List Mgmt. Mitch Brown and Joel Hamling delisted with Hunt

[MC Extra Dollop]

Which Wells may be thinking of doing?

Some bigger bodied mids for Rookie listing (in the 22-25 age bracket) perhaps? Or just using those late picks on that type even ...

Anything better than Schroder, Sheringham, Hunt and Stringer? Or Burbury, for that matter? Because we just dumped all of those players and they all played roles that we look like we're going to need next year...

Or is this just a Simpsons-esque 'Someone else...someone else...someone else...' philosophy?

 

[strauchnyy]

Not really suprised about Hamling. Always thought he was a very small chance of making it, from what I saw.

Think we really need to go one of Durdin or Goddard while we have this rare opportunity (quality key position players almost always go top 10).

Play Hartman, Lang and Jansen and draft mids with 47, 55 etc. Focus next year's round 1 and FA (Scooter, Danger) on mids.

 

[Tackle_happy]

Anything better than Schroder, Sheringham, Hunt and Stringer? Or Burbury, for that matter? Because we just dumped all of those players and they all played roles that we look like we're going to need next year...

Or is this just a Simpsons-esque 'Someone else...someone else...someone else...' philosophy?

Those players that the club thought would not improve and/or not make it at AFL level were delisted.

They may very well get similar types to who they delisted ... but they will be looking to see whether they will make it or not. Some will some won't. Doesn't stop them trying to find the right fit though does it?

ie - there are many on here saying Newton (PA) could be a good fit. He sounds similar to Schroder, but I guess he may have a little something over and above and thus why we may have tried to get him. It doesn't mean he will make it though, but it does mean they are willing to cut those who they think offer little value and try and bring in people who have potentially better value.

Potential probably being key here.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

When we picked Hamling, Hawthorn picked Brad Hill with the next pick. One that didn't quite work for Wells. Can't win them all.

Our first selections from the past six drafts have played a combined 80 AFL games (with Billie Smedts - who is yet to open his finals account - leading the way on 33). Two have now been delisted (one without playing a game) and two more look to be on pretty thin ice heading into 2015. Yep, can't win them all.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I'm glad it's done anyway as the endless merry-go-round of discussion especially about Hunt was frustrating. I think the trading in of Clark & Stanley really meant a couple of talls had to go. It was inevitable. I feel sorry for Mitch as he's had a tough time with injuries, but the club has really given him every chance and he's just not good enough. If he doesn't get picked up by another club it would be great if we offered him a VFL contract (if we're allowed to).

 

[Sam95]

Wouldnt mind drafting considering we lack talls

 

[cats_09]

Those players that the club thought would not improve and/or not make it at AFL level were delisted.

They may very well get similar types to who they delisted ... but they will be looking to see whether they will make it or not. Some will some won't. Doesn't stop them trying to find the right fit though does it?

ie - there are many on here saying Newton (PA) could be a good fit. He sounds similar to Schroder, but I guess he may have a little something over and above and thus why we may have tried to get him. It doesn't mean he will make it though, but it does mean they are willing to cut those who they think offer little value and try and bring in people who have potentially better value.

Potential probably being key here.

Agree with the above.

Every player the club delisted, apart from Nick Bourke have spent a minimum of 3 years on the list. Some of them may have contributed to the seniors next year, but the decision was made that the 8 players delisted aren't part of our long term plans. So the question becomes, do we keep guys like Schorder & Hunt who may have the opportunity to play 6/+ games next year but most likely won't be considered as part of the team for 2016, or do we use this as an opportunity to draft 7 new players (seniors + rookies & our Irish ruck) and give them additional year in our system, learning from our coaches & players like Enright, Lonergan, Bartel & Kelly (not sure who will retire at the end of next year), with the belief that they will be able to contribute from 2016?

When we drafted Hartman 2 years ago how many thought he was raw & questioned why we took him? I think there were even comments this time last year that he should be delisted, but we saw this year how drafting him potentially a year early and getting him into our system has helped with his development and he even played 5 senior games this year. The talk around Hartman now seems to be the potential role he could play in the seniors next year; so who is to say that the players we draft with picks 55, 60 & 73 won't find themselves in this same situation in 18 months time?

 

[Partridge]

Anything better than Schroder, Sheringham, Hunt and Stringer? Or Burbury, for that matter? Because we just dumped all of those players and they all played roles that we look like we're going to need next year...

