15 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

You said you don't see the point in anything other than unbridled optimism. On matters of opinion that's as good as saying you're not interested in discussion.

Agree on the FS, a total game changer. We benefited with Viney (Woey?) & hopefully get our dose coming soon with Kalani (maybe Yze, but the wraps arent as high).  

Well I think you can discuss things while being optimistic but that's just me.

12 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

You said you don't see the point in anything other than unbridled optimism. On matters of opinion that's as good as saying you're not interested in discussion.

As good as saying he's not interested in discussion?

Perhaps I've missed it but the closest thing I've read from sb suggesting he doesn't 'see the point in anything other than unbridled optimism' is:

'I think there is room for optimism and frankly I can't see the point, as supporters, viewing it any other way.'

Unbridled optimism is a long way from room for optimism.

Misrepresenting people's comments, a pet hate of mine, is hardly conducive to creating a good discussion.

FB: McVee May Tomlinson
HB: Rivers Lever Salem
C; Langdon Petracca Hunter
HF: ANB Petty Pickett
FF: McAdam JVR Fritsch
Foll: Gawn Oliver Viney
Int: Bowey Brayshaw Sparrow Chandler
S: J Smith

Depth (7)
Back: Turner, Howes
Mid: Woey (wing), Laurie (high half forward), pure mid?
Ruck: Fullarton
Forward: Schache, Spargo 

Draft: 6, 11

Old (3) Melksham, BBB, T Mc

Developmental (7)
Back: Adams, ?K Turner
Mids: ???? (K Brown?)
Rucks: Verrall, KFW
Forwards: Jefferson, Sestan, ?AMW

If we use 6 and 11 on guys who can contribute something in year 1 then we’ll have 32 guys who can contribute which is a fair number.

Unless we draft a ready to go type like Sanders a capable on baller or wing and a back pocket would be the 2 positions I’d be searching the delistings/state leagues for in terms of immediate depth - JJ and Hibberd replacements. As well as swapping out at least one of the tall forwards for a mature ruck. 

1 hour ago, fr_ap said:

And on the depth - no one is claiming that JJ, Harmes or Dunstan are world beaters. But what they were/are is mostly reliable - senior bodies who could take the heat & adhere to structures, there to fill gaps when our 1st choice players are unavailable, track a player back to goals & get a fist in when a youngster might be ball watching. They won't win the game for you - but they can at least keep the team ticking while your game winners find a way to get it done.

You put kids in their absence - and they lose 3 out of the 5 critical contests that come their way over the game - those moments accumulate across the ground and you find yourself losing games against the best teams. Depth is depth - by definition, they can't be our best players, so claiming "we've lost very little" when it walks out the door is redundant, and lacks an understanding of the nuance & requirements of building a list. 

I have been of the view for a while that our depth is poor, particularly in our midfield. So in that regard, I agree with you and others.

However, I don't believe losing the depth players of Jordon, Harmes and Dunstan sets us back, precisely because of my view of our depth this year - they weren't good enough.

Your post was well-written but the above is something I don't necessarily agree with - none of them were really doing what you're suggesting here, in terms of adhering to structure, filling gaps and keeping the team ticking. Dunstan wasn't getting games to begin with, whilst for all the good things Harmes gave us, there were parts of his game that were not great.

I'm therefore not convinced that replacing them with kids sets us back as far as you've suggested. I'm also not convinced that we are going to draft three mids to replace them with no other changes. There's still 1.5 days left of the trade period, plus a DFA window, plus an SSP window.

 

I think Freemantle has a lot of one way streets which may be causing him some confusion.....

5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Didn’t LJ request a trade to Freeo, not WA/WC? 

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

Well I think you can discuss things while being optimistic but that's just me.

Of course you can - but again, that's not what you said. You said you 'frankly can't see the point of anything other than optimism'.

Just like you saying you can discuss things while being optimistic, I was saying equally, you can discuss things whilst being realistic. 

In any case - moving on haha

4 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

Didn’t LJ request a trade to Freeo, not WA/WC? 

Yes

It's ok when they want to come here, but when they want to leave here that's purely unethical, unreasonable and unbearable!

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

I'm still bullish about our list, but you've ignored our coaching.

We've lost 4 finals in a row over the last 2 seasons, and we can't keep making excuses. In 2022 the players were burnt out, and this year we were hit by injuries to our forwards. Those excuses don't cut it. Oh that's right, it's all due to loading, lol.

Despite the top end talent in our team, our gamestyle is risk averse, and we have to grind out wins against the better teams. You can never question the effort of our players, but I just feel that due to Goody's gameplan, there is rarely any scoreboard reward for our efforts against better teams. 

