This post on St K's drafting/list is so goddamn on the money ...

[saintadamski]

I respectfully disagree.

We recruited Savage, Longer, Hockey, Bruce, Steele, Brown, Roberton, Carlisle, Freeman...and maybe others that I've missed.

That's fairly specific. Two ruckmen, key forward, CHB, FB, two specialist 'running backs' an inside mid and an outside mid.

Savage is no good, but his long kicking is excellent. Most of the time it's the wrong option to kick long - but that's his 'role'.

Bruce has done exactly what the coach asks him to do, as has Brown.
Steele is excellent, and Roberton is good.

The rucks are no good and Freeman clearly a bust.


The elite stuff I mentioned regarding the U18s, we're the official ratings for those guys.
They were labelled elite in those areas by the experts leading into the draft.

But under Richo - they're rubbish in those same areas.


Neeld wrecked young players, and most have never recovered. That's the danger of allowing such poor coaching philosophy to linger at the club for too long.

Utterly disagree with this.
None of these players had elite skills to begin with, and it would be false to claim that they did.

Also, players don't just lose the ability to kick due to a coach... that's garbage. I've played footy my whole life... and there are some with 'natural' prowess, regardless of coaching.

The problem with our club is that the recruiters either couldn't identify, or simply ignored the elite skilled players...like Burgoyne.

If this recruiting philosophy doesn't change, neither will the results.

[rodgerfox]

I respectfully disagree.

We recruited Savage, Longer, Hockey, Bruce, Steele, Brown, Roberton, Carlisle, Freeman...and maybe others that I've missed.

That's fairly specific. Two ruckmen, key forward, CHB, FB, two specialist 'running backs' an inside mid and an outside mid.

Savage is no good, but his long kicking is excellent. Most of the time it's the wrong option to kick long - but that's his 'role'.

Bruce has done exactly what the coach asks him to do, as has Brown.
Steele is excellent, and Roberton is good.

The rucks are no good and Freeman clearly a bust.


The elite stuff I mentioned regarding the U18s, we're the official ratings for those guys.
They were labelled elite in those areas by the experts leading into the draft.

But under Richo - they're rubbish in those same areas.


Neeld wrecked young players, and most have never recovered. That's the danger of allowing such poor coaching philosophy to linger at the club for too long.

Utterly disagree with this.
None of these players had elite skills to begin with, and it would be false to claim that they did.

Also, players don't just lose the ability to kick due to a coach... that's garbage. I've played footy my whole life... and there are some with 'natural' prowess, regardless of coaching.

The problem with our club is that the recruiters either couldn't identify, or simply ignored the elite skilled players...like Burgoyne.

If this recruiting philosophy doesn't change, neither will the results.

The elite part was the draftees I mentioned in an earlier post.

That's not a claim, it's a fact that they were rated as elite in those areas.

[Scollop]

I respectfully disagree.

We recruited Savage, Longer, Hockey, Bruce, Steele, Brown, Roberton, Carlisle, Freeman...and maybe others that I've missed.




Neeld wrecked young players, and most have never recovered. That's the danger of allowing such poor coaching philosophy to linger at the club for too long.

Good last point you make there...

On another totally irrelavent note....


Wonder how Joe is getting along these days

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... zr8i3.html

[saintadamski]

I respectfully disagree.

We recruited Savage, Longer, Hockey, Bruce, Steele, Brown, Roberton, Carlisle, Freeman...and maybe others that I've missed.

That's fairly specific. Two ruckmen, key forward, CHB, FB, two specialist 'running backs' an inside mid and an outside mid.

Savage is no good, but his long kicking is excellent. Most of the time it's the wrong option to kick long - but that's his 'role'.

Bruce has done exactly what the coach asks him to do, as has Brown.
Steele is excellent, and Roberton is good.

The rucks are no good and Freeman clearly a bust.


The elite stuff I mentioned regarding the U18s, we're the official ratings for those guys.
They were labelled elite in those areas by the experts leading into the draft.

But under Richo - they're rubbish in those same areas.


Neeld wrecked young players, and most have never recovered. That's the danger of allowing such poor coaching philosophy to linger at the club for too long.

Utterly disagree with this.
None of these players had elite skills to begin with, and it would be false to claim that they did.

Also, players don't just lose the ability to kick due to a coach... that's garbage. I've played footy my whole life... and there are some with 'natural' prowess, regardless of coaching.

The problem with our club is that the recruiters either couldn't identify, or simply ignored the elite skilled players...like Burgoyne.

