2 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Calling it now we will destroy Collingwood on QB

Perhaps that completes the set of four:

1. 'I'm calling it now, we'll destroy Essendon'

2. 'Don't care if it's Etihad. We'll [censored] StKilda'

3. 'We're too talented for Port'

 

2 hours ago, america de cali said:

Dynasties like at Hawthorn, Geelong and Brisbane developed quickly.   The way we are going the very best Is a 50/50 shot at a GF in 7-8 years. Incremental improvement is just as likely to reverse. Look at Richmond.

Quickly?

How much more revisionist can you get?

Geelong's time started in 2007. Their core draft year was 2001.

Hawthorn's time started in 2012. Their core draft year was 2004.

They did not just shoot up the ladder because of one year of change. They worked on a plan over a period of years.

When St Kilda beat us it was all "the Saints have gone past us" and yet here we are, a month later, still a game clear of them (and that wasn't even a good month of football from us).

Carlton's list is old, their core players are at or past their prime now (i.e. not when they are challenging for a premiership). They have some good kids (Cripps and Weitering being the two stand outs) but they don't have a large set of talented youth and they are playing this year around their older, A- and B+-grade leaders (Murphy, Gibbs, Simpson, Walker, Thomas, Kreuzer). They're exceeding expectations but that's mainly because those expectations were so low. Good on them, but is the future really plainly there (yet)?

As for Geelong, I love seeing them lose. Their arrogance is second to none and IMO that is the second game in a row they have gone into expecting the win to just happen and not working hard enough.

Far too reliant on Selwood, Dangerfield and Motlop and if two of those three are down they struggle.

Not convinced they are as even across the board as Sydney or even the Dogs are.

Bizarre stats in the Eagles v Suns game. The Suns had more kicks than the Eagles. Their efficiency inside 50 was better. They won the uncontested possessions, had more marks, laid far more tackles, won the stoppage clearances, yet lost by 77 points. 

Final eight is set.

Boring.

When we lose I just switch off footy for the rest of the weekend! Win and I'm all over it!

1 minute ago, Hell Bent said:

When we lose I just switch off footy for the rest of the weekend! Win and I'm all over it!

And yet here you are.

 

2 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

And yet here you are.

 

Other matches F... But yeah I spend far too much time on here!

 

Demonland is therapy.

30 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Bizarre stats in the Eagles v Suns game. The Suns had more kicks than the Eagles. Their efficiency inside 50 was better. They won the uncontested possessions, had more marks, laid far more tackles, won the stoppage clearances, yet lost by 77 points. 

Reality 1 Stats 0

31 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Reality 1 Stats 0

People certainly get sucked in too easily by stats. I just found those stats in the Eagles v Suns game quite peculiar. Even the contested possessions weren't far from even. Usually UPs and CPs tell you something about a side's dominace, particularly in a 77 point thumping.

The game is in the middle of a huge transition. We had the stoppage games of the mid 2000's which transitioned into the high skills era of Geelong and Hawthorn. Now, we have 18 players running up and down the ground in a mind-boggling sytem of patterns, where most goals are scored over the back by people running free into the forward 50. There is no clear dominant team, with all of us caught up in a roller coaster of wins and losses in which any team can win on any day. 

I thought the Dees would be a bit better established by now, and I do reckon the selectors need a re-think of basic strategy and personnel. The teams that are winning have a stable group of 6-8 senior players and we are playing too many debutnats or players with less than 20 games. Players such as Dunn, Garland and Grimes have clear limitations but this is not the year to drop them off the radar completely. Next year probably but not yet. In 2017 we begin the Goodwin era and I am hoping that all the plans of PJ, Bartlett, Roos and Mahoney come together and we can take our place among the leaders of the new look footy, whatever it ends up looking like. 

Having said that I have to admire Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong whose entire clubs run so well from top to bottom, although Hawthorn and Geelong are about to enter a period of decline. 

18 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The game is in the middle of a huge transition. We had the stoppage games of the mid 2000's which transitioned into the high skills era of Geelong and Hawthorn. Now, we have 18 players running up and down the ground in a mind-boggling sytem of patterns, where most goals are scored over the back by people running free into the forward 50. There is no clear dominant team, with all of us caught up in a roller coaster of wins and losses in which any team can win on any day. 

I thought the Dees would be a bit better established by now, and I do reckon the selectors need a re-think of basic strategy and personnel. The teams that are winning have a stable group of 6-8 senior players and we are playing too many debutnats or players with less than 20 games. Players such as Dunn, Garland and Grimes have clear limitations but this is not the year to drop them off the radar completely. Next year probably but not yet. In 2017 we begin the Goodwin era and I am hoping that all the plans of PJ, Bartlett, Roos and Mahoney come together and we can take our place among the leaders of the new look footy, whatever it ends up looking like. 

Having said that I have to admire Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong whose entire clubs run so well from top to bottom, although Hawthorn and Geelong are about to enter a period of decline. 

Why would we do this though? The club understands where we're at. We're not going to win the flag, so we should be blooding as many elite kids while Roos is here to take the flack as possible. What is the point in playing older players with clear limitations? I don't understand that thinking. I'd much prefer to allow our younger players who we believe can make it, establish themselves and learn this new game plan. Then when Goodwin takes over fully in 2017, these kids can hit the ground running and the rest of the team will have had a year practicing this new system. 

Edited May 29, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

3 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Why would we do this though? The club understands where we're at. We're not going to win the flag, so we should be blooding as many elite kids while Roos is here to take the flack as possible. What is the point in playing older players with clear limitations? I don't understand that thinking. I'd much prefer to allow our younger players who we believe can make it, establish themselves and learn this new game plan. Then when Goodwin takes over fully in 2017, these kids can hit the ground running and the rest of the team will have had a year practicing this new system. 

That thinking is what screwed us up during our horror period from 2008-2013. Experienced players help set standards and carry the load.

5 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Bizarre stats in the Eagles v Suns game. The Suns had more kicks than the Eagles. Their efficiency inside 50 was better. They won the uncontested possessions, had more marks, laid far more tackles, won the stoppage clearances, yet lost by 77 points. 

My theory is that if the results don't reflect the stats, you're looking at the wrong stats.

27 minutes ago, Chook said:

That thinking is what screwed us up during our horror period from 2008-2013. Experienced players help set standards and carry the load.

We have enough older heads out there. Lumumba is about the only experienced player I'd have coming in regularly. I'd consider Dunn and I don't include Trengove as an 'experienced' player. 

But the thing that screwed us up during 2008-2013 was poor drafting and development. I trust this FD to make the right development decisions.

29 minutes ago, Chook said:

My theory is that if the results don't reflect the stats, you're looking at the wrong stats.

I looked through all the major stats for the game trying to define it. I didn't catch this game, so I'm not going to be able to make a call on it. Perhaps someone else can?