Strategy List management approach and philosophy

[Landgraft]

Hope you're right, but given none of them have played a senior game yet it's a massive unknown.

That's the case for all Draftees, to be fair. Even high pick guys can turn out to be a John Butcher or Scott Gumbleton.

 

[Landgraft]

In terms of Sav kicking his 8 against 11th placed Bendigo I think there's something to be said for developing players getting to destroy weak opposition. It lets them to get a feel for exploiting opportunity created by errors in an environment rich with it, so that they have a better understanding of how to identify and seize those chances presented to them in a game against more difficult opposition. Very important to compete against a variety of opponents as well, otherwise it can lead to complacency or encouraging bad habits. These are theories from competitive gaming mostly, but I would think they still apply to footy.

 

[catswhiskers]

In terms of Sav kicking his 8 against 11th placed Bendigo I think there's something to be said for developing players getting to destroy weak opposition. It lets them to get a feel for exploiting opportunity created by errors in an environment rich with it, so that they have a better understanding of how to identify and seize those chances presented to them in a game against more difficult opposition. Very important to compete against a variety of opponents as well, otherwise it can lead to complacency or encouraging bad habits. These are theories from competitive gaming mostly, but I would think they still apply to footy.

Yes, I have made this point before with cricket as the example. A good kid is best served playing for a while at a level where big scores are possible (not very difficult or too easy). They learn which balls they can deal with and which ones pose the main danger to them . Promotion is held back if you like so they learn how to build an innings. Being promoted through the ranks too quickly can be detrimental.
Reaching the top level (for their talent) without having learnt how big scores are crafted is not a help. Some overcome the disadvantage with time, others waste the talent because they don't know how to get through the "flat" periods.

Esava is very much an unknown - no exposed form whatsoever (as partridge points out) for me to comment on. i did see him at Deakin though and his body shape has already been transformed from what I see on the clips from TAC cup. He is built perfectly for the task ahead. A good start. I am keen to see him play this Saturday.

 

[year of the cat]

Any response to my rant/opus above?

I'll get to that. Been a bit time poor last couple of days

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

It's interesting that people say Geelong are playing too much for the now. And will it all fall in a heap when those players are too old.
As unless you do what Geelong are doing you will fall down the ladder.
Is it delaying this inevitable fall?
If Geelong deviate from this strategy you'd have to say yes.

But in the mean time the club is set up to continue to have chances at a flag while Selwood, Danger, Hawkins and others are there.

The long list build finishing at the bottom for a number years is very problematic. And I think is extremely hard to get right.

Having the success of 3 recent premierships perhaps it's difficult for many cats fans to remember how hard it is to win them.

A great point was made in this thread about the influence of Wells, Cook and Carter. They are 3 very highly respected AFL people. Not to say they won't and don't get things wrong everyone does.

Often those that make a difference go against trends because they set them. Geelong as a club changed in 2007 they refused to be sheep and they became leaders.

Clearly not all the decisions since 2011 have been good ones. Some of the list management decisions are difficult to accept. But there have also been some very good decisions.

There's been a lot of media on Geelong and the midfield. It wasn't long ago Geelong got no media coverage.
And before the recent success we couldn't have dreamt of being able to attract the quality of players from other clubs we have.

I love the way Chris Scott represents the club in the media. And his record in the H&A season is very good. But it is a worry about our finals record and apparent reports of poor communication and relationships with some players.

Mooney spoke on SEN how the death of Scott's brother has impacted on Chris' approach to others and relationships. Death and grief are very difficult things to deal with and can have profound impacts.

The senior coach's role has changed a lot and they are not expected to be masters of everything. I hope that like Thompson had that Scott has the right people around him.

 

[year of the cat]

I'm going to break my opus on this topic into chunks. Here's Part I:

Why it is reasonable Geelong hasn't undertaken a 'conventional' rebuild

Here’s the central premise of my thesis: a club will never make the decision to undertake a decisive rebuild while it still feels it can win a flag with the core of its current group.