If this recruiting philosophy doesn't change, neither will the results.

The elite part was the draftees I mentioned in an earlier post.

That's not a claim, it's a fact that they were rated as elite in those areas.

Rated by whom?

and kicking under pressure vs light/junior pressure are two very different things

[DJ Higgins]

Cutting Freeman was tough but fair.

I personally think it was silly… and reeks of stubborn richo

When you look at the out of contact list, there is easily space on the list for Freeman… with only Lonie and Pierce worth a spot on form.

Ray Connellan
Nathan Freeman
Sam Gilbert
Hugh Goddard
Darragh Joyce
Doulton Langlands
Jack Lonie
Billy Longer
Darren Minchington
Lewis Pierce
Koby Stevens
Maverick Weller
Nathan Wright


It is a good article and pretty much sums up what a lot of us have been saying for months… including our prospective targets in Lycett, Menzel & Hanneberry.

Yeah I think you are right with Freeman.

My view is that a lot of players could be dropped, not going to argue that, but Freeman was drafted as an outside mid with speed and he is now another inside mid. He isn't willing to push his body to its limits anymore for obvious reasons so I think it was the right call. If he isn't mentally comfortable giving 100% each week best move him on.
Also on the list mentioned above being better than Freeman i'd be interested to see how many of them are retained. 4 of them are already delisted (incl Freeman) , Koby retired, Gilbo should retire, Lonie not yet offered a contract and some other will be nervous as. So it's a valid point that none are good but they also might be out the door as well

[rodgerfox]

Rated by whom?

and kicking under pressure vs light/junior pressure are two very different things

Champion Data rank the U18s every year.


Of course the jump from U18s to the AFL is different, not sure what the point there is in the context of this argument though?

[saintadamski]

Rated by whom?

and kicking under pressure vs light/junior pressure are two very different things

Champion Data rank the U18s every year.


Of course the jump from U18s to the AFL is different, not sure what the point there is in the context of this argument though?

Ok - I think it's about time we didn't take data verbatim as the key to unlock elite talent. It is merely a guide.
The X-factor of a player can never be visualised through data. The recruiter must use their senses to see how a player moves, reacts, behaves. ONLY THIS will allow one to discover true X factor.
f*** the data

[rodgerfox]

Utterly disagree with this.
None of these players had elite skills to begin with, and it would be false to claim that they did.

Also, players don't just lose the ability to kick due to a coach... that's garbage. I've played footy my whole life... and there are some with 'natural' prowess, regardless of coaching.

The problem with our club is that the recruiters either couldn't identify, or simply ignored the elite skilled players...like Burgoyne.

If this recruiting philosophy doesn't change, neither will the results.

With all due respect, 'park footy' is vastly different to the AFL.

As for Burgoyne - we picked Riewoldt and Kosi in that draft. So it's harsh to pot the recruiters for not piking Burgoyne! Not sure he's a great example, as he chose to go to Hawthorn in 2010 - so it's not as if we were alone in not identifying his skill.



I think the list management focusing on 'strong bodied' plodders and Richardson's mantra regarding being 'strong' are not a coincidence.

Recruiting them is one thing - but they get games week after week, after week. Regardless of how badly they slaughter the pill, Richardson still picks them. And I would 100% guarantee that he's telling the young guys to be more like Mav Weller and less like Isaac Smith if they want to get a game in our team.


Interesting, when Richardson took over in 2014, we were 16th for Effective Disposals in his 1st year. We then went to 10th in 2015, then up to 7th in 2016. Last year we were 3rd, and this year we are 2nd in the comp.

So although we 'can't kick', we are 2nd in the comp for Effective Disposals - and have steadily improved every year in this area since Richardson took over.

This year, we are 1st for Uncontested Possessions. Last year we were 4th.

So in the past 2 seasons under Richardson, we have been 4th and 1st in Uncontested Possessions, and 3rd and 2nd for Effective Disposals - and we're a bottom 3 team. Go figure!

We were 10th for Inside 50s last year - and 13th this year.

So our guys get the ball, and effectively dispose of it almost better than any other team in the comp - yet we're absolutely s*** on field and can't get the ball forward to score. Is that the players that have been recruited? Or the style in which they're being asked to play?

[rodgerfox]

Rated by whom?

and kicking under pressure vs light/junior pressure are two very different things

Champion Data rank the U18s every year.


Of course the jump from U18s to the AFL is different, not sure what the point there is in the context of this argument though?

