10 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ugh. I didn't say you called Roos a genius. Re-read my post.

The list Scott had won 7 games when he came in. They won 14 games 3 years later. But yeah he's "crap".

Roos rates him as a coach. But yeah he's "crap".

Took a notoriously poor club to 16 wins. But yeah he's "crap".

Was the development coach of a young team that won a flag, and is still highly rated by that club and it's supporters and staff. But yeah he's "crap".

How do you know North about to "fall off a cliff", and how do you know it wouldn't have been a worse fall without tough list decisions? You don't. The outcome of those decisions will be seen in about 3 years time.

You do realize how hard a flag is to win right? Especially for a club with no money? Hardly think a "crap" coach is going to make prelims in that situation.

 

lol, Stuie, if you don't think that I think Roos is a genius, then there's no reason to make the statement. Using other people's opinions of Roos as a comparison to mine of Scott is just silly.

You understand how that makes no sense right?

I also didn't say that winning a flag is a measure of a good coach, which is what you are implying I've said.

I don't rate Scott, or his record. You do. I get it.

Differing opinions on a footy forum.

Shocked.

 

Edit: all this comes from me making a joke about Brad Scott not knowing what he's doing. lel

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by Choke

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

But he also has 'elite preparation' that he can pass on as well Abe....

Generally I enjoy your insights but with this argument, you're literally providing nothing. Even Stuie with his highly informative stat comparison of Harvey and Kent from this year tried to provide a counter argument, no matter how comical.

I guess you've completely missed the consistent msg that Roos and co have driven since arriving. The development of 'elite training habits' for all our players but most importantly our highly rated core. Most of whom are barely 22.

You're completely underestimating the significance and influence someone like Harvey would have on a young group. You and so many others.

It's really odd.

 

 

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

1 minute ago, Choke said:

lol, Stuie, if you don't think that I think Roos is a genius, then there's no reason to make the statement. Using other people's opinions of Roos as a comparison to mine of Scott is just silly.

Ok, let me explain this for you....

I was not saying you said Roos is a genius. That's why I didn't say "you think Roos is a genius", but rather "Roos is called a genius". Get it?

Now, the reason for that was the comparison between Roos improving a team by 8 wins in 3 years and being hailed by many as a great coach, and Scott improving a team by 7 wins in 3 years and being called a "crap coach" by "Choke" on Demonland.

Not sure I can make it any clearer for you than that.

 

3 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Generally I enjoy your insights but with this argument, you're literally providing nothing. Even Stuie with his highly informative stat comparison of Harvey and Kent from this year tried to provide a counter argument, no matter how comical.

I guess you've completely missed the consistent msg that Roos and co have driven since arriving. The development of 'elite training habits' for all our players but most importantly our highly rated core. Most of whom are barely 22.

You're completely underestimating the significance and influence someone like Harvey would have on a young group. You and so many others.

It's really odd.

So why don't we sign him up as "elite preparation coach" rather than as a player? That way he can focus on everyone's preparation, not just his own.

Cos apparently "preparation" is now a reason to sign up a 39 year old front running player...

 

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by stuie

Just now, stuie said:

Ok, let me explain this for you....

I was not saying you said Roos is a genius. That's why I didn't say "you think Roos is a genius", but rather "Roos is called a genius". Get it?

Now, the reason for that was the comparison between Roos improving a team by 8 wins in 3 years and being hailed by many as a great coach, and Scott improving a team by 7 wins in 3 years and being called a "crap coach" by "Choke" on Demonland.

Not sure I can make it any clearer for you than that.

 

I never made the comparison Stuie, so you using other people's claims of one coach being good to undermine my argument that a different coach is bad falls flat.

Not sure I can make it any clearer for you than that.

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

I never made the comparison Stuie, so you using other people's claims of one coach being good to undermine my argument that a different coach is bad falls flat.

Not sure I can make it any clearer for you than that.

Oh FFS. I made the comparison to make a point. You don't get that?

So let's make it about you then, Scott improves a team by 7 wins and is "crap", how do you rate Roos (improved by 8 wins in the same time) as a coach then? "A bit crap" maybe?