Until I see some evidence of a gameplan tweak by Goody, I'll be a pessimist of our premiership chances.

Are they excuses or reasons? People who bang on about our finals record conveniently ignore factors out of our control and then go onto their favourite gripe as if the finals record is evidence. 

what is clear is that nearly every season there is a fine margin between at least two teams and it is the small things that add up to make a difference. That was evident this year. 

if our game plan sucks then why did McRae use it when the going got tough all finals? Perhaps because the game plan they became known for doesn’t hold up when it comes down to it.

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

As good as saying he's not interested in discussion?

Perhaps I've missed it but the closest thing I've read from sb suggesting he doesn't 'see the point in anything other than unbridled optimism' is:

'I think there is room for optimism and frankly I can't see the point, as supporters, viewing it any other way.'

Unbridled optimism is a long way from room for optimism.

Misrepresenting people's comments, a pet hate of mine, is hardly conducive to creating a good discussion.

Happy to concede that 'unbridled' is an over embellishment on my part, but don't conflate exaggeration with misrepresentation. One is an amplification, the other contravention. 

He/she picked up on not 1, not 2, but 3 posters well-reasoned thoughts & outlined his/her basis for disagreement, which is perfectly fine. To then sign off that it is "pointless viewing the situation in anything other than my way" (optimistically) is, indeed, directly saying that he/she is not interested in any other point of view (as to do so would be pointless and not worth the time or effort). It follows by any logical inference that he/she would therefore not be interested in discussing said other points of view. So yes - as good as saying not interested in discussion. 

Is hypocrisy a pet hate as well?  

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

It's my opinion that we don't take advantage of our midfield and defensive dominance during big games.

Our transition out of defense was non existent during the finals. But that's a discussion for another thread.

I 100% agree on the first point.

I would argue the key reasons we didn't take advantage of our midfield and defensive dominance during big games were:

• our poor field kicking in general, which meant we were matched or beaten on scores from turnover - something that barely happened all season
• poor final kicks inside 50
• our mids and utilities not scoring enough goals 
• our woeful accuracy from set shots and shots from general play

As for the second point, that is what I'm talking about in terms of all finalists, with the slight exception of the Lions, basically employing the same game plan.

Come the pointy end of the season ALL teams, except the lions against Port, struggled to score from the back half because the game plan involved territory and trapping in the front half as much as possible.

In our QF against the Pies and semi against the Blues we were actually better at transitioning and scoring from the back half - and on turnover too.

The problem was we were scoring points not goals.

The Pies and Blues were more accurate (an old fashioned word for the stupidest and most misleading word in footy - efficiency) and took their chances. And as a result both won.

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by binman

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I have been of the view for a while that our depth is poor, particularly in our midfield. So in that regard, I agree with you and others.

However, I don't believe losing the depth players of Jordon, Harmes and Dunstan sets us back, precisely because of my view of our depth this year - they weren't good enough.

Your post was well-written but the above is something I don't necessarily agree with - none of them were really doing what you're suggesting here, in terms of adhering to structure, filling gaps and keeping the team ticking. Dunstan wasn't getting games to begin with, whilst for all the good things Harmes gave us, there were parts of his game that were not great.

I'm therefore not convinced that replacing them with kids sets us back as far as you've suggested. I'm also not convinced that we are going to draft three mids to replace them with no other changes. There's still 1.5 days left of the trade period, plus a DFA window, plus an SSP window.

Fair enough. I think all of JJ, Harmes and Dunstan (though never used) were reliable enough. I certainly knew with JJ i'd be getting midfield accountability, and with Harmes, an understanding of the structure that makes us a good team. With Dunstan I knew that if there was a 50/50 to be won - he'd put his weight into it as he understood what it takes to play at AFL level. 

Certainly none were without flaws and JJ and Harmes let us down in particular moments. All speculative as to whether a certain kid would have done better in that situation, or even worse, or maybe never even been in the chain of possession to turn it over in the first place (in Harmes case). 

We will see I suppose - experienced AFL depth is valuable imo - very raw kids can be a total liability and none of the 3 in question were quite that 

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by fr_ap

We have the earliest pick in the draft of this year's finalists and apart from GWS, we have two before the rest.

None of the other finalists have added anyone of major significance, outside ironically of Sydney with Grundy. Henry, Schultz, Ratugolea, Doedee, Adams - there's a reasonable chance that McAdam makes an equal impact, apart from Grundy.

