-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
hujsh
Would it be the bloke who signed on for 2 years recently?
At a guess perhaps not.
Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
mjp
Ummm...WHO?
Hunter
Western Bulldogs: 2016 Premiers
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
Mofra
I'm a massive fan of Bevo - he's coached 50% of our GF appearances and 33% of our finals wins since 1925 - but I am starting to worry he can't bring back that "something" we had in the group.
I really think he needs to embrace the 'professional' footy-head types (and that means retaining Dunkley) and consider moving on the guys who like the lifestyle as much as their footy (and there is one name in particular I have in mind).
If that means a late increased offer to Dunkley and taking unders at the trade table for "good" players we are shopping around - so be it.
Nah. Even Chris Scott reckons you can't have a team full of straighty 180s. I agree. Embrace individuals and what they bring to the table. Set up the right space for them to succeed individually and collectively.
This season has been a real shame... but we WERE in a GF last year. I'm not sure what's gone wrong but I don't think we need to fully revisit our list or coach.
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
I think adding players is the answer. Our momentum swings are based around the energy levels of our mids because under our game plan, they have to work incredibly hard or it falls over, because of what we are lacking - rucks, taggers, KPD's, lockdown defenders, intercept markers, small forwards
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Don't stress MJP, nobody wants to add players anymore.
There's literally no players we seem to be connected with or who might be available that anyone wants.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
I've been watching this thread for a few days and I don't have anything to add except to say this is a really good way to come at the problem - when watching other teams get in 'big names', instant and obvious improvement is rarely the result and there is often a period of adjustment.
I'd like to think improvement would come from adjusting system before players.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
Boots
I've been watching this thread for a few days and I don't have anything to add except to say this is a really good way to come at the problem - when watching other teams get in 'big names', instant and obvious improvement is rarely the result and there is often a period of adjustment.
I'd like to think improvement would come from adjusting system before players.
I absolutely believe it to be system related and it may be as simple as having everybody onboard to make the system work.
What I do know is that to keep doing what we are doing hoping for a different result is not the answer. That is just insanity.
Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Looks like they have approached Leon Cameron which is a good sign
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
Boots
I'd like to think improvement would come from adjusting system before players.
I have no doubt it is 'both'. But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).
1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.
2/. They seem to be drafting players with 'something' unique. I'm talking early picks here. Recent selections Holmes and Neale have both been selected well ahead of predictions...I guess to me it means they KNOW what they want and are going to get it.
I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I just feel we are the home of stray dogs and reclamation projects.
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
- Martin gets passed by Oscar Mc - don't worry, we'll take him.
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
- Jones hasn't played for 18 months and is 30 - we'll give him 3 years.
- We have Jamarra, Naughton and Bruce but you know what we need? ANOTHER tall forward - so we'll go get Lobb on reasonable coin for (I'm hearing) 4 seasons...
- We have Bont, Macrae, Dunks, Hunter, Liber, B. Smith...and Treloar is on the nose at Collingwood. We'll do it - worry about how it all fits together later...(I was reluctant to include this one as I acknowledge he is a genuine 'best of breed' type player but I still feel it represents my point).
I don't get it.
I've been told that you're never finished as a footballer until you've been recruited to play Full Forward for Footscray. I think we could amend that to be 'full forward, or ruck, or 3rd tall, or 3rd tall defender, or...'.
If we want to get someone, let's target players with a good proportion of their prime ahead of them. And let's target players who FIT what we want to do. But I guess to do that you would have to KNOW what you want to do and, well...
What should I tell her? She's going to ask.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 5 Likes
GVGjr thanked for this post
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Great post again MJP. I guess the question also remains, why isn’t the dogs a team that these A graders want to go to? Or are we just too reluctant to go after a Cameron or Dangerfield type.?
I agree, it seems like we go after the ones no one else either wants or are willing to give big contracts too.
We are known as the team of list cloggers and semi retired.
I will never see #16 the same!!
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
mjp
I have no doubt it is 'both'. But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).
1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.
2/. They seem to be drafting players with 'something' unique. I'm talking early picks here. Recent selections Holmes and Neale have both been selected well ahead of predictions...I guess to me it means they KNOW what they want and are going to get it.
I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I just feel we are the home of stray dogs and reclamation projects.
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
- Martin gets passed by Oscar Mc - don't worry, we'll take him.
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
- Jones hasn't played for 18 months and is 30 - we'll give him 3 years.
- We have Jamarra, Naughton and Bruce but you know what we need? ANOTHER tall forward - so we'll go get Lobb on reasonable coin for (I'm hearing) 4 seasons...
