Team Mgmt. An early crack at 2017 best 22

[eth-dog]

McKenna will fight with Parish for his position IMO.

No, he'll spend the majority of the year in the VFL.

 

[grundog49]

No, he'll spend the majority of the year in the VFL.

Why do you say that? He's streets ahead skill wise then McKenna and can play in a rotation on the wing. Parish has already got the runs on the board against VFL opposition and has shown in the u18 Championships he can play as a small forward or high half forward.

 

[eth-dog]

Why do you say that? He's streets ahead skill wise then McKenna and can play in a rotation on the wing. Parish has already got the runs on the board against VFL opposition and has shown in the u18 Championships he can play as a small forward or high half forward.

I misread it. McKenna will spend vast majority of the year in VFL. Parish might get up to 10 games in the AFL.

 

[hurlygurdy]

A) Hawks are not rebuilding, and are playing for now.
B) Hawks have older players that have been, and are still, great players.

That Gwilt, Dempsey and Cooney were ever on Essendon's list, or still on the list reflects poorly on Essendon. They have nothing in common with the likes of Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Burgoyne, and nor do Essendon with Hawthorn.

Oops! Ever on our list? Pointless comparing to Hawks of course, but it certainly does not reflect poorly on the club to have these guys on the list in the past.

As for being on the list right now, they are all there by the skin of their teeth, but also could be there in 2017 if they have a revival.
It's worth remembering that Dempsey is 28 and Gwilt is 29. If Dempsey recovers form then he could have another 3+ years left. Gwilt is really solid as a third tall and if we want to avoid being age-ist about it, he seems to have a body that could easily go another 3+ years at this level.
Cooney is 30 but his age is irrelevant in the sense that he is best 22 in any team if he is fit and in form. I don't mind having him around so long as we avoid playing him when he is injured. This year we did just that, but mostly because we were so short of other options. In a sense it's a good thing that he comes in and out of the team because he doesn't hold back the kids as a result. In short i just don't see the downside of having him on the list.
It's not likely that all these players hang around and retain/regain form, but our list is relatively young so there is no harm in them being given some time.

 

[tenderwarrior]

I said were ever on Essendon's list, or still on the list.

As for being on the list right now, they are all there by the skin of their teeth..

So you don't totally disagree with me, just the manner in which I presented it.

I have conceded that some of what I wrote I regretted, and you have highlighted the main 'cringeworthy' comment I referred to a few posts up.

Essendon took a gamble with Cooney, but I think the ASADA stuff took the wind out of the pursuit of seeing some serious finals action - which was on the cards when they got Goddard and Chapman. Essendon probably already knew this though before recruiting Cooney, so was an interesting trade.

Gwilt is a good depth player, and given what Essendon were facing at the start of last year, was a good pick up.

Dempsey has been a good player, but I thought he was gone at the end of last year and surprised to still see him on the list (was he contracted for 2016 already?)

Cooney - I thought the flag horse had bolted (through no fault of the players). He was relatively cheap, but I thought it was a mistake recruiting him. Would Essendon have been better off drafting another kid with the pick traded for Cooney?

Gwilt - Not a bad pick up considering the situation at the start of last year. All going well though, should he be depth in 2016?

Dempsey - I thought he would have been delisted or traded, and was surprised to see him retained. Are Essendon better of playing a kid?

 

[Doss]

Opinion on Cooney was divided even at the time.

Gwilt is very solid depth- he did an okay job last year.

 

[Halftimehero]

No, he'll spend the majority of the year in the VFL.

I reckon you will be suprised at how much Mckenna will come on this year, look at the steps he took from early in the season to late in 2015, add another pre season to that and I can see him playing 10-12 games easily.

 

[ant555]

Did our inability to win clearances in 2015 impact that as well?

More than likely. With Watson. Myers and a lesser extent Hocking out there was not much left.

 

[eth-dog]

I reckon you will be suprised at how much Mckenna will come on this year, look at the steps he took from early in the season to late in 2015, add another pre season to that and I can see him playing 10-12 games easily.

He's improved out of sight no doubt but he's still in the outside top 30 category IMO.

More than likely. With Watson. Myers and a lesser extent Hocking out there was not much left.

I thought so too.

 

[Halftimehero]

He's improved out of sight no doubt but he's still in the outside top 30 category IMO.

I thought so too.

He will be even better though with that extra 6 months under his belt and NAB games, from what he was this time last year to running around on the MCG 9 months later having 18 disposals and 4 shots at goal was a massive feather in his cap, that sort of improvement again definitely has him playing plenty of games this season.

They internally rate the kid as good as a top 10 draft pick, no way in a rebuilding phase they don't have him playing plenty of matches in his second season.

 

[bombreys]

He will be even better though with that extra 6 months under his belt and NAB games, from what he was this time last year to running around on the MCG 9 months later having 18 disposals and 4 shots at goal was a massive feather in his cap, that sort of improvement again definitely has him playing plenty of games this season.

They internally rate the kid as good as a top 10 draft pick, no way in a rebuilding phase they don't have him playing plenty of matches in his second season.

I was super impressed with his game in the final round. For an international player to come in and play like that on his second AFL game is astonishing.

With a healthy list he probably spends majority of his time at VFL-level, but very excited for this kids future.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

A) Hawks are not rebuilding, and are playing for now.
B) Hawks have older players that have been, and are still, great players.

That Gwilt, Dempsey and Cooney were ever on Essendon's list, or still on the list reflects poorly on Essendon. They have nothing in common with the likes of Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Burgoyne, and nor do Essendon with Hawthorn.

What a joke. Gwilt and Dempsey are depth players and nothing more. Cooney is an experienced player we got for chips and didn't even have to pay the campaigner properly.

