No Oppo Supporters Essendon* - 6900 & Beyond - Carlton Posters ONLY!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Essendon won a flag in the 2000s, but it was also the last flag of the 20th Century.

There was no year 0. We went from 1BC to 1AD (Year of the birth of Christ). 100AD concluded at the end of the 100th year. The year 1000 concluded at the end of the 1000th year, and rolled into the new millenium Jan 1, 2001.

What we celebrated December 31st 1999, was the end of the 1900s and the start of the 2000s, but not the end of the millenium which occurred a year later.

The Y2K bug complicated things further but that was a numerical issue in computers and they called it a millennial bug which was technically not right.

I'd prefer the gear 2000 to be the first gear of a millenium too, just for tidiness, but it makes no sense mathematically.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

My thoughts are the Bombers and some in the media are getting a bit ahead of themselves. Their young blokes look OK but it's very early days and much of their run can be attributed to Stringer...and we know how manic his game can be. Just as likely to fall off a cliff next year. So I'd wait at least a season before I'd make a proper call either way on their future.
 
Pixelshooter said:
My thoughts are the Bombers and some in the media are getting a bit ahead of themselves. Their young blokes look OK but it's very early days and much of their run can be attributed to Stringer...and we know how manic his game can be. Just as likely to fall off a cliff next year. So I'd wait at least a season before I'd make a proper call either way on their future.
Click to expand...

They need to give Stringer 6 month contracts. Only plays well when his contract is coming up.
 
Given that this is not in general a thread for reasonable discussion, people need to cool their jets a bit when discussing their prospects. People are behaving as though they're suddenly super young, when in reality they've been setting themselves for this particular tilt for a while.

Their top players this year are Parish (24), Wright (24), Merrett (25), Stringer (27), Hind (26), Stewart (27), Tippa (28), Smith (28), Shiel (28), Heppell (29), Hurley (31), and Hooker (32). They can talk up Laverde's year as much as they like; he's playing as an unaccountable third tall beside two of their oldest and most experienced KPP.

Harrison Jones is averaging 7.3 disposals, 1.3 tackles and 1.3 goals a game; the goal average is something to look at, but as a medium forward he's lead up. He's not big enough to challenge a proper KPD, nor is he fast enough to beat them straight line; he's a clever footballer, and while they have their place they're always a chance to go through a game goalless or possessionless. Archie Perkins, for all the dare of his play, averages 12.2 disposals and 2.2 tackles a game as a HFF/midfielder; he's young (the three players everyone's raging about are) so he has every chance to improve on those numbers, but they aren't screaming AFL quality, either.

We finally get to the unicorn himself, Nick Cox. Nick's tall, in case you haven't heard; he's built like a giraffe. He's a midfielder. My issue with him - as, in general, with most hybrids - is that while he's fast and agile, it's for his size not his position. Nick Cox is not faster than Andrew Gaff, he's not got better skills than him, he's not more agile than him. What he is is taller. Cox is averaging 12.9 disposals, 2.4 tackles as a utility, but mainly on the wing or manning a 3rd tall down back. That's hardly gamebreaking, and the real problem is this; his best attribute is his speed, agility and ball handling for his size, the former of the two are endangered if you bulk him up some. And if you don't get some muscle onto him, he's going to get out-muscled by other talls. So, there's a quandry there: do you keep what he does well and let him be a jack of all trades (which entails that he cannot truly beat the best KPP or smalls) or do you change him into a conventional tall, and if you did that why'd you pick the unicorn in the first place?

Hooker and Hurley are on their last legs, and they've Wright and Stewart to compensate at either end. Wright's done okay in his first year at his new club; how's he going to go without Hooker? How's Laverde going to go if Stewart goes down and he has to sit Harry McKay, Charlie Dixon, Tom Hawkins? Plowman could manhandle Cox if they put him forward to have a matchup, much less Jones.

Then you have a look a little deeper. Heppell's struggling to stay on the field. So is Shiel. Smith has played 1 full season in his entire career, Stringer 2. Stewart is being held together with some ducttape and a fencing pole. Laverde's done well given that it's come out of the blue; wonder how he'll go without help and/or now that people know the jig a little better? And it isn't as though he hasn't had his own troubles with injury, either. Wright's had a good year - note, the word here is good, not great; he's performed on an acceptable level, as did Mitch Brown on less coin a few years back - but it's really his first reasonable year ever; can he back it up? Merrett and Parish are the only ones from that list who you could call durable.

Then, you've got their second tier: Langford, Redman, Snelling, Clarke, Draper, McGrath. Some will object to me putting Draper and McGrath in here, but those people would be wrong. For all that McGrath has terrific AFL traits, he's essentially just a straight line player. The best mids all have a kind of 360 degree awareness that allows them to know if they're being tackles; McGrath doesn't have that, and because he doesn't have that he's never going to be more than a wing, and even then that's if he has a very intelligent coach. He could still be a very good player; just, he's not going to be that in/out gun mid.

