17th Premiership wrote:
I tend to like Lloyd's commentary - he is often brutal in his assessments but I think he is now consciously building his brand on that as well which is driving him a bit more extreme (and becoming a bit confected...)
In this article, he is right that many players we are bringing in won't be there for the long term. Revelation!
But he is wrong to draw the conclusion that this means we are on the wrong track.
We are turning over a lot of players who we know wont make it and replacing them either with players that we believe WILL become very good, long term players (e.g. SPS, Weitering, Marchbank); or talented players that we HOPE might become very good, long term players (e.g. Pickett, Plowman); or players that we are just hoping will play a role in our development who may or may not make it at all, let alone be there for the longer term (e.g. Palmer, Smedts, Wright, Lamb...).
The reason we are not bringing in a bunch of stars is b/c a) there are not enough genuine stars to replace the raft of cloggers we have jettisoned and b) even if there were enough in a single year, we don't have the $$ or trade cache to get them.
So, recognising that we have a terrible list and don't have a great hand, we know that simply waiting our turn will end up in a Richmond-like middle rung team in perpetuity. We need a few unlikely wins to leapfrog some rungs in the competition. Therefore, we are taking a bit of a risky approach trying highly talented, former high draft picks and hoping they can now reach their potential. In addition, we are trading for as many high draft picks as possible and hoping to beef up with a bit of free agency, when the time is right (which btw, I don't believe we are ready for yet at the end of this year with Fyfe...).
So, Lloyd, thanks for the observations - no real great insights there.
But on this occasion, you have misinterpreted both the need and the outcome.
