Strategy List management approach and philosophy

[catempire]

I'm going to break my opus on this topic into chunks. Here's Part I:

Why it is reasonable Geelong hasn't undertaken a 'conventional' rebuild

Here’s the central premise of my thesis: a club will never make the decision to undertake a decisive rebuild while it still feels it can win a flag with the core of its current group.

This thesis explains, to me, why Geelong has never undertaken the conventional rebuild so many here seem to crave. Ask yourself, should we have started the rebuild in:

2011? No, still had stacks of premiership stars and it was quite likely a new coach could inject much needed enthusiasm and new ideas. Worth seeing what a new coach could deliver. And deliver he did.

2012? Finished 6th after H&A. The pundits all said “if anyone can win a flag from here it’s Geelong”. Sadly didn’t happen but it looked like with a decent ruckman (took a very bad gamble on McIntosh at this point) a flag was within reach. No.

2013? Finished 2nd after H&A, having only lost 4 games by an aggregate of 23 points. A really humiliating loss at home in the first final, nearly straight sets in the 2nd week and bundled out by the arch nemesis in the prelim after being in a winning position at three quarter time. Ruckman aside, still no real reason why a flag unattainable.

2014? Finished 3rd winning 17 games in the H&A. Straight sets finals exit. Plenty of questions asked. Have we overachieved with the list we have? Midfield starting to look very thin. A gaping hole is opening up in the 23-26 year old age bracket. But Christensen walks out opening the door to get another ruckman (Stanley). Mitch Clark falls in our lap and looks a great pairing (on paper) with Hawkins. Critically, those in charge know one thing for certain most people don’t: in 12 months’ time Patrick Dangerfield is about to walk through the door.

2015? Absent the Dangerfield factor it would be the obvious candidate, a shocker of a season and our worst result for a decade. Something had to change. But again the opportunity to improve the list, not only with Dangerfield but with Henderson and Scott Selwood means a rebuild is not even given a passing thought.

2016? Flag favourites going into the finals. A coin toss win first up followed by the worst possible performance on the big stage in week 3. Yet again, far too close to be talking rebuilds.

I think many people use hindsight and say that given we didn’t win in those years we might as well have undertaken a rebuild and we erred in not doing so. Decision makers don’t have the benefit of hindsight. They have to judge in the moment whether they are within reach or not and act accordingly. There was never anything to suggest in those years that a clearer path to success was a conventional rebuild rather than grabbing the players we could to fill obvious holes and to get us closer to the ultimate goal. Did the club make mistakes? Absolutely! I shouted from the rooftops that McIntosh was a mistake before we did the deal. Others were mistakes with the benefit of hindsight (Clark) or were hard to explain to the public for various reasons (Johnson, Chapman).

So did Geelong err in not undertaking a decisive rebuild in the past five years? I can’t see any basis for that claim putting myself in the shoes of the decision makers at the time. A flag was always justifiably perceived to be within reach even if we didn’t end up winning it.

Next up: Part II - are we approaching "The Cliff"?

 

[catempire]

Part II: Are we approaching “The Cliff”?

First a definitional issue – what is The Cliff? I’d say it’s where your list gets to a point that it’s clear that you can’t win a flag with the core of your current group and you have to make a fairly sudden change in approach to your list management approach by building from the bottom-up. It also involves the gap in talent between you and the contenders being so great that the only way to bridge it is through natural improvement in draftees over a longer time horizon. Plugging gaps with imported players will not be sufficient.

A good start to assess if we are headed that way is to look at our best 25 players and see how many of them will be retired in 3-4 years’ time (as distinct from those that are traded because you at least get a return on them). Let’s make a conservative assumption that anyone 27 years old or over now will not be here in four years time (to play season 2021).