Ok - I think it's about time we didn't take data verbatim as the key to unlock elite talent. It is merely a guide.
The X-factor of a player can never be visualised through data. The recruiter must use their senses to see how a player moves, reacts, behaves. ONLY THIS will allow one to discover true X factor.
f*** the data

I think they look deeper than just data.


"NORTHERN Knights captain Jade Gresham was the standout of the first night of testing at this year's NAB AFL Draft Combine, leading the way as the prospects' skills were put under the microscope.

The small and powerful midfielder, who finished second in this year's Morrish Medal in the TAC Cup, was one of four players to kick a perfect score in the goalkicking test, converting all five of his shots.

Nick O'Kearney, Oleg Markov and Clayton Oliver also kicked perfect scores in the goalkicking test, which sees the draft hopefuls kick set shots, snaps on both feet and running attempts at goal.

Gresham was also among the best performers in the clean hands test and the kicking test, which also took place on Friday night at Etihad Stadium."

[Saintmatt]

This is/was exactly my take on it . Our list is ordinary due to our "scattergun approach" to recruiting. We have not focussed on recruiting players with elite skills over the last 5-10 years.
Recruiting is the crux of our problem and the area we need to fix above all else - the coaches can easily be replaced.

W
Billings was elite with his field kicking in U18s.
Gresham was elite with his goal kicking accuracy in the U18s.
Hunter Clark's kicking on both sides was considered elite at U18 level.
McCartin was an elite mark at U18 level.


I honestly don't think recruitment is the issue.

I think it's Richardson's obsession with turning skillful footballers with natural ability, into stodgy role players that are 'strong' and focus on performing mundane acts such as 'bringing the ball to the front of the pack' instead of marking the ball, is why our list appears average.

That, and our lack of good, solid senior players is why we're where we're at. IMO.

Re: Richo (I'm not saying he's a good coach) - although we had a lot of injuries this year, and were missing players that were important to our structure,
our biggest loss was only 54 points. We didn't get blown out of the water.

The scattergun approach to recruiting is our major problem - as the article pointed out.
I'm referring to kicking skills when under serious pressure - the kind of pressure you're subjected to at AFL level.
You need to recruit players whose skills don't fall apart when under pressure.
Hunter Clark is looking promising - but he's just a kid - and Gresham has the evasiveness to make time and space (but is he an elite kick?) - but it's too little too late. What happened in the last 5-12 years prior?
Where is our core of players with elite kicking skills, whose skills hold up under pressure? We don't have a single midfielder with elite kicking skills, while the better teams may have 2-4.
Billings is a good field kick when in space - but not under pressure. He rushes and panics.
Have a look at Burgoyne, Breust, Gunston, Isaac Smith, Rance, Houli, Dustin Martin, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, De Goey, even etc.. under pressure - and compare. You can't compare.

But were those guys 'recruited', or 'developed'?

I believe the latter is the key.


And secondly, I've said this before, but a good kick or handball often takes two to tango, so to speak.

If you have a good system, and are well drilled, you can put the ball to a spot with your eyes closed - and someone will be there waiting for it. It'll make your disposal look awesome.
But if there's no on there expecting it, you look like a spud that can't kick.

I think that's where our issue lies really.

There's no system or method to how we move the nut, and as a result it is just chaotic and scrambled, and it makes us look incredibly poorly skilled and always under extreme pressure.

Indeed. I am absolutely no fan of David King but he's made the point a number of times that St Kilda's lack of structure ahead of the ball makes our skills look much worse (if that's possible) than they actually are. If you know someone is going to be in a certain position on the ground when you get possession of the ball then you can largely kick it into that area without first having to think 'where to next?'. That is the essence of a good, well drilled team who believes in their Coach's plan. As King quote rightly points out - even improving what little structure they have in front of the ball carrier would instantly lead to an increase in St K's ball use and efficiency.

Very hard to argue with that logic.

[Saintmatt]

Utterly disagree with this.
None of these players had elite skills to begin with, and it would be false to claim that they did.

Also, players don't just lose the ability to kick due to a coach... that's garbage. I've played footy my whole life... and there are some with 'natural' prowess, regardless of coaching.

The problem with our club is that the recruiters either couldn't identify, or simply ignored the elite skilled players...like Burgoyne.

If this recruiting philosophy doesn't change, neither will the results.

With all due respect, 'park footy' is vastly different to the AFL.

As for Burgoyne - we picked Riewoldt and Kosi in that draft. So it's harsh to pot the recruiters for not piking Burgoyne! Not sure he's a great example, as he chose to go to Hawthorn in 2010 - so it's not as if we were alone in not identifying his skill.



