Knightmare's Collingwood List Management 2012

[Scodog10]

Ceglar and Witts could both play when required from next year but I wouldn't trust either as regulars yet or with the no.1 ruck mantle and I wouldn't want either playing finals footy against established ruckmen at this stage. Both still developing with Ceglar probably the slightly more consistent of the two at this stage but both need more time before any regular role.

It depends on how highly you rate Giles. Personally and this is a bombshell but I'd take Giles before Goldstein or Leuenberger going on this year and this is probably where our view differs and the fact that he would likely sign for less makes him appeal to me even more.

Leuenberger when healthy is a very impressive player but that injury history worries me. Giles on the other hand I see holding up ok and having spent that time in the state leagues I can see him lasting into his 30s. On ruckwork I'd have Leuenberger in a similar basket to Goldstein where his ruckwork is also superior to that of Giles but up forward like with Goldstein isn't that same marking presence or big time goalkicker.

But onto the structure. We had Jolly/L.Brown/Cloke/Dawes in 2010. So it depends on your vision of Lynch. Lynch could very easily play the L.Brown role of 2010 and instead of Lynch, give Giles the ruck minutes and have Lynch then move into a deeper forward role with his primary minutes played higher.

I agree with our young bigs this year that we could have given them more game time. Certainly Ceglar and Gault I thought were ready. Witts probably not as much but he is getting there.

I also agree that we need add more on the back flank and an outside mid but even if we did trade two 1st rounders I think we could still very easily address these needs.

The Swans won a premiership two weeks ago fielding a bloke with a torn hamstring and a Canadian Rugby player. Witts and or Ceglar with the right midfield structure around them would be capable in a big final from 2014 onwards because you also have to look at who our nearest competitors will be. Sydney while solid are unspectacular especially with Mummy struggling, West Coast will have Cox on his last legs at 33, Hawthorn will have David Hale at 30, Carlton are strong on paper but in reality aren't much chop, Goldstein is good IMO but he won't have any quality back up with Petrie going on 32, ditto the Tiges who only have Maric and Fremantle will have Sandilands going on 32. The only teams that I would fear a demolition from are Adelaide with Jacobs and Jenkins (who I rate off the charts) and Essendon with Bellchambers and Ryder.

The one area where Leuenberger excels is around the ground he is the most similar footballer I've seen to Cox in that regard. He isn't a big pack mark like Cox, but he is just about to turn 24 so he has time to develop that part of his game. He'd played 50 games straight prior to his achilles injury which compared to others his age (Vickery, Kruezer, Hampson and Bailey) is very good so I personally would have no queries on his durability.

The key for me is the structure. In 2010 we had 4 on the interchange so it was easy to carry three talls and a marking medium, but you just can't do that with the 3 and 1 system especially with the likelihood of a change to 2 and 2 next year or the year after. It IMO is the chief reason that Dawes has decided to shop himself around.

Finally I just can't go past the fact that if we managed to score 2 first round picks for bottom 8 players in our best 22 that we wouldn't go to the draft and try to cash in and extend our window. You know yourself how even the top 20-25 are after the first few standout's so I would never presume to tell you as much, however if we landed Jaksch, Kennedy and Menzel with those 3 picks we'd be done in the draft and set ourselves up even better. Not only that but it allows us to keep players on the list to further develop in the two's (who knows Ugle might get saved now and he may show more next year) ala Geelong rather than making mass changes every year which we've done since 2009.

As I said I'll back you on 99% of what you post, but not this move.

 

[Knightmare]

The Swans won a premiership two weeks ago fielding a bloke with a torn hamstring and a Canadian Rugby player. Witts and or Ceglar with the right midfield structure around them would be capable in a big final from 2014 onwards because you also have to look at who our nearest competitors will be. Sydney while solid are unspectacular especially with Mummy struggling, West Coast will have Cox on his last legs at 33, Hawthorn will have David Hale at 30, Carlton are strong on paper but in reality aren't much chop, Goldstein is good IMO but he won't have any quality back up with Petrie going on 32, ditto the Tiges who only have Maric and Fremantle will have Sandilands going on 32. The only teams that I would fear a demolition from are Adelaide with Jacobs and Jenkins (who I rate off the charts) and Essendon with Bellchambers and Ryder.

