You call it a whipping boy, I call it saying it like it is. I will be proven right in time, and no it doesn't mean I'm dancing on any graves.

So in the meantime you don't believe we need depth? And by all reports, Fitz has been doing ok in the backline at Casey and training well with the Dees... I was at the Casey v Collingwood game last Saturday and although he didn't set the world on fire, Fitz certainly did not put in a bad performance on the back line on that occasion.

Edited April 9, 201511 yr by hardtack

the benefit of listening to SEN.

Now there is an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

So in the meantime you don't believe we need depth? And by all reports, Fitz has been doing ok in the backline at Casey and training well with the Dees... I was at the Casey v Collingwood game last Saturday and although he didn't set the world on fire, Fitz certainly did not put in a bad performance on the back line on that occasion.

He is exactly that though - depth. How long do you keep a bloke who is simply depth for? There comes a time when you realise a blokes ceiling is only so high and he is either moved on or cut from the list.

I believe in depth, and that is what he provides, but it doesn't mean he will be on the list come 2016.

Depth is a polite way of saying not good enough. Granted, there are levels of depth, but on the whole, I believe depth is a bit of a misunderstood concept; you have those that are good enough to make the cut, and the rest, the bottom-feeders, are your depth. You don't trade for it, and you certainly don't mess with your team structure to try and find the right niche for it either

Well said Wiseblood - fast becoming my favourite poster on here.

Depth is having quality AFL players been very unlucky not to be getting a game -take a look at the Hawks/ Cats players who missed out in rnd 1 - Langford , O'Rourke, Hartung Caddy , Stokes etc

I don't believe its keeping blokes on a list for 4-5 years and never getting more than 3-4 so/ so games a season.

Depth is a polite way of saying not good enough. Granted, there are levels of depth, but on the whole, I believe depth is a bit of a misunderstood concept; you have those that are good enough to make the cut, and the rest, the bottom-feeders, are your depth. You don't trade for it, and you certainly don't mess with your team structure to try and find the right niche for it either

That's far too simplistic.

Most players on their day are good enough, but their form will vary. You can't just draw a line through a player and say his no good, they all can play but you need to create competition for those spots.

Depth is a polite way of saying not good enough. Granted, there are levels of depth, but on the whole, I believe depth is a bit of a misunderstood concept; you have those that are good enough to make the cut, and the rest, the bottom-feeders, are your depth. You don't trade for it, and you certainly don't mess with your team structure to try and find the right niche for it either

I couldn't disagree more. All the best sides in the competition have players outside the 1's who would easily contribute if called upon. Was Sewell not good enough in the GF last year? He would've walked in to any side last year and racked up > 20 touches.

Mzungo played resies last week. Tom Mitchell didn't get a guernsey.

The best sides have 3, 4 or 5 players as depth, all of who can be called on to play a role and to play it better then their opponent. Below them, sure, they're not good enough (whether that be yet, or ever).

I always considered "depth" as just not up to it, and the better teams "depth" as just an embarrassment of riches- as in Sydney's "depth" would be our (MFC's) starters, and Sydney's actual depth, to be considered their real strugglers. Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of depth. I have been wrong before. It was a Wednesday, and it was raining...