Draper is legitimately the most overhyped player in the competition. He's big and aggressive and he plays for Essendon so of course he was always going to be the next big thing. Firstly, he's a ruckman and a ruck's contribution to the game is overemphasized in the first place, and secondly he concedes free kicks because - and this is my real issue here - he's distractable. His entire game is getting in a good ruck's face and smashing into them. His job as a ruckman, though, is to give his team first use, not to bludgeon his direct opponent as often and as legally as he can. If you want to beat him, talk shit at him and distract him and he's done for the day. You're guaranteed first use and they're left with an angry big bloke with shit hair.

I rate Redman, because he flies under the radar a bit. He's essentially pre Geelong Zac Tuohy. Snelling is Newnes but shitter. I have less memories of Clarke than I do my last bowel movement. Langford's a bit like Jack Silvagni, in that he's underrated. Send him into the middle and he'll win you a clearance, put him up forward and he'll give you a target, put him behind the ball and he'll **** it up but look extremely frustrated while doing it. He's a bandaid you can put on any given problem, and he'll give his best to sometimes surprising results.

The key here is: this is a list in prime age to contend. They have a whole bunch of players who are genuinely into their prime years, and as a team they're underachieving as much as we are. On the basis of list demographics, they should be sitting roundabout 6th+ on the ladder; on the basis of output, they're exciting to watch but extremely disappointing. They're somewhat lucky to be able to pull Hind, Laverde out of cloth and have them compensate for where they're weak, and to have Wright play so well for the first time in his career, but make no mistake: Essendon are not going to get that much improvement out of their current 22. Perkins and Jones are the ones to watch there, and two players do not make a team.
 
Last edited:
Gethelred said:
Given that this is not in general a thread for reasonable discussion, people need to cool their jets a bit when discussing their prospects. People are behaving as though they're suddenly super young, when in reality they've been setting themselves for this particular tilt for a while.

Their top players this year are Parish (24), Wright (24), Merrett (25), Stringer (27), Hind (26), Stewart (27), Tippa (28), Smith (28), Shiel (28), Heppell (29), Hurley (31), and Hooker (32). They can talk up Laverde's year as much as they like; he's playing as an unaccountable third tall beside two of their oldest and most experienced KPP.

Harrison Jones is averaging 7.3 disposals, 1.3 tackles and 1.3 goals a game; the goal average is something to look at, but as a medium forward he's lead up. He's not big enough to challenge a proper KPD, nor is he fast enough to beat them straight line; he's a clever footballer, and while they have their place they're always a chance to go through a game goalless or possessionless. Archie Perkins, for all the dare of his play, averages 12.2 disposals and 2.2 tackles a game as a HFF/midfielder; he's young (the three players everyone's raging about are) so he has every chance to improve on those numbers, but they aren't screaming AFL quality, either.

We finally get to the unicorn himself, Nick Cox. Nick's tall, in case you haven't heard; he's built like a giraffe. He's a midfielder. My issue with him - as, in general, with most hybrids - is that while he's fast and agile, it's for his size not his position. Nick Cox is not faster than Andrew Gaff, he's not got better skills than him, he's not more agile than him. What he is is taller. Cox is averaging 12.9 disposals, 2.4 tackles as a utility, but mainly on the wing or manning a 3rd tall down back. That's hardly gamebreaking, and the real problem is this; his best attribute is his speed, agility and ball handling for his size, the former of the two are endangered if you bulk him up some. And if you don't get some muscle onto him, he's going to get out-muscled by other talls. So, there's a quandry there: do you keep what he does well and let him be a jack of all trades (which entails that he cannot truly beat the best KPP or smalls) or do you change him into a conventional tall, and if you did that why'd you pick the unicorn in the first place?

Hooker and Hurley are on their last legs, and they've Wright and Stewart to compensate at either end. Wright's done okay in his first year at his new club; how's he going to go without Hooker? How's Laverde going to go if Stewart goes down and he has to sit Harry McKay, Charlie Dixon, Tom Hawkins? Plowman could manhandle Cox if they put him forward to have a matchup, much less Jones.

Then you have a look a little deeper. Heppell's struggling to stay on the field. So is Shiel. Smith has played 1 full season in his entire career, Stringer 2. Stewart is being held together with some ducttape and a fencing pole. Laverde's done well given that it's come out of the blue; wonder how he'll go without help and/or now that people know the jig a little better? And it isn't as though he hasn't had his own troubles with injury, either. Wright's had a good year - note, the word here is good, not great; he's performed on an acceptable level, as did Mitch Brown on less coin a few years back - but it's really his first reasonable year ever; can he back it up? Merrett and Parish are the only ones from that list who you could call durable.

Then, you've got their second tier: Langford, Redman, Snelling, Clarke, Draper, McGrath. Some will object to me putting Draper and McGrath in here, but those people would be wrong. For all that McGrath has terrific AFL traits, he's essentially just a straight line player. The best mids all have a kind of 360 degree awareness that allows them to know if they're being tackles; McGrath doesn't have that, and because he doesn't have that he's never going to be more than a wing, and even then that's if he has a very intelligent coach. He could still be a very good player; just, he's not going to be that in/out gun mid.

