Collingwood Almanac 2014

[TheGreatGrundy]

Clarke choosing Geelong over us was a factor outside of our control. His then girlfriend, now wife got accepted into a university in Geelong shortly after discussions began i believe. If it was 50/50 then, after that the choice was pretty clear cut for Clarke, and you can't blame him. Collingwood is a club constantly in the spotlight, and at least in Clarkes case it's something he'd be trying to avoid given his issues.

At this stage i would say we are succeeding in certain areas, the last few years we've targeted Adams and Greenwood and both those players have chosen Collingwood over Geelong and staying at North respectively. Clarke aside i can't say we're failing to bring over the players we're targeting, i could be wrong however.

Maybe noone else wants the players we target. If we targeted the kind of players targeted by the other top clubs, I am sure we would get some competition. Adams came to us ahead of Geelong, but given his poor kicking skills, its highly unlikely that Hawthorn would be interested in acquiring his services. Plus we had the trump card in Heath Shaw to influence the trade in our favour.

 

[Prestige Presti]

Maybe noone else wants the players we target. If we targeted the kind of players targeted by the other top clubs, I am sure we would get some competition. Adams came to us ahead of Geelong, but given his poor kicking skills, its highly unlikely that Hawthorn would be interested in acquiring his services. Plus we had the trump card in Heath Shaw to influence the trade in our favour.

Yeah no doubt Adams talents fit better into our game plan then Hawthorns, just like he'd fit better into Geelongs midfield then Hawthorns, different players for different systems i'd say.

I think it works a few ways, my personal philosophy is that until your flag window opens, you want to be developing more players then you're trading in. if you're trading players into the club too early, players such as Langdon and Frost potentially slip under the radar and perhaps never get the opportunity they deserve, and thus a trade could potentially be a waste.

Obviously everybody has their different opinions about where we will finish, but i personally believe we'll rise up the ladder this year and have a big crack in 2016, thus at the end of this year i believe we'll try aggressively to fill holes in our list through trade and FA more so then the last few years, just like Hawthorn have done with filling holes in their defense with Lake and Frawley the last few years, and in 2009 when we traded in Jolly and brought in Ball. It's just a matter of timing, and i believe Pert said the other week that we'll be going harder this year then previous years to bring in players.

 

[Bard]

There are fluctuations up and down to happen, no question.

Note that TD copied my post from my phantom draft thread where I was proving a point regard the academy system with people questioning my ratings of Mills (Syd - Academy), Keays (Bris - Academy) and Dunkley (Sydney - Father/Son) as my top three prospects for next year who I view as clearly at this point in time the three best players in next years draft.

I can see perhaps it was taken slightly out of context but I'd be careful making large generalised claims like that about anyone considering you want to break into the industry. Not so much from an employers' standpoint, but I'm sure you scratch your head constantly at the generalisations spruiked by the many journalists and club employees; scouting is perhaps a completely different area but it doesn't mean it's worth lowering your standards in anything.

 

[ace andy]

Yeah no doubt Adams talents fit better into our game plan then Hawthorns, just like he'd fit better into Geelongs midfield then Hawthorns, different players for different systems i'd say.

I think it works a few ways, my personal philosophy is that until your flag window opens, you want to be developing more players then you're trading in. if you're trading players into the club too early, players such as Langdon and Frost potentially slip under the radar and perhaps never get the opportunity they deserve, and thus a trade could potentially be a waste.

Obviously everybody has their different opinions about where we will finish, but i personally believe we'll rise up the ladder this year and have a big crack in 2016, thus at the end of this year i believe we'll try aggressively to fill holes in our list through trade and FA more so then the last few years, just like Hawthorn have done with filling holes in their defense with Lake and Frawley the last few years, and in 2009 when we traded in Jolly and brought in Ball. It's just a matter of timing, and i believe Pert said the other week that we'll be going harder this year then previous years to bring in players.

If a young player e.g. Langdon couldn't eventually force his way into the team then he (at least 95% of the time) can't be that good. And who's to say that Langdon getting games early might not actually harm his future prospects by not having to learn the value and necessity of hard work since he was getting a game before he truly had to fight for it.

I get that every now and then a player like Kennedy goes to the swans from not enough opportunity. But for every Kennedy their are 50 Jackson Paines who go on to do nothing at another club.