The one area where Leuenberger excels is around the ground he is the most similar footballer I've seen to Cox in that regard. He isn't a big pack mark like Cox, but he is just about to turn 24 so he has time to develop that part of his game. He'd played 50 games straight prior to his achilles injury which compared to others his age (Vickery, Kruezer, Hampson and Bailey) is very good so I personally would have no queries on his durability.

The key for me is the structure. In 2010 we had 4 on the interchange so it was easy to carry three talls and a marking medium, but you just can't do that with the 3 and 1 system especially with the likelihood of a change to 2 and 2 next year or the year after. It IMO is the chief reason that Dawes has decided to shop himself around.

Finally I just can't go past the fact that if we managed to score 2 first round picks for bottom 8 players in our best 22 that we wouldn't go to the draft and try to cash in and extend our window. You know yourself how even the top 20-25 are after the first few standout's so I would never presume to tell you as much, however if we landed Jaksch, Kennedy and Menzel with those 3 picks we'd be done in the draft and set ourselves up even better. Not only that but it allows us to keep players on the list to further develop in the two's (who knows Ugle might get saved now and he may show more next year) ala Geelong rather than making mass changes every year which we've done since 2009.

As I said I'll back you on 99% of what you post, but not this move.

Everyone will have a different view but I consider Sydney's grand final effort to be the exception rather than the rule. Carrying the sheer quantity of injuries into the grand final that they did, winning with Pyke are the no.1 ruckman for the day. Seriously? It goes against football convention and Hawthorn are clearly the better team on paper so it was an incredible result.

The outlooks will be interesting. Over these next seasons I have: West Coast, Carlton, Hawthorn, Adelaide and possibly Fremantle for the next couple of years as the contendors with Essendon curious now that they had added Goddard and Sydney as they do every year hang around and remain a top 8 side.

West Coast while Cox isn't getting younger still have a very handy player in Lycett coming through who is ready to play already. Naitanui I expect some time soon to become the best player in the competition and this could happen as soon as next season with a strong preseason. Giles has had relative success against the West Coast duo interestingly with few others even competing against them.

Adelaide with Jacobs have a top 5 league ruckman who will only get better.

Hawthorn are well served with Hale/Roughead - with Hale actually reasonably productive this year without being dominant but they could very easily pick up a free agent ruckman of the McIntosh variety on the cheap next free agent period to make this into a strength.

Carlton are fine with Kreuzer if he stays healthy. And Warnock while poor around the ground is still when up and about a very high level tap ruckman and hard to beat with Hampton also solid through the ruck and up forward.

Essendon with Bellchambers and Ryder can be very good. Both are top 10 ruckmen and big time differences makers few can get the better of. Bellchambers when 100% is very dangerous and underrated.

Sandilands is as dominant as any and Griffin when played in the no.1 role has gone ok for Fremantle.

So post Jolly of all the top 8 sides I see our ruck division as the very worst with our ruckmen all development projects.


I consider the finals about creating an edge or limiting the opponents edge. Giles to me is that edge and difference maker as Lake will be for Hawthorn where he steps into a position of weakness and not only through his ruckwork but also play forward of centre makes the team a significantly better team and would almost certainly perform to a top 10 standard of all players on the playing list.


Witts really needs to build his endurance. I can't see him playing a full game for another two years through the ruck, let alone in the 1s where he would have to work harder. Just doesn't nearly have the match fitness and won't be able to get to all the contests required for another couple of years yet I wouldn't think.
Then Ceglar while competent through the ruck and up forward I don't see as dominant and probably likely more a depth type the more I look at his position on the list.

It's an interesting debate with the how many talls can you fit into the structure question.
West Coast have shown with success they can fit all of Naitanui, Cox, Kennedy, Darling and Lynch in the same team - just due to the sheer quality and the positional flexibility all theses have. Naitanui can play ruck/mid/fwd - Cox same. Darling can play key forward, 3rd tall or up the ground more, Lynch same.
So with Giles able to play ruck/fwd well and Lynch able to play up the ground I see them both fitting with Cloke/Jolly well without being oversized.
But there are many varying views on this issue and this is only how I see it.

