Analysis 2019 List, Game Plan and Best 22?

[zyzzbruh]

This is where your logic breaks down.

You're assuming you know the reasons they were recruited for, and what they bring to the team.
You're assuming that they were recruited to play their stated or similar roles.
You're assuming nothing has changed since they were recruited, and that they are not need elsewhere.
You're assuming that doing things your way would bring success.

You're assuming that enabling and encouraging individual success will bring team success... based on no evidence at all, except that you believe the current plan is failing. And you've added adjectives and adverbs such as squandered, ugly and stifles to make it sound good.

I don't know enough about it to know whether or not it is time for Longmire to move on. What I do know is that neither do you and most others on here! You make up all these arguments to suit your outcome and then you state them as fact.

Last Thursday debunked the stance that 'if only we were playing some attacking football, we wouldn't care if we weren't winning' in a very big way. If we were winning 15-16 games per season, this conversation would not be happening. You want him moved on because we're not winning...

Absolutely nailed it

 

[caesar88]

This is where your logic breaks down.

You're assuming you know the reasons they were recruited for, and what they bring to the team.
You're assuming that they were recruited to play their stated or similar roles.
You're assuming nothing has changed since they were recruited, and that they are not need elsewhere.
You're assuming that doing things your way would bring success.

You're assuming that enabling and encouraging individual success will bring team success... based on no evidence at all, except that you believe the current plan is failing. And you've added adjectives and adverbs such as squandered, ugly and stifles to make it sound good.

I don't know enough about it to know whether or not it is time for Longmire to move on. What I do know is that neither do you and most others on here! You make up all these arguments to suit your outcome and then you state them as fact.

Last Thursday debunked the stance that 'if only we were playing some attacking football, we wouldn't care if we weren't winning' in a very big way. If we were winning 15-16 games per season, this conversation would not be happening. You want him moved on because we're not winning...

Well, all I can say is you're wrong on every front there with regards to where I'm coming from.

Point one - I'm assuming nothing, and basing it all directly from the source: the club. Horse, Beatson etc do give interviews and press conferences you know where they talk about why a player is in the team/on the list. That they liked Aliir's agility, that they liked Florent's pace, that they liked Jones' aggressive plays, that they liked Heeney's aerial abilities.

Point two - again, not assuming. I'm basing that off recent premiers where those that have attacking qualities can run rampant without hurting the team.

Point three - last Thursday actually proved me right, and why we need to pursuit that style. A year on of playing cautious, grinding footy as opposed to one that emphasises run and attack, and we are no better at playing in that manner. It doesn't happen enough, so of course when we try it now it's not going to work all the time. But if we persisted with it, would we get better at it? Who knows. All we do know is that what we are currently doing, and have been doing the last few years, simply won't cut it.

Point four - at no point in any of the above posts did I say I wanted Horse moved on, nor did I say he was a bad coach. I even said his game plan is good and can win premierships, but it won't with this list. And the club has to own that because they are the ones that built this list and have intentionally gone for players that are different and unlike what Horse had previously worked with. That bit I cannot commend the club any more than I already have, but that's only half the job. Success just isn't gonna come straight away just because we have the necessary pieces.

 

[The King!]

You keep going back to this, and it's just wrong! There is absolutely NO evidence to support that Longmire wants players to play within themselves, including this circumstance! What he wants is for them to play as a team, subjugate the individual for the good of the team. And that's probably where he loses most of your support.

In that particular situation, holding the ball for the maximum time and/or passing to a team-mate would have won us the game, playing on put that in jeopardy. It came off and was brilliant, but it put us at risk of a Rohan v the Bomber (2017), which would have been disaster!

You got annoyed someone looked at one example with no real evidence around it or context then took one example yourself? And also assert you know how horse wants them to play

What if we make a complilation of all the times Lloyd alone stops and stands still then kicks backwards? That is more indicative of our plan imo

 

[The King!]

Serious question:

Given the Swans' Board's stance that we should not ever again spend years at the bottom of the table to rebuild, do you think the game plan might have to do with keeping us relevant while our youngsters gain experience? Making sure that we don't end up like Carlton who seem to have forgotten how to win?

Who took this stance

 

[The King!]

