What do we need to do to return back to premiership contention?

[Oisin_the_Goat]

Literally pick 84+

Might be a dumb question but why do you end up with dead wood when players retire ? Is this a pick donation by the afl or something. Surely we still hold our two good picks right.

 

[Kitcat]

We should have been contenders this year but for a horrid run with injuries.

In midfield, last season was on a knife edge with poor performances early, it turned with new roles for Blicavs and Atkins that ignited things. This season, it's Selwood, Guthrie, and Dangerfield that have been the problem. Selwood is gone, Dangerfield has had limited availability after the broken rib, and Guthrie limped through the first 6 games before pulling the pin.

That has meant Bruhn, Holmes, O'Connor, and Miers have had to attend a significant number of centre-bounce and they just don't win the clearances/ contested ball required for us to be competitive over the course of a game. Bruhn is getting there, and maybe Holmes will too though he's currently a good winger. But Miers will never be big enough for an inside role, and O'Connor is simply too defensive with that role better filled by Blicavs and Atkins.

There's been other problems with Cameron taking hits, inconsistent performances in the ruck, and structural issues down back playing Ratugolea. But those are typical regular season problems ironed out in the home and away. What's been fatal is the lack of ball-winners in the midfield. It shouldn't be hard to fix this off-season with maybe a veteran recruit, and may resolve itself with the development of some young guys and the return to health of others. And as has been the case for a decade, we could always improve in the ruck.

Excellent observations.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Might be a dumb question but why do you end up with dead wood when players retire ? Is this a pick donation by the afl or something. Surely we still hold our two good picks right.

We've still got our first round pick, but at this point in time our following pick is 84.

It's not a donation or anything like that, it's because we traded our second and third rounders last year for other deals.

Having said that, we will most likely get back into the second and third rounds through trading out Sav and Parfitt respectively.

Also, never feel dumb for asking a question!! It can be complicated some times and we're all learning, more than happy to help!!

 

[iameviljez]

It’s interesting, if you look back at our “ready-made” recruits in the past decade and divide them between sub-28 and 28+ years old you see a pretty clear pattern. I’d want extremely good justification to get anyone over 28 based on this evidence. The two successes had 5 Premiership medals between them!!

28+

McIntosh
Jenkins
Steven
Higgins
Ablett
Smith
Ceglar

I think the lesson with all of those was don't overpay for older role players.

Smith, Ceglar, Jenkins and Steven were pretty much free hits at the trade table, all costing the square root of stuff-all.

Ablett, effectively traded for our R2 pick, was probably worth it in retrospect. McIntosh was a risk worth taking as he addressed a very specific need.

Higgins for p30 was the outlier. Paid way too much for a player in a position where we were already overstocked.

 

[petrolium]

I do apologize as I know this is getting is repetitive, but I just think everyone needs to know this so we can stop even entertaining this idea.

If we were to cull the list this year, it would be a disaster. The FA pool is thin, we have no targets which appear as certainties, and we have one great pick (admittedly, that could be two pending Sav)

A full cull would result in a list clogged with dead wood. Literally pick 84+, that's not an exaggeration, that's what it'll be.

At best one of them makes it, chances are none of them do....and they'll all be on 2 year deals hindering our ability to draft or trade heavy next year.

2024 is looking like the reincarnation of 2015. We'll have the choose to either trade heavy, or draft heavy, as it's a far better year for OOC players.

Which ever choice we make, we will need the list spots...and I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer a couple of first round picks and/or Zak Butters on the list over pick 105.

If 2024 is 2015 v2.0, 100% our top target will be Zak Butters. He’s a Darley boy (fairly local), will be 24 years old by then and is already one of the top midfielders in the comp. He’s signed until end of 2025 I believe so we’ll need to trade him in.

 

[Partridge]

In midfield, last season was on a knife edge with poor performances early, it turned with new roles for Blicavs and Atkins that ignited things. This season, it's Selwood, Guthrie, and Dangerfield that have been the problem. Selwood is gone, Dangerfield has had limited availability after the broken rib, and Guthrie limped through the first 6 games before pulling the pin.