I understand your view with the draft and there is the potential to strike gold as we have with Beams among others and I agree with that as Geelong have in recent seasons that we don't have enough quality young talent and do need to build more of it through the draft with high draft selections. But at the same time I value the established talent more highly and given the choice of two of say: Kennedy/Jaksch/Menzel I'd still go Giles anyday because I don't quite project those available as players who will develop into the same quality player as what Giles is at present.
Menzel for example I'd be really disappointed to see drafted - I can see him on the injury list with knee injuries more than on the field in the black and white.
Then Kennedy I see as someone who might struggle to develop as that shorter type who is the same player he was last year.
Then Jaksch I can't put ahead of any of our existing KPPs - rating Reid/Keeffe/Brown/Gault better as key defenders and Cloke/Paine/Gault rated more highly as key forwards. If Cloke left he would have been one on my look into closely list but I don't see him as such a need anymore.

Whereas Giles in my mind is clear best 22 player. Durable and can play into his 30s while being a key player who can make a serious difference in the most important position on the ground also making us immediately better as well as over the next 5 years while our premiership window is open before the GWS+Gold Coast dominance happens.


It all comes down to what you consider the picks are worth. What you see Giles is worth. Then which would be of most value to our list long term, in the immediate and based on what you consider our potential premiership windows to be. It's pretty open to interpretation and with draft picks it always is because they are such an unknown. Only hindsight will tell us exactly what these selections are worth but my view is that people are over-valuing these selections with the prime selections more to come in the top 15 - with Macrae/Stringer/Vlastuin the prospects I consider the potentially big time difference makers all likely out of our reach on draft day.

 

[sr36]

There's a lot of talk about priemership windows, but I'd prefer to see us take a challenge for as long as possible approach. I'm very confident, despite my lack of faith in our coaching, that we have enough talent to be top four for the next four years. I'm loving what we are doing this off season and would like us to hit the draft hard in order to maximise our chances of extending our period of challenging for as long as possible.

 

[blaze036]

Correct. Only 90kg. Still some way off physically from where the club want him to be at.

jesse hogan, the 17 year old the dees just got is already heavier than ceglar, and he is quiet a bit shorter too.

 

[Scodog10]

All good points Knight and I can fully understand your reasoning, but after spending 3 first round picks on ruckman in the past 5 drafts I personally couldn't justify taking that figure to 5 from 6 (especially if theyre going to GWS). If we did land him I could see the benefits, however I'd just like us to be patient with Witts and Ceglar that IMO has been half the problem. The other obviously is that we've chosen the wrong types.

 

[DaVe86]

what are your thoughts on Cruze Garlett. Rumoured to have walked out on the club.

Has good pace and can kick a goal as a small forward or play through middle. But very small and light and couldn't get into the North Melbourne side.

 

[NT.Thunder]

what are your thoughts on Cruze Garlett. Rumoured to have walked out on the club.

Has good pace and can kick a goal as a small forward or play through middle. But very small and light and couldn't get into the North Melbourne side.

I'm not sure we need Garlett really and I'd say he's a monty to go to WCE. He can find the ball and would be a great pick up around Patterson stadium but I don't like our chances and we have enough quality midfielders. Not a requirement for us.

 

[Knightmare]

what are your thoughts on Cruze Garlett. Rumoured to have walked out on the club.

Has good pace and can kick a goal as a small forward or play through middle. But very small and light and couldn't get into the North Melbourne side.

Don't think Garlett has done enough personally. You are right about his pace but I don't see enough improvement in his game - he is really much the same player as he was in his 2nd season of footy and I'd probably retain Ugle before I'd invest in Garlett.
If we go for another mid/fwd at any stage it really needs to be a very high level player because we already have a strong midfield and forward group and I don't see who Garlett moves ahead of.

NT Thunder might be onto something that West Coast might take a look.

 

[forwardflanker]

In this case I'm against the grain.

I recognise that we are typically good drafters and I'm fine with us holding onto our picks but I'd go the high level talent in an important position of need anyday with our premiership window open as it is.

