Cats probably regret the Chapman decision but they needed to get some games into their younger brigade in fear of bottoming out with a core group. They turned over their list pretty well.
My argument for playing younger players is the basic philosophy of creating a premiership list. We get absolutely no where by having Aaron Edwards on the list. Absolutely no where. Why keep him next year ahead of Gordon? Aaron Edwards can't possibly be playing in 2 years time at AFL level, there is debate whether he is currently good enough now. 2 years on he will be long finished. Gordon who may not reach the mediocre heights of Edwards atleast has a chance to break out / to click into gear with some pre seasons and experience. You never know.
There is a 5% chance that Gordon will turn into an A Grade player that is part of our next premiership team. There is 0% chance Aaron Edwards will be apart of it. Why on earth is he on our list then? To be depth for a mid table club at best. Awful list management.
Same with Petterd, Same with Stephenson, Same with Hampson, Same with Thompson, Same with Banfield, Same with Knights. Why is our depth filled with average players post 25? Surely our depth is meant for the future? Guys like Foley, Newman can mentor the kids in the 2s under a VFL contract if we want some mentoring in the 2nds, not on an AFL list.
at the end of the day we are not really that far apart. i firmly believe you build for the long term with nd picks you find your long term quality players with these picks . im all for useing plenty of em and have constantly argued this. so we agree.
look at last yr i wanted us to use picks 12 32 50 66 and 78 on kids. i was even prepared to trade 12 for longer a kid himself and 25.
thing is i wanted us to take laidler and chapman as f/as as well.why because there is always a place for good solid players on your list regardless of age. i wanted us to use a rookie pick on sully and cameron. one mature one a junior. do it right and you can take mature players to add depth and immediately fill holes. ive desperately over recent yrs wanted us to target more of the state league players but not at the expense of juniors. i argued all od gordon, lloyd and miles should have been rookie listed. i argued petterd should never have been promoted of the rookie list freeing up a nd pick for a kid.
lists are things that evolve and grow. the player who fills a hole and performs a role for you today may not be needed in two yrs time. taking mature players is a legitimate way of growing your list and should not be ignored. taking mature players is not a long term solution it is a short to medium term fix.
me ive argued we take our fair share of mature players 22 plus yr olds with late nd picks, psd, or rookie picks. about 50% mature 50% juniors. ive wanted this done with mainly state league picks.
why here why so late. mainly because all the stats tell us for nearly all clubs, very few kids go on to even play a game with these types of picks. clubs have em for two yrs and they dont even get a game out of em.
the other reason is i believe there is a good chance of finding a good player a decent role player in the state leagues and stats bear this out, again what you get from these players compared to kids is chalk and cheese. there are a lot of players in state leagues who are better players than those currently on lists and it is remiss of every club to ignore em.
lastly what did edwards bring.
he bought a type of player we did not have bar 19yo brett ohanlon. he was always going to be a short term fix he was always buying ohanlon some time.
he cost us a small salary and a pick in the nd we were not going to use. there was nothing wong with taking edwards.
edwards is no slouch he is a decent player imo.hence why i was happy to get him for the short term .
if ohanlon shows enough improvment and with the drafting of lennon for sure cut azza. ive already advocated that, he was taken as a short term fix to allow some time and perform a role he was type we didnt have.
its harsh but hes served a purpose and performrd a role.i personally dont think we have played him enough to perform that role. but i agree it is time to move on.
me ive advocated we draft a player similar to jack gunston to replace edwards.
on knights again i have no problems. he didnt cost a pick hes got real talent and he can actually play thats my opinion. the risk was always his injury history. he was taken as a 26yo. dunno if you looked at the time or even now but the list screamed out for and still screams out for improvement in mids and sml/med fwds.
as for most of the other mature hacks they have taken, well just far too many, no balance for me, and most had such obvious and chronic weaknesses in their games it was laughable we would even look at em.
anyway we will have to disagree when it comes to mature players. im all for kids but i really believe we can and should take our quota of mature players especially in f/a or late nd rookie draft.
