Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - PART III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Landgraft

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Posts
4,412
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Geelong
But then if you explain we threw away 3 2nd rounders on Clark, HMac, Stanley the same people go "we were going for a flag it was the risk" Hmm preety high risk there. It could be said unrealistic.
21 for Stanley, 36 for Mcintosh. Varcoe was the fuel for the Clark trade.

You can say whatever you want but those picks are not the difference between any team having a great list or not. To get Stanley out of them is actually not the worst, plenty of second rounders go nowhere and get cut.

Ultimately you guys can wax lyrical about wanting Scott out but it's an argument that hinges on too many tenuous connections between otherwise unrelated things.

I will admit that I was ropeable after the QF, though. The bloody minded negativity of our football on that night sucked the life from the team that night imo. And Scott is often guilty of trying too hard to find the silver bullet to defeat other teams instead of focusing on putting together the best possible Geelong. These flaws still aren't bad enough in my eyes to get rid of him. But that comes down to how much risk you are comfortable with and the club is going to be more conservative because being able to deliver those H&A wins is the cornerstone of their business.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
21 for Stanley, 36 for Mcintosh. Varcoe was the fuel for the Clark trade.

You can say whatever you want but those picks are not the difference between any team having a great list or not. To get Stanley out of them is actually not the worst, plenty of second rounders go nowhere and get cut.

Ultimately you guys can wax lyrical about wanting Scott out but it's an argument that hinges on too many tenuous connections between otherwise unrelated things.

I will admit that I was ropeable after the QF, though. The bloody minded negativity of our football on that night sucked the life from the team that night imo. And Scott is often guilty of trying too hard to find the silver bullet to defeat other teams instead of focusing on putting together the best possible Geelong. These flaws still aren't bad enough in my eyes to get rid of him. But that comes down to how much risk you are comfortable with and the club is going to be more conservative because being able to deliver those H&A wins is the cornerstone of their business.
I never said I wanna get rid of him. I think he should stay till the end of his contract.
Just don't think he should be above criticism and I think some things need to change + also not everyone who is critical is a anti Scott or anti Geelong or feels entitled to flags.
Also 2nd round picks are the heart of any team. Just one of those picks work out and we are in a better place now than what we are.
 

Landgraft

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Posts
4,412
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Geelong
I never said I wanna get rid of him. I think he should stay till the end of his contract.
Just don't think he should be above criticism and I think some things need to change + also not everyone who is critical is a anti Scott or anti Geelong or feels entitled to flags.
Also 2nd round picks are the heart of any team. Just one of those picks work out and we are in a better place now than what we are.
Remembering of course that 'one of those' means one of two, including a p36 which is barely a second round.

Stanley is good enough for a p21. For all his failings he can still play at an AFL level in multiple positions, that is one of those picks working out.
 

Landgraft

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Posts
4,412
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Geelong
We overpaid for Stanley, Clark and McIntosh and accepted unders at the time for Christensen, Caddy and Varcoe.

Fact.
And yet Stanley has given us more than Christensen has Brisbane or p21 has the Saints.

McIntosh was still only a p36... not a rarified currency by any measure.

Caddy for Parfitt I'm content with, if a bit concerning at the time.

Varcoe for Clark the only significant loss. Even then hardly the end of the world.
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
Remembering of course that 'one of those' means one of two, including a p36 which is nearly a second round.

Stanley is good enough for a p21. For all his failings he can still play at an AFL level in multiple positions, that is one of those picks working out.
For me Stanley is a fail at pick 21. I wouldn't say he's a lock for best 22.
Didn't do much at the Saints but I can agree somewhat worth a gamble at 21.
Varcoe/Clark/ O'Brien(Labumba) was 2nd round value. All 3 teams said so at the time.
Mitch Clark is an Aaron Black type pick if you want to take that gamble.
36 ain't a terrible pick. I would of thought would be 50/50 chance of 100 games.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Posts
2,915
Likes
5,664
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Stockport County
For me Stanley is a fail at pick 21. I wouldn't say he's a lock for best 22.
Didn't do much at the Saints but I can agree somewhat worth a gamble at 21.
Varcoe/Clark/ O'Brien(Labumba) was 2nd round value. All 3 teams said so at the time.
Mitch Clark is an Aaron Black type pick if you want to take that gamble.
36 ain't a terrible pick. I would of thought would be 50/50 chance of 100 games.
Not according to these stats. It's an old article (2008, referencing even older data than that) but it does reinforce the 'lottery' that is the AFL draft, particularly after the first 10 or so places.


https://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/27/afl-draft-11-of-those-picked-will-never-play-a-game/

The facts, taken from AFL drafts between 1996 and 2004, are these:

  • 25% of Top-10 selections play 50 games or fewer. (Only 48% reach 100 games).
  • 48% of those picked after selection No.10 play 50 games or fewer.
  • 40% of those picked after selection No.10 play 25 games or fewer.
  • 11% of those picked after selection No.10 never get to take the field at all. Mark them down for 0 games.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/27/afl-draft-11-of-those-picked-will-never-play-a-game/


If only 48% of top 10 selections in this sample reached 100 games, the percentage likelihood for a player taken late in the second round must have been significantly lower again.

