Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden

bing181

Life Member
  • Posts

    7,155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bing181

  1. But perhaps just as much as the last coach and FD would have? Recruiting doesn't happen in a vacuum. Interesting info, and goes to show just where we are when players over 21 are seen as "experienced" in comparison to the current list. Watts, Cook etc. (still) have quite a way to go.
  2. How do you know it was a realistic report, you weren't even there.
  3. Not sure about "later that day", but certainly the Adelaide boards went into meltdown when we announced Neeld.
  4. Absolutely. Misson (amongst others) was signed up in that period. Neeld said at the Bluey that he hadn't even been home since being appointed on that Friday afternoon. It's easy to forget just how complete the overhaul of our FD has been, and underestimate the amount of work involved in doing so. Look at the likes of Bulldogs, Adelaide, St Kilda ... all with new coaches, but none with anything like the changes we've made. And all well and truly underway before the Grand Final.
  5. bing181

    AGM

    How many sleeps was it till the footy starts?
  6. bing181

    AGM

    The recruitment manager doesn't work in isolation. List management and the FD/coach would have a big, I would imagine bigger, say in when we use those picks.
  7. It is. BTW, been surprised to see from training reports how actively Craig is involved in day-to-day training. I thought he was going to be behind the scenes/a desk most of the time, but he's certainly not afraid to get his hands dirty. Great to see.
  8. Yes - but it would hold more value for higher-placed clubs. Though I suspect that that's not where we'd be looking to draft from. Agree with the rest of your post. I haven't seen any convincing arguments for hanging on to the picks. Or to put it another way, we have to participate in the draft, so I'd rather we were taking first-round picks than picks in the thirties and fifties.
  9. If players got the call-up, it's because they earned it - endorsed by the players, the coaching staff, the FD and the board. The idea, for example, that Bartram might be in the group because he's from Ocean Grove beggars belief. As for Clark, Rawlings would know him well from the Lions, so it's not as if he's an unknown. So what if he hasn't played for the club, if he's earned it, good on him. In any case, it's not without precedent that transferred players step into leadership positions. Finally, the selections only confirm for me how little we actually know of the players and the inner workings of the club. We see them from the other side of a fence, for a couple of hours each week. Enough perhaps to form an opinion on their playing capabilities - but not much more than that IMHO.
  10. bing181

    AGM

    I'm just not clear on what people were expecting or wanting? A grilling at the AGM would have served what exactly? Maybe people could have got some things off their chests, but even if there had been a robust question/answer session, the most it would have shown was how good McLardy and co. were at dealing with a robust question/answer session. If there'd been much sitting-on-hands since 186, maybe, but given the momentous and comprehensive changes that have taken place over the last months, you would have to say that the Board and club well and truly got the message. As the CEO put it, 2011 was a wake-up call. BTW, the people criticising Neeld ... I wasn't there, but watched it on Video. There's a problem? He continues to impress me off-field.
  11. Other way round. The mid-round pick is fixed (as above), while our 1st round compo picks floats with our position (one under). If we finish in the 8, the mid-round pick would become our first, which could be handy. And just re the mid-round pick, it's after the 10 clubs who finished outside the 8 have had their picks. If that includes the Crows or Dogs, they also have additional first round compo picks after theirs. This could push our mid-round pick lower if they decide to activate them, and is probably going to push the mid-round pick down to around 13 - the highest it could be would be 11. I can't remember if any other clubs are holding first round compo picks (Geelong?), which could push it even lower. If any of these are traded - as clubs have the right to do - they remain in those positions, irrespective of the position of the club they're traded to. Our first round compo pick will always be one after our first pick, even if we trade it to GWS (for example). Interesting to note perhaps that if we trade that first round compo pick to a team that finishes above us on the ladder, they effectively get an additional and higher pick (and vice versa). Scott Pendlebury anyone? Well, that's how I read it - willing to be corrected!
  12. ... there would still be people saying we should have built a giant wombat.
  13. I'll bite. Firstly, why are we suddenly talking about "top 12 picks" here? The original RobbieF post was about "first round selections". Where, it's very hard to see how there's a "high proportion" of tall skinny kids, when the only two that were cited were Morton and Cook - out of how many ... 8 or so? In the 2009 draft alone we had 3 first round picks, all the "very very good midfielders" that we're supposed to have overlooked. And how did we overlook Hurley? We took Watts, and by our next pick that year, Hurley was well gone. Are you suggesting we should have taken Hurley instead of Watts? In any case, the next pick we took after Watts (or Hurley if you prefer) was Blease, not exactly a "tall skinny kid". Finally, I didn't know that there were regulations on the use of the "Like" button. I'll try to avoid clicking it for "pedestrian" posts from now on.
  14. Where, as been pointed out, there were plenty of mids. You've chosen to take onboard the "facts" that support your argument, while ignoring the "facts" that don't.
  15. The above is a point about the relative merits of various coaching positions and where opposition analyst might fit on that scale. There is no comparison there between BP and Buckley. #tedious
  16. ??? That's all you've got? In your perception, opposition analyst is a step down from head of recruiting, and from that you've jumped to the conclusions that (i) he must have been pushed and (ii) it was because he chose Darling over Cook. If he wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach. As for the rest, surely you're not suggesting that because a subject has a few posters on an internet forum, the professionals in the Football Department are going to be taking note and acting accordingly? Is there any evidence anywhere (except in fertile minds) that anyone in the FD could give two hoots about Darling and whether we drafted him or not? For all you know, Neeld and co. could be over the moon that we have the AA under-18 CHF waiting in the wings as a long-term prospect.
  17. Wild speculation. lf you have any evidence, be great for you to share it with us. The idea that BP is gone because he didn't draft Darling is just absurd.
  18. Great reports guy, thanks again. Just wondering, who wasn't out there at all? Gawn obviously, but (for example) Cook? Are we presuming from the above reports, that we'll have pretty well a full squad available for the first NAB match in a month?
  19. The only thing close to a very big call for us in that draft was going left-field and picking up Howe. Doing what every other club did in passing at least once on Darling wasn't a very big call.
  20. I don't know that it was that much of a consideration, but fair enough. But surely, most other clubs selected midfielders because they thought they were better players.
  21. You keep saying that, but there's no evidence that that's the case either for Melbourne or all the other clubs that also passed. He wasn't the type for any of them? By the standards he'd set the previous two years, Darling had a pretty ordinary 2010, and that's why he dropped down the list.
  22. Nice bit of revisionism there, worth of the aforementioned North Koreans. It was messy all round, and the follow up, especially from Adelaide, was seen as bumbling and amateurish - go type "Neeld" in the search window on some of the Adelaide boards to see what their supporters thought of AFC and their president. 186 was a shattering, traumatic, and yes, chaotic weekend for the club and everyone connected to it. But the seeds for what has happened since were sown in those 48 hours.
  23. Just because you've said it often, doesn't make it any more valid. Do some homework on Darling's 2010 performances, which were less than stellar. FFS, every club, EVERY club passed at least once on him. He hadn't had a great year both on the field and off, and it was widely reported that his 2010 form didn't come up to what people had expected of him after his more dominant performances in 2008 and 2009. It's that that saw him slip down the rankings for all clubs, not helped by the injuries (head and also ankle earlier in the year).
×
×
  • Create New...