Jolly I think could very easily break down this year (which happens when player enter their 30s - look at Tarrant and Johnson this year) and Giles would very much elevate our team not only now but long term with not only his ruckwork but even more so with his play in the forward half. Good luck to Witts or Ceglar if they come up against Naitanui and Cox/ Sandilands/ Jacobs/ Mumford/ Kreuzer/ McIntosh (assuming he ends up with Geelong) in the finals.
In essence lose Jolly with injury and that's season over and it's all for not and this is makes Giles all the more valueable because with or without Jolly he makes our team much better - as Lake has for Hawthorn but in the case of Giles for potentially the next 7 years.

If we add say pick 20 for Dawes then we could easily move picks 18+20 for Giles while still retaining pick 17 and using it to pick up a pretty handy talent.

Far from guaranteed we get Giles anyway but I'd be disappointed if we didn't at least make a play for him with the opportunity opening up.

You've managed to persuade me on this. I've felt for a while now that Sydney have been the best at recruiting ruckman and the reason why is that they go for mature bodies who have proven they can wrestle for 4 quarters without being destroyed. Drafting rucks at 18 leaves so much up in the air in terms of how much development they have in them. You can't win the big finals without a competitive ruckman and if Jolly goes down next year I doubt Witts will be ready.

If we were going down the mature path then I can't think of anyone at the moment more suitable than Giles. Probably still has 6 years left and is a young 24 year old in the sense that he isn't carrying the wear and tear that someone like Fraser had at that age. He doesn't get the ball much however I suprised at his skill level when he does get it. Generally makes the right decision and as good footskills. As Dermott said about him, there are 6'6' players and there are big 6'6' and he is a big 6'6'. I haven't watched closely but you'd think that by looking at his frame he'd be at least decent in the ruck contests. He's actually a very similar player to Jolly in height, build and his skill level with ball in hand.

The only question mark would be how good his engine would be considering if Jolly were fit he'd be playing <1/2 the match in the ruck and more up forward. With Dawes seemingly gone though I think he is the best available and I agree with you that he's definitely worth giving up a fair bit for.

 

[Tradepower]

Walsh basically said yesterday Lynch and Young would be it for us so if we are elevating Williams and Mooney and only using picks 17, 18 and 20 we still have to drop four players on top of Tarrant, Dawes and Wellers

Off:
Tarrant
Dawes
Wellingham
Wood
Buckley
Rounds
Young

On:
Lynch
Young
Williams
Mooney
17
18
20

* If we are using a 2nd rounder or getting a Martin thrown in with pick 20 for Dawes we can either keep one of Mooney or Williams on the rookie list or cut Ugle

 

[Quicky]

I imagine Ugle is more likely to be delisted than Young.

What room does that leave us on the rookie list?

I think we are likely to see some heavy cuts to our rookie list this season.

 

[well left]

I think we have already released all rookies except for Williams and Mooney.

I'm still interested in going after Giles for the sole reason that I think its in our best interests to give Jolly only 15 or so games throughout the season to make sure he is right for September 2013.

With Dawes going, Lynch takes the forward role and Giles plays forward/second ruck when Jolly plays. When Jolly rests then Giles is No 1 ruck and we experiment with Paine, Gault, Witts and Ceglar.

If that was the case then maybe 17 and 20 (from Dawes trade) for Giles and 13?

I'm also happy to take the 3 first rounders and let Hine loose if the club is confident that any of Witts, Gault, Ceglar can play more substantial roles than the above and we back Paine in to replace Dawes as a key forward.

Either way, I think we have come out of all of this in good shape. Wellingham and Dawes had currency and we have been aggressive in replenishing our list. If we nab Clinton Young then we look like this:

In: Lynch, Young and 3 first round picks/2 first round picks and Giles
Out: Wellingham and Dawes

 

[HFF]

We won't be out of the draft by pick 20.

We will go into the second round too I believe which is at 39.

That may be it for us as our next pick after that is at 58.

Going to be an exciting draft for us- been a while.

 

[Frankie23]

Would keep Mooney on the rookie list for another year, considering what Hine and co have done with picks 50 and 45 in the past 2 years I wouldn't mind using 39 as well...

From what I'm hearing from Walsh and Bucks etc, they're stamping their authority on this playing group, would not surprise me if they delist 6 or more players, and Bucks starts to shape the list how he wants it.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/149635/default.aspx

AFL top 20 is up

 

[HFF]

Would keep Mooney on the rookie list for another year, considering what Hine and co have done with picks 50 and 45 in the past 2 years I wouldn't mind using 39 as well...

