List Mgmt. Going, going, gone...

[goodoldcats]

Been a horrible year for the club.

-Coach has had a shocker
-we had a poor trading period:
In Stanley, out pick 21. amateur hour
In blease out Hamling WTF
-We have a lot of passengers and we will probably losing some depth in walker and kerstan.

I feel we will have a 10+ turnover of players this year. Who do the club believe we should move on?

I think we should pay out GHS contract. He is one terrible footballer and I am shocked we have offered him such a long contract.

We are also looking to add a battered and used up dangerfield and an very over rated 'swingman' in henderson. While losing a match winner in Motlop.

Potential delist/trade/retire:
Cowan, Simpson, Mcintosh, Hartman, blease, menzel, vardy, kelly, Johnson, Rivers, mccarthy, walker, kersten. Thats not even discussing rookies.

Who will be going at the end of the year?

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Stanley will prove to be a brilliant pick up for us.

 

[fpm84]

Great parody thread.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

This is without doubt the worst OP that I have ever read.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that you are a bolter on JUBJUB secret little list.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Stanley will prove to be a brilliant pick up for us.

He'll be as good as Menzel, Vardy, and McIntosh, I bet.

 

[David the Cat]

Been a horrible year for the club.


Who will be going at the end of the year?

Hopefully you….

 

[FredLeDeux]

Hopefully you….

My first reaction too, David.
But then I thought "Why wait that long?"
A classic case for mid-season trading.

 

[JUBJUB]

This is without doubt the worst OP that I have ever read.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that you are a bolter on JUBJUB secret little list.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

My first reaction too, David.
But then I thought "Why wait that long?"
A classic case for mid-season trading.

I could imagine this being you Fred...

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Hahahaha!

 

[JUBJUB]

Who will be going at the end of the year?

Hopefully you

 

[JUBJUB]

My first reaction too, David.
But then I thought "Why wait that long?"
A classic case for mid-season trading.

goodoldwhinger for Hodgepodge ?

 

[FredLeDeux]

goodoldwhinger for Hodgepodge ?

Aaahhh, no.
What about we forget the trading, and just stick to the delisting.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

 

[Art Vandelay_]

There's still 181 days until 2016 but this has sewn up worst thread of 2015. early call but it's a monty!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

goodoldwhinger for Hodgepodge ?

That's one of the worst things you've ever suggested. As bad as this OP is, braincells literally die when I read a Podgey comment

 

[Cataholic]

He'll be as good as Menzel, Vardy, and McIntosh, I bet.

Nope. He'll be better in terms of output

 

[Art Vandelay_]

He'll be as good as Menzel, Vardy, and McIntosh, I bet.

Ah can always count on you and P to bring any discussion back to Menzel and co. It's almost a gift really

 

[geelong_crazy26]

He'll be as good as Menzel, Vardy, and McIntosh, I bet.

People who think the reason we are not a top side is because we have some injury prone players have no idea.

We are not a top side because we do not have enough A grade and B grade talent.

Like Bomber Thomopson said a few weeks ago on 360 '' Good players are hard to get at your club , you don't often get much with a 3rd round draft pick".

 

[Art Vandelay_]

People who think the reason we are not a top side is because we have some injury prone players have no idea.

We are not a top side because we do not have enough A grade and B grade talent.

Like Bomber Thomopson said a few weeks ago on 360 '' Good players are hard to get at your club , you don't often get much with a 3rd round draft pick".

but but but haven't you heard from the cull injured players brigade, we can get good players late in the draft so let's have lots of those picks and later YIPPEE!!.

Load of crap of course.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

People who think the reason we are not a top side is because we have some injury prone players have no idea.

We are not a top side because we do not have enough A grade and B grade talent.

Like Bomber Thomopson said a few weeks ago on 360 '' Good players are hard to get at your club , you don't often get much with a 3rd round draft pick".

We're not a top side because we have no DECENT midfielders apart from Selwood.

Edit: Bomber's a space cadet. What position in the draft did we get the nucleus of our premiership era?

 

[Biggy_Boy]

People who think the reason we are not a top side is because we have some injury prone players have no idea.

We are not a top side because we do not have enough A grade and B grade talent.

Like Bomber Thomopson said a few weeks ago on 360 '' Good players are hard to get at your club , you don't often get much with a 3rd round draft pick".

but but but haven't you heard from the cull injured players brigade, we can get good players late in the draft so let's have lots of those picks and later YIPPEE!!.

Load of crap of course.

So what you're telling me is that the likes of Enright, Josh Hunt, Stokes, Egan, and Taylor Hunt are/have been terrible, useless player who we shouldn't have bothered with?