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

So why don't we sign him up as "elite preparation coach" rather than as a player? That way he can focus on everyone's preparation, not just his own.

Cos apparently "preparation" is now a reason to sign up a 39 year old front running player...

 

There are some great 'critical thinking' short courses around Stuie.

Do a Google search.

1 minute ago, stevethemanjordan said:

There are some great 'critical thinking' short courses around Stuie.

Do a Google search.

Playing the man again hey? Shocked.

 

26 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Generally I enjoy your insights but with this argument, you're literally providing nothing. Even Stuie with his highly informative stat comparison of Harvey and Kent from this year tried to provide a counter argument, no matter how comical.

I guess you've completely missed the consistent msg that Roos and co have driven since arriving. The development of 'elite training habits' for all our players but most importantly our highly rated core. Most of whom are barely 22.

You're completely underestimating the significance and influence someone like Harvey would have on a young group. You and so many others.

It's really odd.

 

 

I just don't get the point of drafting someone who is going to be 39 early into next season. His age is an issue because it is a factor in how long he will continue to play for. 

I don't care if drafting him wins us an extra game next season, at the stage we are at as a football club, it's about getting games into our young talent.

He hasn't been in North's leadership group for years, and I'd suggest every player at every club has excellent preparation these days. Harvey has been blessed with fantastic genetics, something he can't pass onto the players. 

Perhaps your overestimating the influence someone like Harvey may have on a young group. If it were so good, surely North would have kept him on to assist with their rebuild. 

If he doesn't get drafted and his influence is so great then I'd expect him to be kept on at North as a preparation and leadership advisor.

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Oh FFS. I made the comparison to make a point. You don't get that?

So let's make it about you then, Scott improves a team by 7 wins and is "crap", how do you rate Roos (improved by 8 wins in the same time) as a coach then? "A bit crap" maybe?

 

You made a false comparison to try to undermine my point, and now you're trying to trap me into making my own comparison.

I'm not having any of it Stuie.

I clearly rate North's list over the past 5 years as better than you do, and believe their coach over that time has under delivered on the potential of that list.

On this basis, I think he's a crap coach.

I guess that you attribute North's limited success to Brad Scott. I attribute what I think is under performance of a good list to Brad Scott. We see it differently.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Playing the man again hey? Shocked.

 

I don't know what else to say to you when you come up with responses like, 'apparently preparation is now a reason to sign up a 39 year old front running player'.

Like, you literally refuse to think in a broader capacity. 

Just now, Choke said:

You made a false comparison to try to undermine my point, and now you're trying to trap me into making my own comparison.

I'm not having any of it Stuie.

I clearly rate North's list over the past 5 years as better than you do, and believe their coach over that time has under delivered on the potential of that list.

On this basis, I think he's a crap coach.

I guess that you attribute North's limited success to Brad Scott. I attribute what I think is under performance of a good list to Brad Scott. We see it differently.

Simple question I thought, how do you rate Roos as a coach?

 

2 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I don't know what else to say to you when you come up with responses like, 'apparently preparation is now a reason to sign up a 39 year old front running player'.

Like, you literally refuse to think in a broader capacity. 

What "broader capacity" do you want though? The discussion has been centering around his leadership and preparation, and I don't believe either of those things are a factor for bringing Harvey in (for different reasons). Just because I don't agree with you about those things doesn't mean I'm not thinking in a "broader capacity".

 

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by stuie

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Simple question I thought, how do you rate Roos as a coach?

 

On any other day, I'd answer you. But today, I won't, because you'll try to contort my answer.

16 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Generally I enjoy your insights but with this argument, you're literally providing nothing. Even Stuie with his highly informative stat comparison of Harvey and Kent from this year tried to provide a counter argument, no matter how comical.

I don't think it was "comical", it was relevant.  They will be a time in the not to distant future where Dean Kent's AFL output is superior to Brent Harvey's.

Just now, Choke said:

On any other day, I'd answer you. But today, I won't, because you'll try to contort my answer.

don't take it lying down, choke. come back at him with your own strawman argument 

Just now, Choke said:

On any other day, I'd answer you. But today, I won't, because you'll try to contort my answer.

That answers it then.

