Preview Changes: R21 vs West Coast, Sunday August 7, 3.40pm ACST @ Optus Stadium

[Jeffcrowe]

as a starting point, you can trade from 4 to 6 and get something extra. You can't trade from 6 to 4 without adding something from your end. I know you're a 3/4 apologist, so I'll go the extra yard. We can buy a mars bar with a $100 note or a $5 note. In your view, they're the same thing then, right?

I'd just like to know what we are going to do with our improved position if we string some losses since some are so confident it benefits us, tell us how exactly

like who are we getting ? i'm all in if its going to help so much

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Only the club knows the players they have in their order. By moving back they risk losing their preferred players, that’s just logic

and you reckon our order will be spot on ? Is there a clear pick 4 you think? and our guys will be able to see that too?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

We seriously going to use our first rounder on Rankine? Just shoot me in the head now.

you don't think Rankine is one of the more talented players from SA to come through ?

 

[1970crow]

I'd just like to know what we are going to do with our improved position if we string some losses since some are so confident it benefits us, tell us how exactly

like who are we getting ? i'm all in if its going to help so much

I don't know, but the value differential or opportunity provided by an earlier pick is an absolute. You're effectively arguing that until we find a better director than Roo, we shouldn't consider turfing him.

But I'll play, despite it working out not so well in this example. When we traded down to end up with the McAsey pick, Reid or Ogilvie (can't recall which) were on AA and said, 'after the first 3 or 4, we can't split the next handful'. So they were able to add extra capital a bit later in the draft despite no theoretical loss at our first pick being 2 or 3 picks later.

I mean, this is a given. Obviously, competence of the decision makers is arguable. But an earlier pick having more value than a later pick, well, it isn't.

 

[1970crow]

you don't think Rankine is one of the more talented players from SA to come through ?

is talent everything? Look, at draft you've got to focus on talent and back your system to maximise it. But 3 years in, it's not just about talent anymore, rubber has hit the road. That must be taken into acco7nt when valuing what you'll pay in terms of $ and draft capital.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I don't know, but the value differential or opportunity provided by an earlier pick is an absolute. You're effectively arguing that until we find a better director than Roo, we shouldn't consider turfing him.

But I'll play, despite it working out not so well in this example. When we traded down to end up with the McAsey pick, Reid or Ogilvie (can't recall which) were on AA and said, 'after the first 3 or 4, we can't split the next handful'. So they were able to add extra capital a bit later in the draft despite no theoretical loss at our first pick being 2 or 3 picks later.

I mean, this is a given. Obviously, competence of the decision makers is arguable. But an earlier pick having more value than a later pick, well, it isn't.

nah been wanting Roo out for a long time , nothin to do with it

 

[Jeffcrowe]

is talent everything? Look, at draft you've got to focus on talent and back your system to maximise it. But 3 years in, it's not just about talent anymore, rubber has hit the road. That must be taken into acco7nt when valuing what you'll pay in terms of $ and draft capital.

talent and hard work,in my mind Rankine has both and wants to be a matchwinner which is what we need

i've always rated him , and certainly rate him above nearly all players in this draft especially after Ashcroft

 

[1970crow]

nah been wanting Roo out for a long time , nothin to do with it

Same philosophy, you're asking someone to provide a defined uplift whereas the value is unarguable. Pick 4 provides greater value and opportunity than pick 6. Like removing Roo, nobody needs to identify exactly why and how, these are just simple truths. Unless you think a club would ever just straight swap their pick 4 for pick 6. Do you think that will ever happen, yes or no?

 

[FR0GGY]

Same philosophy, you're asking someone to provide a defined uplift whereas the value is unarguable. Pick 4 provides greater value and opportunity than pick 6. Like removing Roo, nobody needs to identify exactly why and how, these are just simple truths. Unless you think a club would ever just straight swap their pick 4 for pick 6. Do you think that will ever happen, yes or no?

I think he understands it’s less, but is that worth the 3 losses?

 

[1970crow]

I think he understands it’s less, but is that worth the 3 losses?

That's a different argument, he's asking for qualitative reasoning as to why 4 will be better than 6. That said, will losing the next 3 impact our next contending period, absolutely not. Will missing out on the next Bont because we slid 2 back and ended up with Jones (who I like) impact it? Yes it will.

edit - I think it's worth referring to VB's philosophy that the best way to rebuild is to focus on this week's 4 points. I think that's horribly flawed, not that I'd ever advocate deliberate losing.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Same philosophy, you're asking someone to provide a defined uplift whereas the value is unarguable. Pick 4 provides greater value and opportunity than pick 6. Like removing Roo, nobody needs to identify exactly why and how, these are just simple truths. Unless you think a club would ever just straight swap their pick 4 for pick 6. Do you think that will ever happen, yes or no?

