Post Season Discussion 2016

[mo64 5,209]

This year rates as a pass, but nothing more. Our list has improved since Roos took over, but that's due to our high draft picks over those years.

Selection over the year was mind boggling at times. I'm not one for playing youth for youth's sake, and Pedersen's ommission after the Hawthorn and P.Adelaide games was a disgrace. Inexperience was always Roos' crutch to lean on after a poor loss.

With a good matchday coach, we have the talent to make finals next year.

Over to you Goodwin.

 

[jnrmac 18,954]

4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

This year rates as a pass, but nothing more. Our list has improved since Roos took over, but that's due to our high draft picks over those years.

Selection over the year was mind boggling at times. I'm not one for playing youth for youth's sake, and Pedersen's ommission after the Hawthorn and P.Adelaide games was a disgrace. Inexperience was always Roos' crutch to lean on after a poor loss.

With a good matchday coach, we have the talent to make finals next year.

Over to you Goodwin.

 

Our list has got younger each year of Roos' coaching. 

[Lucifers Hero 37,008]

19 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

When will our incompetent football media realise that for a player to be traded they must be contracted, therefore what's the point of mentioning they are contracted?

Harrington is correct.  The distinction she makes is players OOC this year (Dawes) and those that are contracted for later years (JKH and Dunn contracted to 2017).

The article to me does not read as if written by one of the 'incompetent football media'.  There are many other scribes who merit that label but not Harrington. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Harrington is correct.  The distinction she makes is players OOC this year (Dawes) and those that are contracted for later years (JKH and Dunn contracted to 2017).

The article to me does not read as if written by one of the 'incompetent football media'.  There are many other scribes who merit that label but not Harrington. 

Fair call, it's just a frustration of mine that a lot of people seem to not understand how trades actually work.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

My list of changes at the end of the year (delisted, traded or otherwise):

• Dawes
• Grimes
• Lumumba
• Terlich
• Newton
• Max King (I rated him early on)
• Michie
• ANB
• Dunn or Garland
• Matt Jones

[jackaub 1,402]

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

My list of changes at the end of the year (delisted, traded or otherwise):

• Dawes
• Grimes
• Lumumba
• Terlich
• Newton
• Max King (I rated him early on)
• Michie
• ANB
• Dunn or Garland
• Matt Jones

How would you rate King barely played.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

20 minutes ago, mo64 said:

This year rates as a pass, but nothing more. Our list has improved since Roos took over, but that's due to our high draft picks over those years.

Selection over the year was mind boggling at times. I'm not one for playing youth for youth's sake, and Pedersen's ommission after the Hawthorn and P.Adelaide games was a disgrace. Inexperience was always Roos' crutch to lean on after a poor loss.

With a good matchday coach, we have the talent to make finals next year.

Over to you Goodwin.

 

That's not entirely true.  Hunt was a late pick, as was Oscar McDonald.  Even Tom McDonald was a late pick, although not from the Roos era I'll admit.  Dean Kent was another later pick as well.

Our higher end draft picks have certainly been better, no doubt about it, but we've also been very good with our trading and later picks as well.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,852]

38 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

An excellent and objective view of our season.  Good analysis and well supported with facts - it reads like she has actually watched our games and knows something about our club.  http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/melbourne-2016-end-of-season-report-card/news-story/a7f4390765769108b98308616eb62181 with a B+ rating for the season which I think is a fair.  

Her summary of our List: 

THE LIST

• Elite: Max Gawn
• Big Improvers: Jayden Hunt, Jack Watts, Dean Kent, Billy Stretch, Oscar McDonald
• Going, going: Chris Dawes, Cam Pedersen, Ben Newton, Max King, Matt Jones
• Gone: Dean Terlich, Jack Grimes, Viv Michie
• Trade bait: Chris Dawes, Jay Kennedy-Harris (contracted), Lynden Dunn (contracted)

Could have added a couple more to the 'Big Improvers' eg Tyson, Viney.  A category of 'Future Exciting Players' would include: Petracca, Oliver, Brayshaw, Weideman, Hogan.  But I guess she couldn't include the whole list.

PREMIERSHIP CLOCK

THE Dees are still a fair way off that elusive premiership. That said, nobody was expecting them to be close this year. They’re trending the right way though. 8pm.

Found myself agreeing with just about everything written and 8 pm on the Premiership Clock looks about right.

 

I know alot have put him in the trade bait list but I like JKH. I think he needs 1 more year. Want to see him get an injury free run. He has skill and while I would like him to be half a step faster I think he could fill a role in the future. Esspecialy with questionable consistancy from our current small forwards. A full pre-season and he will be right up in round 1 selection discussions.

I also think he could potentially rotate with others and play on the other wing opposite to Billy. People on here seem insistant on moving Hunt out of the backline onto that wing. God only knows why. He has come in and been a revelation on the back flank so lets move him somewhere else?! Makes no sense to me.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

2 minutes ago, jackaub said:

How would you rate King barely played.

He showed a bit of something in this game.

[mo64 5,209]

15 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That's not entirely true.  Hunt was a late pick, as was Oscar McDonald.  Even Tom McDonald was a late pick, although not from the Roos era I'll admit.  Dean Kent was another later pick as well.

Our higher end draft picks have certainly been better, no doubt about it, but we've also been very good with our trading and later picks as well.

I think our trading under Roos has been 50/50, and that's being generous.

Garlett - Standout trade.

Vince - Gave up a pick that netted Adelaide Matt Crouch. Win/Win

Tyson - I think that this trade will be a win for us because I rate Salem highly. Let's hope that he shakes off his injuries.

I was underwhelmed with this years haul off Melksham, BenKen and Bugg, and so far I've been proven right. They could all be potential list cloggers.

I thought that Roos' reputation would net us a big fish. That failed to eventuate.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

10 wins and a percentage just under 100%. I'd say it's not a success or a failure, it's par. That's not a bad thing it means we're on track and have continued to improve. We are still a very young and inexperienced side with lots of potential top end talent coming through but that talent still needs to be managed to realise the potential. They also need to get another 40-50 games together to gel as a team and another 80 or so until they'll really start to challenge, all things going to plan.

We saw a far more attacking mindset which was great to see but did leave us vulnerable on the rebound. We seemed to sort this out in the second half of the year but it's still an area to work on.

The win against the Hawks was the obvious high mark of the season but the losses to Essendon and Carlton were equally deflating. Hopefully we'll start to see the improvement in this area next year where we start to bring it every week and beat up on the opponents we should. The difference between our best and worst reduced dramatically this year with the exception of the Cats game which was a real outlier in the scheme of things. Putting that game aside we had a percentage over 100% and had no losses great than 10 goals (our heaviest loss to the likely premier in horrible conditions).

We saw Max Gawn put it together for a whole season and cement himself as the number 1 ruck in the game. The bar is set now and he needs to continue into next season and beyond. We saw continual improvement from Viney and Tyson and debuts from promising youngsters Petracca, Oliver and Hunt who was a real surprise.

There's obviously still areas for (big) improvement but with the age profile and experience of our list I am confident that will continue in 2017. We'll continue to turn the list over in the off-season (maybe 7 or 8 players moving on) and replenish through the draft and hopefully trade period. Melksham will come into the side next season and will hopefully set us up across half back with Hunt to allow Salem to run through the middle. Salem was cruelled by illness again, hopefully he can get himself right and have a full pre-season to launch into 2017 because I still think he has the potential to be one of the best players on our list in a few years.

[beelzebub 22,225]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

10 wins and a percentage just under 100%. I'd say it's not a success or a failure, it's par....

Not to disregard the rest of your post as was interesting to read.

I must confess I'm a bit black and white ( shhh ) about the results for this year however I have us as a fail.

We have shown improvements in some areas . We won more games, we have a greater percentage .  They are indisputable.

In a sense I see it as though sitting a test.. Little Johnny  sat the test last year and got a 4/10.  He repeated the test this year and got a 5 /10.

Effectively the pass is a 6, but "commendable effort " is award for 5, but still a fail.

If you haven't won at least half your games and come away with a perc of less than %100 then Im not sure by what metric anyone can award a 'pass'

We're somewhat better but still failing

Edited August 30, 2016 by beelzebub

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

On 8/28/2016 at 4:27 PM, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I should also point out that the one win that we did managed to squeak out in tough circumstances was against a bottom four team. When we start doing that against the top 8 more often than not then we will know that we are on the way to righting a lot of our deficiencies.

GWS game?

[george_on_the_outer 6,970]

6 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

When will our incompetent football media realise that for a player to be traded they must be contracted, therefore what's the point of mentioning they are contracted?

Most players are contracted to 31 October. 

Trade week is 10-20 October.  So ( without knowing the intricate details of each players contract), they are all contracted.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

16 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Most players are contracted to 31 October. 

Trade week is 10-20 October.  So ( without knowing the intricate details of each players contract), they are all contracted.

Correct.

[Upper Combukta West 48]

Looking back at the season and then looking forward to 2017, I see it this way....

•  6 games we didn't turn up 
• 3 games we just missed out  

If we have a similar season to 2016 but reduce the games where we don't turn up to 4 and pinch one of the games where we were close but missed, that brings us to 13 wins and in this season that would be enough to see us with a finals berth.

