Review Geelong at the 2014 AFL National Draft - general overview and discussion

[DanA]

At this stage:
Rivers is signed to the end of 2015
Lonergan is signed to the end of 2016
Taylor is signed to the end of 2018

Considering Lonergan and Rivers were only a month or two ago that suggest Lonergan has every intention of playing two more years while Rivers is perhaps closer to retirement or playing it by ear. I'm more worried about replacing Simpson and McIntosh to be honest.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

At this stage:
Rivers is signed to the end of 2015
Lonergan is signed to the end of 2016
Taylor is signed to the end of 2018

Considering Lonergan and Rivers were only a month or two ago that suggest Lonergan has every intention of playing two more years while Rivers is perhaps closer to retirement or playing it by ear. I'm more worried about replacing Simpson and McIntosh to be honest.

I don't really think they need to be replaced. I don't think bringing in more players who spend most of their time in the rehab room is a good move going forward. I think we should focus more on finding a replacement for Ottens.

 

[flatcat]

Don't forget that Judd was a Weagle before he went Blue.

I like your summary of the various positions and recruiting to fill them. I hadn't looked at things that way before.

I'm hoping that a fair few more talls drop out of the GWS tree when it gets a shake at the end of 2015- there might be a talented young KPD or future 1st ruck hiding in the branches.

I think that's a really good point re gws. Part of their strategy re rejuvenating the backline could involve trying to poach a gws or gc player who is lacking opportunities. Given the resources spent on recruiting these days, it would seem sensible to keep an eye on a few guys. Good kpd can come from various sources. Who would have foreseen how well Lonergan would have become when he was a young forward.

 

[flatcat]

My rules for drafting success in the current age:

1- Only take talls or rucks in in the first 8 picks, father son or as rookie selections.

2- Trade to get 3 picks inside 35 every year, or 9 over a three year cycle. Be aggressive in seeking early second round picks, I think this is the new sweet spot for us.

3- Limit picks from over 45 to one per year and use this mostly for mature age picks. The market is efficient, there is not much around this mark these days.

4- Select mostly from AFL Academy programs with your early picks. I now favour these elite program kids over the smokies. The AFL does a good job of picking them out these days.

I'd query the ruck rule. Picks like kruezer and luenberger have turned out bad because of injury. Even ottens had issues early on. Perhaps this is a reflection of the hard physical demands of the position. Plus there's the weight you have to carry around. It's probably hard to be able to tell if an underdeveloped 17 year old will be able to stand up to the rigors. By 22 things are more clear. Then there's the cases of Jeff white and Fraser. Not bad players but definitely not worth a too 5 pick. I think this is why rucks have been falling in the draft in recent years. The market adjusts to the data.

 

[bulletproof]

I'd query the ruck rule. Picks like kruezer and luenberger have turned out bad because of injury. Even ottens had issues early on. Perhaps this is a reflection of the hard physical demands of the position. Plus there's the weight you have to carry around. It's probably hard to be able to tell if an underdeveloped 17 year old will be able to stand up to the rigors. By 22 things are more clear. Then there's the cases of Jeff white and Fraser. Not bad players but definitely not worth a too 5 pick. I think this is why rucks have been falling in the draft in recent years. The market adjusts to the data.

My original post was not worded very well, meant if you do take them in the first round it has to be very early. Occasionally a nicnat comes along but this is very rare. I prefer mids with early picks.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

At this stage:
Rivers is signed to the end of 2015
Lonergan is signed to the end of 2016
Taylor is signed to the end of 2018

Considering Lonergan and Rivers were only a month or two ago that suggest Lonergan has every intention of playing two more years while Rivers is perhaps closer to retirement or playing it by ear. I'm more worried about replacing Simpson and McIntosh to be honest.

Yep, and the thing with this is - do we really need to replace all 3 of Lonergan, Rivers and Taylor? We have become so accustomed to playing 3 tall defenders (plus Mackie, who isn't short) that I think we can sometimes just take it for granted that we need 3. But how many other clubs play so many tall defenders? There were quite a few times last year that I thought our defense was too tall, and it was the opposition small forwards that caused me the most headaches.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Think we've done so well the last couple of years for the picks we've had. Lang I think would've gone top ten last year if he wasn't injured, Jansen seems like he could be an A grade midfielder and this year I think Cockatoo would've been top 5 easy if not for injury and I'm surprised Gregson wasn't picked earlier.
I think it's a smart strategy getting quality midfielders out of the draft and getting ready made talls through FA and trade right now for us.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

Scott on our drafting.

http://www.krockfootball.com.au/cockatoo-risk-scott/

Scott says the acquisition of big men Mitch Clark and Rhys Stanley during the trade period dictated the Cats’ strategy on Thursday night.