As I recall, Lana has far better info than this relatively ancient data. But it still underlines the point that a player taken at #36 is no great certainty to be much of a stayer at the top level at all.

Still, before I'm cast as a mindless defender of that particular list management decision (on the basis that pick 36 "wasn't worth that much"), it actually proved to be quite a shocker. I was interested in acquiring HMac at the time but it definitely ended up being a very unwise choice indeed.

Same goes for Clark, of course. Who I also thought was just about worth the gamble at the time.

And just like I'm doing here, I think the club would now admit they got those two list choices pretty horribly wrong.
 
Last edited:

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 12, 2002
Posts
35,393
Likes
37,283
AFL Club
Geelong
For me Stanley is a fail at pick 21. I wouldn't say he's a lock for best 22.
Didn't do much at the Saints but I can agree somewhat worth a gamble at 21.
Varcoe/Clark/ O'Brien(Labumba) was 2nd round value. All 3 teams said so at the time.
Mitch Clark is an Aaron Black type pick if you want to take that gamble.
36 ain't a terrible pick. I would of thought would be 50/50 chance of 100 games.
Considering we somehow managed to find Ling, Enright, Milburn, Stokes, and Egan after pick 36 it shouldn't be dismissed.

If pick 36 is nothing to get excited about you wouldn't have high expectations at all of picks in the 50s or beyond. Yet somehow McCarthy (pick 66) is talked up like he's a key component and his absence was critical to our chances.
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
Not according to these stats. It's an old article (2008, referencing even older data than that) but it does reinforce the 'lottery' that is the AFL draft, particularly after the first 10 or so places.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/27/afl-draft-11-of-those-picked-will-never-play-a-game/




https://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/27/afl-draft-11-of-those-picked-will-never-play-a-game/


If only 48% of top 10 selections in this sample reached 100 games, the percentage likelihood for a player taken late in the second round must have been significantly lower again.

As I recall, Lana has far better info than this relatively ancient data. But it still underlines the point that a player taken at #36 is no great certainty to be much of a stayer at the top level at all.

Still, before I'm cast as a mindless defender of that particular list management decision (on the basis that pick 36 "wasn't worth that much"), it actually proved to be quite a shocker. I was interested in acquiring HMac at the time but it definitely ended up being a very unwise choice indeed.

Same goes for Clark, of course. Who I also thought was just about worth the gamble at the time.

And just like I'm doing here, I think the club would now admit they got those two list choices pretty horribly wrong.
Fairy nuts. I would've thought higher % than that
 

Landgraft

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Posts
4,412
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Geelong
Considering we somehow managed to find Ling, Enright, Milburn, Stokes, and Egan after pick 36 it shouldn't be dismissed.

If pick 36 is nothing to get excited about you wouldn't have high expectations at all of picks in the 50s or beyond. Yet somehow McCarthy (pick 66) is talked up like he's a key component and his absence was critical to our chances.
There's nothing wrong with lateish draft picks, they just aren't very different from other late draft picks.

Of course you can find good players, but you can also not. 36 isn't a huge price to pay - if we traded a player out and only received 36 I doubt there'd be much rejoicing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
There's nothing wrong with lateish draft picks, they just aren't very different from other late draft picks.

Of course you can find good players, but you can also not. 36 isn't a huge price to pay - if we traded a player out and only received 36 I doubt there'd be much rejoicing.
Positive is though draft picks don't cost 300k+ a year.
 

Landgraft

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Posts
4,412
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Geelong
Positive is though draft picks don't cost 300k+ a year.
I think we were pretty clear in terms of salary cap, don't remember anyone getting squeezed out at the time...

Either way if your knock on a trades risk is the average footballing wage then I'm not sure what you want. Maybe more Aaron Blacks?
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
I think we were pretty clear in terms of salary cap, don't remember anyone getting squeezed out at the time...

Either way if your knock on a trades risk is the average footballing wage then I'm not sure what you want. Maybe more Aaron Blacks?
No it's not like that. Just saying drafting vs recruiting.
If you recruit someone who's a high risk of playing not many games you're paying out that wage for 2+ years.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,559
Likes
94,290
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
Considering we somehow managed to find Ling, Enright, Milburn, Stokes, and Egan after pick 36 it shouldn't be dismissed.

