Kerr

[evertonfc]

To be fair on Rodg - because I said the same thing too - we are a long way from being what would normally be considered a 'top four' team.

Some years are weaker than others; sometimes you get 6 or 7 strong teams, other times you get 10 or 11, others you get 2-3 and last year - there was only one (save for the Eagles - smashed by injury in September).

This year, there are three strong teams that, after Friday night, we could say has been whittled down to two.

I posted this last week after seeing the team announced:

Without Baker, Maguire, Ball and Gardiner to call on, we're really down to sourcing out the depths of what is not a deep list.

Would Eddy, R Clarke, Blake, Jones, Gwilt, McQualter or Birss get a run in any of the other top eight teams?

After Sunday, the answer is clearly no.

Disappointingly, Birss is probably the best of that crop (poor call not to play him IMO) but the others just aren't up to finals footy in my view.

They all cracked our best 22 on Sunday, so it's clear something isn't right. I think it's time to add Sam Gilbert to that list, btw. He was exposed on Sunday, again, which was sad to see because he's a lovely guy.

But he is so one-sided that it's a joke. Not only that, but the lag time from boot-to-ball means he is easy to read. His 'goose step', while effective, can only be used once or twice per game.

We need to get fair dinkum about our list. Some hard calls have to be made. I realise someone like Eddy - a first year player - deserves another go (I'm trying to be fair here), while someone like Gilbert, who has shown glimpses, should be kept, too. But there are several others who have had their fare share of chances - and have been here too long.

Let's put it in perspective: West Coast's Steven Armstrong - who finished the year in big form and has previously shown plenty of skill - has already been culled by the Eagles because they don't think he's up to it.

He's shown 10 times what Gwilt has - and yet we persist...

Now I'm not calling for the world to be turned over, far from it, but we do need to make some hard calls, be aggressive at trade week, and do our best to get some players with real potential late in the draft.

[jonesy]

To be fair on Rodg - because I said the same thing too - we are a long way from being what would normally be considered a 'top four' team.

Some years are weaker than others; sometimes you get 6 or 7 strong teams, other times you get 10 or 11, others you get 2-3 and last year - there was only one (save for the Eagles - smashed by injury in September).

This year, there are three strong teams that, after Friday night, we could say has been whittled down to two.

I posted this last week after seeing the team announced:

Without Baker, Maguire, Ball and Gardiner to call on, we're really down to sourcing out the depths of what is not a deep list.

Would Eddy, R Clarke, Blake, Jones, Gwilt, McQualter or Birss get a run in any of the other top eight teams?

After Sunday, the answer is clearly no.

Disappointingly, Birss is probably the best of that crop (poor call not to play him IMO) but the others just aren't up to finals footy in my view.

They all cracked our best 22 on Sunday, so it's clear something isn't right. I think it's time to add Sam Gilbert to that list, btw. He was exposed on Sunday, again, which was sad to see because he's a lovely guy.

But he is so one-sided that it's a joke. Not only that, but the lag time from boot-to-ball means he is easy to read. His 'goose step', while effective, can only be used once or twice per game.

We need to get fair dinkum about our list. Some hard calls have to be made. I realise someone like Eddy - a first year player - deserves another go (I'm trying to be fair here), while someone like Gilbert, who has shown glimpses, should be kept, too. But there are several others who have had their fare share of chances - and have been here too long.

Let's put it in perspective: West Coast's Steven Armstrong - who finished the year in big form and has previously shown plenty of skill - has already been culled by the Eagles because they don't think he's up to it.

He's shown 10 times what Gwilt has - and yet we persist...

Now I'm not calling for the world to be turned over, far from it, but we do need to make some hard calls, be aggressive at trade week, and do our best to get some players with real potential late in the draft.

Exactly.

Our lesser likes contribute nothing to the cause. If they play a serviceable game they are praised by the masses of Stkilda fans. Then they are out of there depth for the next 6 matches yet we make excuse after excuse for them. "He'll be right, give him time!"