This thesis explains, to me, why Geelong has never undertaken the conventional rebuild so many here seem to crave. Ask yourself, should we have started the rebuild in:

2011? No, still had stacks of premiership stars and it was quite likely a new coach could inject much needed enthusiasm and new ideas. Worth seeing what a new coach could deliver. And deliver he did.

2012? Finished 6th after H&A. The pundits all said “if anyone can win a flag from here it’s Geelong”. Sadly didn’t happen but it looked like with a decent ruckman (took a very bad gamble on McIntosh at this point) a flag was within reach. No.

2013? Finished 2nd after H&A, having only lost 4 games by an aggregate of 23 points. A really humiliating loss at home in the first final, nearly straight sets in the 2nd week and bundled out by the arch nemesis in the prelim after being in a winning position at three quarter time. Ruckman aside, still no real reason why a flag unattainable.

2014? Finished 3rd winning 17 games in the H&A. Straight sets finals exit. Plenty of questions asked. Have we overachieved with the list we have? Midfield starting to look very thin. A gaping hole is opening up in the 23-26 year old age bracket. But Christensen walks out opening the door to get another ruckman (Stanley). Mitch Clark falls in our lap and looks a great pairing (on paper) with Hawkins. Critically, those in charge know one thing for certain most people don’t: in 12 months’ time Patrick Dangerfield is about to walk through the door.

2015? Absent the Dangerfield factor it would be the obvious candidate, a shocker of a season and our worst result for a decade. Something had to change. But again the opportunity to improve the list, not only with Dangerfield but with Henderson and Scott Selwood means a rebuild is not even given a passing thought.

2016? Flag favourites going into the finals. A coin toss win first up followed by the worst possible performance on the big stage in week 3. Yet again, far too close to be talking rebuilds.

I think many people use hindsight and say that given we didn’t win in those years we might as well have undertaken a rebuild and we erred in not doing so. Decision makers don’t have the benefit of hindsight. They have to judge in the moment whether they are within reach or not and act accordingly. There was never anything to suggest in those years that a clearer path to success was a conventional rebuild rather than grabbing the players we could to fill obvious holes and to get us closer to the ultimate goal. Did the club make mistakes? Absolutely! I shouted from the rooftops that McIntosh was a mistake before we did the deal. Others were mistakes with the benefit of hindsight (Clark) or were hard to explain to the public for various reasons (Johnson, Chapman).

So did Geelong err in not undertaking a decisive rebuild in the past five years? I can’t see any basis for that claim putting myself in the shoes of the decision makers at the time. A flag was always justifiably perceived to be within reach even if we didn’t end up winning it.

Next up: Part II - are we approaching "The Cliff"?

To begin with I should mention that I haven't as yet supported a wholesale rebuild, rather a strategy of largely retaining our first round picks whilst cherry picking trades or FA's that will plug holes. For example, whilst it would have been wonderful to have picked up Dangerfield via FA, you'd clearly still do the same trade again for picks. Similarly the trade for Smith that same year was inspired. We had been screaming out for a true no.1 ruck since Ottens retired. Smith fills that breach, without costing the Earth.

Where I largely take issue with the club is ironically not so much over the mature players we have brought in, rather what we have spent to get them. Wells is like Santa at trade time - giving every kid their wishes when he, in my opinion, should have been less forthcoming (shame I don't practice what I preach...though my kids may bed to differ).

We paid overs for Henderson based on his output the previous couple of years prior to picking him up. And Tuohy is another that just shouldn't have required the involvement of a first rounder to get the deal done.

Our first rounders that we have taken in the period since we won a flag are Thurlow, Lang and Cockatoo. Thurlow has been unlucky but shown plenty. Cockatoo continues to improve, albeit with still big holes in his game. You'd expect this year to see a steeper trajectory in his development. Lang is another that's taken time but I think will still "make it". These last couple of sentences may contradict my desire to retain early picks as none of the 3 mentioned players has turned into a superstar young player as yet. But as the saying goes, you're not to going to win Tatts if you don't have a ticket.