Most coaches would of hated it for very good reasons, as explained by Paul Roos (who hardly can be accused of coaching risk out of players)

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/pa...s/news-story/baa2660dfa8d65aadbc3b3aa3658558e

Using this one event, which has been taken out of context time and again as a smoking gun doesn't prove Horse coaches risk out of players. You're basically saying it's better to take risks and lose matches than securing a win. If this play wasn't in the last minute of a game we were winning by less than a goal, then you would have a point. But it wasn't and in saying Longmire preferred Florent didn't back himself you leave out the part were he also said he liked to see him back himself. Hardly the words of a coach angered by what he saw that day.

What was it like that day in the coaches box you won a prize that week to be there I presume? You seem to have knowledge on exactly what happened

 

[caesar88]

Serious question:

Given the Swans' Board's stance that we should not ever again spend years at the bottom of the table to rebuild, do you think the game plan might have to do with keeping us relevant while our youngsters gain experience? Making sure that we don't end up like Carlton who seem to have forgotten how to win?

I think that's a ridiculous logic if the club has taken that stance. Because it's prioritising relevance over the necessary steps in the development of these youngsters. I can't help but be concerned at how much our youngsters appear to be labouring far more than youngsters from other teams. Compare the isolation Jordan De Goey gets inside 50 vs Will Hayward. Compare how much time Lachie Whitfield gets off the half back as opposed to Zak Jones. Compare how much space James Sicily gets to roam out of defensive 50 as opposed to Aliir Aliir. Something about the way we play creates congestion and invites pressure. On the one hand, while it's good for our youngsters to develop in high-pressure environments where nothing is easy. But on the other, I have to wonder what damage playing under such a scrappy, dogged brand of footy could do to the natural games of some of our players not suited to that style.

That's the question the board needs to ask themselves. Forget ladder positions and memberships. It's all meaningless if we can't win a flag, which we won't if this young group we've trusted aren't developed the right way, and playing in a manner that's really only suited to the handful of experienced veterans in your team I would say is not the right way. Just my opinion.

 

[The King!]

This is where your logic breaks down.

You're assuming you know the reasons they were recruited for, and what they bring to the team.
You're assuming that they were recruited to play their stated or similar roles.
You're assuming nothing has changed since they were recruited, and that they are not need elsewhere.
You're assuming that doing things your way would bring success.

You're assuming that enabling and encouraging individual success will bring team success... based on no evidence at all, except that you believe the current plan is failing. And you've added adjectives and adverbs such as squandered, ugly and stifles to make it sound good.

I don't know enough about it to know whether or not it is time for Longmire to move on. What I do know is that neither do you and most others on here! You make up all these arguments to suit your outcome and then you state them as fact.

Last Thursday debunked the stance that 'if only we were playing some attacking football, we wouldn't care if we weren't winning' in a very big way. If we were winning 15-16 games per season, this conversation would not be happening. You want him moved on because we're not winning...

A lot of very fair points

but we were winning a fair few games when this issue was first introduced as many of us felt the style horse coaches the team in was outdated, yes we got into the 8 but we were never winning it all.

but you are right we dont know everything or motivations

i mean we can take what they say about the list- that they like it, arent rebuilding, think its a contending side. we can look at how they play, negative footy mostly

we can also look at how many coaches in history change things up 200 games in, or how many coaches heck people who have been someowhere for what 16-17 years are capable of freshinging things up


last thursday by the way was a terrible standard game, and we were negative more often than we attacked

watch the 8 other games a week, ours is the slowest/ most negative

also sorry to quote you a few times, we dont agree much but i respect/love your passion

 

[zyzzbruh]

Well, all I can say is you're wrong on every front there with regards to where I'm coming from.

Point one - I'm assuming nothing, and basing it all directly from the source: the club. Horse, Beatson etc do give interviews and press conferences you know where they talk about why a player is in the team/on the list. That they liked Aliir's agility, that they liked Florent's pace, that they liked Jones' aggressive plays, that they liked Heeney's aerial abilities.

Point two - again, not assuming. I'm basing that off recent premiers where those that have attacking qualities can run rampant without hurting the team.

Point three - last Thursday actually proved me right, and why we need to pursuit that style. A year on of playing cautious, grinding footy as opposed to one that emphasises run and attack, and we are no better at playing in that manner. It doesn't happen enough, so of course when we try it now it's not going to work all the time. But if we persisted with it, would we get better at it? Who knows. All we do know is that what we are currently doing, and have been doing the last few years, simply won't cut it.