Opposition teams have kids that come in from nowhere and contribute 5 times more than ours. We are the kings at playing very very ordinary players over the years

[evertonfc]

Then they are out of there depth for the next 6 matches yet we make excuse after excuse for them. "He'll be right, give him time!"

Some of our fans still think we were hasty in moving on Troy Schwarze...

I can hear it now..."Give him time, he's going to be great!"

[saintsRrising]

But you're talking about a top three player here, so the price has to be high.

.

I can't see him beeing cheap relative to his value.

[Teflon]

Funny, but the discussion in this thread is precisely what I was flamed for suggesting last week.

The 'top 4' finish shouldn't over inflate where we're at.

Regardless of where we finish, there are many areas which need to be addressed.

Many of which are being discussed here.

You were flamed for suggesting we make a serious play for Kerr?

Acknowledging the achievement of a top 4 finish does not mean denying the reality that we are miles away from geelong.

Areas that need addressing regardless of where we finish??... Visionary.

Hes good at "visions"....with the help of hindsight...

[Teflon]

Then they are out of there depth for the next 6 matches yet we make excuse after excuse for them. "He'll be right, give him time!"

Some of our fans still think we were hasty in moving on Troy Schwarze...

I can hear it now..."Give him time, he's going to be great!"

Mehehbabblelots can you please trot out that lame Swarze response you use?

Tks

Teffers.

[rodgerfox]

Funny, but the discussion in this thread is precisely what I was flamed for suggesting last week.

The 'top 4' finish shouldn't over inflate where we're at.

Regardless of where we finish, there are many areas which need to be addressed.

Many of which are being discussed here.

You were flamed for suggesting we make a serious play for Kerr?

Acknowledging the achievement of a top 4 finish does not mean denying the reality that we are miles away from geelong.

Areas that need addressing regardless of where we finish??... Visionary.

I did acknowledge a 'top 4 finish'. I said it outright.

However as per usual, those intent of flaming individual posters obviously chose to ignore that bit.

When assessing the coach, the list, everyone at years end - the fact that we had a 'top 4 finish' should not be taken into account.

That's what I said. Exactly, word for word what I said.

And was flamed for it.

[rodgerfox]

We had a poor year.

.

Top 4 finish is not normally regarded as poor.

And that's my point precisely.

If at year's end the Board all sit down and say....

"we only won 13 games. In other years, we may have even missed the 8 with that. We lost to West Coast over there, lost many games we should have won - pinched a couple of close ones etc. etc."


Or say.....

"we finished top 4 so we had a good year. Let's assess the coaching staff and list based on ladder position"



Top 4 is irrelevant. At least it should be.


I was disappointed with our year. If we don't win at least 1 final, then I think we did have a poor year.

To win 13 from 24 games is poor.


Our season should be assessed on that, and our future assessed on that.

Not on a 'top 4 finish'.

[markp]

Funny, but the discussion in this thread is precisely what I was flamed for suggesting last week.

The 'top 4' finish shouldn't over inflate where we're at.

Regardless of where we finish, there are many areas which need to be addressed.

Many of which are being discussed here.

You were flamed for suggesting we make a serious play for Kerr?

Acknowledging the achievement of a top 4 finish does not mean denying the reality that we are miles away from geelong.

Areas that need addressing regardless of where we finish??... Visionary.

I did acknowledge a 'top 4 finish'. I said it outright.

However as per usual, those intent of flaming individual posters obviously chose to ignore that bit.

When assessing the coach, the list, everyone at years end - the fact that we had a 'top 4 finish' should not be taken into account.

That's what I said. Exactly, word for word what I said.

And was flamed for it.

Bleedingly obvious that you take everything into account really.... that would include the number of wins AND where we finished. I'm sure they wouldn't find that too confusing.

Why don't you make a call and take a position on Kerr and what you'd give......?

[rodgerfox]

Bleedingly obvious that you take everything into account really.... that would include the number of wins AND where we finished. I'm sure they wouldn't find that too confusing.

Why would where we finish be taken into account?

What does it tell us?

