2014 - is this the year Geelong finally falls?

[Hawkomaniac]

As a genuine question, when was the last time we lost a game of football by ten goals or more? Eight years ago?

Hawks on exposed form should win, but never underestimate the will to win of this club.

That's why I think we'll only win by 54 points. Your record during the past eight years is too good, so my predicted margin is one short of the ten goal mark...

 

[The 747]

I think it's too painful a memory for the poor puss...

We have two flags since then, we are all good. Sorry.

 

[Hawkomaniac]

We have two flags since then, we are all good. Sorry.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue with two flags...kudos...

 

[barmy44]

I think 2008 was 6 years ago...

a wise-guy, ey? the 'best games' were all in the past 5

I think it's too painful a memory for the poor puss...

i would have preferred to see geelong win it, sure. but hawthorn thoroughly deserved '08, and crawford especially deserved to go out with a premiership medal.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

We have two flags since then, we are all good. Sorry.

This is the way I think it is the 08 Grand final loss. 07 was like a man owning a million dollars... In 08 we went out and lost 500,000... Really hurt and upset us.. But since then we have gone on to make 5 million in 2009 ( second premiership is always harder to win. And more prestige). Ok so now we have 5 million 500 thousand... Losing 500k isn't as big a blow now is it? Ok then in 11 we went out and won 20 million dollars ( third premiership sits you up in an almighty elite bracket of a select handful... In fact let's make it 30 million for this fact). Ok so now the person owns 35 million 5k in assets... Do you think losing 500k is going to bother him all that much anymore given all his success since? Nope! We are too successful and wealthy to care anymore about a loss along the way. A loss amongst so much success and praise is cared about less and less the more success you encounter

 

[Modified Dog]

This is an argument why? Of cause we value our top draft picks, anyone who wants to give them away can only do it for so long before crashing down. We value development very highly. Any top picks we have given away have been for other young first round kids or a genuine young number one ruck in ottens. We are one of the best sides in the AFL at drafting and development, if not the best given our success as one of the greatest AFL sides of all time with this recent crop.

Pfft. Why do Geelong fans think they are only club who values the coaching and development of their players ?
What do they think Gold Coast, GWS, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Sydney, Port Adelaide, West Coast and every other AFL club is doing?

Are there clubs out there who don't value development of players ? Are there clubs who only trade for experienced players and buy free agents?
Geelong have been very active in these areas too, don't forget.

My post was in response to these comments from Cat Attack08 (which drew a bunch of likes from other Geelong fans)

He made a point of focusing on first draft picks and saying they aren't the be-all and end-all (which I agree with, by the way).
All I've done is point out all the 1st round talent on Geelong's list, which is pretty f**** impressive.

Geelong likes to boast about how great they are for maintaining their place the top four for a long period. Fair enough. But don't try to argue that draft picks aren't important. Just because Geelong nail it with their first pick (while the lower-placed clubs stuff it up) is not evidence to the contrary. Geelong should just be thankful they have Stephen Wells in charge of their recruiting.

I'd like to see Brian Cook let Wellsy work for Melbourne for a while - and then get back to us in 10 years time about how draft picks are overrated.

 

[vealesy]

the guy is just saying there is excellent talent available in the first 2 rounds, and wells is good at identifying it and, more often than not, we still have the picks active...

Yeah i kind of got the impression that he was saying we are successful at being successful.

I just didnt think he needed to include the long bows.

 

[ep2018]

Their whole team are probably robot cyborgs.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Pfft. Why do Geelong fans think they are only club who values the coaching and development of their players ?
What do they think Gold Coast, GWS, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Sydney, Port Adelaide, West Coast and every other AFL club is doing?

My post was in response to these comments from Cat Attack08 (which drew a bunch of likes from other Geelong fans)

I'd like to see Brian Cook let Wellsy work for Melbourne for a while - and then get back to us in 10 years time about how draft picks are overrated.

Again: you are taking it too literally. In general terms every team has a first round draft pick every year, unless they trade it away, or they have it taken off them for some breach of the rules. It is clearly a reference to the perception that a team has to bottom out and get a few picks at the start of the first round. You don't have to bottom out to get a first round pick, but in recent years, Geelong has generally been taking players that most - if not all - the other clubs have felt were not worthy of taking with their first picks.

 

[Modified Dog]

Might as well throw Marcus Drum in there, if you're going to try to get away with McIntosh. It's clearly not a discussion about first round picks; it's about early first round picks. As that list shows, the Cats have been able to get better bang for their buck pretty consistently in the draft for the past 15 or so years.

