Strategy List management approach and philosophy

[catempire]

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.

I don't have a problem with much of what you say there but I see that as quite different from "Old list, lots of gaps. Not a realistic chance of a flag, lack of young talent" which is a description quite unfitting for Geelong.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Will Motlop be born again?

Certainly hoping for this. A real watershed year for him.
I hate to say it, but he is starting to look and play a bit like ( cousin,uncle?) Daniel, Another wasted talent .

 

[Pure_Ownage]

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.

I think there are reaonable points there although I would say not all first rounders are equal, when you have top 5 picks (which by definition you have to have a very poor year to get, you can't really engineer that short of trading out your prime age guns which no sensible club does) when yours are regularly between 15 and 20 you are much less likely to get a gun with them therefore trading them is not as much of an inherent risk. Look at Wells first picks since Selwood Taylor (17) Menzel (17) Smedts (15) Hamling (32) Thurlow (16) Lang (16) Cockatoo (10). The other point here is Wells almost always tends to 'reach' in the first round that is he backs his gut and takes guys who are generally not consensus related as really early picks who we might have been able to get in the second round anyway, therefore the loss to us of having our first pick in the second round is less than what it is for other clubs. If you look at that list none of those guys were picked by anyone in the media to go in the first round in their draft years except ironically for Smedts (GC had 9 of the first 15 picks that year and were tipped to take him).

With the overall strategy I think it's clear what we are doing. The 07 to 09 drafts have largely failed and as a result we have a hole in the 24-27 age group so we are consistently trading in players to try and support Hawkins and Selwood to win a flag while they are still around, and with our remaining picks trying to develop younger players into roles (hence some guys like Stokes Kelly SJ Bartel etc being retired before they wanted to to make room for them). McIntosh is the only time we have traded in older than that but that was an outlier-remember they offered Ottens half the pre season off to try and convince him to go in 2012 but he retired very late which forced them to pick Stephenson as it was so late no one else was available. Then 12 months later when it was clear Stephenson wasnt much chop and West was a no2 not a no1 and Vardy had a possible career ending injury they had to get a readymade ruck and they panicked when few were available. By and large they have targeted players in the 24-26 age bracket and most of those players (Dangerfield, Smith, Henderson etc) are playing well and look like being good investments. And the players we targeted and failed (e.g. Adams, Shaw) have gone on to be good players so clearly our talent ID isn't bad.

I do cut Wells some slack on the failed drafts as when you look at 07 as outside the top 30 that draft was a crap shoot arguably we should have taken Scott Thompson over D Simpson which would have meant we didn't need to go tall in 08, if you look at 08 Wells main fault was he went for needs that year (he talked at the time about drafting bookends to replace Mooney and Scarlett and that was why he picked Brown and Gillies) because that was a mids draft and almost all the talls picked in that draft are since delisted and the ones that remain like Vickery are average. Yet I can understand why he went tall then given Egan looked like not making it back and we had no idea Lonergan would get back, Scarlett Mooney and Harley were all older than 27 and we had an AA midfield. Motlop is a good draft pick from that year and THunt was decent for a while (arguably more a development fault than a recruiter fault). If you look at 09 in 11 most of us were saying that would be one of our best drafts and it would have been if not for injury-Duncan will play 250 games for us and Menzel would have been a star if not for the knees and Vardy and Christensen were both pretty good players before injuries hit. Throw in Pods as a rookie that year and it would have been a super draft if not for injuries. So yes we do have a hole in the 24-26 age bracket but I think a lot of the reasons for that are outside Wells control I think he has done his best there and most of his trade ins bar McIntosh have been very good (whether we overpaid for them is a separate question to whether they are doing well).

The other thing is (and I am not saying you are saying this btw) I take issue with people saying that trading out our guns and deliberately finishing bottom 4 for a couple of years is the best way for us to win our next flag, firstly it ignores the point that Carter and Cook don't believe in that and there is zero chance of that happening while they work here, so the best we would do is 'no man's land' whereby we don't compete for a flag (which we are doing now) but we just finish mid table which means we still don't get the super elite talent you are talking about (see North) but secondly there is not a lot of evidence to suggest that dropping down by choice works.

Look at St Kilda. They traded Goddard for pick 12 which became Lee White and Saunders all of whom they have delisted.
What they got for Dal Santo they traded for Longer. He won't get games while Hickey is there so either he gets delisted in a couple of years or gets traded again either way they don't get much out of him.
Stanley was traded for Goddard and little evidence yet to suggest they will win on that.
McEvoy was traded for Dunstan and Savage, while Savage has been ok I wouldn't call that a flag building win.

