Strategy How to improve in 2017

[Down at K Park]

Re the bolded it is only restrictive depending on the club's strategy. For all we know the club may have planned to trade harder in 15-17 as it felt this was it's flag window to attack with this list and then may be planning to refresh with more drafted players the 2-3 year after that, in which case being not allowed to trade a first rounder for 2 years changes nothing for us. I get your concern but unless we actually know what the club's strategy is it's very hard to say whether something is a problem or not. I am confident our list management guys know what they are planning to do.

As for the bolded some clubs just want extra points in the door and won't care about the pick numbers e.g. GWS, GC, Brisbane and even Richmond with Naish. So it's not that hard to trade 2 2nds for a 1st actually, if we want to.

This is also my interpretation of the penalty, that we would be banned from trading future 1st round picks until we satisfy the requirements.

Don't know why people keep saying we need to trade in a future 1st round pick.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Can we agree on what we know Ray Donovan and Doctor Gero?

1. There is a rule stating you must take 2 in 4.
2. We will not be able to satisfy the rule with our current picks in 2017
3. There does not appear to be any AFL statement on what the sanction is for not adhering to the rule.
4. We don't know (but can speculate and you two may see it differently) whether Geelong would choose to wear any sanction (e.g. accept it can't trade any more 1st round picks for a couple of years) or try to avoid it (i.e. by trading for another 1st round pick).

This was the outlined ruling

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the following rules would govern trading of future draft picks:

- Clubs can trade one year in the future only.

- Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.

- If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

More than satisfied with all of above

 

[Ray Donovan]

Re the bolded it is only restrictive depending on the club's strategy. For all we know the club may have planned to trade harder in 15-17 as it felt this was it's flag window to attack with this list and then may be planning to refresh with more drafted players the 2-3 year after that, in which case being not allowed to trade a first rounder for 2 years changes nothing for us. I get your concern but unless we actually know what the club's strategy is it's very hard to say whether something is a problem or not. I am confident our list management guys know what they are planning to do.

As for the bolded some clubs just want extra points in the door and won't care about the pick numbers e.g. GWS, GC, Brisbane and even Richmond with Naish. So it's not that hard to trade 2 2nds for a 1st actually, if we want to.

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the following rules would govern trading of future draft picks:

- Clubs can trade one year in the future only.

- Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.

- If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

How can you build a strategy when you don't know how restrictive the penalty is?

How do you know what players are going to want to come and leave. Player movement free agency has played a huge factor in our last season. If the ruling goes the wrong way and restricts our ability to receive future picks for outgoing players or we want to use future second rounders for trades or to pick swap for points for father son next season.

We both just have opinions that's all we have above you have yours.

I just see no reason to break or misuse a rule that has been beneficial to us especially considering we were afforded special consideration to get Zach thuoy under the premise you adhere to the 4-2 rule by 2018. We got 3 in for first and future first the rule operates the way it does to restrict teams from mortgaging the future of the club. And or other clubs it is a tool for player movement so when you get 3 you might lose 1.

So move a player or do a deal to get back in the first rd. I watch a lot of NBA so this to me seems very normal and basic. Afl can trade 1 year in the future NBA can trade 5 years into the future. Have free agency period during the season for player movement and if your traded your on a plane the next day.

We both have differing opinions the ruling on what we are required to do is in print though. I just don't see any reason to break it

 

[catempire]

This was the outlined ruling

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the following rules would govern trading of future draft picks:

- Clubs can trade one year in the future only.

- Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.

- If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

More than satisfied with all of above

No, point 4 is unknown and the source of disagreement. You say you don't see any reason to break the rule; others see no reason to comply with it.

 

[Ray Donovan]

No, point 4 is unknown and the source of disagreement. You say you don't see any reason to break the rule; others see no reason to comply with it.

Point four is irrelevant to Geelong anyway in this context.

Point four is only in questioned because of how hawthorn and AFL ****ed up the GS deal for O'Meara. And the future 2nd rounder from GWS.

But I believe that interpretation to be correct unless they have expanded or changed the ruling and if so please forward me the relevant details

 

[catempire]

Point four is irrelevant to Geelong anyway in this context.

Point four is only in questioned because of how hawthorn and AFL stuffed up the GS deal for O'Meara. And the future 2nd rounder from GWS.

But I believe that interpretation to be correct unless they have expanded or changed the ruling and if so please forward me the relevant details

You may be missing the point. No one is arguing what the rule states; what is in question is what Geelong will choose to do. You say one thing; others say another. It is a difference of opinion is all.

 

[Ray Donovan]

All that article says is if clubs don't use 2 first rounders over 4 years they face restrictions from trading any other first rounders (until they meet the requirement). So if we traded 1sts in 2015 16 and 17 and used our 2018 and 2019 1st rounders at the draft we can't trade another future first rounder until 2020 when we have used 2 over 4 years. This is really not much of a penalty at all. The only danger is if the AFL can impose more punitive penalties than that which we have not been told of. So far there is nothing known to indicate that is the case.

That's your personal opinion that's fine you can speculate on the penalty grade. I really don't think it will come to penalties because I think a deal will get done somehow and that was my whole original point we probably trade to get one pick swap or both to acquire it to satisfy requirements.

Thd conversation with gero was this 4-2 rule could be bent I didn't think it could now we are talking about what restrictions could be imposed. And if they are detrimental to a club of not just gone off subject

 

[Ray Donovan]

You may be missing the point. No one is arguing what the rule states; what is in question is what Geelong will choose to do. You say one thing; others say another. It is a difference of opinion is all.

But what Geelong choose to do or not do is irrelevant me and hero were arguing the validity of the 4-2 rule that's all I wanted to establish.

I replied to comments in the context of my opinion but that makes no difference because the penalities have not been laid out so it is all speculation what Geelong do or don't. All I was trying to establish was the 4-2 rule is valid and restrictions can be imposed thats it

 

[Daniel McL]

Was just going through the AFL app comparing the 2016 total stats out of all the teams.

The main one that stood out for me was Rebound 50's, we were 18th for R50's in 2016.

I believe the recruitment of Tuohy + the return of Thurlow will be bigger than people think. Our defence in 2016 was good at stopping the opposition forwards from marking the ball yes & at times good at stopping their small forwards too, but we were terrible at creating attacking plays from inside our defensive 50.

The loss of Enright will be felt in terms of his positioning & leadership down back (fantastic to have Boris helping at club though), but we gain 2 players who can hit a bullet attacking 50m pass running out of defensive 50 in Tuohy & Thurlow.

The back 6 I want in 2017 is:
FB: Bews/Stewart - Lonergan - Kolodjashnij
HB: Tuohy - Henderson - Thurlow

Taylor moves up forward.
Guthrie can rotate between DEF/MID swapping with Tuohy or Thurlow who would be good on a wing too.
Got guys like Gardner, Ruggles, Cunico as depth.

 

[Lana]

Was just going through the AFL app comparing the 2016 total stats out of all the teams.

The main one that stood out for me was Rebound 50's, we were 18th for R50's in 2016.

The rebound 50 stat is pretty meaningless as a measure of how effectively a team rebounds from defense given that it requires the other team to get the ball in there attacking 50 in the first place. Our rebound 50 average is low because we conceded few I50 relative the rest of the competition, We were ranked 2nd in conceding I50s per match (0.1 per game off the number 1 ranked team)

 

[Daniel McL]

The rebound 50 stat is pretty meaningless as a measure of how effectively a team rebounds from defense given that it requires the other team to get the ball in there attacking 50 in the first place. Our rebound 50 average is low because we conceded few I50 relative the rest of the competition, We were ranked 2nd in conceding I50s per match (0.1 per game off the number 1 ranked team)

This is true too. I think a small part of it too is that if the opposition did finally manage to break into our defensive 50 they would usually score a goal which would bring it back to the centre which obviously meant no rebound 50.

(Which team conceded the least I50s per match btw?)

But I still stand by what I was saying about Tuohy/Thurlow. Instead of having to see our defenders just bang it on the boot hoping it goes to a teammate now I can't wait to see Tuohy & Thurlow hitting pinpoint passes running out of defensive 50 (when the ball goes in there )

 

[catempire]

The rebound 50 stat is pretty meaningless as a measure of how effectively a team rebounds from defense given that it requires the other team to get the ball in there attacking 50 in the first place. Our rebound 50 average is low because we conceded few I50 relative the rest of the competition, We were ranked 2nd in conceding I50s per match (0.1 per game off the number 1 ranked team)

Beat me to it.

It's something I've said previously but I'd love to see stats on speed and efficiency of ball movement which would be better at telling the tale.

I suspect we were slow at moving the ball but highly efficient.

 

[Lana]

This is true too. I think a small part of it too is that if the opposition did finally manage to break into our defensive 50 they would usually score a goal which would bring it back to the centre which obviously meant no rebound 50.

We were ranked 6th best in goals conceded per I50 conceded (we conceded the 6th fewest goals per I50) so this isn't the case.

(Which team conceded the least I50s per match btw?)

The Bulldogs, they also had the 2nd least R50 per game. And were ranked 7th in goals conceded per I50
conceded. Very similar number to us, you can't use one to point at an issue without saying the same about the other team.

But I still stand by what I was saying about Tuohy/Thurlow. Instead of having to see our defenders just bang it on the boot hoping it goes to a teammate now I can't wait to see Tuohy & Thurlow hitting pinpoint passes running out of defensive 50 (when the ball goes in there )[/QUOTE]

I wasn't disagreeing with your comments re Thurlow and Tuohy. Just your usage of the R50 stat. On its own, and from a team average perspective it isn't a very useful stat. Sadly we (the public) don't really have access to good stats that allow us to quantify and compare how well teams move the ball from D50.

If we had access to ratios/stats like:
% of R50 that result in I50s.
% of R50 that result in a score/shot on goal
% of R50 that result in a goal
% of R50 that result in a turnover
% of R50 that result in a stoppage
% of R50 that result in a turnover and subsequently results in a goal being conceded
average score per R50
Average possesion chain length per R50
Average metres gained per R50
Average time in possession per R50
Breakdown of where the R50 target (Boundry/Wing/centre)
How the R50 were earnt (kick/handball/running)
And all of the above from the oppositions teams perspective

Then we'd have a much better picture of how well our team rebounds relative to the competition.

 

[Lana]

Beat me to it.

It's something I've said previously but I'd love to see stats on speed and efficiency of ball movement which would be better at telling the tale.

I suspect we were slow at moving the ball but highly efficient.

I'm sure CD is sitting on a basket of stats which would make it easy to compare how teams rebounded but we're never going to get to see them

My impression is that once we had control of the ball after the first kick from D50 we were really good at turning it into an I50 and rarely turned it over in a way that allowed the other team to rebound quickly.

 

[Ray Donovan]

You're not listening. Go back and re-read.
Have said all along none of us know what's transpired.

So that's the answer then nobody knows so we will just roll with that then solid argument

 

[Stan The Caddy]

This thread should be renamed to the Seinfeld thread because it's a whole thread about absolutely nothing...

 

[Ray Donovan]

Nice group CE.

If I was looking to add to it ... perhaps 5 would be AFL makes rules and it can alter rules...

A good example would be the Ablett comp. We appealled that one pick was insufficient for a player of his talent... consequently they revised their compensation rule and we got two. Whats the point of the rule? To ensure a club does dry its stocks , sell its future on a hope of now.
I read today Craig McDermotts (link below) that he predicts Geelong to finish 1 and Carlton to finish 18... would this leave room for us to appeal? I have mentioned before I feel the difference between 18 and 19 in points is 37 points , the designation of using a Round as a measure list enrichment is questionable , to ensure a club gets enough talent has to be arguable at that point in the draft. "Round" is a very arbitrary definition ... id imagine having 2 picks in 4 years where those picks are P18 and P18 is hardly a bulletproof way to ensure a club has enough talented youth.

Of course there is the possibility of in draft changes that could give us a R1 pick anyway. If young Brownless for instance was rated high enough ..a FS bid could upgrade a pick. Do the AFL introduce in draft trading?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ge...s/news-story/2097865aec959669fd2271f0f6cca628

If McDermott has us at 1 he hasn't done much analysis of our list or any other top 4 teams he also has port and Melbourne both in. Possibly one but no chance both make it. Rated port higher than Fremantle interesting read though I also think Brisbane will prob be the worst I feel Carlton will be competitive didn't they beat Geelong last year

 

[Live in hope]

Whilst I like the recruiting, I suspect this is going to be a tougher year for the Cats than many think.

Backs - on the right track, but Enright is massively hard to replace. Run and carry, disposal out of back should be much better but I Suspect the small forwards will hurt us for another year whilst the team settles Ruggles, Bews, Thurlow and Stewart develop their coverage plans etc.
Mids - again , on the right track, this time with players who can win their own ball and have the evasion/speed to break out but think Nakia, Sam, Lang etc are going to need to at least get 50 games away to learn the craft.
Forwards - biggest worry - can't see where goals can be relied upon other than 2-3 from Hawk. Move of Taylor forward shows the club is thinking this as well. Others suggesting Danger to play forward is half a nod to this as well.

I look fwd to the season greatly, but with a sober view of likelihood of a flag. Bigger chance in 2018, 2019.

 

[winty]

Would love that we slightly change our selection policy this season and pick players based on form rather than name or reputation. For example, would much rather an in form youngster in the seniors instead of a senior player who can barely get a kick.

Similarly, if a senior player is returning from injury, I hope it isn't always at the expense of one of the younger players. Can't fill a kid with too much confidence if he knows he's only getting a game because someone else is on the shelf.

 

[Turbocat]

This thread should be renamed to the Seinfeld thread because it's a whole thread about absolutely nothing...

dont like the thread? Its a Festivus for the restuvis

 

[Stan The Caddy]

dont like the thread? Its a Festivus for the restuvis

Serenity now! Insanity later...

 

[catempire]

Ling sums up much better than I on the issue I've been banging on about:

In that final against the Swans, Ling said "bodies were going in for Geelong – it's not like they were standing back doing nothing".

"But the ability to get away an efficient, quality disposal to a teammate that gives him an extra second or two to use the ball, that is what I am referring to, as opposed to just getting in there and having a crack and trying to win the contested footy," he said.

"That comes with maturity and when you can stand up in a tackle and still get hit pretty hard ... stand up, arms free and dish it off and release a teammate. All of those things will be something I think Geelong has worked on, and will be better at this year.

"You saw Sydney on that night and the Bulldogs through the entire finals series – their contested ball numbers were unbelievable but it was also the quality of their hands in close while they were still finding targets, the ability to hit kicking targets while under enormous pressure."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ts-hope-to-get-the-cream-20170301-guorhu.html

 

[David the Cat]

Hence the possession footy in the first half in JLT 2?

 

[catempire]

Hence the possession footy in the first half in JLT 2?

Not sure about that. First quarter looked like possession style. Second quarter looked like trying to move it faster. Third quarter WTF. Fourth quarter back to second quarter style.

I think they are definitely trying stuff. Some of it I'm not sure why.

 

[Ricketz]

Ling sums up much better than I on the issue I've been banging on about:


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ts-hope-to-get-the-cream-20170301-guorhu.html

Helped by a healthy dose of umpires looking the other way whenever an incorrect disposal, dropped ball in a tackle, throw or scoop was made. In the interests of a faster moving game, footy looked like rugby union for some teams last year.