Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Fri Jun 27, 2025 12:44 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 321  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:35 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:17 pm
Posts: 2070
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


no doubt in my mind that Malthouse and the club were still believing this team could contend this year, particularly with the recruitment of Thomas and Everitt and some of Mick's statements

after the first four rounds I think that thinking has now been blown apart (finally!!!)

the reality check that should have been realised after the 2012 season

the big question now is do we persist with Malthouse for the rebuild considering his age

I don't see us winning a premiership in the next five years


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:54 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:56 pm
Posts: 2477
WOW wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


no doubt in my mind that Malthouse and the club were still believing this team could contend this year, particularly with the recruitment of Thomas and Everitt and some of Mick's statements

after the first four rounds I think that thinking has now been blown apart (finally!!!)

the reality check that should have been realised after the 2012 season

the big question now is do we persist with Malthouse for the rebuild considering his age

I don't see us winning a premiership in the next five years


Someone must have been telling the Board that we were contenders for a Premiership

Regards to the CEO.

Ordinary members that go and watch live Carlton games know - we are miles off the pace for a Premiership.

We are bottom 4 not top 4.

Either the Board has been ill advised or the Board have no idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:09 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:29 pm
Posts: 7074
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


I was responding to a post that said getting Thomas cost us a first round pick. Salary cap is an entirely different issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:24 pm 
Offline
formerly cj69

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am
Posts: 7893
emtwenty wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


I was responding to a post that said getting Thomas cost us a first round pick. Salary cap is an entirely different issue.


I know. I was looking at the bigger picture :wink:

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:15 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18035
Michael Jezz wrote:
MM has forced the club to rebuild the list. He predecessors were incapable of facing that reality.
He has tried to instigate a defense first mantra. Acceptable to all successful playing groups but not ours
Moved Simpson and walker back. Gibbs to the midfield.
The results are not there after 26 games but don't make out make out he hasn't been proactive.
The club for once needs to embrace some long termism. He needs 4 seasons and my view is he will leave the list in better shape than he inherited it and give the new coach the clear run to success. Something he hasn't been afforded.


FFS, is there any danger of you backing up anything you post on this site?
You walk around dropping bombs with no responsibility whatsoever.

Mick has forced the club to rebuild has he? Based on exactly what?
Our primary list turnover since Mick came in is less than most AFL teams!
As for a defence first mantra.. :lol: . The only available data shows that is absolute nonsense.

Mind you, facts and data mean nothing to you obviously.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:20 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18035
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


All true but the football department should take total responsibility.
We can't blame the recruiters for this one.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:39 pm 
Offline
formerly cj69

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am
Posts: 7893
Blue Vain wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


All true but the football department should take total responsibility.
We can't blame the recruiters for this one.


Totally agree. McKay is as much to blame as anyone

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:49 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 21075
Location: Missing Kouta
This isn't all true. You say this because you just can't stand Mick.

Psycho would have traded pick 33 outright and money for an average KPF who was towelled by Henderson.

Jesse White, come on down!

Carlton couldn't have secured him for what we gave up for Everitt. Yet Everitt is a different set of circumstances because he didn't scout him. All about potting Carlton's moves whilst remaining blisfully ignorant to his shitful suggestions. We could have had Kurt Tippett after passing on Reynolds in the rookie draft. Yet he keeps ranting that Hughes was poor and Wood was a stuff up. Meh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:03 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:12 pm
Posts: 15582
Location: Upper Swan.
ThePsychologist wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
emtwenty wrote:
For the millionth time, we were never getting a first round pick for Eddie.
Everitt cost us nothing. We would have taken Giles at 33, so who cares that we downgraded that pick to 39. Getting Everitt would have only been a bad move had Giles gone before pick 39.


Emtwenty, you need to look at it from all sides. Good List Management is about what's good for us and not giving our opposition an advantage.

Everitt cost a lot in the salary cap for an average AFL flanker and allowed Sydney to pick up a kid they targeted. Dare I say another HBF. :wink:

Thomas deal was the same. Not only did we lose a pick inside 30 for Betts but we got a Collingwood player past his best and filled up $700k in a tight salary cap. We also then handed Collingwood a great pick inside Top 12.

It's just not smart recruiting.

In the end we have a restrictive salary cap, less picks for kids, we haven't actually acquired players we desperately need and have given our opposition better options.

Not smart at all.


All true but the football department should take total responsibility.
We can't blame the recruiters for this one.