Melbourne tried to trade out all their experience for picks and it stuffed them, it has taken 10 years to recover.

And people talk about the Dogs early picks but the reality is that wasn't a strategy by choice as Ward and Griffen both walked out they were just fortunate that those picks and $ turned into MacRae and Boyd. Higgins and Cooney went for the return of Webb and Hamilton who as yet haven't done much. Arguably the Dogs won the flag because of a) their game plan and b) there development of later draft players-Dahlhaus Johanissen Picken and Boyd were all rookies, Morris Murphy were relatively late picks, Roberts and Hamling were PSD and free agent and Biggs was traded for a 1 pick downgrade. Liberatore and Hunter were FS selections and none of Dunkley McLean etc were particularly early picks. Outside of Bontempelli MacRae Stringer and Boyd their early picks haven't had a whole lot influence on winning the flag and let's be honest they got Boyd because of money not where he was drafted and Stringer didn't do a whole lot last year. To me they won the flag because of how they developed players not early picks.

Hawthorn is the closest example you can get in terms of actively pushing out Croad and McPharlin (the latter wanted to go the former didn't) to get Hodge and finishing low in 2004 to get Roughead Franklin and Lewis (although I would argue that they deliberately finished low they were just crap that year). But even then I would argue it's not until they got a really good gameplan and got specific about their targeted trade ins and got buy in from everyone that they became formidable.

So I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that trading out stars for top 10 picks and dropping down for a while is more likely to get you a flag than anything else and there are huge cultural risks to doing that. This does't mean I agree with everything in our current strategy but I don't think that is the answer.

 

[catempire]

<snip>

And I thought my posts on this were an opus.

Great post PO.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Post of the year contender PO, brilliantly put.

 

[year of the cat]

I think there are reaonable points there although I would say not all first rounders are equal, when you have top 5 picks (which by definition you have to have a very poor year to get, you can't really engineer that short of trading out your prime age guns which no sensible club does) when yours are regularly between 15 and 20 you are much less likely to get a gun with them therefore trading them is not as much of an inherent risk. Look at Wells first picks since Selwood Taylor (17) Menzel (17) Smedts (15) Hamling (32) Thurlow (16) Lang (16) Cockatoo (10). The other point here is Wells almost always tends to 'reach' in the first round that is he backs his gut and takes guys who are generally not consensus related as really early picks who we might have been able to get in the second round anyway, therefore the loss to us of having our first pick in the second round is less than what it is for other clubs. If you look at that list none of those guys were picked by anyone in the media to go in the first round in their draft years except ironically for Smedts (GC had 9 of the first 15 picks that year and were tipped to take him).

With the overall strategy I think it's clear what we are doing. The 07 to 09 drafts have largely failed and as a result we have a hole in the 24-27 age group so we are consistently trading in players to try and support Hawkins and Selwood to win a flag while they are still around, and with our remaining picks trying to develop younger players into roles (hence some guys like Stokes Kelly SJ Bartel etc being retired before they wanted to to make room for them). McIntosh is the only time we have traded in older than that but that was an outlier-remember they offered Ottens half the pre season off to try and convince him to go in 2012 but he retired very late which forced them to pick Stephenson as it was so late no one else was available. Then 12 months later when it was clear Stephenson wasnt much chop and West was a no2 not a no1 and Vardy had a possible career ending injury they had to get a readymade ruck and they panicked when few were available. By and large they have targeted players in the 24-26 age bracket and most of those players (Dangerfield, Smith, Henderson etc) are playing well and look like being good investments. And the players we targeted and failed (e.g. Adams, Shaw) have gone on to be good players so clearly our talent ID isn't bad.

I do cut Wells some slack on the failed drafts as when you look at 07 as outside the top 30 that draft was a crap shoot arguably we should have taken Scott Thompson over D Simpson which would have meant we didn't need to go tall in 08, if you look at 08 Wells main fault was he went for needs that year (he talked at the time about drafting bookends to replace Mooney and Scarlett and that was why he picked Brown and Gillies) because that was a mids draft and almost all the talls picked in that draft are since delisted and the ones that remain like Vickery are average. Yet I can understand why he went tall then given Egan looked like not making it back and we had no idea Lonergan would get back, Scarlett Mooney and Harley were all older than 27 and we had an AA midfield. Motlop is a good draft pick from that year and THunt was decent for a while (arguably more a development fault than a recruiter fault). If you look at 09 in 11 most of us were saying that would be one of our best drafts and it would have been if not for injury-Duncan will play 250 games for us and Menzel would have been a star if not for the knees and Vardy and Christensen were both pretty good players before injuries hit. Throw in Pods as a rookie that year and it would have been a super draft if not for injuries. So yes we do have a hole in the 24-26 age bracket but I think a lot of the reasons for that are outside Wells control I think he has done his best there and most of his trade ins bar McIntosh have been very good (whether we overpaid for them is a separate question to whether they are doing well).