But it's more than that. Even in 'bad' years, where Geelong either pissed away the bulk of its draft picks through short-sighted trades (2000), or years where there was clearly bugger all talent by-and-large in the draft (2003/04), the Cats have still managed to get something of value. The Cats picked up at least one premiership player in the draft in every year from 1997-2007. If the club manages another premiership with the current crop, that streak is likely to extend to at least 2011, with Motlop, T.Hunt and possibly Brown joining from 2008; 2009 already producing premiership players Duncan and Christensen, along with Vardy and Menzel; Guthrie, Horlin-Smith, Smedts, Burbury and Walker coming in 2010; and Murdoch, Blicavs, Sheringham and Kersten coming in 2012.

That's a constant flow of AFL-calibre players (not all superstars, by any stretch), which, as much as the timing of veterans' departures, has helped stop the club from bottoming out.

I don't really get the point of the discussion anyway, unless it's just another reason for Geelong to pat themselves on the back while everyone else stands around and applauds.

It goes without saying the most successful clubs have been doing it better than their rivals. Well done…

I think the whole debate around the National Draft is warped by people's fascination with the early picks. I suppose that's what Brian Cook refers to.

Too much is made of this, I think. Nobody has ever said the only good players are to be found with the early selections. Only the muppets think that. Owning one of the early selections just makes it a little bit harder for a club to stuff it up. The talent is more obvious. It's more likely you'll pick a someone who'll play 200 games. No guarantees. Still plenty of pitfalls. Your chances are also greater to find a super talent like Judd, Riewoldt, Selwood, Franklin or Dangerfield.

Geelong have been lucky enough to have Stephen Wells, one of the best in the business working for their club. He is probably well supported by a really good network of scouts. They've drafted well and they've done a great job of developing their players. But Geelong's good system makes it easy for them to sit back and say, "We don't need early picks"

You should be thankful you're not one of those of clubs who does need the early picks.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I don't really get the point of the discussion anyway, unless it's just another reason for Geelong to pat themselves on the back while everyone else stands around and applauds.

It goes without saying the most successful clubs have been doing it better than their rivals. Well done…

I think the whole debate around the National Draft is warped by people's fascination with the early picks. I suppose that's what Brian Cook refers to.

Too much is made of this, I think. Nobody has ever said the only good players are to be found with the early selections. Only the muppets think that. Owning one of the early selections just makes it a little bit harder for a club to stuff it up. The talent is more obvious. It's more likely you'll pick a someone who'll play 200 games. No guarantees. Still plenty of pitfalls. Your chances are also greater to find a super talent like Judd, Riewoldt, Selwood, Franklin or Dangerfield.

Geelong have been lucky enough to have Stephen Wells, one of the best in the business working for their club. He is probably well supported by a really good network of scouts. They've drafted well and they've done a great job of developing their players. But Geelong's good system makes it easy for them to sit back and say, "We don't need early picks"

You should be thankful you're not one of those of clubs who does need the early picks.

Because, if we are agreeing that it is not necessary to have a few straight years of selecting in the top 4/5/6 picks of the draft to bounce back, after a sustained period of success and that, with one of the better recruiters and development programmes in place, you may be able to get similar value from a pick in the mid-late teens, the whole idea of having to bottom out and that a club (forget Geelong for a second; this applies to any club) will have a trough, simply because 'they're due' after being up for a bit, is redundant.

Which, you know, was the entire point of this thread.

 

[Modified Dog]

Again: you are taking it too literally. In general terms every team has a first round draft pick every year, unless they trade it away, or they have it taken off them for some breach of the rules. It is clearly a reference to the perception that a team has to bottom out and get a few picks at the start of the first round. You don't have to bottom out to get a first round pick, but in recent years, Geelong has generally been taking players that most - if not all - the other clubs have felt were not worthy of taking with their first picks.

I just think people like to generalise and use obvious current examples to support their argument. (e.g. Hawthorn's road to '08 while Melbourne & Carlton were receiving Priority picks)

It creates a myth.

What is "bottoming out" anyway? Is that the opposite to the team who is in their "premiership window" ?

The Hawks had a Kennett of a year in 2004 when half the players on the list were injured and everything went belly up after a few rounds.
I still don't know how we dodged the wooden spoon that year. It should've been ours.

We sacked the coach. Clarko came in and did a clean out - got rid of players he didn't want, traded players who didn't want to be there and we harvested draft picks in order to rebuild. The club also did a great job of picking rejects and rookies around this time.

We made rapid from improvement from 2006 to 2007 to 2008. Everyone was fascinated with our young talent (Buddy, Roughy, etc) so we became the poster boys for "bottoming out" to achieve success and Melbourne and Carlton fans compared themselves to Hawthorn and pencilled in a similar rate of improvement for their clubs.

What they didn't realise was how overrated the 2004 and 2005 drafts were for our success. Yeah, we got Buddy and Roughy, but the real reason we won the 2008 flag was most of the talent was already there (Hodge, Mitchell, Croad, Brown, Bateman, Williams, Ladson) plus we added role players via the PSD and rookie list (Sewell, Guerra, Campbell, Gilham, Young, ) and most of all, the players received great coaching. They became disciplined and played as a team, which hadn't been the case in Peter Schwab's latter years as coach.

That was our circumstance at the time and Clarkson adapted very well to it. He knew what he needed to do and he achieved it. But this doesn't mean it's the only way. It was something which worked for him back in 2005

St Kilda also bottomed out in the late 90's and early 2000's and added talented players to their list, such as Riewoldt, Koschitzke and Goddard, so they were the original poster boys for mining the early draft picks. I remember the Saints-Cats rivalry around 2004. Geelong's youngsters weren't as highly touted and they went to achieve greater success than the Saints, so I can understand their supporters' stance on this issue.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Pfft. Why do Geelong fans think they are only club who values the coaching and development of their players ?
What do they think Gold Coast, GWS, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Sydney, Port Adelaide, West Coast and every other AFL club is doing?

Are there clubs out there who don't value development of players ? Are there clubs who only trade for experienced players and buy free agents?
Geelong have been very active in these areas too, don't forget.

My post was in response to these comments from Cat Attack08 (which drew a bunch of likes from other Geelong fans)

He made a point of focusing on first draft picks and saying they aren't the be-all and end-all (which I agree with, by the way).
All I've done is point out all the 1st round talent on Geelong's list, which is pretty f**** impressive.

Geelong likes to boast about how great they are for maintaining their place the top four for a long period. Fair enough. But don't try to argue that draft picks aren't important. Just because Geelong nail it with their first pick (while the lower-placed clubs stuff it up) is not evidence to the contrary. Geelong should just be thankful they have Stephen Wells in charge of their recruiting.

I'd like to see Brian Cook let Wellsy work for Melbourne for a while - and then get back to us in 10 years time about how draft picks are overrated.

lmao. who from geelong is saying other clubs don't value coaching and development? i can't ever recall thinking that a side in the AFL didn't think recruiting and development was important, if you met someone who said this, then it is a minority person. i think your simply having some comprehension issues when geelong posters talk up how well we have drafted over the years. we aren't saying it isnt a priority or important to other clubs, we are simply saying how well we do it. And yes stephen wells is 115% appreciated and acknowledged by every true geelong supporter, he is a genius recruiter, it takes great people like him sitting at the top guiding and overseeing to get the recruitment results we have over the past decade and a bit.

and once again i have no clue still who is saying first round draft picks arent important? they are very important, geelong utilizes and makes the most out of all its draft picks, and definitely values first round picks. we just don't get early selections to use like every other club has had at some point in time is probably more what geelong supporters in general say. hawthorn has had a number one draft pick, and several very early selections finishing in the bottom four, collingwood the same, west coast the same, geelong has only had a pick as low as 7

 

[frednirk]

St Kilda also bottomed out in the late 90's and early 2000's and added talented players to their list, such as Riewoldt, Koschitzke and Goddard,

Koschitzke...talent?

wahh!

 

[JUBJUB]

Also victoria is now like wa sa nsw and qld

Theres only two clubs worth mentioning

Geelong and the Geelong VFL team ?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I just think people like to generalise and use obvious current examples to support their argument. (e.g. Hawthorn's road to '08 while Melbourne & Carlton were receiving Priority picks)

It creates a myth.

What is "bottoming out" anyway? Is that the opposite to the team who is in their "premiership window" ?

I would have thought that was obvious. Look at where clubs like St Kilda and the Bulldogs and St Kilda were in the late 00s, look at where they are now and look at the expectations their supporters have of the clubs for the next couple of years. That's bottoming out and it's what people like the one that started this thread are expecting from Geelong. Those two clubs put all their eggs in the 'premiership now' basket and have had to put up with a few lean years (with probably a couple more to come) to get themselves back up. That's how the conventional wisdom suggests it is meant to go. Geelong, despite being able to win a few premierships, have put a specific focus on not just the 'now' but the 'five years from now'. It's been part of the club's vision for several years now and it has shown through the club consistently building through the draft and very rarely importing players from other clubs (certainly there's been a lot more going out than have come in).

