Tim Lamb

[KozzyCan 764]

22 hours ago, bing181 said:

Lots of Hindsight Harry's on here.

People also forget Lamb's role in trading picks to get us the likes of Jackson and Pickett, or more recently Tholstrup (early days, but early signs are OK).

Not to mention his role in actually Managing The List, which is after all his job title - every player we needed to re-sign has, including some on big contracts. 

Jury's out on Tholstrup but it's likely he would have been available had we not traded up the draft. It was clearly an attempt to get pick 1 off West Coast that didn't work.

The criticism of Lamb is pretty fair imo. Firstly, when you look at who we have traded in since the flag, none of those guys are getting a regular game while others aren't even at the club. This gives me a sense that there is a bit of a disconnect between Lamb and Goodwin. He also hasn't been able to get the bigger fish over the line.

We've also lost quality players like Jackson, Bedford and Jordon, although some blame has to be placed on Goodwin for the latter two since he didn't give them regular game time. The long lucrative contracts we've given out under Lamb have proved to be problematic. Brayshaw on 6 years is going to hurt us, Oliver's contract seems crazy to me given we were aware of his personal issues before we signed him to that. More recently we've got Viney and Gawn being signed up until their mid 30s which, while they are champions, could leave us with players who are no longer up to it while they still have a couple of years to go.

If we have to look back at 2019 to find a win for Lamb then that's a long while between drinks.

[BoBo 2,941]

40 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

ben brown in 2021 was integral to our premiership

Oh I agree, I had it in my head he came to us the same year as Langdon so I stand corrected 

[bing181 9,193]

6 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Jury's out on Tholstrup but it's likely he would have been available had we not traded up the draft.

Or not.

[demoniac 1,330]

I don't think Graham Wright would have an interest in being a lowly List Manager.

[I'va Worn Smith 971]

16 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Jury's out on Tholstrup but it's likely he would have been available had we not traded up the draft. It was clearly an attempt to get pick 1 off West Coast that didn't work.

The kid will be a gun.  He has a bit of footy smarts and mongrel about him.  With a full pre-season under his belt and a bit more weight, he could be another Gus.  Let's hope so.

[KozzyCan 764]

10 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Or not.

What are you taking issue with?

Look at the draft rankings from last year. Most had Tholstrup in the late teens to 20s.

[KozzyCan 764]

3 minutes ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

The kid will be a gun.  He has a bit of footy smarts and mongrel about him.  With a full pre-season under his belt and a bit more weight, he could be another Gus.  Let's hope so.

I like his energy but so far he's lacked a bit of composure in the heat of the seniors.

Not writing him off by any stretch but I don't buy that trading up to get him was some great coup. Darcy Wilson was taken with the pick we traded and has looked better early doors.

Trading up the draft was clearly us taking a punt on getting pick 1 out of West Coast as we made our offer to them as soon as the previous trade was done.

[Roger Mellie 3,975]

I can see what the club was trying to do. The players they drafted in with token picks weren't supposed to be world-beaters. They were going through the scraps for depth cover. I think the club was hopeful of providing the right environment for these players to bring out their best as we have seen many times with a change of scene. But ultimately they were just brought in to provide a bit of cheap depth. I think Schache, for example, was given another year because Jeffo and Adams weren't progressing and BB was on one leg. Fullarton was supposed to fill the gaping ruck hole. I don't necessarily agree with it but understand the need for depth cover with limited resources.

It all backfired though with the loss of Brayshaw, Smith and a big question mark over Oliver before the season even started. We no longer had any midfield depth with Billings and Fullarton the only bargain basement additions. Then we started getting injuries. Meanwhile, Goodwin's already put a line through Schache after 1 game, then Fullarton, later in the year. I don't like it but I can see why the club has to bring in cheap depth - we're just not very good at it!

What I didn't realise is Hunter has another year although it wouldn't surprise me if he is offered early retirement. I also don't understand the length of some of these contracts taking players into their mid-thirties. We could easily get tripped up by that in two or three years.

[bing181 9,193]

 “We are really pleased to offer Jake another contract and extend his time in the red and blue,” Demons’ List Manager Tim Lamb said.

Melbourne's list manager managing the list.

[Its Time for Another 4,193]

I think it's fair to say looking at the comments on this thread that most people are absolutely clueless on what a List Manager does.  He is not a recruiter. He doesn't spend his time scouting junior talent and talent at other clubs. He has to make an ongoing assessment of where the list is in relation to the Premiership window which is probably the single most important judgement he has to make. On the basis of that assessment you decide whether to draft or trade. He has to work out the demographics of the list.  He has to manage the salary cap. He has to sit down withe football department to work out under their guidance what players are required in what positions and then finding them is handed over the the recruiters.

Yes there have been a series of dud trades in the past couple of years. He doesn't pick the players the recruiters do. He picks what type of players are needed and everyone of the players picked in the last few years have been for very specific list purposes. They would have been best available and with the limited cap space we would have had at the time.  To blame Tim Lamb for those choices is plain wrong. 

