Adam The God

I didn't know this. That's actually huge and something we can hang our hat on. Where did you read this?

How do you figure that? If we want him gone, maybe, but he has a large contract with us. We hold the power.

I hope we see Adams in the next 8 weeks. With injury comes opportunity for others.

Unlike Dangerfield, Langford is a beautiful kick. Pros and cons.

No, you need balance in your midfield. The guys that can win it in the contest (Langford) and the guys who burst from the contest (Windsor).

Go on...

Agree. Fortunately, we would still have 10 or so premiership players on the list even if we trade out those aforementioned players. And we're, I'd argue, 2-3 years into a list reset already having got 4 very good young players into the club. We're not starting from ground zero (ala 2012-2013).

Sure, but the majority of very good players come from that top 20, so IMV our strategy is still better than quantity over quality. Of course, we could be more aggressive in our trading too. End of this year we could trade out Clarry/Trac, Kozzy and Fritta and give ourselves 5-6 first round picks. I don't advocate it necessarily, but there's only so much you can do with your recruiting and the picks you have at your disposal.

Longmire is done. He'd be a good head of footy though.

If that happens, it's quite ironic that our current situation may look a little different if we'd just traded Clarry at the end of 2023 when he allegedly put his team mates offside.

ie most coaches don't survive long, neither do recent Liberal leaders...

🤣 This completely disregards the salary cap.

Spot on mate.

Indeed. We also need our senior players to do what the Hawthorn senior players did (Roughead, Lewis, Hodge and even Mitchell) at the back ends of their careers and play selfless roles. I get that Trac and Clarry should be in their prime, but they're best used as very good role players. Think Sidebottom and Pendlebury in 2023. Viney needs to play forward, Trac needs to play more forward than mid, and Oliver needs to play a more defensive role at stoppages, because the opposition play through his man. In 2023, Clarry's game went to another level because he added that intercept possession strength to his game. That needs to return. Less complaining and more just playing your role to a high standard. I'd have had Lewis back at the club before Jones, but what's done is done.

That's very telling, isn't it? Too many guys that don't do the team things. We were absolutely doing these things across 2021-2023. Last year it started to fade, and you have to wonder if those bridges with Trac, Oliver and the rest of the playing group are irreparably damaged.

No problem with Langford's pace. If he had pace, he'd have gone pick 1, but his ball use and decision making makes up for the lack of pace. We do want pace and power around him though. Lindsay (pace), Windsor (pace) and Kolt (power).

To me it looks like we've reverted from the short uncontested possession game at the back that served us well in Round 1, and we've returned to a long down the line game. Have the coaches lost their nerve already and are they playing to limit damage rather than practice and hone the new method?

It'd be a very Carlton thing to go and get a messiah in Longmire. He's finished.

That said, it might be easier for a new pair of eyes to trade out one or two guys, get some picks to go with our last four 1st rounders. We'll still have a number of veterans who can play roles as the likes of Pendlebury and Sidebottom did for Collingwood in 2022 and 2023. I also agree with @Lucifers Hero (it was you, right?) that we need a ball movement coach and a strategy coach. They could be one and the same, but I don't understand what role Nathan Jones is actually playing aside from apparent peacemaker.

He's saying we managed to create turnovers, but then failed to execute...

Not that it matters, but Bowey would be winning our BnF at this point. Has been solid in every game. Made a couple of errors, but at least he attacks and generally uses it well.

Why didn't we play the same game? We've played the uncontested possession game at times this year and it's paid off. I suspect we thought, oh we've got Max and Blicavs is out, so let's just go long to him up the line. If that's the case, Geelong conned us into that. Going long to Max is not a sustainable or winning formula. This is the only takeaway that gives me some hope. As I said in my post, our structure behind the ball and pressure is generating enough turnover chances, but our entries are still horrible. I lost count of how many times, we would kick to a nest of 2 or 3 Cats when we had 2 or 3 free by themselves. That's interesting. I couldn't see it tonight.

Very few positives we can take from that performance. We never looked like taking the lead again after kicking that first goal. However, it showed that our structure behind the ball mixed with enough pressure, creates more than enough opportunities to kick a winning score, but I'm pretty sure we kicked 2.5 from turnover for the game. We turn it over ourselves immediately when it's time to score back the other way. That 17 points is VFL level stuff and why we're rooted to the bottom of the table. And it starts with our ball movement, which is truly woeful. It doesn't help that we have an inability to hit basic kicks (sometimes under little / perhaps perceived pressure), and I think the worst sign is we have/had an insistence on going long to contests. Even when it is to 1v1 or a 3v3. Why have we moved away from trying to maintain possession at the back with short passes? It worked a treat for Geelong tonight, and it worked a treat for us in Round 1, and in the small patches across Rounds 2 and 3. It seemed a clear instruction to simply go long to the contest down the line. Sure, we had more effort (this basic non negotiation shouldn't even require mentioning), but we had no identifiable brand tonight IMO. And that's what we have to look for. I think what we want to see probably happens in stages. First, we want to be able to make the right decisions and hit the right kicks on turnover that lead to scores. Second, as we get better at that, we need to start to take more risks to move the ball faster. But we don't seem to be even attempting the first stage. It ended up looking like a hodgepodge of nothingness. I'd say Bowey, McDonald and Salem were our best. Trac, a special mention. JVR needs to play in front and if he is found caught behind, take the body. Clarry needs to do more with 30 possessions now, he's no longer a 23-24 year old mid. 4 score involvements is not enough, particularly when he gets burnt in defensive transition. We need to play Viney forward or in the VFL, we can't have our VC getting it 15 times for 7 turnovers. I'm really at a loss after this one...

It's telling Oliver has been dropped to the bench. I know it means little in the actual game starting on the bench, but that is definitely symbolic.

I think there's a balance though. We still have enough high quality senior players, 10 that I named, that if 1 or 2 or even 3 went, I don't think we'd be cutting the list too deep. Whereas, we certainly cut too deep in the Junior McDonald days, North cut too deep too and I believe Hawthorn may have cut a little deep. Richmond cut super deep, because they obviously saw a strong draft cohort in 2024, Tassie on the horizon and an ability to maximise return on some of their middle aged to older players (Bolton, Rioli etc). Richmond still have the midfield bulls in Hopper and Taranto to carry their midfield while their younger guys grow though. The thing I think you have to be careful with is cutting too deep in the midfield. Most young mids need that protection of a lot of experienced bodies around them. I wouldn't advocate trading both Clarry and Trac, because I think Langford and co need more protection than just Viney. But I think we could trade one and not upset our mix.