This thread is in response to a post Windy_Hill made elsewhere, where he listed the players he thought we had that would make up a 2008 side. I thought it would be interesting to list a side where most could agree the players would be "Good AFL quality", since thats whats needed to win flags. And then we could discuss the holes, and who might fill them. Windy's original team (which he didn't actually say were certainties, but were probably just his view) was:
B: McVeigh ???? Slattery
HB: NLM ???? McPhee
C: Dyson Watson Winderlich
HF: Monfries Lucas ????
F: Johns Lloyd Lovett
Fol: Hille Watson ????
Int: Ryder Dempsey Laycock ????
Note: Windy left out Stanton, but as Watson is down twice I suspect one of those is meant to be him.
I would say the "certainties" are:
B: McVeigh ???? ????
HB: NLM ???? McPhee
C: ???? Watson ????
HF: Lovett Lucas ????
F: ???? Lloyd ????
Fol: Hille Stanton Monfries
Int: ???? ???? ???? ????
Welsh isn't in the side as I don't rate him as "good" AFL quality, just "ok" AFL standard. That leaves 12 spaces to be filled with the following candidates:
Welsh (currently 5yrs in the system), Cole (5yrs), Johns (4yrs), Laycock (4yrs), Winderlich (4yrs), Nash (3yrs), Dyson (3yrs), Bradley (3yrs), Slattery (2yrs), Lee (2yrs), Ryder (1yr), Dempsey (1yr), Neagle (1yr) and Lonnergen (1yr). Plus new 2006 draftees (0yrs).
So how much rebuilding you think Essendon needs to do depends on how many of those players you think will be good AFL quality.
Personally, I think Johns will be good enough, as will Nash and I think Laycock & Bradley will make it. I don't think Welsh will be a "good" quality, or Cole, and I don't think Winderlich will be AFL quality. I'm really split on Dyson, as there is a big diff from his best to his worse. As to Slattery/Lee and the 2005 draftees, I haven't seen enough to be in my mind certain of any of them.
So in my view/scenario, four of the missing 12 spots are filled with Laycock, Bradley, Nash & Johns. If you say out of Slattery, Lee + the 2005 draftees (6 players), three make it (which based on recent recruiting seems optimistic), then we have another five spots to fill.
I suppose this is a long way of saying that we are still a long way off, in my view. We need a lot of our youngsters to step up A LOT, and to draft really really well over the next two years.
The side for 2008
Because he'll turn 33 during 2006, and although we all hope he'll still be there and still be a force, damn few KP players make it that long.
And even if he is, that doesn't mean we shouldn't plan as if he isn't, since it will probably take a while to train up a replacement FB whenever we start. And with Lucy being delisted, the earliest we'll be starting that training is 2007, as we have no-one else suitable for FB on the list (assuming Lee will be CHB).
And even if he is, that doesn't mean we shouldn't plan as if he isn't, since it will probably take a while to train up a replacement FB whenever we start. And with Lucy being delisted, the earliest we'll be starting that training is 2007, as we have no-one else suitable for FB on the list (assuming Lee will be CHB).
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
Can i try to straighten out the Fletcher situation?
Firstly, he's contracted until the end of 2008. It is therefore reasonable to expect him to play until then.
Secondly, his DOB is 7-5-1975, so he'll be turning 32 next year, and he'll be 33 by the end of his current contract.
Thirdly, over the last 5 years, he's averaged 17 games per season, and there's a good chance that'll decline over 2007-2008 as he becomes increasingly prone to soft tissue injuries. If he manages 15 or 16 games per year over the next two years, and he slows down a touch with age (as you'd expect him to), i think it's asking a lot for him to play in 2009. Do you want someone, even if they are as good as Fletcher, to remain in the team if their form is declining, they're 34 (as he would be in 2009 if he were to play on) and they're only likely to play perhaps 15 matches of the season? Tough question. Sentimentality aside, i'd say 'no'.
Firstly, he's contracted until the end of 2008. It is therefore reasonable to expect him to play until then.
Secondly, his DOB is 7-5-1975, so he'll be turning 32 next year, and he'll be 33 by the end of his current contract.
Thirdly, over the last 5 years, he's averaged 17 games per season, and there's a good chance that'll decline over 2007-2008 as he becomes increasingly prone to soft tissue injuries. If he manages 15 or 16 games per year over the next two years, and he slows down a touch with age (as you'd expect him to), i think it's asking a lot for him to play in 2009. Do you want someone, even if they are as good as Fletcher, to remain in the team if their form is declining, they're 34 (as he would be in 2009 if he were to play on) and they're only likely to play perhaps 15 matches of the season? Tough question. Sentimentality aside, i'd say 'no'.
-
Windy_Hill
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 12859
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm
nomolos wrote:Have i ever said that this "create 2007 team" stuff is just crap.
