Opinion Unpopular Opinions: Dons Edition

[citizen-erased]

our list (or recruiting) isnt the problem - its the shitty way they are being asked to play

i think this team is brimming with quality youth and potential and only needs one or 2/3 items to finish it off

laverde - Reid - (lock down small)
Mcgrath - Ridley - Redman
Durham - Hobbs* - Langford
Perkins* - Jones - Martin*
(crafty small) - Wright - Stringer
Bryan - Caldwell* - Parish*

Draper - Merrett* - Hind - (Strong tall mid)

how this team can finish 16th without an inquiry into the coaches is beyond me

Slide Ridley to that lock down small spot. Not so much the role, but with McGrath & Redman, plus Durham working back from the wing along with Hobbs as a 2 way runner and I think we can cover. And Hind on the bench.

What we need is a CHB. Or it's Reid.& Brand is the dour FB. but that's gonna take some time I think (any watchers care to observe on his development?)

if we can split 3 & our 2nd this year for 2 top 10 picks, I'd target Sheezel & Szybkowski to add the strong tab mid & crafty small fwd.

On the contention it's not the list/recruiting team - where is our CHB? Carlisle left in 2015. Hurley has been injury prone for 4 years. Hooker switched forward in 2017.
Delisted two smalls and had another spending the off-season with a number of issues impacting his recuperation. Didn't think to draft one other than a long term project.
Key forward eggs were all in one basket, that left.
Midfield - have recruited one decent modern big bodied mid in 20 years....and was a father son Sheeds nearly delisted.

Yes, we do silly things with positioning (Parish, Francis, Langford, Ridley, McGrath).
Yes, we seem to have a coaching issue.
But this doesn't excuse the list team

 

[Howard Moon]

Slide Ridley to that lock down small spot. Not so much the role, but with McGrath & Redman, plus Durham working back from the wing along with Hobbs as a 2 way runner and I think we can cover. And Hind on the bench.

What we need is a CHB. Or it's Reid.& Brand is the dour FB. but that's gonna take some time I think (any watchers care to observe on his development?)

if we can split 3 & our 2nd this year for 2 top 10 picks, I'd target Sheezel & Szybkowski to add the strong tab mid & crafty small fwd.

On the contention it's not the list/recruiting team - where is our CHB? Carlisle left in 2015. Hurley has been injury prone for 4 years. Hooker switched forward in 2017.
Delisted two smalls and had another spending the off-season with a number of issues impacting his recuperation. Didn't think to draft one other than a long term project.
Key forward eggs were all in one basket, that left.
Midfield - have recruited one decent modern big bodied mid in 20 years....and was a father son Sheeds nearly delisted.

Yes, we do silly things with positioning (Parish, Francis, Langford, Ridley, McGrath).
Yes, we seem to have a coaching issue.
But this doesn't excuse the list team

Did they not draft cox as a tall Backman (chb) to then play Trix with him on a wing?

 

[citizen-erased]

Did they not draft cox as a tall Backman (chb) to then play Trix with him on a wing?

I knew I forgot one

tbh, as talented as the kid is I do wonder what the plan was when we drafted him. Cos he hasn't played a role yet.
Has all the hallmarks of take the "clever" project pick over an O'Driscoll option which would have filled a need.

But if he comes back & plays CHB and we drafted our back spine in one draft (reverse Roughead/Buddy), then all good.

 

[BrunoV]

I knew I forgot one

tbh, as talented as the kid is I do wonder what the plan was when we drafted him. Cos he hasn't played a role yet.
Has all the hallmarks of take the "clever" project pick over an O'Driscoll option which would have filled a need.

But if he comes back & plays CHB and we drafted our back spine in one draft (reverse Roughead/Buddy), then all good.

Gotta keep the powder dry when it comes to Cox.

With Martin and Durham playing to the level they are, particularly with Cox out of the team, it's like the music stopped and Cox is without a chair.

Part of me wonders whether he is actually surplus to requirements. Stewart, Laverde, Ridley and now Reid at one end with McBride and Brand developing quite well. At the other end, Wright has established himself and Jones and Bryan.

On the wings it's Langford, Durham and now Martin.

Ridely and Langford were the only players you'd have 'banked on' when Cox was drafted.

BUT he's a big lanky kid. It's should surprise nonone that it could be a slow burn. Think Daniher, who took 3 full pre-seasons before being AFL level (as opposed to a talented kid). Harry McKay was another.

Maybe Cox bides his time at the lower level for 12 to 18 more months while he develops the physical strength to play CHF.

Ultimately he's got too much ability for us to die wondering.

 

[Howard Moon]

Gotta keep the powder dry when it comes to Cox.

With Martin and Durham playing to the level they are, particularly with Cox out of the team, it's like the music stopped and Cox is without a chair.

