Prediction Who stays... who goes on NOW WITH ADDED POLL

[Pivo]

Nah. I am convined the Club think he has talent in spades.

You prove it yourself when you say you "you carry guys like Vardy and Menzel b/c of their talent - and for as long as you can." Which is exactly what they have done with Cowan.

I reckon most outside observers would say that both Menzel and Vardy have Cowan covered in the talent stakes by a fairly sizeable margin.

It is hard for me to argue against what you are suggesting though. I can't argue away why Cowan has been held onto for as long as he had, perhaps there is an element of money spent and the club is looking to get back some sort of return on investment or maybe Cowan timed signing contracts perfectly.

I honestly don't know so the argument of 'the club clearly rates him' is as good as any.

But in the odd game I have seen from Cowan, he looks solid but not much more.

Menzel and Vardy are not guys I'd class as "solid" based on what I've seen from them.

I just don't see how you can hold onto a guy for another year when he has only played 4 games in 6 years. Even Menzel and Vardy have managed over 20 in their time with us, while Mitch Clark has managed more games in 1 year than Cowan has since 2010 (and people want Clark gone, I assume, because he is always injured).

If Cowan is held onto, be it senior or rookie list, then I really, really hope he plays often and plays well but he would have to consider himself charmed, especially in light of Cook's comments earlier in the year.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I reckon most outside observers would say that both Menzel and Vardy have Cowan covered in the talent stakes by a fairly sizeable margin.

It is hard for me to argue against what you are suggesting though. I can't argue away why Cowan has been held onto for as long as he had, perhaps there is an element of money spent and the club is looking to get back some sort of return on investment or maybe Cowan timed signing contracts perfectly.

I honestly don't know so the argument of 'the club clearly rates him' is as good as any.

But in the odd game I have seen from Cowan, he looks solid but not much more.

Menzel and Vardy are not guys I'd class as "solid" based on what I've seen from them.

I just don't see how you can hold onto a guy for another year when he was only played 4 games in 6 years. Even Menzel and Vardy have managed over 20 in their time with us, while Mitch Clark has managed more games in 1 year than Cowan has since 2010 (and people want Clark gone, I assume, because he is always injured).

If Cowan is held onto, be it senior or rookie list, then I really, really hope he plays often and plays well but he would have to consider himself charmed, especially in light of Cook's comments earlier in the year.

Yep. Sure.

I guess we will all find out in time, eh?

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Why would we bother?

He didn't get a gig when we had a lot of injuries so I can't see why we'd keep him on next year unless he is under contract (and I don't think he is).

If we do somehow manage to jag Dangerfield and S. Selwood, Blease just gets shunted further down the pecking order. I'd even consider elevating either Luxford or Bates in his place (even though neither probably have done enough to justify elevation).

While the draft is considered shallow I'd still prefer to take my chances with a late pick than stick by Blease who's recruitment this year remains one of the most baffling decisions I've seen the club make in recent times. On top of that, Blease doesn't seem to have been embraced by the Coaching staff either.

Patrick Levicki & Tom Keough are 2 "mature" key defenders in SA who have turned in good performances this year that have got them nods to attend the state combine later in the year while Darcy Cameron, a 204cm ruckman from WA, is also on the list.

There are other options out there, draftees don't all have to be 18 year old kids.

We may not bother. The general consensus is that he will be delisted and you could very well be right but personally I don't think that it is the forgone conclusion that many others believe.

Why wasn't he given more opportunities this year? Well that's not a question that I can answer and I agree that it is puzzling but I don't think that it automatically means that he will be given the chop at seasons end either. His VFL form has been sound and from all reports has been doing all the right things both on and off the field.

Neither of Luxford or Bates will be elevated, simply because we don't need to elevate them and it makes more sense to use an extra pick in the ND rather than elevating one of those two and then filling their rookie spot with somebody else.

I understand that there are other mature options out there, but they haven't already played 30 odd AFL games like Blease has, and whether we decide to keep Blease or not those options will still be there in any case. Also, there will be a limit as to the number of picks that we want to use in the ND in order to keep some semblance of stability in our list moving forward.

We can't just delist every player that is struggling to get a game throughout the course of a season or we would be consistently delisting about 10 blokes on a yearly basis.

 

[Pivo]

Stan The Caddy, that's a decent defence however I'll simply counter thus; as you say, he has been in the system for a number of years so, when you couple the 1 year deal to his 30 odd games it suggests to me he was brought in and expected to hit the ground running. At worse he was there to provide some depth.

He played 1 game, as a sub, despite his sound VFL form early in the year.

The fact he didn't play more when we suffered a number of injuries in the early part of the season also raises a few eyebrows.

