Bombertalk

The recruiting of Cooney, Goddard, Chapman, along with the retention of Winderlich and the advancing years of Fletcher, Watson, Stanton suggests that the Brains Trust at Windy Hill (Tullamarine?) believe we are in sight of a Premiership in the next 2, maybe 3 years

Personally I cant see it although I think we will feature in finals.

My concern is what happens in 3 years when these guys are gone. Do we have the cattle amongst the current 22-25 year olds to fill the void in terms of elite, experienced players?

I am confident that we have potential leaders with Hurley, Carlisle, Hooker, Heppell, Hibberd to step up. But there are really no obvious guns in the waiting other than perhaps Merrett Z and Gleeson

Cant comment too much on Langford and Laverde but draftees from the previous three years are not setting the world on fire

Free Agency can continue to top up mature players but our lack of exciting youth worries me

It was to try and make us relevant again. We are not going to contend, we just have a few too many weaknesses. You only have to look at Hawthorn, and what they have built, by not tolerating or recruiting people with poor disposal. We also don't have the x-factor of a Rioli, Johnson, or a Buddy that a contender always has.

We have to recruit better which is what I have been banging on about for years, but I fear the club like a lot of its supporters, get all misty eyed with blokes in the red and black, and rate them far higher than they deserve to be.

Can't disagree Rob. Certainly our drafting appears to be average at best over the years. Apart from Heppell.

When you get whacked with draft sanctions, and Gold Coast and GWS get a couple of free hits at all the kids you don't have much choice other than go the recycled plan. Goddard has been great for us.

With free agency you can go back up the ladder pretty quickly and I don't think our drafting has been that bad since we took Hurley. There are always misses but we have been pretty good the last 5 or so years.

BERT wrote:When you get whacked with draft sanctions, and Gold Coast and GWS get a couple of free hits at all the kids you don't have much choice other than go the recycled plan. Goddard has been great for us.

With free agency you can go back up the ladder pretty quickly and I don't think our drafting has been that bad since we took Hurley. There are always misses but we have been pretty good the last 5 or so years.

We have been better. Only one team wins a premiership every year. You have to be great. Agree about Goddard.

Firstly we picked up Goddard at the end of 2012 before the saga broke and before we knew the AFL was going to screw us over that.

We obviously picked him up with a view of building a team to contend over the next 2-3 years, unfortunately the saga occurred and that obviously hampered our ability to build a contending team.

We could not see in advance that over 2013 and 2014 that we would be stripped of essentially 3 first & second round draft picks. We could not envisage that our leading goal kicker of the previous 3 years would want out at the end of 2013. We could not envisage that our number 1 ruckman would be allowed to walk out half way through a contract, nominate his club of choice (which happened to be a club that had just made the Prelim finals) and thus ensure we got screwed in the trade. However, having said that, I think the club has done pretty well with the picks they did get in those trades.

Given our draft sanctions we obviously felt getting some recycled players would be more advantage than getting some scrawny 18 year old kid at pick 751, it also meant that we probably haven't been able to turn over the list as much as we would have liked. If it wasn't for our draft sanctions we probably would have turned the list over some more as well.

BERT wrote: With free agency you can go back up the ladder pretty quickly and I don't think our drafting has been that bad since we took Hurley. There are always misses but we have been pretty good the last 5 or so years.

I believe that was the intention of free agencey, but do you see any top line free agents wanting to go to the shit teams down the bottom, nope they want to go to the Hawks and Geelong. Don't other people find it ridiculous that probably Geelong's greatest threat to securing Patrick Dangerfield as a free agent is Hawthorn.

How the f*** can a team that is highly likely to three peat able to go out and make a serious challenge for by far the best free agent on the market?

ealesy wrote:

BERT wrote: With free agency you can go back up the ladder pretty quickly and I don't think our drafting has been that bad since we took Hurley. There are always misses but we have been pretty good the last 5 or so years.

