Cool. Now that our future is sorted, how about this weeks tattslotto numbers bro?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Essendon Premiers 2013-15?
- Thread starter donspremiers
- Start date
- Tagged users None
magpie10
Team Captain
Bro I swear I was joking I'm just having some fun, you know, footy's finished and I can't go to sleep atm even though I have Uni at 9am. What do you recommend?
And with regards to the lotto numbers I'm not sure bro but if I find out I swear you would be the first to know
Nah uleh why lie for this guy huh?
magpie10
Team Captain
Sorry, your grammar is difficult to comprehend.
It's not a good look to "joke" like that when you're a Collingwood supporter on the Essendon board.
Reimers is an interesting one though, he shows glimpses of great talent but all the other times he's either doing nothing, getting in fights or doing something else stupid. I'm hoping the new coaches will actually discipline him when he does these things next year.
Reimers is an interesting one though, he shows glimpses of great talent but all the other times he's either doing nothing, getting in fights or doing something else stupid. I'm hoping the new coaches will actually discipline him when he does these things next year.
Actually, judging by your original post, grammar in general seems to be difficult for you to comprehend.
Ben the Gooner
Stand by Hird
Just "showeded" him the door.
In other news...
Lets please stop talking about the '99 prelim, it makes me sad (fwiw I was there, was eight and cried).
I think that midfield is key from here on in. We have the spine nearly nailed (excluding a ruck post Hille (which may not even be required) and a FF).
Recent trends have shown that young midfielders can come in and have an impact, but KPPs take time to develop and influence games. We've drafted our talls, now target the mids who seem to develop at a faster pace.
2013-2015 is not unrealistic, but we have to make some serious inroads over the next year or two. Would be a terrible time to be peaking though, with most likely Melbourne and GC coming into their own premiership windows.
Lets please stop talking about the '99 prelim, it makes me sad (fwiw I was there, was eight and cried).
I think that midfield is key from here on in. We have the spine nearly nailed (excluding a ruck post Hille (which may not even be required) and a FF).
Recent trends have shown that young midfielders can come in and have an impact, but KPPs take time to develop and influence games. We've drafted our talls, now target the mids who seem to develop at a faster pace.
2013-2015 is not unrealistic, but we have to make some serious inroads over the next year or two. Would be a terrible time to be peaking though, with most likely Melbourne and GC coming into their own premiership windows.
2013-2015 isn't unrealistic- but only if the stars align, Hawthorn 2008 style. Honestly, I think 5 years is a more accurate representation of when the current list will be ready to challenge.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 6,213
- 5,435
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Canucks, Cowboys, Renegades
Or if Moorcraft hadn't got in Bradley's face and said "you'll never catch us now". That rekindled their spirit.
Or Essendon 93 style.
In reality, the stars need to align for any club to win a premiership. They're hard to come by.
Just in regards to this do you think that KPP's develop better when surrounded by better midfielders. I mean Gumby etc. receive terrible delivery and this would stunt their development. I would think that for a KPP to develop well they also need better midfielders. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario.
I think 2013 is a good target year for at least getting into the Prelim. The thing I like most about the team in the OP is the ages of the players. If the team keeps on developing well most of the team will be hitting their peak.
What I mean is-
Take a look at Geelongs core group- Ablett, Bartel, Corey, Chapman, Enright, Kelly, SJ, Ling, Scarlett, Mooney. They are from at latest, the 2001 vintage. And even with their list, took 6+ years to become the powerhouse that they are.
Look at St Kilda- NDS, Hayes, Montagna, Goddard, Riewoldt, Milne, Fisher, Gram. Against, you're looking at the 2002 (With Fisher at 2003) vintage. Basically 6-7+ years for their "star" players to take them to the top.
Collingwood broke the rules a bit, but even then- Pendles and Thomas are the only stars that really broke the mold- and they were the second youngest team to win a flag- so they are a bit of an out lier on a statistical front.
Our list is young, and our future midfield is even younger.
That said, 2013 for a prelim would be nice
- but don't forget, in 2006- Geelong missed the finals. Football is a funny game and ladder position is never the full story.
What I mean is-
Take a look at Geelongs core group- Ablett, Bartel, Corey, Chapman, Enright, Kelly, SJ, Ling, Scarlett, Mooney. They are from at latest, the 2001 vintage. And even with their list, took 6+ years to become the powerhouse that they are.
Look at St Kilda- NDS, Hayes, Montagna, Goddard, Riewoldt, Milne, Fisher, Gram. Against, you're looking at the 2002 (With Fisher at 2003) vintage. Basically 6-7+ years for their "star" players to take them to the top.
Collingwood broke the rules a bit, but even then- Pendles and Thomas are the only stars that really broke the mold- and they were the second youngest team to win a flag- so they are a bit of an out lier on a statistical front.
Our list is young, and our future midfield is even younger.
