Team Mgmt. Makeup of our team II - Strengths & deficiencies, player development

Remove this Banner Ad

download-2-jpg.1860659
If that’s anything to go by, Carlton are primed for the next 2-3 years.
And Collingwood are much older then people realise..
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Totally snuck up on me. Too fixated with the Daicos boys, but yeah: Pendles, Sidebottom, Howe, Elliott etc

It is the whole list. Under 25 they have Daicos and Quaynor. The rest is poo. Not everyone goes and goes like Pendles or Fletch. Over half their list will start to show a significant decline over the next few years.

Having said that, there is a lot about Collingwood over the last decade that reminds me of Essendon back in the 90s. There is lots of kids who look skinny and a few old fellas holding it together despite losing their athletic edge, they don't look like that impressive set of private school elites, like Carlton and West Coast currently do, Melbourne as well. I won't write them off making a few tweaks looking like a rebuild.

I completely wrote them off when Buckley drafted/traded for nothing but mids and thought last year was a complete fluke (I still think it was and think they were a much better side this year, despite being one of the least dominant premiership sides). So I have learned my lesson while part of this Malthouse-Buckley-Pendlebury era continues, I will not write them off.
 
It is the whole list. Under 25 they have Daicos and Quaynor. The rest is poo. Not everyone goes and goes like Pendles or Fletch. Over half their list will start to show a significant decline over the next few years.

Having said that, there is a lot about Collingwood over the last decade that reminds me of Essendon back in the 90s. There is lots of kids who look skinny and a few old fellas holding it together despite losing their athletic edge, they don't look like that impressive set of private school elites, like Carlton and West Coast currently do, Melbourne as well. I won't write them off making a few tweaks looking like a rebuild.

I completely wrote them off when Buckley drafted/traded for nothing but mids and thought last year was a complete fluke (I still think it was and think they were a much better side this year, despite being one of the least dominant premiership sides). So I have learned my lesson while part of this Malthouse-Buckley-Pendlebury era continues, I will not write them off.
They’re already in trouble with mcstay going down, don’t have a lot of depth up forward. Will have to rely on mihocek and Cox again
 
They’re already in trouble with mcstay going down, don’t have a lot of depth up forward. Will have to rely on mihocek and Cox again
nah you’re forgetting billy frampton, he basically won ‘em the final, remember? he completely kept harris andrews out of the game as per the commentary team
 
Just to temper everyone's expectations, Squiggles data based approach has us in the bottom 5. You tell me why you think they're wrong and better than any of the 13 teams it rates ahead of us:

View attachment 1865079
Comes down to improvement or if we remain static and injuries
To be honest it is basically a guess for anyone predicting results.
My expectation is that we can repeat last year and win 10 or 11 games despite how they fell off the cliff at the end. It then comes down to attitude. They are good enough to win a final but can they walk the walk or will they once again fail to play solid team defence and finish up in the middle of the pack or lower.
If we get injuries we will be in trouble. We do not have the depth to cover too many injuries yet.
 
Totally snuck up on me. Too fixated with the Daicos boys, but yeah: Pendles, Sidebottom, Howe, Elliott etc
Not really a surprise when you consider they had 14 or so players from the 2018 GF. I think we got sucked in by the poor year in 2021 . They have played and won finals in 5 of the last 6 years. They most likely only have another couple of years with most of the current group and will have to do a Geelong to stay there after that in my view.
 
Not really a surprise when you consider they had 14 or so players from the 2018 GF. I think we got sucked in by the poor year in 2021 . They have played and won finals in 5 of the last 6 years. They most likely only have another couple of years with most of the current group and will have to do a Geelong to stay there after that in my view.
Collingwood traditionally regenerate pretty quickly, but pendles and sidebottom will we huge losses. I think people underestimated how big of hole selwood was going to leave at geelong, then were surprised when they dipped.
 
Collingwood traditionally regenerate pretty quickly, but pendles and sidebottom will we huge losses. I think people underestimated how big of hole selwood was going to leave at geelong, then were surprised when they dipped.
And a bit of a premiership hangover for them and injury to Cameron. Agree on Selwood. They covered the actual play output but the leadership was gone at a point they really needed it to counter the drop off.
 
And a bit of a premiership hangover for them and injury to Cameron. Agree on Selwood. They covered the actual play output but the leadership was gone at a point they really needed it to counter the drop off.
Yep I also don’t think a lot would’ve slacked off as much as they did if they were coming back to selwood doing preseason with them over the summer
 
Just to temper everyone's expectations, Squiggles data based approach has us in the bottom 5. You tell me why you think they're wrong and better than any of the 13 teams it rates ahead of us:

View attachment 1865079
This honestly means very little. This is still based off of this year, for instance before the season started GWS and Adelaide were below us.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just to temper everyone's expectations, Squiggles data based approach has us in the bottom 5. You tell me why you think they're wrong and better than any of the 13 teams it rates ahead of us:

View attachment 1865079

Most models had the Houston rockets being terrible this season and they did a similar offseason top up.

