Roast Stop Gunstoning Curtin, morons

Remove this Banner Ad

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #52
whattagun07 said:
That's the rhetoric used by the standard Crows fan to try and make themselves feel better about losing a 450 goal future triple premiership player due to (in large part), the club's incompetence.
Click to expand...
Yep, and we also were unlucky that we drafted some disloyal, money hungry players

Whereas other clubs lucked out with loyal, one-club types who play for the pure love of the guernsey
 
George Kramer said:
The issue is the majority of the time he’s spending at FB and the club keep referring to him as KPD. He’s an 18 year old kid being asked to man the competitions best KPF.

Let him develop his game, let him develop physically before throwing him to the wolves.

But if we’ve drafted another KPD with a top 10 pick that is a massive fail, again.

Keane and Murray are 2 quality key defenders. Butts isn’t a bad back up, Borlase isn’t a bad back up. All come cheaply. We have thrown too much draft capital already at our defence, let it develop, it’s already holding up well even with our injuries.

Focus on the midfield FFS. I know you like to take the clubs view on things but cmon, surely you can see this whole thing is ****ed. If you’re unsure, just look at how many years we haven’t played finals for and our 1-5 record.
Click to expand...
I think these are drafting complaints more than they are complaints about how we've managed Curtin over ~6-7 weeks, and I mostly agree with them, especially in light of how Keane has developed this year.

If we'd wanted to pick the best available midfielder we would not have picked Curtin, let me put it that way. Noting we were also tied to O'Sullivan for example, and pivoted to Curtin on the night (also a KPD). I think they wanted a young, tall defender with potential across a range of positions, as well as obviously the best player available. They'd have been conscious of losing Doedee as well as Murray, and Keane was far from cementing his spot at the time, and those players are all a fair bit older.

Maybe Curtin develops into an elite midfielder, that would be great, and would obviously justify the pick range. But I think for now they see him as a versatile defender and want him to learn the defensive side of his game, while also giving him stints up the ground. Which given the player that we actually have seems fine to me. When he gets picked I think he will be playing a bit looser but might end up marking a third tall or something.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

i remember going to a preseason training session at max basheer reserve. Majority of players were involved in match sim.
Shaun McKernan was riding around on the grass on a bike. Not an exercise bike...a push bike...on the grass.
How's that for an introduction to the club
 
whattagun07 said:
That's the rhetoric used by the standard Crows fan to try and make themselves feel better about losing a 450 goal future triple premiership player due to (in large part), the club's incompetence.
Click to expand...

Gunston’s decision to leave the AFC was one of the best decisions any athlete has ever made in the history of sports.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #62
Katrina Gill: The club has taken a strong stance against 'bottoming out' to gain high draft picks to 'rebuild'. Do you think the current draft system offers enough reward for teams who consistently finish in the middle band of positions on the ladder?

Trigg (from 2008): No, it doesn't, but that's the system. The continual tanking debate - you could go back into having a look at. I'm not promoting it, but we could look at a ballot system. That still doesn't get you around the perennial bottom sides' access to priority picks. I think we accept that if a club is really struggling over a period of time that the priority picks are, in whatever guise, fair.

You have a choice to make and we have a very simple philosophy. It's easier said than done, but we aim not to bottom out, not to strip the side back. We could've done that when Neil took over. We could've stripped the side out, because we had the oldest list in the competition, and said, 'right, we'll go into a genuine rebuilding phase'.

I don't like the term 'rebuilding' and I never have. I think players and staff hide behind that, so we would prefer to be well planned and to stay as competitive as we possibly can all the while trying to make the finals.

The experience for us, still in our hearts and minds, is that we weren't the best team in 1997 and 1998 through the minor round, but we got there and then got it right at the right time and that could still happen this year to any of the teams in the bottom part of the eight.

But you simply can't give yourself a crack at it if you're out of the eight, so our philosophy is to just keep planning, keep developing the list, keep managing out some of the seniority we think needs to be making way for the development aspect and to keep making the eight to give ourselves a chance.