That said, 2013 for a prelim would be nice
I vomit a little in my mouth every time someone rolls out "Geelong were shit in 06 and we're shit now, then Geelong won flags in 07 & 09 so ..."
What about "Richmond (and Melbourne and Brisbane and ...) were shit in 06 and we're shit now ..."
I'm off for a glass of water.
So after all that you now reckon all we need is decoys talls. Top 10 drafts picks seem a high price to pay for decoys
A player can only play such an effective role as a decoy if they command some sort of presence. Lance Franklin commands a presence, Matthew Lloyd did also. Hawthorn used the ball better because they found space. Created by Lance.
Because he was injured. Hence "a fit Riewoldt". That was the argument. StKilda's champion captain was injured, he played like poo and they only lost by a couple of kicks. Imagine if he was fit.
Thats fine. Doesn't make midfield your sole concern though does it? How many teams have won a flag with Setanta O'hAilpin at full forward? How'd it go for the doggies in 09? If the saints went back to back we'd be talking about their group led by a champion CHF as skipper.
Ok, so discounting the swans seeing as they had 1 "gun" in the midfield (Geez and here i was thinking you were arguing you needed a group), you can add Essendon 2000 seeing as you argue they were so poor in the midfield and chuck the Hawks of 08 in there as well. Smashed in the clearances and smashed in inside 50s, the Cats midfield won the day no matter how you argue the point. Then of course there was North Melbourne...
It seems the Essendon Football club have clearly decided to build a premiership team starting with key position players (who usually take longer to develop), and then filling that base with a midfield group. This thread outlines the current young group we have, and going forward if we can pump 100 odd games into them it looks as if we should have a decent base to add upon.
Maybe you want to poo-poo the method the club has taken OB1. Give me a decent forward and back line to go with the whole package. When we hit the top 4 I want us to be a force, not a toothless tiger. I'm excited and pleased with the method the club has pursued.
Thats some of the worst logic i've seen on this site. Well done!
So what you are saying is that Franklin played decoy despite having the ball kicked to him numerous times & this in turn created space in Geelong's forward line which allowed Hodge space to use the ball better than anyone else & also meant that guys like Kelly had shockers & Steve Johnson was forced to accumulate a heap of junk possesions. Hey we all know Buddy is good but his butterfly effect is off the charts.
He was fit this year & was not the difference. You stated that the ball sits up for Milne in the first grand final of 2010 and we might be talking about how a champion CHF separates the saints from the rest of the competition. So I ask again what game were you watching if you think a Stkilda victory would have been credited to Riewoldt. It was clearly Stkilda's midfield that got them that close not to mention the fact that it was Stkida minus Riewoldt for most of the year which finished top 4.
Firstly when & where have I said that the midfield is the sole concern? I mearly pointed out quite clearly that the midfield is the most important area & particulalry for us because we have neglected our midfield.
Secondly, you want to talk about spud talls playing in premierships look no further than Leigh Brown this year. Going back to your almost for Stkidla & they have 1 great tall & some very average talls - Blake, Dawson, Kosi. Hanson played CHF if a premiership, LRT was CHB in a premiership.
Lastly are you really that silly to bring up the Bulldogs? Here's a team that was only 7 points away from a GF in 2009 despite have no key forwards. To that side they added the power forward everyone was saying was going to take them to a premiership & guess what? He kicks 80 goals & they failed again because they were missing their best midfielder come the finals. The Bulldogs are a perfect example of a team that was able to be very strong dispite having close to the weakest group of talls in the league. How is that possible - because midfields are more important to winning games. Can you name a side that has finished top 4 despite having one of the worst midfields?
,
The swans is just the standard response of the ignorant. They tend to forget that Goodes played for them & of course you can add Kirk who was an all Australian midfielder (when did we last have one of those). I personally rate Bolton as a very good mid who would be better than all ours bar Jobe.
Now you're just being an idiot. I never once said we were so poor in 2000 & have clearly outlined that we still had some class in Long & Bewick from teh older guys & career best years from Heff & Blumfield. Our 2000 midfield wasn't spectacular but it performed well all year. It was the years that followed that saw the midfield ripped apart by the cap problems & we have not had a group close to it since. The whole point is our key possie players stayed the same for the next few years but our midfield changed. The result reflected the importance of the midfield.
Why chuck Hawthorn in - because you have no real examples? Hawthorn had a very good midfield. Hodge is a star, Mitchell is a very good midfielder, Crawford a brownlow medalist & like Essendon in 2000 guys like Bateman, Young & Osbourne had very good years. Again if you think the cats midfielders other than Jnr stood out then you are fooling yourself.