““It made it easier for us to pick based on, I wouldn’t say quality of player, (but) have flexibility of choices, rather than be forced to take a taller player.

“That was part of the plan, to an extent. I think, to bring two 200cm players in through the trade period, and then four hard-running, quick midfielders in the through draft, is a pretty good mix.

“(We) certainly filled some positional needs that were a little bit of a risk for us, and, over the medium term, we think the players we’ve brought in have the potential to improve us.

“The whole world understands, I think, we’ve got some really high quality midfielders that are going to finish off over the next period of time, so adding the four midfielders all in one go, we think, gives us a little more depth there.”

 

[Partridge]

I think that's a really good point re gws. Part of their strategy re rejuvenating the backline could involve trying to poach a gws or gc player who is lacking opportunities. Given the resources spent on recruiting these days, it would seem sensible to keep an eye on a few guys. Good kpd can come from various sources. Who would have foreseen how well Lonergan would have become when he was a young forward.

None of us certainly. But even though that was just over a decade ago, it was a different universe.

Clubs had patience then.

 

[DanA]

None of us certainly. But even though that was just over a decade ago, it was a different universe.

Clubs had patience then.

I'm not sure I'd classify what GWS and Goldcoast have done as impatient. In fact I'd say very few clubs are impatient these days, they all seem to take a long term approach.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Think we've done so well the last couple of years for the picks we've had. Lang I think would've gone top ten last year if he wasn't injured, Jansen seems like he could be an A grade midfielder and this year I think Cockatoo would've been top 5 easy if not for injury and I'm surprised Gregson wasn't picked earlier.
I think it's a smart strategy getting quality midfielders out of the draft and getting ready made talls through FA and trade right now for us.

I've been saying this for quite some time. It is clearly a strategy of ours to recruit talls through FA/ trades and smalls/mediums through the draft. For a team that is trying to stay at or near the top of the ladder whilst transitioning their list it makes perfect sense. Bigger guys take longer to develop whilst smaller guys will develop quicker and are more predictable in estimating how they will develop in future years.

I like what the club is doing and think that in recruiting terms we are doing a great job in keeping our list competitive enough to compete in the short term whilst also keeping an eye on the long term future of our club.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Sorry mate.... He isn't that good.... wait till he plays vs men.... then his strength won't be the big factor it was this year...
But good luck to him...


Mmmm... or a massive coup..... glass half empty??

Really? Of course an 18 year old is not going to be as strong as most 25 year olds who've been in the system for years! Do you think that Saints' supporters are expecting Goddard to tackle all of the gorillas in his first year, and come out on top? If they do, they're as equally in line for a dose of perspective as you are. When Goddard is 25, your Buddy Franklins, Travis Clokes, Tom Hawkins etc. will be on their last legs, if not already retired! Goddard will be in his prime and, all things being equal, will be dominating or at worst breaking even with the competition's best forwards.

Had we drafted him, he'd b e playing in the VFL for most if not all of his first year. We wouldn't really be needing and/or expecting him to come on until he hit his third year. From there, his development would really start. I for one think that trading pick #21 to the saints was a bad move, much more so in hindsight, given that we could have drafted Goddard. I hope that Stanley proves me wrong (or conversely Goddard turns out to be a dud) and we're able to nab a big defender through free agency in the not too distant future.

 

[year of the cat]

Really? Of course an 18 year old is not going to be as strong as most 25 year olds who've been in the system for years! Do you think that Saints' supporters are expecting Goddard to tackle all of the gorillas in his first year, and come out on top? If they do, they're as equally in line for a dose of perspective as you are. When Goddard is 25, your Buddy Franklins, Travis Clokes, Tom Hawkins etc. will be on their last legs, if not already retired! Goddard will be in his prime and, all things being equal, will be dominating or at worst breaking even with the competition's best forwards.

Had we drafted him, he'd b e playing in the VFL for most if not all of his first year. We wouldn't really be needing and/or expecting him to come on until he hit his third year. From there, his development would really start. I for one think that trading pick #21 to the saints was a bad move, much more so in hindsight, given that we could have drafted Goddard. I hope that Stanley proves me wrong (or conversely Goddard turns out to be a dud) and we're able to nab a big defender through free agency in the not too distant future.

It will be interesting to see whether we take a KPD in the rookie draft. There are still quite a number of potential candidates.

Wells did state that he was happy to take a KP player in the ND, it was just that his ratings saw the midfielders preferred when it came to one our pick.