Let’s work with:

Lonergan, Tom 32
Mackie, Andrew 32
Taylor, Harry 30
Hawkins, Tom 28
Selwood, Joel 28
Henderson, Lachlan 27
Smith, Zac 27
Tuohy, Zach 27
Dangerfield, Patrick 26
Motlop, Steven 26
Selwood, Scott 26
Stanley, Rhys 26
Blicavs, Mark 25
Duncan, Mitchell 25
Menegola, Sam 25
Menzel, Daniel 25
Guthrie, Cameron 24
Horlin-Smith, George 24
Murdoch, Jordan 24
Ruggles, Tom 24
McCarthy, Lincoln 23
Thurlow, Jackson 22
Kolodjashnij, Jake 21
Lang, Darcy 21
Cockatoo, Nakia 20

So let’s assume that’s eight players gone.

Now let’s go back four years (season 2013) and have a look at our list. In our best 25 players we had these players who have since departed:

Steve Johnson
Jimmy Bartel
James Kelly
Mathew Stokes
Corey Enright
Paul Chapman
Joel Corey
James Podsiadly
Josh Hunt
Jared Rivers

That’s 10 best 25 players we have since lost from our 2013 side.

Now, I’m sure you can all remember that around that time in 2012-2013 everyone was freaking out and saying “how on earth are we going to replace all of these players? We are surely headed for The Cliff!” But as we know, it didn’t happen (for the reasons I set out in Part I). And we still made a Prelim in 2016 and we are good odds to do so again in 2017. How did we avoid The Cliff?

These are the players who have been added to our list since 2013 and have effectively replaced the 10 players now departed in our best 25 and the means by which we acquired them (in brackets):

Henderson (pick 17 2016)
Smith (picks 49 and 53)
Tuohy (2017 first round pick and pick 63 with Carlton’s 2017 second round pick coming back to us)
Dangerfield (picks 9 2015, 28 and Dean Gore)
Scott Selwood (free agent)
Rhys Stanley (pick 21 traded for Christensen)
Sam Menegola (drafted with pick 66)
Ruggles (drafted with pick 44 rookie draft)
Kolodjashnij (drafted with pick 41)
Lang (drafted with pick 16 2013)
Cockatoo (drafted with pick 10 2014)

So in sum, to replace the departed 10 from 2013 it took six first round picks, one second round pick, a bunch of later picks, a rookie pick and a free agent. We managed to “use” six first round picks in that time because we got an extra through Christensen and we have already used this year’s to get Tuohy.

But what it demonstrates is that replacing 10 or so of your best 25 players in a four year period is entirely possible. We can and we will replace Lonergan, Mackie, Taylor, Hawkins, Selwood, Henderson Smith and Tuohy by the time 2021 rolls around. It will be done using (in draft or trade or combination) the three first round picks we have between now and then, the four second round picks, the bunch of later picks, and any free agents we can entice.

There is a question for debate about whether we have the younger cohort now that can step into the middle aged cohort we have now – Motlop, S.Selwood , Stanley, Blicavs, Duncan, Menegola, Menzel, Guthrie, Horlin-Smith, Murdoch, Ruggles and McCarthy. Are we going to be able to find their equivalents from Buzza, House, Kolodjashnij, Lang, Cockatoo, Cunico, Gregson, Hayball, O'Connor, Gardner, Narkle, Parsons, Z.Guthrie, Henry, Jones, Parfitt, Ratugolea and Simpson? I can see the doubt about that proposition. Only Kolo, Lang, Cockatoo and Gregson have shown AFL quality so far. We are going to need to have quite a few of the others step up to fill the gaps.

In summary, are we inevitably headed for the cliff and a rebuild? It’s possible but I don’t think it’s right to say it’s inevitable.

Next up: Part III - What does a 'conventional rebuild' look like (and is it any better than the alternative)?

 

[Scottland2007]

I want to have a go at some counterpoints to year of the cat's posts, but I have run out of steam today. But here are some questions/issues I think are in the mix for debate:

- Is it right to say a list management strategy hasn't worked if it hasn't delivered a flag?

This is a huge question. Did st kilda fail 2000 - 2010 because there list did not achieve a flag? Some would say "yes" but membership more than doubled in that 10 year period, providing stability for the club (they can't help there crappy telstra done deal).

 

[dazbroncos]

I'm going to break my opus on this topic into chunks. Here's Part I:

Why it is reasonable Geelong hasn't undertaken a 'conventional' rebuild

Here’s the central premise of my thesis: a club will never make the decision to undertake a decisive rebuild while it still feels it can win a flag with the core of its current group.

This thesis explains, to me, why Geelong has never undertaken the conventional rebuild so many here seem to crave. Ask yourself, should we have started the rebuild in:

2011? No, still had stacks of premiership stars and it was quite likely a new coach could inject much needed enthusiasm and new ideas. Worth seeing what a new coach could deliver. And deliver he did.

2012? Finished 6th after H&A. The pundits all said “if anyone can win a flag from here it’s Geelong”. Sadly didn’t happen but it looked like with a decent ruckman (took a very bad gamble on McIntosh at this point) a flag was within reach. No.

2013? Finished 2nd after H&A, having only lost 4 games by an aggregate of 23 points. A really humiliating loss at home in the first final, nearly straight sets in the 2nd week and bundled out by the arch nemesis in the prelim after being in a winning position at three quarter time. Ruckman aside, still no real reason why a flag unattainable.

2014? Finished 3rd winning 17 games in the H&A. Straight sets finals exit. Plenty of questions asked. Have we overachieved with the list we have? Midfield starting to look very thin. A gaping hole is opening up in the 23-26 year old age bracket. But Christensen walks out opening the door to get another ruckman (Stanley). Mitch Clark falls in our lap and looks a great pairing (on paper) with Hawkins. Critically, those in charge know one thing for certain most people don’t: in 12 months’ time Patrick Dangerfield is about to walk through the door.

2015? Absent the Dangerfield factor it would be the obvious candidate, a shocker of a season and our worst result for a decade. Something had to change. But again the opportunity to improve the list, not only with Dangerfield but with Henderson and Scott Selwood means a rebuild is not even given a passing thought.

2016? Flag favourites going into the finals. A coin toss win first up followed by the worst possible performance on the big stage in week 3. Yet again, far too close to be talking rebuilds.

I think many people use hindsight and say that given we didn’t win in those years we might as well have undertaken a rebuild and we erred in not doing so. Decision makers don’t have the benefit of hindsight. They have to judge in the moment whether they are within reach or not and act accordingly. There was never anything to suggest in those years that a clearer path to success was a conventional rebuild rather than grabbing the players we could to fill obvious holes and to get us closer to the ultimate goal. Did the club make mistakes? Absolutely! I shouted from the rooftops that McIntosh was a mistake before we did the deal. Others were mistakes with the benefit of hindsight (Clark) or were hard to explain to the public for various reasons (Johnson, Chapman).

So did Geelong err in not undertaking a decisive rebuild in the past five years? I can’t see any basis for that claim putting myself in the shoes of the decision makers at the time. A flag was always justifiably perceived to be within reach even if we didn’t end up winning it.

Next up: Part II - are we approaching "The Cliff"?

Good stuff this...

My only question...

who is Cliff and why is he approaching?

Im leaving now..

Go Catters

 

[Spazz Cat]

Part II: Are we approaching “The Cliff”?

First a definitional issue – what is The Cliff? I’d say it’s where your list gets to a point that it’s clear that you can’t win a flag with the core of your current group and you have to make a fairly sudden change in approach to your list management approach by building from the bottom-up. It also involves the gap in talent between you and the contenders being so great that the only way to bridge it is through natural improvement in draftees over a longer time horizon. Plugging gaps with imported players will not be sufficient.

A good start to assess if we are headed that way is to look at our best 25 players and see how many of them will be retired in 3-4 years’ time (as distinct from those that are traded because you at least get a return on them). Let’s make a conservative assumption that anyone 27 years old or over now will not be here in four years time (to play season 2021).