Anyway, I'll let it go. It seems in your roundabout way you're acknowledging that I was correct.

Much more than you get out of most on here.

Why don't you make a call and take a position on Kerr and what you'd give......?

It depends with Kerr.

Do we think we can win a flag in the nexy 2 years?

I don't.


So don't go for him.

Start again. Look at the list and decide who will be there in 4 years and playing good footy.

Look at who on the list you want around when we bring in kids. Who do you want to nurture these guys.


The rest go on the table at year's end.

Every single one of them.


As I said when Thomas was sacked for a rookie coach at that time of the year - the Board forced us into a rebuild.

It's happening exactly as I said.


We need to start again. So Kerr is a waste of time. Cousins might be worth a shot as it won't cost us anything. Apart from the off-field stuff, on-field he'd be a great role model for any young kid coming into the club.

[WayneJudson42]

Then they are out of there depth for the next 6 matches yet we make excuse after excuse for them. "He'll be right, give him time!"

Some of our fans still think we were hasty in moving on Troy Schwarze...

I can hear it now..."Give him time, he's going to be great!"

Mehehbabblelots can you please trot out that lame Swarze response you use?

Tks

Teffers.

All fair comments. My view is that it comes down to how players are developed...

In our situation, injuries forced our hands with Roo, Kosi, X etc.

Also, our relationship with Scorps was nothing flash in the past.

What I see with other teams is that they can develop their players and indoctrinate them early in their careers, so that when they step in to the seniors, they are drilled in the team ethos and team rules.

This happens at the Pies, Adelaide, and Swans.

If you want to blood Gwilt as a FB, then in the Scorps, he should play FB. Tell the coach that he's got him there until required for seniors.

Hopefully we now have some semblance of a proper development system in place for the future.

[markp]

Why would where we finish be taken into account?

What does it tell us?

Ummmm.... how we measured up against... what are they called?..... oh, our opponents!

Do we think we can win a flag in the nexy 2 years?

I don't.


So don't go for him.

Start again. Look at the list and decide who will be there in 4 years and playing good footy.

I think our time for a crack is over the next 5 years.... Kerr is 25-26?... We should go for it.

[WayneJudson42]

It depends with Kerr.

Do we think we can win a flag in the nexy 2 years?

I don't.


So don't go for him.

Start again. Look at the list and decide who will be there in 4 years and playing good footy.

Look at who on the list you want around when we bring in kids. Who do you want to nurture these guys.


The rest go on the table at year's end.

Every single one of them.


As I said when Thomas was sacked for a rookie coach at that time of the year - the Board forced us into a rebuild.

It's happening exactly as I said.

We need to start again. So Kerr is a waste of time. Cousins might be worth a shot as it won't cost us anything. Apart from the off-field stuff, on-field he'd be a great role model for any young kid coming into the club.

I can see your point re Kerr. However, I don't see how changing a coach forces us into a rebuild. Essentially the same team. Do you think we'd be any closer last year or this year with GT in charge?

The rebuild has been forced upon us because the window we had with Hamill, Voss, Jones, Gtrain etc has now closed.

So we have to build again around our core group of elite players.

In this case, Kerr would still be a 5 to 6 year prospect IMO.

[rodgerfox]

Why would where we finish be taken into account?

What does it tell us?

Ummmm.... how we measured up against... what are they called?..... oh, our opponents!

It doesn't tell the tale of where you're really at.

We finished 4th. In isolation that means we're the 4th best team in the comp. In the top 25% of clubs.

In reality, we won the same amount of games as 1 other club, and only 1 more game than 3 others.

We only won 2 more games than the club that finished 9th. But 4 less than the club that finished 2nd.

We lost to 8 of the teams beneath us throughout the year.

We only had 1 win against a team above us.

We won 4 games by under 8 points.


When you look at it like that, the fact that we officially finished 4th is put in perspective.

Do we think we can win a flag in the nexy 2 years?

I don't.


So don't go for him.

Start again. Look at the list and decide who will be there in 4 years and playing good footy.

