Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

FRUMPY said:
Probabaly more to do with all the GWS rejects we have taken. Could have done deals with other clubs but havnt and has resulted in some average returns. I still see Kerridge, Lamb, Phillips, Mullett as duds and got games because of the team we had/have, and even then all were dropped multiple times.
Click to expand...

It should always come back to what we gave up, while adding the picks we retained/shuffled to gather more talent.

Assessing a trade or a draftee in isolation may not look appealing, it's why looking at drafting and trading as a combination gives a better picture
 
FRUMPY said:
Has taken on too much deadwood in trades to get the deal done in my opinion, GWS deadwood
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even have a shot at SOS for that. Just can't.
Why? In some cases there had to be a bit of give and get to secure the principal deal.
Palmer, Lamb, Sumner and Smedts could have possibly still been at the club had have they applied themselves a little harder. (maybe unfair to Lamb)

This I don't see as much a failing as I see our approach to rookies, to be. This is where we can get immediately better, although maybe the last three are more in keeping what we're likely to see from here on in; Gibbons, Cottrell & Deluca. Live and learn.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HARKER said:
I wouldn't even have a shot at SOS for that. Just can't.
Why? In some cases there had to be a bit of give and get to secure the principal deal.
Palmer, Lamb, Sumner and Smedts could have possibly still been at the club had have they applied themselves a little harder. (maybe unfair to Lamb)

This I don't see as much a failing as I see our approach to rookies, to be. This is where we can get immediately better, although maybe the last three are more in keeping what we're likely to see from here on in; Gibbons, Cottrell & Deluca. Live and learn.
Click to expand...

Bolded are all GWS and SOS had inside knowledge on them, should have know what their attitudes are like before trading for them. Add pickett to that list.

Im not in the sack SOS boat but just hate the GWS blokes turning into shit trades/pickups. There are other clubs to deal with. Massive whole in the list age wise and he hasn't managed to do anything about it and we are paying for it now. I know a lot of that has to do with previous drafting etc but in 3 years not 1 mature age recruit has really worked (Newman has been either good or diabolical this year and he is the only one who may get a tick on our list at present)

Sure we may come good down the track (its a big may, especially with free agency etc and players all of a sudden wanting out if results stay the same next year)
 
FRUMPY said:
Bolded are all GWS and SOS had inside knowledge on them, should have know what their attitudes are like before trading for them. Add pickett to that list.

Im not in the sack SOS boat but just hate the GWS blokes turning into **** trades/pickups. There are other clubs to deal with. Massive whole in the list age wise and he hasn't managed to do anything about it and we are paying for it now. I know a lot of that has to do with previous drafting etc but in 3 years not 1 mature age recruit has really worked (Newman has been either good or diabolical this year and he is the only one who may get a tick on our list at present)

Sure we may come good down the track (its a big may, especially with free agency etc and players all of a sudden wanting out if results stay the same next year)
Click to expand...

Sumner & Lamb came along as part of the Plowman package. Phillips was part of that deal also.
Given what we got for #28 and given our list situation, I thought we did very well. Don't forget we also dragged that Geelong pick forward by 3 positions that allowed us to get McKay. Think about what intel it took to get all that together to satisfy the bigger picture.

Palmer? Again worth a shot at, given we were screaming for these 'senior' players.
Palmer was/is and will likely continue to be a dick, but looking at the situation in total, I can understand it.....just, but I get it.

Isolate each situation and things can at least make some sense against no sense.
Recruiting O'Shea, Mullet and Shaw made no sense.....not one iota. That's SOS's failing the way I see it, although given they're only rookies, it may not matter to some. It just did and does to me. :)
 
It’s partly about the players salaries too. You’re not going to meet the minimum TPP with 35 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players on the the list, hence bringing in some older players with slightly elevated contracts allows us to meet the floor of our player payments.

If they went on to become decent role players it was a bonus, but it was always a long shot.
 
FRUMPY said:
Probabaly more to do with all the GWS rejects we have taken. Could have done deals with other clubs but havnt and has resulted in some average returns. I still see Kerridge, Lamb, Phillips, Mullett as duds and got games because of the team we had/have, and even then all were dropped multiple times.
Click to expand...

Could we have?

If we'd said no to Lamb, Sumner and Phillips, do you think GWS would have asked for less than Pick 28 for Lamb and Plowman? Tipping Pick 28 would still have been the asking price. Begs the question, with what currency were we supposed to then find another 3 (better) players from other clubs?

You're right that guys like Kerridge, Lamb, Phillips and Mullet aren't particularly good options. Prefer them to Whiley, Johnson, Warnock and Rainbow though.

The deals that landed these dud players were quite ridiculous in terms of how little we had to give up. And most of the players we padded them out with were only ever half chances that would either fill a list spot for a short period of time while maybe offering something on field, or if we got lucky would kick on and become a handy player for the future.

GWS recruits:
Plowman - best 22
Marchbank - best 22
Setterfield - unclear (likely best 22)
Kennedy - unclear (likely depth)
Lamb - temporary role player
Phillips - ruck depth
Pickett - next to nothing
Palmer - nothing
Sumner - nothing

For those 9 players, we gave up Picks ~20 (this year's second), 28 x2, 43, 45, 58, 135 and downgraded from 15 to 35. That pick 35 was then swapped with Hawthorn for 48, 66 and 70. Also got a Pick 71 back.