The big one, for me at least, is the fact Luxford, a Cat. B rookie, was preferred to Blease in a couple of games during that injury riddled period.

Like Cowan, the perception that the draft is shallow might save Blease but if he couldn't crack more than 1 game I'd wonder why we'd hold onto him once his contract expires, especially if we add more highly credentialed midfielders during the free agency/trade period.

Those rumoured players might be what determines his fate more than us not wanting to pick late in this year's draft.

 

[cats_09]

The problem for Blease might also come down to the concussion that ruled him out of the last 5 weeks of the season - he might decide for himself that what he has gone through over this last month+ since that head knock isn't worth playing another year when he isn't certain of getting a shot at the top level.

Blease might make the decision to walk away himself - we don't know.

 

[GFrost]

He's also been out of footy for five weeks with concussion hasn't he? That's an incredibly long time.

*Edit snap*
Yep, he may have already made that call himself.

 

[fpm84]

Rohan Connolly in today's Age seems pretty sure this week is the final game for SJ, Kelly, Enright and Stokes.

 

[Bobby_]

Something tells me Johnson is not going to leave quietly.

 

[dazbroncos]

Looking at the poll, you'd think there is enough supporter evidence to suggest that SJ, Bartel, Domsy and Mackie go again.
Boris is self governed but if he did go again. that would leave
HMac
Hartman
Blease
Rivers
Stokes
Kelly

as all gone.

Cowan off too rookie gives 7

That is 3 x FA and 3 x ND or 4 xND if Cowan rookies up.

Seems to work. Thus end of 2016 would see Boris, Bartel, SJ, Domsy, Mackie all in line to leave.

Go Catters

 

[sauron256]

The Addy's take, although nothing not already out there.

 

[Sttew]

Rohan Connolly in today's Age seems pretty sure this week is the final game for SJ, Kelly, Enright and Stokes.

Pure speculation by Connelly.

With McIntosh and Rivers already retired, and Stokes, and Kelly likely to be retired, the club would not want to add too many more to that list, particularly if Boris makes his own call to retire.

 

[Son_Of_God29]

Bartel - Stay on 1 year deal - should play 10-12 games in 2016
SJ - Stay 1 year deal - SJ plays FWD Only in 2016
Boris - Retire - I think he will go out very quietly a bit like Joel Corey's exit
Mackie - 1 year deal - Would play Kolo in front of him in 2016 though especially if we get Henderson
Kelly - Retire
Stokes- Retire

 

[fpm84]

Pure speculation by Connelly.

With McIntosh and Rivers already retired, and Stokes, and Kelly likely to be retired, the club would not want to add too many more to that list, particularly if Boris makes his own call to retire.

Most so-called experts seem to think Johnson is gone.

Ling and Mooney have both publicly stated that he should play on elsewhere if Geelong cuts him. You'd think if there was a reasonable chance of him being kept on (and Moons in particular is still close with SJ) they'd be saying things like "surely Geelong will keep him on, he has another year to offer."

I'm far from a huge SJ fan but I think he deserves another season. At the same time, I reckon he's maybe got 12-15 decent games left in him, similar to when Chappy left. Is that worth a 12 month contract?

 

[darrenmorgan]

i get the feeling that Boris will pull the pin, which may be what saves SJ for one more year.

 

[calder_daddy]

Dawson?

Cowan?

McCarthy?

Dawson Gone
McCArthy one more year
Cowan, I suspect he plays this week and they say to him, get through a game, show us something and you can stay

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

I'd love Stevie to stay but it looks very unlikely now I think the club hasn't been 100% sure which way to go with him. Not playing finals and the disappointing way the team played over the last few weeks I think will mean he will go.

 

[Sttew]

i get the feeling that Boris will pull the pin, which may be what saves SJ for one more year.

Is there a chance Boris will get an AA nomination this year?

 

[iameviljez]

Bartel - Stay on 1 year deal - should play 10-12 games in 2016
SJ - Stay 1 year deal - SJ plays FWD Only in 2016
Boris - Retire - I think he will go out very quietly a bit like Joel Corey's exit
Mackie - 1 year deal - Would play Kolo in front of him in 2016 though especially if we get Henderson
Kelly - Retire
Stokes- Retire

I agree with this, bang on good Sir/Madam.

 

[nowhereneargeelong]

I will not be impressed at all if we ditch SJ.

If he is willing to sign a one year contract then why on earth would we not keep him??? The guy is an on-field coach, will kick a couple of goals per week and assist in the development of a the forward line.

It's hard to argue that if SJ was 2 years younger he wouldn't get a contract on current form.

I reckon Scott is perhaps a bit 'ageist'.

