Problem last season was when we had players go down with injury, we only had untried kids to call up to AFL level, and it cost us games.
That is the post I responded to.
It says NOTHING about the bunch of spuds. Same as Cameron and Hardwick.
It ONLY talks about "untried kids". Same as Cameron and Hardwick.
BECAUSE it only talks about untried kids it absolves the club personnel who have recruited and KEPT the bunch of spuds who everybody admits (even you) are/were not up to the job.
The players recruited are DIRECT replacements for the bunch of spuds kept at the club waaaaaaaaay past their use by date if they were ever up to the job.
Total crap my behind, you've listed a bunch of spuds who never impacted games at AFL therefore backing my own point You NEVER mentioned them. That's MY point. Elton and Griffths show more than those 3, hence why 2 are gone with the other soon to follow. Elton, as promising as he is, is not ready for AFL level, so has as little impact as the others but 100 fold more upside. None of them were the answer (bar Griffiths who played well), but for different reasons. If Vickery was to go down again, instead of calling any of Gus, Browne, Derrickx or Elton (none of who could impact a game, Elton rightly so at the moment at 19), we now have Edwards who has actually played well at AFL level before. Regardless if you like him or not, he has more skill the Gus, Browne and Derrickx combined.
When Foley went down it was White, Webberley, Connors and Nahas who were not good enough not Conca, Ellis or Helbig.
I agree once again, hence Webbers and Connors gone. Not saying Conca, Ellis and Helbig won't be good enough, but they were all 2nd or 1st year players. They shouldn't have to take that load or be expected to produce Foleys output. This is why the inclusion of bigger experienced bodies is important, ones that once again have played and impacted games at AFL level, not guys like Webbers and Connors (goneski) and White who will be gone at years end.
When Grimes went down we had no-one since Moore, Astbury and Griffith were injured or too young and thankfully Batchelor and Morris (two young players again) filled holes.
and you nailed it here for me, this is exactly what I am saying. Lucky Batch, Morris and Griffiths (prior to injury) played well enough. Griffiths is big enough to play at AFL level and Morris is a mature aged player.
Your arguing something different to what I am. I am saying instead of calling on untried 18yo kids, we needed players who HAVE played at AFL level AND IMPACTED games, not the crap we have hoarded from prior DImma in Gus, Browne, Webbers, Post, Connors, Moore et al. HUH. That's exactly what I said. We needed AFL quality players and all we had was the hoarded crap. Why didn't we have AFL quality players on board already? Ahh yes, we didn't because of the "list clogging conspiracy".
Pettard, Edwards, Lonergan, Knights and even Stephenson (lucky he and Cam Wood were all tat had played AFL) can at least be competetice when called in, which is something that the 'senior players' you listed could never do. I hardly consider those blokes senior, simply dead wood that couldn't even perform when they needed to. That's why it was left to our first and second year players, because we had no decent backup options. Now we do.
Just because Cameron or Hardwick say something doesn't make it the truth.
Try using some judgement and avoid given credence to self-serving excuses.
and just because they say something doesn't mean it's a cover up to some list clogging conspiracy. Try look at the situation and rationalize as to why they would do what they have now done with our rookie list (not even senior) as opposed to jumping up and down as if they drafted Hislop with our National Draft selection in place of a kid. Storm in a tea cup, and if you still can't see what I'm saying I guess we will agree to disagree.
To reiterate, I don't disagree our 'senior players' you listed were not good enough, they were absolute shizen. That's why they had to throw in our 1st and 2nd year players. At least now we have options if required that can actually fill the gap instead of throwing in the 18 and 19yo boys against men. Options that have shown something before, unlike last year.
Seems like a backflip with pike to end up agreeing with me that the problem was poor mature replacement which meant we ONLY had kids.
The key point is - WHY did we only have kids? IMO because our drafting, development and list management were rubbish. IYO that's a list clogging conspiracy theory.
The poor mature players we had last year have been replaced by other mature players who in the main were let go by their previous clubs.
You presume they will be better than what we had, I'm more inclined to wait and see, considering past decisions that got us to last years situation.
