A concerned pie

[RustyG]

.. if our main senior players suffer injuries we will be screwed.

The same can be said about every other team,though.
If any team loses their main senior players,they will struggle.

 

[Jabso]

Collingwood won’t be bottom 4, at least not without a horror injury count. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that we won’t be playing off for the premiership. We will be mid table. Anywhere between 5th and 10th depending on injuries and development of a few mids.

As long as we do this AND pick up some good mids in the draft/trade it will be great. I think we need to concentrate on the 2007 season first and finishing 5th-10th rather than anticipating the falling of the sky over possible drafting mistakes in the 2007 draft.

I don't see anything wrong with finishing midtable as long as we are going forward. Carlton, Hawthorn, Brisbane, Essendon, Kangaroos, Port Adelaide, Richmond and even Geelong would love to be in that position.

 

[MarkT]

As long as we do this AND pick up some good mids in the draft/trade it will be great. I think we need to concentrate on the 2007 season first and finishing 5th-10th rather than anticipating the falling of the sky over possible drafting mistakes in the 2007 draft.

I have not said we made drafting mistakes in 2007. I have previously said Dawes was a risk but who know if it will pay off. I have previously said we badly need mids and a ruckman and that we didn’t recruit much of either. I have not said we drafted duds, ordinary footballers or even that we pulled the wrong reign.

What I have said is that our list management overall has been very poor for a long time and that is a combination of who comes in via the draft and trades and who gets culled or traded out and when. I have also said that IMO many of Collingwood’s problems are cultural and as much as Eddie changed our culture for the better in many ways he did not change the football culture nearly enough and we still make the same mistakes we have made for decades. In some ways we need a more football experienced president but someone of that ilk with the wherewithal to run a club would be rare.

The assessment of our list management is not just an opinion of mine. This is very very clear and objective. It is shown categorically on the ladder and in the premiership win column. Whether we are drafting better remains to be seen. I agree the signs are positive but in reality Hine hasn’t produced a lot yet given the draft picks he has had. If Rusling does what I think he threatens to do, if Thomas and Pendlebury turn out to be guns and if a few of the latter picks from the last 2 years develop after 2 years at the club then we can say Hine is very good. Right now we have huge optimism simply not backed up by results and on the evidence of games played we do not have one of the better groups of kids as many on here seem to somehow think. Similarly to think our 2006 intake is any better than anyone else’s is just blind optimism. What we have is 1 more top 10 pick and that’s it. It might be a Pavlich it might be a Roach and the same goes for every clubs top 10 pick.

More games may provide evidence to the contrary but don’t bank the cheque before the funds are in the account. Meanwhile if the club assumed we haven’t succeeded until we have actually succeeded and got better at EVERY aspect of list management EVERY year then we might be a whole lot better off now rather than hoping for a better future which is absolutely dependant upon players we do not have on our list today and have shown little capacity to find and sign in the past.

I don't see anything wrong with finishing midtable as long as we are going forward. Carlton, Hawthorn, Brisbane, Essendon, Kangaroos, Port Adelaide, Richmond and even Geelong would love to be in that position.

We are not Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and co. Essendon on the other hand would not particularly kill to be mid table right now. They are a shrewd organisation and they will try to win but they won slit their wrists if they collect another top 3 pick. We should not be comparing ourselves with the wrong end of the ladder. We should be comparing ourselves to WCE and the winners not the losers. We are not here to provide entertainment for others or community assistance for outlying Western suburbs. We are here to win premierships.

As for finishing mid table, it all depends on how and why. If we are propped up in the middle of the ladder by Buckley, Burns, Licuria, Clement and Wakelin then it is a minor disaster. If we are mid table with minimal input from these veterans and real impetus from the kids then it is a good result and shows a reduced need for the early picks that IMO we need to win a premiership in the next 5 years.

 

[MarkT]

The same can be said about every other team,though.
If any team loses their main senior players,they will struggle.

We lost some of ours in 2004 and 2005 and we certainly struggled. We fell from 2nd to second last. Then we got them back and finished mid table and people claimed we are on the up. I don’t care what anyone else thinks, 2006 was a disappointing result and showed the truth of our list management flaws. The only really important question is have they all been rectified?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't see anything wrong with finishing midtable as long as we are going forward.

