List Mgmt. Geelong’s looming list profile crisis (it’s not what you think)

[jezza1435]

So what can you expect from here?

Probably zero success and scarce finals victories

 

[Seeds]

Probably zero success and scarce finals victories

So like the last 8 years just without the embarrassment,

 

[Down at K Park]

So like the last 8 years just without the embarrassment,

Haha. Gold.

 

[thecatattack]

thats just plain delusion. We have very few quality young players. Only 3 under the age of 25 in the port final and two of them have a large amount of supporters shouting out for them to be dropped. This season has been a disaster for our youths development. Players who were expected to be locks (clarke, narkle, sav) arent getting games. A number of them are threatening to leave.

Just because a player isn't playing 22 games from the get-go, doesn't mean they're not talented. Bartel, Chapman, Ling, Mooney, Scarlett all weren't regulars in their first 2-3 seasons.

Clark isn't even 20 yet, Sav is 22, Narkle is younger than 23. You're expecting kids to be locks already?

 

[jezza1435]

So like the last 8 years just without the embarrassment,

How is that not embarrassing?

 

[Hamingja]

Take out 6 best 22 over 30s next season and we can throw 6 first round picks taken in the last 24 months into the mix to replace them. At least we're in a better position than the Hawks

We need those first round picks to have 50 games into them at that stage. That is what we were doing under Bomber and in the early Scott days. If we are playing Steven, Higgins etc then that isn't happening now. That's the big problem with recruiting the old players, not what we physically give up for them. It is fine to say that we are still drafting kids but if they can't get a go at it and they leave before we know whether they can play or not, it is pointless drafting them in the first place.

 

[catempire]

We need those first round picks to have 50 games into them at that stage. That is what we were doing under Bomber and in the early Scott days. If we are playing Steven, Higgins etc then that isn't happening now. That's the big problem with recruiting the old players, not what we physically give up for them. It is fine to say that we are still drafting kids but if they can't get a go at it and they leave before we know whether they can play or not, it is pointless drafting them in the first place.

What you say is fine in theory but we haven’t lost any kids through lack of opportunity. Virtually all of the fringe players that have moved on have crashed and burned, demonstrating that they weren’t up to it anyway.

 

[My Tilly]

I reckon Collingwood have recruited well.
They have gone one step further than what we have during the Dangerfield era and have now created a nucleus that will compete well beyond next year.
They won't ever replace Pendlebury but their best players are all around the 24-28 yr old age bracket.

Their side this coming weekend will likely have just two players with over 200 games experience vs. Geelong's upward of six! (seven if we make no changes)

 

[Hamingja]

What you say is fine in theory but we haven’t lost any kids through lack of opportunity. Virtually all of the fringe players that have moved on have crashed and burned, demonstrating that they weren’t up to it anyway.

Most of them were already exposed though. Murdoch (108), GHS (51), Thurlow (46), Lang (44), Smedts (38) etc. Weighed and measured before we released them.

Potentially shapes a bit different this year when you have Narkle (17), Constable (9), Fogarty (23) and Clark (21) being talked about in the media as itching to move.

 

[Hamingja]

I reckon Collingwood have recruited well.
They have gone one step further than what we have during the Dangerfield era and have now created a nucleus that will compete well beyond next year.
They won't ever replace Pendlebury but their best players are all around the 24-28 yr old age bracket.

Their side this coming weekend will likely have just two players with over 200 games experience vs. Geelong's upward of six! (seven if we make no changes)

Collingwood have but they missed the eight for a few years and picked up Treloar, De Goey, Stephenson plus had a great run on the father son / NGA train with Moore, Daicos and Quaynor. That is where we need to take a step back and pick up some top 10 talent to be able to take a step forward.

 

[catempire]

Potentially shapes a bit different this year when you have Narkle (17), Constable (9), Fogarty (23) and Clark (21) being talked about in the media as itching to move.

Let’s see how that plays out.

 

[caitsith01]

Potentially shapes a bit different this year when you have Narkle (17), Constable (9), Fogarty (23) and Clark (21) being talked about in the media as itching to move.

If all four of those want out then my biggest concern is that we have an environment where good younger players don't want to stick around to be part of the future. Which presumably means that the club/coaches are failing to make them feel like there's a positive future to be a part of.

 

[redmond_herring]

I am vexed as to whether the club truly believes a flag is possible with 1-2 older stop gaps such as Goldstein/Higgins.

