A few people have commented that we are on the up and seem to be like the dogs a couple years back, so I had a look and there are some similarities

Dogs:    they killed it at the draft from 2010 to 2013 - especially 2012 and 2013

2012   5 wins

2013   8 wins

2014   7 wins

2015   14 wins

2016   most likely 16 wins

were very poor at time from 2012-2014, but from memory at the end of 2014 starting showing signs and their young players stood up (is that right?)

 

Dees:  did well at the draft from 2012 -2015 - especially 2014 (for those with a weak stomach do not look at our 2011 draft!)

we all know our pathetic ladder position but now after 7 wins last year and likely 11 this year we are starting to beat good teams and are showing signs with our gun draft picks kicking on

What does 2017 hold?  for the first time in a decade, we have the capacity to make a decent assault on the finals and win more games than we lose.   f-k i cant wait for next year 

anyway, back to 2016 and trying to sneaky into 8th spot!

umm... feel free to comment.  cheers.     :-)

What about the Bears under Feltham?

Very similar draft mantra as well - big bodied mids at the top end of the draft. No messing around with skinny kids or project players using premium picks.

There are a lot of parallels with us and the Dogs.

Hopefully we can smash the Dogs a few times in September over the next years. 

I still can't see them winning the GF on The 'G

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hopefully we can smash the Dogs a few times in September over the next years. 

I still can't see them winning the GF on The 'G

Not sure I agree.

dogs bat really deep.

i think dogs, Dees, Giants and the Suns will start to overtake the current leaders sooner rather than later.

2 minutes ago, mdemonski2 said:

i think dogs, Dees, Giants and the Suns will start to overtake the current leaders sooner rather than later.

And you can probably add in St Kilda as a  powerhouse of the future.

If you look at our winning trajectory, it's actually a lot more similar to Hawthorn's in the mid to late 2000s. Whereas the Bulldogs, you could argue, went backwards for a year before going forwards again. Hawthorn just kept improving. So have we: from 4 wins to 7 wins to 10-12 wins. If we make finals next year we're tracking in closer comparison to Hawthorn's 4 wins to 5 wins to 9 wins to 13 wins to 17 wins (their premiership year).

I think the key difference between the Bulldogs to Melbourne and Hawthorn, is their injury list. You need a lot of luck to go your way to win a flag and at this stage, it looks like costing the Bulldogs a flag this year.

If we can keep our players fit and continue to add quality to the list over the next 2-3 years, we're a serious shot at a flag. It'll come quicker than you think.

So I'd say we're more the Hawks of 2006 or 2007.

Edited August 19, 20169 yr by AdamFphlebeb

7 minutes ago, mdemonski2 said:

Not sure I agree.

dogs bat really deep.

i think dogs, Dees, Giants and the Suns will start to overtake the current leaders sooner rather than later.

Not saying they don't bat deep. But  their game style looks a little hard to endure under Finals pressure away from The Docklands

I'm worried we won't have the same charmed injury list next year.

It seriously has been a once in 20 year injury free run which has aided us in climbing the ladder.

2 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm worried we won't have the same charmed injury list next year.

It seriously has been a once in 20 year injury free run which has aided us in climbing the ladder.

We have still played 36 players though during the year, which could be similar to copping more injuries in a season. 

On 8/19/2016 at 1:15 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Not saying they don't bat deep. But  their game style looks a little hard to endure under Finals pressure away from The Docklands

Similar thoughts about the Saints game plan to be honest, ours has taken a little longer but we know it stands up against good teams on the MCG, which is more than a lot of teams can say

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We have still played 36 players though during the year, which could be similar to copping more injuries in a season. 

I agree. I thinki the management of players has gone to a whole new level at the club - particularly the young blokes.

Weed just last week was a prime example. Just no risk taking ultimately pays off.

I think we are more advanced than the Dogs of 14. I expect we will be at least on par with the Dogs next year.

51 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

And you can probably add in St Kilda as a  powerhouse of the future.

not with you on this one.   I dont see the large number of under 23 yo talent that we and dogs have.  I suspect that the Saints will taper off in the next few years and be in no mans land for a while

but then again I may be clouded by my hatred for them  

26 minutes ago, Abe said:

Similar thoughts about the Saints game plan to be honest, ours has taken a little longer but we know it stands up against good teams on the MCG, which is more than a lot of teams can say

Let's see how the Dogs go this year in September. 

They struggled on the 'G last year to have a defensive plan...

54 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

If you look at our winning trajectory, it's actually a lot more similar to Hawthorn's in the mid to late 2000s. Whereas the Bulldogs, you could argue, went backwards for a year before going forwards again. Hawthorn just kept improving. So have we: from 4 wins to 7 wins to 10-12 wins. If we make finals next year we're tracking in closer comparison to Hawthorn's 4 wins to 5 wins to 9 wins to 13 wins to 17 wins (their premiership year).

I think the key difference between the Bulldogs to Melbourne and Hawthorn, is their injury list. You need a lot of luck to go your way to win a flag and at this stage, it looks like costing the Bulldogs a flag this year.

If we can keep our players fit and continue to add quality to the list over the next 2-3 years, we're a serious shot at a flag. It'll come quicker than you think.