Or is this just a Simpsons-esque 'Someone else...someone else...someone else...' philosophy?

In footy terms, especially BigFooty terms, this is the real circle of life:

1. Draft player.
2. Wax lyrical about how they're going to be superstars.
3. If they don't become superstars, turn on them.
4. Delist them, because a skinny 18-year-old will be better.
5. Repeat.

It's good to finally be at step 5 again. I'm sure the next batch of draftees will be much better.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Those players that the club thought would not improve and/or not make it at AFL level were delisted.

They may very well get similar types to who they delisted ... but they will be looking to see whether they will make it or not. Some will some won't. Doesn't stop them trying to find the right fit though does it?

ie - there are many on here saying Newton (PA) could be a good fit. He sounds similar to Schroder, but I guess he may have a little something over and above and thus why we may have tried to get him. It doesn't mean he will make it though, but it does mean they are willing to cut those who they think offer little value and try and bring in people who have potentially better value.

Potential probably being key here.

Pretty much what scouts are for, I would have thought.

Even if Stringer, Sheringham, Schroder and Hunt didn't improve at all in 2015, each individually could have had value on the 2015 list. Because our 2014 midfield support was already suspect and we've lost two first-teamers in the player movement period. Our available depth in that area that didn't play in the 2014 finals is: Smedts (preferred as a defender), Hartman, Jansen, Lang and Cowan, if he ever gets his body right. That's it, as it stands. Unless two of the following things happen, we look like we'll be worse in the midfield in 2015 than we were in 2014:

1. The <25 players improve out of sight, as a collective.
2. We stay remarkably durable.
3. We absolutely hit the jackpot in the draft, nailing pick #10 (preferably a midfielder) and getting an Anthony Miles late in the draft (or in the rookie draft)

 

[Tackle_happy]

Pretty much what scouts are for, I would have thought.

Even if Stringer, Sheringham, Schroder and Hunt didn't improve at all in 2015, each individually could have had value on the 2015 list. Because our 2014 midfield support was already suspect and we've lost two first-teamers in the player movement period. Our available depth in that area that didn't play in the 2014 finals is: Smedts (preferred as a defender), Hartman, Jansen, Lang and Cowan, if he ever gets his body right. That's it, as it stands. Unless two of the following things happen, we look like we'll be worse in the midfield in 2015 than we were in 2014:

1. The <25 players improve out of sight, as a collective.
2. We stay remarkably durable.
3. We absolutely hit the jackpot in the draft, nailing pick #10 (preferably a midfielder) and getting an Anthony Miles late in the draft (or in the rookie draft)

Depends on the criteria that the club bases that value on. I'm only assuming that those delisted did not meet that criteria and those that are still on the list ... do.

The < 25 year olds will improve. Duncan should step up again for example. Hartman may improve even more so. Smedts we all hope he does and Cowan gets his body right to be able to also ... plus of course as long "he who shall not be named" doesn't do another knee (and can get the feel of the game again) gets going we know the type of player he can be.

I don't think we have been too durable the last couple of years. Here is hoping with new fitness staff and new club doctor that turns around somewhat!

Hitting the jackpot ... shall we dare to dream?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Wow. The two talls going certainly goes some way to explaining the approach in the trade period.

I'm really perplexed by what we think we will get of value with those late picks though.

IWWT.

Must be looking at brining in a few mature bodies with those picks

 

[serial_thrilla]

It's okay, guys.
You've got Jarrad Jansen.

/Daniel McL.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I am a bit surprised by Hamling as all our KPD are old, although I rate Kolo higher than him.

I am more suprised as I don't think we will use pick 73, might be looking at a mature player or a delisted free agent.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Agree with the above.

Every player the club delisted, apart from Nick Bourke have spent a minimum of 3 years on the list. Some of them may have contributed to the seniors next year, but the decision was made that the 8 players delisted aren't part of our long term plans. So the question becomes, do we keep guys like Schorder & Hunt who may have the opportunity to play 6/+ games next year but most likely won't be considered as part of the team for 2016, or do we use this as an opportunity to draft 7 new players (seniors + rookies & our Irish ruck) and give them additional year in our system, learning from our coaches & players like Enright, Lonergan, Bartel & Kelly (not sure who will retire at the end of next year), with the belief that they will be able to contribute from 2016?

Ben Newton has spent four years on Port Adelaide's list, as I understand it.