Other clubs might have a different view to that, but that's ours and under this board and mine and Neil's regime, that's the way we would like it to be.
 
NSolis said:
I think these are drafting complaints more than they are complaints about how we've managed Curtin over ~6-7 weeks, and I mostly agree with them, especially in light of how Keane has developed this year.

If we'd wanted to pick the best available midfielder we would not have picked Curtin, let me put it that way. Noting we were also tied to O'Sullivan for example, and pivoted to Curtin on the night (also a KPD). I think they wanted a young, tall defender with potential across a range of positions, as well as obviously the best player available. They'd have been conscious of losing Doedee as well as Murray, and Keane was far from cementing his spot at the time, and those players are all a fair bit older.

Maybe Curtin develops into an elite midfielder, that would be great, and would obviously justify the pick range. But I think for now they see him as a versatile defender and want him to learn the defensive side of his game, while also giving him stints up the ground. Which given the player that we actually have seems fine to me. When he gets picked I think he will be playing a bit looser but might end up marking a third tall or something.
Click to expand...
So why wouldn’t we actually train him as a mid? Why is it eventually might be a mid? We’ve got a unique talent and the ****wits at the club have him at Full Back.

What I find annoying about your posting is you actually agree with some of the criticisms but yet feel compelled to argue the club position.

Scorpus said:
From Rookie Me Central

STRENGTHS:

  • Aerial ability
  • Big game player
  • Skills
  • Composure
  • Size
  • Versatility

IMPROVEMENTS:

  • Durability
  • Ground balls

A proven big-game performer with class, poise and versatility, Curtin has all the tools to be an elite player at AFL level. Given this, it will be fascinating to see how he is utilised at the top level, with his profile giving him the scope to potentially play anywhere. He should fall inside the first six picks, with an even higher calling not off the cards, particularly with West Coast set to be a big player at the pointy end of the draft and North Melbourne potentially requiring key defensive depth. The man himself is not against moving interstate and sees himself as a midfielder in the AFL system.
Click to expand...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mismanaging elite talent is perfectly on-brand for the AFC. I'd like to hear an unfiltered Taylor Walker talk about his experience with Craig during the period he was kicking bags of goals in the SANFL to the sound of crickets from the selection committee. We're lucky Walker bleeds AFC, 'cause I wouldn't have blamed anyone taking their talents elsewhere during that time period.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
I wonder how long it will take us to realise that with Keane, Murray and Worrell all young players that there's no avenue into the team for him?
Click to expand...
The worry is if HE realises that.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Katrina Gill: The club has taken a strong stance against 'bottoming out' to gain high draft picks to 'rebuild'. Do you think the current draft system offers enough reward for teams who consistently finish in the middle band of positions on the ladder?

Trigg (from 2008): No, it doesn't, but that's the system. The continual tanking debate - you could go back into having a look at. I'm not promoting it, but we could look at a ballot system. That still doesn't get you around the perennial bottom sides' access to priority picks. I think we accept that if a club is really struggling over a period of time that the priority picks are, in whatever guise, fair.

You have a choice to make and we have a very simple philosophy. It's easier said than done, but we aim not to bottom out, not to strip the side back. We could've done that when Neil took over. We could've stripped the side out, because we had the oldest list in the competition, and said, 'right, we'll go into a genuine rebuilding phase'.

I don't like the term 'rebuilding' and I never have. I think players and staff hide behind that, so we would prefer to be well planned and to stay as competitive as we possibly can all the while trying to make the finals.

The experience for us, still in our hearts and minds, is that we weren't the best team in 1997 and 1998 through the minor round, but we got there and then got it right at the right time and that could still happen this year to any of the teams in the bottom part of the eight.

But you simply can't give yourself a crack at it if you're out of the eight, so our philosophy is to just keep planning, keep developing the list, keep managing out some of the seniority we think needs to be making way for the development aspect and to keep making the eight to give ourselves a chance.