So I'd say we're more the Hawks of 2006 or 2007.

interesting thoughts...

although the hawks 'real' window opened from 2012 when their senior core got to 100-150 games  (you could argue the 08 flag was early) so if we are tracking with them we might have to wait a few years

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

interesting thoughts...

although the hawks 'real' window opened from 2012 when their senior core got to 100-150 games  (you could argue the 08 flag was early) so if we are tracking with them we might have to wait a few years

Absolutely. I still believe they pinched that flag against Geelong in '08 (with the use of the rushed behind if you remember rightly). This was probably backed by the fact they failed to make the 8 the next year. But I guess my point is, you can pinch a flag early and it really does set your list up. They have no fear of finals and the big day, unlike so many other teams/clubs.

I'd argue though, our list is more talented at this stage than theirs was in 2006-2007, remembering they added Rioli from the '07 draft and had added Roughead, Franklin and Lewis all from the 2004 draft (whereas most of our guys have come through together). They didn't even pick up Burgoyne until the 09' trade period, along with Gibson.

If you compare this with our young crop. By the end of 2017 (injury permitting): 

* Tyson and Viney will have played around 90 games.

* Jesse and Frost will have played 60 games and Kent will have played 70 games.

* Tommy Mac will have played 120 odd games.

* Brayshaw, Salem and Stretch will have played between 40-50 games (think about the improvement shown by Tyson and Viney in terms of consistency once they reached 40-odd games).

* O Mac, Petracca, Oliver and Hunt will be approaching 40 games as well.

* these guys will be rounded off by the more experienced players such as Watts approaching 160 games, Jones approaching 250 games, Vince approaching 210 games, Jetta approaching 110 games and Garlett approaching 170 games.

I guess what I'm saying is that by the end of 2017, our age demographic in comparison with Hawthorn's from 2008 is pretty similar. The difference being I think is that we've got our KPP stocks sorted. We don't need to go out and target a Gibson, but like Burgoyne, if we could land a player of his ilk and another inside mid in the 2017 off season, we'll be a big shot for the flag in 2018.

Now, given where we've come from, to be that well off after being a basketcase 4 years earlier is incredible. What is even more exciting is that we're now seen as a very viable option by potential outside suitors and if we continue on our upward trajectory, this factor will only work even more in our favour.

 

 

Edited August 19, 20169 yr by AdamFphlebeb

Perhaps our rise over over a three to four year period can be compared to the dogs. Or any other side that has bottomed out and successfully rebuilt over the same sort of time frame. Obviously a few things need to go right like trade/free agency and draft periods as well as retaining the right senior figures.

But that's about it as far as comparisons go. I hate comparing 'lists'. Unless there is a distinct blueprint that a club has followed.

And if I play along I'd have to say that our list in its current state (and in the way we are playing) most closely resembles that of Sydney's.

GWS and the Dogs lists have far better skill level and running power overall.

Geelong have running power but not so much the skill.

Hawthorn are anomolous in that they are the most skillfull side and were the first to create a side of supremely good kickers on every line.

My hope is that over the off-season we add running power and foot-skills which will come from trading. Two attributes that we're sorely lacking and ones that we need to continue our upward trajectory.

 

Compare us to no one as everyone's journey is different. The Dogs list runs pretty deep, The Saints have high class and pace and GWS and The Giants are well placed. We need to keep bringing in talent. That can never stop. Your mid tier must keep improving or you fall behind. I can see Stretch, Hunt, Weideman, Hogan, Petracca, Brayshaw, Salem, Tyson, Omac, and Gawn all improving again next year. That' makes us look very strong. Our best is probably still 3  years away though. It's then that we'll need everything to fall our way

11 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Perhaps our rise over over a three to four year period can be compared to the dogs. Or any other side that has bottomed out and successfully rebuilt over the same sort of time frame. Obviously a few things need to go right like trade/free agency and draft periods as well as retaining the right senior figures.

But that's about it as far as comparisons go. I hate comparing 'lists'. Unless there is a distinct blueprint that a club has followed.

And if I play along I'd have to say that our list in its current state (and in the way we are playing) most closely resembles that of Sydney's.

GWS and the Dogs lists have far better skill level and running power overall.

Geelong have running power but not so much the skill.

Hawthorn are anomolous in that they are the most skillfull side and were the first to create a side of supremely good kickers on every line.

My hope is that over the off-season we add running power and foot-skills which will come from trading. Two attributes that we're sorely lacking and ones that we need to continue our upward trajectory.

 

I think the game has changed to the point where winning the contested ball and using it effectively with the skills you have on hand is more important than having distinguishable inside and outside types and even drafting for them. Exibhit A - The Toump. On the other hand, Viney is a great example of a player that's made the transition to a player who can do it all.

Development of players is heading more in this direction and whilst I don't disagree that skillful players win you games, I consider the ratio of hard-nosed players that can learn to use it effectively within a sound game plan more reliable than seagull players like a Wingard type.

Saints 2000 - 2.5 wins, 2001- 4, 2002 - 5.5, 2003 - 11, 2004 - 16

They they then stagnated for a few years mainly in the lower reaches of the top 8 (only missed once) until Lyon really got them going with 20 wins in 2009 - his third season.

Alas, all to know abail.

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not saying they don't bat deep. But  their game style looks a little hard to endure under Finals pressure away from The Docklands

Flip of the coin, we may have to win finals at Docklands in the near future....

12 minutes ago, BrisbaneDemon said:

Flip of the coin, we may have to win finals at Docklands in the near future....

Fair comment. But the Big Finals will always be at The 'G

Just as long as we're not being compared to Port Adelaide of 2014.

On 8/19/2016 at 3:20 PM, BrisbaneDemon said:

Flip of the coin, we may have to win finals at Docklands in the near future....

I think we're in a better position to learn to handle that than other sides are to improve at the G, it's a very different ground to try and defend on.