Looking at all those years in isolation you make a reasonable case for supporting the route the club took. But as mentioned above it just doesn't need to be a either/or scenario. I know some have advocated for a complete rebuild but I don't necessarily think that happens often these days. Brisbane are about the only club that have been forced down that route and have languished ever since. Even St Kilda, who I mentioned in my original post on the issue, have used a combination of high picks and prudent trades to get to their current position. They were prepared to drop low enough to gain a few high draft picks which may well be viewed in a few years as a great strategy for them to have another sustained attempt at winning a flag.

I'll get on to your cliff post a little later. Think I have a greater difference of opinion in that one.

 

[catempire]

I'll get on to your cliff post a little later. Think I have a greater difference of opinion in that one.

I expected that. Part I wasn't in response to your posts on these issues but the advocates for the conventional rebuild.

 

[Partridge]

I expected that. Part I wasn't in response to your posts on these issues but the advocates for the conventional rebuild.

Yeah I'm definitely in the 'continuous' rather than 'conventional' rebuild camp.

 

[catempire]

Yeah I'm definitely in the 'continuous' rather than 'conventional' rebuild camp.

So I can get the definitions right, how does that differ from 'conventional' rebuild or the approach Geelong has taken which I might term 'renovating' the list?

Is it the number of first round selections used in the draft?

 

[Partridge]

So I can get the definitions right, how does that differ from 'conventional' rebuild or the approach Geelong has taken which I might term 'renovating' the list?

Is it the number of first round selections used in the draft?

Good question. I'd say it's slightly more cautious - keep picks, especially first and second round picks unless an incredible deal is available - i.e. Dangerfield at the end of 2015. I'd be a lot more wary about how they bring in say Henderson and Tuohy, neither of which I think are worth first round picks. No surprise I also think trading in guys with significant injury baggage - McIntosh, Clark, Delaney - should not be considered.

Fair to say what you've described and what the club is doing is more aggressive. Might be right too, who knows.

 

[catempire]

Good question. I'd say it's slightly more cautious - keep picks, especially first and second round picks unless an incredible deal is available - i.e. Dangerfield at the end of 2015. I'd be a lot more wary about how they bring in say Henderson and Tuohy, neither of which I think are worth first round picks. No surprise I also think trading in guys with significant injury baggage - McIntosh, Clark, Delaney - should not be considered.

Fair to say what you've described and what the club is doing is more aggressive. Might be right too, who knows.

Where does that strategy sit with the idea of trading out very good 25-28 year olds to get early draft picks? Would you advocate doing that? Maybe say Hawkins and Selwood are off limits but trading the likes of Duncan and Motlop.

And also, in advocating your approach, do you think it's realistic to keep competing for the top 4 in the medium term?

 

[Partridge]

Where does that strategy sit with the idea of trading out very good 25-28 year olds to get early draft picks? Would you advocate doing that? Maybe say Hawkins and Selwood are off limits but trading the likes of Duncan and Motlop.

And also, in advocating your approach, do you think it's realistic to keep competing for the top 4 in the medium term?

For me personally, I'd be pretty reluctant to trade out established 25-28 year olds. That could very easily be a player's peak years. You'd have to look at each case on its merits, perhaps for a real windfall - say another club going insane and offering multiple early picks or something - but generally I'd avoid it. Having said that, if you have a player who is obviously dissatisfied and you think you'd be better off without him, perhaps. Also I guess it would depend on how much depth you had in that position as well. Having said that, once they are over 28 you'd be foolish to not at least look at options.

To answer the second question, very hard to say. Probably not every single year. The other part we haven't touched on is obviously developing those players that you drafted and whether they can gradually fill the required roles. In an ideal world (which of course we're never in), my example would be Guthrie in 2013 - only a third year player, but by the finals he was unquestionably in our best team and our best young defender by a mile. Not saying it's always that easy of course. If you're in luck you might land two or three good players from any draft (1999 and 2001 are really astonishing to look at now), and sometimes you may not find any.

