Review of list

[gringo]

I'm looking forward to our new coach running a fresh and objective eye across our list. Firstly, he'll make a call on players that aren't good enough to play at the highest level, and secondly, what position each player should be playing in.

It seems to be that we have five or six players on our list that aren't up to it, and another five or so players that either aren't up to it, or are being played out of position.

[Jazz_84]

yeah im quite excited on how the Bombers will be playing footy from 2008 onwards

[Windy_Hill]

Agree Gringo but then again, Sheeds has also taken a scalpel to the list over the last few years.

I think our major problem continues to be the key 23-28 yr old playing group. We just dont have any elite players in this segment of the squad. Sure we have servicable types like MJ, Pev, Hille, McPhee, etc but nothing like the type of players that you build the side around. Obviously, our elite players, Lloyd, Fletcher, Lucas and Hird are all approaching the end of their career. On the other end of the scale, our young group is only just starting to bear fruit.

in 2-3 years, Stanton, Winderlich, Watson, Monfries, Nash, Slattery will form the nucleus of a team that will definitely drive for a flag around 2010. By that stage you will also have Ryder, Gumbleton, Houli, Hislop, Jetta etc coming to their prime as well

All is not lost but its a work in progress.

I am not sure a new coach will work any miracles with the list - at least not more so than the pretty good work being done by Sheeds.

Perhaps a new coach maybe able to unlock the potential in players like Johns and Bradley that currently isnt being fulfilled.

[gringo]

Agree Gringo but then again, Sheeds has also taken a scalpel to the list over the last few years.

I think our major problem continues to be the key 23-28 yr old playing group. We just dont have any elite players in this segment of the squad. Sure we have servicable types like MJ, Pev, Hille, McPhee, etc but nothing like the type of players that you build the side around. Obviously, our elite players, Lloyd, Fletcher, Lucas and Hird are all approaching the end of their career. On the other end of the scale, our young group is only just starting to bear fruit.

in 2-3 years, Stanton, Winderlich, Watson, Monfries, Nash, Slattery will form the nucleus of a team that will definitely drive for a flag around 2010. By that stage you will also have Ryder, Gumbleton, Houli, Hislop, Jetta etc coming to their prime as well

All is not lost but its a work in progress.

I am not sure a new coach will work any miracles with the list - at least not more so than the pretty good work being done by Sheeds.

Perhaps a new coach maybe able to unlock the potential in players like Johns and Bradley that currently isnt being fulfilled.

Yep. Our group of players that should be in their prime are not a group that will take you to a flag. MJ is just about past it, McPhee seems to have at least one major mental breakdown a game, Pev is honest but lacks the polish of a permiership midfielder, and Hille is an average to good ruckmen.

Unforuntaly, we aren't going to get another flag our of Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher etc. As you stated, 2010 looks like the earliest we could hope for another flag.

[F111]

I think we're suffering (in part) due to our draft restrictions in the late '90's. Players from then would be peaking now.

How many did we miss out on?

It obviously isn't the whole answer to our 2-3 years of lower 8 form, but they would be the 25-27 year olds mentioned.

[bomberdonnie]

I think we're suffering (in part) due to our draft restrictions in the late '90's. Players from then would be peaking now.

How many did we miss out on?

It obviously isn't the whole answer to our 2-3 years of lower 8 form, but they would be the 25-27 year olds mentioned.

Didnt we basically miss out on a whole draft around that time?? Looks to be biting us on the arse now but hopefully we can grow out of that gap in the next couple of years

[Windy_Hill]

I mean, all you have to do is take a look at the Brisbane side from 2001-2004. The engine room was players like Voss, Lappin, Leppitsch, Johnston, Scott Bros, etc - all were 25+

The Bombers in 93 were an absolute anomaly - the bulk of stars in that side were under 25.

However, they did have cool heads like Watson, Salmon, Harvey, Thompson, O'Donnell keeping a lid on things.

[Mrs Mercuri]

I think we're suffering (in part) due to our draft restrictions in the late '90's. Players from then would be peaking now.

How many did we miss out on?

