Mackie

[Turbocat]

Mackie . After watching “the big one” today in those conditions , I’m now quite confident that that this kid will be a good addition to our side. Today was not a day for light bodied players but what he showed today was the ability to overcome that, to still maximize delivery into the forwardline, place himself in the right position for the ball, to get in front of a pack. I have doubted his worth as a first round draft choice and we will see over the next 2 years whether I was right or wrong but at this moment I am happily willing to concede on his present form and presuming he continues with it, that “I WILL DEFINETLY HAVE BEEN BE WRONG” Yippee , nothing makes me happier than seeing talent running around in the Hoops.
I have always thought that if he was good enough he should be able to play as a light weight like a Caracella could and still does. Today he showed me that he should be able to do this. He might get worn down eventually but lets play him as much as we can. His smarts are worthy of game time now, lets give him experience in the big time and the smarts will only get better. If he starts to get smashed, rest him but he will never be a Jonathon Brown, he will probably always rely on courage, skill and footy smarts to play , just like Hird. If he gets to Hird's level then Davidson should be given life membership but a player that plays 200 games plus is in 2% of the players drafted and that would do me just fine!!

 

[skywalk750]

here here, played an excellent game

he was only 73 kg when he joined the club at 193? cm

you never know could be a key pos player

 

[GeeCat]

Originally posted by Turbocat
If he gets to Hird's level then Davidson should be given life membership

Good to see Andrew's performence has impressed another fan so much that he's on the Mackie Bandwagon . I think this has all already been said, i.e. Mackie never being a true key forward etc. But one must ask, why would Davidson be given life membership when it is Wells who did the scouting and led the eventual drafting of Mackie?

 

[GeeCat]

Originally posted by skywalk750
here here, played an excellent game

he was only 73 kg when he joined the club at 193? cm

you never know could be a key pos player

Very seriously doubt it. May turn into one late in his career, but I'd expect the majority of his career to be played as a floating tall and tall outside midfielder.

 

[Sammy D]

Originally posted by Turbocat
If he gets to Hird's level then Davidson should be given life membership

How bout we fire Davidson at the end of the year! Ok, sounds good to me. Does anyone wonder why we never pull off any good trades? DAVIDSON. He is regarded by the other melbourne clubs as a J-O-K-E JOKE!

As for Mackie love his delivery into the forward line and his second efforts. Lets hope he can keep it up and develop further

 

[Turbocat]

Fair point Gee, probably more Wells but who would have the final say?.Hey, If he gets to Hirds level lets give a LM to all of them but lets just wait for that first Flag and Brownlow,OK.
Hes had a good start ,L1 achieved. L2 is when the opposition start to focus like they did with GA.When they start hitting him we'll know they respect him. Yes I'm on as long as I dont have to get off Tenace's BW.I think there be more then just a few on it by the end of the year if he can keep it up.I know Stan Alves rated him today.So, all aboard the "The Big Mac"kie BandWagon and lets hope its big enough for us all!

Davidson so called “success rate” in pulling big names probably has given us a possible 200 game champ called Tenace. In truth I’m in agreement with Cam Ling's comment after the game today in that Id much prefer to develop own champions. If we can avoid giving away our picks and can keep picking up a Tenace, Mackie or who ever I think it has a better feel to it.

Key Position? Probably not or at least not for several years. Does Hird play KeyPosition?.Gehrig started on the Wing for WC look at him now?I think if he can play HF etc as 3/4 tall and keep putting it lace out he will be doing more than what could be really expected for the next 20-40 games.If he can chime in for a couple of goals all the better.The more we spread the load, the less we rely on guys like Kingsley to be a match winner for us.

 

[Sammy D]

Originally posted by Turbocat
Davidson so called “success rate” in pulling big names probably has given us a possible 200 game champ called Tenace. In truth I’m in agreement with Cam Ling's comment after the game today in that Id much prefer to develop own champions. If we can avoid giving away our picks and can keep picking up a Tenace, Mackie or who ever I think it has a better feel to it.

Yes, but we've been trying to replace that KPP since Ablett & Brownless finished with a mixture of draft picks, rejects & guys like Mitchell White. We have waited long enough! We wont go anywhere without one.