The other thing is (and I am not saying you are saying this btw) I take issue with people saying that trading out our guns and deliberately finishing bottom 4 for a couple of years is the best way for us to win our next flag, firstly it ignores the point that Carter and Cook don't believe in that and there is zero chance of that happening while they work here, so the best we would do is 'no man's land' whereby we don't compete for a flag (which we are doing now) but we just finish mid table which means we still don't get the super elite talent you are talking about (see North) but secondly there is not a lot of evidence to suggest that dropping down by choice works.

Look at St Kilda. They traded Goddard for pick 12 which became Lee White and Saunders all of whom they have delisted.
What they got for Dal Santo they traded for Longer. He won't get games while Hickey is there so either he gets delisted in a couple of years or gets traded again either way they don't get much out of him.
Stanley was traded for Goddard and little evidence yet to suggest they will win on that.
McEvoy was traded for Dunstan and Savage, while Savage has been ok I wouldn't call that a flag building win.

Melbourne tried to trade out all their experience for picks and it stuffed them, it has taken 10 years to recover.

And people talk about the Dogs early picks but the reality is that wasn't a strategy by choice as Ward and Griffen both walked out they were just fortunate that those picks and $ turned into MacRae and Boyd. Higgins and Cooney went for the return of Webb and Hamilton who as yet haven't done much. Arguably the Dogs won the flag because of a) their game plan and b) there development of later draft players-Dahlhaus Johanissen Picken and Boyd were all rookies, Morris Murphy were relatively late picks, Roberts and Hamling were PSD and free agent and Biggs was traded for a 1 pick downgrade. Liberatore and Hunter were FS selections and none of Dunkley McLean etc were particularly early picks. Outside of Bontempelli MacRae Stringer and Boyd their early picks haven't had a whole lot influence on winning the flag and let's be honest they got Boyd because of money not where he was drafted and Stringer didn't do a whole lot last year. To me they won the flag because of how they developed players not early picks.

Hawthorn is the closest example you can get in terms of actively pushing out Croad and McPharlin (the latter wanted to go the former didn't) to get Hodge and finishing low in 2004 to get Roughead Franklin and Lewis (although I would argue that they deliberately finished low they were just crap that year). But even then I would argue it's not until they got a really good gameplan and got specific about their targeted trade ins and got buy in from everyone that they became formidable.

So I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that trading out stars for top 10 picks and dropping down for a while is more likely to get you a flag than anything else and there are huge cultural risks to doing that. This does't mean I agree with everything in our current strategy but I don't think that is the answer.

I'm limited in time to respond at the moment so will make it quick.

I have never promoted the trading of stars for top 10 picks as you mention in your last paragraph. As I've stated continuously all I'd like to see is a RETENTION of our first rounders.

Secondly I think Wells drafting of late has been mediocre. Just because he may reach with our first doesn't mean we should trade out our first. The end shouldn't justify the means. Perhaps Wells should start to "follow the pack" a bit more and look at drafting more consensus highly ranked players?

My point re the Saints was that they have largely resurrected via the draft, rather than via trade or FA. They have retained their early picks whilst still identifying suitable trades such as Membrey, Hickey and more recently Steele. It seems to be a strategy that is now paying dividends.

I don't think you can compare us to either the Bulldogs or Melbourne. Our pathway is very different. Hawks have gone down an interesting route this last offseason - they have identified two young, talented kids to build a team around for the future. I'm not convinced this is the way to go myself. They've paid a huge price for them and only need O'Meara to revisit his injury issues of the past couple of years for it to be a disaster.

Hope this further clarifies my position.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

In my opinion right now our list is in a very strong position, things looked ugly the last few years, but the turnover of veterans has for the most part gone well, and now our age profile looks very good.

This year we will likely lose Mackie and Lonergan, those should, save any unexpected declines, be the only retirees. -

they will be replaced almost like for like by Kolo and Bews/Thurlow. Kolo and Bews/Thurlow are currently 21 and 23 respectively, if all 3 play significant football over the next 3 years they will be 24 and 26 respectively and close to their football prime in 2020, as will Ruggles and Stewart (27). Touhy and Henderson will both be 30 in this season and will be seasoned veterans and leaders of our defence if nothing goes drastically wrong over this period.