We haven't lost any best 23, only depth. As @Slartibartfast says, a third of the best 23 is young and has the scope for significant improvements and we don't have anyone on the brink of their career.

It's reasonable to expect that we get an AFL contribution from a couple of Fullarton, Laurie, Howes, Sestan, Woewodin, D.Turner and AMW and  depending who we select, from picks 6 and 11.

The biggest risks we have are Clarrie and Gus, but we just have to ride the turbulence there.

We weren't far off this year and with some modest luck would have won it. I'm optimistic.

2 hours ago, fr_ap said:

And on the depth - no one is claiming that JJ, Harmes or Dunstan are world beaters. But what they were/are is mostly reliable - senior bodies who could take the heat & adhere to structures, there to fill gaps when our 1st choice players are unavailable, track a player back to goals & get a fist in when a youngster might be ball watching. They won't win the game for you - but they can at least keep the team ticking while your game winners find a way to get it done.

You put kids in their absence - and they lose 3 out of the 5 critical contests that come their way over the game - those moments accumulate across the ground and you find yourself losing games against the best teams. Depth is depth - by definition, they can't be our best players, so claiming "we've lost very little" when it walks out the door is redundant, and lacks an understanding of the nuance & requirements of building a list. 

There are many opportunities to improve, and there is no reason we can't be the big, outperforming grower next year. There is plenty of room for optimism. If pick 6 and 11 turn out 3/4 as well as Jackson and Kozzie did - we'll be well on our way. We aren't far away - that much is obvious - but asking the question of where our improvement is coming from is not pessimism. It's just discussion. 

Here’s my plan on how we get better immediately:

1. Pickett and Rivers go in to the midfield and make us more dynamic

2. McAdam and Howes replace them, with similar output - whilst optimistic it’s not impossible.

3. Growth out of some of Spargo, Chandler, Bowey, McVee, Turner insures we have strong flanks. Again, not expecting world beaters but the competition for spots hopefully sees these guys keep us as a strong side.

4. Petty and JvR is a legit combo and JvR improves his tank and consistency - I’ve never thought JvR was going to be a super star but there’s hidden improvement from physical maturity and experience. Not buying that he won’t get better 

5. Laurie, Woey prove serviceable midfield depth, maybe optimistic but these 2 aren’t skinny kids. Taj might still be a fraction light and Laurie a little slow, but JJ’s main attribute was his tank and that’s what these 2 can bring.

6. One of pick 6/11 hold their own at afl level, giving us both another depth piece and hopefully a star of the future. Ideally 2 depth pieces from day 1 and two stars but got to be realistic! Of course Jackson/Pickett is the dream.

24 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

We will see I suppose - experienced AFL depth is valuable imo - very raw kids can be a total liability and none of the 3 in question were quite that 

Or they can be refreshing assets like Kossie, Bowey, Rivers, McVee and JVR

34 minutes ago, binman said:

I 100% agree on the first point.

I would argue the key reasons we didn't take advantage of our midfield and defensive dominance during big games were:

• our poor field kicking in general, which meant we were matched or beaten on scores from turnover - something thta barely happened all season
• poor final kicks inside 50
• our mids and utilities not scoring enough goals 
• our woeful accuracy from set shots and shots from general play

As for the second point, that is what i'm talking about in terms of all finalists, with the slight exception of the Lions, basically employing the same game plan.

Come the pointy end of the season ALL teams, except the lions against Port, struggled to score from the back half because the game plan involved territory and trapping in the front half as much as possible.

In our QF against the Pies and semi against the Blues we were actually better at transitioning and scoring from the back half - and on turnover too.

The problem was we were scoring point not goals.

The Pies and Blues were more accurate (an old fashioned word for the stupidest and most misleading word in footy - efficiency) and took their chances. And as a result both won.

Your points above are spot on, what I was getting at the other day, if we continue the chaos football in the F50 next year, we needed to target some forwards who can jump and clunk marks, with our forward delivery in finals, it was too long and high (Moore had a day out), I would love to address our forward entries to fix our “forward line issues”.  My frustration is we never get an easy goal out the back, the majority of our shots are from an angle, we never short kick on a 45 degree out of the forward long to move to the defence. We would work so hard and burn so much energy to kick a single goal (or 5 behinds).  It would be next to target forward who suit our game style (fingers crossed the 2 newbies are just that)

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by BrisbaneDemon

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

I 100% agree on the first point.

I would argue the key reasons we didn't take advantage of our midfield and defensive dominance during big games were:

• our poor field kicking in general, which meant we were matched or beaten on scores from turnover - something that barely happened all season
• poor final kicks inside 50
• our mids and utilities not scoring enough goals 
• our woeful accuracy from set shots and shots from general play

As for the second point, that is what I'm talking about in terms of all finalists, with the slight exception of the Lions, basically employing the same game plan.