Point four - at no point in any of the above posts did I say I wanted Horse moved on, nor did I say he was a bad coach. I even said his game plan is good and can win premierships, but it won't with this list. And the club has to own that because they are the ones that built this list and have intentionally gone for players that are different and unlike what Horse had previously worked with. That bit I cannot commend the club any more than I already have, but that's only half the job. Success just isn't gonna come straight away just because we have the necessary pieces.

The funny part is that you are actually open to the fact that some other coach can win a premiership with this list. That somewhere there is a coach that can adapt a game plan to suit this crop of players, and that every player in the AFL system can be coached into an effective player. No living man on this earth can take this team to a premiership in 2019, doesn't matter what the style of the coach is. All our grand final sides in the last 7 years had a perfect balance between every attribute needed to play footy. Recruitment isn't based on a scientific formula of what the coaches game plan is, it is as simple as identifying what attributes the team lacks. Then you roll the dice on the player who you think can do the job. If that player struggles to adapt to the professionalism of the sport, game plan, struggles with skill execution, confidence etc... That's called stiff shit, and its ok, doesn't always have to be spot on. And no clubs recruitment staff ever get everything spot on. Right now we have a proven coach and a proven list manager. They're literally the best people for the job, and at the least need to be given the next few years to rebuild the team. You're bonkers if you think giving the reigns to a bunch of new people just because we need a new 'outlook' is going to be successful. Yeah it could work out for all we know but you're risking a far lot more. More of a chance turning the club into a rabble going down that path.

At the end of the day like mentioned above, everyone's unhappy simply because we're losing. Doesn't matter what is going well behind the scenes. We're not winning therefore coach is shit, players are shit, which means recruitment staff are shit. Bottoming out is the life cycle of every AFL club. Everyone is in denial. And it's down to the fact that we've had it so good for so long.

 

[The King!]

The funny part is that you are actually open to the fact that some other coach can win a premiership with this list. That somewhere there is a coach that can adapt a game plan to suit this crop of players, and that every player in the AFL system can be coached into an effective player. No living man on this earth can take this team to a premiership in 2019, doesn't matter what the style of the coach is. All our grand final sides in the last 7 years had a perfect balance between every attribute needed to play footy. Recruitment isn't based on a scientific formula of what the coaches game plan is, it is as simple as identifying what attributes the team lacks. Then you roll the dice on the player who you think can do the job. If that player struggles to adapt to the professionalism of the sport, game plan, struggles with skill execution, confidence etc... That's called stiff shit, and its ok, doesn't always have to be spot on. And no clubs recruitment staff ever get everything spot on. Right now we have a proven coach and a proven list manager. They're literally the best people for the job, and at the least need to be given the next few years to rebuild the team. You're bonkers if you think giving the reigns to a bunch of new people just because we need a new 'outlook' is going to be successful. Yeah it could work out for all we know but you're risking a far lot more. More of a chance turning the club into a rabble going down that path.

At the end of the day like mentioned above, everyone's unhappy simply because we're losing. Doesn't matter what is going well behind the scenes. We're not winning therefore coach is shit, players are shit, which means recruitment staff are shit. Bottoming out is the life cycle of every AFL club. Everyone is in denial. And it's down to the fact that we've had it so good for so long.

very fair

no coach is winning a flag with this list

i honestly think it will improve though, but the whole list management/coaching needs an overhaul and some aggressive trades to change things

 

[RUNVS]

ALso I remember what Jarryd Lyons said a months ago or so, when asked the difference between being coached under Fegan compared to being coached under Dew. Lyons said that at the Gold Coast they were always talking about his flaws, and how to fix or improve his flaws, while at Brisbane under Fegan they were always talking about his weapons, and what he could do to exploit the opposition with what he was good at.

To me that is an example of having a defensive mindset and not instilling confidence in the players compared to being attacking and giving the players confidence to use their strengths.