From what I'm hearing from Walsh and Bucks etc, they're stamping their authority on this playing group, would not surprise me if they delist 6 or more players, and Bucks starts to shape the list how he wants it.

Yeh, I'd keep Mooney on the rookie list for another year too. Ditto Williams. sure, he played some senior games with a few of our LTI but I wasn't overly sold on him. His kicking is ordinary.

 

[cfx_1]

I saw that Mitch Banner got delisted by Port.. Has he really struggled coming into senior football?? Was an absolute ball magnet before going there and I was suprised he got the chop.. Irons too. Would we look at adding these types?

 

[millsy29gopies]

Walsh basically said yesterday Lynch and Young would be it for us so if we are elevating Williams and Mooney and only using picks 17, 18 and 20 we still have to drop four players on top of Tarrant, Dawes and Wellers

Off:
Tarrant
Dawes
Wellingham
Wood
Buckley
Rounds
Young

On:
Lynch
Young
Williams
Mooney
17
18
20

* If we are using a 2nd rounder or getting a Martin thrown in with pick 20 for Dawes we can either keep one of Mooney or Williams on the rookie list or cut Ugle

I'd keep Mooney on the rookie list for the time being. Id like to get Martin and use Pick 39 seeing what we've done with later picks over the years. Ugle delisted and re-rookies for mine.

 

[HFF]

I saw that Mitch Banner got delisted by Port.. Has he really struggled coming into senior football?? Was an absolute ball magnet before going there and I was suprised he got the chop.. Irons too. Would we look at adding these types?

Irons I actually thought was ok. He looked really impressive against us in round 1 2011.

No interest in Banner whatsoever. Pass.

 

[Breakthelines]

Walsh basically said yesterday Lynch and Young would be it for us so if we are elevating Williams and Mooney and only using picks 17, 18 and 20 we still have to drop four players on top of Tarrant, Dawes and Wellers

Off:
Tarrant
Dawes
Wellingham
Wood
Buckley
Rounds
Young

On:
Lynch
Young
Williams
Martin/Roberton
17
18
20

Mooney to have another year on the rookie list. I think Ugle should be retained. He is a crafty small fwd, Young is an accumulating mid/flanker that has a rubbish footy brain.

 

[Number 10]

I imagine Ugle is more likely to be delisted than Young.

What room does that leave us on the rookie list?

I think we are likely to see some heavy cuts to our rookie list this season.

Already cut all but Hartley, Mooney and Williams

 

[Knightmare]

You've managed to persuade me on this. I've felt for a while now that Sydney have been the best at recruiting ruckman and the reason why is that they go for mature bodies who have proven they can wrestle for 4 quarters without being destroyed. Drafting rucks at 18 leaves so much up in the air in terms of how much development they have in them. You can't win the big finals without a competitive ruckman and if Jolly goes down next year I doubt Witts will be ready.

If we were going down the mature path then I can't think of anyone at the moment more suitable than Giles. Probably still has 6 years left and is a young 24 year old in the sense that he isn't carrying the wear and tear that someone like Fraser had at that age. He doesn't get the ball much however I suprised at his skill level when he does get it. Generally makes the right decision and as good footskills. As Dermott said about him, there are 6'6' players and there are big 6'6' and he is a big 6'6'. I haven't watched closely but you'd think that by looking at his frame he'd be at least decent in the ruck contests. He's actually a very similar player to Jolly in height, build and his skill level with ball in hand.

The only question mark would be how good his engine would be considering if Jolly were fit he'd be playing <1/2 the match in the ruck and more up forward. With Dawes seemingly gone though I think he is the best available and I agree with you that he's definitely worth giving up a fair bit for.

I agree that Witts won't be ready next year. He still is starting out and he can't play full ruck minutes at VFL level yet. Still a long way to go yet even though he is showing promise in various games here and there but anything consistent is still some way off.

Giles I see as a fit not only because he can play and take over the no.1 ruck position but with Jolly in the side he also is a suitable fit and can easily play that no.2 ruck role and play the majority of his minutes up forward for the year alongside Cloke and Lynch - who can play higher anyway to allow this forward structure to work.

The concept spoken about with Giles is that because he has a short neck that his shoulder height is higher than that of most who are a similar height giving him an advantage not only through the ruck but also forward with the sheer size of his body.