Do you actually think or just type random names & hope you hit? Seriously were you even old enough to know anything about Norths premierships? If you were then surely you would have avoided them seeing as their great CHF Carey only managed 4 goals from his 3 GF appearances (was he playing decoy). Of course though you would know all about their midfield with guys like Bell (AA), Stevens (AA), Grant (AA), Simpson (AA) King (AA) & Harvey (AA). Is it possible to be more wrong.
So here we have the crux of the matter. Do you truely believe that focussing resources on talls is the best method or are you just backing what the club has done? If we had of gone the Carlton route & drafted only mids you would probably say thats the best way too. The reality is that the club has focussed on talls for the majority of the last 8 years of drafting & its the reason why our midfield is poor & our poor midfield is the reason we have struggled. If we want to be any type of threat we must develop a midfield capable of competing with the best. Until we have that our talls will be restricted. strong talls & poor mids means fail, strong mids & average talls means threat, strong mids & strong talls means dominance.
Oh Tayteridge
Club Legend
- Oct 8, 2009
- 1,142
- 802
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Sorry to butt in here, but TBH I would much rather be in our position than Carlton's.
You may not be arguing that Carlton is in a better position than us, but nevertheless I feel it's important to point out that their list management and timing is very, very poor.
They essentially have a midfield that is peaking now, with an ageing Judd who is obviously still playing very good football but will begin to abate as he grows older, and no notable key position players or further support around the ground.
So, they wait another 2 years for Murphy and Gibbs to peak, whilst Judd has already had his success. Any KP prospects are largely non existent at this stage, although Kreuzer may reach further heights in the coming few years; apart from him, there seems little in terms of substantial evidence that would suggest a decent key position structure.
This means that, with the 4-5 years that young talls generally take to mature and the 2-3 years that it would take to actually accrue such prospects, any decent key position players won't be effective until after the midfield has reached its peak- if they ever manage to get their heinous little hands on any.
Conversely, we've built a potentially strong spine for the future, and have begun to develop a decent midfield through the likes of Zaharakis, Melksham, Colyer, and Howlett. If these guys come on as we would like, then we've timed our list management to perfection, and would have both talls and smalls peaking at the same time, which could mean premiership contention in coming years.
Back to study now.
No I'm certainly not saying Carlton is the the ideal strategy but just as sure as they have neglected talls we have neglected mids. At this point in time Carlton are perfroming better on the back of a stronger midfield & only time will tell who's (if either) strategy works to win a flag.
Ideally you need to have a good mix keeping in mind the requirements on the ground. Most sides only play about 6-8 talls tops. This means the majority of your players are midfield types who also fill the flanks & pockets (most of these players are drafted as mids but find a niche (McVeigh & Slatts for example were drafted to play midfield). Over the last 8 drafts we have gone for a tall with our 1st pick 5 times. I believe thats the wrong ratio. You don't spend over 60% of your resources on 30% of your requirement. Thats what we've done & thats why our midfield is poor.
The other issue I wanted to address is the notion that mids are good to go day 1 & talls take years so you have to draft them 1st. I think thats flawed. Reiwoldt was a better player at 21 than what Hayes & Goddard were. Franklin was a better player early than Hodge. Collingwood for example are more experienced in their midfield than they are in their KP players just as we were in 2000. ALL players hit their physical peak in the mid 20's so this is the group where you need to have a strong base from which to launch a premiership assult. Yes, as a general rule mids can come in & play minor roles early but experience in the midfield is again a very common theme for premiership teams. Geelong for example were a good side in 2004 with a group of young mids (Corey, Jnr, Kelly, Bartel & Chappy) coming through but it wasn't until these guys reached their peaks that Geelong started to dominate. Did Mooney suddenly become a great player at 28 or is it more likely that the group of mids started performing as they matured & this increased his supply? Even the baby Bombers of 93 still had Denham, GO'd, Long & Bewick in the midfield as the experienced base.
What does that all mean for us? Well I believe that our best chance of any success in the period 2013-2015 will rely on the hope that Myers & Jetta have been completely mismanaged so far. IF they can become regular midfield performers the gaping hole in our midfield suddenly doesn't look as bad. If not then the next wave of mids won't peak until the older blokes like Watson have moved on & again we will have a hole. I strongly believe we will need to trade at some stage to try to fix the mix on our list.
So many words and such little substance OB1. Watch 2008 grand final again. The ball was not kicked to Lance numerous times. Hodge played across halfback, not in the midfield. Geelong won just about every stoppage and centre clearance.
You contradict yourself with Sydney. 2 supposed stars and somebody you think is/was underrated. Hardly supports your argument whatsoever, but yet you still try to make it fit.
North Melbourne's dominant era isn't remembered as the Wayne Carey era? Funny how they hung around the top 4 and did stuff all without him. If St Kilda went back to back Riewoldt would be viewed in a similar way.
You throw up Leigh Brown and Collingwood; how about the fact they took Reid and N Brown with top ten picks, followed it up with Dawes with their next pick? Surely they should have taken midfielders? Cardboard cutouts would have done to form their premiership spine wouldn't it?