I think the list management focusing on 'strong bodied' plodders and Richardson's mantra regarding being 'strong' are not a coincidence.

Recruiting them is one thing - but they get games week after week, after week. Regardless of how badly they slaughter the pill, Richardson still picks them. And I would 100% guarantee that he's telling the young guys to be more like Mav Weller and less like Isaac Smith if they want to get a game in our team.


Interesting, when Richardson took over in 2014, we were 16th for Effective Disposals in his 1st year. We then went to 10th in 2015, then up to 7th in 2016. Last year we were 3rd, and this year we are 2nd in the comp.

So although we 'can't kick', we are 2nd in the comp for Effective Disposals - and have steadily improved every year in this area since Richardson took over.

This year, we are 1st for Uncontested Possessions. Last year we were 4th.

So in the past 2 seasons under Richardson, we have been 4th and 1st in Uncontested Possessions, and 3rd and 2nd for Effective Disposals - and we're a bottom 3 team. Go figure!

We were 10th for Inside 50s last year - and 13th this year.

So our guys get the ball, and effectively dispose of it almost better than any other team in the comp - yet we're absolutely s*** on field and can't get the ball forward to score. Is that the players that have been recruited? Or the style in which they're being asked to play?

I take your point RF but it's actually quite easy to explain with a few other stats and some context - Clearances (we are 18th); Stoppages (we are 17th) being the main ones. Those two disprove that we "get the ball". Mainly - we don't. So, from there we're largely on the back foot and chasing tail but .... wait for it .... we're 17th for tackles. All up - that means we don't get the pill and then don't disable the opposition when they've got it.

Then we have clangers (we're 14th). I.e. when we do get it or get it back - we then either return the ball to the opposition or create a stoppage (where, as above, you see we get slaughtered).

The context is that an effective disposal is defined as "A handball/kick to a teammate that hits the intended target". So - Ross, Geary, Gilbert, Dunstan and Billings etcs quick handballs (& kicks) to teammates that (a) hit the back of their head, (b) touch their little finger, (c) hit a bootlace etc by definition, are classified as effective disposals. Do they help or hinder our team however? We all know the answer.

The more critical thing to monitor is what happens immediately after the "effective disposal". If behind the centre - it's generally a high kick to a 50/50 at best. That normally equals a clanger or a stoppage (and then slaughter). If in front of the ball - it's normally either a deep kick I50 to a pack (we're 13th for I50's) or more often a shallow I50 entry (we're 13th again) whereby, the opposition rebounds quickly and efficiently.

So, my summation is that there's a fair part that's about cattle (ours are poorly skilled); some about desire (as Roo said, effort is the only thing you can control) and mainly, a lack of a game plan that suits the cattle that we have (not the cattle we want to have). Quite frankly - the 2016/2017 iteration of 'strong at the man, strong at the body and closing down space' was far more suited to our list's capabilities than the 2018 'guarding grass and over-possessng the ball' version which requires elite skills and supreme organisation.

[rodgerfox]

No issues with that.

But for mine, if anything it reinforces a lack of system and cohesion as our biggest problem - rather than skill.

No system at stoppages, and no system moving the aggot forward.

And the thing with clangers, is that I'd bet most of them come from Richardson's first picked brigade such as Geary and Gilbert.

[rodgerfox]

I think the Clanger stat may be slightly misleading though.

The top 5 in the comp are:

Cripps
Martin
Yeo
Cunnington
Mitchell

[saintsRrising]

AS far as I am concerned then we should fkn well trade them. Apart from say Gresh and the kids we got in last years draft, who actually put their hands up this year? Not a single one. None.

The problem with that is that it is reportedly mainly the better ones. Richo is flagged as a key reason for their discontent. So keep Richo, or keep our best young'uns?

Paddy we can afford to lose for a reasonable trade as we have all of Paddy, Bruce, Battle and Marshall as tall forwards with Membrey as a third tall. Menzel is rumoured to be a chance for another third tall.

We cannot play all of Paddy, Bruce, Battle and Marshall. Indeed you wil struggle to play 2. So we have one player there that can be traded to help with improving our midfield.


Also reportedly GWS are hot for Gresh. Gresham is only signed till 2019, but is evidently one of the young players not happy. So to we f him off too?

As clearly one of our very few good young players the club should be extending his contract now as it is not good to do it at the end of the contract fora player in demand that you want to keep. So if the Saints have not extended him by the start of 2019 the alarm bells should be ringing and it could get ugly, and really ugly if we have another ordinary season in 2019.

