List issues - GT as "anti-Messiah"

[WayneJudson42]

That we are still debating this after 3 years is sad (myself included).

It seems that we not only have pro and anti GT crowds... we also appear to be creating an "I told you so" crowd.

Anyone wanna talk about next year and which players to expect to improve or be the "X" factor?

Yep, it's well and truly time for Armitage to deliver big time, and I reckon he just might. And I'm really hoping to see something from McEvoy and Steven as well.

I also strongly believe that we haven't seen anything like the best that McQualter, Gwilt and Gilbert can deliver.

And I'm really, really hoping that Farren Ray will turn out to be the best recycled player we have picked up since Hamill and Gehrig (not that this is really saying all that much: I reckon we currently have Gram, King and Powell all tied for equal first).

I also hope that all those posters on here who are convinced that Lynch and our other 2008 draftees are going to feature regularly in our top 22 in 2009 turn out to be right. I must say that I am impressed at how many of you have managed to get along regularly to TAC cup games and see these guys in action (stop it MB, you are becoming as sarcastic as Plugger66!).

I agree with the need for a few to step up, and hopefully, they have been developed correctly.

Frankly, I have my doubts of Mini. Looks like he bleongs in a different era. RAy should go ok, and expect improvements from Schneids, and hopefully Dempster will carry on.

As for the 2008 kids, I hope that none play next year unless they are standouts.

Remember what happened in 04 when the kids were spent midway thru the season? Most new recruits are not up to it physically.

As for RF's question about which recruits have improved... let's see what comes. RL did not have the luxury of all the top 5 picks that GT had.

I think the era of stars and gop's is over with Lyon. And we will some some fresh blood coming through in 09.

[WayneJudson42]

Name one young recruit that has flourished under Lyon's tutelage?

What's to suggest that any of our youngsters will come good?

What are we basing that thinking on?


Hope?

What's to suggest they won't? What are you basing your thinking on?

RL's young recruits have not flourished in comparison because he hasn't had the plethora of high draft picks that GT got.

He's now had 2 full drafts, so let's see what happens.

As for who's flourished... well for once it appears that players are not being thrown to the wolves like X, Ball and Kosi... so hopefully they won't end up in the same physical shape.

What we have done is some clever recruiting of "ready made" players such as Schneider, Dempster and Ray.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

with our superb core unit of 12-15-ish coupled with a a draft pick each year playng regular football we should go ok...

plus the bottom 6 which seems to be our downfall...

[rodgerfox]

What's to suggest they won't? What are you basing your thinking on?

The fact that any kids that Lyon has recruited, so far have delivered nothing.

Lyon appears to be far more comfortable getting blokes who are already adults playing league footy, and simply asking them to play roles.

RL's young recruits have not flourished in comparison because he hasn't had the plethora of high draft picks that GT got.

What's GT got to do with it??

F***** hell, he's gone. Move on.

As for who's flourished... well for once it appears that players are not being thrown to the wolves like X, Ball and Kosi... so hopefully they won't end up in the same physical shape.

I'm not sure what that means?? Ball sat out his first year, X played an outside flanker role in his first couple of years, and Kosi played a loose man in defence in his first year.

Not sure what you mean by 'thrown to the wolves'??

What we have done is some clever recruiting of "ready made" players such as Schneider, Dempster and Ray.

Not sure what this has to do with the development of kids??


But since you mention it, I'm unsure why you think it's clever?? Dempster played about 3 decent games, and as is the case became a legend overnight once he was unavailable (very Luke Livingston'esque).

Schneider was next to pathetic and Ray hasn't even played??!!


In a funny sort of way, I respect your absolute blind sheepish faith in the club. In another sort of way, I pity it.

[Saints43]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

[vacuous space]

We've learned a lot from GT's mistakes.

Have we?

Sure. Why not? I doubt the club goes for a retread at pick 34 ever again. They'll think twice before throwing away a first rounder on a 20-year old who's done nothing. Older players can be useful. The rookie list isn't a waste of the coaches time. I'd rather they hadn't gone for Ray or Begley, but at least Ray came with a third round pick and Begley was at the end of the draft. I don't know what's on your mind, but we've clearly had some change in direction since GT was axed.

[rodgerfox]

We've learned a lot from GT's mistakes.

Have we?