Exactly. If we finish mid-table, let it not be just because Lockyer Licuria Davis O'Bree and Lonie have had good years. If its the same old faces doing the work, then we are in dire trouble.

We need to have good years from the likes of Rusling T Cloke Richards Maxwell Thomas O'Brien H Shaw and Pendlebury. If we finish mid-table with these guys playing major roles, then we have an exciting future.

So its not so much how we go this year, but how our younger players go, that will determine whether or not we are on the improve.

 

[MarkT]

From a strategic point of view, Derek Hine has done well in terms of planning for future drafts, rather than whinging about what has been done in the past and going into panic mode about what our most immediate needs are.

The question is whether he has drafted more and better quality than the other clubs. That is what gets you somewhere from the draft. Drafting as well as everyone else makes you as good as everyone else which by definition is not good enough. We drafted kids with interesting bios. Saying anything more than that is blind optimism and assuming other clubs didn’t draft as well as us is just baseless.

I am not knocking Hine. I have no reason to think he is not good at his job. There is some evidence he is substantially better than what we have had previously. Time will be the arbiter though. The point I am making is that people are assuming we have solved all sorts of problems that IMO were not the priority anyway and that mere bios can’t provide solutions for even if there were.

In principle I can see merit in your logic about leaving the mids to last. This is what Hawthorn seemed to do when they went about their rebuild from the depths of the ladder. As I have previously said though, I won’t ever complain about a best available drafting strategy. If we did end with too many of a certain type so long as they are quality the trade market exists and over prices promising youth.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

The question is whether he has drafted more and better quality than the other clubs. That is what gets you somewhere from the draft. Drafting as well as everyone else makes you as good as everyone else which by definition is not good enough. We drafted kids with interesting bios. Saying anything more than that is blind optimism and assuming other clubs didn’t draft as well as us is just baseless.

Obviously - But statistically, not every club is going to draft well, as somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the players draft will make it.

The clubs that have drafted well will have half or slightly more of their draftees make it, while the clubs who had average drafts will have around a third of their draftees make it, and the clubs who draft poorly, as we did from 2001-2003, could have virtually no one making it.

However, there is more to it than just who makes it and who doesn't. If you have a 1st round pick who only turns out to be as good as an honest trier that another team picked up with their 5th round pick or in the rookie draft, then that is not good enough.

This is where I like the direction that we have gone with our drafting.

I mean, Luke Hodge and Luke Ball made it, and they made it as stars, and there were entirely worthy of being #1 and #2 picks, respectively. However, despite that, they were still both mistakes, because they were picked in front of a guy who is clearly better, in Chris Judd.

This is the unknown factor in drafting - Not only do you have to draft players who are going to succeed, you need to consistently draft some of the best players in each particular round of the draft. There is no point consistently having your late round picks and rookies coming good, but none of your first and second round picks, because on the balance of probabilities, you're more likely to get star players with your early picks than your later ones.

Because of this, I like the fact that we have gone with a relatively high risk strategy towards drafting. We have gone with very few "safe" picks, and I don't think that we have picked anyone because we were supposed to. We have opted for intriguing and somewhat mercurial talent at almost every opportunity, and if you're going to fail, you want to fail with talent, because with serious talent, you're giving yourself the best chance to pull a diamond out of the rough.

The fact of the matter is, not only have we drafted well, but we've actually picked up some kids with star potential, which is the important thing. You can always find guys to put out on the field that work hard, and will go out every week and do much the same thing. However, in guys like Egan, Thomas and Reid, you can see that with our first picks, we are acknowledging the importance of guys that can simply do the unexpected and lift the team above what it may normally have been capable of. Even with later and rookie picks, seeing guys like Harry O'Brien, John Anthony, Shannon Cox, Brad D ick, Tyson Goldsack, Sharrod Wellingham and even Martin Clarke, it shows a shift towards the importance of picking up guys that have unique combinations of size, athleticism and skill.