Draper is legitimately the most overhyped player in the competition. He's big and aggressive and he plays for Essendon so of course he was always going to be the next big thing. Firstly, he's a ruckman and a ruck's contribution to the game is overemphasized in the first place, and secondly he concedes free kicks because - and this is my real issue here - he's distractable. His entire game is getting in a good ruck's face and smashing into them. His job as a ruckman, though, is to give his team first use, not to bludgeon his direct opponent as often and as legally as he can. If you want to beat him, talk sh*t at him and distract him and he's done for the day. You're guaranteed first use and they're left with an angry big bloke with sh*t hair.

I rate Redman, because he flies under the radar a bit. He's essentially pre Geelong Zac Tuohy. Snelling is Newnes but shitter. I have less memories of Clarke than I do my last bowel movement. Langford's a bit like Jack Silvagni, in that he's underrated. Send him into the middle and he'll win you a clearance, put him up forward and he'll give you a target, put him behind the ball and he'll fu** it up but look extremely frustrated while doing it. He's a bandaid you can put on any given problem, and he'll give his best to sometimes surprising results.

The key here is: this is a list in prime age to contend. They have a whole bunch of players who are genuinely into their prime years, and as a team they're underachieving as much as we are. On the basis of list demographics, they should be sitting roundabout 6th+ on the ladder; on the basis of output, they're exciting to watch but extremely disappointing. They're somewhat lucky to be able to pull Hind, Laverde out of cloth and have them compensate for where they're weak, and to have Wright play so well for the first time in his career, but make no mistake: Essendon are not going to get that much improvement out of their current 22. Perkins and Jones are the ones to watch there, and two players do not make a team.
Click to expand...



You had be going there for a while until you said Plowman could manhandle Cox, it’s actually funny on two levels.

;) :p
 
Juddernaut08 said:
21st century starts in 2001
Click to expand...
OK, I googled. See where you are coming from. I don't regret celebrating the new millennium on 1 Jan 2000 along with everyone else. Not our problem people 1999 years earlier skipped a year.

Anyway, here is a date we can all agree on - 12 January 2016

This is the date ASADA dropped this bombshell, which the AFL had kept secret for almost 3 years -

'Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements'
 
Countryblueswitnotattoos said:
OK, I googled. See where you are coming from. I don't regret celebrating the new millennium on 1 Jan 2000 along with everyone else. Not our problem people 1999 years earlier skipped a year.

Anyway, here is a date we can all agree on - 12 January 2016

This is the date ASADA dropped this bombshell, which the AFL had kept secret for almost 3 years -

'Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements'
Click to expand...
Well it's factually correct lol, this is not a subjective question. You should understand what years fall under which century. It'd be the equivalent of you arguing that you think April has 31 days.

Agree with the rest of your post. Essendon and AFL really ballsed it up.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gethelred said:
Given that this is not in general a thread for reasonable discussion, people need to cool their jets a bit when discussing their prospects. People are behaving as though they're suddenly super young, when in reality they've been setting themselves for this particular tilt for a while.

Their top players this year are Parish (24), Wright (24), Merrett (25), Stringer (27), Hind (26), Stewart (27), Tippa (28), Smith (28), Shiel (28), Heppell (29), Hurley (31), and Hooker (32). They can talk up Laverde's year as much as they like; he's playing as an unaccountable third tall beside two of their oldest and most experienced KPP.

Harrison Jones is averaging 7.3 disposals, 1.3 tackles and 1.3 goals a game; the goal average is something to look at, but as a medium forward he's lead up. He's not big enough to challenge a proper KPD, nor is he fast enough to beat them straight line; he's a clever footballer, and while they have their place they're always a chance to go through a game goalless or possessionless. Archie Perkins, for all the dare of his play, averages 12.2 disposals and 2.2 tackles a game as a HFF/midfielder; he's young (the three players everyone's raging about are) so he has every chance to improve on those numbers, but they aren't screaming AFL quality, either.

We finally get to the unicorn himself, Nick Cox. Nick's tall, in case you haven't heard; he's built like a giraffe. He's a midfielder. My issue with him - as, in general, with most hybrids - is that while he's fast and agile, it's for his size not his position. Nick Cox is not faster than Andrew Gaff, he's not got better skills than him, he's not more agile than him. What he is is taller. Cox is averaging 12.9 disposals, 2.4 tackles as a utility, but mainly on the wing or manning a 3rd tall down back. That's hardly gamebreaking, and the real problem is this; his best attribute is his speed, agility and ball handling for his size, the former of the two are endangered if you bulk him up some. And if you don't get some muscle onto him, he's going to get out-muscled by other talls. So, there's a quandry there: do you keep what he does well and let him be a jack of all trades (which entails that he cannot truly beat the best KPP or smalls) or do you change him into a conventional tall, and if you did that why'd you pick the unicorn in the first place?