 

[Pollywaffle]

A lot of these discussions hinge on whether the success of a club can be measured only by premierships.
We as supporters probably think this way, but the powers that be in most modern day AFL clubs ( with the exception of true basket cases) work with a more pragmatic 'corporatised' mindset. Others have mentioned that this is the thinking behind our horse trading of picks for ready made players, keeping our 'window' open with just enough light shining through to keep us ( the increasingly fickle fans) interested and parting with our hard earned. It is working in a fashion. Part of me still hopes that our cobbled together team will click and that those flashes in the pan are not the fool's gold that some of us fear.
Would I drop off if we started a rebuild in earnest? Definitely not. In some ways it would be interesting. Remember Bombers babies? But I am a rusted on supporter who has lived through the dark times. Would that type of house cleaning rebuild work again and what would it do to match day attendances/memberships along the way?

 

[SJ]

Some decisions are head scratchers. Some shockers. Some become clearer post fact with more information.

Go Catters

We are in strife if Varcoe and Caddy had to go for salary cap space with our current squad. We shouldn't be struggling with it at all.

 

[catempire]

We are in strife if Varcoe and Caddy had to go for salary cap space with our current squad. We shouldn't be struggling with it at all.

It makes you wonder where it is going. Forty percent of our list is 21 years old or younger.

 

[year of the cat]

Where does that strategy sit with the idea of trading out very good 25-28 year olds to get early draft picks? Would you advocate doing that? Maybe say Hawkins and Selwood are off limits but trading the likes of Duncan and Motlop.

And also, in advocating your approach, do you think it's realistic to keep competing for the top 4 in the medium term?

I think that goes down the "complete rebuild" path. When you start actively trading out players in their prime age then that is a recognition that the current list is not good enough and requires a major overhaul. I don't think there are too many advocating for that path to be taken.

 

[catempire]

I think that goes down the "complete rebuild" path. When you start actively trading out players in their prime age then that is a recognition that the current list is not good enough and requires a major overhaul. I don't think there are too many advocating for that path to be taken.

Agree but there are quite a few advocating it.

 

[Partridge]

We are in strife if Varcoe and Caddy had to go for salary cap space with our current squad. We shouldn't be struggling with it at all.

Yeah. Makes you wonder how much the recent acquisitions of the last few seasons cost. I don't think anyone would have a problem with what Dangerfield gets, but it might be a different story for guys like Zac Smith and Scott Selwood.

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

We are in strife if Varcoe and Caddy had to go for salary cap space with our current squad. We shouldn't be struggling with it at all.

It also makes you wonder how much Varcoe and Caddy were getting paid. I was disappointed to lose both those players and they'd still both offer a lot to the current team.

I assume the most recent traded in players are on good money. But we also had a lot of top players retire or move to others clubs. You'd assume Bartel, Enright and Stevie J were on very good money.

They had forecast for Enright to stay on this year you'd assume that money is banked for next year now he retired.

 

[STPer18]

Good question. I'd say it's slightly more cautious - keep picks, especially first and second round picks unless an incredible deal is available - i.e. Dangerfield at the end of 2015. I'd be a lot more wary about how they bring in say Henderson and Tuohy, neither of which I think are worth first round picks. No surprise I also think trading in guys with significant injury baggage - McIntosh, Clark, Delaney - should not be considered.

Fair to say what you've described and what the club is doing is more aggressive. Might be right too, who knows.

This sums it up perfectly. My opinion is that it'd have been borderline negligent for the club not to continue pushing for premierships in recent years considering some of the top end talent our team has, however the main 'issue' I have with what we're doing is the willingness to trade out early draft picks when it doesn't seem required to do so.

In hindsight Henderson for pick 17-odd seems a good deal, but a player who spent the last few weeks of the year playing in the VFL, a future first round pick considering we finished 10th the year prior could have been disastrous if we stagnated or dropped further.
Likewise with Tuohy this year, if we finish well up the ladder the deal will be more than fair, but drop down the ladder and we could be surrendering a potential top-12 pick + Smedts. Most media 'experts' thought 2nd round picks for both these players would have been more than fair, so I don't think it would have been outside the realm of possibility for us to still land these two players while retaining first round picks.

