Tweet
No need to put up journo's so called expert opinions Essendon 'won trade week' and were given an A+.
So last year they finished 7th. Expecting an aggressive climb up the ladder they threw an entire draft (virtually) on the trade table. If they won it so well, surely they wouldn't have fallen to 11 or 12 at year's end which they will do. So some numbers:
Stringer: 19 games, averging 14.8 disposals, 3.8 marks, 1.6 goals, .8 behinds, 2.6 tackles
Saad: 21 games, averging 17.1 disposals, 2.4 marks, .3 goals, 2.5 tackles, 3.4 R50's
Smith: 21 games, averaging 21.7 disposals, 3.7 marks, .8 goals, .7 behinds, 8,3 tackles, 3.2 Clearnces
These aren't overwhelming numbers, the exception some of parts of Smith stats aside. These are all mature players who've done the development at other clubs and were ready to the full impact of the ability/desire. This ain't good for them. To get this Luke warm injection into their falling down the ladder team, they gave up everything of value from a draft picks perspective not having picks to until 49, 66 & 76. Plus they've given up a second rounder this year to GCS. There's also a future trade this year of GWS 2nd to their 3rd, but because there's not much of a gap potentially, that's not the big or even moderate win they would've hoped for.
Now they have a huge gap in the list, much like we did when we started throwing away lots of picks in early 2000's. This looks every bit as bad Rawlings, Koops, Streeet etc. and how they manage it will be interesting.
To contrast:
GCS will get about pick 29/30 this year. Not a bad result, considering the money offer.
GWS picked up Aiden Bonnar at pick 11. A great result.
Dogs used their two picks (very loosely speaking - 25 & 30 to 25 & 40) to grab Schache. A great result.
I'd love the media to look at their grades again. It might have 'felt' like they 'won', and were worthy of an 'A+'. But their members sense of 'winning' aside, this isn't looking the goods when you look at who they could've picked up last year and this year at the picks. At best this is a solid D-.
So last year they finished 7th. Expecting an aggressive climb up the ladder they threw an entire draft (virtually) on the trade table. If they won it so well, surely they wouldn't have fallen to 11 or 12 at year's end which they will do. So some numbers:
Stringer: 19 games, averging 14.8 disposals, 3.8 marks, 1.6 goals, .8 behinds, 2.6 tackles
Saad: 21 games, averging 17.1 disposals, 2.4 marks, .3 goals, 2.5 tackles, 3.4 R50's
Smith: 21 games, averaging 21.7 disposals, 3.7 marks, .8 goals, .7 behinds, 8,3 tackles, 3.2 Clearnces
These aren't overwhelming numbers, the exception some of parts of Smith stats aside. These are all mature players who've done the development at other clubs and were ready to the full impact of the ability/desire. This ain't good for them. To get this Luke warm injection into their falling down the ladder team, they gave up everything of value from a draft picks perspective not having picks to until 49, 66 & 76. Plus they've given up a second rounder this year to GCS. There's also a future trade this year of GWS 2nd to their 3rd, but because there's not much of a gap potentially, that's not the big or even moderate win they would've hoped for.
Now they have a huge gap in the list, much like we did when we started throwing away lots of picks in early 2000's. This looks every bit as bad Rawlings, Koops, Streeet etc. and how they manage it will be interesting.
To contrast:
GCS will get about pick 29/30 this year. Not a bad result, considering the money offer.
GWS picked up Aiden Bonnar at pick 11. A great result.
Dogs used their two picks (very loosely speaking - 25 & 30 to 25 & 40) to grab Schache. A great result.
I'd love the media to look at their grades again. It might have 'felt' like they 'won', and were worthy of an 'A+'. But their members sense of 'winning' aside, this isn't looking the goods when you look at who they could've picked up last year and this year at the picks. At best this is a solid D-.
Comment