I can't say I share that enthusiasm, given Gaz/HT will be leaving - bringing in older types would only serve to keep 'status quo'

We are a disciplined and methodical team with loads of experience and some ageing superstars.

We lack grunt, aggression, X-Factor, pace and field kicking.

Coaching style covers the grunt/aggression, but realistically only top line draft picks can get us closer to top line kids with exceptional skills/pace etc.

3rd rounders, smokeys, and last chance saloon types are our entire team (minus the obvious ageing stars).

 

[Cataholic]

Most of them were already exposed though. Murdoch (108), GHS (51), Thurlow (46), Lang (44), Smedts (38) etc. Weighed and measured before we released them.

Potentially shapes a bit different this year when you have Narkle (17), Constable (9), Fogarty (23) and Clark (21) being talked about in the media as itching to move.

Not being of a dour, defensive mindset seems to incur a black mark pretty quick.

 

[BORIS332]

I am vexed as to whether the club truly believes a flag is possible with 1-2 older stop gaps such as Goldstein/Higgins.

I can't say I share that enthusiasm, given Gaz/HT will be leaving - bringing in older types would only serve to keep 'status quo'

We are a disciplined and methodical team with loads of experience and some ageing superstars.

We lack grunt, aggression, X-Factor, pace and field kicking.

Coaching style covers the grunt/aggression, but realistically only top line draft picks can get us closer to top line kids with exceptional skills/pace etc.

3rd rounders, smokeys, and last chance saloon types are our entire team (minus the obvious ageing stars).

We don't lack pace.

 

[ATSAM]

We don't lack pace.

Pace is not the issue, we never had that much. What we had was moving the ball quickly with running players to take it.

 

[Cataholic]

We don't lack pace.

By foot you mean?

 

[Cataholic]

Pace is not the issue, we never had that much. What we had was moving the ball quickly with running players to take it.

Going back from the mark and hesitating, looking backwards, feinting a move forward then kicking it sideways stifles the 'running player'.

 

[Down at K Park]

Going back from the mark and hesitating, looking backwards, feinting a move forward then kicking it sideways stifles the 'running player'.

Scott has driven attacking play out of our players. It’s defence first, attack 17th.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

We need those first round picks to have 50 games into them at that stage. That is what we were doing under Bomber and in the early Scott days. If we are playing Steven, Higgins etc then that isn't happening now. That's the big problem with recruiting the old players, not what we physically give up for them. It is fine to say that we are still drafting kids but if they can't get a go at it and they leave before we know whether they can play or not, it is pointless drafting them in the first place.

Depends on their role and your expectations. We've had plenty of kids come straight in and play a role as long a we retain structure around them.

The key is picking the spine that stays and surplus that leaves.

 

[MacStradbroke]

Just because a player isn't playing 22 games from the get-go, doesn't mean they're not talented. Bartel, Chapman, Ling, Mooney, Scarlett all weren't regulars in their first 2-3 seasons.

Clark isn't even 20 yet, Sav is 22, Narkle is younger than 23. You're expecting kids to be locks already?

Don’t forget Gary Ablett. Geelong didn’t make the finals in 2002 yet all of Ablett, Bartel, Johnson and Kelly played enough games in the twos to qualify for the VFL finals. If some of the posters on here had their way they should’ve shipped em off, not up to it.

 

[you pick one]

Going back from the mark and hesitating, looking backwards, feinting a move forward then kicking it sideways stifles the 'running player'.

Must be tough for instinctive attacking kids who get drafted on their running game to turn up to preseason training to be told that's not what we do here, there will be no more of that,here's what happens from now on now go away and work on it while we get some has beens from other clubs up and going .

 

[Whit3y]

Don’t forget Gary Ablett. Geelong didn’t make the finals in 2002 yet all of Ablett, Bartel, Johnson and Kelly played enough games in the twos to qualify for the VFL finals. If some of the posters on here had their way they should’ve shipped em off, not up to it.

How old were all of these players in 2002? Surely they would not even be 20 yet.

 

[BORIS332]

Scott has driven attacking play out of our players. It’s defence first, attack 17th.

Is that how we finished #1 for points for?

 

[BORIS332]

How old were all of these players in 2002? Surely they would not even be 20 yet.

They were all 18 and 19 in 2002. But the point remains, this is the age that each player first played all 22 games of a season:

Johnson: 25yrs
Bartel: 22yrs
Ablett: 19yrs
Kelly: 21yrs