Essendon* cheated, simple as that

I agree. We kind a hope the plowman plus 3 deal works out due to our new found capacity to develop players but when you line up who we will lose against who we are likely to add, it is hard to see much progress. Carlisle for 15 and 18 looks a great deal. It is going to make yarran look a very cheap get by Richmond

The Trade Radio list management summary from Plough was pretty damning. Key points were:

'that it was the worst list he's seen in years (possibly ever)'
'ageing KPD in Jamison and Rowe'
'good across HB with Buckley, Tuohy, Docherty'
'No KPF - if we were to trade Casboult then our best options would be Jaksch and Jones (who they laughed weren't capable)'
'Expectation was that we would be bottom four in 2016 - without doubt (but they believed that Blues fans were accepting of this and were embracing the rebuild)

I'm not really sure that they mentioned anything else significant although they had previously questioned SOS targeting GWS players. Nothing really groundbreaking I'm afraid.

My only question is whether this prediction is informed and/or unbiased. I heard Terry Wallace and Nathan Brown both talk about how Yaz was worth mid 20's?.....while they rubbed their hands together at the prospect of him helping Richmond past week 1 of the finals in 2016.... Wallace said the same thing about Henderson too, and I felt vindicated at Geelong giving up a first rounder. Seems Richmond have already conceded that Yaz is worth a first rounder, and they are trying to trade for it.

I expect I have Rose coloured glasses on, but I don't see the injuries we had this year mentioned too much, and believe it had some impact on our results this season.

We only got 14 games out of both Menzel and Jamison, 13 out of Kruz, 12 out of 1AW, 10 out of Gibbs, 8 out of Judd, and 5 out of Thomas. Undoubtedly, some of those games that they did play were affected by their injuries (or returning from one). I remember Juddy saying something about the 2015 Grand Final, when he predicted Hawks to win, as their best 6 were better than West Coast's best 6. He believed that the top 6 players in the team have the largest impact or something along those lines. I think we lost too many games out of that tier of our team and it just can't be dismissed.

I'm happy to be put back in my box if I'm just too optimistic but the end of the Malthouse era, and changing the game plan mid season must also have had a impact.

I'm not suggesting we're top 8 by any stretch, but I'm thinking we won't be in the bottom four. New coach, new gameplan, new group of enthusiastic players (and more importantly the removal of players who don't want to be around). Lots of upside despite the obvious short comings.

While it might seem obvious, we're not going to be able to address all our list issues in one trade/draft, and will face 2016 with a playing list in progress, and probably a free agent target next year as well as a deeper draft pool to choose from. Sorry if the enthusiasm isn't appealing. I love this time of year and I'm excited about the direction the club is taking.

On a separate note, I'm half way through Juddy's book, and it's a good read and I haven't even got up to him joining the Blues yet.....really insightful.

Yes, patience required as it will take years to rebuild from the rubble and devastation created by Swann, Kernahan and Malthouse.

Reputation, culture and standards need to be re-established through the board, list and admin.

Great opinions.

It would have been Swann who was in Sticks ear to get Malthouse.
Sticks would have gone along with it and took it to the board.
In the end when it all turned to shiite Swann and Sticks bailed and left Malthouse hanging
Never liked Swann and there was a reason Eddie let him go same as Malthouse

Yes, patience required as it will take years to rebuild from the rubble and devastation created by Swann, Kernahan and Malthouse.

Didn't that flog have the Sydney coaching gig stitched up till they found out he wanted a sun bed in his office and 3 hours a day to tan his arse cheeks.

Sounds a little boring. Wouldn't you just end up with a bunch of players who can kick properly and consistently hit targets?

I think I prefer our tried and tested model where we get players who can't kick but whose coaches - who couldn't teach them to kick - assure us are "very coachable". That way, every kick is an intriguing mystery.