If pick 36 is nothing to get excited about you wouldn't have high expectations at all of picks in the 50s or beyond. Yet somehow McCarthy (pick 66) is talked up like he's a key component and his absence was critical to our chances.
Look at the age of the data set you’re referencing. Recruiting departments are better resourced now.

Now you’re being silly and exaggerating. McCarthy per se isn’t critical but the role he plays is, a role where we keep getting injuries.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,559
Likes
94,290
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
If they're better resourced how come they don't seem to be able to find as many quality players then?
Could be a myriad of factors. Draft pool strengths vary from year to year. 2003 is vastly weaker than 2001. So much so that you’d probably say a few 2nd round draftees from 2001 could have been top 5 in 2003. I meant look at the players you referenced as proof of later round success. That’s an old data set of players to pick from, hardly relevant in 2017.

I meant more resources in that Wells’ strength was finding gems in later rounds more so that top 10 guns. Now clubs research draftees more thoroughly so he finds less gems now. Clubs are well versed in what players in later rounds can offer. It does vary from year to year however as draft strengths vary.
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
Could be a myriad of factors. Draft pool strengths vary from year to year. 2003 is vastly weaker than 2001. So much so that you’d probably say a few 2nd round draftees from 2001 could have been top 5 in 2003. I meant look at the players you referenced as proof of later round success. That’s an old data set of players to pick from, hardly relevant in 2017.

I meant more resources in that Wells’ strength was finding gems in later rounds more so that top 10 guns. Now clubs research draftees more thoroughly so he finds less gems now. Clubs are well versed in what players in later rounds can offer. It does vary from year to year however as draft strengths vary.
I hear what your saying and don't doubt it's true but there is plenty to be found and I don't think 2nd rounders are anything to dismiss.
Tigers 2017:
3rd Rounders: Astbury, Graham
4th or worse: Butler Broad Castagna Lambert Grimes Houli
Bulldogs 2016:
3rd round: Wood Dickson Hunter Daniel
4th or worse: Cordy, Dahlhouse, JJ!!, Picken, Boyd Morris Roberts Campbell

Hitting those picks is just as important as ever. Now with FA and at least clubs having at least 2 or 3 total guns there actually more important than ever.
Bit of a disadvantage gambling decent picks on extremely injury prone players.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,559
Likes
94,290
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
I hear what your saying and don't doubt it's true but there is plenty to be found and I don't think 2nd rounders are anything to dismiss.
Tigers 2017:
3rd Rounders: Astbury, Graham
4th or worse: Butler Broad Castagna Lambert Grimes Houli
Bulldogs 2016:
3rd round: Wood Dickson Hunter Daniel
4th or worse: Cordy, Dahlhouse, JJ!!, Picken, Boyd Morris Roberts Campbell

Hitting those picks is just as important as ever. Now with FA and at least clubs having at least 2 or 3 total guns there actually more important than ever.
Bit of a disadvantage gambling decent picks on extremely injury prone players.
We’re speaking across purposes. I’m not claiming there’s no quality later in drafts.
I’m saying it’s no longer Wells’ competitive advantage as other clubs have become more professional. Our recruiter finds less gems as a result.

Newsflash though. Like every other club you win some and lose some at the trade table. Just like drafting. Trading for Clark proved to be a miss but trading a greedy Mumford netted us Duncan so we’ve had hits too.
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
We’re speaking across purposes. I’m not claiming there’s no quality later in drafts.
I’m saying it’s no longer Wells’ competitive advantage as other clubs have become more professional. Our recruiter finds less gems as a result.

Newsflash though. Like every other club you win some and lose some at the trade table. Just like drafting. Trading for Clark proved to be a miss but trading a greedy Mumford netted us Duncan so we’ve had hits too.
Yep you win some you lose some.
Just an opinion from me but I think it shows how important list spots are.
You throw away spots and take up spots with constantly injured players everyone one of those spots is one less chance of finding the next JJ or Dahlhaus etc etc etc
Get Aaron Black, yeah he's free and a nothing pick. But what are the chances he's going to make it AFL? 5%? Why do it? It's throwing away a spot.
Mitch Clark 2%?
Cowan and McCarthy on the list for 5 years? GHS?
Yet we don't offer players like Hamling , Ruggles & Lang a contract and we complain we have no depth.
No club except Collingwood has been wasting spots like us.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,559
Likes
94,290
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
Yep you win some you lose some.
Just an opinion from me but I think it shows how important list spots are.
You throw away spots and take up spots with constantly injured players everyone one of those spots is one less chance of finding the next JJ or Dahlhaus etc etc etc
Get Aaron Black, yeah he's free and a nothing pick. But what are the chances he's going to make it AFL? 5%? Why do it? It's throwing away a spot.
Mitch Clark 2%?
Cowan and McCarthy on the list for 5 years? GHS?
Yet we don't offer players like Hamling and Ruggles a contract and we complain we have no depth.
No club except Collingwood has been wasting spots like us.
Well Partridge will give this a like no doubt ;)
I don’t complain we have no depth, that’s the contradictory Scott out crowd*

I’ve accepted and come to terms with our depth being similar to most sides in the comp. most sides in the comp fall away after about 28-30 players. We are no different.