 

[caesar88]

The funny part is that you are actually open to the fact that some other coach can win a premiership with this list. That somewhere there is a coach that can adapt a game plan to suit this crop of players, and that every player in the AFL system can be coached into an effective player. No living man on this earth can take this team to a premiership in 2019, doesn't matter what the style of the coach is. All our grand final sides in the last 7 years had a perfect balance between every attribute needed to play footy. Recruitment isn't based on a scientific formula of what the coaches game plan is, it is as simple as identifying what attributes the team lacks. Then you roll the dice on the player who you think can do the job. If that player struggles to adapt to the professionalism of the sport, game plan, struggles with skill execution, confidence etc... That's called stiff shit, and its ok, doesn't always have to be spot on. And no clubs recruitment staff ever get everything spot on. Right now we have a proven coach and a proven list manager. They're literally the best people for the job, and at the least need to be given the next few years to rebuild the team. You're bonkers if you think giving the reigns to a bunch of new people just because we need a new 'outlook' is going to be successful. Yeah it could work out for all we know but you're risking a far lot more. More of a chance turning the club into a rabble going down that path.

At the end of the day like mentioned above, everyone's unhappy simply because we're losing. Doesn't matter what is going well behind the scenes. We're not winning therefore coach is shit, players are shit, which means recruitment staff are shit. Bottoming out is the life cycle of every AFL club. Everyone is in denial. And it's down to the fact that we've had it so good for so long.

You must be replying to someone else's post because you're responding to things I never said.

But I'll run with it because you do make good points. I don't have a problem with bottoming out. If we have a bottom four team and we play like a bottom four team I'd be happy. I just want to see us get the best out of our players. Correction, our youngsters. I think we've seen the best of all of our players over the age of 26, and like you said this team ain't winning a premiership in 2019, so my priority is the youth.

And Stevie Wonder could see that the way we play is not really beneficial to young players learning the game. Horse needs to change, and he's making the effort but we won't know yet whether they're the right efforts and whether it'll turn out good or not. So to make a call either way that he's the right man for the job or he's the wrong man for the job is nonsensical. But there's no babies being thrown out with the bathwater by simply calling out the major flaws in our team and how they could hurt us long-term.

 

[zyzzbruh]

You must be replying to someone else's post because you're responding to things I never said.

But I'll run with it because you do make good points. I don't have a problem with bottoming out. If we have a bottom four team and we play like a bottom four team I'd be happy. I just want to see us get the best out of our players. Correction, our youngsters. I think we've seen the best of all of our players over the age of 26, and like you said this team ain't winning a premiership in 2019, so my priority is the youth.

And Stevie Wonder could see that the way we play is not really beneficial to young players learning the game. Horse needs to change, and he's making the effort but we won't know yet whether they're the right efforts and whether it'll turn out good or not. So to make a call either way that he's the right man for the job or he's the wrong man for the job is nonsensical. But there's no babies being thrown out with the bathwater by simply calling out the major flaws in our team and how they could hurt us long-term.

I stretched it out in relation to the consensus of some of our supporters, not just your post.

I dunno about the way we play not being beneficial. Based on what? Maybe its just unfortunate for our younger players that our current mid aged crop don't look like they can take the reigns, and that the team is not well balanced. Just because a player isn't thriving doesn't mean its because of the game plan. We've had a fair few youngsters come in over the last few years who have fit right in like a glove. It could simply come down to inexperience and needing to get used to the rigours of AFL, or that maybe they're just not good enough. We've been lucky that we havn't had a lot of failed recruits in the past decade. If we do get a few now then we have no choice but to turnover the list and become a cellar dwellar for a few years until the turning over comes good. And if you look at carlton you can see that it can last a very long time.

 

[Punts]

recruiting has been ordinary

 

[Kirkswan]

Well, all I can say is you're wrong on every front there with regards to where I'm coming from.

Point one - I'm assuming nothing, and basing it all directly from the source: the club. Horse, Beatson etc do give interviews and press conferences you know where they talk about why a player is in the team/on the list. That they liked Aliir's agility, that they liked Florent's pace, that they liked Jones' aggressive plays, that they liked Heeney's aerial abilities.

Point two - again, not assuming. I'm basing that off recent premiers where those that have attacking qualities can run rampant without hurting the team.

Point three - last Thursday actually proved me right, and why we need to pursuit that style. A year on of playing cautious, grinding footy as opposed to one that emphasises run and attack, and we are no better at playing in that manner. It doesn't happen enough, so of course when we try it now it's not going to work all the time. But if we persisted with it, would we get better at it? Who knows. All we do know is that what we are currently doing, and have been doing the last few years, simply won't cut it.

Point four - at no point in any of the above posts did I say I wanted Horse moved on, nor did I say he was a bad coach. I even said his game plan is good and can win premierships, but it won't with this list. And the club has to own that because they are the ones that built this list and have intentionally gone for players that are different and unlike what Horse had previously worked with. That bit I cannot commend the club any more than I already have, but that's only half the job. Success just isn't gonna come straight away just because we have the necessary pieces.

Mate, I'm not sure what you're remembering, but you didn't say half of that stuff... this is what you actually did say and I responded to:

That’s fine and all, but if your game plan doesn’t encourage attacking qualities, you can’t expect your team to perform consistently and your players to thrive. Had we spent more of that Bulldogs game playing with some daring and bold passages, we probably would have been so far in front we wouldn’t have needed Florent’s risky match-winner.

That’s not me thinking selfishly or irrationally just wanting a fancy attacking game style because it’s good to watch. That’s me thinking logically about it. We drafted/recruited a lot of these players. We rated/needed their qualities. But they are qualities that will be squandered if they are kept on such a tight leash as they currently are. If Horse likes the game plan he’s used so far in his career (and why not, it’s served him well), we might as well get rid of guys like Plapley, Jones, Florent, Aliir and replace them with some good old-fashioned foot soldiers who have limited talent but will do their ugly role well. That would actually increase our chances of success, because right now it feels like there are some bloody talented Swans out there, playing in a team whose own style actually stifles their capacity to do what they do best.

We'll have to agree to disagree again, cause I'm not getting into an argument with moving goal posts!

 

[Kirkswan]

You got annoyed someone looked at one example with no real evidence around it or context then took one example yourself? And also assert you know how horse wants them to play

What if we make a complilation of all the times Lloyd alone stops and stands still then kicks backwards? That is more indicative of our plan imo

Hang on, where do I assert I know how Horse want's them to play? If I have at any point, I unreservedly apologise. My usual (and most correct) stance is that I do not know enough about it and I generally tack on that I think that noone else does either!

With regards to Lloyd, unlikely, I like him... think he's great actually!

Who took this stance

The board did. Pretty sure that you'll find Roos, Horse, Ireland, Pridham and Ireland have all alluded to it or quoted it at different times.

EDIT: Two Ireland's in our midst! How lucky were we! Sorry I meant Harley...
DOUBLE EDIT: Sorry The King!, I said that he wants the to play as a team and that's what you meant. Well he (Horse) says this all the time... everytime someone asks him why Mills, Heeney or Jones isn't played in the middle; everytime Papley is played in the middle. At least 10-15 times a year I'd reckon he says that or something very like it.

 

[caesar88]

I stretched it out in relation to the consensus of some of our supporters, not just your post.

I dunno about the way we play not being beneficial. Based on what? Maybe its just unfortunate for our younger players that our current mid aged crop don't look like they can take the reigns, and that the team is not well balanced. Just because a player isn't thriving doesn't mean its because of the game plan. We've had a fair few youngsters come in over the last few years who have fit right in like a glove. It could simply come down to inexperience and needing to get used to the rigours of AFL, or that maybe they're just not good enough. We've been lucky that we havn't had a lot of failed recruits in the past decade. If we do get a few now then we have no choice but to turnover the list and become a cellar dwellar for a few years until the turning over comes good. And if you look at carlton you can see that it can last a very long time.

I would encourage you to watch almost all of the other teams in the competition, how much more open their games are. Something in the way we are setting up and moving the ball is creating congestion and inviting pressure. I even said this in 2017 when we were on top of games but it still felt like we had so much less time and space to work with. I said my guess as to why this is happening, you can give yours, but ultimately none of us know why it happens to us, only the coaches. So it's up to them to find our way out of it. But I really do believe our youngsters have it a lot tougher compared to a lot of other teams, and that concerns me going forward.

 

[caesar88]

Mate, I'm not sure what you're remembering, but you didn't say half of that stuff... this is what you actually did say and I responded to:



We'll have to agree to disagree again, cause I'm not getting into an argument with moving goal posts!

In short: you said that I was assuming (wrong) and that I wanted Horse moved on (wrong).

I was just giving my opinion on something, you didn't agree, so then you read me the riot act! But anyway it's not that important. It's only round 5, Horse isn't going anywhere, I'm OK with that, the youngsters aren't traumatised (yet) so there's no need to be worrying about this stuff on a Sunday morning!