Let’s work with:

Lonergan, Tom 32
Mackie, Andrew 32
Taylor, Harry 30
Hawkins, Tom 28
Selwood, Joel 28
Henderson, Lachlan 27
Smith, Zac 27
Tuohy, Zach 27
Dangerfield, Patrick 26
Motlop, Steven 26
Selwood, Scott 26
Stanley, Rhys 26
Blicavs, Mark 25
Duncan, Mitchell 25
Menegola, Sam 25
Menzel, Daniel 25
Guthrie, Cameron 24
Horlin-Smith, George 24
Murdoch, Jordan 24
Ruggles, Tom 24
McCarthy, Lincoln 23
Thurlow, Jackson 22
Kolodjashnij, Jake 21
Lang, Darcy 21
Cockatoo, Nakia 20

So let’s assume that’s eight players gone.

Now let’s go back four years (season 2013) and have a look at our list. In our best 25 players we had these players who have since departed:

Steve Johnson
Jimmy Bartel
James Kelly
Mathew Stokes
Corey Enright
Paul Chapman
Joel Corey
James Podsiadly
Josh Hunt
Jared Rivers

That’s 10 best 25 players we have since lost from our 2013 side.

Now, I’m sure you can all remember that around that time in 2012-2013 everyone was freaking out and saying “how on earth are we going to replace all of these players? We are surely headed for The Cliff!” But as we know, it didn’t happen (for the reasons I set out in Part I). And we still made a Prelim in 2016 and we are good odds to do so again in 2017. How did we avoid The Cliff?

These are the players who have been added to our list since 2013 and have effectively replaced the 10 players now departed in our best 25 and the means by which we acquired them (in brackets):

Henderson (pick 17 2016)
Smith (picks 49 and 53)
Tuohy (2017 first round pick and pick 63 with Carlton’s 2017 second round pick coming back to us)
Dangerfield (picks 9 2015, 28 and Dean Gore)
Scott Selwood (free agent)
Rhys Stanley (pick 21 traded for Christensen)
Sam Menegola (drafted with pick 66)
Ruggles (drafted with pick 44 rookie draft)
Kolodjashnij (drafted with pick 41)
Lang (drafted with pick 16 2013)
Cockatoo (drafted with pick 10 2014)

So in sum, to replace the departed 10 from 2013 it took six first round picks, one second round pick, a bunch of later picks, a rookie pick and a free agent. We managed to “use” six first round picks in that time because we got an extra through Christensen and we have already used this year’s to get Tuohy.

But what it demonstrates is that replacing 10 or so of your best 25 players in a four year period is entirely possible. We can and we will replace Lonergan, Mackie, Taylor, Hawkins, Selwood, Henderson Smith and Tuohy by the time 2021 rolls around. It will be done using (in draft or trade or combination) the three first round picks we have between now and then, the four second round picks, the bunch of later picks, and any free agents we can entice.

There is a question for debate about whether we have the younger cohort now that can step into the middle aged cohort we have now – Motlop, S.Selwood , Stanley, Blicavs, Duncan, Menegola, Menzel, Guthrie, Horlin-Smith, Murdoch, Ruggles and McCarthy. Are we going to be able to find their equivalents from Buzza, House, Kolodjashnij, Lang, Cockatoo, Cunico, Gregson, Hayball, O'Connor, Gardner, Narkle, Parsons, Z.Guthrie, Henry, Jones, Parfitt, Ratugolea and Simpson? I can see the doubt about that proposition. Only Kolo, Lang, Cockatoo and Gregson have shown AFL quality so far. We are going to need to have quite a few of the others step up to fill the gaps.

In summary, are we inevitably headed for the cliff and a rebuild? It’s possible but I don’t think it’s right to say it’s inevitable.

Next up: Part III - What does a 'conventional rebuild' look like (and is it any better than the alternative)?