You’re quoting Black and Clark as list spots so crucial we shouldn’t have bothered. History will show that picks after 10-15 are very low reward for KPP players. You don’t often get a good key forward after 20 so I’d rather we take them for depth as opposed to some stringbean forward who won’t make it. SavRat and Buzza are two that could very well fit into this category.

McCarthy has been fortunate he’s in a spot of need. Gets injured in 2018 and there won’t be a 2019, but I support his retention up til now. Hamling has a problem with us, a problem that Bobby funnily enough didn’t see either.

You see Bobby moaned about Kolo not getting games back in 2014-15 and that he’d walk out (he hasn’t), but you see if we kept Hamling by offering him a deal and cutting Lonergan for game time in 2015 then we’ve lost Lonners who even in his twilight was better than Hamling ever will be. Keep Hamling and Lonergan and then one of Hamling or Kolo rots in the two’s. Based on form at the time it’d have been Hamling.

Taylor, Lonergan, Henderson, Hamling, Kolodjashnij is too many KPD for senior team spots. Someone’s going to miss out there. Hamling was smart and realised there were limited opportunities here and left, best of luck to him. He’s the 5th best in that group btw. Same is now applying to Gardner. Glad Lonergan leaving can now see him get a chance. Same has happened to Ruggles, there’s too much competition in small defence and Zuthrie moving past him sealed his fate, unfortunately.


* the contradiction is that some in the Scott out crowd constantly say we aren’t good enough, don’t have enough talent, have holes in the list. Essentially painting our problems as being personnel yet Scott is underachieving for getting that supposedly shit list into finals and top 4. We can’t simultaneously have an atrocious list and a coach worthy of being stoned to death.
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,948
Likes
14,055
AFL Club
Geelong
Well Partridge will give this a like no doubt ;)
I don’t complain we have no depth, that’s the contradictory Scott out crowd*

I’ve accepted and come to terms with our depth being similar to most sides in the comp. most sides in the comp fall away after about 28-30 players. We are no different.

You’re quoting Black and Clark as list spots so crucial we shouldn’t have bothered. History will show that picks after 10-15 are very low reward for KPP players. You don’t often get a good key forward after 20 so I’d rather we take them for depth as opposed to some stringbean forward who won’t make it. SavRat and Buzza are two that could very well fit into this category.

McCarthy has been fortunate he’s in a spot of need. Gets injured in 2018 and there won’t be a 2019, but I support his retention up til now. Hamling has a problem with us, a problem that Bobby funnily enough didn’t see either.

You see Bobby moaned about Kolo not getting games back in 2014-15 and that he’d walk out (he hasn’t), but you see if we kept Hamling by offering him a deal and cutting Lonergan for game time in 2015 then we’ve lost Lonners who even in his twilight was better than Hamling ever will be. Keep Hamling and Lonergan and then one of Hamling or Kolo rots in the two’s. Based on form at the time it’d have been Hamling.

Taylor, Lonergan, Henderson, Hamling, Kolodjashnij is too many KPD for senior team spots. Someone’s going to miss out there. Hamling was smart and realised there were limited opportunities here and left, best of luck to him. He’s the 5th best in that group btw. Same is now applying to Gardner. Glad Lonergan leaving can now see him get a chance. Same has happened to Ruggles, there’s too much competition in small defence and Zuthrie moving past him sealed his fate, unfortunately.


* the contradiction is that some in the Scott out crowd constantly say we aren’t good enough, don’t have enough talent, have holes in the list. Essentially painting our problems as being personnel yet Scott is underachieving for getting that supposedly shit list into finals and top 4. We can’t simultaneously have an atrocious list and a coach worthy of being stoned to death.
I disagree with your first part. Don't know where you come up with the opinion that most sides are similar in depth.
After 28-30 for a good 5 years we've had players who literally can't play or have 0 chance of making it. More so than other teams.
Remember in 2015 we copped injuries and Luxford got a couple of games. Even Bates got one. Ahead of GHS BTW who we offeeed a 3 year contract to that year.
Fast forward to 2017 and Murdoch is still getting a pretty regular gig in our team.
Any other team in the whole league have to play someone as raw as O,Connor.
With your last part simples. Play players on form and merit and it works itself out.
If we take names and picks out of it maybe Hamling gets a gig in front of Kolo.
And we figure out he's the better player instead of other clubs doing it for us.
That Scott contradiction works both ways BTW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom