Analysis Are we over-rating our list?

[didaksrightfoot]

So I've been thinking of posting this for the last week, and wasn't sure whether it was relevant or not, or whether it was deserving of its own thread. But it has been dominating my thoughts about the club since the trade period ended and I couldn't think of any other thread to discuss this specific question.

I know we were a kick from winning the flag, and I still think that there were illegal holds on the 2 key marks that led to the eagles last goal (but can't blame the loss on that, because there was shit umpiring both ways all game), but the Eagles were the better team for the last 3 quarters, and our weaknesses over that period were obvious, and had been there most of the season. (And when it ultimately mattered they also beat us at what supposed to be our area of strength, in the midfield - and they did that in both finals).

But (AFL) history is not kind to teams that lose the GF. Since 1990, only the Eagles (twice) have gone from nothing, to a losing GF, to then winning one. Both Hawthorn and Geelong have rebounded from a losing GF, but on the back of a recent flag. Thats it. We have also seen that teams in each of the previous 2 GF's (including 1 winner) dropped out of the top 8 immediately.

Obviously we don't know contract or salary cap figures. And we don't know what kind of discussions have gone on behind the scenes between clubs that may have been rejected.
But Ned Guy made a comment at the trade deadline that was along the lines of "we were happy with our list that almost won a flag, and had to look at Beams when the option arose". Was that just said in retrospect because of how the period played out, or was it a true reflection of our approach to player movement?

It just seems to me that other than bringing in bargain depth player in Jordan Roughead, we have completely ignored our actual areas of weakness and made the whole focus of our a trade period targeting another midfielder - and gave up our 2019 first rounder in the process (a pick that could quite easily rise as high as pick 10-12).
And my take on other threads is that most people have viewed our player movement as highly positive, and anyone who criticises it is shot down.

Do people honestly think that we have made the right changes to take us to the next level?
Is our list really as good as our 2018 results showed?

 

[Baird]

The 2019 Collingwood team will be the best team fielded in its history.

7 players inside the top 50 in the league

We will have at least 5 all australians next year

 

[Bad Horse]

Yes.

But everyone overrates their own list.

 

[Jasper84]

So I've been thinking of posting this for the last week, and wasn't sure whether it was relevant or not, or whether it was deserving of its own thread. But it has been dominating my thoughts about the club since the trade period ended and I couldn't think of any other thread to discuss this specific question.

I know we were a kick from winning the flag, and I still think that there were illegal holds on the 2 key marks that led to the eagles last goal (but can't blame the loss on that, because there was shit umpiring both ways all game), but the Eagles were the better team for the last 3 quarters, and our weaknesses over that period were obvious, and had been there most of the season. (And when it ultimately mattered they also beat us at what supposed to be our area of strength, in the midfield - and they did that in both finals).

But (AFL) history is not kind to teams that lose the GF. Since 1990, only the Eagles (twice) have gone from nothing, to a losing GF, to then winning one. Both Hawthorn and Geelong have rebounded from a losing GF, but on the back of a recent flag. Thats it. We have also seen that teams in each of the previous 2 GF's (including 1 winner) dropped out of the top 8 immediately.

Obviously we don't know contract or salary cap figures. And we don't know what kind of discussions have gone on behind the scenes between clubs that may have been rejected.
But Ned Guy made a comment at the trade deadline that was along the lines of "we were happy with our list that almost one a flag, and had to look at Beams when the option arose". Was that just said in retrospect because of how the period played out, or was it a true reflection of our approach to player movement?

It just seems to me that other than bringing in bargain depth player in Jordan Roughead, we have completely ignored our actual areas of weakness and made the whole focus of our a trade period targeting another midfielder - and gave up our 2019 first rounder in the process (a pick that could quite easily rise as high as pick 10-12).
And my take on other threads is that most people have viewed our player movement as highly positive, and anyone who criticises it is shot down.

Do people honestly think that we have made the right changes to take us to the next level?
Is our list really as good as our 2018 results showed?