Of course, Josh Cowan (pick 56 six years ago) and Lincoln McCarthy (pick 66 four years ago) are exempt from this "no talent after the second round rule", because, well, I guess because they're injured all the time. I suppose if a player is never on the field due to injury, we can perpetually tell ourselves that they're dormant superstars.

I guess you're also telling me that the likes of Gregson, Gore, and Cunico have no chance of succeeding. That's sad.

You seem to have this very linear idea about what cutting the injured players would, or would have meant, for our list management. If we could use last year as an example, cutting some of the perpetually injured types could have resulted in us taking more late picks into the draft, or it it may have meant keeping someone like Hamling or Taylor Hunt. I think the latter would make a lot more sense than the former, and that's generally where my argument stems from. I don't tend to think the injured players are taking the spots of yet-to-be-drafted youth taken with late picks; I think that we could be using/could have used their spots to retain players who have been let go. We could also always be filling gaps by acquiring delisted players or free agents from other clubs, not necessarily just going to the draft with late picks.

As the years progress, the list will naturally evolve, develop and take shape anyway. If we did have to rely on late picks, within a few years, the worst would be weeded out and delisted, while the stronger of the lot would remain. We would acquire players to fill the gaps and move forward. My concern is that all the players who spend years sitting on the pine, doing nothing, impede the gradual progression of the list building process. In normal circumstances, someone like Josh Cowan, years ago, would have proven if he had what it took or not, but that process has been delayed by years, and it may have either cost a prospective draftee or a player who was on the Geelong list their spot. If Menzel finally does come back, but is unable to stand up to the pressures of playing AFL anymore, then that's four years wasted. Four years that that spot could have been used developing another player, or at least going through the process of seeing if players were worthy of that spot. That applies to Cowan, Vardy, McIntosh, and now potentially McCarthy, Clark, and Stanley, as well.

The strategy of keeping so many injured and injury-susceptible players on the list isn't sustainable if we wish to build a quality team in the future. I really don't understand where the argument against this comes from. To me, it really seems like common sense, just as I would think that letting go of these players, perhaps gradually, doesn't directly relate to the club needing to recruit a slew of players late in the draft is common sense.

One of the problems we've evidently had this year is depth. We've had several quality senior players go out injured, and when we've looked to the VFL, we've had few options to come in, which has meant we've had to play guys who really aren't ready yet, such as Luxford, and kills any competition for spots. Injury problems at the club will always be exacerbated by the 3-5 guys we always have sitting out with long-term injuries, and while that may not seem like much, that's 3-5 more guys in the VFL who could be pressing their case for selection, which is good for us. Not every draft pick and every spot on the list will turn out a winner, but you have to do what you can to give yourself the best shot of finding the best players. When you have dead spots on your list created by players who are unlikely to play again for several years, then you've lost numerous chances to find quality long-term players.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

So what you're telling me is that the likes of Enright, Josh Hunt, Stokes, Egan, and Taylor Hunt are/have been terrible, useless player who we shouldn't have bothered with?

Of course, Josh Cowan (pick 56 six years ago) and Lincoln McCarthy (pick 66 four years ago) are exempt from this "no talent after the second round rule", because, well, I guess because they're injured all the time. I suppose if a player is never on the field due to injury, we can perpetually tell ourselves that they're dormant superstars.

I guess you're also telling me that the likes of Gregson, Gore, and Cunico have no chance of succeeding. That's sad.

You seem to have this very linear idea about what cutting the injured players would, or would have meant, for our list management. If we could use last year as an example, cutting some of the perpetually injured types could have resulted in us taking more late picks into the draft, or it it may have meant keeping someone like Hamling or Taylor Hunt. I think the latter would make a lot more sense than the former, and that's generally where my argument stems from. I don't tend to think the injured players are taking the spots of yet-to-be-drafted youth taken with late picks; I think that we could be using/could have used their spots to retain players who have been let go. We could also always be filling gaps by acquiring delisted players or free agents from other clubs, not necessarily just going to the draft with late picks.

As the years progress, the list will naturally evolve, develop and take shape anyway. If we did have to rely on late picks, within a few years, the worst would be weeded out and delisted, while the stronger of the lot would remain. We would acquire players to fill the gaps and move forward. My concern is that all the players who spend years sitting on the pine, doing nothing, impede the gradual progression of the list building process. In normal circumstances, someone like Josh Cowan, years ago, would have proven if he had what it took or not, but that process has been delayed by years, and it may have either cost a prospective draftee or a player who was on the Geelong list their spot. If Menzel finally does come back, but is unable to stand up to the pressures of playing AFL anymore, then that's four years wasted. Four years that that spot could have been used developing another player, or at least going through the process of seeing if players were worthy of that spot. That applies to Cowan, Vardy, McIntosh, and now potentially McCarthy, Clark, and Stanley, as well.

The strategy of keeping so many injured and injury-susceptible players on the list isn't sustainable if we wish to build a quality team in the future. I really don't understand where the argument against this comes from. To me, it really seems like common sense, just as I would think that letting go of these players, perhaps gradually, doesn't directly relate to the club needing to recruit a slew of players late in the draft.

One of the problems we've evidently had this year is depth. We've had several quality senior players go out injured, and when we've looked to the VFL, we've had few options to come in, which has meant we've had to play guys who really aren't ready yet, such as Luxford, and kills any competition for spots. Injury problems at the club will always be exacerbated by the 3-5 guys we always have sitting out with long-term injuries, and while that may not seem like much, that's 3-5 more guys in the VFL who could be pressing their case for selection, which is good for us. Not every draft pick and every spot on the list will turn out a winner, but you have to do what you can to give yourself the best shot of finding the best players. When you have dead spots on your list created by players who are unlikely to play again for several years, then you've lost numerous chances to find quality long-term players.

Be very careful about becoming number 2 Biggy Boy!

 

[Live in hope]

So what you're telling me is that the likes of Enright, Josh Hunt, Stokes, Egan, and Taylor Hunt are/have been terrible, useless player who we shouldn't have bothered with?

Of course, Josh Cowan (pick 56 six years ago) and Lincoln McCarthy (pick 66 four years ago) are exempt from this "no talent after the second round rule", because, well, I guess because they're injured all the time. I suppose if a player is never on the field due to injury, we can perpetually tell ourselves that they're dormant superstars.

I guess you're also telling me that the likes of Gregson, Gore, and Cunico have no chance of succeeding. That's sad.

You seem to have this very linear idea about what cutting the injured players would, or would have meant, for our list management. If we could use last year as an example, cutting some of the perpetually injured types could have resulted in us taking more late picks into the draft, or it it may have meant keeping someone like Hamling or Taylor Hunt. I think the latter would make a lot more sense than the former, and that's generally where my argument stems from. I don't tend to think the injured players are taking the spots of yet-to-be-drafted youth taken with late picks; I think that we could be using/could have used their spots to retain players who have been let go. We could also always be filling gaps by acquiring delisted players or free agents from other clubs, not necessarily just going to the draft with late picks.

As the years progress, the list will naturally evolve, develop and take shape anyway. If we did have to rely on late picks, within a few years, the worst would be weeded out and delisted, while the stronger of the lot would remain. We would acquire players to fill the gaps and move forward. My concern is that all the players who spend years sitting on the pine, doing nothing, impede the gradual progression of the list building process. In normal circumstances, someone like Josh Cowan, years ago, would have proven if he had what it took or not, but that process has been delayed by years, and it may have either cost a prospective draftee or a player who was on the Geelong list their spot. If Menzel finally does come back, but is unable to stand up to the pressures of playing AFL anymore, then that's four years wasted. Four years that that spot could have been used developing another player, or at least going through the process of seeing if players were worthy of that spot. That applies to Cowan, Vardy, McIntosh, and now potentially McCarthy, Clark, and Stanley, as well.

The strategy of keeping so many injured and injury-susceptible players on the list isn't sustainable if we wish to build a quality team in the future. I really don't understand where the argument against this comes from. To me, it really seems like common sense, just as I would think that letting go of these players, perhaps gradually, doesn't directly relate to the club needing to recruit a slew of players late in the draft is common sense.

One of the problems we've evidently had this year is depth. We've had several quality senior players go out injured, and when we've looked to the VFL, we've had few options to come in, which has meant we've had to play guys who really aren't ready yet, such as Luxford, and kills any competition for spots. Injury problems at the club will always be exacerbated by the 3-5 guys we always have sitting out with long-term injuries, and while that may not seem like much, that's 3-5 more guys in the VFL who could be pressing their case for selection, which is good for us. Not every draft pick and every spot on the list will turn out a winner, but you have to do what you can to give yourself the best shot of finding the best players. When you have dead spots on your list created by players who are unlikely to play again for several years, then you've lost numerous chances to find quality long-term players.

Agree with this and aspects of other posts here -

Geelong do lack for A graders, particularly onballers and most definitely 2nd and 3rd rounders can develop into these.

With regards to injuries - Club appears to have had a policy of preparedness to recruit and keep chronically injured players.

The truth is that it is very rare for a player who is chronically injured for 2 plus years to develop into a sturdy, reliable player. Ottens was often injued at the Tigers ( albeit not sure that he was LTI for 2 + years) and was a "huge" pickup for us in terms of the golden era but he is the only case that I can think of. In any case, very small percentage of Lazarus type recoveries. This policy is not the best way to start to build up a list to get back to top 4 and I hope they abandon it.

 

[manboob]

Yawn ****ing yawn. Don't know why I bothered replying to be honest.