And, of course, the other question that should be asked is: why didn't the team cut its losses with a lot of these players last year, when there were strong signs that most of them weren't going to make it? We cut senior players that played vital roles at their new homes in 2014 and we made two of the first four rookie elevation picks in 2013 (i.e. we were upgrading rookies - one of whom lasted a year before being delisted - when almost everyone else was still using live picks). Only GWS' active picks were finished earlier than ours. When we look at what we did in the 2013/14 offseason and what we've currently done in the 2014/15 offseason, it doesn't look like a consistent purpose is there. It looks like a bit of a mess, frankly.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I am a bit surprised by Hamling as all our KPD are old, although I rate Kolo higher than him.

It could be an indication they're going for a defender with pick 10

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It could be an indication they're going for a defender with pick 10

Maybe. I think it's more Blitz is going there.

I still don't think we'll use 73 on a kid, it will be some sort of mature player depth.

 

[Daniel McL]

Thought Hamling might get a go in 2015 & depending on how he went would then be delisted or kept but I guess not, maybe Kolodjashnij had already past him in terms of an AFL Defender for Geelong. Other two no surprises.

 

[Daniel McL]

It's okay, guys.
You've got Jarrad Jansen.

/Daniel McL.

You sir, have got it 100% right.

 

[Partridge]

And, of course, the other question that should be asked is: why didn't the team cut its losses with a lot of these players last year, when there were strong signs that most of them weren't going to make it? We cut senior players that played vital roles at their new homes in 2014 and we made two of the first four rookie elevation picks in 2013 (i.e. we were upgrading rookies - one of whom lasted a year before being delisted - when almost everyone else was still using live picks). Only GWS' active picks were finished earlier than ours. When we look at what we did in the 2013/14 offseason and what we've currently done in the 2014/15 offseason, it doesn't look like a consistent purpose is there. It looks like a bit of a mess, frankly.

That's the sense I get about the planning of who is playing where in the senior team. It's a bit each-way, especially when it comes to ruck and centre half forward. McIntosh is a good ruckman, but he isn't quite fit enough, so we'll play two backups instead of one in the Qualifying Final (Blicavs and Walker). Naturally it didn't work. We'll keep McIntosh and Simpson on the list, even though both have big durability concerns, but we'll add Clark and Stanley, just in case. We're not sure if Vardy will make it as a key forward (or a ruckman), so we'll keep Walker, and get Clark, just in case. And although the team is very likely to be far too big regardless, we'll play Blicavs on a wing, or somewhere, so he can help out in the ruck too.

Just in case.

 

[Partridge]

Thought Hamling might get a go in 2015 & depending on how he went would then be delisted or kept but I guess not, maybe Kolodjashnij had already past him in terms of an AFL Defender for Geelong. Other two no surprises.

I would argue not. Both have currently played 0 senior games. They're exactly level.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Maybe. I think it's more Blitz is going there.

I still don't think we'll use 73 on a kid, it will be some sort of mature player depth.

It will be interesting to see if we pick up anyone during the delisted FA period. But it's a fascinating ride at the moment just the same. The Cats have changed tack, that's for sure.

 

[fpm84]

That's the sense I get about the planning of who is playing where in the senior team. It's a bit each-way, especially when it comes to ruck and centre half forward. McIntosh is a good ruckman, but he isn't quite fit enough, so we'll play two backups instead of one in the Qualifying Final (Blicavs and Walker). Naturally it didn't work. We'll keep McIntosh and Simpson on the list, even though both have big durability concerns, but we'll add Clark and Stanley, just in case. We're not sure if Vardy will make it as a key forward (or a ruckman), so we'll keep Walker, and get Clark, just in case. And although the team is very likely to be far too big regardless, we'll play Blicavs on a wing, or somewhere, so he can help out in the ruck too.

Sounds like you sat in on the last list management meeting!

 

[Daniel McL]

I would argue not. Both have currently played 0 senior games. They're exactly level.

Sorry I meant in terms of in the MC's eyes.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I would have thought that Hamling would be retained - seemed to receive good VFL reviews on this Board , finished 3rd in the B&F , good size a la Mackie build , quick with a good footy brain.
Seems incongrous we would develop him to the cusp of a Senior game and delist without seeing what he has to offer.
I expected Brown and Hunt but not this one

 

[Whit3y]

Surprised by Hamling.. I don't usually watch the VFL but if this forum is anything to go by, we were expecting him to play seniors next year?

we expect everyone to play seniors

and be stars from day 1