 

[willycat]

Mackie seems to have a real toughness about him (mentally) and plays aggresively which I like to see. Loves to tackle.

 

[Turbocat]

Yes, but we've been trying to replace that KPP since Ablett & Brownless finished with a mixture of draft picks, rejects & guys like Mitchell White. We have waited long enough! We wont go anywhere without one.

SammyD , if you have a look at some of my previous posts I have been saying similar things in regarding a Quality Tall. Yes we need one, maybe two. With White we tried and failed. Some times people who are desperate do dodgy things And White always had more chance of failure than success. We nearly did the same sort of thing with Rawlings. He might have played more, he might have marked more but he wasn’t the one we crave. I don’t want to pay for sirloin and get mince.
Lets do a theoretical, Sammy D is now in charge just who would you get? Geelong finish’s as usual about 10th and have pick7 Theoretically, lets say a Riewoldt type is the player that all say is a future star, is the #1pick in the draft2004.Also a Koschitzke type decides he being played out of position, being over looked and would like to play at CHF and of course the pay packet to match. Also an experienced player like a Hamill decides he wants to set himself up with his final contract. Just who are you going to chase and make your No1 target? Just what are YOU prepared to do to complete the deal. Just who are you willing to lose because a #7 pick is not good enough?

 

[Sammy D]

Originally posted by Turbocat
SammyD , if you have a look at some of my previous posts I have been saying similar things in regarding a Quality Tall. Yes we need one, maybe two. With White we tried and failed. Some times people who are desperate do dodgy things And White always had more chance of failure than success. We nearly did the same sort of thing with Rawlings. He might have played more, he might have marked more but he wasn’t the one we crave. I don’t want to pay for sirloin and get mince.

Agree...

Originally posted by Turbocat
Lets do a theoretical, Sammy D is now in charge just who would you get? Geelong finish’s as usual about 10th and have pick7 Theoretically, lets say a Riewoldt type is the player that all say is a future star, is the #1pick in the draft2004.

What exactly are you on about here? Is this a suggestion to trade for the #1 pick? As far as im concened we have a few untouchables as in King, Scarlett, Harley, Ablett & [Kelly, Tenace & Mackie to see how they turn out]. We can build a team around them. But that pretty much leaves us with nothing somebody else wants, unless we trade pick 7 & Corey & say Bartel for their pick 1.

Originally posted by Turbocat
Also a Koschitzke type decides he being played out of position, being over looked and would like to play at CHF and of course the pay packet to match. Also an experienced player like a Hamill decides he wants to set himself up with his final contract. Just who are you going to chase and make your No1 target? Just what are YOU prepared to do to complete the deal. Just who are you willing to lose because a #7 pick is not good enough?

To cut a long answer short. Overall id go with the 'koschitzke' type providing he is fit & maybe doesnt have injuries the real koschitzke has had. The Hamill option is interesting. He'd be good physically & leadership wise which IMO is something we lack & its possible a few saints or other players might be attracted to the club, but he is what 26-27 but id prefer a longer term option who wouldnt be instantly be on the money he is on. Also you alluded to 'last pay packet', we dont want somebody after money. Meanwhile the #1 has too much risks to it. Who says he is going to live upto expectation? What if he does his knee twice & ends his career. Id go the the 'kozy' option i spose, even if it meant we had to give up say harley or kelly/mackie.
Gee...tough question Turbocat. Lets get more realistic....obviously we dont have a great idea with kids coming up in the draft etc. Say we get that pick #5-#7, which players on all the afl lists would you be looking at getting?

 

[Turbocat]

Sammy , What am I on about?

Yes, but we've been trying to replace that KPP since Ablett & Brownless finished

You think we have not replaced Ablett and Brownless
Agreed

How bout we fire Davidson at the end of the year! Ok, sounds good to me. Does anyone wonder why we never pull off any good trades? DAVIDSON. He is regarded by the other melbourne clubs as a J-O-K-E JOKE!

