The Black Plague

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

Blues2005 wrote:

The encapsulates the problem.

People like The Shag (certainly not just The Shag) actually believe that Marc Murphy is a vital pre-requisite for future Carlton success. It's an amazing view and in my opinion a preposterous one (as I've argued at length in another thread).

Shag, you do know that the draft doesn't end at pick 1. We're likely to have picks 2 and 4. You want a "swag full of gun players". Would you not expect to pick up gun players with picks 2 and 4?

Didn't you know.....Pick 1 is the only worthwhile one in the draft. 2-100 are total duds. spazmos, guys who test positive to unco. Losers.
That's why we don't want anything but pick 1... :wink:

Oh.....and :roll:

Mrs Caz · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:07 pm

I want my team to win every game, every week, every year.

But we aint, and it doesn't look like we will for a long time. and I'll be buggered if I won't look at the silver lining of that and become excited about the young kids who hopefully will make our team great again.

Not excited about finishing last...excited about picking up a future club champion...or two.

TheGame · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:24 pm

http://www.allthestats.com/team/teams.php?t1=14

Only winning records are against University and the Bears. :lol:

Now this is a club

http://www.allthestats.com/team/teams.php?t1=3

The_Cranium · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:52 pm

very interesting thread this one. i guess i have been infected with the plague to a degree also. but its always through the week that i am thinking geez it'd be great to have picks 1 & 3. come game day at the G or the dome, all i can think about is winning the game. i celebrate like mad when we kick a goal, or just some decent play.... such as a kick hitting a target (hardly worthy of cheering, but i have found myself doing it :roll:

) i get upset with the horrendous turn overs, i sit in amazement as we invent a new way to completely flower it up. and most of all i leave in anguish as to why everything has gone so badly.

i think there the plague is more like a back-up. if we win the game we're ecstatic. if we lose... well at least we're that little bit closer to the prized #1 pick in the draft.

then you start wondering why it is that we are so desperate to have pick #1. is it because we had it but never got to use it, so now we don't know why we want it, we just want it???? what if we mess it up? nick del santo went at pick 13 or so. is there a case that clubs can get blinded by the hype of the top pick? who knows. but pick 1 isn't always the best player. pavlich wasn't pick 1. judd wasn't pick 1. luke ball wasn't pick 1. kosi wasn't pick 1. wells wasn't pick 1. hird wasn't pick 1. the list is endless. now consider some of the #1 picks. goddard? travis johnstone? josh fraser? havign #1 doesn't necessarily guarentee you an out and out champion. but having said that it's a pretty good start to getting one.

regardless of the result against hawthorn we are still going to have 2 of the top 4 picks, and i know that i for one will be there on saturday, cheering, supporting and looking for a victory. i know i'll be pissed off if we lose.

phoenix johnson · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:58 pm

Going on how they have been playing over the last few years, Wells and Judd should have gone Pick 1.

BlueMark · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:59 pm

The thing about the 'tanking' arguement is this,

We will need to 'tank' somewhere between 5 to 8 years to pick up the required youth to 'win' a flag then wait antoher 3 to 4 for them to mature. And this is only if every early pick fulfils thier potential, history suggests about half will. So using this theory we will need to wait a decade or so for our next viable shot at a flag.

'Tanking' a simplistic solution to the very complex problem besetting our club.

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:04 pm

In reality as long as we get the PP I'll be satisfied, but honestly I just see it as we've always played the system in the past, and when the system changed we didn't adapt to it, too proud to. Well that's gone now, and I don't want to be another Kangaroos basketcase that will continually finish in no-mans land until they bottom out. I'd like to make a tilt at a flag, and honestly I'm past caring how we do it. I wont think it's sweeter if we do it with 1 PP, or 2 PP...I'll just be happy we've done it.

Synbad · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:09 pm

BlueMark wrote:

The thing about the 'tanking' arguement is this,

We will need to 'tank' somewhere between 5 to 8 years to pick up the required youth to 'win' a flag then wait antoher 3 to 4 for them to mature. And this is only if every early pick fulfils thier potential, history suggests about half will. So using this theory we will need to wait a decade or so for our next viable shot at a flag.

'Tanking' a simplistic solution to the very complex problem besetting our club.

Supposing we win this game because we won it.. does that make us a better side next year than if we hadnt won it???