Part of me wonders whether he is actually surplus to requirements. Stewart, Laverde, Ridley and now Reid at one end with McBride and Brand developing quite well. At the other end, Wright has established himself and Jones and Bryan.

On the wings it's Langford, Durham and now Martin.

Ridely and Langford were the only players you'd have 'banked on' when Cox was drafted.

BUT he's a big lanky kid. It's should surprise nonone that it could be a slow burn. Think Daniher, who took 3 full pre-seasons before being AFL level (as opposed to a talented kid). Harry McKay was another.

Maybe Cox bides his time at the lower level for 12 to 18 more months while he develops the physical strength to play CHF.

Ultimately he's got too much ability for us to die wondering.

He's gone from this kid with spunk who had an air of arrogance about him - was doing things first year kids shouldn't be able to, was decisive with his movements and disposals, very direct , to a kid unsure of himself, takes forever to make a decision on field, looks like a shell of the guy he was.

Maybe it was early dunning kruger, and the exuberance of youth, who knows; but id wager its more playing in a foreign position and suffering the same malaise the rest of the midfield players are re positioning and ground set up. Slowly coaching the ability out of him

 

[citizen-erased]

Gotta keep the powder dry when it comes to Cox.

With Martin and Durham playing to the level they are, particularly with Cox out of the team, it's like the music stopped and Cox is without a chair.

Part of me wonders whether he is actually surplus to requirements. Stewart, Laverde, Ridley and now Reid at one end with McBride and Brand developing quite well. At the other end, Wright has established himself and Jones and Bryan.

On the wings it's Langford, Durham and now Martin.

Ridely and Langford were the only players you'd have 'banked on' when Cox was drafted.

BUT he's a big lanky kid. It's should surprise nonone that it could be a slow burn. Think Daniher, who took 3 full pre-seasons before being AFL level (as opposed to a talented kid). Harry McKay was another.

Maybe Cox bides his time at the lower level for 12 to 18 more months while he develops the physical strength to play CHF.

Ultimately he's got too much ability for us to die wondering.

yeah
thing with McKay and Daniher though was they weren't played on a wing.
I'd be happy to not see Cox at AFL level until ready in VFL (a la Reid, Brand, Eyre and what we did with Jones and Bryan).

I reckon we jammed him in to calm the fans down.
in the meantime, we could have picked a mature-ish CHB & CHF to give the kids time to develop and put pressure on spots.

 

[JT_the_Man]

The recruitment of Jake Kelly

29

Jake Kelly

Age

29

Ht

190cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.5

4star

K

8.3

3star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.6

4star

MG

157.8

2star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.6

4star

MG

104.1

2star

D

14.8

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

6.0

5star

T

4.2

5star

MG

107.0

2star

has been a failure - don't mind him as a player, but I feel our backline is more balanced without him.

 

[BrunoV]

He's gone from this kid with spunk who had an air of arrogance about him - was doing things first year kids shouldn't be able to, was decisive with his movements and disposals, very direct , to a kid unsure of himself, takes forever to make a decision on field, looks like a shell of the guy he was.

Maybe it was early dunning kruger, and the exuberance of youth, who knows; but id wager its more playing in a foreign position and suffering the same malaise the rest of the midfield players are re positioning and ground set up. Slowly coaching the ability out of him

yeah
thing with McKay and Daniher though was they weren't played on a wing.
I'd be happy to not see Cox at AFL level until ready in VFL (a la Reid, Brand, Eyre and what we did with Jones and Bryan).

I reckon we jammed him in to calm the fans down.
in the meantime, we could have picked a mature-ish CHB & CHF to give the kids time to develop and put pressure on spots.

I dont see any negative in him playing wing. We weren't exactly stacked with options.

It was his ability to run that set him apart from the other big kids and which got him into the side. Maybe we'd see Daniher start on a wing if he had Cox's running ability.

The problem with being on a wing for us is that he's trying to bail water with a leaky bucket. It's getting around that he had been trying to do too much and getting into trouble when he should probably be holding position more.

If he is going to be a long term CHF, his development is not going to have been upset one bit by playing on the wing. He doesn't need to play 50 VFL games at CHF to make it. It's buying time until he is physically ready that might result in the games. If we can stick him on a wing, giving him that string and help out the team in the meantime, why not?

 

[Milanista28]

Parish is a worse kick than Shiel

 

[Kakkle]

I've definitely been guilty of it, and have probably used it recently, but I think saying 'we' when talking about the club is cringe. We have nothing to do with the club, we're not involved in any decision the club makes, we don't have a say in what the club gave up for Shiel, 'we' are merely spectators, and have literally no involvement with the club.

 

[JayJ20]

I've definitely been guilty of it, and have probably used it recently, but I think saying 'we' when talking about the club is cringe. We have nothing to do with the club, we're not involved in any decision the club makes, we don't have a say in what the club gave up for Shiel, 'we' are merely spectators, and have literally no involvement with the club.