It obviously isn't the whole answer to our 2-3 years of lower 8 form, but they would be the 25-27 year olds mentioned.

Didnt we basically miss out on a whole draft around that time?? Looks to be biting us on the arse now but hopefully we can grow out of that gap in the next couple of years

Yeah we did miss out on some good drafts both from being high on the ladder for so many years and for losing picks due to the salary cap problems. Hille was our first pick in 2000/2001 i believe and he was 40.

[bombers_rock]

Does the draft system really screw teams that badly or are we an exception?

Does this mean West Coast and Geelong are going to slide and experience years of below-acceptable performances come 2012-2013?

[F111]

Does the draft system really screw teams that badly or are we an exception?

Does this mean West Coast and Geelong are going to slide and experience years of below-acceptable performances come 2012-2013?

That's how it's designed. Everyone gets a turn.

[Jazz_84]

Does the draft system really screw teams that badly or are we an exception?

Does this mean West Coast and Geelong are going to slide and experience years of below-acceptable performances come 2012-2013?

That's how it's designed. Everyone gets a turn.

not if they are smart... best players dont have to be in the top 8

[Essendon4eva]

Agree Gringo but then again, Sheeds has also taken a scalpel to the list over the last few years.

I think our major problem continues to be the key 23-28 yr old playing group. We just dont have any elite players in this segment of the squad. Sure we have servicable types like MJ, Pev, Hille, McPhee, etc but nothing like the type of players that you build the side around. Obviously, our elite players, Lloyd, Fletcher, Lucas and Hird are all approaching the end of their career. On the other end of the scale, our young group is only just starting to bear fruit.

in 2-3 years, Stanton, Winderlich, Watson, Monfries, Nash, Slattery will form the nucleus of a team that will definitely drive for a flag around 2010. By that stage you will also have Ryder, Gumbleton, Houli, Hislop, Jetta etc coming to their prime as well

All is not lost but its a work in progress.

I am not sure a new coach will work any miracles with the list - at least not more so than the pretty good work being done by Sheeds.

Perhaps a new coach maybe able to unlock the potential in players like Johns and Bradley that currently isnt being fulfilled.

Yes, but those older guys are vital to the devlopment of our young guys. So when they are on the way out, the young group you listed, which Sheed's has devloped will be our quality, senior group to lead us into a top four spot.

The problem with this board, is we all expect, or so it seems to me, that our list should be winning now and Sheed's is the reason we are not. It is not about unlocking some talent, it's about being patient for the next 2-3 years for the group of flourish.

[j-mac31]

Agree Gringo but then again, Sheeds has also taken a scalpel to the list over the last few years.

I disagree.

He says that and people buy it.

But he only cut guys that he never played anyway, or else where so lazy/shit that anyone would have got rid of them.

Cupido, Hunt, Alvey, Zantuck, Cartledge, probably more.

Yet Bolton, Henneman, Reynolds all got far too many opportunities compared to the others I mentioned (apart from Cupes).

Add to that the drafting of older player who would have been handy if we were within striking distance of a premeirship: Murphy, Campo, Micahel. I;m not counting Allan or Salmon because at the time Hille was not ready and Cartledge and Laycock were definitely not (or possibly not even on the list).

[jimmyc1985]

I disagree.

He says that and people buy it.

But he only cut guys that he never played anyway, or else where so lazy/shit that anyone would have got rid of them.

Cupido, Hunt, Alvey, Zantuck, Cartledge, probably more.

Yet Bolton, Henneman, Reynolds all got far too many opportunities compared to the others I mentioned (apart from Cupes).

Add to that the drafting of older player who would have been handy if we were within striking distance of a premeirship: Murphy, Campo, Micahel. I;m not counting Allan or Salmon because at the time Hille was not ready and Cartledge and Laycock were definitely not (or possibly not even on the list).