The trading of pick 21 for Stanley still appears odd to me as well. I only assume that both Simpson and McIntosh have huge doubts over their ability to play significant roles next year. Stanley was seen as a reasonable option with his versatility to play ruck or KP. I hope I'm wrong but the guy has rarely done much warrant the trading of a pretty good pick. Obviously in hindsight it looks even worse with the knowledge we could have picked up Goddard or even Blakeley as an inside mid which a few of us liked (though the drafting of Gore had tempered that a little).

Time will tell whether this list management decision has been inspired or not. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. But we have had a few list management clangers in recent times - the early renewal of Kelly's contract I think was silly, the trading for McIntosh at this stage has been a failure, and I think the MC not giving senior games to both Thurlow and Bews last year was flawed as well.

 

[Partridge]

The trading of pick 21 for Stanley still appears odd to me as well. I only assume that both Simpson and McIntosh have huge doubts over their ability to play significant roles next year. Stanley was seen as a reasonable option with his versatility to play ruck or KP. I hope I'm wrong but the guy has rarely done much warrant the trading of a pretty good pick. Obviously in hindsight it looks even worse with the knowledge we could have picked up Goddard or even Blakeley as an inside mid which a few of us liked (though the drafting of Gore had tempered that a little).

Which, if that's the case, makes you wonder why they were retained. Especially (and I hate to say this) Simpson. I have a feeling it's more of the 50/50 recruiting philosophy - get enough 'almost right' players to hope one comes good.

Time will tell whether this list management decision has been inspired or not. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. But we have had a few list management clangers in recent times - the early renewal of Kelly's contract I think was silly, the trading for McIntosh at this stage has been a failure, and I think the MC not giving senior games to both Thurlow and Bews last year was flawed as well.

Well said. The evidence will be further established by next season. If McIntosh and/or Simpson (who I can't see playing seniors barring injury even if he is fit) do come good, great. If Clark is over his issues and can support Hawkins even better. If Vardy, Menzel and Cowan can contribute that would be much better again.

 

[year of the cat]

Which, if that's the case, makes you wonder why they were retained. Especially (and I hate to say this) Simpson. I have a feeling it's more of the 50/50 recruiting philosophy - get enough 'almost right' players to hope one comes good.



Well said. The evidence will be further established by next season. If McIntosh and/or Simpson (who I can't see playing seniors barring injury even if he is fit) do come good, great. If Clark is over his issues and can support Hawkins even better. If Vardy, Menzel and Cowan can contribute that would be much better again.

There is potentially a stack of list changes next year. You'd think that McIntosh, Kelly and Enright are definite retirements. Is Simpson can't get up or breaks down again he has to go. Vardy and Menzel are tenuous too. Even Rivers may have only a year left in him. Bartel?

 

[Partridge]

There is potentially a stack of list changes next year. You'd think that McIntosh, Kelly and Enright are definite retirements. Is Simpson can't get up or breaks down again he has to go. Vardy and Menzel are tenuous too. Even Rivers may have only a year left in him. Bartel?

I can't see Bartel getting past 2015. It's only smarts and goalkicking that has kept him ahead of Kelly.

 

[year of the cat]

I can't see Bartel getting past 2015. It's only smarts and goalkicking that has kept him ahead of Kelly.

He declined last year didn't he? Mackie is another that could find the end coming quicker than expected too.

 

[FredLeDeux]

He declined last year didn't he? Mackie is another that could find the end coming quicker than expected too.

Mackie's problem is that not only did he have an ordinary year, the MC also thought so too, as they ranked him only marginally ahead of Varcoe as our two worst senior players.

 

[year of the cat]

Mackie's problem is that not only did he have an ordinary year, the MC also thought so too, as they ranked him only marginally ahead of Varcoe as our two worst senior players.

I assume that was the B&F Fred? He had some woeful games this year against the bottom six clubs - just seemed to lack motivation.

We have a challenge to get games into JK, Thurlow and Bews this year. He may be one that finds himself being "rested" or playing VFL in order to achieve this.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Which, if that's the case, makes you wonder why they were retained. Especially (and I hate to say this) Simpson. I have a feeling it's more of the 50/50 recruiting philosophy - get enough 'almost right' players to hope one comes good.



Well said. The evidence will be further established by next season. If McIntosh and/or Simpson (who I can't see playing seniors barring injury even if he is fit) do come good, great. If Clark is over his issues and can support Hawkins even better. If Vardy, Menzel and Cowan can contribute that would be much better again.

When Simpson was playing in 2013, he was very good- particularly considering he'd played only 5 senior games before appearing in 2013. In his last full game (vs Adelaide) before being struck down by a serious knee injury, he had 33 hitouts, 18 disposals (13 of which were contested), 6 marks, 5 clearances, 3 goal assists.... you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

The following week, he was unfortunately struck down by a serious knee injury. Like many players before him who've had serious knee or leg issues, he struggled the following year- in particular with his work rate around the ground.