[Saintmatt]

No issues with that.

But for mine, if anything it reinforces a lack of system and cohesion as our biggest problem - rather than skill.

No system at stoppages, and no system moving the aggot forward.

And the thing with clangers, is that I'd bet most of them come from Richardson's first picked brigade such as Geary and Gilbert.

Undeniably. All of that. But mainly the last part.

[Saintmatt]

I think the Clanger stat may be slightly misleading though.

The top 5 in the comp are:

Cripps
Martin
Yeo
Cunnington
Mitchell

This is actually like Adam Scott's inability to sink 10ft birdie putts. The more chances you give yourself - the more chances you have to miss (no one hits it to 10ft or closer more than Adam Scott). Similarly with that list - they're pretty much all ball magnets so, the more possessions you accumulate - the more likely you're going to fluff a few.

Sadly, I'd love some of Martin's clangers. At least they'd be forward of centre and heading goal wards.

[fugazi]

AS far as I am concerned then we should fkn well trade them. Apart from say Gresh and the kids we got in last years draft, who actually put their hands up this year? Not a single one. None.

The problem with that is that is reportedly mainly the better ones. Richo is flagged as a key reason for their discontent. So keep Richo, or keep our best young'uns?

Paddy we can afford to loose for a reasonable trade as we have all of Paddy, Bruce, Battle and Marshall as tall forwards with Membrey as a third tall. Menzel is rumoured to be a chance for another third tall.

We cannot play all of Paddy, Bruce, Battle and Marshall. Indeed you wil struggle to play 2. So we have one player there that can be traded to help with improving our midfield.


Also reportedly GWS are hot for Gresh. Gresham is only signed till 2019, but is evidently one of the young players not happy. So to we f him off too?

As clearly one of our very few good young players the club should be extending his contract now as it is not good to do it at the end of the contract fora player in demand that you want to keep. So if the Saints have not extended him by the start of 2019 the alarm bells should be ringing and it could get ugly, and really ugly if we have another ordinary season in 2019.

Just pay Richo out FFS, what is the point of keeping him if he has the Kryptonite effect on our players.
I had not heard that Gresham wants out, but if true along with Billings and Acres.... they are our 3 best players potentially, we just need him to go.
Ratten and Choco to lead the reversal.

[saintsRrising]

Well going by the two ITKs on BF tonight a number of our better younger players want to be traded.

List seems to be in turmoil.

I am just hoping like hell we end up with a reasonable list once the dust is settled. But I am fearful that we will lose some good younger players and bring in a fleet of mature players, but all of whom have question marks on them.

And confirmining this... a recent post in another thread.

It’s begun. J.B. Has requested a trade if changes aren’t made. Don’t think I have to tell you what the change has to be. Three others will follow suit.

Correct

[Dave McNamara]

Utterly disagree with this.
None of these players had elite skills to begin with, and it would be false to claim that they did.

Also, players don't just lose the ability to kick due to a coach... that's garbage. I've played footy my whole life... and there are some with 'natural' prowess, regardless of coaching.

The problem with our club is that the recruiters either couldn't identify, or simply ignored the elite skilled players...like Burgoyne.

If this recruiting philosophy doesn't change, neither will the results.

With all due respect, 'park footy' is vastly different to the AFL.

As for Burgoyne - we picked Riewoldt and Kosi in that draft. So it's harsh to pot the recruiters for not piking Burgoyne! Not sure he's a great example, as he chose to go to Hawthorn in 2010 - so it's not as if we were alone in not identifying his skill.



I think the list management focusing on 'strong bodied' plodders and Richardson's mantra regarding being 'strong' are not a coincidence.

Recruiting them is one thing - but they get games week after week, after week. Regardless of how badly they slaughter the pill, Richardson still picks them. And I would 100% guarantee that he's telling the young guys to be more like Mav Weller and less like Isaac Smith if they want to get a game in our team.


Interesting, when Richardson took over in 2014, we were 16th for Effective Disposals in his 1st year. We then went to 10th in 2015, then up to 7th in 2016. Last year we were 3rd, and this year we are 2nd in the comp.

So although we 'can't kick', we are 2nd in the comp for Effective Disposals - and have steadily improved every year in this area since Richardson took over.

This year, we are 1st for Uncontested Possessions. Last year we were 4th.

So in the past 2 seasons under Richardson, we have been 4th and 1st in Uncontested Possessions, and 3rd and 2nd for Effective Disposals - and we're a bottom 3 team. Go figure!