Onto the midfield and in season 2020 Selwood will be 31 and close to his end, I predict that he will still be extremely capable and durable and will continue to be an A Grader, probably retiring on his own terms around this time. Dangerfield will be 29 and should not have declined or been affected by age yet. Duncan will be 28, right in his peak, Guthrie similarly 27 right in his prime and Motlop, Murdoch, GHS, McCarthy, Menzel, Blicavs all around that peak age range for AFL footballers.

As far as our talls Hawkins will be 31, I expect him to still be effective, and our rucks Smith and Stanley will be 30 and 29 respectively.

All of the above, not to mention 3 off-seasons to polish and improve what we have right now list and fitness-wise means one thing: Hand us the 2020 cup right now



(I write this all with tongue pretty firmly in cheek, but I actually am genuinely happy with where we are at as a football club right now and think we do have a good few seasons ahead of us, so lets get around the boys and enjoy the ride, cause we're movin' on up )

 

[Hamingja]

2016/2017/2018 is the 3 year window of the top up strategy before we enter oblivion.

One chance missed.

 

[Cataholic]

2016/2017/2018 is the 3 year window of the top up strategy before we enter oblivion.

One chance missed.

Oblivion?

Wow

 

[goyoucatters]

Oblivion?

Wow

Scary thought, isn't it?

I had certainly heard from some here that we were headed for some sort of steep decline.

But I didn't realise we were actually going to be merging with Carlton.

 

[Cataholic]

Scary thought, isn't it?

I had certainly heard from some here that we were headed for some sort of steep decline.

But I didn't realise we were actually going to be merging with Carlton.

Well, I guess that will get us back to achieving some modicum of success

 

[catempire]

"They're trying to buck the system," Ling said.

"Teams are supposed to bottom out, get early draft picks and come back up the ladder.

"While [they] have been winning premierships, they haven't had access to elite talent [in the draft] meaning they should fall down the ladder and finish well down the bottom for a few years and get access to the elite talent."

Interesting comments from Cameron Ling who is not referring to Geelong above, but Hawthorn who he says is trying to emulate Geelong and Sydney's approach to "beat the system" and stay at the top.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...rying-to-beat-the-system-20170410-gvhyel.html

 

[Partridge]

"They're trying to buck the system," Ling said.

"Teams are supposed to bottom out, get early draft picks and come back up the ladder.

"While [they] have been winning premierships, they haven't had access to elite talent [in the draft] meaning they should fall down the ladder and finish well down the bottom for a few years and get access to the elite talent."

Interesting comments from Cameron Ling who is not referring to Geelong above, but Hawthorn who he says is trying to emulate Geelong and Sydney's approach to "beat the system" and stay at the top.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...rying-to-beat-the-system-20170410-gvhyel.html

It's funny how even commentators repeat this endlessly. I don't see why if you recruit and develop well (which you should be doing every year regardless) that you can't stay up.

We haven't bottomed out in 30 years. Even that one year in the bottom 4 (1986) was a temporary blip too.

 

[Seeds]

Oblivion?

Wow

See hawthorn for what oblivion will look like. It ain't pretty.

 

[SJ]

"They're trying to buck the system," Ling said.

"Teams are supposed to bottom out, get early draft picks and come back up the ladder.

"While [they] have been winning premierships, they haven't had access to elite talent [in the draft] meaning they should fall down the ladder and finish well down the bottom for a few years and get access to the elite talent."

Interesting comments from Cameron Ling who is not referring to Geelong above, but Hawthorn who he says is trying to emulate Geelong and Sydney's approach to "beat the system" and stay at the top.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...rying-to-beat-the-system-20170410-gvhyel.html

It's funny how even commentators repeat this endlessly. I don't see why if you recruit and develop well (which you should be doing every year regardless) that you can't stay up.

We haven't bottomed out in 30 years. Even that one year in the bottom 4 (1986) was a temporary blip too.

Two extra things:
1. They haven't had "access to elite talent" mostly because they've traded away about seven consecutive first round draft picks and a host of others.
2. Is Hawthorn "trying to emulate Geelong"? I keep being told Geelong is trying to emulate Hawthorn!

 

[Cataholic]

See hawthorn for what oblivion will look like. It ain't pretty.

Am I allowed to enjoy the view?