Come the pointy end of the season ALL teams, except the lions against Port, struggled to score from the back half because the game plan involved territory and trapping in the front half as much as possible.

In our QF against the Pies and semi against the Blues we were actually better at transitioning and scoring from the back half - and on turnover too.

The problem was we were scoring points not goals.

The Pies and Blues were more accurate (an old fashioned word for the stupidest and most misleading word in footy - efficiency) and took their chances. And as a result both won.

 

Yes, you can so easily identify what other teams were able to do during finals, (ie, copy our game plan lol) and also point out that we lost those games due to poor field kicking, poor kicking inside 50 and inaccuracy in front of goal.. (something that has killed us for years in games that we 'should have' won)

But.

You refuse to list what Goodwin should be doing about that from a list point of view? Or do you not think it's an inherent problem due to the personnel we play in certain positions? 

Why do you think this trend of poor kicking both in general play, going inside 50 and then shots on goal in general play exists mainly, if it's not personnel? 

2 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

Didn’t LJ request a trade to Freeo, not WA/WC? 

Nothing gets past you @Demonsterative!

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Here’s my plan on how we get better immediately:

1. Pickett and Rivers go in to the midfield and make us more dynamic

2. McAdam and Howes replace them, with similar output - whilst optimistic it’s not impossible.

3. Growth out of some of Spargo, Chandler, Bowey, McVee, Turner insures we have strong flanks. Again, not expecting world beaters but the competition for spots hopefully sees these guys keep us as a strong side.

4. Petty and JvR is a legit combo and JvR improves his tank and consistency - I’ve never thought JvR was going to be a super star but there’s hidden improvement from physical maturity and experience. Not buying that he won’t get better 

5. Laurie, Woey prove serviceable midfield depth, maybe optimistic but these 2 aren’t skinny kids. Taj might still be a fraction light and Laurie a little slow, but JJ’s main attribute was his tank and that’s what these 2 can bring.

6. One of pick 6/11 hold their own at afl level, giving us both another depth piece and hopefully a star of the future. Ideally 2 depth pieces from day 1 and two stars but got to be realistic! Of course Jackson/Pickett is the dream.

Have to disagree on Kossie he is not a midfielder nor will he ever be one it's fine for short bursts but he does not have the Tank to do it all day he's made for a speed type impact player, don't you think Goodwin would have done it last year if was a midfielder type.

Try McVee into the midfield as we are one paced in there, Turner to the back flank.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Here’s my plan on how we get better immediately:

1. Pickett and Rivers go in to the midfield and make us more dynamic

2. McAdam and Howes replace them, with similar output - whilst optimistic it’s not impossible.

3. Growth out of some of Spargo, Chandler, Bowey, McVee, Turner insures we have strong flanks. Again, not expecting world beaters but the competition for spots hopefully sees these guys keep us as a strong side.

4. Petty and JvR is a legit combo and JvR improves his tank and consistency - I’ve never thought JvR was going to be a super star but there’s hidden improvement from physical maturity and experience. Not buying that he won’t get better 

5. Laurie, Woey prove serviceable midfield depth, maybe optimistic but these 2 aren’t skinny kids. Taj might still be a fraction light and Laurie a little slow, but JJ’s main attribute was his tank and that’s what these 2 can bring.

6. One of pick 6/11 hold their own at afl level, giving us both another depth piece and hopefully a star of the future. Ideally 2 depth pieces from day 1 and two stars but got to be realistic! Of course Jackson/Pickett is the dream.

Rivers and Howes are totally different players - if you think Howes is capable of what Rivers can deliver I simply don't see that at all.

Rivers is a strong unit and has become a very good intercept mark. Howes is a wide receiver, good disposal and generally good decision maker but not much beyond that atm. 

 

1 hour ago, JimmyGadson said:

 

Yes, you can so easily identify what other teams were able to do during finals, (ie, copy our game plan lol) and also point out that we lost those games due to poor field kicking, poor kicking inside 50 and inaccuracy in front of goal.. (something that has killed us for years in games that we 'should have' won)

But.

You refuse to list what Goodwin should be doing about that from a list point of view? Or do you not think it's an inherent problem due to the personnel we play in certain positions? 

Why do you think this trend of poor kicking both in general play, going inside 50 and then shots on goal in general play exists mainly, if it's not personnel? 

He has said before that the answer is find some elite kicks through the middle of the ground. 

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

EABFD.