We were 10th for Inside 50s last year - and 13th this year.

So our guys get the ball, and effectively dispose of it almost better than any other team in the comp - yet we're absolutely s*** on field and can't get the ball forward to score. Is that the players that have been recruited? Or the style in which they're being asked to play?

I've noticed we generally get hold of the footy more than the enemy. What though, are our stats' for metres gained?

I reckon they'd show that our possession numbers and 'disposal efficiency' are falsely boosted due to going backwards and sideways.

The why-we-get-beaten kick for us has long been that key kick to the player who is actually in a position to hurt the enemy.

Because this is the kick that does not have the margin for error of the easy kick to a bloke on his own behind the play.

This is the kick that requires the precision skills.

[David-Lee]

Just did some light addition on the investment in Freezer for all the resources invested my estimate is $195000. To trade him with ZERO affective return churns my guts as a businessman.

[samoht]

I've noticed we generally get hold of the footy more than the enemy. What though, are our stats' for metres gained?

I reckon they'd show that our possession numbers and 'disposal efficiency' are falsely boosted due to going backwards and sideways.

The why-we-get-beaten kick for us has long been that key kick to the player who is actually in a position to hurt the enemy.

Because this is the kick that does not have the margin for error of the easy kick to a bloke on his own behind the play.

This is the kick that requires the precision skills.

Spot on! Exactly how I see it.

Statistics are misleading, as usual. Rodgerfox is reading the disposal stats outside of the context of a real game.
I think, because of our team's overall poor kicking skills (in general play), we've been coached (especially in our back line - but even across the middle of the ground) to chip the ball around with some backwards and sideways stuff, say 2 or 3 chipping kicks across our backline, first, before we kick it long to release a player who's managed to isolate themselves - where they have run 3 or 4 metres clear of their opponent. So even our poor kicking skills are sufficient to deliver the long releasing ball to them - given this 3 or 4 metre gap.

All this chipping around will of course boost the disposal efficiency stat. But it's not going to win you games and is just postponing the inevitable.
Because in general play - we're not talking about chipping here - that's where the Burgoynes, the MacVeighs etc..these players with elite kicking skills - they can kick the ball to a team mate half a metre clear of their opponent. They can operate with this minimal margin of error - of a half a metre.
What's more, the ball gets to their team mate (or to their team mate's advantage) quickly - with minimal air time. And that's when our collective jaws drop.These elite users of the ball can do this even when they are put under pressure.

It's that final kick into our forward 50 that's really letting us down badly - and it's not because we've been coached to bomb it in, it's because we lack accurate, penetrating kicks - that can get the ball quickly and accurately to a team mate forward.
We need to recruit players like that. We need a core of these elite disposers of the ball -- to be a good team.
(We let one good one go in Tom Lynch - we could have used his long, low, penetrating kicks hitting our forwards lace out, instead of the Adelaide forwards).

[Ghost Like]

We actually do have elite disposers of the ball, sadly, especially this year, besides Membrey we have nothing forward of the ball. Do not think for a second I'm thinking of Paddy, it is Bruce & Battle that should be leading. Do not think for a second I am talking about Ross, he would bomb it as long as his possession counted, regardless of whether we had Buddy, Brown, Riewoldt or Kennedy.
Our disposal forward is a blend of forwards worth kicking to and will work hard as well as our mids who will work hard to release a kick to advantage.
Please trade Paddy, Ross and Dunstan while they have some currency.
Do not blame first year players, Clark & Coffield will be guns. Billings will be very good, better than anyone else on our list. We will be even more embarrassed (I know, hard to believe) than we are right now.
Billings & Gresham cannot be wrong that we are in a huge mess with this muppet, affectionately called RichoffnoSubstance.

[dragit]

Just did some light addition on the investment in Freezer for all the resources invested my estimate is $195000. To trade him with ZERO affective return churns my guts as a businessman.

Are you excluding his wage?

[SaintPav]

Just did some light addition on the investment in Freezer for all the resources invested my estimate is $195000. To trade him with ZERO affective return churns my guts as a businessman.

“Businessman?” Interesting.

Any business decision involves a degree of risk.

You move on, quickly.

It’s a sunk cost anyway.

Any good “businessman” worth their salt would know that.

[SaintPav]

Just did some light addition on the investment in Freezer for all the resources invested my estimate is $195000. To trade him with ZERO affective return churns my guts as a businessman.

Are you excluding his wage?

Plus the 6 supporters he dragged through the gates.

It all adds up.