IMO, it's not any particular weakness that cost us in 2002 and 2003, it's the fact that we were what we were, and didn't really have the mercurial talent to just be better than we were supposed to be - We had no 'scope for improvement' on field, so to speak. In those years I always knew we were very good, but I also knew that other teams had more talent than we did. When we beat Brisbane in the QF, it was because we held back the floodgates, and I remember thinking to myself "it'd be nice if they looked as desperate trying to hold us back as we do them"... In the end, we were a reactive team, and you don't see premierships being won by a reactive team holding back a great team.

We might fail - That's always the gamble in drafting - But we're at least targeting the right kind of player with the right picks.

 

[MarkT]

Obviously - But statistically, not every club is going to draft well, as somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the players draft will make it.

Correct and we have absolutely no idea yet where we fall in the range.

Because of this, I like the fact that we have gone with a relatively high risk strategy towards drafting.

I am not risk adverse at all but if you think it is high risk then the probability of a large number of hits is low. That just stands to reason. Doesn’t this contradict you previous argument?

The fact of the matter is, not only have we drafted well…

We have? How do you know? Doesn’t every club think the same thing right now? How have the other clubs drafted? How about the ones with earlier picks?

It is not fact. It is 100% speculation. How on Earth do you know we have drafted well when not one of them or any other kid drafted in 2006 has ever kicked a ball at AFL level? As I said, some interesting bios but, as with all the clubs, nothing shown to validate optimism other than bios.

Honestly, we have drafted 1 extra top 10 pick due to a trade and that of itself could well be telling down the track but we haven’t drafted well or poorly at this point – we have just drafted. Had Brown gone at 9 and Reid at 7 while we took whoever went at 7 and 9 would you have any different opinion? I very much doubt it. I know for a fact I wouldn’t. I have no idea whatsoever whether we have quality players or not. Nor I am afraid do you and nor does Derek Hine.

We might fail - That's always the gamble in drafting - But we're at least targeting the right kind of player with the right picks.

Look that is very subjective. I have no argument with it but really the right type is all dependent on the future of the game (MM got it horribly wrong with his fat arsed midfielders theory) and how good the kids actually turn out. In drafting I am far more concerned about the quality than the type. If you load up with quality you should be able to plug holes with soldiers and/or trade to fill needs. The absolute prime objective should be quality players.


Anyway, for the millionth and final time I am not criticising who we drafted or they type of player. All I am saying is that at this point they provide no more cause for optimism than is the case at almost every club after what was described for the entire year as a superdraft.

 

[Dwayo]

That doesnt make us wooden spooners though.

We'll be 5th-8th, like last year. Theres no pressure on us because nobody expects anything. Pressure's all on teams like the Dockers who are "due".

Nah, 5th to 8th is being very optimistic.

The Dockers are starting to get thier act together and will be top 4, if not top 2 this year. Have terrific speed combined with a depth to cover for injuries and a number of young blokes with a couple of seasons under thier belt who are AFL ready. In Pavlich and Sandilands they have match winners.

Got my GF travel plans underway.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

It is not fact. It is 100% speculation. How on Earth do you know we have drafted well when not one of them or any other kid drafted in 2006 has ever kicked a ball at AFL level? As I said, some interesting bios but, as with all the clubs, nothing shown to validate optimism other than bios.

All of this flying off the handle for a typo? I meant to type "not only may we have drafted well".

Had Brown gone at 9 and Reid at 7 while we took whoever went at 7 and 9 would you have any different opinion? I very much doubt it. I know for a fact I wouldn’t.

You'd be very much placated, actually, as we would have drafted Joel Selwood and David Armitage, and that would have been a heavy investment into midfielders with our high picks, which seems to concern you greatly.

In drafting I am far more concerned about the quality than the type. If you load up with quality you should be able to plug holes with soldiers and/or trade to fill needs. The absolute prime objective should be quality players.

Anyway, for the millionth and final time I am not criticising who we drafted or they type of player. All I am saying is that at this point they provide no more cause for optimism than is the case at almost every club after what was described for the entire year as a superdraft.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the "type" is not being constrained to just KPPs, or midfielders, but is rather being expanded to a more quality-friendly category of "players with matchwinning potential", and they have been different players by position, but that particular trait is one that I would much rather gamble on.