He has a reasonable engine and can play the full minutes, but with Lynch in the side even if Jolly does go down injured he is very capable stepping in with Giles playing 80% game time or thereabouts or 85% game time with periods in the forward half.

It has become clear that the club are not persuing Giles sadly and the only reports at present are that we are going after Young who would be a nice fit, but Giles in my mind would be the real difference maker who not only can play a role as Lynch or Young can, but really change games with what he can do and be an important long term piece you can build a team around.

I think we have already released all rookies except for Williams and Mooney.

I'm still interested in going after Giles for the sole reason that I think its in our best interests to give Jolly only 15 or so games throughout the season to make sure he is right for September 2013.

With Dawes going, Lynch takes the forward role and Giles plays forward/second ruck when Jolly plays. When Jolly rests then Giles is No 1 ruck and we experiment with Paine, Gault, Witts and Ceglar.

If that was the case then maybe 17 and 20 (from Dawes trade) for Giles and 13?

I'm also happy to take the 3 first rounders and let Hine loose if the club is confident that any of Witts, Gault, Ceglar can play more substantial roles than the above and we back Paine in to replace Dawes as a key forward.

Either way, I think we have come out of all of this in good shape. Wellingham and Dawes had currency and we have been aggressive in replenishing our list. If we nab Clinton Young then we look like this:

In: Lynch, Young and 3 first round picks/2 first round picks and Giles
Out: Wellingham and Dawes

We still have Hartley.

I don't see Jolly playing more than 15-20 games anyway next year even if fully healthy. From all reports this year his body was feeling as good as it has in some time and he was resting several times this season so it's somewhat concerning what his body could be like next year if something happens and he is carrying more than the usual niggles.

GWS I can't imagine would include selection 13 in this type of deal. It would be first rounder or nothing.
He is worth more than Wellingham or Dawes who are both good AFL footballers but not difference makers in the way Giles is. In my view while he wouldn't attract quite this currency he is worth close to a top 10 selection and the best case scenario if we were to target him would be a trade of pick 17 for Giles I would have thought.

I'm of a similar stance even without Giles (I can't imagine it happening) that we have succeeded.

We have really profited this trade period because we have traded established players for picks and then added established players for nothing through free agency which is an exceptional use of free agency I think everyone could agree.

I saw that Mitch Banner got delisted by Port.. Has he really struggled coming into senior football?? Was an absolute ball magnet before going there and I was suprised he got the chop.. Irons too. Would we look at adding these types?

Banner is an ok player but a non improver and a below average kick. We have enough of them already.

Banner is more a high level state leaguer but probably not so much AFL footballer.

 

[Quicky]

Are there any state league ruckman going around that are worth a look at Knight. I ask because as nice as Giles would be it seems pretty clear that he is not on our recruiters radar. Probably because we are intent on retaining our picks inside the top 25.

 

[brockbruiser]

Walsh basically said yesterday Lynch and Young would be it for us so if we are elevating Williams and Mooney and only using picks 17, 18 and 20 we still have to drop four players on top of Tarrant, Dawes and Wellers

I'd be surprised if we only used the picks 17,18.20.... we usually fair well towards the end of the draft, and given our track record of finding gems that sneak through I'd think Hine would like to give himself a few late picks, that being said I think the following will happen

Off:
Tarrant
Dawes
Wellingham
Wood
Buckley
Rounds
Ugle
Yagmoor (To be later picked up in the Rookie Draft)

On:
Lynch
Young
Steak Knives from the Melbourne Deal (hopefully Martin)
Roberton
17
18
20
39 - Or whatever we get if we decide to use in the Melbourne deal

I think if we like our chances of picking someone up late in the draft that Young would also have to be considered to be delisted. But at this stage I think he stands the best chance of the above due to his age and while slow he does know how to find the footy.

I think Williams and Mooney will be retained on the rookie list

 

[HFF]

Just looking at his highlights and write-up, we'd be absolutely laughing if Brodie Grundy was available at any of our picks in the draft. Just the type of ruckman we would be screaming out for. Rendell seems to have high praise for him too according to afl website. Unlikely though as he is touted to be inside the first 7 picked and pretty much the best big man in the draft.