 

[TradeDraft]

I can see perhaps it was taken slightly out of context but I'd be careful making large generalised claims like that about anyone considering you want to break into the industry. Not so much from an employers' standpoint, but I'm sure you scratch your head constantly at the generalisations spruiked by the many journalists and club employees; scouting is perhaps a completely different area but it doesn't mean it's worth lowering your standards in anything.

I have Read when you are Scout/Recruiter you always have to look for the Positives. Rather the Negatives

 

[Apex36]

If a young player e.g. Langdon couldn't eventually force his way into the team then he (at least 95% of the time) can't be that good. And who's to say that Langdon getting games early might not actually harm his future prospects by not having to learn the value and necessity of hard work since he was getting a game before he truly had to fight for it.

I get that every now and then a player like Kennedy goes to the swans from not enough opportunity. But for every Kennedy their are 50 Jackson Paines who go on to do nothing at another club.

He was overlooked in his original draft year, went back to TAC and VFL, worked his arse off, and got drafted as an overager.
If anyone has knows the value and necessity of hard work, and how hard you need to fight, it's Langdon.

 

[Knightmare]

I can see perhaps it was taken slightly out of context but I'd be careful making large generalised claims like that about anyone considering you want to break into the industry. Not so much from an employers' standpoint, but I'm sure you scratch your head constantly at the generalisations spruiked by the many journalists and club employees; scouting is perhaps a completely different area but it doesn't mean it's worth lowering your standards in anything.

Noted.

For my draft thread I do my best to rid myself of any perceived Collingwood bias, and at least for my readership I find my honest opinions of where Collingwood are at generally fulfil that purpose best, as certainly for this season at least I'm not at all optimistic about where we stand in relation to rival clubs.

On the subject of where Collingwood are at though. Genuinely it is in my view a really scary position we are in and we are really going to have to pull something off to now or any-time in the future with this playing group to become a contending team again.

People I also find with the way free agency is set up still don't fully understand how hard it is as a club outside the top 8, to get back in there. The good players want to play for the good teams and that divide will only I predict greatly increase with the draft and gaining higher draft picks in my view not an advantage for those bottom teams relative to those top teams who generally through the draft as Collingwood and Geelong as prime examples along with Adelaide did so well when at the top.

While my statement can be described as hyperbole, it's a very possible way things could end up going. With those clubs who are down staying down and those clubs that are up staying up, with that duration in each section if you like only again due to free agency and additionally an over time reduced loyalty of players to their teams with the culture among players really changing that way, and it's really hard to get back up from that.

And with the way we are trending down so rapidly, I genuinely see Collingwood as being in that uncomfortable bottom region along with Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and Melbourne that will be so hard to get out of.

I have Read when you are Scout/Recruiter you always have to look for the Positives. Rather the Negatives

I see it the opposite way to be totally honest with you.

You'll read all the draft threads and they'll rave on about this guy being the next Chris Judd or Matt Suckling and talk about all their positive attributes and saying how good their ceiling in their view may be, without actually taking into consideration their weaknesses and therefore not accurately describing the totality of a players game, what they offer and who more realistically they can become.

So it's more getting that understanding of both their strengths and weaknesses and having a more realistic view at things.

It's like people who after the 2013 draft were rushing to call Nathan Freeman the next Patrick Dangerfield. Things don't just work that way. Freeman can be a good player but making comparisons like that is living in dream land and not understand Freeman's game - which unlike Dangerfield isn't from a contested ball winning standpoint in remotely the same conversation.

 

[ace andy]

He was overlooked in his original draft year, went back to TAC and VFL, worked his arse off, and got drafted as an overager.
If anyone has knows the value and necessity of hard work, and how hard you need to fight, it's Langdon.

Fair point but I meant generally not specifically him. And also I'm not saying it will harm a player just it may.

 

[ace andy]

I have Read when you are Scout/Recruiter you always have to look for the Positives. Rather the Negatives

Why? Positives and negatives make up a person. Surely clubs don't just hire cheerleaders.

 

[DRIZZT]

Why? Positives and negatives make up a person. Surely clubs don't just hire cheerleaders.

Er---where were u last year.Didnt you see our awesome dance troupe

 

[noideaatall]

People I also find with the way free agency is set up still don't fully understand how hard it is as a club outside the top 8, to get back in there. The good players want to play for the good teams and that divide will only I predict greatly increase with the draft and gaining higher draft picks in my view not an advantage for those bottom teams relative to those top teams who generally through the draft as Collingwood and Geelong as prime examples along with Adelaide did so well when at the top.