I agree with this. I say it out of habit, but I've been actively trying to stop myself from using 'we' this year. There's a psychological difference when you separate the club from yourself. Instead of being frustrated by incompetence you cannot control, you realise that someone else is being incompetent and you're just observing it. Football is just a game of players and coaches at work. As a result of the change in perspective, I haven't been angry even once this year despite the 2-9 record. Not something I could have said in the past.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

I've definitely been guilty of it, and have probably used it recently, but I think saying 'we' when talking about the club is cringe. We have nothing to do with the club, we're not involved in any decision the club makes, we don't have a say in what the club gave up for Shiel, 'we' are merely spectators, and have literally no involvement with the club.

Certainly has some merit, wouldn't say it's unpopular either.
I like to think that having a membership means that I literally am a part of the Essendon Football Club though.

 

[Harlequin Dream]

The recruitment of Jake Kelly has been a failure - don't mind him as a player, but I feel our backline is more balanced without him.

His decision making is too slow. We miss so many opportunities to rebound or switch when he gets the ball.

 

[Kakkle]

Certainly has some merit, wouldn't say it's unpopular either.
I like to think that having a membership means that I literally am a part of the Essendon Football Club though.

I mean you can tell yourself that, but at the end of the day you're just paying for a product. A very bad product.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

I mean you can tell yourself that, but at the end of the day you're just paying for a product. A very bad product.

Is disappointment a product?

 

[Howard Moon]

I mean you can tell yourself that, but at the end of the day you're just paying for a product. A very bad product.

Not even, the product is still available to you whether you pay or not. It's like putting a coin in the honour box when getting roadside fruit or something

 

[Howard Moon]

Is disappointment a product?

By-product

 

[Lore]

He's gone from this kid with spunk who had an air of arrogance about him - was doing things first year kids shouldn't be able to, was decisive with his movements and disposals, very direct , to a kid unsure of himself, takes forever to make a decision on field, looks like a shell of the guy he was.

Maybe it was early dunning kruger, and the exuberance of youth, who knows; but id wager its more playing in a foreign position and suffering the same malaise the rest of the midfield players are re positioning and ground set up. Slowly coaching the ability out of him

2nd year blues

 

[WindyHillWarrior]

Nik Cox will end up as an unfulfilled talent.

 

[BrunoV]

I've definitely been guilty of it, and have probably used it recently, but I think saying 'we' when talking about the club is cringe. We have nothing to do with the club, we're not involved in any decision the club makes, we don't have a say in what the club gave up for Shiel, 'we' are merely spectators, and have literally no involvement with the club.

I think you'll find, in a technical sense, the collective that 'we' can represent is anything from the 'we' of an intimate relationship between spilt personalities of the same person through to 'we' the humans of earth in this simulation.

You then read context into it.

So fans of sports clubs identify themselves as 'we' the collective of Essendon as it is extended to supporters as they comment on the club they support. It's use is essentially interchangeable with 'the fans', 'the club', 'the coaches', 'the players' as necessary.

When a player or an administrator of the club speaks for 'we' he is referring to the operation of the club.

Sometimes you do see a cringey crossover of 'we' the fans got ahead of ourselves. That's nonsensical.

 

[jmoo wan]

The only thing we contribute to collectively is this forum... so in a sense WE are every bigfooty poster... WE are BrunoV

 

[Lore]

I think you'll find, in a technical sense, the collective that 'we' can represent is anything from the 'we' of an intimate relationship between spilt personalities of the same person through to 'we' the humans of earth in this simulation.

You then read context into it.

So fans of sports clubs identify themselves as 'we' the collective of Essendon as it is extended to supporters as the supports comment on the club they support. It's use is essentially interchangeable with 'the fans', 'the club', 'the coaches', 'the players' as necessary.

When a player or an administrator of the club speaks for 'we' he is referring to the operation of the club.

Sometimes you do see a cringey crossover of 'we' the fans got ahead of ourselves. That's nonsensical.

Members are legally part of the club, and have rights and claims on the club under the Corporations Act. Other supporters are just joining in I guess.

 

[Squeaky]

His decision making is too slow. We miss so many opportunities to rebound or switch when he gets the ball.

Yep. I like his competitive nature etc etc but it is like netball when he gets the footy. Doesn't move. This leads to stagnant ball movement if he is involved in the play.

 

[Howard Moon]

Yep. I like his competitive nature etc etc but it is like netball when he gets the footy. Doesn't move. This leads to stagnant ball movement if he is involved in the play.

Bit like when late era hurls got the ball, which seemed like every play

 

[Yoda_]

Unpopular opinion;

In 2 years all of Ridley, Laverde, Brand and Reid won't be able to play in the one side.