There's a lot of hindsight calls going on about players who left. Bedford was given 6 games in his last year. He was good for the first two and horrendous for the rest. Swatted off the ball like a mosquito. Chandler was way ahead of him at that stage. I've watched a couple of his games at GWS he's been just ok. His speed is a huge asset but his decision making and football IQ are not high. Jordan wasn't given games because he was very ordinary last year and there were players ahead of him. Bit rich to blame Lamb or Goodwin for that. 

I'm obviously seriously in the minority here but I think Lamb's done an excellent list management job. He has kept turning over the list and going to the draft and getting young talent every year. We're not going to drop off a cliff like a few teams like Hawks, Eagles, Pies are heading for a massive one. The list management is in step with the Club's strategic plan to remain competitive long term. There are a lot of reasons why that didn't happen this year. Mainly injuries but to call for the list manager to go because of this year is misplaced.

Edited September 17 by Its Time for Another

[Cranky Franky 2,031]

16 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

I think it's fair to say looking at the comments on this thread that most people are absolutely clueless on what a List Manager does.  He is not a recruiter. He doesn't spend his time scouting junior talent and talent at other clubs. He has to make an ongoing assessment of where the list is in relation to the Premiership window which is probably the single most important judgement he has to make. On the basis of that assessment you decide whether to draft or trade. He has to work out the demographics of the list.  He has to manage the salary cap. He has to sit down withe football department to work out under their guidance what players are required in what positions and then finding them is handed over the the recruiters.

Yes there have been a series of dud trades in the past couple of years. He doesn't pick the players the recruiters do. He picks what type of players are needed and everyone of the players picked in the last few years have been for very specific list purposes. They would have been best available and with the limited cap space we would have had at the time.  To blame Tim Lamb for those choices is plain wrong. 

There's a lot of hindsight calls going on about players who left. Bedford was given 6 games in his last year. He was good for the first two and horrendous for the rest. Swatted off the ball like a mosquito. Chandler was way ahead of him at that stage. I've watched a couple of his games at GWS he's been just ok. His speed is a huge asset but his decision making and football IQ are not high. Jordan wasn't given games because he was very ordinary last year and there were players ahead of him. Bit rich to blame Lamb or Goodwin for that. 

I'm obviously seriously in the minority here but I think Lamb's done an excellent list management job. He has kept turning over the list and going to the draft and getting young talent every year. We're not going to drop off a cliff like a few teams like Hawks, Eagles, Pies are heading for a massive one. The list management is in step with the Club's 

7 hours ago, Monbon said:

Pot calls Kettle Black: so it isn't hindsight that calls Hawthorn and Geelong clever trading? 

Cranky, I've hardly ever agreed with you, and pwobabwy never will. 

So according to your hindsight theory Neeld was a great coach but shouldn't be judged on results because the "in hindsight" rule applies & no one could have done better.

[Cranky Franky 2,031]

19 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

I think it's fair to say looking at the comments on this thread that most people are absolutely clueless on what a List Manager does.  He is not a recruiter. He doesn't spend his time scouting junior talent and talent at other clubs. 

Think you are obfuscating. Our drafting has been great, our trading putrid.

Spend 5 minutes reviewing Hawthorn & Geelong's recent trading compared to ours & you will feel sick.

Whoever is responsible for the trading decisions of the last 3 years whether that's the list manager or not should be sacked.

[DeeSpencer 25,465]

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

What are you taking issue with?

Look at the draft rankings from last year. Most had Tholstrup in the late teens to 20s.

Kolt was linked to Sydney and St Kilda who we traded ahead of. Draft rankings are utterly meaningless.

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

rading up the draft was clearly us taking a punt on getting pick 1 out of West Coast as we made our offer to them as soon as the previous trade was done.

What? As if we didn’t offer absolutely everything to the eagles at multiple stages of the trade period.

If anything they would’ve preferred the lower pick and extra late picks. 

If there is a conspiracy with the Kolt trade up it is that we wanted to trade it up yet again to get Caddy or O’Sullivan.

[BAMF 4,299]

3 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Hunter on the non Langdon wing for round 0?

Put a fork in him. He's done.

He couldn't even improve Casey this year.

[rpfc 28,262]

These long contracts are either a master stroke or a bane of flexibility and opportunity. I was a fan but now I am not so sure I would go past 5 years for stars of the game…

Other than that, I wish we were better at finding players from other clubs. This ‘pro-scouting’ was a strength when we got Lever and May and Melksham and Hibberd. But now we are not getting those players, and one could argue it played a part in a unsuccessful last 3 years.

[Its Time for Another 4,193]

22 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Think you are obfuscating. Our drafting has been great, our trading putrid.

Spend 5 minutes reviewing Hawthorn & Geelong's recent trading compared to ours & you will feel sick.

Whoever is responsible for the trading decisions of the last 3 years whether that's the list manager or not should be sacked.