That has meant Bruhn, Holmes, O'Connor, and Miers have had to attend a significant number of centre-bounce and they just don't win the clearances/ contested ball required for us to be competitive over the course of a game. Bruhn is getting there, and maybe Holmes will too though he's currently a good winger. But Miers will never be big enough for an inside role, and O'Connor is simply too defensive with that role better filled by Blicavs and Atkins.

I actually think it was more a couple of other players as well - Close and Miers. Throw in Holmes, DeKoning, Henry, and Stengle. All had career best years at the same time. They (very astutely) trusted in youth to carry the workload and it worked. It allowed Selwood and Dangerfield to be used off the bench, resulting in far less wear and tear, and they didn't need to play full games. It was the ultimate team effort. Everyone contributed and everyone played a part.

So when some of the players are just a little bit off this year it has a massive effect. The older players are another year older, and some are clearly looking it now. As always it's not one thing (just as it wasn't last year), it's the culmination of many, many factors.

 

[Partridge]

I think the lesson with all of those was don't overpay for older role players.

Smith, Ceglar, Jenkins and Steven were pretty much free hits at the trade table, all costing the square root of stuff-all.

Ablett, effectively traded for our R2 pick, was probably worth it in retrospect. McIntosh was a risk worth taking as he addressed a very specific need.

Higgins for p30 was the outlier. Paid way too much for a player in a position where we were already overstocked.

Even so, Steven should never have been recruited no matter what. That disaster of a debut will hopefully never be repeated. Bringing in a fat, unfit player was something with luck we'll never see again.

 

[iameviljez]

Even so, Steven should never have been recruited no matter what. That disaster of a debut will hopefully never be repeated. Bringing in a fat, unfit player was something with luck we'll never see again.

Agree. What I wouldn't give to know what the motivation was behind the stabbing, too...

We got suckered into chasing the same player for years, and then falling over ourselves to get him when he was past his best. Same goes with Higgins.

 

[iameviljez]

We should have been contenders this year but for a horrid run with injuries.

In midfield, last season was on a knife edge with poor performances early, it turned with new roles for Blicavs and Atkins that ignited things. This season, it's Selwood, Guthrie, and Dangerfield that have been the problem. Selwood is gone, Dangerfield has had limited availability after the broken rib, and Guthrie limped through the first 6 games before pulling the pin.

I think that Geelong last year was also very much a side that depends on system over talent.

Look at Geelong's midfield vs, say, Melbourne's. Pound to pound, we don't have anything like the talent. Gawn is obviously far better than Stanley; Petracca is Dangerfield but six years younger, Guthrie is good but Clayton Oliver is better, and Atkins is as tough as Viney but nowhere near as good when the ball is out of congestion.

But we won because of organisation, system, discipline and a bloody good forward line.

However, not having the same talent depth has meant not being quite so resilient to personnel changes.

 

[catempire]

I think the lesson with all of those was don't overpay for older role players.

Smith, Ceglar, Jenkins and Steven were pretty much free hits at the trade table, all costing the square root of stuff-all.

Ablett, effectively traded for our R2 pick, was probably worth it in retrospect. McIntosh was a risk worth taking as he addressed a very specific need.

Higgins for p30 was the outlier. Paid way too much for a player in a position where we were already overstocked.

McIntosh was the worst list management decision we have made in my football watching lifetime.

 

[Footy Smarts]

With Blicavs and Hawkins out and a bunch of other important players struggling there's a real argument to be made to put the cue in the rack for this year and load up for one final crack with this group in 2024.

That doesn't mean trying to lose games or give up but over the last month prioritise getting the mature players right for day 1 of preseason if they're carrying injuries and give a bit more experience to talented kids like Knevitt and Dempsey who might benefit from that.

 

[Partridge]

McIntosh was the worst list management decision we have made in my football watching lifetime.

I still think Clark and Steven were worse. And Higgins wasn't much better.

 

[catempire]

I still think Clark and Steven were worse. And Higgins wasn't much better.

Clark and Steven were at least huge talents who perhaps had “other issues” that could be weighed in a risk-reward calculus. McIntosh was talent deficient (at that point of his career) and already having calf issues. Had played 8 games in two years prior to us paying pick 38. In two of his three years with us he contributes zero games.