For the millionth and final time, I am not actually disagreeing with anything you are saying Mark, I just have a different perspective on what we have done, and it is as though you won't quit until we all have a similarly glib view of our team's fortunes as you do.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Nah, 5th to 8th is being very optimistic.

The Dockers are starting to get thier act together and will be top 4, if not top 2 this year. Have terrific speed combined with a depth to cover for injuries and a number of young blokes with a couple of seasons under thier belt who are AFL ready. In Pavlich and Sandilands they have match winners.

Got my GF travel plans underway.

Oh I see, so the Dockers are going to improve with little to no reasoning given, while Collingwood are going to get dramatically worse with little to no reasoning given.

pendelbury and thomas have played half a season, hardly proved themselves. they have potential i agree but are not guaranteed to carry our midfield, egan really needs to improve, is a shocking decision maker. and blazes away far to often.

When did I say they had proven themselves? I said they had proven "something", and that something is that they aren't complete spuds, and it is not entirely unreasonable to assume they may be able to contribute something.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Got my GF travel plans underway.

I recommend shopping in Chapel St on the Saturday followed by the Penguin Parade at Phillip Island at night. That should take care of your tourist trip to Victoria on GF weekend.

 

[MarkT]

/...and it is as though you won't quit until we all have a similarly glib view of our team's fortunes as you do.

It's not about who thinks what. It is about premierships. When we win premierships I will be happy adn until then I won't be. All we are arguing about is whether Collingwood are doing enough to win premierships soon and I don't believe they are and nor do I believe the people there have the capacity to do that. I base that largely on the recent past but what else can you measure people or an organisations ability or capacity on?

 

[MarkT]

Got my GF travel plans underway.

You must be f’g kidding! The Dockers are the single most failure orientated club in the AFL and on the back of a finals win – the first might add – you are celebrating he dawning of an era? Lucky to be top 4 in 07 IMO and potential to drop right out of the finals. Soft club all ‘round.

 

[PLSC]

We have star potential already in our line-up, and we'll top that up in next years draft, having picked up plenty of talls this year. I dont know where the next superstar will come from, but you can win flags without a superstar in your midfield - like Sydney and Port Adelaide have done.

yeh and i just had a dream that adam goodes won 2 brownlows

dont fall for the 'sydney are a champion team" rubbish they have guns all over the place

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

yeh and i just had a dream that adam goodes won 2 brownlows

dont fall for the 'sydney are a champion team" rubbish they have guns all over the place

Exactly - Goodes has two Brownlows, Barry Hall is widely regarded as a Top 10 player in the competition, and Ryan O'Keefe and Brett Kirk have been All-Australians. Then you've got the average plodders like Jude Bolton, Michael O'Loughlin and Leo Barry...

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

It's not about who thinks what. It is about premierships. When we win premierships I will be happy adn until then I won't be. All we are arguing about is whether Collingwood are doing enough to win premierships soon and I don't believe they are and nor do I believe the people there have the capacity to do that. I base that largely on the recent past but what else can you measure people or an organisations ability or capacity on?

And I understand that - I'm just not sure exactly how we could have been doing more in the last year or two, other than picking up a ruckman.

We are clearly only halfway through the rebuilding process, so until that process is done, I'm not sure how we can actually get to a premiership quicker.

 

[MarkT]

And I understand that - I'm just not sure exactly how we could have been doing more in the last year or two, other than picking up a ruckman.

Well getting a ruckman would have been a good start. Recognising the midfield issues earlier and acting would have been good too. Culling duds earlier and recruiting a few decent players here and there would have been a plus.

Sacking people that have not performed would have been a great start going a bit deeper than the players. Some have gone now but they stayed a long time. A year ago we had the comprehensive review that excluded the coach (although that was denied at the AGM which contradicted numerous public statements from the president and CEO) which resulted in the SAS guy coming in to fix, among other things, performance measurement and accountability. Then this last post-season we had another review that resulted in the sacking of the SAS guy as well as, IMO, the guys that should have been sacked after the previous review if not some years before. When you have the wrong people and don’t deal with their failure you get what you ask for which is failure. This is part of what I was referring to when I mentioned the cultural issues at Collingwood. We don’t admit failure and we don’t act until it is too late. That is long running.

