-
But then again, I'm an Internet poster and Bevo is a premiership coach so draw your own conclusions. -
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
This was posted from Colin Wisbey who many of you may know, is not far off the mark when accessing players. This is his observation of Dawes:
I acknowledge that Dawes played an important role in the structure / gameplan we had at that time and that, for a 22yo of in his first fullish season who notched up just his 30th game at season end, he deserves credit for his season's performances *overall*.
However,
1. He is now 2 years older and opposition coaches now know more about how to play him.
2. In 2010, he was a KF and 30g from 20 games is a fair return from a newby KF. However, the other top teams were Saints and Cats:
- His *total* return from 3 games against Saints was 3g-1b and
- his *total* return from 3 games against Cats was a paltry 0-1.
He's played 12 finals games for a total of 13g and he failed to kick even 1 goal in 4 of those finals, 3 of which were GF's.
Surely we need to set the bar higher than that?
I accept that kicking goals is not the be all and end all but some significant degree of importance has to be attached to it. If Chris wasn't a big goal-kicker but was a go-to reliable quality mark, I could make allowances. However, he isn't. Yes, he brings some useful attributes to the table but the 2 *key* expectations of a bulky KF are that he will take his share of marks within scoring range and that he will kick a KF's share of goals. When you can't tick *either* box, questions re your long term value have to be raised.
In summary, if, as you imply, our hope is that Chris can reach the level of overall performance he displayed in 2010, then IMO we aren't setting the bar high enough. We don't have the same structures now, we don't have the same scoring dominance (supply into the fwd line), and opposition teams have, since 2010 when he was an unknown, learnt how to handle him. Hence, IMO it's not a matter of Dawes needing to get back how he played in 2010 but, rather, needing to improve beyond that and, in particular, overhead and conversion.
That's the challenge in front of him (whether at Pies or elsewhere).Comment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
My meltdown is impending.
Apparently Dawes to Dogs for #21 and #47.W00F!Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
Giving up both picks would be very very ordinary work......hoping to hear different.Comment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
Melbourne has 4 and 20, and have landed Hogan. Presumably they arent coughing up #20, so I still maintain that nobody intersested in Dawes could better pick 27.
Effectively we will have given up Lake to improve collingwoods draft position.
Comment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
Do two bad trades make a good trade?
Will be disappointed if we move on pick 21 regardless of what else is in the deal.More of an In Bruges guy?Comment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
Why crow about 5 picks in the top 50 if we're going to squander away 2 of them? What happened to building from the ground up?
I really hope we're not that stupid.Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.Comment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
At this stage, just 21 is the best we can hope for
Over this week it's Lake & Pick 27 for Dawes.
Perhaps we can re-hire Rhode as our Football manager?Western Bulldogs: 2016 PremiersComment
-
Re: 2012 Trade rumours and discussion
It certainly is mind boggling.
You pay peanuts, you get monkey's.
As Comrade said, what happened to building from the ground up?
Not a lot to smile about in 2012 AFL wise.More of an In Bruges guy?Comment
Tweet
Comment