For the record, I'm in no way saying Scott is as good as Roos, I'm just pointing out that the facts don't back your assertion Scott is a "crap coach".

Let's move on hey? Maybe we can take this up in a couple of years once we see the outcome of these decisions? (Although hopefully we'll be celebrating a premiership and won't care about North by then)

 

lol

1 minute ago, stuie said:

That answers it then.

For the record, I'm in no way saying Scott is as good as Roos, I'm just pointing out that the facts don't back your assertion Scott is a "crap coach".

Let's move on hey? Maybe we can take this up in a couple of years once we see the outcome of these decisions? (Although hopefully we'll be celebrating a premiership and won't care about North by then)

 

We clearly interpret the facts differently I guess.

But yes, in a few years when we have the benefit of hindsight, I will buy you a celebratory premiership beer and we can review our respective opinions, no doubt with increasingly inept attempts to gaslight each other as our inebriation takes hold.

One condition though: we have to invite my North supporting brother so that he can watch us debate the degrees of how crap his team is/has become. We may also need a designated driver.

16 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I don't think it was "comical", it was relevant.  They will be a time in the not to distant future where Dean Kent's AFL output is superior to Brent Harvey's.

Round 1 next season Fifty-5?

And apparently Harvey smells like cabbage.

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

We clearly interpret the facts differently I guess.

But yes, in a few years when we have the benefit of hindsight, I will buy you a celebratory premiership beer and we can review our respective opinions, no doubt with increasingly inept attempts to gaslight each other as our inebriation takes hold.

One condition though: we have to invite my North supporting brother so that he can watch us debate the degrees of how crap his team is/has become. We may also need a designated driver.

Footy facts can be like that can't they?

Ha. I also have a North supporting brother who doesn't like going to the footy too much with me anymore since spilling beer on him at the 2000 Prelim when i thought Wiz was going to kick 10...

 

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Round 1 next season Fifty-5?

And apparently Harvey smells like cabbage.

Small hands too.

 

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I just don't get the point of drafting someone who is going to be 39 early into next season. His age is an issue because it is a factor in how long he will continue to play for. 

I don't care if drafting him wins us an extra game next season, at the stage we are at as a football club, it's about getting games into our young talent.

He hasn't been in North's leadership group for years, and I'd suggest every player at every club has excellent preparation these days. Harvey has been blessed with fantastic genetics, something he can't pass onto the players. 

Perhaps your overestimating the influence someone like Harvey may have on a young group. If it were so good, surely North would have kept him on to assist with their rebuild. 

If he doesn't get drafted and his influence is so great then I'd expect him to be kept on at North as a preparation and leadership advisor.

ET our history suggests that doesn't work. They have to be good enough (Clarry, Brayshaw etc) to push others out or they need time to develop in the 2s before they push older players out. I'm agnostic on the little carnt playing for us but if he does it has the  potential to win us games we might not win otherwise is the reason we might be speaking to him.

7 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I just don't get the point of drafting someone who is going to be 39 early into next season. His age is an issue because it is a factor in how long he will continue to play for. 

I don't care if drafting him wins us an extra game next season, at the stage we are at as a football club, it's about getting games into our young talent.

As a Melbourne supporter and footy follower in general this line of thinking is hard to shake but it is continually planning for a future that never comes. Bottom line is Harvey would be best 22 next year, would help us win games and addresses an area we are deficient in. We need to start planning to "win now" instead of in 2-3 years. As a DFA he costs nothing and wouldn't take up much salary cap space. We should be talking to him and I'd be disappointed if we're not in the mix.

Edited September 22, 20169 yr by Dr. Gonzo

I stated early on in this thread that I was opposed to the idea of recruiting Harvey. A number of other posters have stated good reasons in agreement with this.

I also note that other posters support the notion of recruiting.

Having read the many informed arguments on this thread my opposition has been reinforced and, in fact, I would like to broaden the question somewhat.

If you concede the point for a moment that we don't want him then who actually would take Harvey?

Given salary cap and list limitations what team could actually gain from having him as a listed player? Is he a dynamic game changer? How long has he got left in him? Whose place would he take?

If you want him to teach then give him a coaching job, otherwise what is his value?