Sure. Why not? I doubt the club goes for a retread at pick 34 ever again. They'll think twice before throwing away a first rounder on a 20-year old who's done nothing. Older players can be useful. The rookie list isn't a waste of the coaches time. I'd rather they hadn't gone for Ray or Begley, but at least Ray came with a third round pick and Begley was at the end of the draft. I don't know what's on your mind, but we've clearly had some change in direction since GT was axed.

Maybe we have - but until we start to win games again, I'm yet to be convinced it's for the better.

[WayneJudson42]

We've learned a lot from GT's mistakes.

Have we?

Sure. Why not? I doubt the club goes for a retread at pick 34 ever again. They'll think twice before throwing away a first rounder on a 20-year old who's done nothing. Older players can be useful. The rookie list isn't a waste of the coaches time. I'd rather they hadn't gone for Ray or Begley, but at least Ray came with a third round pick and Begley was at the end of the draft. I don't know what's on your mind, but we've clearly had some change in direction since GT was axed.

Maybe we have - but until we start to win games again, I'm yet to be convinced it's for the better.

Care to quantify or set a measuring stick?

[bob__71]

As late as 2006 that our club was running the lowest recruiting budget in the league. Considering the manner in which North and the Bulldogs recruit, that's just embarrassing. Our recruiters have had an uphill battle to fight for far too long, regardless of who the coach was.

GT wasn't a recruiter. RL isn't a recruiter. RL's job is to win football games now. He doesn't have to look after the future. We have hired other people to do that job for him - sometimes even against him. We now have a full rookie list and have brought in older players to fill short-term holes. We've learned a lot from GT's mistakes.

We have not yet seen a noticeable improvement in our recruits though. The 2008 draft, IMO, was a step in the right direction. Getting guys like Smith and Cahill late is a huge improvement over the old smokies. That couldn't have happened without better funding to the guys that really do recruit players.

How can you say that we couldnt have recruited those great picks Smith and Cahill without an improved budget. We could have just asked you and you could have said "take these guys they will be great players. But your smokies might not?"

Its bizarre how many recruiting experts the club has right under there nose. I wanna know why we dont utilse them instead of paying extra money for recruiting.

I personally believe that people are too quick to pidgeon hole players. I think player development is way more important than the initial selection. I hope Lyon brings back the overseas training camps with top international athletes. I think they did the players the world of good.

[Saints94]

Here are some names that we had on our list while GT was in charge in

2005.... Dylan DFitzner, Ed Mcdonald, Nick stone, Luke Mullins etc.

[WayneJudson42]

What's to suggest they won't? What are you basing your thinking on?

The fact that any kids that Lyon has recruited, so far have delivered nothing.

Lyon appears to be far more comfortable getting blokes who are already adults playing league footy, and simply asking them to play roles.

RL's young recruits have not flourished in comparison because he hasn't had the plethora of high draft picks that GT got.

What's GT got to do with it??

F***** hell, he's gone. Move on.

As for who's flourished... well for once it appears that players are not being thrown to the wolves like X, Ball and Kosi... so hopefully they won't end up in the same physical shape.

I'm not sure what that means?? Ball sat out his first year, X played an outside flanker role in his first couple of years, and Kosi played a loose man in defence in his first year.

Not sure what you mean by 'thrown to the wolves'??

What we have done is some clever recruiting of "ready made" players such as Schneider, Dempster and Ray.

Not sure what this has to do with the development of kids??


But since you mention it, I'm unsure why you think it's clever?? Dempster played about 3 decent games, and as is the case became a legend overnight once he was unavailable (very Luke Livingston'esque).

Schneider was next to pathetic and Ray hasn't even played??!!


In a funny sort of way, I respect your absolute blind sheepish faith in the club. In another sort of way, I pity it.

Aaah, there you go again. Just can't help yourself. Do you eat moron sandwhiches for lunch? Turn a reasonable discussion into an abusive one.
I'm starting to think you suffer from bi-polar disorder FFS.

Which kids did he draft?

McEvoy? Armitage? 2nd and 3rd year players coming up. Are they supposed to be instant stars in your reckoning?

GT inherited and was gifted a host of talented draft picks who flourished mainly on their natural talent. Once you get lower down the draft, I'd suggest that the odds of a player making it immediately would diminish in most cases.