While my statement can be described as hyperbole, it's a very possible way things could end up going. With those clubs who are down staying down and those clubs that are up staying up, with that duration in each section if you like only again due to free agency and additionally an over time reduced loyalty of players to their teams with the culture among players really changing that way, and it's really hard to get back up from that.

Interesting, makes sense. Except (from an ignorant point of view) I would have thought having better draft picks would balance this over time. Right now a free agent might choose hawks over us but in a few years pick us due to the talent rising through kinda thing. So it comes down to development of youth. Have I got that wrong?

 

[Knightmare]

Interesting, makes sense. Except (from an ignorant point of view) I would have thought having better draft picks would balance this over time. Right now a free agent might choose hawks over us but in a few years pick us due to the talent rising through kinda thing. So it comes down to development of youth. Have I got that wrong?

The development of youth in our situation will play a big role in our rise or otherwise.

And that brings us onto the dynamic of how good we are at developing our talent relative to everyone else.

In terms of developing the 18s-24s we're right up there with the best, so that's a good starting point. With those 25-29 we're near if not the bottom, we just don't have guys in this age group developing, not many have too many numbers in this age group who improve, but there are some who still do this very well such as Fremantle. Sydney, Port Adelaide and Hawthorn are some others who do this exceptionally well and I feel it's something that really strongly reflects the quality of the coaching staff and player development. The other and this is my largest concern in developing a winner is our players once they hit 30, more than any other club in the competition, our players just drop away be it dropping away to irrelevance (such as Ball and Maxwell) or going from star to not a star like Swan last year. And it's long been a re-occurring theme.

In terms of those ingredients most relevant in developing talent. You've got your coaches/development coaches and you've got your veteran leaders. In terms of player development relatively speaking we've stalled since we had that Malthouse/Neeld/Watters/Buckley coaching group. And I anticipate that without Maxwell, Ball, Lumumba and Beams who perhaps not a leader is still a really good footballer who must put in the work to be as good as he is, and we're left pretty much with just Pendlebury. For player development the teams conditions are sub-optimal and as a result are I'd guess highly likely to further drop away.

--

And these factors in assessing Carlton who had all those high first round picks, Melbourne who had the same story, Richmond when they were all in with the draft. It's not a way to build a list. Carlton have needed Chris Judd to even make it to the top 8 and that's with 3 consecutive number one overall picks to go with him along with a number two overall in Walker.
Melbourne have had that similar path and are still trying to dig their way out of a hole nearly 10 years later.
Richmond have only more recently started to rise on the back of a good coaching group and the adding of reasonably identified mature age talent and opposition talent.


Then looking at us from a recruiting standpoint on draft day, we're among the best 1-2 overall in the guys we can pick up. So that's terrific. But on the other side of things we're I'd argue the worst in the game at identifying opposition talent with the majority of the better pickups being those completely established players, and it will be a challenge as a bottom half team to get our hands on those which will make any immediate rise up the ladder a challenge unless we get better/put more resources into finding good talent to trade for from opposition lists.


These factors overall don't add up to a successful build from the bottom half and assuming we finish bottom 6, it's going to be hard to make that push, even with a young list and some early draft picks with those early draft picks as per Melbourne/Carlton/Richmond who tried it without the enough good veteran leadership, it's highly against the odds with those conditions to build a contending team.

 

[TradeDraft]

Why? Positives and negatives make up a person. Surely clubs don't just hire cheerleaders.

I don’t know why but just something I have heard

 

[TradeDraft]

The development of youth in our situation will play a big role in our rise or otherwise.

And that brings us onto the dynamic of how good we are at developing our talent relative to everyone else.

In terms of developing the 18s-24s we're right up there with the best, so that's a good starting point. With those 25-29 we're near if not the bottom, we just don't have guys in this age group developing, not many have too many numbers in this age group who improve, but there are some who still do this very well such as Fremantle. Sydney, Port Adelaide and Hawthorn are some others who do this exceptionally well and I feel it's something that really strongly reflects the quality of the coaching staff and player development. The other and this is my largest concern in developing a winner is our players once they hit 30, more than any other club in the competition, our players just drop away be it dropping away to irrelevance (such as Ball and Maxwell) or going from star to not a star like Swan last year. And it's long been a re-occurring theme.

