NAB Draft 2006

[CyberKev]

A positive with Cousin Riewoldt is they expect him to play seniors next year :thumn

I'd fair dinkum debut him in Round 1 if he stays fit. He has the build for it and would probably benefit from the challenge of playing in the top side early on.

 

[CyberKev]

This could be seen as churlish, given that I've already praised essendon for its draft choices, but is anyone else seeing signs of Sheedy desperately trying to save his arse in 2007?

Mal Micheal?

Come on, give me a break, he's well past his best and doesn't really have his head in it.

Essentially you'll have him filling a key defensive spot for two years (with Fletcher also moving inexorably toward retirement) instead of blooding a quality young replacement when you should be undergoing a full-on restructure.

Essendon would have been better off giving Michael a miss and taking Eric MacKenzie at pick 20, and then risking its PSD pick on Chris Bryan.

Essendon would have been better off from a long-term perspective, but Sheedy wouldn't have been, which is why it wasn't done, methinks!

 

[meltiger]

This could be seen as churlish, given that I've already praised essendon for its draft choices, but is anyone else seeing signs of Sheedy desperately trying to save his arse in 2007?

From the Mal Michael thread ... ;-)

Good work?

As an Essendon hater I have to say I am happy Sheedy has done this. See if you can guess why ...

This signing smacks completely of Sheedy being worried about not being renewed when his contract comes up. If I was a Scummer fan, I would be absoloutely livid at my team offering a fading defender 550k per year just to save the coaches behind.

Mal Micheal?

Come on, give me a break, he's well past his best and doesn't really have his head in it.

Essentially you'll have him filling a key defensive spot for two years (with Fletcher also moving inexorably toward retirement) instead of blooding a quality young replacement when you should be undergoing a full-on restructure.

Essendon would have been better off giving Michael a miss and taking Eric MacKenzie at pick 20, and then risking its PSD pick on Chris Bryan.

Essendon would have been better off from a long-term perspective, but Sheedy wouldn't have been, which is why it wasn't done, methinks!

Agree 100% Kids were the right road, not 550k a year for Mal.

I'd laugh if the Scummers draft him then the AFL refuse to register him :lol:


Admitedly, all within the club, even their delusional fans seem to think Lloyd's return this year will instantly propel them back into the top flight.

 

[CyberKev]

Admitedly, all within the club, even their delusional fans seem to think Lloyd's return this year will instantly propel them back into the top flight.

There's plenty willing to talk top four, so on that thinking, Michael may well be enough to snare them that much coveted premiership.

In true Statler & Waldorf fashion I'm now doing a hasty 180 degree u-turn on the issue.

Sensational recruitment ploy, Sheeds! :alcho:

:lol:

 

[lockyno1]

Disagree Kev. Whilst we have some young defenders, a experienced defender is extremely valuable to our club at the current time. Good recruiting!

 

[CyberKev]

Disagree Kev. Whilst we have some young defenders, a experienced defender is extremely valuable to our club at the current time. Good recruiting!

Okay, Lockers.

Can you name these young key defensive options?

And how are they supposed to improve and get the necessary experience if you prefer to play Michael instead.

All you're doing is applying a loose bandaid to a gaping wound and setting back your team development down back by a couple of years.

 

[CyberKev]

Chris Dawes @ 28 for Collingwood...

The Magpies didn't flinch at the prospect of taking him even though he'll sit out 2007 with a knee reco.

Interesting parallels with Hawthorn taking Beau Muston @ 24 under similar circumstances last season.

I well remember getting bagged and mocked by a small Pie contingent for the Muston pick.

Wonder what they think of the Dawes decision?

 

[lockyno1]

Okay, Lockers.

Can you name these young key defensive options?

And how are they supposed to improve and get the necessary experience if you prefer to play Michael instead.

All you're doing is applying a loose bandaid to a gaping wound and setting back your team development down back by a couple of years.

I'd rather these backmen learn from Mal and Dustin Flether. I'd rather them not have to play in the keyt position back positions yet. 2 yrs playing off the back flank. Then they can move into the more central defensive positions. We saw how bad putting a young defender in a central position when Zac Dawson got put in there! Give them time, don't rush!

 

[CyberKev]

I'd rather these backmen learn from Mal and Dustin Flether. I'd rather them not have to play in the keyt position back positions yet. 2 yrs playing off the back flank. Then they can move into the more central defensive positions. We saw how bad putting a young defender in a central position when Zac Dawson got put in there! Give them time, don't rush!

Which backmen, who the flock are they?!

On Dawson, much is made of his two horror games, but nothing of the other handful where he performed well. Its also true that he went back to Box Hill and played a series of excellent defensive games, suggesting that he was learning from harsh experience.

That said, you can only learn so much at VFL level and there's nothing to be gained for a club to mollycoddle young defenders with promise at VFL level just so that an old, past it defender (sated by a triple premiership) can spice-up his superannuation.

Face it, Lockers, the Michael decision is another Sheedy tactic aimed squarely at assisting his grand plan of "dying in office" clad in a red & black tracksuit.

 

[lockyno1]

Maybe, and gosh I really don't pay much attention to the backmen. The one main one comes from the draft in Gumbleton apparently.

 

[CyberKev]

Maybe, and gosh I really don't pay much attention to the backmen. The one main one comes from the draft in Gumbleton apparently.

Technically speaking he's a CHF that can play back.

Essendon would be better served by leaving Fletcher at FB and easing Gumbleton into the big flight at CHB than mucking around with Michael.

 

[meltiger]

Essendon would be better served by leaving Fletcher at FB and easing Gumbleton into the big flight at CHB than mucking around with Michael.

^^

Yep, similar to how Clarkson handled Roughead in his first season.


No better way for a young kid to learn not only the ropes of CHB but also how to play CHF in the top flight than to play him on the big name forwards week in week out.


For example - I strongly beleive the R20/R21 (Can't remember which round) they played that year against Richmond would have taught him a lot about the game at the top level. He had 20 odd touches, but his opponent Richo, had 8 scoring shots on goal (With a couple out on the full for good Richo measure lol)


Since that game, I have not seen any opponent of his be allowed to play so loose, forward or back.

 

[lockyno1]

Technically speaking he's a CHF that can play back.

Essendon would be better served by leaving Fletcher at FB and easing Gumbleton into the big flight at CHB than mucking around with Michael.

Each to their own Kev. Honestly, lets just try and see next year.

 

[meltiger]

Each to their own Kev. Honestly, lets just try and see next year.

When the diving actress Lloyd returns as the saviour and drags you back into the 8?


Essendon delusionals ... :lol:

 

[lockyno1]

Lloyd does not dive Tiger! He earns his free kicks!

 

[meltiger]

Lloyd does not dive Tiger! He earns his free kicks!

:lol:


I fail to see the difference between diving and actions that consistute 'earning' a free kick.


You're flogging a dead horse there Locky, Lloyd was outed long ago.

 

[lockyno1]

Diving is like Italy do in soccer! Earning a free involves getting frees in the heat of battle. All of Lloyd's frees are fair. I have not seen him get a unfair free. Like it or not defenders do illegal things when they mark him becuase they know if he kicks 10 they will lose!

 

[meltiger]

What absoloute bullsh*t.

Even the Footy Show were able to produce evidence of Lloyd taking dives to 'earn' free kicks.

 

[lockyno1]

You are just jealous that you don't have Lloyd!

 

[meltiger]

On what basis would I want Lloyd at Richmond?

He's rubbish. Take the red sash off him, and the soft, criminal free kicks awarded to him would no longer be paid due to the red & black blinkers being removed from the umpires eyes.