Dogs Make List Changes

[azabob]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

Didn't we enter the season one short on the main list anyway?

He didn't cost us a draft pick.

[GVGjr]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

Probably because it wasn't a mistake. They had a plan on how they wanted to use him but as other younger players came on a lot quicker than expected.
Pro-active list management I would have thought.

[Sedat]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 5 years of Mulligan, or 3 years of Panos, or 4 years of Hooper, or 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

[bornadog]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 5 years of Mulligan, or 3 years of Panos, or 4 years of Hooper, or 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

As I said earlier I commend the club for making the decision to delist. This is the value of a list manager.

[Mofra]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 5 years of Mulligan, or 3 years of Panos, or 4 years of Hooper, or 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

Bingo - I see it as Lower being picked for what would have been anticipated as a 2 year role, Wallis' rise made him redundant after one - and even then it would have been a relatively close call.

GWS took McDonald, Brogan and Cornes - were they wasted picks too?

[LostDoggy]

Only if you don't value draft picks and spots on the list can you say he cost us nothing.
It was low risk and therefore low return.
Why can't it be admitted it was a mistake?

We're going in circles here, but I do want to throw the question back at you: Why does it have to be viewed as a mistake? Why are you so keen to highlight the folly of the decision with the benefit of hindsight, without looking at the decision in the context of the period it was made and the perceived state of the club at that time?

If it was a mistake (and I don't believe it was) it was the right mistake to make.

[Happy Days]

I'd rather 1 year of Lower on the list than 4 years of Moles...you get the picture.

Moles was worthwhile if for nothing else but introducing the world to his fantastic twitter account.

[Greystache]

Moles was worthwhile if for nothing else but introducing the world to his fantastic twitter account.

He also made everyone's favourite whipping boy in Nathan Eagleton look like a courageous inside ball winner by comparison too.

[1eyedog]

Bingo - I see it as Lower being picked for what would have been anticipated as a 2 year role, Wallis' rise made him redundant after one - and even then it would have been a relatively close call.

GWS took McDonald, Brogan and Cornes - were they wasted picks too?

With a whole team of kids? Of course not! We were not in the same position as GWS in terms of the number of kids vs the number of experienced personnel we had at the club.

[LostDoggy]

If you see the team as constantly in development / improvement phase, then it stands to reason that you will get players who improve faster than others and who are superseded by others. As players are developed and screened against the best opposition, we see their weaknesses and whether they can learn and overcome them. Video sessions with the coach.......competition with their team mates. It's natural progression. It's hitting the ceiling for some; it's exponential growth for others.

In such a world it is entirely feasible that we trade in players who are excellent choices at the time, but who are replaced by others whose trajectory is much greater. It is not a mistake - but what it shows is that we are improving such that players who used to get a game no longer can.

Take Tory Dickson for example. I am a fan of his because I think he does a lot of unrecognised work. I think he has been great for the team, given the injury he suffered. But if I was honest with myself, I'd have to say that, unless he makes further progress and works on his weaknesses, I would not expect him to be in a grand final team. I would have thought other players - either by being traded in or through natural growth - would have taken his place.

At the start of the journey we therefore need players like Lower who provide that competition. If we weren't improving he would still be getting a game.

It's how I see us getting to be a premiership side. The gradual but continuous lifting of the bar making it harder and harder to get a game.

[LostDoggy]

With a whole team of kids? Of course not! We were not in the same position as GWS in terms of the number of kids vs the number of experienced personnel we had at the club.

You sure about that?

[bornadog]

[1eyedog]

You sure about that?

GWS;

200+ games - Chad Cornes (Did Chad even play this year?) Include McDonald if you want.
150-200 games - Bret Thornton (only played 1 game), Dean Bogan
100-150 games- Gilham
=4 (2 of which played 1 game or less)

Bulldogs;

200+ games Gia, Boyd, Cross, Murphy
150-200 games- Cooney, Griffen, Minson and Morris
100-150 games - Picken, Higgins.
=10 (8 of which have played over 150 games).

Yeah, pretty sure.

[Mofra]

With a whole team of kids? Of course not! We were not in the same position as GWS in terms of the number of kids vs the number of experienced personnel we had at the club.

We were not too dissimilar, and we got 13 games out of a guy who didn't cost us a draft pick and constantly flew the flag for the younger kids on the paddock.

I'd take 12 months of Lower over the majority of our late round draft picks - heck, I'd take 12 months of Lower over most of Clayton's first rounders!

[A Ford]

Clayton's first rounders were once rated. Lower never was.