Other clubs might have a different view to that, but that's ours and under this board and mine and Neil's regime, that's the way we would like it to be.
Click to expand...
is it bad that i can't tell if this is a real quote or one of your selection scenarios from years gone by
 
George Kramer said:
So why wouldn’t we actually train him as a mid? Why is it eventually might be a mid? We’ve got a unique talent and the *******s at the club have him at Full Back.

What I find annoying about your posting is you actually agree with some of the criticisms but yet feel compelled to argue the club position.
Click to expand...
My explanation for that is this board is full of emotional exaggeration when it comes to club criticisms. Like saying that we are ruining Curtin's career by playing him at full back for example when last year he played full back tons of times including on the best forwards in his year. How would this ruin his career? It just makes no sense - Curtin would obviously be totally aware of the fact that he was seen primarily as a defender, and that the AFL system would be a step up, and that he'd be expected to work on his defensive game.

As far as drafting goes, if we wanted the best available mid the best thing you could possibly say is we took a punt on someone who might be a mid. But why would we think that was the plan? The other player we were strongly tied to is a KPD, we knew a KPD was a club interest, and if we just wanted a midfielder we could have just drafted someone who was a full-time mid. Or at least been explicit that we were drafting Curtin to play midfield, and not repeatedly referred to him as a defender. My view is we drafted best available with a bias towards picking up a defender, and Curtin fell nicely into that spot and the club was very pleased to get him. If we missed Curtin we'd probably have picked O'Sullivan.

If we look at Curtin based on the player we actually drafted, and as the best KPD in his draft year which he was widely speculated to be, well then having him play some defence in the SANFL in his first season makes perfect sense. Even if he's not going to be a full back, being able to defend is obviously essential for any tall defensive role. If he only plays deep in defence at SANFL level, I would agree that would be a waste of potential where we should be trialing him in different roles.
 
adelaidecrows said:
I think this is more PTSD based than factual. There would be no world where Curtin will be walking around thinking he should be playing AFL.
Click to expand...

Every single high draft pick thinks they're ready to play, they all expect it, and they're right to.

People who expect players who accurately understand their market value to adjust their expectations down to the club's subjective under valuing will continue to be shocked when they don't, I suppose.
 
NSolis said:
My explanation for that is this board is full of emotional exaggeration when it comes to club criticisms. Like saying that we are ruining Curtin's career by playing him at full back for example when last year he played full back tons of times including on the best forwards in his year. How would this ruin his career? It just makes no sense - Curtin would obviously be totally aware of the fact that he was seen primarily as a defender, and that the AFL system would be a step up, and that he'd be expected to work on his defensive game.

As far as drafting goes, if we wanted the best available mid the best thing you could possibly say is we took a punt on someone who might be a mid. But why would we think that was the plan? The other player we were strongly tied to is a KPD, we knew a KPD was a club interest, and if we just wanted a midfielder we could have just drafted someone who was a full-time mid. Or at least been explicit that we were drafting Curtin to play midfield, and not repeatedly referred to him as a defender. My view is we drafted best available with a bias towards picking up a defender, and Curtin fell nicely into that spot and the club was very pleased to get him. If we missed Curtin we'd probably have picked O'Sullivan.

If we look at Curtin based on the player we actually drafted, and as the best KPD in his draft year which he was widely speculated to be, well then having him play some defence in the SANFL in his first season makes perfect sense. Even if he's not going to be a full back, being able to defend is obviously essential for any tall defensive role. If he only plays deep in defence at SANFL level, I would agree that would be a waste of potential where we should be trialing him in different roles.
Click to expand...


Just ruin any confidence he would have by getting monstered at full back.
Great development.
 
NSolis said:
Let's say for the sake of argument that there's some reason they don't think Curtin is ready. They want him to work on something, they think he's lacking fitness, whatever. Should he still be picked because they are afraid if they don't pick him he will get disgruntled and leave?

How does this sit alongside wanting the club to be tough and uncompromising with, for example, contract management of valued players? Isn't selection integrity part of the same club DNA? Should North have made JHF take an ice bath or not?