I think once Lynch was off the table and it became obvious that we didn't have the trade currency for May, the elite options weren't there to address our needs this year. So naturally the club decided to go the route of spruiking the existing list and hoping for natural progression. During the year I thought our ladder position inflated where our list was at. My opinion changed when we rolled the tigers in the prelim.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

According to Scodog10 everyone is overrating Flynn Appleby, despite the fact he's barely spoken about at all.

 

[jackcass]

Can you add "Other" to the poll? I think we could finish anywhere from 3-10. Competition will be even more even in 2019. Final 8 spots will be hard won.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I think once Lynch was off the table and it became obvious that we didn't have the trade currency for May, the elite options weren't there to address our needs this year. So naturally the club decided to go the route of spruiking the existing list and hoping for natural progression. During the year I thought our ladder position inflated where our list was at. My opinion changed when we rolled the tigers in the prelim.

I felt the same way, and beating GWS in the semi was the point I felt we really deserved our top 4 finish - but the prelim win was incredible.
---

But I'm not so sure about not having the currency for May. GC gave up May and KK for pick 6. (KK is not great, but also much more than just steak knives).
Now our two first rounders that we gave up in the Beams trade would not be valued as high as pick 6 - but it would've been a point to start from.
There was also the possibility of not chasing the Langdon contract offer from Sydney and looking at a trade there.
Again - don't know the contract figures here. If we barely had to change our original offer - then it's a great outcome to keep him. But if Sydney's offer was grossly overpaying him, and we got close to matching that - then the question needs to be asked - whether a better outcome would be a trade to Sydney for say pick 12 and a 2nd/3rd. (And could that be ontraded to GC be enough for May?). We also don't know what kind of contract May was looking for - was he just desperate to leave GC, or was he looking for Lynch type dollars? And we don't know what kind of money Beams is on - if he's taken a bargain contract, then that trade makes a lot more sense.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Can you add "Other" to the poll? I think we could finish anywhere from 3-10. Competition will be even more even in 2019. Final 8 spots will be hard won.

Done - but thats kind of my point.
I agree with your range - but think 5-8 is most likely.

 

[Maggie5]

I think we do and don't take time to consider the natural progression/trades by other teams when considering where we will finish.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Our midfield is going to overpower teams. With the new ruck rules, Grundy is going to be simply dominant. Name a midfield that has the firepower to go with our list?

Consider this, I rate our midfield: 1) Beams 2) Sidebottom 3) Pendles 4) Adams 5) Treloar 6) DeGoey. Many now rate the Bombers midfield as one of the best in the comp, but you could legitimately make the argument that Treloar, our 5th best midfielder, is better than their second best midfielder (Smith or Sheil, take your pick).

It's getting silly. We will walk into the 8.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Our midfield is going to overpower teams. With the new ruck rules, Grundy is going to be simply dominant. Name a midfield that has the firepower to go with our list?

Consider this, I rate our midfield: 1) Beams 2) Sidebottom 3) Pendles 4) Adams 5) Treloar 6) DeGoey. Many now rate the Bombers midfield as one of the best in the comp, but you could legitimately make the argument that Treloar, our 5th best midfielder, is better than their second best midfielder (Smith or Sheil, take your pick).

It's getting silly. We will walk into the 8.

 

[Hagla]

Our midfield is going to overpower teams. With the new ruck rules, Grundy is going to be simply dominant. Name a midfield that has the firepower to go with our list?

Consider this, I rate our midfield: 1) Beams 2) Sidebottom 3) Pendles 4) Adams 5) Treloar 6) DeGoey. Many now rate the Bombers midfield as one of the best in the comp, but you could legitimately make the argument that Treloar, our 5th best midfielder, is better than their second best midfielder (Smith or Sheil, take your pick).

It's getting silly. We will walk into the 8.

 

[gerryg400]

Our midfield is going to overpower teams. With the new ruck rules, Grundy is going to be simply dominant. Name a midfield that has the firepower to go with our list?

Consider this, I rate our midfield: 1) Beams 2) Sidebottom 3) Pendles 4) Adams 5) Treloar 6) DeGoey. Many now rate the Bombers midfield as one of the best in the comp, but you could legitimately make the argument that Treloar, our 5th best midfielder, is better than their second best midfielder (Smith or Sheil, take your pick).

It's getting silly. We will walk into the 8.