Leaving that aside, general list management is controlled by the coach when it is all said and done. We kept the coach. He is Eddie’s man. That concerns me greatly. Hine may be the golden boy and I hope like hell he is but that is just one aspect of list management and alone it is not enough to win premierships. Obviously it is just my opinion but keeping players like O’Bree and Lockyer is counter productive. The fact we rarely get a trade return for our players unless they are widely acknowledged quality is a concern but we should have been able to get a return on these two in particular even if it was just draft upgrades and opening list spots up to others.

I could go on but really what’s the point. You don’t agree and I’ve said it all before. I’ll just leave it this:

The results determine how well they people perform and this far the results are substandard IMO. Optimism for the future is a wonderful thing. Without it a club that has won one flag in nearly half a century wouldn’t exist.

 

[Johnson#26]

You must be f’g kidding! The Dockers are the single most failure orientated club in the AFL and on the back of a finals win – the first might add – you are celebrating he dawning of an era? Lucky to be top 4 in 07 IMO and potential to drop right out of the finals. Soft club all ‘round.

Interesting call, Mark. Seems unlikely, but recent history tells us that Richmond were big fallers in 1996 after a top four finish in 1995.

 

[MarkT]

Recent history tells us the Dockers are a substandard football club. The only proviso is that maybe Shaw and Harvey have made a difference but they still haven’t done anything more than tease their fans for their entire existence. Trading their first pick for Tarrant shows they clearly think now is the time. They have some talent but the heart is a big question. They are almost assured to make the finals by virtue of their home games but history says even that might not be enough.

I reckon Collingwood have failed but I don’t think Freo have been capable of getting into a position to fail from. I reckon a few clubs can give us some crap. Freo isn't one of them.

 

[Coin_Toss]

Well getting a ruckman would have been a good start. Recognising the midfield issues earlier and acting would have been good too. Culling duds earlier and recruiting a few decent players here and there would have been a plus.

How can you recruit a decent player? As you've said before but not in the same breath, (at the moment) Reid will be remembered as a top ten pick. Have we been in many 'golden' positions where we can dictate who we draft? A few years back Josh Fraser and Alan Didak were drafted to Collingwood - Dare I say they are stars, the reason for that is we were able to draft them with our priority picks. Looking back to 2005, Thomas and Pendlebury should be very good although there is a possibility that they mightn't go the journey. I am not afraid to blame the recruitment staff for making a few blunders in recent times but the thing is we are able to respond to those issues and address them for next time. Have we been able to do that successfully? Time will tell.

Sacking people that have not performed would have been a great start going a bit deeper than the players. Some have gone now but they stayed a long time. A year ago we had the comprehensive review that excluded the coach (although that was denied at the AGM which contradicted numerous public statements from the president and CEO) which resulted in the SAS guy coming in to fix, among other things, performance measurement and accountability. Then this last post-season we had another review that resulted in the sacking of the SAS guy as well as, IMO, the guys that should have been sacked after the previous review if not some years before. When you have the wrong people and don’t deal with their failure you get what you ask for which is failure. This is part of what I was referring to when I mentioned the cultural issues at Collingwood. We don’t admit failure and we don’t act until it is too late. That is long running.

To make matters worse he was on big money. Money down the drain.

Can someone explain why we chose Carey over Daicos? Daics would still be at the club on a minimum wage. He is supposed to be a Collingwood great, but no one seems to care not even Eddie.

Obviously it is just my opinion but keeping players like O’Bree and Lockyer is counter productive. The fact we rarely get a trade return for our players unless they are widely acknowledged quality is a concern but we should have been able to get a return on these two in particular even if it was just draft upgrades and opening list spots up to others.

O'Bree always gets a bad rap and I don't like it. As long as he's our best clearance player he will remain on the list, whether you like it or not, that's the way it goes.