Totally agree. McKay is as much to blame as anyone


Really????????????????.

Surely the Thomas decision is 100% OWNED by the coach.

Does anyone think we'd have gone after him if MM wasn't the coach.

So far Mick has looked after his mates.

Wiley-Best bud from his Eagles gets plumb job: check!
Buttifant- Best bud from Collingwood days gets plumb job: check!
Laidley- Trusted assistant who won't take MM job get's plumb job:check!
Thomas- BFF and kick to kick buddy gets massive contract to finish his career.:check!


Going to hell in a hand basket because of this stupid old fool but somehow it's McKays fault????????????

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:57 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18035
Kouta wrote:
This isn't all true. You say this because you just can't stand Mick.

Psycho would have traded pick 33 outright and money for an average KPF who was towelled by Henderson.

Jesse White, come on down!

Carlton couldn't have secured him for what we gave up for Everitt. Yet Everitt is a different set of circumstances because he didn't scout him. All about potting Carlton's moves whilst remaining blisfully ignorant to his shitful suggestions. We could have had Kurt Tippett after passing on Reynolds in the rookie draft. Yet he keeps ranting that Hughes was poor and Wood was a stuff up. Meh.


I assume you're talking to me? :?

Lets get one thing straight, the "cant stand Mick" statement is rubbish. I make decisions on facts, not personnel. If I make comments on playing style, list management etc, I'd like to think I give explanations, statistics and data to back up my statements. The '"cant stand Mick" ascertion is lazy. If you want to disagree with my comments, come up with something better than that. I dont like Mick but I didnt think much of Ratts as a bloke either.
I just want them to coach properly. If Mick pulls his finger out and does his job properly, I'll be as happy as anyone to see him succeed.

As for Psychos suggestions being "shitful", you're showing your ignorance. We did pay over the odds for a wingman with a dodgy foot. We did lose a compensation pick for making the deal and we Collingwood did receive a first round pick.
We also picked up a tall flanker in Everitt which does nothing to fix our key defensive deficiencies. He was spot on.

As for Jesse White, he wasnt mentioned in the post I agreed with so you're pulling things out of your arse to prove your point. Once again, lazy.
Or ignorant.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:31 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2044
Blue Vain wrote:
Michael Jezz wrote:
MM has forced the club to rebuild the list. He predecessors were incapable of facing that reality.
He has tried to instigate a defense first mantra. Acceptable to all successful playing groups but not ours
Moved Simpson and walker back. Gibbs to the midfield.
The results are not there after 26 games but don't make out make out he hasn't been proactive.
The club for once needs to embrace some long termism. He needs 4 seasons and my view is he will leave the list in better shape than he inherited it and give the new coach the clear run to success. Something he hasn't been afforded.


FFS, is there any danger of you backing up anything you post on this site?
You walk around dropping bombs with no responsibility whatsoever.

Mick has forced the club to rebuild has he? Based on exactly what?
Our primary list turnover since Mick came in is less than most AFL teams!
As for a defence first mantra.. :lol: . The only available data shows that is absolute nonsense.

Mind you, facts and data mean nothing to you obviously.


He turned over 10 players last year. It was 25 percent of our full list in a draft with little depth. YouR primary list argument is your way of bending the truth.
Mick was the person who last year pre the richmond final, went to the board and said the list is weak.
And yes he has a defense first mantra and always has. The fact that our players can not defend says something about the list. You use data to blame the coach instead of the list. Infact the only thing that supports any of your arguments is the misplaced belief that the playing list is as good in in 2014 as it wS in 2008. It is far weaker which you can not admit because you have a vendetta against the MM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:34 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:29 pm
Posts: 7074
People won't be satisfied until we have a fire sale and everyone gets sold for 50% off. We'll end up with a whole lot of second & third round picks for our best players.

But hey, who cares, we'll still be rolling in average draft picks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:40 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18035
Michael Jezz wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
Michael Jezz wrote:
MM has forced the club to rebuild the list. He predecessors were incapable of facing that reality.
He has tried to instigate a defense first mantra. Acceptable to all successful playing groups but not ours
Moved Simpson and walker back. Gibbs to the midfield.
The results are not there after 26 games but don't make out make out he hasn't been proactive.
The club for once needs to embrace some long termism. He needs 4 seasons and my view is he will leave the list in better shape than he inherited it and give the new coach the clear run to success. Something he hasn't been afforded.


FFS, is there any danger of you backing up anything you post on this site?
You walk around dropping bombs with no responsibility whatsoever.