Out: 15, 20, 28, 28, 43, 45, 48, 58, 135
In: 2 best 22 players, 1 likely best 22 player, 1 likely depth player, 1 temporary role player, 1 depth ruckman, 3 busts, Picks 48, 66, 70, 71

Rank and match up the results with the outlay (not trade for trade, but highest value to lowest):

Lost - Gained
Pick 15 - Marchbank, starting 22, value
Pick 20 - Plowman, starting 22, value
Pick 28 - Setterfield, starting 22, value
Pick 28 - Kennedy, depth player, par
Pick 43 - Williamson, developing role player, par (scope for more)
Pick 45 - Lamb, short term role player, par
Pick 48 - Phillips, depth ruck, par
Pick 58 - Kerr, depth KPP, par
Pick 135 - Macreadie, depth KPP, value
Nothing - Pickett, Sumner, Palmer, Finbar

If the trades had been one for one like laid out there, you'd be pretty happy with the hit rate. Looks much more like we got fair or better value, and the duds ultimately cost us nothing. Not sure how you can conclude that we did poorly out of that body of work.

EDIT: Had left out the Setterfield picks, they've now been added in.
 
Last edited:
La Dispute said:
It’s partly about the players salaries too. You’re not going to meet the minimum TPP with 35 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players on the the list, hence bringing in some older players with slightly elevated contracts allows us to meet the floor of our player payments.

If they went on to become decent role players it was a bonus, but it was always a long shot.
Click to expand...

Yep, and if you continue to turn over the list you will find some nuggets amongst the rough.

We never turned over the list enough historically, thinking another year will form a different opinion.

The problem with hindsight is that people think that every single player we draft or trade for will turn to gold. It’s never happened at any club in the history of any sport, but you keep turning it over as it beats the shit out of anyone’s complacency and you increase your odds of finding those nuggets.

Now SOS has done the real hard work he can focus on more of the icing on the cake. He may need to loosen the purse strings to get the momentum going this off season
 
Hope he stays
People will look back at the 2015 draft as the draft that nailed the flag
Remember he gave up 2 second rounders to get the pick that nailed Curnow
Also took McKay earlier than Curnow as Adelaide would have taken him at the next pick knowing Curnow would still be there at 11


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SurreyBlue said:
Exactly. Really disappointed with the negativity shown towards SOS and non appreciative of the mammoth, excellent job he has completed so far. We should be praising him and not disrespecting him.
Click to expand...


I think a lot of the " negativity" is in response to the sacking of Bolton. BB only had the cattle that he was given by SOS to work with. If those cattle were too young , then that is on sos, who shaped the list.
To give an example- our greatest need after Mick left was mature midfielders that could run out the game- instead he went Full KPP. I understand the argument that KPP's take longer to develop. But how much better would Our midfield be with Oliver in it?
If midfielders had been more of a priority we would have a much better functioning team IMO at this point in time. Its debatable whether long term this approach would have worked better than the one SOS followed, but it would likely have worked out better for Bolton.
I believe BB will get another senior coaching gig and I also believe that he will be given a mature list to work with. I wouldnt be surprised if we roo the day that he left as we watch him reach ultimate success with another club.
 
agro said:
Would then suggest we look at Judd’s position in the Board.

If he is MLG’s man then he’ll probably remain, if he looks at the List Management with independent eyes and doesn’t like what he sees then It’s likely he will go.
Click to expand...
Quite the reach
 
therubbernub said:
I think a lot of the " negativity" is in response to the sacking of Bolton. BB only had the cattle that he was given by SOS to work with. If those cattle were too young , then that is on sos, who shaped the list.
To give an example- our greatest need after Mick left was mature midfielders that could run out the game- instead he went Full KPP. I understand the argument that KPP's take longer to develop. But how much better would Our midfield be with Oliver in it?
If midfielders had been more of a priority we would have a much better functioning team IMO at this point in time. Its debatable whether long term this approach would have worked better than the one SOS followed, but it would likely have worked out better for Bolton.
I believe BB will get another senior coaching gig and I also believe that he will be given a mature list to work with. I wouldnt be surprised if we roo the day that he left as we watch him reach ultimate success with another club.
Click to expand...

This argument would hold more water if Bolts hadn't left Ed wasting away in the forwardline...
 
therubbernub said:
He had to have someone with balls in the forward line who wasnt 2 meters tall. Interesting that you bring up another SOS blind spot
Click to expand...

Amazing how much better the pseudo small forwards in Cuningham and Gibbons look when we’re quick with our ball movement.

They might not be the best fit for the role currently, but it’s not exactly square peg in a round hole, which is pretty much what Ed was.

We definitely need to find a couple soon, but the situation doesn’t seem as dire as it was a few weeks ago. Hopefully we can find another one with Owies or Cottrell, as these are usually the type of players to seemingly come out of nowhere and be effective (think Butler, Castagna).
 
Arr0w said:
It should always come back to what we gave up, while adding the picks we retained/shuffled to gather more talent.

Assessing a trade or a draftee in isolation may not look appealing, it's why looking at drafting and trading as a combination gives a better picture
Click to expand...

I agree with your second sentence, but not your first, Arrow.

Absolutely there should be an assessment when bringing in mature players on an individual level - did they perform their intended role?

This is my chief criticism of SOS - regardless of cost, the overwhelming majority of the mature age players he has targeted have failed to have a positive, lasting impact on the list. They have not provided sufficient cover to the kids, or allowed the coaching/selection team the optimum flexibility to manage loads and senior games.

Drafting, particularly with early picks is an entirely different story. I think his strike rate there is above average, with the potential to be at a truly excellent level if Dow and LOB take the steps we all hope they do.

He’s definitely been net positive, but with some glaring performance gaps in specific areas.
 
Honestly, the lack of respect for SOS is mind boggling. SOS could have stayed at GWS and it would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. Instead has to do interviews defending players that haven't played 50 games. SOS isn't going to get it 100% right all the time but has done a solid job and we're lucky to have the guy.

On moto g(6) using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top