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.Hope you're right, but given none of them have played a senior game yet it's a massive unknown.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Hope you're right, but given none of them have played a senior game yet it's a massive unknown.
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.
Any response to my rant/opus above?
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"?
I expected that. Part I wasn't in response to your posts on these issues but the advocates for the conventional rebuild.
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?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?
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.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?
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.Some decisions are head scratchers. Some shockers. Some become clearer post fact with more information.
Go Catters
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?
Agree but there are quite a few advocating it.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.
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.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.
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.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.
It's not believed because it doesn't fit with observed facts.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.
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.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's not believed because it doesn't fit with observed facts.