Rumour Bluemour Discussion thread

[passmark]

Awesome jacket.

I think it got re-purposed into a dozen tea towels at the lodge.

 

[KohPhi]

The fact is the combination of pick 20 + 21 is performing better than 10. That is it. I'm not comparing to Francis or parish or weideman. I'm comparing 20 + 21 to 10. Which after looking a bit closer was actually curnow. Despite his 6 games. He's still not having a good a season as Dunkley and Collins (yes Collins has played 1 game so far), and yes curnow got an unlucky injury and bout of glandular fever. I'm not debating that. Currently 20+21 >>> 10. Which is solely argued based on us trading it out when I thought it may have been a poor decision. Only time will tell I though it wise to ring it up after 1 season.

 

[zeeCFC]

The fact is the combination of pick 20 + 21 is performing better than 10. That is it. I'm not comparing to Francis or parish or weideman. I'm comparing 20 + 21 to 10. Which after looking a bit closer was actually curnow. Despite his 6 games. He's still not having a good a season as Dunkley and Collins (yes Collins has played 1 game so far), and yes curnow got an unlucky injury and bout of glandular fever. I'm not debating that. Currently 20+21 >>> 10. Which is solely argued based on us trading it out when I thought it may have been a poor decision. Only time will tell I though it wise to ring it up after 1 season.

There are some astonishingly stupid posts on this site and this is up there with the best of them.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Remember how the Fonz often got driven nutso by Ralph Malph!

Not really but I'll take your word for it

 

[Prem17]

Trade period starts on the tenth of October.

Is it "Trade Week" or is it still "Trade Monotonously Long and Drawn Out Bullshit Trade Period" again?

 

[HARKER]

Is it "Trade Week" or is it still "Trade Monotonously Long and Drawn Out Bullshit Trade Period" again?

9 days of trading all up. Monday - Thursday week.

 

[Prem17]

9 days of trading all up. Monday - Thursday week.

OMG.......

 

[DirkDiggler]

Clearly I'm not getting any support for my opinion. Just like I didn't when I suggested giving up 20 and 21 for 10 wasn't smart. I guess I'll have to wait another year of two to see the outcome. I'll stop arguing now.

I thought you raised a valid issue, whether attaining a high pick eg pick 11 is worth the cost of sacrificing two picks. Eg picks 20 and 21. The discussion was derailed because you used a poor example as it is way too recent an event to make a call on and instead whipped posters here into a frenzy.

Let's look at the following draft outcomes from yesteryear to guide discussion.

2007 pick 11 vezpremi versus pick 20 Notte pick 21 Adam Maric
2008 pick 11 Sidebottom v pick 20 Swift pick 21 Trengove
2009 pick 11Gysberts v pick 20 Fyfe
2010 pick 11 t lynch. v pick 20 J Pitt pick 21 J Lamb
2011 Greene v pick 20 Crozier pick 21 T Mitchell father son
2012 pick 11 Menzel v pick 20 Broomhead pick 21 Hrovat.

A mixed bag of outcomes in terms of hits and misses.

Got a feeling we will be happy with our high risk strategy in the long run.

Dirk.

 

[Big Sim is Back]

9 days of trading all up. Monday - Thursday week.

Trade period days go by the same formula as dog years. Each day has approximately 168 hours.

 

[Azul]

Trade period days go by the same formula as dog years. Each day has approximately 168 hours.

I thought a day was arbitrarily broken into 24 units representing the rotation around the sun. e.g. The Romans recorded a sundial of 6 hours before noon and 6 before sunset.

Would it be more accurate to suggest that prehistoric dogs immigrated from the dwarf planet Ceres, located in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, whose orbit around the sun takes 4.6 Terran years, I wonder...

 

[The Flying Doormat]

There are some astonishingly stupid posts on this site and this is up there with the best of them.

Beg to differ Zee. That's nowhere near the calibre of Spudman. This was one of his all time classics.

What's wrong with this post.It's better then seeing those looney tunes running our Country.What the hell is a hung parliament.I wonder who are all these really hung guy in the parliament.They surely got the sex party votes all stuck together.I wonder if Abbott and Costello got them all in Speedo or something.

 

[therubbernub]

Clearly I'm not getting any support for my opinion. Just like I didn't when I suggested giving up 20 and 21 for 10 wasn't smart. I guess I'll have to wait another year of two to see the outcome. I'll stop arguing now.

I think you are being too dogmatic about it. What you say has merit in general. But the reality is that sos needed/ wanted to rebuild our spine.and was faced with a draft with plenty of good talls. But he realised that they would be gone at 20 /21. So i think in this specific year, it has worked out better.
The draft of 2016 has been projected to be full of mids and is much more even. So i think in this year, we would be better having more picks. If someone wanted to give us picks 10 and 11 for our 5 for example, i would dp it. This year.

 

[Azul]

Pick 11 was never intended to be used on Ed's brother? My understanding is Carlton had a last-hour announcement that fell through before the deadline.

moot point.

Anyway, I like the Dunkley kid but surely we would have taken Tucker and Clarke.

 

[therubbernub]

... thought we wanted to improve our development. Isn't the key to that not selecting a player until they have fulfilled set benchmarks, both on and off the field?

Jeremy Cameron is a low possession high impact freak. Schache is playing because Brisbane need to sell memberships, and he realistically could/would have gone pick one, should Brisbane have come last. Darcy Moore is looking like he could be anything, but he's flourishing in a side with multiple targets up forward; Joe Daniher was played and didn't look ready until this year, and is one of the worst set shots for goal - alongside Levi - that I've ever seen.