When you look at losing at the time one of our most promising young midfielders and premiership players in Christensen for pick 21, and then later Josh Caddy for pick 26 and Travis Varcoe for peanuts, while bringing in an injury-ridden McIntosh for pick 38, an injury-ridden Mitch Clark for Varcoe, and Josh Caddy for a first round pick, it 'feels' as if we are regularly under-selling and over-paying. I could very well be completely wrong, and if we tried to budge a little on these deals they all may have fallen over, but that's my two cents worth.

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

The pursuits of ruckman and a second forward have been the least productive and most costly.
There's obviously a big list of failed options that have been drafted or traded in.
The Smith trade cost very little and he has shown he could play as the number 1 ruck.
Stanley has shown he could be a very good ruck but is very inconsistent. And cost a lot more to trade in thus being judged more harshly than Smith.

Not having a key forward to play alongside Hawkins is the teams biggest weakness. I totally get the idea to play Taylor there because of the need. But taking on of the best key backs moving them from there forward is a huge risk that doesn't look like working.

The club has tried a couple of options to bring in some key forwards over the last year or 2. Trading in Black at no cost is fine but he's more a third forward and won't play round 1.
House looks good but similar to black is a third tall and won't play at this stage.
Sav and Buzza are young and raw who both look good but need plenty of time.
Abbott is injured and you'd think would need injuries in senior team to have any chance.

Were there other options to trade in this year or last that the club missed?
There wasn't much this year Stewart who went to the bombers could've been a cheap option. The only other I can think of this year was Cloke and I think that'd produce a similar result to other failed options.

 

[cynical]

What type of rebuild depends on the situation and list.

1. A young core of A and B grade talent with all key positions filled (KPFs, rucks, elite mids) then I'm happy to top up. An example of this is the recent Hawthorn team with young talent in Hodge/Lewis/Mitchell/Cyril/Roughead/ Franklin etc.

2. Mid Range team on the rise then I'd be happy to continually use the draft, not worth trading picks for players as the team isn't good enough yet.

3. Old list, lots of gaps. Not a realistic chance of a flag, lack of young talent. I'm trading out whoever wont be at the club in 5 years minus a few untradeable players (captain, father/sons, players who are more than just players).

If players are available that are below cost and come on a low salary then I'd be willing to take them, eg Zac Smith was cheap as chips and a good temporary ruck option(Stanley was not). Bringing in undervalued players is good unless they are taking a position that a kid who is ready for AFL would play.

As much as a lot of supporters dont want to hear it we are in stage 3 and have been for a few years. We pay overs to fill the gaps in the list and still fall well short of a flag. Should be trading out players not trading in players.

 

[catempire]

As much as a lot of supporters dont want to hear it we are in stage 3 and have been for a few years. We pay overs to fill the gaps in the list and still fall well short of a flag. Should be trading out players not trading in players.

It's not believed because it doesn't fit with observed facts.

 

[thejester]

We are in strife if Varcoe and Caddy had to go for salary cap space with our current squad. We shouldn't be struggling with it at all.

I thought Cook made pretty clear in his Addy interview over the weekend that trading Caddy was based on a broader philosophical point (don't keep people who don't want to be there) and that salary cap space was only a benefit.

This does not, however, answer the question of how we're now at 100%.

 

[year of the cat]

It's not believed because it doesn't fit with observed facts.

See, that's where it gets interesting and where opinions can understandably vary. I can see where cynical is coming from.

Many saw us finishing top 4 last year and aside from one poor quarter of footy, being a legitimate premiership chance. That, aside from losing Enright and Caddy, we have retained the rest of our list and may well see improvement. On the flip side, others may also view that poor quarter against the Swans as a strong indication that we weren't good enough when it counted and that "why should anything be different in 2017?".

Personally I think both views are reasonable on what we currently know. We have many unknowns this year. How will our back line hold up? Will we get the improvement necessary to take the next step from our second tier group? Will Motlop be born again? Will Menzel get through the year?

There are enough concerns for many to question whether we really do have the group to win a flag and therefore whether we should be more aggressive at the trade table.