- We have Bont, Macrae, Dunks, Hunter, Liber, B. Smith...and Treloar is on the nose at Collingwood. We'll do it - worry about how it all fits together later...(I was reluctant to include this one as I acknowledge he is a genuine 'best of breed' type player but I still feel it represents my point).
I don't get it.
I've been told that you're never finished as a footballer until you've been recruited to play Full Forward for Footscray. I think we could amend that to be 'full forward, or ruck, or 3rd tall, or 3rd tall defender, or...'.
If we want to get someone, let's target players with a good proportion of their prime ahead of them. And let's target players who FIT what we want to do. But I guess to do that you would have to KNOW what you want to do and, well...
Have Geelong not been somewhat guilty of doing something similar with the likes of Jenkins and Crameri in the past?
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
mjp
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
I think you have been harsh on Bruce since we traded in him.
2020 wasn't a great year, but last year he was close to winning the Coleman if it wasn't for the ACL. I will take that any day.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
mjp
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
I know it doesn't change your point but it's 2 YEARS! This is going to send me to an early grave.
He will be 29 when his contract runs out at the end of next season.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
mjp
I have no doubt it is 'both'. But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).
1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.
2/. They seem to be drafting players with 'something' unique. I'm talking early picks here. Recent selections Holmes and Neale have both been selected well ahead of predictions...I guess to me it means they KNOW what they want and are going to get it.
I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I just feel we are the home of stray dogs and reclamation projects.
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
- Martin gets passed by Oscar Mc - don't worry, we'll take him.
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
- Jones hasn't played for 18 months and is 30 - we'll give him 3 years.
- We have Jamarra, Naughton and Bruce but you know what we need? ANOTHER tall forward - so we'll go get Lobb on reasonable coin for (I'm hearing) 4 seasons...
- We have Bont, Macrae, Dunks, Hunter, Liber, B. Smith...and Treloar is on the nose at Collingwood. We'll do it - worry about how it all fits together later...(I was reluctant to include this one as I acknowledge he is a genuine 'best of breed' type player but I still feel it represents my point).
I don't get it.
Outstanding post MJP, thanks for sharing. I guess there are just 2 examples in recent years where we have gone hell for leather to acquire what we might refer to as 'top end talent' from other teams and that is Boyd and Treloar and Treloar was very much a discounted acquisition. The rest is as you say filling in for some gaps.
Geelong have gone hard at players they want for a long period of time and it's been that way for a long time. 20 years ago was when they selected Andrew Mackie. Not sure how accurate this is by my understanding is that we really wanted Mackie but didn't feel like with pick 4 (Walsh) we could risk it and we were also somewhat confident he could be there for pick 17. Cats grabbed him at pick 7 and he ended up playing 280 games. Cats said they knew that and outstanding draft testing camp by Mackie in SA caught the eye of a couple of clubs but in the end they wanted more and were comfortable in using an early pick to get him. It shows a bit of conviction.
In more recent years you have highlighted includes De Koning and they certainly wanted Tim Kelly more than West Coast did.
Years earlier Blicavs ended up being an inspiring out of the box selection.
Definitely some food for thought.
Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"
-
Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I think you have been harsh on Bruce since we traded in him.
2020 wasn't a great year, but last year he was close to winning the Coleman if it wasn't for the ACL. I will take that any day.
Yep - Happy to accept I was (and have been) harsh on him and I think it is a fair criticism of my commentary. Just like everyone I guess I am one-eyed on occasion and I have found Bruce hard to love as a footballer.
I'll try to explain my perspective.
We gave a 4-year deal to a mature player who is NOT an 'A'-grader...how many good years have we got out of him? If the answer is 'half-a-season' then I am sorry but I don't think that is anywhere close to good enough. When we recruited him I just didn't get it - I saw the need for Keath but didn't understand the recruitment of Bruce.
2021? Yep. He was good. I still maintain his two biggest bags were vs Collingwood (5) and North (10) and they occupied spots 17 and 18 on the ladder...again, this is me being harsh (which I acknowledge) and I've obviously read all the jokes about goals not being counted when Josh Bruce kicks them according to some posters etc...I get it and I apologise for being overly critical. What I ultimately want though is my best players to lead the way when we need them MOST, not when we are going to be fine without them...
Back to my OP - recruiting Josh Bruce didn't move the needle in the same way that recruiting Lobb wont move the needle.
What should I tell her? She's going to ask.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 2 Likes