 

[catempire]

Two extra things:
1. They haven't had "access to elite talent" mostly because they've traded away about seven consecutive first round draft picks and a host of others.
2. Is Hawthorn "trying to emulate Geelong"? I keep being told Geelong is trying to emulate Hawthorn!

On 1, "elite" is referring to high draft picks.

 

[hbk_aus]

It's funny how even commentators repeat this endlessly. I don't see why if you recruit and develop well (which you should be doing every year regardless) that you can't stay up.

We haven't bottomed out in 30 years. Even that one year in the bottom 4 (1986) was a temporary blip too.

Very good point and I think our downfall, if you could call it that, is that while our top ups of late have actually performed quite well (Danger, Henderson, Tuohy, Stanley & Smith have been ok) we have still have a lot of younger players on the list who I feel we could/should have gotten more out of at this stage. If we can improve that development, it would compliment the more experienced recruits who can hit the ground running.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

First let me say I still think we can win a premiership with this group , but plenty of others do not and I can understand that .

My question is why do you believe the club did not a some stage decided to go for a more traditional complete rebuild via the draft ?

I have my own views but want hear what others have to say .

 

[Turbocat]

First let me say I still think we can win a premiership with this group , but plenty of others do not and I can understand that .

My question is why do you believe the club did not a some stage decided to go for a more traditional complete rebuild via the draft ?

I have my own views but want hear what others have to say .

Are you still as exuberant as you were?

Why the list build?
Because , the entry of the expansion teams have dragged talent and to match them would require considerable pain , the success of Haw with the pnp top ups , to maximise Selwood and Hawkins and now Danger etc while they are still at their peak , to keep the turnstiles turning over while they update the stadium , and to keep us competitive.

I think the last one is the great misnomer. Being competitive , really competitive is about mindset but has little to do with being good enough to win flags. The Dogs were competitive for years being scrappy etc but its focused , insync , motivated effort from quality of players that makes you good enough to win.. competitive ..just being competitive is the poverty trap of the AFL.. getting max result from an under talented group with put you just in and around the edge of the finals , year after year... if that floats your boat fine I guess.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Are you still as exuberant as you were?

Why the list build?
Because , the entry of the expansion teams have dragged talent and to match them would require considerable pain , the success of Haw with the pnp top ups , to maximise Selwood and Hawkins and now Danger etc while they are still at their peak , to keep the turnstiles turning over while they update the stadium , and to keep us competitive.

I think the last one is the great misnomer. Being competitive , really competitive is about mindset but has little to do with being good enough to win flags. The Dogs were competitive for years being scrappy etc but its focused , insync , motivated effort from quality of players that makes you good enough to win.. competitive ..just being competitive is the poverty trap of the AFL.. getting max result from an under talented group with put you just in and around the edge of the finals , year after year... if that floats your boat fine I guess.

No .Start of last season I thought a number of players were going to improve and become A graders but that hasn't happened .

We are struggling for what ever reason to recruit young players via the draft and turn them into A graders .

 

[Turbocat]

No .Start of last season I thought a number of players were going to improve and become A graders but that hasn't happened .

We are struggling for what ever reason to recruit young players via the draft and turn them into A graders .

Look at our previous build and one can see why...

 

[Cataholic]

No .Start of last season I thought a number of players were going to improve and become A graders but that hasn't happened .

We are struggling for what ever reason to recruit young players via the draft and turn them into A graders .

Is that because the talent isn't there come our pick/s, we are not identifying true talent, or we don't have the tools and structures in place to nurture and develop the talent?

 

[Turbocat]

Is that because the talent isn't there come our pick/s, we are not identifying true talent, or we don't have the tools and structures in place to nurture and develop the talent?

One can develop the living heck out a pick but if god didn't put enough in then the development will just not get to the A grade level for enough players to build enough of core to drag other along.
We got the likes Enright , Ling and Chappy with late picks and mixed that with Selwood , Corey , Bartel , Mackie with single figure picks. Add to that talent identification is better than it was and early picks are more valuable than they were then. The icing for the cake was FSons.
We have tried to build with late R1's to early R2's and Pnp types.

 

[Spazz Cat]

We had McCartney developing our younger players during our previous build.
Just like the bulldogs had him during the development of their current list.
Most underrated person in footy.
Lappin, Obree, Caracalla have been or were assistants for years with poor results in player development. We've needed more turnover with our assistants.
Only results we are really seeing are with younger defenders since Scarlett joined FT.
Just my opinion but I can't see it's a positive thing if the senior coach doesn't talk to the younger players to tell them why they're dropped.
Anyway possibly a few reasons.