When you say we've focussed on talls you really mean to say taken talls with our first pick. We've also drafted midfielders. My argument is that i'm happy for the club to take whoever they think is the best fit for our side to win a flag. Just because a midfielder is taken with an early pick, it won't make him a better prospect. People on the drafting thread are throwing up guys with our first pick who some say may be available with our second pick. What does that tell you?
Ben the Gooner
Stand by Hird
I don't really see the issue with our drafting - we've gone best available with each early pick, regardless of tall or small. It just so happens that Ryder, Gumby and Hurley were talls.
We rated Ryder @ #1, Gumby was always going top 2 with Gibbs, and Hurley speaks for himself. The unexpected early progress of Pears and Hooker is what makes people assume we have an obsession for talls. If Pears was tracking like Rance, Grant or Henderson there wouldn't be that perception IMO.
We rated Ryder @ #1, Gumby was always going top 2 with Gibbs, and Hurley speaks for himself. The unexpected early progress of Pears and Hooker is what makes people assume we have an obsession for talls. If Pears was tracking like Rance, Grant or Henderson there wouldn't be that perception IMO.
Fair comment.... although I still think the Ryder #1 comment was merely a retrospective thing to talk up our selection
Add Carlisle's suprise early progress to that list too!
So Franklin picked up 12 possies & Scarlet 11 even though the ball was never kicked to them. Your ignorance is staggering. Face facts - Franklin had a poor game but Hawthorn were able to win a premiership because they didn't rely on tall forwards to win games for them. Geelong were better at the stoppages BUT Hawthorn played to that & guys like Sewell picked up 27 touches, Ellis 28, Osborne 26 & Crawford 25 rebounding from Geelong's poor midfield turnovers. This of couse was in part caused by their rolling zone not Franklin & his lack of influence. You would realise of course that Geelong only had 7 more disposals dispite averaging much higher than Hawthorn for the year.
In what way is it a contradiction? Sydney had a very good midfield despite what you may wish was so. Goodes & Kirk were elite at that time & players like Bolton & Williams were very good players. They also had a gameplan revolved around their midfield providing pressure all around the ground (flooding). I never said you had to have 23 brownlow medalist midfielders only tha it HAD to be a strong area to succeed & that all the recent premiers had strong midfields.
LOL. So I take it you are too young to remember how good North's TEAM was & only know Carey because of the reputation rather than know how they actually achieved 2 premierships. If Stkidla had gone back to back (which they were 2 kicks from doing then Riewoldt would still be viewed as a very good player who has not delivered in grand finals. He was terrible last year & they nearly won & he was OK this year after very little influence on the year & they drew (2nd week he was terrible again). Maybe you have some childish facination with forwards or something but I tend to look at teh guys who actually deliver premierships. You'd have to go back to 1996 to find a KP winning the Norm Smith.
They should have taken midfielders IF they hadn't already spent much better picks in previous drafts on midfielders. Collingwood built from the midfield & added the talls later.
Just because a tall is taken with an early pick it doesn't make them a better prospect either. All you can really say is that obvioulsy your 1st pick is your best opportunity to get the best players & the higher the pick the better the odds. We have used our best opportunities on talls & as a result we have not given ourselves a good opportunity to have a strong midfield. We were hoping for luck rather than good judgement.
That tells me that the vast majority of people have NFI about who should be drafted where. Hell, a lot of the people paid big dollars to get it right make regular stuff ups. This is why I don't get caught up on particular players pre-draft. I'm not going to suggest that I know player A will be better than player B. What I do say is that player type A is more important to us than type B. I work on the assumption that every kid available at pick 8 could be a star. I then work out if we need a Judd, Cox, Riewoldt, Hayes or a Lake more. We have made the choices recently to try to get a Lake, Riewoldt & Cox but we desperately need & Judd & Hayes to complete the mix. No using our 1st pick doesn't = Judd any more than using pick 2 on Gumby = Riewoldt but we need to try.
I don't think you watched this game. Franklin played a role.
in grand finals his team probably wouldn't have made without him.
You claim the roos team had a dominant era not because of Carey but because of their midfield? If you could choose a player at their peak to add to our side out of Carey, Archer, Stevens, Grant, Bell or Harvey to add to our team you'd choose.... someone other than Carey?
Again, you clearly didn't watch 2008. Luke Hodge Centre Half Back and Norm Smith Medallist.
Could have sworn many of their midfield rotations are young kids taken since 2006. Again, I must be incorrect because it doesn't fit with your argument...
Again, you say we should take a mid simply because you think top 10 picks will be guns, and so if we take a midfielder he's got a chance to be a gun... right? David Myers says g'day.
Seriously dude, go follow Carlton seeing as how their doing it right.
Myers is going to be a very good player....