And what's wrong with getting players to play a role? Isn't that what teamwork is all about.

[Mr Magic]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

Yes I do and I think your reasoning totally misconstrues the point I was making.

The campaign run by Footy First last year used Nathan Burke, Andrew Thompson and 'we'll spend more money on football issues' very effectively in their campaign to overthrow the existing board.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it. A very few posters, including JoffaBoy and myself, were roundly castigated for daring to ask questions about what Footy First actually stood for and what their plans for the future were.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

Now I'm not suggesting that Footy First wasn't the right choice but I am suggesting that maybe if we knew what their plans were we wouldn't be getting the type of posts we have been over the past few weeks when quite a number of posters have expressed their dissatisfaction at some Board decisons that have been made. (A dissatisfaction that I personally do not share)

[rodgerfox]

Aaah, there you go again. Just can't help yourself. Do you eat moron sandwhiches for lunch? Turn a reasonable discussion into an abusive one.
I'm starting to think you suffer from bi-polar disorder FFS.

Abusive???

[Saints43]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

I don't remember "poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it." or similar.

[Mr Magic]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

I don't remember "poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it." or similar.

Maybe you could go back and have a look?

[Saints43]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

I don't remember "poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it." or similar.

Maybe you could go back and have a look?

What exactly would you like me to search for? The exact statement:

I'm giving my proxy to Burkie purely because Footy First asked for it

I remember much discussion regarding the website that FF created to outline their election promises:

http://stkildafootyfirst.com/mediarelease.html

But you state that you suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

I disagree, that's all. I think most adult voting members would have investigated the issue more throughouly than you are suggesting.

[Mr Magic]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

I don't remember "poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it." or similar.

Maybe you could go back and have a look?

What exactly would you like me to search for? The exact statement:

I'm giving my proxy to Burkie purely because Footy First asked for it

I remember much discussion regarding the website that FF created to outline their election promises:

http://stkildafootyfirst.com/mediarelease.html

But you state that you suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

I disagree, that's all. I think most adult voting members would have investigated the issue more throughouly than you are suggesting.

Fine, then we agree to disagree on what actual percentage it was.

BTW, it wasn't just the website - there was 'electioneering material' sent out to the membership list exhorting members to 'just give your proxy to Burkey'.

And certainly on here there was much discussion about throwing out the Board and giving the proxies to Footy First, without any real indications from them of what their platform was (other than Football First andf we've got Burkie and Thommo).

I seem to recall that a 'delegation' from here actually met with Westaway and published the Q & A session they had with him - well after the 'proxy fight' had begun. Much more information about the Football First plans was divulged in that Q&A but it was well after teh website and mailout had been done.

[rodgerfox]

BTW, it wasn't just the website - there was 'electioneering material' sent out to the membership list exhorting members to 'just give your proxy to Burkey'.

No there wasn't.

That's not true at all.

[bob__71]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

I don't remember "poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it." or similar.

Maybe you could go back and have a look?

What exactly would you like me to search for? The exact statement:

I'm giving my proxy to Burkie purely because Footy First asked for it

I remember much discussion regarding the website that FF created to outline their election promises:

http://stkildafootyfirst.com/mediarelease.html

But you state that you suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

I disagree, that's all. I think most adult voting members would have investigated the issue more throughouly than you are suggesting.

Fine, then we agree to disagree on what actual percentage it was.

BTW, it wasn't just the website - there was 'electioneering material' sent out to the membership list exhorting members to 'just give your proxy to Burkey'.

And certainly on here there was much discussion about throwing out the Board and giving the proxies to Footy First, without any real indications from them of what their platform was (other than Football First andf we've got Burkie and Thommo).

I seem to recall that a 'delegation' from here actually met with Westaway and published the Q & A session they had with him - well after the 'proxy fight' had begun. Much more information about the Football First plans was divulged in that Q&A but it was well after teh website and mailout had been done.

I think you are agreeing with me Mr Magic. People were looking for any valid alternative to Rod. They didnt need detail from footy first, the just wanted Rod and his board out of the place. Rod was as popular as John Howard. And he was totally sucked in, because the ticket against him was made up of upstanding respected people....Rod couldnt even muckrake

[Mr Magic]

BTW, it wasn't just the website - there was 'electioneering material' sent out to the membership list exhorting members to 'just give your proxy to Burkey'.