Depends what you're definition of a cliff is really. If you're not a realistic chance of a flag and don't look like improving enough to win one that's worse than falling off a cliff. You turn into North Melbourne. Horrible.
I really really hope we're not doing that.
If we are, what a waste of picks and what poor management.
It's almost like we don't care using second round picks to get a player who had 5% chance of ever playing 50 games for us in Clark and was always going to be poor for club culture.
An absolute desperate move like that makes me worry a bit the club isn't confident of getting the job done and is happy to hang around no mans land.
Give me the cliff any day and let me get excited about Wells can do with the picks.
Far better than hanging around being not quite good enough.
I'm only speaking for myself. I know most others feel differently.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Id suggest that we are keeping the majority of our draft picks overall - I think you are getting at keeping our high round draft picks - which recently we have not.

Mind you, getting PFD and Hendo have IMO proven to bear fruit and 2E at this early stage seems ok.

I would not however want to go back to that well again.

Time to keep them now.

Go Catters

I think every club in the AFL including bottom four clubs would have swapped any of their picks for Dangerfield in a heart beat, and Henderson has proven an A grade player who has plenty of years left in him, and we will see about tuoey.

The trades aren't looking bad at all, we have gotten star A graders with them

 

[catswhiskers]

Depends what you're definition of a cliff is really. If you're not a realistic chance of a flag and don't look like improving enough to win one that's worse than falling off a cliff. You turn into North Melbourne. Horrible.
I really really hope we're not doing that.
If we are, what a waste of picks and what poor management.
It's almost like we don't care using second round picks to get a player who had 5% chance of ever playing 50 games for us in Clark and was always going to be poor for club culture.
An absolute desperate move like that makes me worry a bit the club isn't confident of getting the job done and is happy to hang around no mans land.
Give me the cliff any day and let me get excited about Wells can do with the picks.
Far better than hanging around being not quite good enough.
I'm only speaking for myself. I know most others feel differently.

Isn't the bolded a good example of hindsight though. Buddy and others have had or are said to have had depression/ mental health issues as well. Geelong went for a quality player who could play in our "hole". You can argue that the HMac experience should have been a red flag but that was a physical issue.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Isn't the bolded a good example of hindsight though. Buddy and others have had or are said to have had depression/ mental health issues as well. Geelong went for a quality player who could play in our "hole". You can argue that the HMac experience should have been a red flag but that was a physical issue.

I don't think it was hindsight personally. A few others on here at least also thought the same.
It wasn't just the depression thing.
He left Brissy to go to Freo for personal reasons but then went to Melbourne for more money.
He then had injury problems there then walked out on the club because he couldn't play anymore for mental health reasons.
Then after a whole year off AFL and only playing a few club games he decides to come back and sign with another club.
Now in hindsight 5% even seems to high to be a 50 game player for us.
Round 2 pick? Was just as mind boggling then as it is now.

 

[catswhiskers]

Now we are in Part II

Does a cliff worry me? Yes.

Well one team at least goes over the cliff every year. They spend 4 -7 years bobbing around down there. Sack a couple of coaches at least. Load up with kids with talent. Then they get a sniff if they are lucky - they get a place in the finals. Some get to prelims. One or maybe two in a 10 year period get a flag.

Sydney have had their advantages but not a lot of very high draft picks
Hawthorn dived hard, got very high picks, and with those astute picks put in the framework for a sustained push.
We got there - father and son helped - but no very high picks. Not a real big re build. Most enjoyable.
West Coast well 13th and 14th finishes and a father and son, at the start of the 2000's helped build a side capable of winning one.
StKilda fell short, Bulldogs fell short , Rich, Melb, Carlton , Ess, North etc ......................... they had good picks but didn't get there.
Brisbane went over the cliff never to be seen again. GCS have had picks to burn but nothing - not even finals.

A go to the bottom rebuild guarantees nothing IMO. Club culture and development is more important. Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn.