Mate put up or shut up. Go through the positions that had to be filled in the past 3 years and show me the players we could have got that we didn't. That means the players that would have come to us that we missed. Players who didn't prefer the advantages Geelong has over every other club in terms of cheap cost of living, it means the money in the salary cap that could be thrown at players at a young list like Hawthorn. That means ruckmen who knew they'd be playing a Casey instead of Gawn in the firsts. 

Take your five minutes and show them and don't mention any we couldn't get or wouldn't get. 

[BAMF 4,299]

3 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Rubbish. Hawthorn have been on the bottom for a while. It's drafting that has put them up there. Geelong picked up Cameron that's it if not for him they would be near the bottom.

Geelong has raided Gold Coast over the last 4 years due to salary cap constraints. They have absolutely cleaned up.

They gave up a fair bit for Cameron but have made it all back due to Gold Coasts bad list management and trades.

Edited September 17 by BAMF

[KozzyCan 764]

36 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Kolt was linked to Sydney and St Kilda who we traded ahead of. Draft rankings are utterly meaningless.

What? As if we didn’t offer absolutely everything to the eagles at multiple stages of the trade period.

If anything they would’ve preferred the lower pick and extra late picks. 

If there is a conspiracy with the Kolt trade up it is that we wanted to trade it up yet again to get Caddy or O’Sullivan.

That's the first I'm hearing about the Sydney and StKilda links. Regardless, time will tell if he was worth trading up for.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. We offered Eagles the lower picks as you said, they knocked us back, we traded up and offered them that hand and they knocked us back again. We were clearly trying to come up with a deal they would accept. It was our ideal scenario.

There's no conspiracy it's literally the events of what happened.

[Monbon 1,840]

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

So according to your hindsight theory Neeld was a great coach but shouldn't be judged on results because the "in hindsight" rule applies & no one could have done better.

What has this to do with Neeld?????????????

[DeeSpencer 25,465]

26 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

That's the first I'm hearing about the Sydney and StKilda links. Regardless, time will tell if he was worth trading up for.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. We offered Eagles the lower picks as you said, they knocked us back, we traded up and offered them that hand and they knocked us back again. We were clearly trying to come up with a deal they would accept. It was our ideal scenario.

There's no conspiracy it's literally the events of what happened.

If the Demons don’t take him at Pick 11, Sydney or St Kilda is expected to pounce on the West Australian

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/draft/afl-draft-2023-koltyn-tholstrup-feature-interview-350-sunglasses-clubs-interested-western-australia-prospect-latest-news/news-story/c4eecd9b9487096258a27b382c3a31db

 

The reporting on any offers to West Coast was surely only part of what would’ve been sustained offers before and after trade period. 

It’s illogical to think we could convince the eagles on the back of a slight trade up in the middle of the first round. It’s the same offer just packaged differently.
 

[KozzyCan 764]

Just now, DeeSpencer said:

If the Demons don’t take him at Pick 11, Sydney or St Kilda is expected to pounce on the West Australian

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/draft/afl-draft-2023-koltyn-tholstrup-feature-interview-350-sunglasses-clubs-interested-western-australia-prospect-latest-news/news-story/c4eecd9b9487096258a27b382c3a31db

 

The reporting on any offers to West Coast was surely only part of what would’ve been sustained offers before and after trade period. 

It’s illogical to think we could convince the eagles on the back of a slight trade up in the middle of the first round. It’s the same offer just packaged differently.
 

Fair enough on the Swans/Saints link.

I don't understand your second point at all. If we didn't think we could convince the Eagles with that deal then why did we bother offering them that at all, especially if they preferred our first offer as you said. Bit of mental gymnastics for mine.

[Cranky Franky 2,031]

42 minutes ago, Monbon said:

What has this to do with Neeld?????????????

Just using your list manager "hindsight" excuse which you, apparently don't understand.

[layzie 33,752]

Quite a lot of threads proclaiming that it's time to go for someone with no power to do so.

[Cranky Franky 2,031]

4 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Mate put up or shut up. Go through the positions that had to be filled in the past 3 years and show me the players we could have got that we didn't. That means the players that would have come to us that we missed. Players who didn't prefer the advantages Geelong has over every other club in terms of cheap cost of living, it means the money in the salary cap that could be thrown at players at a young list like Hawthorn. That means ruckmen who knew they'd be playing a Casey instead of Gawn in the firsts. 

Take your five minutes and show them and don't mention any we couldn't get or wouldn't get. 

Geelong traded in Henry, Bowes, Stengle, Bruhn (not to mention Humphrey's & Mannagh both picked up for zilch)

Hawks traded in Meek, Ginnivan, Amon, Dambrosio

Dees traded in Dunstan, Schache, Hunter, Billings Fullarton McAdam

Spot the odd one out.

 

[bing181 9,193]

10 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

I'm obviously seriously in the minority here but I think Lamb's done an excellent list management job.

Agree, though we need to take many/most of the comments here in the context of your opening sentence.