You also think that we need to fire Davidson because he is regarded as a joke and he is the reason we have never pulled off any good trades
On this ,I have no knowledge of this perhaps you do. But from my perception one does not get anywhere in trades without having collateral.
How long has Davidson been at the club , I don’t know. How hard has he been allowed to go, to get the replacement we both crave but you say he hasn’t delivered. (lets face it to get an Ablett or Brownless type now you are talking very early first round pick) Has he been in total control or had to work within parameters set by the CEO.I have heard Cook say he has a high degree of input at this stage of recruitment Eg. Get a player like Rawlings , for our 1st round pick but no more
Eg. Get a player like Lucus for our 1st and 3rd pick, neg.
Eg. Get a player like J.Brown for our 1st and 2nd pick and a previous first round pick .

This is why I gave have this theoretical question for you. I really know if he has performed badly or just has had any talent to trade.

I think we on pretty much a similar thought plane. If we agree that right now we 2 quality talls away from a top side, what would you be prepared to do get them? How long will it be before our current side peaks? How long will we have with the current group before other weakness crop up?

My Assessment would be as follows
We will probably be in a position to be a top 4 side in 2 years+ (2006).Our best player will be moving into the 50-150 at that time. This is a good blend of durability and experience.
After this time we will have need to replace a tall, medium defender and mid fielder but if replace with players who can step straight in to the best 22 and be less than 25 in 2006 we will have a period similar to 89-95 to have another dip at a flag
Which approach would I take when trying to recruit. I have tried to separate the talls into three groups,
A, an untried U18 potential star tall,
B, young promising tall,
C, mature quality tall
I would try to trade for the #1 pick(Type A) but I wouldn’t trade some one in our top8 players for it or players that have F/S link to the Cats so I doubt I would get the #1pick. I would then attempt to trade for the out of contract the Young promising Tall(Type B).Sometimes one might have bit more leverage but not always. I doubt I would pay big for a player in Type C unless we were in the Flag Zone

The point of all this was has Davidson really been the reason we don’t have a quality tall? Unless we have missed picking them in the draft I don’t really think there are any players we missed out on due to Geelong’s inability.I think generally nobody wanted to come because 1) we had a doubtful future and 2) we had a poor side and most players who decide to go to another club pick clubs with a chance of success. If I am correct the next couple of years we will find it much easier to get a player to Catland.

 

[Sammy D]

Sammy , What am I on about?

Sorry, that came out wrong, it took me awhile to figure out that your were suggesting we trade for the #1 pick.

You also think that we need to fire Davidson because he is regarded as a joke and he is the reason we have never pulled off any good trades

I have a connection down at the club, without saying his name i assure you he knows what hes talking about and is not some person from the cheersquad. At the end of last year i was told by this person Davidson was a problem and holding the club back via trading/decisions etc. and I quote "is regarded in melbourne as a joke." I was told he was going to go at the end of last year, why he stayed i dont know. Does he have a contract at the club? But anyways he is there...so be it.

My Assessment would be as follows
We will probably be in a position to be a top 4 side in 2 years+ (2006).Our best player will be moving into the 50-150 at that time. This is a good blend of durability and experience.
After this time we will have need to replace a tall, medium defender and mid fielder but if replace with players who can step straight in to the best 22 and be less than 25 in 2006 we will have a period similar to 89-95 to have another dip at a flag
Which approach would I take when trying to recruit. I have tried to separate the talls into three groups,
A, an untried U18 potential star tall,
B, young promising tall,
C, mature quality tall
I would try to trade for the #1 pick(Type A) but I wouldn’t trade some one in our top8 players for it or players that have F/S link to the Cats so I doubt I would get the #1pick. I would then attempt to trade for the out of contract the Young promising Tall(Type B).Sometimes one might have bit more leverage but not always. I doubt I would pay big for a player in Type C unless we were in the Flag Zone

I agree pretty much 100%. By then our players like Ling, Enright & Corey etc will have played 80-120 games and should be developing, if not they should be traded. I take it the tall, middy & defender are Sando, Ricco & Graham. Apart from them the side is very young. Hopefully maybe a Rooke can step up into Sando's place and a young player (Tenace?) for Ricco. Graham who knows?!