I don't think that would be too much to ask from the team that played this year plus potential in's over trade period.

Edited August 30, 2016 by deanowerner
would

[sue 8,430]

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Not to disregard the rest of your post as was interesting to read.

I must confess I'm a bit black and white ( shhh ) about the results for this year however I have us as a fail.

We have shown improvements in some areas . We won more games, we have a greater percentage .  They are indisputable.

In a sense I see it as though sitting a test.. Little Johnny  sat the test last year and got a 4/10.  He repeated the test this year and got a 5 /10.

Effectively the pass is a 6, but "commendable effort " is award for 5, but still a fail.

If you haven't won at least half your games and come away with a perc of less than %100 then Im not sure by what metric anyone can award a 'pass'

We're somewhat better but still failing

Depends on your definition of pass and how much more improvement you want before you give the season a pass.  Calling 50% wins a pass is arbitrary - if a team won every game in the first half of the season and  lost every games for the rest of the year, I wouldn't be calling it a pass - ask any North supporter.  

If our goal was to have a chance of playing finals come the last 2 rounds, I think we scored a pass, in fact a surprising high distinction which probably doesn't really reflect the true extent of our progress.

If our goal was never losing to crap teams, then we scored a fail.    I expect if we had beaten Carlton most would give us a pass without hesitation.  The last 2 games ......aaarrrggghhh to quote Charlie Brown.

[Sir Why You Little 34,443]

17 minutes ago, sue said:

Depends on your definition of pass and how much more improvement you want before you give the season a pass.  Calling 50% wins a pass is arbitrary - if a team won every game in the first half of the season and  lost every games for the rest of the year, I wouldn't be calling it a pass - ask any North supporter.  

If our goal was to have a chance of playing finals come the last 2 rounds, I think we scored a pass, in fact a surprising high distinction which probably doesn't really reflect the true extent of our progress.

If our goal was never losing to crap teams, then we scored a fail.    I expect if we had beaten Carlton most would give us a pass without hesitation.  The last 2 games ......aaarrrggghhh to quote Charlie Brown.

Yep the last 2 games tip the scale back to just under a pass for me. They were that bad. 

2017 will really test our club. No crutches to hang on to

we have to stand tall after a long time....

[beelzebub 22,225]

How can a pass be anything other than winning more than LOSING ?

[CBDees 3,162]

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Most players are contracted to 31 October. 

Trade week is 10-20 October.  So ( without knowing the intricate details of each players contract), they are all contracted.

Which is how we 'traded' Fitzpatrick to Hawthorn!

[Binmans PA 26,051]

8 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Harrington is correct.  The distinction she makes is players OOC this year (Dawes) and those that are contracted for later years (JKH and Dunn contracted to 2017).

The article to me does not read as if written by one of the 'incompetent football media'.  There are many other scribes who merit that label but not Harrington. 

Agreed. Still one of my favourite posters yourself, LH.

[beelzebub 22,225]

seems to me many are confusing the ideas of passing/failing with progress and or improvement.

you can improve...but still fail to pass muster

quite frankly...thats us !!

[titan_uranus 22,351]

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

How can a pass be anything other than winning more than LOSING ?

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

seems to me many are confusing the ideas of passing/failing with progress and or improvement.

you can improve...but still fail to pass muster

quite frankly...thats us !!

So what about St Kilda? 12-10 record but a percentage well below 100 and they didn't make finals.

In your black/white world, is that a pass or a fail?

The answer is that things aren't as simple as pass/fail. In some respects the year was a pass, in others a fail. Overall, given we improved, we won more games with a much higher percentage, only one non-competitive loss (meaning we were in every other loss for the year until at least three quarter time), we were a legitimate finals chance until the second last week and we did all that with a young list (not an old one, like Carlton for example), I think those who want to argue the season was a pass have a pretty good case.

[beelzebub 22,225]

StKilda achieved what used to be called a compensation pass. They at least satisfied the first part. They won more than they lost.

Had they achieved a better than 100 ℅ then in all likelihood they would have won more games.

We achieved neither. Still a fail.

[titan_uranus 22,351]

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

StKilda achieved what used to be called a compensation pass. They at least satisfied the first part. They won more than they lost.

Had they achieved a better than 100 ℅ then in all likelihood they would have won more games.

We achieved neither. Still a fail.

Why is that? We had a higher percentage than them but won 2 fewer games. Indeed, we could have lost to Geelong by 60 and our percentage would have stayed over 100. So I don't think that's right.

I am wholly confident that if we had finished with St Kilda's record you would have called the season a fail: no finals, percentage under 100, 0-5 on the road, three blowout losses.