In terms of those ingredients most relevant in developing talent. You've got your coaches/development coaches and you've got your veteran leaders. In terms of player development relatively speaking we've stalled since we had that Malthouse/Neeld/Watters/Buckley coaching group. And I anticipate that without Maxwell, Ball, Lumumba and Beams who perhaps not a leader is still a really good footballer who must put in the work to be as good as he is, and we're left pretty much with just Pendlebury. For player development the teams conditions are sub-optimal and as a result are I'd guess highly likely to further drop away.

Well Maybe why our Development of Players between 25-29 is that we don’t have many good players in that Age Bracket and what we brought in that Age group is nothing special.

So when these Early Draft Picks we have had the last 3 Seasons get into that age group it could be very different

 

[Knightmare]

Well Maybe why our Development of Players between 25-29 is that we don’t have many good players in that Age Bracket and what we brought in that Age group is nothing special.

So when these Early Draft Picks we have had the last 3 Seasons get into that age group it could be very different

Quality in the 25-29 age group has never been an issue for us.

We have Pendlebury, Cloke, Reid, Brown, Toovey, Goldsack, Macaffer in that age group at the present time.

From our 2010 premiership team we had Maxwell, Lumumba, Shaw, Swan, Didak, Jolly, L.Brown, B.Johnson were all in that age group and all dropped away in the years following, even those still in their 20s.

A large number of these guys are excellent footballers - both those previously in that age group and those now in that age group. And we just haven't seen that improvement from any of them.

We better hope these young ones are difference makers, because that's what our future is relying on.

 

[jmac70]

Well Maybe why our Development of Players between 25-29 is that we don’t have many good players in that Age Bracket and what we brought in that Age group is nothing special.

So when these Early Draft Picks we have had the last 3 Seasons get into that age group it could be very different

Spot on TD. Pies are on the up.

 

[TradeDraft]

Quality in the 25-29 age group has never been an issue for us.

We have Pendlebury, Cloke, Reid, Brown, Toovey, Goldsack, Macaffer in that age group at the present time.

From our 2010 premiership team we had Maxwell, Lumumba, Shaw, Swan, Didak, Jolly, L.Brown, B.Johnson were all in that age group and all dropped away in the years following, even those still in their 20s.

A large number of these guys are excellent footballers - both those previously in that age group and those now in that age group. And we just haven't seen that improvement from any of them.

We better hope these young ones are difference makers, because that's what our future is relying on.

Well all teams Futures does rely on there Draft Picks.

Plus isn’t there more Devlpoment to be done in the age Bracket of 18-24 then 25-29? 25-29 you want Consistency be the most important thing and the difference between there Worst and Best game is not much difference

 

[Knightmare]

Well all teams Futures does rely on there Draft Picks.

Plus isn’t there more Devlpoment to be done in the age Bracket of 18-24 then 25-29? 25-29 you want Consistency be the most important thing and the difference between there Worst and Best game is not much difference

More development can be achieved in those 18-24 years as they still physically and athletically have more room to grow and they're going from a relatively lower knowledge base. Just with contending teams, if you're not improving guys in the 25-29 age bracket, you're not contending. That's the golden age group for winning. You only have to look at Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong with their various grand final winning teams. Even St Kilda and our 2010/2011 team. That's the sweet spot where you really want them at the peak of their powers and squeezing every last bit of improvement possible out.
And you see it with the good teams - Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong, Fremantle. They all do that very well.

 

[jmac70]

More development can be achieved in those 18-24 years as they still physically and athletically have more room to grow and they're going from a relatively lower knowledge base. Just with contending teams, if you're not improving guys in the 25-29 age bracket, you're not contending. That's the golden age group for winning. You only have to look at Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong with their various grand final winning teams. Even St Kilda and our 2010/2011 team. That's the sweet spot where you really want them at the peak of their powers and squeezing every last bit of improvement possible out.
And you see it with the good teams - Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong, Fremantle. They all do that very well.

We don't have many players in that age group (25-29). As our list continues to mature we should see plenty of improvement.