I believe that was the intention of free agencey, but do you see any top line free agents wanting to go to the shit teams down the bottom, nope they want to go to the Hawks and Geelong. Don't other people find it ridiculous that probably Geelong's greatest threat to securing Patrick Dangerfield as a free agent is Hawthorn.

How the f*** can a team that is highly likely to three peat able to go out and make a serious challenge for by far the best free agent on the market?

Carly Crawford can write about Essendon's 'multi-million dollar' backers all she likes - but the reality is Hawthorn have far more multi-millionaire members than any other club. Couple that with a two state spread the fact that Hawthorn, more than any other club, dominates media commentary and coverage, with former players and supporters, all means that anyone from their graduating class with a Premiership medal is going to well looked after when not only during their playing days but more importantly when they are up.

Do you really think that Lake and Burgoyne and Frawley etc. etc. etc. are paying top dollar for eastern suburban real estate, renos, appliances, vehicles, holidays, jobs for the missus, private schools and so on?

Interesting observation.

Thompson said last year that the club needed a complete rebuild, and that it had for too long simply patched up problems without acknolweding the club's true position. That was the position under Sheedy for a long time too.

That being the case (i.e. that we are banking on a flag in the short term and have brought a bunch of mature age recruits to the club along with allowing Fletcher, Chapman, Winderlich et al to go around again), does it amplify the pressure on Hird if we miss finals this year? Would Hird be permitted, either next year or the year after, to acknowledge that the list isn't what he thought it is and commence with a rebuilding effort?

For what it's worth, I think we will make finals this year, and the current strategy is a whorthwhile one.

We'll make the finals but we are not winning a flag with the current squad

Lack forward threats

Need Daniher and Carlisle to really come good and contribute at least 30 to 40 goals each

We have no Breust or Gunston and a midfield which will see 2 of its best 3 players retire in the next 2 to 3 years

Windy_Hill wrote:We'll make the finals but we are not winning a flag with the current squad

Lack forward threats

Need Daniher and Carlisle to really come good and contribute at least 30 to 40 goals each

We have no Breust or Gunston and a midfield which will see 2 of its best 3 players retire in the next 2 to 3 years

Yeah our midfield is a major concern. We have Watson and Heppell and the reust are average or below. Realistically, none of Zaharakis, Stanton, Hocking or Howlett would get a game at Hathorn, Port, Sydney etc.

See I disagree

With Hurley, Carlisle, Daniher and Hooker we have a very high quality young bunch of key talls.

Mids are a dime a dozen and I'd be happy if we kept topping em.up via FA on short deals. We will find some more Mids have faith.

If they are a dime a dozen, how come we only have 2 to 3 decent ones

gringo wrote:

Windy_Hill wrote:We'll make the finals but we are not winning a flag with the current squad

Lack forward threats

Need Daniher and Carlisle to really come good and contribute at least 30 to 40 goals each

We have no Breust or Gunston and a midfield which will see 2 of its best 3 players retire in the next 2 to 3 years

Yeah our midfield is a major concern. We have Watson and Heppell and the reust are average or below. Realistically, none of Zaharakis, Stanton, Hocking or Howlett would get a game at Hathorn, Port, Sydney etc.

Goddard goes ok

Windy_Hill wrote:If they are a dime a dozen, how come we only have 2 to 3 decent ones

That's in the last 15 years!!

Little Ripper hears some retard say something in the press, and takes it as fact.

Just curious....

If our mids, which often includes the HB line then how are the facts helpful to shit midfield theory?

"The Bombers followed a plan to hold possession of the ball last season, meaning they were able to chip it around before making a bolder move to whisk it down the ground. It meant the club's disposal efficiency was very good – the best in the competition at 74.1 per cent. The AFL average was 72.3 per cent. Sometimes it didn't quite work to plan though, as stand-in Bombers coach Mark Thompson occasionally bemoaned his side would become too 'safe' with its ball movement. Essendon also topped the competition for converting defensive inside-50 entries into attacking inside-50 entries, another example of its ability to work the ball down the ground. – Callum Twomey"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-13/y ... attributes

Our issue isn't entries; it is young, developing 2 tall KP Forwards and a evolving forward line around them to capitalise on entries.