Way to go on to an opposition board and prove you know sweet **** all about the list

 

[tenderwarrior]

What a joke. Gwilt and Dempsey are depth players and nothing more. Cooney is an experienced player we got for chips and didn't even have to pay the campaigner properly.

Way to go on to an opposition board and prove you know sweet **** all about the list

And what does your post prove?

 

[Doss]

Guys, I think tenderwarrior realises he was a bit over the top in his tone initially. Let's just cool the jets a bit.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

And what does your post prove?

That you clearly do not understand the concept of keeping depth at a position. Regardless of whether or not you claim you went over the top in your first posts or how much you want to understate the manner of what you said, you don't have a point. You're wrong. Recruiting or keeping older players to fill obvious holes in a line up is not, and will never be, bad list management. We did not trade away our future for any one of those players which you're critical of.

 

[tenderwarrior]

That you clearly do not understand the concept of keeping depth at a position. Regardless of whether or not you claim you went over the top in your first posts or how much you want to understate the manner of what you said, you don't have a point. You're wrong. Recruiting or keeping older players to fill obvious holes in a line up is not, and will never be, bad list management. We did not trade away our future for any one of those players which you're critical of.

I was thinking your post proved something else..

 

[The House]

Gwilt was good depth for us last year.
Putting Dempsey in that group is incredibly laughable. Has been a good player for us for a long time, and has started to decline over the last year or two.

Suggests to me that you barely know Essendon but still feel inclined to come to our board and make your judgements on the players. Which is fine, feel free to do so.

The fact that you think Gwilt was a "good depth for us last year" suggests to me that you barely know Essendon but still feel inclined to come to our board and make your judgements on the players. Which is fine, feel free to do so.

 

[Doss]

Wait.

You're saying that to one of the moderators of this board?

Okay...

And actually, yes. Gwilt was serviceable. What a bizarre post.

 

[Loonerty]

The fact that you think Gwilt was a "good depth for us last year" suggests to me that you barely know Essendon but still feel inclined to come to our board and make your judgements on the players. Which is fine, feel free to do so.

 

[The House]

Wait.

You're saying that to one of the moderators of this board?

Okay...

And actually, yes. Gwilt was serviceable. What a bizarre post.

I cut and pasted most of that from what he said to another Essendon supporter - and no, Gwilt wasn't serviceable imo, he was well below a pass mark (that's the diplomatic way of saying it).


As for the person I responded to being a moderator, I'll give you a tip...being a moderator on a board like this does not require, nor is it, an indication that he/you/anyone has a footy IQ higher than anyone else's.

#getoffyourhighhorse

 

[Doss]

I cut and pasted most of that from what he said to another Essendon supporter - and no, Gwilt wasn't serviceable imo, he was well below a pass mark (that's the diplomatic way of saying it).


As for the person I responded to being a moderator, I'll give you a tip...being a moderator on a board like this does not require, nor is it, an indication that he/you/anyone has a footy IQ higher than anyone else's.

#getoffyourhighhorse

Well firstly, matey, no he didn't say that to a fellow Essendon poster, he said it to a Geelong poster who was posting here. Maybe check your facts.

Secondly, in no way did I imply Loonerty's (or any other mod's) footy IQ is higher. You said "when you come to this board..." to him. He's a moderator here and an Essendon poster- he basically lives on this board so he's not 'coming here' at all. The fact he said that to the Geelong poster in the first place was fair enough given what was posted and the tone of it.

As for your hashtag, well done.

 

[Loonerty]

The fact that you think Gwilt was a "good depth for us last year" suggests to me that you barely know Essendon but still feel inclined to come to our board and make your judgements on the players. Which is fine, feel free to do so.

Now to be a serious person and respond.

Gwilt was absolutely fine and honestly I think you're just one of the people who thought he was a spud at St Kilda and refused to change your mind when we got him. He filled a hole we were lacking in options for and did a solid job. He wasn't amazing, he was solid. That's all we ever wanted or should have expected.

To suggest he was well below a pass mark is ridiculous given he ended up playing half the season. If he was well below a pass mark, he wouldn't have played.

 

[yaco55]

Looks like 'The House' has come off the long run and missed the wicket - By a long way.

 

[The House]

Now to be a serious person and respond.

Gwilt was absolutely fine and honestly I think you're just one of the people who thought he was a spud at St Kilda and refused to change your mind when we got him. He filled a hole we were lacking in options for and did a solid job. He wasn't amazing, he was solid. That's all we ever wanted or should have expected.

To suggest he was well below a pass mark is ridiculous given he ended up playing half the season. If he was well below a pass mark, he wouldn't have played.

Well, since one of you is responding with a post worth legitimately responding to, i shall respond accordingly.

For what it's worth, I disagree.

I feel he was below a pass mark AND played in a side that only won 5 games and we had few other options....that doesn't mean he gets an AFL pass mark for a 3rd defender style role just for making that side with little opposition for his spot.


For the record, my opinion of his 2016 form has nothing to do with his STK form - it's to do with my observation of his 2016 form.

We all see it differently, but he was both far too leaky and loved a turnover on a much too regular basis to get near a pass mark for me.

But we all see it differently, so if that form is beyond a pass mark for you then fair enough (just don't tell Doss....he seems a little emotional).

 

[Doss]

Don't you mean #emotional?

You ballsed up, mate. Don't put this back on me. Admit your mistake and move on.

Anyway...I'll get back to discussing football.

I think Loonerty is right. The expectations on Gwilt were never going to be big. In fact, the expectation was probably that he was going to be mostly depth as I doubt we anticipated Fletcher would only play seven games. Yeah he wasn't perfect, far from it, but considering how much of the ball was coming in once our midfield fell apart (which coincided with when Gwilt played most of his seniors football), I think he did about as well as someone of his size could have. Not sure I agree he was that much of a turnover merchant, either.