I think our time for a crack is over the next 5 years.... Kerr is 25-26?... We should go for it.[/quote]

I don't know why you think 5 years?

The kids that Lyon has brought are in are very, very ordinary. They aren't going to be a 'top 4' nucleus in 3-5 years.

Our next 'top 4' nucleus will have to come from outside the club. If we want to contest sooner rather than later - we need to get these kids in now.

And, we'll need to make sacrifices for them. Sure, get Kerr but not ahead of young kids in the draft.

[rodgerfox]

It depends with Kerr.

Do we think we can win a flag in the nexy 2 years?

I don't.


So don't go for him.

Start again. Look at the list and decide who will be there in 4 years and playing good footy.

Look at who on the list you want around when we bring in kids. Who do you want to nurture these guys.


The rest go on the table at year's end.

Every single one of them.


As I said when Thomas was sacked for a rookie coach at that time of the year - the Board forced us into a rebuild.

It's happening exactly as I said.

We need to start again. So Kerr is a waste of time. Cousins might be worth a shot as it won't cost us anything. Apart from the off-field stuff, on-field he'd be a great role model for any young kid coming into the club.

I can see your point re Kerr. However, I don't see how changing a coach forces us into a rebuild. Essentially the same team. Do you think we'd be any closer last year or this year with GT in charge?

The rebuild has been forced upon us because the window we had with Hamill, Voss, Jones, Gtrain etc has now closed.

So we have to build again around our core group of elite players.

In this case, Kerr would still be a 5 to 6 year prospect IMO.

I've explained this many, many times before. But seeing as your new here I'll go through it again...

GT had one more year left before he should have been given the arse. If we didn't win the flag or at least play off in 2007 - he'd had his chance. I think his message was starting to wear thin a bit.

It happens in footy. It happens in life.

We were always going to have a little lull after 2007. We'd lose Gehrig, Harves, Thommo, Peckett, Voss etc. (although we didn't lose Harves and sort of lost G).

Our talent would be enough to get us into the 8 for a few years to come. However, until we balanced up with some kids to counter the loss of the veterans, we'd be in a little bit of a hiatus. 2 years I thought.

The problem was, by sacking Thomas when we did, and effectively going into trade week after the horse had bolted - we missed an entire year. We blew it.

It meant that the new coach had no chance to shape his list. We lost a year.

By the time the new coach was able to implement his game plan/style on this group - he'd also be shaping the list. Implementing a new game plan, particularly what appears to be a reasonably complicated one, takes years.

The problem we faced, was that by the time our list got the plan right - it was inevitable that some big changes to the list would take shape aswell. Big changes to a list also mean time to gel.

So basically, we were looking at 2 years for the current group to 'get' the game plan, then another 2 years for the new list to gel. Not just gel, but also adapt to guys like Max, Harves etc. whom the current group have played their entire careers with, not being there.


The problem now with Lyon (and not one that I expected), is that several players that he brought in, will get the arse sooner rather than later too. So we'll continue to have large turnover on the list for another couple of years.


What should have happened, is that the Board should have kept Thomas for the 2007 season. Business as usual. If we were still struggling with injury and hadn't been clearly a serious contender by the half way mark - he'd be sacked mid-season. The list should have been trimmed quite heavily post 2007 and some 'big names' traded if need be, to get draftees into the club.

The new coach should have been sounded out prior to this, and taken over once Thomas was sacked. During the second half of the year, he is already shaping the list for the start of the following season, and clearly knows who he wants and who he doesn't want.


We stuffed up big time. And it's cost us 5 years.

[markp]

I don't know why you think 5 years?

Merely going by the age of our core players....

Ball, BJ, Dal, the Clarkes, Shneider, Fisher, Gilbert, Gram, Goose, Joey, Gwilt... all 24-25... Roo 26.

Hayes and Milne 28?....

Kerr 25?

5 years.