 

[TradeDraft]

More development can be achieved in those 18-24 years as they still physically and athletically have more room to grow and they're going from a relatively lower knowledge base. Just with contending teams, if you're not improving guys in the 25-29 age bracket, you're not contending. That's the golden age group for winning. You only have to look at Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong with their various grand final winning teams. Even St Kilda and our 2010/2011 team. That's the sweet spot where you really want them at the peak of their powers and squeezing every last bit of improvement possible out.
And you see it with the good teams - Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong, Fremantle. They all do that very well.

What kid of Improvement you want to see in the 25-18 Age Group?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Knightmare has for several years mounted a very convincing case for our lack of development of senior players. His argument had bugger-all to do with the quality of players in this age bracket, but rather the fact that we seemed to do really well with the development of young players, but failed with the senior players on our list, who basically just trod water in their final years. Go back though his threads if you want confirmation. His argument persuaded me 2-3 years ago. Maybe it says something about the attitude of young versus experienced players to Bucks, though my memory suggests that there was significantly more to his case than mere hero worship from the new guys.

 

[TradeDraft]

Knightmare has for several years mounted a very convincing case for our lack of development of senior players. His argument had bugger-all to do with the quality of players in this age bracket, but rather the fact that we seemed to do really well with the development of young players, but failed with the senior players on our list, who basically just trod water in their final years. Go back though his threads if you want confirmation. His argument persuaded me 2-3 years ago. Maybe it says something about the attitude of young versus experienced players to Bucks, though my memory suggests that there was significantly more to his case than mere hero worship from the new guys.

So the Older Guys in the last 2-3 Seasons where not big Bucks fans but what Happens when these Bucks Kids get into that Age Group?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

So the Older Guys in the last 2-3 Seasons where not big Bucks fans but what Happens when these Bucks Kids get into that Age Group?

Good question Dave. Knightmare?

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare has for several years mounted a very convincing case for our lack of development of senior players. His argument had bugger-all to do with the quality of players in this age bracket, but rather the fact that we seemed to do really well with the development of young players, but failed with the senior players on our list, who basically just trod water in their final years. Go back though his threads if you want confirmation. His argument persuaded me 2-3 years ago. Maybe it says something about the attitude of young versus experienced players to Bucks, though my memory suggests that there was significantly more to his case than mere hero worship from the new guys.

It has been something I've long observed and yearly rattled on about and been really concerned by. Is it a coaching thing? Conditioning/health thing?

It's just strange that there is this sudden drop off.

Are we actually poor player developers and it's the recruiting team that is just getting it right and it's just simply natural improvement due to such a superior level of player identification?

It's a weird one.

So the Older Guys in the last 2-3 Seasons where not big Bucks fans but what Happens when these Bucks Kids get into that Age Group?

That was my early impressions when that Buckley change-over happened that maybe some of the senior players had an issue with Nathan and that may have been the root of the problem, but even looking back it's something that even back during Mick's tenure was a problem and with the current group it's something that has continued even post rat pack. So there is something more to it than simply a segment of the playing group "don't get along with Nathan."

My inclination has long been that it's a fitness/conditioning/health related area given the age demographics that are struggling are those older age groups with so many injuries and a failure to improve guys beyond that really set age group. And it would really take a significant improvement in these areas to better determine whether this is in fact the source of the problem regarding the older guys struggling to get anything more out of their games and then going on to decline prematurely.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

It has been something I've long observed and yearly rattled on about and been really concerned by. Is it a coaching thing? Conditioning/health thing?

It's just strange that there is this sudden drop off.

Are we actually poor player developers and it's the recruiting team that is just getting it right and it's just simply natural improvement due to such a superior level of player identification?

It's a weird one.



That was my early impressions when that Buckley change-over happened that maybe some of the senior players had an issue with Nathan and that may have been the root of the problem, but even looking back it's something that even back during Mick's tenure was a problem and with the current group it's something that has continued even post rat pack. So there is something more to it than simply a segment of the playing group "don't get along with Nathan."

My inclination has long been that it's a fitness/conditioning/health related area given the age demographics that are struggling are those older age groups with so many injuries and a failure to improve guys beyond that really set age group. And it would really take a significant improvement in these areas to better determine whether this is in fact the source of the problem regarding the older guys struggling to get anything more out of their games and then going on to decline prematurely.

Which of our players have survived after 30 or 31? Almost none that I recall. By thirty their football lives are over. Other clubs have players who extend their careers well beyond this age.