Mick has forced the club to rebuild has he? Based on exactly what?
Our primary list turnover since Mick came in is less than most AFL teams!
As for a defence first mantra.. :lol: . The only available data shows that is absolute nonsense.

Mind you, facts and data mean nothing to you obviously.


He turned over 10 players last year. It was 25 percent of our full list in a draft with little depth. YouR primary list argument is your way of bending the truth.


Bending the truth? IT IS THE TRUTH!
Forget the rookies. Its all about your primary list. Thats where you get your quality players from.
The movement of our primary list has been piss poor.

Michael Jezz wrote:
Mick was the person who last year pre the richmond final, went to the board and said the list is weak.


Where the @#$%&! do you people get this shit from? Forget the guesswork. Forget the shit your neighbour sister told you, lets deal in facts.
Unless you can come up with anything to back that up, its all unsubstantiated shit like the rest of your contributions to this site.
You deal in rumour and propaganda and I'm well past reading it.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:10 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:55 pm
Posts: 12615
Location: Brisbane
Get Richardson.

What? We already had him??!

_________________
THEY LIKE TO SEND UP!!!!!!!!

Until each team plays each other the same number of times, the AFL, as a fair dinkum competition, cannot be taken seriously.

He (Mr Swann) said the honour and pride associated with the club's traditional navy blue jumper was priceless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:14 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:18 am
Posts: 1321
Location: Melbourne
bluedog wrote:
Get Richardson.

What? We already had him??!


That's 3 for the Saints.... And we have Super Duper Mick :sad:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:20 pm 
Offline
formerly cj69

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am
Posts: 7893
Kouta wrote:
This isn't all true. You say this because you just can't stand Mick.

Psycho would have traded pick 33 outright and money for an average KPF who was towelled by Henderson.

Jesse White, come on down! .



Oh Kouta you keep trying to put me down and that's fine but at least get your facts right.

In 2012 I suggested getting White for a third round pick as Sydney were looking to trade him. I thought he filled a need in our list and wouldn't cost much. I still stand by that.

Pick 33 last year? Nah not even close but you keep trying! :wink:

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:24 pm 
Offline
formerly cj69

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am
Posts: 7893
Blue Vain wrote:
Kouta wrote:
This isn't all true. You say this because you just can't stand Mick.

Psycho would have traded pick 33 outright and money for an average KPF who was towelled by Henderson.

Jesse White, come on down!

Carlton couldn't have secured him for what we gave up for Everitt. Yet Everitt is a different set of circumstances because he didn't scout him. All about potting Carlton's moves whilst remaining blisfully ignorant to his shitful suggestions. We could have had Kurt Tippett after passing on Reynolds in the rookie draft. Yet he keeps ranting that Hughes was poor and Wood was a stuff up. Meh.


I assume you're talking to me? :?

Lets get one thing straight, the "cant stand Mick" statement is rubbish. I make decisions on facts, not personnel. If I make comments on playing style, list management etc, I'd like to think I give explanations, statistics and data to back up my statements. The '"cant stand Mick" ascertion is lazy. If you want to disagree with my comments, come up with something better than that. I dont like Mick but I didnt think much of Ratts as a bloke either.
I just want them to coach properly. If Mick pulls his finger out and does his job properly, I'll be as happy as anyone to see him succeed.

As for Psychos suggestions being "shitful", you're showing your ignorance. We did pay over the odds for a wingman with a dodgy foot. We did lose a compensation pick for making the deal and we Collingwood did receive a first round pick.
We also picked up a tall flanker in Everitt which does nothing to fix our key defensive deficiencies. He was spot on.

As for Jesse White, he wasnt mentioned in the post I agreed with so you're pulling things out of your arse to prove your point. Once again, lazy.
Or ignorant.


:clap: he has a habit of that BV and never suggests anything himself.

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:25 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am
Posts: 28227
bluedog wrote:
Get Richardson.

What? We already had him??!

We could get him back for $1.2m/year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:40 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 8631
Suspicious minds in footy: the Malthouse Blues Show

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... z2zKrPGU2P

_________________
Cheats never prosper (except in the AFL)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sakc Malthouse!!!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:48 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm
Posts: 23924
interesting.
to sum up the article..
we need to return to being Steve Jobs,
and stop being Bill Gates.

_________________
That’s not a political statement — it’s a harsh reality, and we must act,” she said. “He is a clear and present danger to the things that keep us strong and free. I support impeachment.”


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 321  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group