 

[Landgraft]

It's almost like we don't care using second round picks to get a player who had 5% chance of ever playing 50 games for us in Clark and was always going to be poor for club culture.
An absolute desperate move like that makes me worry a bit the club isn't confident of getting the job done and is happy to hang around no mans land.

How do you figure? Those are the embodiments of death or glory maneouvres, being willing to go all-in on the chance that it pays off. They didn't, so we rejigged and are now going again. Cest la football.

 

[thejester]

I do find the tone people adopt when talking about the club 'selling the future' or 'pursuing short term success' fascinating. It's indicative of how totally dominant the narrative of draft picks -> develop -> success has become that bringing in Patrick f'ing Dangerfield and jumping from 10th to 4th in a season is viewed as a worse course of action than getting deliberately worse in the hope that in a few years we have a group of players who will be competing for a flag. It's doubly weird because when we do drop out of contention - and I think we will when the 06-07 group decline/retire - the much-desired rebuild can take place. The draft doesn't go anywhere. In the interim we have at least made an effort to ensure that some of the greatest players in club history spend the final years of their peak output actually competing rather than babysitting teenagers ala St Kilda's golden generation.

 

[thejester]

Also can't believe we've had two pages of cliff chat and no one has posted this:

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I think immediately post 2011 it was entirely reasonable to look to top up for a couple more years - with the right player/s and a bit of luck we could have pinched another flag in 2012 or 2013. I think though, that we had to be more mindful of preserving some of our high picks later on. For example, as useful as he has been, trading our first for Henderson was misguided. It probably reflects as much on our ability to trade as it does on list management however. Similarly using our first for Tuohy was, in my opinion, also unnecessary. He will more than likely be a very good player for us - but to give up our first (yes, I do realise we get Carlton's second back but the risk of it ending up a dud deal is not worth it) means we are, again, forfeiting our chance to get the best possible kid in that draft that year.

Of course we are all geniuses with the benefit of hindsight. There are no guarantees that a kid we could have drafted would amount to anything. But it just seemed a bit odd to pretty much completely abandon a drafting philosophy that had worked so well for us and so recently.

To answer your question, it's impossible to put a relative % on either scenario. And I'm not necessarily advocating that we shouldn't have traded or brought FA's in at all. More that we have a careful strategy that identifies needs in concert with a maintenance of our first rounders.

Fair enough, funny how two people can view the same events completely differently.

On the draft, it isn't going anywhere so long term we'll be fine.... at some point.

 

[Partridge]

Isn't the bolded a good example of hindsight though. Buddy and others have had or are said to have had depression/ mental health issues as well. Geelong went for a quality player who could play in our "hole". You can argue that the HMac experience should have been a red flag but that was a physical issue.

Clark? No, absolutely predictable. Because plenty predicted it. Same with McIntosh.

 

[year of the cat]

Fair enough, funny how two people can view the same events completely differently.

On the draft, it isn't going anywhere so long term we'll be fine.... at some point.

On that point we have agreement

 

[catempire]

On that point we have agreement

Any response to my rant/opus above?

 

[David the Cat]

I, for one will be looking forward to responses...

Its the best piece of work I have seen on this board for some time.

 

[cynical]

In the interim we have at least made an effort to ensure that some of the greatest players in club history spend the final years of their peak output actually competing rather than babysitting teenagers ala St Kilda's golden generation.

That shouldn't come into it.

Players can babysit the new generation or they can move on and finish their career with more money or more success, whatever they choose.

List management should be about the next flag not keeping old players happy, coaches with jobs or short-term bums on seats cos of false hope.

Dangerfield is a good get but 1 player doesn't win you a flag and getting him doesn't mean we needed to throw away picks for other topups.

 

[Seeds]

Don't think anyone said it's hard to understand. It's a philosophical debate about what is better in our circumstances.

No that completely changes the topic. You asked what a conventional rebuild is. You did not state what is best for our circumstances.