 

[Kirkswan]

A lot of very fair points

but we were winning a fair few games when this issue was first introduced as many of us felt the style horse coaches the team in was outdated, yes we got into the 8 but we were never winning it all.

but you are right we dont know everything or motivations

i mean we can take what they say about the list- that they like it, arent rebuilding, think its a contending side. we can look at how they play, negative footy mostly

we can also look at how many coaches in history change things up 200 games in, or how many coaches heck people who have been someowhere for what 16-17 years are capable of freshinging things up


last thursday by the way was a terrible standard game, and we were negative more often than we attacked

watch the 8 other games a week, ours is the slowest/ most negative

also sorry to quote you a few times, we dont agree much but i respect/love your passion

Don't mind you quoting me or disagreeing with me... And agree that ALL of us on here love the Swans with passion.

In sheer terms of time and games, 200 games is a very long time, plenty of time for things to get stale and stilted. Alternatively, it's time to build a very stable base, into which is possible to bring lots of debutantes without much risk.

I watch a lot of games, and I don't always think that our game is the slowest, or the most negative... I think that this is drummed into us by the commentators (who are, in general, speaking to the Victorian audience who make up the vast single majority of their audience**). Mostly, I think they need to put us down to explain our dominance in the last 20 years during a time when equalisation was supposed to make the top 8 a revolving door for all teams. They use derogatory terms in most instances when speaking of the Swans, with few exceptions.

I don't know if we need a new coach or if we need a new game plan... what I do know is that the facts don't bear out most of the arguments raised. I'm pretty sure most of the issues began to be raised after the 2014 GF and have just snowballed since then. I personally think that when/if we get a new coach, we should all get used to losing, and Horse is suddenly going to look a lot better in a lot of peoples eyes. I don't think that it is a coincidence that Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney have been having extended periods of success while having a stable coaching group, and that West Coast is now moving in the same direction. But sooner or later, it is time for the coach to move on... is that now? I don't know.


**The bit in brackets could be wrong, can't find the article I read about it.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I would encourage you to watch almost all of the other teams in the competition, how much more open their games are. Something in the way we are setting up and moving the ball is creating congestion and inviting pressure. I even said this in 2017 when we were on top of games but it still felt like we had so much less time and space to work with. I said my guess as to why this is happening, you can give yours, but ultimately none of us know why it happens to us, only the coaches. So it's up to them to find our way out of it. But I really do believe our youngsters have it a lot tougher compared to a lot of other teams, and that concerns me going forward.

Out of curiosity, which current team in the league who is struggling do you believe has an expansive open game plan which allows their youngsters to express themselves?

Ofcourse we're going to look like we have less time and space as our team regressed. That's what happens to teams that contain an unbalanced mix of average, young, old, and gun players. no complaints 2012-2016 when we were wiping the floor with teams, spreading players all over like a field day. I can't agree that it's our game plan doing it that to us unless you can actually give me a bottom 6 side who plays amazing footy.

 

[Jack Lord]

What happens with Buddy’s contract if he retires? He’s contracted ‘til the end of 22. Do we get stuck in another Tippet like situation?

 

[RUNVS]

What happens with Buddy’s contract if he retires? He’s contracted ‘til the end of 22. Do we get stuck in another Tippet like situation?

Yes. The AFL made sure of that. We have to pay Buddy the full amount, and the full amount stays under the cap as well.

 

[alex4445]

What happens with Buddy’s contract if he retires? He’s contracted ‘til the end of 22. Do we get stuck in another Tippet like situation?

Tippet's was a settlement so we didnt pay all of his remaining contract and only the settlement amount was included in the cap. If Buddy retired his total contract would count in the cap even if we actualy paid him less.

 

[Jack Lord]

Yes. The AFL made sure of that. We have to pay Buddy the full amount, and the full amount stays under the cap as well.

Uh oh.

 

[Jewelsbon]

What happens with Buddy’s contract if he retires? He’s contracted ‘til the end of 22. Do we get stuck in another Tippet like situation?

He might have lost a yard or two but i think he's a long way from retirement.

 

[Jack Lord]

He might have lost a yard or two but i think he's a long way from retirement.

Maybe but he’s 32 and I t’s a long time til Sep 2022.