 (2011) he injured a finger tendon and never regained his form as he was asked to play a more defensive role. 14 games average 16 touches.

In season 5 it was clear he and Neeld were not going to work and he was traded.

I'm not claiming he was a superstar, but when should we have cut him? After a fantastic second year? After recovering his form following injury and notching up game no. 50 in his 3rd year?

Don't compare him to Blease who has 31 career games in 3 seasons at an average of 11.2 disposals (and this season 10 games at 7.5 disposals) or Tapscotts 45 games at 10.5 disposals.

I could go on. Stats are similar for Strauss, Jetta and friends. If we had Cake Morton circa his first 2 seasons this year we would have been a better team, and that reflects pretty poorly on the rest of the list.

Also Newton played only 28 games and Hughes played 2. Not sure how they could be compared to Morton.

People judge Morton harshly because they had such high hopes.

It's hard to believe Tappy has played 45 games. I can't remember a good one other than his first

People judge Morton harshly because they had such high hopes.

It's hard to believe Tappy has played 45 games. I can't remember a good one other than his first

And I don't even remember that.

People judge Morton harshly because they had such high hopes.

It's hard to believe Tappy has played 45 games. I can't remember a good one other than his first

I don't mind judging him against his promise. He looked the goods in Juniors, he started well and we looked like having a 200 game player bit he stalled for various reasons.

He had been unfairly maligned though, there is a reason why he got to that many games.

RE Tappy I can't remember a good game either. A few good bumps, yes. Pretty sure I've seen some long kicks in highlights. But that's it. Potential might be there but we haven't seen it at AFL level. Apart from the fact that he is big and Morton was skinny, Tappy hasn't shown half as much as Morton had at the same stage in their careers.

And I don't even remember that.

All I remember from his first game is him smashing Rhyce Shaw. Pretty much the best thing he's ever done!

Short memory apparently.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-west-coast-eagles--cale-morton

76 games, career average 19 disposals.

2009: 21 games, average 22.6 disposals, not a bad second year is it?

In fact he played 50 games in his 1st 3 years and averaged 18.3, 22.6 and 20.9 disposals in those three seasons.

In season 3 he injured his knee on the NAB cup, missed about 10 weeks including the first 8 of the AFL season, struggled to regain form but found some at the end of the season and obviously finished with getting a bit of it.

In season 4 (2011) he injured a finger tendon and never regained his form as he was asked to play a more defensive role. 14 games average 16 touches.

In season 5 it was clear he and Neeld were not going to work and he was traded.

I'm not claiming he was a superstar, but when should we have cut him? After a fantastic second year? After recovering his form following injury and notching up game no. 50 in his 3rd year?

Don't compare him to Blease who has 31 career games in 3 seasons at an average of 11.2 disposals (and this season 10 games at 7.5 disposals) or Tapscotts 45 games at 10.5 disposals.

I could go on. Stats are similar for Strauss, Jetta and friends. If we had Cake Morton circa his first 2 seasons this year we would have been a better team, and that reflects pretty poorly on the rest of the list.

Also Newton played only 28 games and Hughes played 2. Not sure how they could be compared to Morton.

Season 4 he missed pre-season with a finger injury. Shouldn't have hurt him fitness wise. Was available round 1. Shocking year and clear he wouldn't go near his man nor win many contested possesions. His outside work was ordinary and his defensive efforts were pretty much non-existent. For mine he was a write off after that year. Soft as butter.

Sadly I remember most of Cale's games. About 5 good ones.

My essential point is that players have to step up from their junior form. SOme do. Some don't. Its about work ethic and effort. For many players they don't make the transition. We hold on to players for way too long generally. Newton was here for 5 seasons and aside from some early promise never delivered other than his final quarter against Nth in his final year (when he missed 3 set shots on goal). We persevered with Hughes for 5 years. If you don't get the comparisons It aint my fault,

Morton is a case study in the uselessness of outside players.

Particularly one with poor skills under pressure.

Could not play on an opponent.

Tapscott has poor agility which is terminal for a player of his height.

Would be nice if both these blokes pulled their finger out of their asses

Gonna be very interesting to see what Roos and Stone have in store for them

I dont have them in my best 22, but they could be first 19 players if they start to hit their potential

It's hard to believe Tappy has played 45 games. I can't remember a good one other than his first

Was it a good one?