 

[Partridge]

Most so-called experts seem to think Johnson is gone.

Ling and Mooney have both publicly stated that he should play on elsewhere if Geelong cuts him. You'd think if there was a reasonable chance of him being kept on (and Moons in particular is still close with SJ) they'd be saying things like "surely Geelong will keep him on, he has another year to offer."

I'm far from a huge SJ fan but I think he deserves another season. At the same time, I reckon he's maybe got 12-15 decent games left in him, similar to when Chappy left. Is that worth a 12 month contract?

I would say yes, and perhaps for Bartel too. But I would also make it very clear that they will be playing VFL next season at times. If it was good enough to do that to Chapman, there should be no problem doing it now.

 

[GFrost]

What's wrong with senior players playing in the VFL at times if:
a.) their form drops off, either due to injury or just form, eg: Mooney, Milburn, Stokes
b.) their form is good but development of a young player takes priority as senior player will not be there next year: eg: Rivers

It was good enough in 2011 and good enough in 2015. Why do we have to say you are in our best team now but next week we're delisting you?
If these "undecided" players want to stay at Geelong, they deal with this and they can stay. It's up to them. But give them the choice. Not giving them that option, so we can draft pick number 70 and winding up with a 16 long injury list next year.... Pffft.

 

[Partridge]

What's wrong with senior players playing in the VFL at times if:
a.) their form drops off, either due to injury or just form, eg: Mooney, Milburn, Stokes
b.) their form is good but development of a young player takes priority as senior player will not be there next year: eg: Rivers

It was good enough in 2011 and good enough in 2015. Why do we have to say you are in our best team now but next week we're delisting you?
If these "undecided" players want to stay at Geelong, they deal with this and they can stay. It's up to them. But give them the choice. Not giving them that option, so we can draft pick number 70 and winding up with a 16 long injury list next year.... Pffft.

I stopped there. The answer is nothing.

It's a reasonable point too, as it's easy to think "well a senior player is dropped; he's finished". It doesn't need to be like that. But every single player on the list should be demoted if their form isn't up to it. No exceptions. As soon as you make exceptions, you create entitlement. As soon as you create entitlement, you tolerate (directly or indirectly) double standards. Doesn't take much for other players to start thinking "why should I go harder, when so-and-so gets away with not doing x all the time?" Looked very much like an extremely disjointed playing group Friday night.

You mention 2011 as a year where such a policy was good enough (and I agree completely), I'll give you a better example - 2007. Tom Harley came back from a finger injury (sustained in Round 1), and returned via the VFL. He admits he didn't like it, but he still did it. He was only the captain too.

Whatever we think of Harley post-footy, when he was captain at Geelong he set standards we haven't come close to emulating recently. He also didn't just talk it, he pushed for Johnson's 5-week holiday from the senior squad and that worked too.

 

[Bobby_]

I will not be impressed at all if we ditch SJ.

I am.
Champion but seriously, can you not see his style of game is a cancer to our young players trying to develop?
The constant on-field indiscretions, ridiculous smart arsed tricks in which he could use to pull off when he was in his 20's.

He's past it and the club knows it. Should have let him go last year for a top 10 draft pick. Now we get an empty paper bag full of Dangerfield to Geelong petition pamphlets.

 

[Cattery]

But every single player on the list should be demoted if their form isn't up to it. No exceptions. As soon as you make exceptions, you create entitlement. As soon as you create entitlement, you tolerate (directly or indirectly) double standards.

Couldn't agree more.
I suspect though (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're basically referring to the veterans, yet in the past couple of years it's been the young blokes who have been given games when their form didn't warrant it (Blicavs, Murdoch, Kersten, Gregson etc)

I am.
Champion but seriously, can you not see his style of game is a cancer to our young players trying to develop?
The constant on-field indiscretions, ridiculous smart arsed tricks in which he could use to pull off when he was in his 20's.

He's past it and the club knows it. Should have let him go last year for a top 10 draft pick. Now we get an empty paper bag full of Dangerfield to Geelong petition pamphlets.

Give it a break mate, would be one of our top ten performed players this year, and he's doing nothing different to what he's done for a decade regarding his on field behaviour, only difference is we're more willing to turn a blind eye when the team is performing well and just as quick to look for scapegoats when it isn't.

 

[Partridge]

Couldn't agree more.
I suspect though (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're basically referring to the veterans, yet in the past couple of years it's been the young blokes who have been given games when their form didn't warrant it (Blicavs, Murdoch, Kersten, Gregson etc)

With the veterans, more that it seemed even the notion of them playing VFL was anathema. Agree totally it wasn't just them, and there were a few young players who got a pretty good run when form didn't really justify it (Kersten late last year a very good example of that).