Hooker and Hurley are on their last legs, and they've Wright and Stewart to compensate at either end. Wright's done okay in his first year at his new club; how's he going to go without Hooker? How's Laverde going to go if Stewart goes down and he has to sit Harry McKay, Charlie Dixon, Tom Hawkins? Plowman could manhandle Cox if they put him forward to have a matchup, much less Jones.

Then you have a look a little deeper. Heppell's struggling to stay on the field. So is Shiel. Smith has played 1 full season in his entire career, Stringer 2. Stewart is being held together with some ducttape and a fencing pole. Laverde's done well given that it's come out of the blue; wonder how he'll go without help and/or now that people know the jig a little better? And it isn't as though he hasn't had his own troubles with injury, either. Wright's had a good year - note, the word here is good, not great; he's performed on an acceptable level, as did Mitch Brown on less coin a few years back - but it's really his first reasonable year ever; can he back it up? Merrett and Parish are the only ones from that list who you could call durable.

Then, you've got their second tier: Langford, Redman, Snelling, Clarke, Draper, McGrath. Some will object to me putting Draper and McGrath in here, but those people would be wrong. For all that McGrath has terrific AFL traits, he's essentially just a straight line player. The best mids all have a kind of 360 degree awareness that allows them to know if they're being tackles; McGrath doesn't have that, and because he doesn't have that he's never going to be more than a wing, and even then that's if he has a very intelligent coach. He could still be a very good player; just, he's not going to be that in/out gun mid.

Draper is legitimately the most overhyped player in the competition. He's big and aggressive and he plays for Essendon so of course he was always going to be the next big thing. Firstly, he's a ruckman and a ruck's contribution to the game is overemphasized in the first place, and secondly he concedes free kicks because - and this is my real issue here - he's distractable. His entire game is getting in a good ruck's face and smashing into them. His job as a ruckman, though, is to give his team first use, not to bludgeon his direct opponent as often and as legally as he can. If you want to beat him, talk sh*t at him and distract him and he's done for the day. You're guaranteed first use and they're left with an angry big bloke with sh*t hair.

I rate Redman, because he flies under the radar a bit. He's essentially pre Geelong Zac Tuohy. Snelling is Newnes but shitter. I have less memories of Clarke than I do my last bowel movement. Langford's a bit like Jack Silvagni, in that he's underrated. Send him into the middle and he'll win you a clearance, put him up forward and he'll give you a target, put him behind the ball and he'll fu** it up but look extremely frustrated while doing it. He's a bandaid you can put on any given problem, and he'll give his best to sometimes surprising results.

The key here is: this is a list in prime age to contend. They have a whole bunch of players who are genuinely into their prime years, and as a team they're underachieving as much as we are. On the basis of list demographics, they should be sitting roundabout 6th+ on the ladder; on the basis of output, they're exciting to watch but extremely disappointing. They're somewhat lucky to be able to pull Hind, Laverde out of cloth and have them compensate for where they're weak, and to have Wright play so well for the first time in his career, but make no mistake: Essendon are not going to get that much improvement out of their current 22. Perkins and Jones are the ones to watch there, and two players do not make a team.
Click to expand...
Great post.

Highlight: "Snelling is Newnes but shitter."
 
Gethelred said:
Given that this is not in general a thread for reasonable discussion, people need to cool their jets a bit when discussing their prospects. People are behaving as though they're suddenly super young, when in reality they've been setting themselves for this particular tilt for a while.

Their top players this year are Parish (24), Wright (24), Merrett (25), Stringer (27), Hind (26), Stewart (27), Tippa (28), Smith (28), Shiel (28), Heppell (29), Hurley (31), and Hooker (32). They can talk up Laverde's year as much as they like; he's playing as an unaccountable third tall beside two of their oldest and most experienced KPP.

Harrison Jones is averaging 7.3 disposals, 1.3 tackles and 1.3 goals a game; the goal average is something to look at, but as a medium forward he's lead up. He's not big enough to challenge a proper KPD, nor is he fast enough to beat them straight line; he's a clever footballer, and while they have their place they're always a chance to go through a game goalless or possessionless. Archie Perkins, for all the dare of his play, averages 12.2 disposals and 2.2 tackles a game as a HFF/midfielder; he's young (the three players everyone's raging about are) so he has every chance to improve on those numbers, but they aren't screaming AFL quality, either.

We finally get to the unicorn himself, Nick Cox. Nick's tall, in case you haven't heard; he's built like a giraffe. He's a midfielder. My issue with him - as, in general, with most hybrids - is that while he's fast and agile, it's for his size not his position. Nick Cox is not faster than Andrew Gaff, he's not got better skills than him, he's not more agile than him. What he is is taller. Cox is averaging 12.9 disposals, 2.4 tackles as a utility, but mainly on the wing or manning a 3rd tall down back. That's hardly gamebreaking, and the real problem is this; his best attribute is his speed, agility and ball handling for his size, the former of the two are endangered if you bulk him up some. And if you don't get some muscle onto him, he's going to get out-muscled by other talls. So, there's a quandry there: do you keep what he does well and let him be a jack of all trades (which entails that he cannot truly beat the best KPP or smalls) or do you change him into a conventional tall, and if you did that why'd you pick the unicorn in the first place?