 

[catempire]

No that completely changes the topic. You asked what a conventional rebuild is. You did not state what is best for our circumstances.

It was meant to be a prompt for discussion. The basis of the thread is in the title and the OP - the competing schools of thought in list management.

 

[catempire]

That shouldn't come into it.

Players can babysit the new generation or they can move on and finish their career with more money or more success, whatever they choose.

List management should be about the next flag not keeping old players happy, coaches with jobs or short-term bums on seats cos of false hope.

Dangerfield is a good get but 1 player doesn't win you a flag and getting him doesn't mean we needed to throw away picks for other topups.

Note that he didn't imply any of that. He said "competing". Hardly babysitting.

 

[rickster]

Such a fantastic post CE. I for one appreciate the effort you have gone to here.

The retirees below from your post is where I see Geelong's issues lying. In Selwood and Hawkins in particular you have the nucleus to build a flag-winning team around. We were fortunate to snag them when we had a brief fall down the ladder (Selwood) and through F-S (Hawkins).

Let's be honest - No KPP currently on our list looks like going close to replacing Hawkins. Key forwards are a main flag-winning ingredient; so we are going to have to pull a first-round pick from somewhere to snare our next good 'un. Cases in point are current KPFs - Boyd, Patton, and older - Lance Franklin, Roughead - all picks inside the top three to five. We were/are lucky enough to have Hawkins as a KPF who could have gone as high as no. 1

At some point Geelong will have to let go of a quality player (e.g. Cockatoo at his peak) to snare a first rounder to attract a quality replacement KPF. Odds are they don't come through the rookie draft or picks in the 50s.

Part II: Are we approaching “The Cliff”?


Lonergan, Tom 32
Mackie, Andrew 32
Taylor, Harry 30
Hawkins, Tom 28
Selwood, Joel 28
Henderson, Lachlan 27




In summary, are we inevitably headed for the cliff and a rebuild? It’s possible but I don’t think it’s right to say it’s inevitable.

 

[Landgraft]

Such a fantastic post CE. I for one appreciate the effort you have gone to here.

The retirees below from your post is where I see Geelong's issues lying. In Selwood and Hawkins in particular you have the nucleus to build a flag-winning team around. We were fortunate to snag them when we had a brief fall down the ladder (Selwood) and through F-S (Hawkins).

Let's be honest - No KPP currently on our list looks like going close to replacing Hawkins. Key forwards are a main flag-winning ingredient; so we are going to have to pull a first-round pick from somewhere to snare our next good 'un. Cases in point are current KPFs - Boyd, Patton, and older - Lance Franklin, Roughead - all picks inside the top three to five. We were/are lucky enough to have Hawkins as a KPF who could have gone as high as no. 1

At some point Geelong will have to let go of a quality player (e.g. Cockatoo at his peak) to snare a first rounder to attract a quality replacement KPF. Odds are they don't come through the rookie draft or picks in the 50s.

I'm not so sure that's a given. Look at Adelaide's forwards for example - Tex was pick 75, Josh Jenkins was an Essendon rookie traded after one year and Mitch McGovern was pick 43.

Personally I think Buzza, Sav and House are all chances to make it. Sav in particular with his attributes has an enormous ceiling if he better develops the footballing side of things (the bag if 8.1 that got his Vic Country call up still has me optimistic that his kicking can recover).

 

[rickster]

Good point. Of our lot I reckon Buzza is most likely, and give Esava a couple of years (didn't he kick the 8 against a weak team)?.

I'd be surprised if House ends up as anything more than depth.[/QUOTE]

 

[Partridge]

Personally I think Buzza, Sav and House are all chances to make it. Sav in particular with his attributes has an enormous ceiling if he better develops the footballing side of things (the bag if 8.1 that got his Vic Country call up still has me optimistic that his kicking can recover).

Hope you're right, but given none of them have played a senior game yet it's a massive unknown.