See Buckets, JD and Ambo (7 tackles in the 1st half) hitting packs hard on the weekend splitting them asunder and inside and outside smalls crumbing & kicking goals. Unfortunately lack of match fitness beat us.

Flip wrote:Just curious....

If our mids, which often includes the HB line then how are the facts helpful to shit midfield theory?

"The Bombers followed a plan to hold possession of the ball last season, meaning they were able to chip it around before making a bolder move to whisk it down the ground. It meant the club's disposal efficiency was very good – the best in the competition at 74.1 per cent. The AFL average was 72.3 per cent. Sometimes it didn't quite work to plan though, as stand-in Bombers coach Mark Thompson occasionally bemoaned his side would become too 'safe' with its ball movement. Essendon also topped the competition for converting defensive inside-50 entries into attacking inside-50 entries, another example of its ability to work the ball down the ground. – Callum Twomey"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-13/y ... attributes

Our issue isn't entries; it is young, developing 2 tall KP Forwards and a evolving forward line around them to capitalise on entries.

See Buckets, JD and Ambo (7 tackles in the 1st half) hitting packs hard on the weekend splitting them asunder and inside and outside smalls crumbing & kicking goals. Unfortunately lack of match fitness beat us.

Once again, your complete lack of any sophistication in interpreting data has let you down. It is never the number of entries, its the quality of those entries that matter. If Luke Hodge was delivering the ball to our forwards instead of Stanton, it wouldn't matter how young or "developing" they were, he would hit them on the lead, or on the chest. This is what's always been wrong with your out-dated kick out it down the middle to the gorilla theory. Quality mids just have far better disposal than ours overall.

Why don't you leave the actual footy discussion to those with a clue, and stick to calling people like Crameri cowards?

robbie67 wrote:

Flip wrote:Just curious....

If our mids, which often includes the HB line then how are the facts helpful to shit midfield theory?

"The Bombers followed a plan to hold possession of the ball last season, meaning they were able to chip it around before making a bolder move to whisk it down the ground. It meant the club's disposal efficiency was very good – the best in the competition at 74.1 per cent. The AFL average was 72.3 per cent. Sometimes it didn't quite work to plan though, as stand-in Bombers coach Mark Thompson occasionally bemoaned his side would become too 'safe' with its ball movement. Essendon also topped the competition for converting defensive inside-50 entries into attacking inside-50 entries, another example of its ability to work the ball down the ground. – Callum Twomey"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-13/y ... attributes

Our issue isn't entries; it is young, developing 2 tall KP Forwards and a evolving forward line around them to capitalise on entries.

See Buckets, JD and Ambo (7 tackles in the 1st half) hitting packs hard on the weekend splitting them asunder and inside and outside smalls crumbing & kicking goals. Unfortunately lack of match fitness beat us.

Once again, your complete lack of any sophistication in interpreting data has let you down. It is never the number of entries, its the quality of those entries that matter. If Luke Hodge was delivering the ball to our forwards instead of Stanton, it wouldn't matter how young or "developing" they were, he would hit them on the lead, or on the chest.

Hit the nail on the head. I would like to see someone like Hibberd play further up the ground but unfortunately we don't have the luxury to do so as he is very much needed as that kick out of defence. Unfortunately none of our midfielders apart from Goddard when he has a stint in there are elite by foot.

robbie67 wrote:

Windy_Hill wrote:If they are a dime a dozen, how come we only have 2 to 3 decent ones

That's in the last 15 years!!

Also we haven't had a good small forward since Bewick retired, so Chapman with his talent and experience was another good pick up (ie. as well as Godard).

Cooney.

Yes recruited for now. But geez he is playing well.