Absolutely horrendous and unparalleled disaster.

Higgins I put in a different category: should have come as a free agent a year earlier and by the time he came, paying anything at all was a poor decision. His first season was a pass mark, barely, and in his second he simply faded and was passed by others in a successful flag year so zero harm done.

 

[Turbocat]

McIntosh was the worst list management decision we have made in my football watching lifetime.

Hmac was bad but we have made a few ..

Sidebottom was so bad... Footywire doesn't even count his 7 game 1981 season.

Topped of with missing the bus t the game in a final. What a disaster.

 

[catempire]

Hmac was bad but we have made a few ..

Sidebottom was so bad... Footywire doesn't even count his 7 game 1981 season.

Topped of with missing the bus t the game in a final. What a disaster.

Predates my footy watching time. Greg Williams was another poor one for different reasons wasn’t it?

 

[Cataholic]

Predates my footy watching time. Greg Williams was another poor one for different reasons wasn’t it?

We lost him over $5000 from memory.

 

[Partridge]

Clark and Steven were at least huge talents who perhaps had “other issues” that could be weighed in a risk-reward calculus. McIntosh was talent deficient (at that point of his career) and already having calf issues. Had played 8 games in two years prior to us paying pick 38. In two of his three years with us he contributes zero games.

Absolutely horrendous and unparalleled disaster.

Higgins I put in a different category: should have come as a free agent a year earlier and by the time he came, paying anything at all was a poor decision. His first season was a pass mark, barely, and in his second he simply faded and was passed by others in a successful flag year so zero harm done.

Watching him skate around contests in a Prelim when we were 80 points behind was pretty hard to take.

Still think Steven was the worst. It's one thing to have talent, it's another to show up completely unprepared in every possible way and still be gifted senior games. That was the most galling. Can think of tons of whipping boys who have been crucified for far far less.

 

[Partridge]

Predates my footy watching time. Greg Williams was another poor one for different reasons wasn’t it?

Yep. The story goes (from memory), he was on $45K, he was offered $150K by Sydney, but told Geelong he'd stay for $50K. They wouldn't do it. Too set in their ways, it's no surprise we had a 44 year drought.

As clueless as it was to lose a gun for a small amount of money, it was a very different era. Every club was run badly, not just Geelong, and every one of them made blunders on a regular basis.

 

[Oisin_the_Goat]

We've still got our first round pick, but at this point in time our following pick is 84.

It's not a donation or anything like that, it's because we traded our second and third rounders last year for other deals.

Having said that, we will most likely get back into the second and third rounds through trading out Sav and Parfitt respectively.

Also, never feel dumb for asking a question!! It can be complicated some times and we're all learning, more than happy to help!!

Thanks for the clarification. I see your point that we have not many selections to replace the large number of old brigade with. IMO we should be taking the two or three good picks we have to the draft not recruiting a FA (like Parish). Our prem window is closed for the next 2 years. Maybe this the way to manage the staggered transition is ensuring the fringe young players (the future) play every game, even at the expense of the old brigade.

 

[iameviljez]

McIntosh was the worst list management decision we have made in my football watching lifetime.

I think it was worth going for at the time, but we seriously overpaid.

After all, the ruck was our achilles heel up till really the last two years. If he'd been fit for the 2013 finals...

 

[iameviljez]

Clark and Steven were at least huge talents who perhaps had “other issues” that could be weighed in a risk-reward calculus. McIntosh was talent deficient (at that point of his career) and already having calf issues. Had played 8 games in two years prior to us paying pick 38. In two of his three years with us he contributes zero games.

Absolutely horrendous and unparalleled disaster.

I disagree that he was talent-deficient, as it were. He was pretty good in 2014, and certainly vastly better as a ruckman than Blicavs/West/Walker.

There have been worse moves at Geelong:

1998 - instead of holding onto Picks 5 and 8 like smart people, we send p8 off to Sydney for Jason Mooney, and p5 off to Brisbane for Bamford, Tristan Lynch and some picks in the 20s. (Lucky one of those was Wojcinski). Bamford lasts one year at Geelong, getting single-figure stats in 10 of his 13 games. Lynch lasts two years.