[ROLS-LEE]

Kerr has shown that he can play in the big games and is consistent. Against Geel we had to many passengers, and if these passengers dont perform during the game against the maggies then these players need to go. BJ Lenny and Cj were the only players to hold there heads up high. Our midfield is no were near Geel so we need Kerr and other quality Mids.

[The Saintsational Man]

If we manage to do the impossible and snag both Kerr and Cousins.

Our window would remain for 2 years, after this season finishes.

Just have a look at our average list age by then and you'll see we haven't got long left.

[rodgerfox]

I don't know why you think 5 years?

Merely going by the age of our core players....

Ball, BJ, Dal, the Clarkes, Shneider, Fisher, Gilbert, Gram, Goose, Joey, Gwilt... all 24-25... Roo 26.

Hayes and Milne 28?....

Kerr 25?

5 years.

Most flag sides win when their core group is 23-26.

That's where ours is now. Right now.

[markp]

I don't know why you think 5 years?

Merely going by the age of our core players....

Ball, BJ, Dal, the Clarkes, Shneider, Fisher, Gilbert, Gram, Goose, Joey, Gwilt... all 24-25... Roo 26.

Hayes and Milne 28?....

Kerr 25?

5 years.

Most flag sides win when their core group is 23-26.

That's where ours is now. Right now.

So our window is open now, and for the next couple of years at least...... Even more reason to go hard for Kerr and Cousins. Right now.

[rodgerfox]

I don't know why you think 5 years?

Merely going by the age of our core players....

Ball, BJ, Dal, the Clarkes, Shneider, Fisher, Gilbert, Gram, Goose, Joey, Gwilt... all 24-25... Roo 26.

Hayes and Milne 28?....

Kerr 25?

5 years.

Most flag sides win when their core group is 23-26.

That's where ours is now. Right now.

So our window is open now, and for the next couple of years at least...... Even more reason to go hard for Kerr and Cousins. Right now.

It's open in terms of age.

But not in many other areas.

[evertonfc]

Daniel Kerr is 11 months older than Clint Jones.

Fair dinkum...

I think the age debate is absolutely irrelevant with Kerr.

And it's irrelevant with Cousins because - *bangs head* - we're getting him for free.

Does anyone regret drafting Stephen Powell or Brett Voss?

But they stopped our kids from developing!

You mean, like, Gwilt, R Clarke, Ferguson, Sweeney, Armitage, Brooks, Oliver, Schwarze, McQualter and Raymond?

If they were any good, they'd have pushed their way through into becoming strong players by now. Facts are our recruiting department has killed us.

[TimeToShineFellas]

Daniel Kerr is 11 months older than Clint Jones.

Fair dinkum...

I think the age debate is absolutely irrelevant with Kerr.

And it's irrelevant with Cousins because - *bangs head* - we're getting him for free.

I reckon you'll keep needing to bang your head everton

The penny doesn't drop with some people on here sadly!

[evertonfc]

My head hurts. Ouch!

[saintsRrising]

And it's irrelevant with Cousins because - *bangs head* - we're getting him for free.
.

Why would Cousins be for free???

If I have understood things correctly Cousins MUST nominate for the National Draft and only goes into the Pre-Season Draft IF no one takes him in the National Draft. He cannot I believe only nominate for the PSD.

In last years draft the following AFL players were drafted:

Stuart Dew , pick 45
Mark, Johnson, pick 55
GTrain, pick 57

Now Dew is 29..and not as good a player as Cousins, though he is agood player. He was also very unfit when drafted. He is a good parrallel to Cousins though as the Hawks have taken him as they believe that along with Rioli that he could be the missing piece in their winning the GF.


So I cannot see Cousins , if he nominates, not being taken in the National Draft. He will not last till the PSD.

If our first pick is 12ish...

We then have picks

28 ish...another club may be tempted?? The first two dozen ish kids/players in the draft are meant to be pretty good.....but if the Pies or even Hawks (as an upgrade on Crawford) finish below us??

44 ish...may be gone by then.

60 ish...would definately be gone by then.


So as a minimum Cousins would cost us a kid.

Pick 44 he would be worth it....pick 28????