I am hoping that, in 2015, he will regain some of that 2013 form. After all he's been through to get onto the field, perhaps the club feels that he deserves the chance to prove himself.

Somewhere along the line, though, he will reach that tipping point at which he'll call it a day- hopefully we will get a few good years out of him before that day arrives. Just to make all those operations worth it.

On Stanley- I feel that the club were unsure enough of their ability to get a decent prospect in the draft, also knowing that a new recruit would be highly unlikely to pull on his boots to take the field in an AFL game in 2015. We had to give up a good pick to get someone the club rated highly enough to grab. Only time will tell if their best laid plans will reap a good harvest or, like so many others, gang aft agley.

 

[Gee Class Loco]

Really? When Goddard is 25, your Buddy Franklins, Travis Clokes, Tom Hawkins etc. will be on their last legs, if not already retired! Goddard will be in his prime and, all things being equal, will be dominating or at worst breaking even with the competition's best forwards.

Had we drafted him, he'd b e playing in the VFL for most if not all of his first year. We wouldn't really be needing and/or expecting him to come on until he hit his third year. From there, his development would really start. I for one think that trading pick #21 to the saints was a bad move, much more so in hindsight, given that we could have drafted Goddard. I hope that Stanley proves me wrong (or conversely Goddard turns out to be a dud) and we're able to nab a big defender through free agency in the not too distant future.

Ummm... what?? when he's 25?? ...7 years from now??? none of these will be in the league....
We are 2 players away from the last day in September...
A Ruckman and another Tall Forward.... (But Bundy hurt...even though he only played a few games)
And guess what... we got one and more in Stanley.... He can play 3-4 positions from Round 1 2015....
Is he a Ruckman?? Well a little?? Is he a Tall marking forward?? Yes... Can he play back as a third tall?? Maybe?..
Can he play through the midfield as ala Fraser Gehrig?? Maybe?? A match up nightmare if used correctly....
So Wells & Co. think he can do all 3-4 from the get go... and for a second round pick was a NO BRAINER.
What was also a bonus was that we got Mitch Clark... another Tall Forward slash 2nd Ruck...
We must not forget what position we are in at the present... We are a Top 4 side...
Our first priority is to win now when the opportunity presents itself... 2nd rounder for Stanley was a steal....
PS. ...as for Goddard... If he was that good we would of nabbed him with 10... Or GWS with one of theirs... Or Freo... or the Crows... Or even the Blues...Bombers.... do I need to go on.... He was a Top 5 pick before the season started.... and then the microscopes went on him...

 

[Partridge]

I'd personally move Mackie up on the wing and have Thurlow or Kolodjashnij situated in his position.

That's who I'd be grooming. He's our only apprentice key defender right now.

 

[Partridge]

When Simpson was playing in 2013, he was very good- particularly considering he'd played only 5 senior games before appearing in 2013. In his last full game (vs Adelaide) before being struck down by a serious knee injury, he had 33 hitouts, 18 disposals (13 of which were contested), 6 marks, 5 clearances, 3 goal assists.... you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

The following week, he was unfortunately struck down by a serious knee injury. Like many players before him who've had serious knee or leg issues, he struggled the following year- in particular with his work rate around the ground.

I am hoping that, in 2015, he will regain some of that 2013 form. After all he's been through to get onto the field, perhaps the club feels that he deserves the chance to prove himself.

I really like Simpson. A lot. And he's a big, genuine ruckman. And yep his 2013 form was very good. But I'm very wary of his back, and what effect is going to have lugging that massive frame around. I said at the start of 2014 he was one of the most important players on our list. If he's fully fit and fully mobile (and they could be big assumptions), I'd still lean towards making him the number one ruck. But not sure if that will eventuate.

 

[Gee Class Loco]

[QUOTE="year of the cat, post: 36270897, member: 23861
Time will tell whether this list management decision has been inspired or not. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. But we have had a few list management clangers in recent times - the early renewal of Kelly's contract I think was silly, the trading for McIntosh at this stage has been a failure, and I think the MC not giving senior games to both Thurlow and Bews last year was flawed as well.[/QUOTE]

Kelly carried an injury last year... that hindered him... but plugged on... So let's see what he gives us in 2015... But i see where your coming from.
Thurlow couldn't get a decent pre season in... so he was behind the 8 ball....
as for Bews... I think he had a decent go... 7 games isn't bad... played OK in a few... Mehh... I'n neither here or there on him atm...
Both 21yo next year... 3 years in the system.... we should see something... I hope.....

 

[DanA]

I have no problem with Kelly playing another year. He's probably still in our best starting six backmen in addition to our best midfield.