2000 - We trade ourselves almost completely out of the draft for Justin Murphy, Kent Kingsley and Mitchell White.

Trav Varcoe for Mitch Clark... look, Clark was an unmitigated flop as far as his playing career was concerned, but I think that people forget that Trav wasn't exactly pulling up stumps by that point either. He peaked in 2010/2011 as a high-running half forward, lost all of 2012 to injury, was diabolical in 2013, and did ok when moved to half-back in 2014.

 

[Turbocat]

Predates my footy watching time. Greg Williams was another poor one for different reasons wasn’t it?

Greg Williams? List management decision? Depends on the way you look at it. In a way it was similar to Mummy. Willaims ahd been passed over multiple time by Carlton . Told he was too slow.
We gave a shot at it. Adding GAblett and Williams in the same year. What a centre line ..perhaps our best ever Turner.Williams GAblett.

After two years ..the offer from Sydney was out of this world.. and he was (apparently) will to stay if we went only a bit more . Some say as little as 5000.

The issue is that was when we were probably technically bankrupt. The money we gained from the transfer was important to us at that time. Wiki has it only $120,000 but it was enough to keep us above water. Its hard to relate to now. Different era. And some within the club(similar to Mummy) almost thought that we had given him a chance and sort of expected a bit of loyalty. Probably says how were not very professional, and watching him tear us a new one in 95 ..sure it hurt... but it was a dangerous time for Vic sides that were not the big four. Ask Fitzroy supporters. As it was.. we still nearly went down the drain and it was mainly Costa that put the plug in the drain.

 

[Partridge]

Greg Williams? List management decision? Depends on the way you look at it. In a way it was similar to Mummy. Willaims ahd been passed over multiple time by Carlton . Told he was too slow.
We gave a shot at it. Adding GAblett and Williams in the same year. What a centre line ..perhaps our best ever Turner.Williams GAblett.

After two years ..the offer from Sydney was out of this world.. and he was (apparently) will to stay if we went only a bit more . Some say as little as 5000.

The issue is that was when we were probably technically bankrupt. The money we gained from the transfer was important to us at that time. Wiki has it only $120,000 but it was enough to keep us above water. Its hard to relate to now. Different era. And some within the club(similar to Mummy) almost thought that we had given him a chance and sort of expected a bit of loyalty. Probably says how were not very professional, and watching him tear us a new one in 95 ..sure it hurt... but it was a dangerous time for Vic sides that were not the big four. Ask Fitzroy supporters. As it was.. we still nearly went down the drain and it was mainly Costa that put the plug in the drain.

Not sure about that. To me there's nothing similar about them at all.

Williams was a ready made superstar from his very first game (a mere 38 touches). He won the league MVP in his second year of football, as well as Geelong's Best and Fairest. An established top line performer in our team. Mumford was a fringe ruckman who got senior games due to injuries, and for perfectly valid reasons hit the wall late in the season and was dropped (quite correctly too). This hurt the team so much we won the premiership. He got a ridiculous offer from Sydney that he couldn't get from Geelong, and didn't deserve from Geelong either. He left, and critically, only bitched about it after he was in Sydney.

 

[catempire]

I think it was worth going for at the time, but we seriously overpaid.

After all, the ruck was our achilles heel up till really the last two years. If he'd been fit for the 2013 finals...

That’s the point: based on his two seasons prior he was never going to be fit. Dumb!

 

[Turbocat]

Not sure about that. To me there's nothing similar about them at all.

Williams was a ready made superstar from his very first game (a mere 38 touches). He won the league MVP in his second year of football, as well as Geelong's Best and Fairest. An established top line performer in our team. Mumford was a fringe ruckman who got senior games due to injuries, and for perfectly valid reasons hit the wall late in the season and was dropped (quite correctly too). This hurt the team so much we won the premiership. He got a ridiculous offer from Sydney that he couldn't get from Geelong, and didn't deserve from Geelong either. He left, and critically, only bitched about it after he was in Sydney.

Fair enough valid opinion.

Too me they are similar in that they were both from out of the system... we found.. them gave them a shot ... and they showed so much that they were offered huge money from Sydney