Exactly right. What people need to understand is that drafting dead wood or keeping dead wood on the list, as we have done so much of in the past 5 years, has a number of effects that hurt the club terribly two or three years down the track:
1) Opportunity cost: I detest it when people say it was fair enough we draft Allan, Zantuck, Campo etc. because 'they didn't cost anything'. Rubbish! The direct cost of picking up these players is nothing (assuming a PSD pick is considered to be nothing), but the indirect/opportunity cost is very real. Every time we pick up a Zantuck, Allan, Murphy etc., we deprive ourselves a spot on the list that could go to another young player who might do something more constructive. It's like when you walk into a service station and you're tossing up whether to buy a Snickers or Mars Bar - the direct cost of each is the same, but you usually choose the one that results in the least opportunity cost by excluding the other possibility. Too often, we've walked out of the service station thinking to ourselves "f***, i wish i'd bought the Snickers instead of the Mars Bar!"
2) Backlog: Leaving dead wood on the list for too long (or continuing to pick up dead wood) for only a few years creates a backlog of ordinary players which takes years to clear. That's what we're seeing now. By recycling the abovementioned, and leaving too many ordinary players on our list for too long, we've created a massive backlog that takes a long time to clear. You can only clear, on average, 6-7 players out per year, so if by poor list management you've all of a sudden got 15 players who need clearing out, you're in dire straits. Even though we've cleaned out heavily over the last 2 years, there's still quite a bit to go, and the job will be far from finished at the end of this year.

[Madden]

It's like when you walk into a service station and you're tossing up whether to buy a Snickers or Mars Bar - the direct cost of each is the same, but you usually choose the one that results in the least opportunity cost by excluding the other possibility.

Sometimes, just sometimes, you might slightly over-think things Jim....

[Rossoneri]

I disagree.

He says that and people buy it.

But he only cut guys that he never played anyway, or else where so lazy/shit that anyone would have got rid of them.

Cupido, Hunt, Alvey, Zantuck, Cartledge, probably more.

Yet Bolton, Henneman, Reynolds all got far too many opportunities compared to the others I mentioned (apart from Cupes).

Add to that the drafting of older player who would have been handy if we were within striking distance of a premeirship: Murphy, Campo, Micahel. I;m not counting Allan or Salmon because at the time Hille was not ready and Cartledge and Laycock were definitely not (or possibly not even on the list).

Exactly right. What people need to understand is that drafting dead wood or keeping dead wood on the list, as we have done so much of in the past 5 years, has a number of effects that hurt the club terribly two or three years down the track:
1) Opportunity cost: I detest it when people say it was fair enough we draft Allan, Zantuck, Campo etc. because 'they didn't cost anything'. Rubbish! The direct cost of picking up these players is nothing (assuming a PSD pick is considered to be nothing), but the indirect/opportunity cost is very real. Every time we pick up a Zantuck, Allan, Murphy etc., we deprive ourselves a spot on the list that could go to another young player who might do something more constructive. It's like when you walk into a service station and you're tossing up whether to buy a Snickers or Mars Bar - the direct cost of each is the same, but you usually choose the one that results in the least opportunity cost by excluding the other possibility. Too often, we've walked out of the service station thinking to ourselves "f***, i wish i'd bought the Snickers instead of the Mars Bar!"
2) Backlog: Leaving dead wood on the list for too long (or continuing to pick up dead wood) for only a few years creates a backlog of ordinary players which takes years to clear. That's what we're seeing now. By recycling the abovementioned, and leaving too many ordinary players on our list for too long, we've created a massive backlog that takes a long time to clear. You can only clear, on average, 6-7 players out per year, so if by poor list management you've all of a sudden got 15 players who need clearing out, you're in dire straits. Even though we've cleaned out heavily over the last 2 years, there's still quite a bit to go, and the job will be far from finished at the end of this year.

Someone really enjoyed MicroEconomics in his uni days.

If you get a chance at an elective in 3rd year Jimmy, choose Economics of Sport.

[jimmyc1985]

I see my theory of opportunity cost in a football drafting sense has gone off like a lead balloon. Ah well, i try.

And no Ross, i thought economics at uni was shit - too technical. Year 12 economics is great, though - by far and away the subject i enjoyed most whilst at school. That probably says a lot.

[spikefan]

Actually your theory of opportunity cost is spot on. Good post.

The "backlog" stuff could be done without - its restating the previous statement...