In short, they've spent the better part of five years trying to 'have a bit each way'. And it's worked pretty well so far.

The Hawks had a Kennett of a year in 2004 when half the players on the list were injured and everything went belly up after a few rounds.
I still don't know how we dodged the wooden spoon that year. It should've been ours.

We sacked the coach. Clarko came in and did a clean out - got rid of players he didn't want, traded players who didn't want to be there and we harvested draft picks in order to rebuild. The club also did a great job of picking rejects and rookies around this time.

We made rapid from improvement from 2006 to 2007 to 2008. Everyone was fascinated with our young talent (Buddy, Roughy, etc) so we became the poster boys for "bottoming out" to achieve success and Melbourne and Carlton fans compared themselves to Hawthorn and pencilled in a similar rate of improvement for their clubs.

What they didn't realise was how overrated the 2004 and 2005 drafts were for our success. Yeah, we got Buddy and Roughy, but the real reason we won the 2008 flag was most of the talent was already there (Hodge, Mitchell, Croad, Brown, Bateman, Williams, Ladson) plus we added role players via the PSD and rookie list (Sewell, Guerra, Campbell, Gilham, Young, ) and most of all, the players received great coaching. They became disciplined and played as a team, which hadn't been the case in Peter Schwab's latter years as coach.

That was our circumstance at the time and Clarkson adapted very well to it. He knew what he needed to do and he achieved it. But this doesn't mean it's the only way. It was something which worked for him back in 2005

That's nice. Can't say I noticed the word 'Hawthorn' in the title of the thread.

 

[Modified Dog]

Because, if we are agreeing that it is not necessary to have a few straight years of selecting in the top 4/5/6 picks of the draft to bounce back, after a sustained period of success and that, with one of the better recruiters and development programmes in place, you may be able to get similar value from a pick in the mid-late teens, the whole idea of having to bottom out and that a club (forget Geelong for a second; this applies to any club) will have a trough, simply because 'they're due' after being up for a bit, is redundant.

Which, you know, was the entire point of this thread.

Sometimes a club has to bottom out if it means getting rid of all the overrated, overpaid veteran hacks on their list. Or maybe they're just older guys who don't fit the new system. They gave great service, but they're set in their ways and can't adapt to the demands of the new coach.

The Blues might be at this point right now (or one year ago.) Maybe they needed to pare back their list and take a bit of short-term pain.

I don't think you can generalise about every club and say this is what worked for Geelong, therefore every club must do the same. Geelong are enjoying a great period in their clubs's history, but so much of this type of stuff is due to having a bunch of great people working together at the same time, as well as good fortune. Don't believe in luck? How lucky were you that you two best footballers weren't taken by Collingwood and Hawthorn back in 2006? Both clubs had reservations about Johnson's and Selwood's ankles. They could've easily been plying their trade elsewhere. That didn't happen, but it was out of your club's hands… So not everything can be attributed solely to Geelong's "perfect" system.

I think it's always a combination of everything - the stars aligning or whatever - Geelong have had stable administration. They've made some great coaching appointments and these guys were backed up by great assistants (on and off field), plus they've done a great job of selecting the players they need and coaching them up

 

[Modified Dog]

That's nice. Can't say I noticed the word 'Hawthorn' in the title of the thread.

I thought we talking about bottoming out vs staying up ???

Sorry, I thought you were better than all those other biased Geelong cheer-squad members and you wanted to talk footy

 

[Modified Dog]

Koschitzke...talent?

wahh!

The Rising Star winner in 2001?

The number 2 overall selection in the 2000 draft ahead of Alan Didak ??

Sure, Kozzy had talent

He didn't develop as a footballer, but he had definite talent as a young player. That was the main reason why he was able to steal so much money from St Kilda over the course of his career.

 

[The 747]

Kosi played 200 games, most of those in a genuine top 4 team. Didnt develop in the way Reiwoldt did but St Kilda cant complain about their use of those picks 1 & 2.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Sometimes a club has to bottom out if it means getting rid of all the overrated, overpaid veteran hacks on their list.

If a club has a bunch of 'overrated, overpaid veteran hacks on their list', I'd suggest they wouldn't have far to go to bottom out.