Now you want us to do a 2008 team.
We do not know anything about injuries, drafted players, retired players, traded players.
And to throw a bunch of question marks in certain postions mean only one thing "A TEAM CANT BE DONE".
You are completely missing the point.
Someone explain the point to Mr Grumpy
Sorry, I meant to say Fletch will turn 33 in 2008.
Nomolos, the point is to say how much of a "top" team must be still built if we're to be a chance of a premiership in 2008/2009. Its saying how many components do we have now, and how many do we have to fit in.
I mean, in reality we'll probably still get something out of MJ, JJ, Fletcher, Peverill (?), but that can't be counted on, and may be offset by one of the above retiring early.
It also highlights where we might have issues. If people agree that Johns will stand up, it means the forward line looks pretty decent still in 2yrs time. But the KP defensive roles are lacking, as is the midfield.
Nomolos, the point is to say how much of a "top" team must be still built if we're to be a chance of a premiership in 2008/2009. Its saying how many components do we have now, and how many do we have to fit in.
I mean, in reality we'll probably still get something out of MJ, JJ, Fletcher, Peverill (?), but that can't be counted on, and may be offset by one of the above retiring early.
It also highlights where we might have issues. If people agree that Johns will stand up, it means the forward line looks pretty decent still in 2yrs time. But the KP defensive roles are lacking, as is the midfield.
-
Windy_Hill
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 12859
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm
Hence making a team full of qurestions marks is a useless excercise.Windy_Hill wrote:what it means Nomolos is that we are still a good half a dozen decent players short of having a team that could seriously challenge for the flag in 2008.
Obviously 2007 will be a continuation of the development made in 2006.
Discuss what we need, whose going, coming etc.
But this stuff(see below) is bullshit.
B ??? ??? ???
HB ??? ??? ???
C ??? ??? ???
HF ??? ??? ???
FF ??? ??? ???
FOLL ??? ??? ???
INT ??? ??? ???
Are you suggesting we recruit The Riddler ????nomolos wrote:Hence making a team full of qurestions marks is a useless excercise.Windy_Hill wrote:what it means Nomolos is that we are still a good half a dozen decent players short of having a team that could seriously challenge for the flag in 2008.
Obviously 2007 will be a continuation of the development made in 2006.
Discuss what we need, whose going, coming etc.
But this stuff(see below) is bullshit.
B ??? ??? ???
HB ??? ??? ???
C ??? ??? ???
HF ??? ??? ???
FF ??? ??? ???
FOLL ??? ??? ???
INT ??? ??? ???
-
Windy_Hill
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 12859
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm
No its not bullshit - it clearly demonstrates where the gaps are the current line up (and forseeable line up) . These are the positions under threat due to pending retirements or from a lack of obvious candidates from the current list.nomolos wrote:Hence making a team full of qurestions marks is a useless excercise.Windy_Hill wrote:what it means Nomolos is that we are still a good half a dozen decent players short of having a team that could seriously challenge for the flag in 2008.
Obviously 2007 will be a continuation of the development made in 2006.
Discuss what we need, whose going, coming etc.
But this stuff(see below) is bullshit.
B ??? ??? ???
HB ??? ??? ???
C ??? ??? ???
HF ??? ??? ???
FF ??? ??? ???
FOLL ??? ??? ???
INT ??? ??? ???
The point is exactly what you have said - who do we need, what type of players and how do we get them.
Any suggestions??
It also points out exactly how many of our current youngsters with "potential" need to step up, and how reliant we are on that.
It also with my listing of the years of development with the youngsters shows how much time has been put in some of them without them yet being AFL players week in week out.
And looking at the side, you can see how bloody few of the "certainties" are young. Pretty much Watson, Stanton & Monfries. Which speaks to how bad our drafting/development has been, which highlights further the problem that we need so many of the youngsters to step up.
So talking along these lines, presenting along these lines can show issues that don't come up in other discussions. And hell, this IS a discussion forum.
It also with my listing of the years of development with the youngsters shows how much time has been put in some of them without them yet being AFL players week in week out.
And looking at the side, you can see how bloody few of the "certainties" are young. Pretty much Watson, Stanton & Monfries. Which speaks to how bad our drafting/development has been, which highlights further the problem that we need so many of the youngsters to step up.
So talking along these lines, presenting along these lines can show issues that don't come up in other discussions. And hell, this IS a discussion forum.
Not looking that far ahead. Im more concerned about 2007 and unlike most, havnt given up hope that 2007 is the year our young fellas step up and we become the dominant force we should be, with the likes of Dempsey, NLM, Lovett, Monfries, Winderlich etc. fulfilling or surpassing all expectations.
Take more than 2 shit years to make me look beyond next season for a GF. We are Red and Black not Blue!!