Hooker and Hurley are on their last legs, and they've Wright and Stewart to compensate at either end. Wright's done okay in his first year at his new club; how's he going to go without Hooker? How's Laverde going to go if Stewart goes down and he has to sit Harry McKay, Charlie Dixon, Tom Hawkins? Plowman could manhandle Cox if they put him forward to have a matchup, much less Jones.

Then you have a look a little deeper. Heppell's struggling to stay on the field. So is Shiel. Smith has played 1 full season in his entire career, Stringer 2. Stewart is being held together with some ducttape and a fencing pole. Laverde's done well given that it's come out of the blue; wonder how he'll go without help and/or now that people know the jig a little better? And it isn't as though he hasn't had his own troubles with injury, either. Wright's had a good year - note, the word here is good, not great; he's performed on an acceptable level, as did Mitch Brown on less coin a few years back - but it's really his first reasonable year ever; can he back it up? Merrett and Parish are the only ones from that list who you could call durable.

Then, you've got their second tier: Langford, Redman, Snelling, Clarke, Draper, McGrath. Some will object to me putting Draper and McGrath in here, but those people would be wrong. For all that McGrath has terrific AFL traits, he's essentially just a straight line player. The best mids all have a kind of 360 degree awareness that allows them to know if they're being tackles; McGrath doesn't have that, and because he doesn't have that he's never going to be more than a wing, and even then that's if he has a very intelligent coach. He could still be a very good player; just, he's not going to be that in/out gun mid.

Draper is legitimately the most overhyped player in the competition. He's big and aggressive and he plays for Essendon so of course he was always going to be the next big thing. Firstly, he's a ruckman and a ruck's contribution to the game is overemphasized in the first place, and secondly he concedes free kicks because - and this is my real issue here - he's distractable. His entire game is getting in a good ruck's face and smashing into them. His job as a ruckman, though, is to give his team first use, not to bludgeon his direct opponent as often and as legally as he can. If you want to beat him, talk sh*t at him and distract him and he's done for the day. You're guaranteed first use and they're left with an angry big bloke with sh*t hair.

I rate Redman, because he flies under the radar a bit. He's essentially pre Geelong Zac Tuohy. Snelling is Newnes but shitter. I have less memories of Clarke than I do my last bowel movement. Langford's a bit like Jack Silvagni, in that he's underrated. Send him into the middle and he'll win you a clearance, put him up forward and he'll give you a target, put him behind the ball and he'll fu** it up but look extremely frustrated while doing it. He's a bandaid you can put on any given problem, and he'll give his best to sometimes surprising results.

The key here is: this is a list in prime age to contend. They have a whole bunch of players who are genuinely into their prime years, and as a team they're underachieving as much as we are. On the basis of list demographics, they should be sitting roundabout 6th+ on the ladder; on the basis of output, they're exciting to watch but extremely disappointing. They're somewhat lucky to be able to pull Hind, Laverde out of cloth and have them compensate for where they're weak, and to have Wright play so well for the first time in his career, but make no mistake: Essendon are not going to get that much improvement out of their current 22. Perkins and Jones are the ones to watch there, and two players do not make a team.
Click to expand...
Finally some common sense on this mob. They aren't as young as the media and their delusional fans make them out to be and, most importantly, the majority of their match winners are not the kids the media is hyping up. Like most kids in the league there is potential, but that is a very dirty word. Live on potential and it can screw up your club.

And I agree with you on their list in regards to them underperforming- many people conveniently forget that a few years ago they made a play for Stringer, Shiel, Smith and Saad to make finals. Saad left and, that's it! Daniher wasn't there for roughly 2 years and Fantasia was there just a little as Daniher was so the ONLY player they could have missed was Saad. They have replaced Saad with Hind whom they love to brag about (Hind is an extremely average footballer)...

Now in saying all that, we have underperformed badly as well BUT, this year in particular has shown that our growth and all our wins have mainly come from the youth in our club. We win games with TDK in the ruck. Harry at FF. Weiters down back. Walsh in the mid. Dow in the mid etc... The wins are cming from these guys and not really from Ed, Eddie (even though he has performed pretty good in a few games this year) Casboult, Murphy and the like. They've become largely useless to our cause and it shows with them retiring this year.

All things considered, bombers* fans have every right to be happy with where they're currently at considering all the chatter about their culture end of 2020, and somehow that shocking culture has seemingly transferred to us. BUT, it shows that a healthy change in off field leadership and some good teachings can change things very quickly. We have every right to be really pissed with how we have travelled this year considering where we all thought we could achieve. Still, I do think they were not as poor as the media made them out to be and we aren't as good as we were made out to be. Either way, I still think our list is far superior to theirs and we are just a head coach and some quality assistants away from proving that. I'm confident we get Ross the boss in with assistants he desires and we will blow past them.
 
