Delisted #38: Cody Brand - not offered another contract - 18/10

Remove this Banner Ad

Surprised but we've committed to BZT, in all our wisdom, and Brand otherwise has the least potential of the young talls. There are not enough list spots.

Not what I would have done.

But no way do we part with Eyre. He's had a slow start but he's got the potential to be anything. He's shown some signs he might just pull it off.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I said earlier in the year that I didn't think carrying Reid, Cox, Zerk-Thatcher, Eyre and Brand all as KPDs wasn't smart from a balance standpoint.

Honestly, I thought BZT was the one in the gun to be forced out, but his finish to the year in the seniors was stronger than Brands in the VFL, so it was probably the tipping point.
I really liked Brand and thought he had some nice traits, but his fitness to start last pre season was really poor. Whilst he improved on that and showed solid form at points, Reid and Cox were top picks and Eyre has more physical tools.

When you add to that a list crunch, the numbers just weren't in his favour. Stewart being pegged as a KPD by Mahoney in that SEN interview doesn't help his cause. Good luck young fella.
 
I don’t see it as a Zerk v Brand thing.

The issue is he was the 4th tall we drafted in 2020, he is a pure KPD and the other 3 are looking like they are settling in the backline.

Last in, first out unfortunately, especially given I would argue we already have too many talls anyway.

Could certainly see him getting picked up or becoming a really good state leaguer somewhere.
 
If they’re not happy with Brands output, they’d only just be happy with Eyres. Hoping we don’t fire too many blanks with all these KPPs
 
Highlights the poor list decision to take so many talls in that draft. Thought he was excellent. Really couldn’t have expected him to do much more.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with the strategy. It was a strong draft for talls at the top end so we had to take the opportunity. Then if you have nga players that are worthy of a bid you should be matching it, barring only if they have professionalism/ off field issues etc. they would’ve loved brand to make it to the rookie list
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Highlights the poor list decision to take so many talls in that draft. Thought he was excellent. Really couldn’t have expected him to do much more.
Not really, it's expected a number of them won't make it so you draft more than you need to compensate for that
 
I don’t think there was anything wrong with the strategy. It was a strong draft for talls at the top end so we had to take the opportunity. Then if you have nga players that are worthy of a bid you should be matching it, barring only if they have professionalism/ off field issues etc. they would’ve loved brand to make it to the rookie list

Regardless of where the quality lies, it’s not a good move to stack the list there. Development limitations due to few positions mean you’re never getting full value out of your resources. If you have talls of quality as NGAs trade out early. I’m sure Collingwood would have been happy to trade in considering where they ended up swapping their future for.
 
Last edited:
Not really, it's expected a number of them won't make it so you draft more than you need to compensate for that
Other list managers aren’t doing that. We had 15 non ruck talls and pseudo talls like Francis and Laverde. Most lists have 8-10.

Other list managers use those extra list spots to get flexible players between 185-192cm. Most lists have 6-7 extra players in that size bracket than we do.
 
Highlights the poor list decision to take so many talls in that draft. Thought he was excellent. Really couldn’t have expected him to do much more.
Look, fine to say in isolation.
But look at that draft as a whole. Who are you taking instead of him that was either drafted after him in the ND or in the rookie draft?

Jack Ginnivan maybe? Otherwise basically everyone are AFL retreads or guys that aren't on lists anymore either.
Taking a kid that has been in our NGA for 6 years when we were clearly loading up on kids to develop at the start of a rebuild was fine, even in hindsight when you consider what came after his pick.
 
Other list managers aren’t doing that. We had 15 non ruck talls and pseudo talls like Francis and Laverde. Most lists have 8-10.

Other list managers use those extra list spots to get flexible players between 185-192cm. Most lists have 6-7 extra players in that size bracket than we do.
when you're lumping in 'pseudo-talls' to try and make your point that's start to sound a tad desperate
 
when you're lumping in 'pseudo-talls' to try and make your point that's start to sound a tad desperate
Francis and Laverde aren't 200cm tall but whenever they played they've been in those key position posts all year. If you're only going to select them as KPPs then for the purposes of list management they are KPPs.
 
Francis and Laverde aren't 200cm tall but whenever they played they've been in those key position posts all year. If you're only going to select them as KPPs then for the purposes of list management they are KPPs.

Also if you remove the pseudo talls from other teams the ratio doesn't improve on average. Geelong would be left with only De Koning and Blicavs as KPD further highlighting the ideal list balance.
 
End of 2020 was the first of the covid-impacted drafts. There were only 59 picks taken in the national draft, and pretty much everyone had passed including Essendon as I recall, before the bid came on Cody Brand at pick 53. They then took an absolute age to decide whether or not to match it and if there's a recording somewhere to check, I have a distinct memory of the list team having quite a discussion about it in those couple of minutes before they matched.

At the end of the day you had to take someone, either in the national draft or pre-season draft or as a DFA anyway (given at the time the list size was min 36, and we had 35 on the list at that point). Probably it would have meant a senior spot for Dylan Clarke or Marty Gleeson, who spent 2021 as rookies instead (before being delisted).
 
Look, fine to say in isolation.
But look at that draft as a whole. Who are you taking instead of him that was either drafted after him in the ND or in the rookie draft?

Jack Ginnivan maybe? Otherwise basically everyone are AFL retreads or guys that aren't on lists anymore either.
Taking a kid that has been in our NGA for 6 years when we were clearly loading up on kids to develop at the start of a rebuild was fine, even in hindsight when you consider what came after his pick.
It's not only about late in the draft. Having the guarantee of Brand means you can balance with your earlier picks or trade out. The fact that Brand couldn't have done much better shows how flawed the whole idea was. He's probably shown as much linear progression in the VFL from year 1 to year 2, as any player we've had in the last decade.
 
Am surprised by this. Did a lot more in the VFL than Eyre. Thought he might have even been given a AFL debut game near the end of the year given Reid was not getting a game. The coaches are obviously a lot closer to what is going on than we are.
 
It's not only about late in the draft. Having the guarantee of Brand means you can balance with your earlier picks or trade out. The fact that Brand couldn't have done much better shows how flawed the whole idea was. He's probably shown as much linear progression in the VFL from year 1 to year 2, as any player we've had in the last decade.


Yep. If Reid wasn't pick 10 the response to him would be interesting.

Brand is better performed at the same level. He's also out performed Eyre.

Cox is also just as likely to play CHB.

When you know you've got 2 talls locked away it makes more sense to look at other types of players.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top