Take more than 2 shit years to make me look beyond next season for a GF. We are Red and Black not Blue!!
Agree with your certainties ant. I reckon Dyson, Johns, Nash and Chook and Dempsey will make it.
Not sure about Slattery, Winder, Bradley (where do you play him?) Lee, (cause he doesnt get game time at CHB), Ryder or Cole. Im thinking Cole wont make it atm.
Dont rate Welsh. Havent seen Neagle or Lonnergan.
That gives 10 certainties, 5 guys who will probably make it means 7 players are required.
If Slattery, Winder and Lee make it that means four players are required. Given that Essendon has 3 picks in the top 20 there is a chance of getting some of them in the upcoming draft. (This is assumes that half of our draftees will make it. At least that many should because in recent years our drafting has been shithouse and has to improve).
That means 1 -2 good players need to be found from the 2007 draft which should be achievable and could give the club the players for a serious shot at the premiership in 2009.
Not sure about Slattery, Winder, Bradley (where do you play him?) Lee, (cause he doesnt get game time at CHB), Ryder or Cole. Im thinking Cole wont make it atm.
Dont rate Welsh. Havent seen Neagle or Lonnergan.
That gives 10 certainties, 5 guys who will probably make it means 7 players are required.
If Slattery, Winder and Lee make it that means four players are required. Given that Essendon has 3 picks in the top 20 there is a chance of getting some of them in the upcoming draft. (This is assumes that half of our draftees will make it. At least that many should because in recent years our drafting has been shithouse and has to improve).
That means 1 -2 good players need to be found from the 2007 draft which should be achievable and could give the club the players for a serious shot at the premiership in 2009.
-
Boyler_Room
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 6399
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:17 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
I still highly doubt Bradley will become anything.
I hope Lee is given the opportunity to step up at CHB. Still reeling at the delisting of Lucy.
I would say had Winderlich not broken his leg, we'd all know a lot more about what to expect from him in 07 and beyond. He started to look the goods and then did himself an injury. Had he played the rest of the season with the same capacity as he had been in the weeks leading up to his broken leg, I'd say he'd be a 100% certainty to start on the ground in every game in 07 (fitness permitting).
Dyson needs to lift a couple of levels, Dempsey looked like he'll be something in 07 and on. Johns started to come good. Slattery shows a bit here and there, but haven't really seen anything to suggest he'll be a gun yet.
Ryder needs time to build his body. He's athletic (unlike Bradley) and looks good. He just needs some time (in the gym and on the park).
I also think that we'll see McVeigh released into the middle and across half forward a little more, along with Mark Johnson. That will open up the back pockets for young guys (like a Slattery etc) to fill positions.
Lloyd should stay at FF and any suggestion of moving him out to CHF should be quashed immediately.
2007 forward line will consist of Lloyd, Lucas, Johns and Hird, with support from Monfries, Lovett, Dyson, Dempsey, Laycock, Ryder, Hille, Watson, MJ, McVeigh and JJ rotating through for rest and matchups. Most of that will remain in 08, I'd suggest.
I'd also say, if we get Hansen, he'll be a certainty on the park in 07/08. If Gibbs slips through and we end up with him... same story.
I hope Lee is given the opportunity to step up at CHB. Still reeling at the delisting of Lucy.
I would say had Winderlich not broken his leg, we'd all know a lot more about what to expect from him in 07 and beyond. He started to look the goods and then did himself an injury. Had he played the rest of the season with the same capacity as he had been in the weeks leading up to his broken leg, I'd say he'd be a 100% certainty to start on the ground in every game in 07 (fitness permitting).
Dyson needs to lift a couple of levels, Dempsey looked like he'll be something in 07 and on. Johns started to come good. Slattery shows a bit here and there, but haven't really seen anything to suggest he'll be a gun yet.
Ryder needs time to build his body. He's athletic (unlike Bradley) and looks good. He just needs some time (in the gym and on the park).
I also think that we'll see McVeigh released into the middle and across half forward a little more, along with Mark Johnson. That will open up the back pockets for young guys (like a Slattery etc) to fill positions.
Lloyd should stay at FF and any suggestion of moving him out to CHF should be quashed immediately.
2007 forward line will consist of Lloyd, Lucas, Johns and Hird, with support from Monfries, Lovett, Dyson, Dempsey, Laycock, Ryder, Hille, Watson, MJ, McVeigh and JJ rotating through for rest and matchups. Most of that will remain in 08, I'd suggest.
I'd also say, if we get Hansen, he'll be a certainty on the park in 07/08. If Gibbs slips through and we end up with him... same story.
Former Captain of Kakadu Kangaroos - Inaugural OD Champions
Duckling Finance
Making Dreams Come True
Finance Consultant
Duckling Finance
Making Dreams Come True
Finance Consultant