Gethelred said:
Given that this is not in general a thread for reasonable discussion, people need to cool their jets a bit when discussing their prospects. People are behaving as though they're suddenly super young, when in reality they've been setting themselves for this particular tilt for a while.

Their top players this year are Parish (24), Wright (24), Merrett (25), Stringer (27), Hind (26), Stewart (27), Tippa (28), Smith (28), Shiel (28), Heppell (29), Hurley (31), and Hooker (32). They can talk up Laverde's year as much as they like; he's playing as an unaccountable third tall beside two of their oldest and most experienced KPP.

Harrison Jones is averaging 7.3 disposals, 1.3 tackles and 1.3 goals a game; the goal average is something to look at, but as a medium forward he's lead up. He's not big enough to challenge a proper KPD, nor is he fast enough to beat them straight line; he's a clever footballer, and while they have their place they're always a chance to go through a game goalless or possessionless. Archie Perkins, for all the dare of his play, averages 12.2 disposals and 2.2 tackles a game as a HFF/midfielder; he's young (the three players everyone's raging about are) so he has every chance to improve on those numbers, but they aren't screaming AFL quality, either.

We finally get to the unicorn himself, Nick Cox. Nick's tall, in case you haven't heard; he's built like a giraffe. He's a midfielder. My issue with him - as, in general, with most hybrids - is that while he's fast and agile, it's for his size not his position. Nick Cox is not faster than Andrew Gaff, he's not got better skills than him, he's not more agile than him. What he is is taller. Cox is averaging 12.9 disposals, 2.4 tackles as a utility, but mainly on the wing or manning a 3rd tall down back. That's hardly gamebreaking, and the real problem is this; his best attribute is his speed, agility and ball handling for his size, the former of the two are endangered if you bulk him up some. And if you don't get some muscle onto him, he's going to get out-muscled by other talls. So, there's a quandry there: do you keep what he does well and let him be a jack of all trades (which entails that he cannot truly beat the best KPP or smalls) or do you change him into a conventional tall, and if you did that why'd you pick the unicorn in the first place?

Hooker and Hurley are on their last legs, and they've Wright and Stewart to compensate at either end. Wright's done okay in his first year at his new club; how's he going to go without Hooker? How's Laverde going to go if Stewart goes down and he has to sit Harry McKay, Charlie Dixon, Tom Hawkins? Plowman could manhandle Cox if they put him forward to have a matchup, much less Jones.

Then you have a look a little deeper. Heppell's struggling to stay on the field. So is Shiel. Smith has played 1 full season in his entire career, Stringer 2. Stewart is being held together with some ducttape and a fencing pole. Laverde's done well given that it's come out of the blue; wonder how he'll go without help and/or now that people know the jig a little better? And it isn't as though he hasn't had his own troubles with injury, either. Wright's had a good year - note, the word here is good, not great; he's performed on an acceptable level, as did Mitch Brown on less coin a few years back - but it's really his first reasonable year ever; can he back it up? Merrett and Parish are the only ones from that list who you could call durable.

Then, you've got their second tier: Langford, Redman, Snelling, Clarke, Draper, McGrath. Some will object to me putting Draper and McGrath in here, but those people would be wrong. For all that McGrath has terrific AFL traits, he's essentially just a straight line player. The best mids all have a kind of 360 degree awareness that allows them to know if they're being tackles; McGrath doesn't have that, and because he doesn't have that he's never going to be more than a wing, and even then that's if he has a very intelligent coach. He could still be a very good player; just, he's not going to be that in/out gun mid.

Draper is legitimately the most overhyped player in the competition. He's big and aggressive and he plays for Essendon so of course he was always going to be the next big thing. Firstly, he's a ruckman and a ruck's contribution to the game is overemphasized in the first place, and secondly he concedes free kicks because - and this is my real issue here - he's distractable. His entire game is getting in a good ruck's face and smashing into them. His job as a ruckman, though, is to give his team first use, not to bludgeon his direct opponent as often and as legally as he can. If you want to beat him, talk sh*t at him and distract him and he's done for the day. You're guaranteed first use and they're left with an angry big bloke with sh*t hair.

I rate Redman, because he flies under the radar a bit. He's essentially pre Geelong Zac Tuohy. Snelling is Newnes but shitter. I have less memories of Clarke than I do my last bowel movement. Langford's a bit like Jack Silvagni, in that he's underrated. Send him into the middle and he'll win you a clearance, put him up forward and he'll give you a target, put him behind the ball and he'll fu** it up but look extremely frustrated while doing it. He's a bandaid you can put on any given problem, and he'll give his best to sometimes surprising results.