I don't think you can generalise about every club and say this is what worked for Geelong, therefore every club must do the same. Geelong are enjoying a great period in their clubs's history, but so much of this type of stuff is due to having a bunch of great people working together at the same time, as well as good fortune.

I haven't said anything of the sort.

For the purposes of this thread I don't really GAF what other clubs should do. It's a thread about Geelong, about the concept that they will inevitably plummet down the ladder at some stage in the very near future and how they will rebuild from that period. The point is, Geelong has consistently drafted players (plural) pretty much every year who have proven to be - or look to be - definite keepers. These picks have been given some opportunities in the seniors and, when they've had to bide their time in the reserves, it's been playing in a team with the same gameplan, the same coaches and a consistent message. Probably not a coincidence that when a lot of these players do get a chance in the seniors, so many of them hit the ground running. Or that so many Victorian AFL teams (and even the WA and SA clubs) have all of a sudden decided to go with stand-alone reserves teams.

Don't believe in luck? How lucky were you that you two best footballers weren't taken by Collingwood and Hawthorn back in 2006? Both clubs had reservations about Johnson's and Selwood's ankles. They could've easily been plying their trade elsewhere. That didn't happen, but it was out of your club's hands… So not everything can be attributed solely to Geelong's "perfect" system.

Selwood had knee issues, not ankle. If we assume that someone had taken him earlier, it's also reasonable to speculate that the other player that Wells was extremely keen on (Boak), could have slipped one more pick to #7. Presumably, if Hawthorn chose a key forward over Selwood, they would have done the same if Boak was on the table.

And Johnson is a nice story, but...

By the end of 2006, he had played 67 games and kicked 108 goals, but his occasional flashes of genius had pricked the interest of Collingwood and Essendon.

Balme jokes now that he might be considered "the double agent". When the Magpies were courting Johnson, he was the club's football manager. By the time the trade period had ended, Balme had joined Geelong.

"I don't think Wellsy (Geelong recruiting manager Stephen Wells) was as committed to the trade as everyone thought," Balme recalled.

"As it turned out, the medicos (at Collingwood) had a decent look and they were very concerned about his longevity. It was too risky."

The far more likely risk was that Geelong would have cut him loose for nothing after his arrest during the 2006/07 preseason break. Which, of course, was a Geelong decision, not someone else's.

I thought we talking about bottoming out vs staying up ???

We're talking about Geelong.

Sorry, I thought you were better than all those other biased Geelong cheer-squad members and you wanted to talk footy

Well, you've apparently only been around for a month. I'm sure you'll warm to me in due course.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I don't really get the point of the discussion anyway, unless it's just another reason for Geelong to pat themselves on the back while everyone else stands around and applauds.

It goes without saying the most successful clubs have been doing it better than their rivals. Well done…

I think the whole debate around the National Draft is warped by people's fascination with the early picks. I suppose that's what Brian Cook refers to.

Too much is made of this, I think. Nobody has ever said the only good players are to be found with the early selections. Only the muppets think that. Owning one of the early selections just makes it a little bit harder for a club to stuff it up. The talent is more obvious. It's more likely you'll pick a someone who'll play 200 games. No guarantees. Still plenty of pitfalls. Your chances are also greater to find a super talent like Judd, Riewoldt, Selwood, Franklin or Dangerfield.

Geelong have been lucky enough to have Stephen Wells, one of the best in the business working for their club. He is probably well supported by a really good network of scouts. They've drafted well and they've done a great job of developing their players. But Geelong's good system makes it easy for them to sit back and say, "We don't need early picks"

You should be thankful you're not one of those of clubs who does need the early picks.

No it's not called luck, it's called employing the right people to your club to fill the positions, that's called good recruitment, not luck.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

As a genuine question, when was the last time we lost a game of football by ten goals or more? Eight years ago?

Hawks on exposed form should win, but never underestimate the will to win of this club.

Round 9, 2008.

Collingwood 20.14 : 134
Geelong 7.6 : 48

 

[Boxhead_31]

As a genuine question, when was the last time we lost a game of football by ten goals or more? Eight years ago?

Hawks on exposed form should win, but never underestimate the will to win of this club.

Was a game against Collingwood a few years ago we lost by 80 odd points

 

[JUBJUB]

No it's not called luck, it's called employing the right people to your club to fill the positions, that's called good recruitment, not luck.

Leave Podgey Jr alone....all of you.....ALL OF YOU !!!