I would have traded Lockyer when he had value - Now we won't get anything for him, perhaps a lousy 4th round pick.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

yeh and i just had a dream that adam goodes won 2 brownlows

He's a mobile tall player - a ruckman who doesnt ruck - not a ground level midfielder that I was referring to like a Judd or a Cousins. The Swans dont have one of them, neither do we. Sydney have, generally speaking, working class midfielders. Thats no insult, Sydney's an outstanding team.

We have actually drafted tall quick running players in 2007 in the hope of finding the next Goodes - a fact thats escaped a few on this board thinking that a midfielder has to be a midget.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Exactly - Goodes has two Brownlows, Barry Hall is widely regarded as a Top 10 player in the competition, and Ryan O'Keefe and Brett Kirk have been All-Australians. Then you've got the average plodders like Jude Bolton, Michael O'Loughlin and Leo Barry...

None of them genuine midfielders though like a with the exception of Kirk, who is no Buckley or Voss or Judd or Cousins. That was my point. They are a classy team, but not so much the midfield, who play tight and ugly.

 

[loki04]

None of them genuine midfielders though like a with the exception of Kirk, who is no Buckley or Voss or Judd or Cousins.

Luke Ablett is and he is also very underated the guy is a gun.

 

[Jabso]

I have not said we made drafting mistakes in 2007. I have previously said Dawes was a risk but who know if it will pay off. I have previously said we badly need mids and a ruckman and that we didn’t recruit much of either. I have not said we drafted duds, ordinary footballers or even that we pulled the wrong reign.

What I have said is that our list management overall has been very poor for a long time and that is a combination of who comes in via the draft and trades and who gets culled or traded out and when. I have also said that IMO many of Collingwood’s problems are cultural and as much as Eddie changed our culture for the better in many ways he did not change the football culture nearly enough and we still make the same mistakes we have made for decades. In some ways we need a more football experienced president but someone of that ilk with the wherewithal to run a club would be rare.

The assessment of our list management is not just an opinion of mine. This is very very clear and objective. It is shown categorically on the ladder and in the premiership win column. Whether we are drafting better remains to be seen. I agree the signs are positive but in reality Hine hasn’t produced a lot yet given the draft picks he has had. If Rusling does what I think he threatens to do, if Thomas and Pendlebury turn out to be guns and if a few of the latter picks from the last 2 years develop after 2 years at the club then we can say Hine is very good. Right now we have huge optimism simply not backed up by results and on the evidence of games played we do not have one of the better groups of kids as many on here seem to somehow think. Similarly to think our 2006 intake is any better than anyone else’s is just blind optimism. What we have is 1 more top 10 pick and that’s it. It might be a Pavlich it might be a Roach and the same goes for every clubs top 10 pick.

More games may provide evidence to the contrary but don’t bank the cheque before the funds are in the account. Meanwhile if the club assumed we haven’t succeeded until we have actually succeeded and got better at EVERY aspect of list management EVERY year then we might be a whole lot better off now rather than hoping for a better future which is absolutely dependant upon players we do not have on our list today and have shown little capacity to find and sign in the past. We are not Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and co. Essendon on the other hand would not particularly kill to be mid table right now. They are a shrewd organisation and they will try to win but they won slit their wrists if they collect another top 3 pick. We should not be comparing ourselves with the wrong end of the ladder. We should be comparing ourselves to WCE and the winners not the losers. We are not here to provide entertainment for others or community assistance for outlying Western suburbs. We are here to win premierships.

As for finishing mid table, it all depends on how and why. If we are propped up in the middle of the ladder by Buckley, Burns, Licuria, Clement and Wakelin then it is a minor disaster. If we are mid table with minimal input from these veterans and real impetus from the kids then it is a good result and shows a reduced need for the early picks that IMO we need to win a premiership in the next 5 years.

By 2007 draft I meant the next draft.
I agree with the bulk of that and by finishing mid-range and developing a few young players especially mids, like I said this would be an acceptable finish. Where we differ is that I think this is what we did in 2006, well not so much the midfield. If we can improve even more than we did last year I think we will be in great stead for the next 5 years. To achieve this it will be hard and we will have to improve more than last year to even sustain the strides we made last year, due to the fact that we had little injury troubles compared to the year before.