The key here is: this is a list in prime age to contend. They have a whole bunch of players who are genuinely into their prime years, and as a team they're underachieving as much as we are. On the basis of list demographics, they should be sitting roundabout 6th+ on the ladder; on the basis of output, they're exciting to watch but extremely disappointing. They're somewhat lucky to be able to pull Hind, Laverde out of cloth and have them compensate for where they're weak, and to have Wright play so well for the first time in his career, but make no mistake: Essendon are not going to get that much improvement out of their current 22. Perkins and Jones are the ones to watch there, and two players do not make a team.
Click to expand...

I disagree with some of this. My best mate is a passionate bombers supporter and I have seen way more of them than I would like.
I wouldn't say Hurley was one of their top players this year - he didn't even play a single game. Shiel missed most of the season too. Devon Smith and Hooker are cooked and far from their best players. Stewart ordinary too.
Laverde actually played the opposite of what you said. He is playing as an accountable key position defender and he did not play along side their most experienced KPDs as Hurley didn't play a game and Hooker played forward. He plays next to Stewart who played his first games in defense this season.
Harrison Jones is not a medium forward either. He is listed at 194cm but appears to have grown since then, as he looks around the same height as Cale Hooker now or close.

I agree with you on Perkins, he looks fairly physically developed for his age but didn't really do a lot this year. Too early to really call him a bust though. But I would love Cox at Carlton. He may only average 13 disposals but a lot of skinny 200cm players don't put up those kind of numbers in their first season (many don't play at all). Cox has good speed, agility, endurance and skills (especially for his height). *IF* he can develop some decent core strength as well I see him as a good to great player (CHF for me)

Draper has played under 20 games and is also coming off an ACL injury. I agree he is overrated right now, but he has a lot of potential. His tap work is improving fast (look at his game vs the bulldogs, gave them first use all day) and he is strong and competitive and gets plenty of clearances. I am a big fan.

Did they really underachieve this season? They replaced around a third of their best 22. Their team is significantly less experienced than the past premiership winning teams, besides the Bulldogs. Essendon average age was 24 with 79 games experience against Gold Coast, and that was without a few of their best young players like Harrison Jones, Cox, Caldwell and eventually Zach Reid, so their best 22 will probably get even younger. Most premiership winning teams average over 100 games played (one Hawks team was over 166).
I agree their youth is overrated and its mostly their core group around 23-28 years old that are winning them games, but I don't think they are underachieving after replacing so many players and then starting a new game plan with Rutten in his first year. That takes time and they have improved quite a bit in the second half of the season. I do think we have more upside, but I still expect Essendon to improve quite a bit too. Sadly they will win a final or two before us, but we will beat them to 17.
 
Kante07 said:
I disagree with some of this. My best mate is a passionate bombers supporter and I have seen way more of them than I would like.
I wouldn't say Hurley was one of their top players this year - he didn't even play a single game. Shiel missed most of the season too. Devon Smith and Hooker are cooked and far from their best players. Stewart ordinary too.
Laverde actually played the opposite of what you said. He is playing as an accountable key position defender and he did not play along side their most experienced KPDs as Hurley didn't play a game and Hooker played forward. He plays next to Stewart who played his first games in defense this season.
Harrison Jones is not a medium forward either. He is listed at 194cm but appears to have grown since then, as he looks around the same height as Cale Hooker now or close.

I agree with you on Perkins, he looks fairly physically developed for his age but didn't really do a lot this year. Too early to really call him a bust though. But I would love Cox at Carlton. He may only average 13 disposals but a lot of skinny 200cm players don't put up those kind of numbers in their first season (many don't play at all). Cox has good speed, agility, endurance and skills (especially for his height). *IF* he can develop some decent core strength as well I see him as a good to great player (CHF for me)

Draper has played under 20 games and is also coming off an ACL injury. I agree he is overrated right now, but he has a lot of potential. His tap work is improving fast (look at his game vs the bulldogs, gave them first use all day) and he is strong and competitive and gets plenty of clearances. I am a big fan.

Did they really underachieve this season? They replaced around a third of their best 22. Their team is significantly less experienced than the past premiership winning teams, besides the Bulldogs. Essendon average age was 24 with 79 games experience against Gold Coast, and that was without a few of their best young players like Harrison Jones, Cox, Caldwell and eventually Zach Reid, so their best 22 will probably get even younger. Most premiership winning teams average over 100 games played (one Hawks team was over 166).
I agree their youth is overrated and its mostly their core group around 23-28 years old that are winning them games, but I don't think they are underachieving after replacing so many players and then starting a new game plan with Rutten in his first year. That takes time and they have improved quite a bit in the second half of the season. I do think we have more upside, but I still expect Essendon to improve quite a bit too. Sadly they will win a final or two before us, but we will beat them to 17.
Click to expand...
The point of my post was not that they have no talented youth or that they're rubbish and they'll always be rubbish. If you notice, I forgot a few players from that post, Ridley (who made the U22 AA side) and Caldwell among them; they've got Hird's son coming through, and they've got a few others who could take the next step. I think you underestimate how vital Hurley has been for them, and you definitely underestimate how much trouble they're in if they don't find a decent sized KPD to replace Hooker and Hurley over the next few years. Stewart is ordinary I agree, and having him and Laverde as your KPD's is a recipie for a King twin, McKay, Dixon, Kennedy/Darling et al to kick a bag against you.