The reason is Essendons data may be skewed given a few blowout losses due to points given up off back half turnovers.

Fixing ball usage coming out of HB should propel Essendon up both of those metrics due to this.

It could be blind optimism but it could also be fact I’m not sure which
 
Most models had the Houston rockets being terrible this season and they did a similar offseason top up.

The reason is Essendons data may be skewed given a few blowout losses due to points given up off back half turnovers.

Fixing ball usage coming out of HB should propel Essendon up both of those metrics due to this.

It could be blind optimism but it could also be fact I’m not sure which
Is this Squiggle graph to be believed?
I can't think of anyone that predicted Essendon to be top 5 team for half of 2023 and then implode the 2nd half, ending up where we did.
If Essendon ends up bottom 4 in 2024 it would be from a very hard draw, 0 improvement from any players or we face loads of injuries.
 
Is this Squiggle graph to be believed?
I can't think of anyone that predicted Essendon to be top 5 team for half of 2023 and then implode the 2nd half, ending up where we did.
If Essendon ends up bottom 4 in 2024 it would be from a very hard draw, 0 improvement from any players or we face loads of injuries.

Squiggle just shows the data, our implosion to end the season saw us drop pretty dramatically. It doesn't really deal with speculation.

We've got a fairly young side that a lot of boom or bust potential in the playing group so we could substantially outperform the predictions, or not.
 
Yep I also don’t think a lot would’ve slacked off as much as they did if they were coming back to selwood doing preseason with them over the summer

Similar Hawthorn with Hodge and co, their supporters kept telling us it wouldn't make a difference because they were cooked, but it did.

There's not all that much between the good and bad teams, so losing even 1 or 2% can drastically change a season.
 
Is this Squiggle graph to be believed?
I can't think of anyone that predicted Essendon to be top 5 team for half of 2023 and then implode the 2nd half, ending up where we did.
If Essendon ends up bottom 4 in 2024 it would be from a very hard draw, 0 improvement from any players or we face loads of injuries.

Essendon had the 5th worst point differential last season and that seems to line up with that graph

(Since point differential is one of the best indicators of team quality)

So it’s accurate in a sense but also could be skewed by a few Blowout losses at the end of the season. Both of which Essendon gave up huge amounts of points via turnover.

These turnover issues seem to directly corolate with Ridley being injured. Combined Ridley being back with natural age based progression and there’s a reasonable arguement to be made that the team could be pretty good this season
 
Is this Squiggle graph to be believed?
I can't think of anyone that predicted Essendon to be top 5 team for half of 2023 and then implode the 2nd half, ending up where we did.
If Essendon ends up bottom 4 in 2024 it would be from a very hard draw, 0 improvement from any players or we face loads of injuries.
I mean I wouldn’t put it past us to show zero improvement and cop a ton of injuries to key players
 
These turnover issues seem to directly corolate with Ridley being injured. Combined Ridley being back with natural age based progression and there’s a reasonable arguement to be made that the team could be pretty good this season
Ridley and Setterfield for me going down really took the wind out of our team with no real way to recover. Made for a season death spiral.
With McKay coming in to shore up our backline, I would hope to see it gives Ridley back to be that interceptor accumulator type.
Hopefully Baldwin stays on the park. He's got some footy smarts. Maybe some midfield ability?

But who would we see being a Setterfield backup?
I'm guessing Stringer and maybe Tsatas later in the year could play that role. Perkins just too much of a lightweight.
 
Essendon had the 5th worst point differential last season and that seems to line up with that graph

(Since point differential is one of the best indicators of team quality)

So it’s accurate in a sense but also could be skewed by a few Blowout losses at the end of the season. Both of which Essendon gave up huge amounts of points via turnover.

These turnover issues seem to directly corolate with Ridley being injured. Combined Ridley being back with natural age based progression and there’s a reasonable arguement to be made that the team could be pretty good this season

A lot's also going to have to do with whether Scott/the coaching team actually back up what they say. Kingy or one of those Foxtel guys mentioned last week how Scott talks a tough game, but that he didn't actually change the team last year (from memory, no one was dropped after the 21 goal loss to GWS).

A good example of that - Kelly, Weideman and Heppell combined for 55 games last year.

We then had 17 players aged 22 or under who combined for 45 games.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top