You can say that again.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I’d prefer poll
Top 4 end of home away as best call.

Do we over rate our list?
Sometimes.

Do we under rate our list?
Sometimes.

So much of it is, can the group perform week in week out overall to put themselves in a position to challenge?

The better players are key for me.

Grundy
Pendlebury
Sidebottom
Treloar
Beams
Wells (if healthy)
Elliott (if healthy)
De Goey
Howe

And maybe a few others keep on the rise in their performance:

Stephenson
Sier

The support network is also important on field like:

Adams
Crisp
Maynard
Langdon
Scharenberg (if healthy)
Dunn (when ready)
Varcoe
Phillips
Thomas
Hoskin-Elliott
Cox

Plus the emergence of ?

Murphy?
Other young ones
Daicos,
Brown x 2
Quaynor
Kelly

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Our midfield is going to overpower teams. With the new ruck rules, Grundy is going to be simply dominant. Name a midfield that has the firepower to go with our list?

Consider this, I rate our midfield: 1) Beams 2) Sidebottom 3) Pendles 4) Adams 5) Treloar 6) DeGoey. Many now rate the Bombers midfield as one of the best in the comp, but you could legitimately make the argument that Treloar, our 5th best midfielder, is better than their second best midfielder (Smith or Sheil, take your pick).

It's getting silly. We will walk into the 8.

Our mid stocks are stunning in depth and talent.

Think:

Grundy:

Pendlebury
De Goey
Sidebottom

Grundy:

Treloar
Beams
Adams

Grundy:

Wells
Sier
Greenwood

Supported even with:
Crisp or Maynard and a few other types if absolutely required.

 

[jonbe54]

Actually we on this board never need fear to overrate our players because there are always enough here to drag them down no matter how well they perform.

 

[mike123]

According to Scodog10 everyone is overrating Flynn Appleby, despite the fact he's barely spoken about at all.

Not everyone, just those who think he’s our best small defender.

 

[mike123]

This year showed we were underrating it if anything.

 

[CFC2010]

This year showed we were underrating it if anything.

Agreed

 

[Bored_Pie]

No.

 

[JB1975]

Our defence has been underrated, the effectiveness of our midfield overrated from time to time, and our forward line baffled everyone in 2018. In short, f*** knows where we're at. I opted for 'other', just because finishing out of the 8 feels just as possible as top 2.

My feeling is that we'll need to improve just to get back to top 4, and my hope is that Elliott and Moore will have themselves a decent year and add another element at both ends of the ground. We haven't snaffled a key position player, so the improvement of these sorts of players --along with Mason Cox, who'll need to take another step-- will need to improve the list more generally.

 

[The Dawes]

You can say that again.

Deja vu

 

[mike123]

Agreed

View attachment 578402

Our list still has weaknesses though.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Our defence has been underrated, the effectiveness of our midfield overrated from time to time, and our forward line baffled everyone in 2018. In short, f*** knows where we're at. I opted for 'other', just because finishing out of the 8 feels just as possible as top 2.

My feeling is that we'll need to improve just to get back to top 4, and my hope is that Elliott and Moore will have themselves a decent year and add another element at both ends of the ground. We haven't snaffled a key position player, so the improvement of these sorts of players --along with Mason Cox, who'll need to take another step-- will need to improve the list more generally.

I felt and did the same as you. Who knows how we will go next year. Several teams like Melbourne and Richmond have improved their list by adding big KPP names while we are still likely to have weaknesses in the tall man positions. The fitness of the likes of Moore, Elliott, Scharenburg, Dunn, Wells and so on will heavily influence our potential success. If we were to have a relatively injury free season it would be aberration and really we have no reason to believe next year will produce fewer bad injuries than other years.

There are 18 teams in the competition which increases our odds of making a GF. There is also our more difficult draw. So many variables are at play that I think it is extremely optimistic to nominate us for premiers as 43.5% have done in the poll. And I can't understand why one of the options wasn't 2-4. In any case, I selected 'other' because I have NFI where we will finish next year, and let's face it, nor does anyone else. It's all just a combination of guesswork and hope perhaps mixed with a touch of arrogance.

 

[CFC2010]

Our list still has weaknesses though.

Agreed again mike123.