Talls. Take. Longer. Development can be as small as ensuring that a program designed to build upper body and core strength is done at the appropriate rate, so as to ensure no damage is done to a still growing body. Might I also remind you that Cripps spent significant time off the ground and being developed before he became a longstay in our 22. We took McKay knowing he was a project key forward, and rushing him in to the ones could result in injury and him feeling as though he is not up to it, depending on his psychology, so you'll have to forgive me if I'll trust the club on when to pick him over you.

I dont think BB shares your opinion about harry being a project player. BB has said it countless times if you listen. No ceiling, no limits, have to earn your spot etc. BB is clearly articulating in words and actions, that if you are good enoigh you will get a game. Silvagni is an obvious example which completely debunks your theory.

 

[Aphrodite]

Any Bluemours FFS!









Am I doing it right thylacine60

 

[therubbernub]

Pick 11 was never intended to be used on Ed's brother? My understanding is Carlton had a last-hour announcement that fell through before the deadline.

moot point.

Anyway, I like the Dunkley kid but surely we would have taken Tucker and Clarke.

I have heard that and i have also heard the opposite. Tomlinson was not the certainty that we all assumed

 

[Gethelred]

I dont think BB shares your opinion about harry being a project player. BB has said it countless times if you listen. No ceiling, no limits, have to earn your spot etc. BB is clearly articulating in words and actions, that if you are good enoigh you will get a game. Silvagni is an obvious example which completely debunks your theory.

Not really. The first thing I said was "Isn't the key to that not selecting a player until they have fulfilled set benchmarks, both on and off the field?" Silvagni clearly covered his benchmarks, and earnt his position in the ones. Harry, on the other hand, is playing as a part of three key forwards, and to a certain extent the three of them - Jones, Jaksch and Harry - have worked together reasonably well.

How exactly do you evaluate 'good enough' without setting benchmarks? No ceilings is a great mantra, but all that comes down to is not placing limitations on individuals or the group; hence we've seen Weitering up forward, and Jaksch down back in the VFL, Rowe up forward at times, SOSOS playing ones well before anyone thought he would. All 'no ceilings' refers to is a flexibility of action and thought, a freedom to achieve. You absolutely cannot assess any players, in a football or a business context, without benchmarks. It doesn't work, and leads to the Malthouse environment where he played favourites, and selected based on gut.

Seeing as you've suggested my 'theory', as it were, is debunked, why then has Harry not been selected yet? Jaksch either? Why is this the first week Cuningham was selected? It could be for the precisely zero reasons you've provided, or it could be that they all are being developed in the twos, which makes vastly more sense.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Clearly I'm not getting any support for my opinion. Just like I didn't when I suggested giving up 20 and 21 for 10 wasn't smart. I guess I'll have to wait another year of two to see the outcome. I'll stop arguing now.

Another year or 2 to see the outcome - BINGO!!!

 

[SOSOJ]

I dont think BB shares your opinion about harry being a project player. BB has said it countless times if you listen. No ceiling, no limits, have to earn your spot etc. BB is clearly articulating in words and actions, that if you are good enoigh you will get a game. Silvagni is an obvious example which completely debunks your theory.

Was fortunate enough to meet the great man Juddy a couple of weeks ago. He said BB and the football dept think Harry will be the best out of the whole draft intake incl Weiters!!

 

[Jeremias]

You guys might not know this, but I consider myself a bit of a loner. I tend to think of myself as a one-man wolf pack. But when Aphrodite brought Chism home, I knew he was one of my own. And my wolf pack... it grew by one. So there... there were two of us in the wolf pack... I was alone first in the pack, and then Chism joined in later. And six months ago, when Chism introduced me to you guys, I thought, "Wait a second, could it be?" And now I know for sure, I just added two more guys to my wolf pack. Four of us wolves, running around the boards together, on BigFooty, looking for strippers and cocaine. So tonight, I make a toast!

 

[RAPPA]

Was fortunate enough to meet the great man Juddy a couple of weeks ago. He said BB and the football dept think Harry will be the best out of the whole draft intake incl Weiters!!

They might be confusing him with Andrew.

 

[agro]

They might be confusing him with Andrew.

More like confusing him with Ben.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Only 2 characters in that story. First in, first served.

 

[therubbernub]

Was fortunate enough to meet the great man Juddy a couple of weeks ago. He said BB and the football dept think Harry will be the best out of the whole draft intake incl Weiters!!

I have heard similar thoughts about harry

 

[therubbernub]

Not really. The first thing I said was "Isn't the key to that not selecting a player until they have fulfilled set benchmarks, both on and off the field?" Silvagni clearly covered his benchmarks, and earnt his position in the ones. Harry, on the other hand, is playing as a part of three key forwards, and to a certain extent the three of them - Jones, Jaksch and Harry - have worked together reasonably well.

How exactly do you evaluate 'good enough' without setting benchmarks? No ceilings is a great mantra, but all that comes down to is not placing limitations on individuals or the group; hence we've seen Weitering up forward, and Jaksch down back in the VFL, Rowe up forward at times, SOSOS playing ones well before anyone thought he would. All 'no ceilings' refers to is a flexibility of action and thought, a freedom to achieve. You absolutely cannot assess any players, in a football or a business context, without benchmarks. It doesn't work, and leads to the Malthouse environment where he played favourites, and selected based on gut.

Seeing as you've suggested my 'theory', as it were, is debunked, why then has Harry not been selected yet? Jaksch either? Why is this the first week Cuningham was selected? It could be for the precisely zero reasons you've provided, or it could be that they all are being developed in the twos, which makes vastly more sense.

my mistake. i read this "We took McKay knowing he was a project key forward, and rushing him in to the ones could result in injury and him feeling as though he is not up to it, depending on his psychology" and came to the wrong conclusion