No there wasn't.

That's not true at all.

Who?
What?
Where?
When?
How?

[Mr Magic]

As for the 'endorsement given to RB - how much was it aginst the actions and how much was it 'give your proxy to Burkey and me'? I suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

You do realise that only adults can vote in club elections?

That would suggest a fairly low opinion of other members abilty to reason.

You have obviously forgotten the number of threads and posts where poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it.

Instead of actually finding out much information about what Footy First's plans were, we saw a 'tidal wave' of proxies being sent to 'Burkey' that saw the existing Board go down the gurgler.

I don't remember "poster after poster kept saying they had/were 'giving their proxy to Burkie' purely because Footy First asked for it." or similar.

Maybe you could go back and have a look?

What exactly would you like me to search for? The exact statement:

I'm giving my proxy to Burkie purely because Footy First asked for it

I remember much discussion regarding the website that FF created to outline their election promises:

http://stkildafootyfirst.com/mediarelease.html

But you state that you suspect that more proxies were given because of the 'romance' of 'Burkey' than anything else.

I disagree, that's all. I think most adult voting members would have investigated the issue more throughouly than you are suggesting.

Fine, then we agree to disagree on what actual percentage it was.

BTW, it wasn't just the website - there was 'electioneering material' sent out to the membership list exhorting members to 'just give your proxy to Burkey'.

And certainly on here there was much discussion about throwing out the Board and giving the proxies to Footy First, without any real indications from them of what their platform was (other than Football First andf we've got Burkie and Thommo).

I seem to recall that a 'delegation' from here actually met with Westaway and published the Q & A session they had with him - well after the 'proxy fight' had begun. Much more information about the Football First plans was divulged in that Q&A but it was well after teh website and mailout had been done.

I think you are agreeing with me Mr Magic. People were looking for any valid alternative to Rod. They didnt need detail from footy first, the just wanted Rod and his board out of the place. Rod was as popular as John Howard. And he was totally sucked in, because the ticket against him was made up of upstanding respected people....Rod couldnt even muckrake

I think you're probably correct, but I again raise the issue of recent posts on here being eerily reminiscent of that time last year when the Board was being questioned and castigated over it's decisions.

If another group comes along and offers to 'listen to the members' on everything without any real detailing of its plans, would they also receive lots of proxies simply becasue they are not the incumbants?

If so that wouuld tend to be at odds with Saint43's assertion about most adult members who sent their proxies in?

[Saints43]

If another group comes along and offers to 'listen to the members' on everything without any real detailing of its plans, would they also receive lots of proxies simply becasue they are not the incumbants?

If so that wouuld tend to be at odds with Saint43's assertion about most adult members who sent their proxies in?

It would. But I don't think what you described above is what happened. I don't think that the voting members of this club vote on issues just because a favorite ex-player is part of (or even just the face of) an election campaign.

[Con Gorozidis]

I think the stats are pretty damning on this issue. I cant be bothered digging them all up. But our recruitment record in the past 5 years has been woeful.

Since BJ was recruited 6 years ago we have pretty much no young guys to show (Arguably only Gilbert).

If you want an indicator of this - look at rising star nominations in the past 5 years. We have the lowest number of all 16 clubs.

That is a disgrace that is not arguable. 6 years - no quality youngsters. I dare anyone to find me a club worse off in that regard during that period.

I think - putting all the mythology, sentiment and emotion aside - this is the stat that GT should be most ashamed of and is a legacy upon which he should be judged.

[bigcarl]

I think the stats are pretty damning on this issue. I cant be bothered digging them all up. But our recruitment record in the past 5 years has been woeful. Since BJ was recruited 6 years ago we have pretty much no young guys to show (Arguably only Gilbert).

i can clearly remember GT saying "we've got enough kids" ... and without all those injuries he might well have been proved correct.

i understand why he did it, but deciding to "top up" rather than "build up" marked a turning point in his tenure.

i'm hoping the same is true for lyon ... that the influx of youth from this year's draft also marks a turning point in the opposite direction.

but he'll have to show faith in them ... sensibly, of course.

[Con Gorozidis]

i can clearly remember GT saying "we've got enough kids" ...

yep. and he was wrong.

ADL total Rising star nominations:

16th: St Kilda

The prosecution rests.