Understood it more last year when Horne was there and we were playing Hawthorn

Now I think we need to play out the season given we’ve unearthed a few young guys that look like they might be on the right path

After watching alot of the champs can’t see too much difference between pick 2 ( the first non father/ son pick ) and pick 7 so I’m really not fussed

Be annoyed if Port took Phillipou because they finished one spot below us but doesn’t mean I’ll support them in the showdown against us if we win next 2 ( think we lose today anyway )

 

[FR0GGY]

That's a different argument, he's asking for qualitative reasoning as to why 4 will be better than 6. That said, will losing the next 3 impact our next contending period, absolutely not. Will missing out on the next Bont because we slid 2 back and ended up with Jones (who I like) impact it? Yes it will.

edit - I think it's worth referring to VB's philosophy that the best way to rebuild is to focus on this week's 4 points. I think that's horribly flawed, not that I'd ever advocate deliberate losing.

It comes down to our recruiting and development surely.
There’s no guarantee who we pick at 4 is better than someone we pick at 6
Obviously you have 2 more players to pick from.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

That's a different argument, he's asking for qualitative reasoning as to why 4 will be better than 6. That said, will losing the next 3 impact our next contending period, absolutely not. Will missing out on the next Bont because we slid 2 back and ended up with Jones (who I like) impact it? Yes it will.

edit - I think it's worth referring to VB's philosophy that the best way to rebuild is to focus on this week's 4 points. I think that's horribly flawed, not that I'd ever advocate deliberate losing.

Can’t wait for you to tell me who the next Bont is

 

[George Kramer]

and you reckon our order will be spot on ? Is there a clear pick 4 you think? and our guys will be able to see that too?

It’s not worth arguing about, but the later your pick means someone could pick the player you want as there are picks before yours. That’s just basic logic.

 

[FR0GGY]

That's a different argument, he's asking for qualitative reasoning as to why 4 will be better than 6. That said, will losing the next 3 impact our next contending period, absolutely not. Will missing out on the next Bont because we slid 2 back and ended up with Jones (who I like) impact it? Yes it will.

edit - I think it's worth referring to VB's philosophy that the best way to rebuild is to focus on this week's 4 points. I think that's horribly flawed, not that I'd ever advocate deliberate losing.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in VB (I know you weren’t being serious)
I get finishing as low as possible when you are shit but I think a win or two at the end won’t change our position much, if at all this year.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

It comes down to our recruiting and development surely.
There’s no guarantee who we pick at 4 is better than someone we pick at 6
Obviously you have 2 more players to pick from.

The first 7 look pretty even to me after Ashcroft

One is a key defender so I think we can rule that out

Prob a mute point if it gets used as part of deal for rankine

 

[Jeffcrowe]

It’s not worth arguing about, but the later your pick means someone could pick the player you want as there are picks before yours. That’s just basic logic.

And that player could be the wrong one

Trying to be tricky will get us nowhere , we aren’t that smart

 

[FR0GGY]

Interesting Kennedy didn’t try to get to 300, the ultimate unselfish player.
293 games

 

[1970crow]

I wouldn’t put too much stock in VB (I know you weren’t being serious)
I get finishing as low as possible when you are s**t but I think a win or two at the end won’t change our position much, if at all this year.

my view is that every decision we make should be for future benefit, not this week's 4 points. Finishing position sorts itself out. We select to maximise our finishing position, not developing a group for future contention. Murphy and Berg playing ahead of Rachele and TT is all about this week's 4 points and finishing as high as possible.

Here's a question for the selection apologists, which of Nelbourne's bottom few finishes pushed their premiership back more years than it should have been?

 

[FR0GGY]

my view is that every decision we make should be for future benefit, not this week's 4 points. Finishing position sorts itself out. We select to maximise our finishing position, not developing a group for future contention. Murphy and Berg playing ahead of Rachele and TT is all about this week's 4 points and finishing as high as possible.

Here's a question for the selection apologists, which of Nelbourne's bottom few finishes pushed their premiership back more years than it should have been?

Absolute in terms of selection but once they are out there…
I’m definitely not advocating to pick to win this week.

 

[1970crow]

Interesting Kennedy didn’t try to get to 300, the ultimate unselfish player.
293 games

outside of Otten, at our club as soon as he'd kicked a couple if goals there'd have been a story about 2 year deals being offered by other clubs.

 

[George Kramer]

And that player could be the wrong one

Trying to be tricky will get us nowhere , we aren’t that smart

But that’s not the argument, we are talking about our player not being there with a later pick. Whether we choose the right player is irrelevant.

As for being tricky, we tried tried that with McAsey.

But this is a strange discussion to have to keep going.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

But that’s not the argument, we are talking about our player not being there with a later pick. Whether we choose the right player is irrelevant.

As for being tricky, we tried tried that with McAsey.

But this is a strange discussion to have to keep going.

sure is

at least we can't lose watching this game we either win or we lose and get the next Bont

 

[George Kramer]

sure is

at least we can't lose watching this game we either win or we lose and get the next Bont

Are we moving Hamish on?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Are we moving Hamish on?

Hope so