Is Longmire cooked?

[Ludwig]

True.....but if we lost the following game by 24 pts, the 50-37 suddenly becomes a very negative percentage whereas the 100-75 remains in the positive. So, and this we agree on, it is important to have higher scores leading to bigger winning margins to preserve a healthy percentage when we have an off game or two.

Are you trying to say that we should win our games by the greatest margin possible and lose by the smallest margin possible? And that would give us a good percentage?

It's an interesting idea. I think it might work.

[stevoswan]

Are you trying to say that we should win our games by the greatest margin possible and lose by the smallest margin possible? And that would give us a good percentage?

It's an interesting idea. I think it might work.

I can't believe the sarcasm Ludwig.....are we not able to disagree with you, even if it is ultimately agreeing with you?

[Ludwig]

I can't believe the sarcasm Ludwig.....are we not able to disagree with you, even if it is ultimately agreeing with you?

Sorry. It sounded funnier in my own head. Don't take me too seriously.

[Hotpotato]

I thought it was funny but not hilarious .

[Ludwig]

I thought it was funny but not hilarious .

Me too.

My contract says that I only have to do hilarious 3 times a week.

[Matty10]

I thought it was funny but not hilarious .

For whatever reason, I think your comment was actually the funniest in weeks!

[Meg]

For whatever reason, I think your comment was actually the funniest in weeks!

Not as good as the Ugg boot/Moon boot post. That had me in stitches.

[stevoswan]

Sorry. It sounded funnier in my own head. Don't take me too seriously.

All good....it's easy to misread intention in posts. My bad too.

[Steve]

• Our depth is not poor, just young.
  
• The fact that we are not playing guys like Towers and Robinson regularly is a testament to the success of our policy in that our young recruits are doing well enough that we don't have to play our top up mature depth players
  
• We just can't delist these players and find a bag full of money to keep another high quality player, like Tom Mitchell, because we would still have to fill those depth player spots with other depth players, probably of similar quality and compensation.
  
• The other reason we let Mitchell go was to accelerate the transition of our game plan.

The strategy around recruiting more young guys and playing them early has been very evident since 2016 - which I still maintain makes the retention of the guys I mentioned questionable. More so when we’re talking about a year where we’ve had numerous injuries and youngsters are getting tired - exactly when depth players are usually used.

Even examples like giving Stoddart a couple of games this year - that was clearly giving kid some exposure when there were better options at that point in time, but there was a bigger picture view to who we gave the 22nd spot in the team to those weeks.

It’s ordinary list management (re: those guys I classify as depth players) either way - i) we were always going to prioritise youngsters and the extra $1M is basically wasted, or ii) we genuinely saw them as being in our best 22 and got that very wrong.

Where is it mandated that you have to have x number of depth players in their mid to late 20’s on say $200-250K per year? My point is that if we save $1M+ on guys we seem very determined not to play, they can be replaced with draftees on $70K each (or whatever the minimum AFL wage is) which saves us ~$700K per year. Either way they’re playing NEAFL so we may as well save the money and if we hit the jackpot and one late draftee unexpectedly becomes a player, then all the better.

The reason Mitchell left was that Hawthorn offered a lot more money - in fairness at the time I agreed he wasn’t worth retaining on that money if it meant losing other players down the track and eating further into our depth. But our whole game plan is about winning the ball first, and we’re not using some of what might have been seen as depth, so in hindsight it would have been far better to pay Mitchell $150K more than we were offering and save on the depth players who are obviously not rated very highly.

[AnnieH]

Mitchell wasn't worth that much money to us... we had better performing players (we still do).
Mitchell is only seen as a "hawks star" these days because he's the best of a bad team.

[ScottH]

Mitchell wasn't worth that much money to us... we had better performing players (we still do).
Mitchell is only seen as a "hawks star" these days because he's the best of a bad team.

A bad team who are currently in the top 4!!

[Steve]

Mitchell wasn't worth that much money to us... we had better performing players (we still do).
Mitchell is only seen as a "hawks star" these days because he's the best of a bad team.

Maybe we “had” back then, but not sure who all those ones are who are now doing better than Mitchell.

Hawthorn paid him more than an inside ball winner is (generally) worth, and maybe there was the concern about the lack of pace of our midfield with Mitchell similar to our others in that regard - but it doesn’t really matter if the opposition can’t even get their hands on it.

I think we’ve been hurt by the increased congestion, which most would have probably thought would be the opposite. Previously we would win more contests than we lose (admittedly with Mitchell also there), and a few quick handballs would get us into space.

Now it’s so much harder to do that, and it’s the teams who can burst from that congestion who are most dangerous.

You’re also a touch harsh on Hawthorn - they’re doing OK I reckon, and aren’t complaining about injuries when they are have been missing McEvoy, Sicily, Birchall, and Rioli (as well as Burgoyne, Puopolo and Frawley for periods as well) and not even going to badly.