The point of my post is that the list as it currently stands is sitting right in the right region to be making finals and contending, not losing to the likes of us - whose football department is a shambles, and whose average age is blown right the **** up due to Murphy, Casboult and Betts. They've certainly underachieved, and the reason why it's necessary to point that out is that is because it's simply not coming up in the press. They are severely lacking in KPP talent, their prime movers from a midfield standpoint are injury prone, and while they have young talent the majority of the blooded talent below the age of 24 are overhyped.

This year's performance is coming off the back of a draw in which their doubleups have come against Hawthorn, North, GWS, Sydney and Collingwood; 3 of this year's bottom 4, coupled with sides at the bottom or middle end of the eight.

It's also a bit of an interesting first post on the Carlton board, in defense of Essendon...

Nonetheless, your reply is a reasonable one.
 
Essendone have smashed teams we have lost to this year. Unlike Carlton Essendone have a half decent coach at the helm and have managed to incorporate a few top draft picks to good effect. Their midfield is stronger than Carlton's - front and back on paper not so much. I don't think that on any day there is much between most teams in finals they could win one or more if they get a fair shake as far as bounce of ball goes.

Of course it goes without saying I hope that they cop a 10 goal flogging on their way out of their first 'final'.
 
BeijingBlue said:
They are laughing at us.
Click to expand...
They can laugh all they want. Then we can come back here and laugh more when they lose yet another final, and jump over them next year when we actually have a coach who can actually coach, with assistants who aren't as useless as a wet paper bag.
 
Gethelred said:
The point of my post was not that they have no talented youth or that they're rubbish and they'll always be rubbish. If you notice, I forgot a few players from that post, Ridley (who made the U22 AA side) and Caldwell among them; they've got Hird's son coming through, and they've got a few others who could take the next step. I think you underestimate how vital Hurley has been for them, and you definitely underestimate how much trouble they're in if they don't find a decent sized KPD to replace Hooker and Hurley over the next few years. Stewart is ordinary I agree, and having him and Laverde as your KPD's is a recipie for a King twin, McKay, Dixon, Kennedy/Darling et al to kick a bag against you.

The point of my post is that the list as it currently stands is sitting right in the right region to be making finals and contending, not losing to the likes of us - whose football department is a shambles, and whose average age is blown right the fu** up due to Murphy, Casboult and Betts. They've certainly underachieved, and the reason why it's necessary to point that out is that is because it's simply not coming up in the press. They are severely lacking in KPP talent, their prime movers from a midfield standpoint are injury prone, and while they have young talent the majority of the blooded talent below the age of 24 are overhyped.

This year's performance is coming off the back of a draw in which their doubleups have come against Hawthorn, North, GWS, Sydney and Collingwood; 3 of this year's bottom 4, coupled with sides at the bottom or middle end of the eight.

It's also a bit of an interesting first post on the Carlton board, in defense of Essendon...

Nonetheless, your reply is a reasonable one.
Click to expand...
Very fishy post from that guy... I'm still not sold on the bombers* (and nor should I have to be) but they definitely should be better than what they're producing. That guy saying they lost a 3rd of their best players is very rich. Like I mentioned, Daniher wasn't there for the better half of 2 years and Fantasia was the same. They lost Saad. And that's it. It's like saying the Blues lost Charlie and Marchbank. The guys haven't played past 2 years so yes, they are a loss, but we haven't really had a chance to miss them as we have formed a team without them.

Yes they have slightly more mid depth and better mid but they are also older and more experienced in that area too.

In terms of average age, that is a bullshit thing to mention as this year going into 2022 assuming we don't pick up anymore 30+ year olds we will be a far younger team than what we are now. Proves nothing at all, especially when Casboult and Murphy didn't play much of the 2nd half of the year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Aphrodite
  • Locked
Game Day Rnd 13 🏈 Carlton v Essendon Game Day🏈
40 41 42 43 44
Replies
1K
Views
17K
The Old Dark Navy's
The Old Dark Navy's
Thrawn
  • Locked
Preview 2024 Rd 13 Carlton vs Essendon Sunday 9th June 7:20PM @ MCG
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
54K
carlton_99
C
Stamos
Universal Love Welcome to Carlton Graham Wright
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
136
Views
6K
BigBreakfast
BigBreakfast
GalaxyBlue
AFLW 2024 AFLW Week 10 - Carlton vs Essendon - Saturday, 2nd November - 7.15pm AEDT @ IKON Park
Replies
21
Views
840
Jimmae
Jimmae
The Old Dark Navy's
VFL Carlton 2024 VFL Awards
Replies
7
Views
668
ferrisb
ferrisb
Aphrodite
Universal Love Carlton Finals Hub 2024
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
toddkurnski
T
TENACIOUS
2024 (Tenacious) Annual Carlton Board Phantom Draft
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
292
Views
15K
beowulf
B

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top