I'd like to see Curtin get a game soon but I really don't see the big deal with him playing a few games at FB in the SANFL at the start of his first year, especially given the pre-season fitness issues. Partcularly up until now - I think if we are approaching mid-season and he's still fit and playing SANFL some of the angst would be more warranted.
Click to expand...

'would you compromise 'selection integrity' at a 1-5 team to retain an elite young talent?'

How is this even a controversy. Of course you would.

And don't present the rest of the board as being emotional overreactors, while presenting nonsensical counter factuals about picking the best talents somehow ruining standards
 
Southerntakeover said:
'would you compromise 'selection integrity' at a 1-5 team to retain an elite young talent?'

How is this even a controversy. Of course you would.

And don't present the rest of the board as being emotional overreactors, while presenting nonsensical counter factuals about picking the best talents somehow ruining standards
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting it would ruin standards in the case of selection integrity. We already have some pretty mediocre players who continually get games and we are also 1-5, so what's the harm in giving one to Curtin? If he's wildly out of his depth he can always go back to the SANFL to work on his game. But having watched him play at SANFL level I can see why he hasn't played yet.

What I do think is weird is that people are simultaneously asking the club to be tough and uncompromising when it comes to things like contract management, but just give games to every talented player because we are afraid they will leave if we don't.
 
NSolis said:
I'm not suggesting it would ruin standards in the case of selection integrity. We already have some pretty mediocre players who continually get games and we are also 1-5, so what's the harm in giving one to Curtin? If he's wildly out of his depth he can always go back to the SANFL to work on his game. But having watched him play at SANFL level I can see why he hasn't played yet.

What I do think is weird is that people are simultaneously asking the club to be tough and uncompromising when it comes to things like contract management, but just give games to every talented player because we are afraid they will leave if we don't.
Click to expand...
Who's asking that we should be tough and uncompromising on future elites contracts?

Or do you think locking in long term big money deals to the like of Laird is the same?
 
Would have been a perfect week to give him a debut this week to replace Smith. He should have been playing further up the ground in the SANFL and not as a full back. Such a waste of his talents. If he had been playing off the half back we would have seen much more of his attacking run which would have translated well into the AFL side this week. Now he seems to be pigeon holed as a full back, we will only bring him in if Keane, Butts and Borlase are all injured.

There are two problems we have here currently, first off that he is not in the AFL side in general. If we were 5-0 and our team was functioning well, you could maybe make an argument to not mess with a winning side and leave him in the SANFL until his form warrants selection. But we are 1-5 and the team is a shambles. There is absolutely no reason why he should not be playing in the AFL team right now.

The bigger issue for me is that we are playing him at full back in the SANFL and not further up the ground on either the half back line, the wing or even in the middle. We can recruit any big lump from the Ammos to play full back at SANFL, you don't use a top 10 pick to play this role in the reserves team.

The longer this goes on and he is kept at FB in the SANFL side, and not brought into the AFL side, the more worried I become that he will lose interest in staying and request a trade.
 
If we were even remotely strong this year you could make an argument for keeping your senior players in and making the youth force their way in. But we're not.

I'm not saying you drop every senior player and play every youth, but you definitely start searching for opportunities to bring in your most talented youth. Smith, for example, is injured and out of form. Curtin could easily be put in his role.
 
If 'pick the best player to play the next game' is an inviolable principle going towards club integrity why don't we draft that way? Produce a draft board which has only a ranking of AFL readiness.

No one thinks we should do that. You should spend your assets trying to get the best possible long term return.

If that's how you approach large assets, why would you take a more conservative approach to a smaller one like a week's selection?

Select the team that makes a premiership most likely. In a team as bad as ours that has to have a future focus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

huludicidal
  • Poll
Preview Changes: R8 vs Port Adelaide, 2024 - Curtin Call?
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
814
Views
32K
AFC979810
A
C
  • Poll
Prediction Poll: Who will debut first - Curtin or Edwards
Replies
0
Views
350
Carmo
C
Scorpus
Player Watch Daniel Curtin - Debut
60 61 62 63 64
Replies
2K
Views
101K
TRP1996
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top