The problem with your argument BM is youre pretending we are a gun team.. illustrated with you wanting to pay Campo and Whitnall more squillions to stay.....

OUR REAL PROBLEM is we have precious little talkent that can only be helped along one way.. fisnish low for draft picks and PSD players....

No ifs no buts.. to deny this youve just got your head in the sand

phoenix johnson · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:09 pm

barks4eva wrote:

camelboy wrote:

I saw serious discussion about hoping we lose to the team 15th on the ladder to ensure that we finish 16th. Otherwise known as last, the bottom, the St Kilda position.

NOW referred to as the Carltoon position

Hi Barks.

dannyboy · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:32 pm

i think its going to be called the Murph Spoon from now on.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:10 pm

phoenix johnson wrote:

Going on how they have been playing over the last few years, Wells and Judd should have gone Pick 1.

So can we wait until 3 or 4 years after debut before selecting our kids from this year's draft? That'd be a better way wouldn't it. :shock:

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:22 pm

camelboy wrote:

phoenix johnson wrote:

Going on how they have been playing over the last few years, Wells and Judd should have gone Pick 1.

So can we wait until 3 or 4 years after debut before selecting our kids from this year's draft? That'd be a better way wouldn't it. :shock:

To much pressure on No1 - 2 and 3 usually better- Cooney is the exception

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:24 pm

History tells us that. But, apparently, the world ends after pick #1 this year. Hopefully noone else knows that and we can trade away pick #2, 3 or 4 for a good young established player ... well, seeing the pick is no good we may as well try and get something out of it by trading it.

mikey_m · **Joined:** Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:25 am **Posts:** 787

Sydney Blue wrote:

camelboy wrote:

phoenix johnson wrote:

Going on how they have been playing over the last few years, Wells and Judd should have gone Pick 1.

So can we wait until 3 or 4 years after debut before selecting our kids from this year's draft? That'd be a better way wouldn't it. :shock:

To much pressure on No1 - 2 and 3 usually better- Cooney is the exception

Riewoldt.

TruBlueBrad · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:19 pm

The days of the #1 pick not being the best player are over. It's such a greater science these days that its no longer possible to pick a Goddard over Wells or Del Santo.

Synbad has developed a formula to judge talent based on the endless TAC Cup games he's seen and conversation's he's had with recruiter's and talent scouts.

Its a definite guarentee, thats why its so essential your supporters piss 140 years of winning tradition up the wall to ensure you lose as many games as possible.

There won't be a draft this as such this season. The AFL will apply this formula to each player in the draft and each team will be allocated a player based on this formula when it would have been their turn to pick.

Headplant · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:35 pm

I guess it gives us something to talk about. :wink:

But what I'm worried about is that 23% vs Port Adelaide. :wink:

garth p · **Joined:** Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:27 pm **Posts:** 275

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

Blues2005 wrote:

The encapsulates the problem.

People like The Shag (certainly not just The Shag) actually believe that Marc Murphy is a vital pre-requisite for future Carlton success. It's an amazing view and in my opinion a preposterous one (as I've argued at length in another thread).

Shag, you do know that the draft doesn't end at pick 1. We're likely to have picks 2 and 4. You want a "swag full of gun players". Would you not expect to pick up gun players with picks 2 and 4?

Didn't you know.....Pick 1 is the only worthwhile one in the draft. 2-100 are total duds. spazmos, guys who test positive to unco. Losers.
That's why we don't want anything but pick 1... :wink:

Oh.....and :roll:

garth p · **Joined:** Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:27 pm **Posts:** 275

barks4eva wrote:

camelboy wrote:

I saw serious discussion about hoping we lose to the team 15th on the ladder to ensure that we finish 16th. Otherwise known as last, the bottom, the St Kilda position.

NOW referred to as the Carltoon position

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:40 pm

Pleased to extract an expanded vocabulary from you garth.

Also unsurprised at you guys being quick to forget the past. Let's just move on shall we.

garth p · **Joined:** Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:27 pm **Posts:** 275

camelboy wrote:

Pleased to extract an expanded vocabulary from you garth.

Also unsurprised at you guys being quick to forget the past. Let's just move on shall we.

Bit of a contradiction there , old son, isn't there?????

The Black Plague

Who is online