The point of all this was has Davidson really been the reason we don’t have a quality tall? Unless we have missed picking them in the draft I don’t really think there are any players we missed out on due to Geelong’s inability.I think generally nobody wanted to come because 1) we had a doubtful future and 2) we had a poor side and most players who decide to go to another club pick clubs with a chance of success. If I am correct the next couple of years we will find it much easier to get a player to Catland.

Im not saying Davidson is 100% the reason we dont have a key forward, but a change couldnt hurt could it? As for most players go to a side that has a chance for success, the media has been going on about us since mid 2002 yet we havent got anyone in that time. Rawlings said it was coz of being away from Melbourne. Bradshaw has knocked us back like 3 times...
Yet clubs like Richmond who seem to limbo in mediocrity manage to pick up players like Brown & K. Johnson while we pick up Haynes, Loats & Finnan?!

Lastly, can you see any of our young talls standing up?

 

[nananana catman]

If you're implying that we trade for the number 1 pick (which i think is a good idea) You have really got to use it on the best available player. if we end up with pick 7 again theres always a chance that a superstar player (like tenace did) will drop to 7. no point trading the number 7 pick and more for the number 1 pick then not using it on best player. may as well trade for number 1 pick then offer it around (not sure you can do that). At the top of my list, and who we could both realistically get in the one trade period with not giving heaps away would be Daniel Bradshaw and Justin Ko****zkhe. to get them ud have to give away first and second round pick and a player. not a lot if its going to make our team very strong.

(First round pick and second round pick for Ko****zkhe)
(a player of Corey Spriggs Chapman or Enirght for Bradshaw)

 

[Cat Tragic]

Davidson is not well regarded at the club and had his situatuion reviewed at year end. Unlike Dare etc he had one more year in his contract to go and it was felt that this should be honoured for a number of reasons (including the cost of paying it out). My mail is that he is unlikely to get an extension although that may depend upon a replacement.
Michael Turner is still very keen.

 

[Sammy D]

Originally posted by Cat Tragic
Unlike Dare etc he had one more year in his contract to go and it was felt that this should be honoured for a number of reasons (including the cost of paying it out).

The financial cost was my presumption...

 

[Turbocat]

Lastly, can you see any of our young talls standing up?

The short answer is Yes.
Are they cappable of playing AFL level , almost all of them would look better with a topline quality tall around them, say put Brown at CHF and it makes a huge difference.
However, obviously we have no brown or even a future one. By themselves I don’t see many as 150 game players. Most I feel fall into a Spriggs categories , He played a lot of games early looked reasonable compared with other on the list but basically had no real talented others to push him. The first two years he had a heaven sent chance to play senior football , but now things are a lot tuffer, a lot more talented other how will get , must get chances like did and failed to capitalize on. Just the last weekend Mackie pushed him down another notch.
Forward talls are thin and are toughest to get. From what I have seen Playfair and Lonergan show the most potential as long termers, as long as they continue to develop. Playfair has flexability and Lonergan nice kick , reasonable mark not sure of his spring though .I don’t see a 70 goal a year guy or a 7 goal a game guy, that’s why have to go after guys like a Murphy ( Fremantle), Watts(Adelaide) etc coming out of contract or popping up in the draft, these guys would do what Ablett, Tenace etc have done to Spriggs.

 

[Turbocat]

That Mackie bandwagon is really starting to get a good roll on it.Some nice marks,good moves and really liked the goal after the mark on the goal line, it showed a bit of forward nous that classy player like Ablett have.Sometimes players learn what to do in certain circumstance but they never have the natural understanding that a player like Mackie has.It makes him far more dangerious player than most of his weight on the forwardline and in four years , he will be 6-8 kg heavier, hold his ground better and be a legit match winner.Yep I was WRONG , he was worth a first round but boy I love being wrong when the Cats were the ones who were right.
I still win.

 

[willycat]

Originally posted by Turbocat
That Mackie bandwagon is really starting to get a good roll on it.Some nice marks,good moves and really liked the goal after the mark on the goal line, it showed a bit of forward nous that classy player like Ablett have.Sometimes players learn what to do in certain circumstance but they never have the natural understanding that a player like Mackie has.It makes him far more dangerious player than most of his weight on the forwardline and in four years , he will be 6-8 kg heavier, hold his ground better and be a legit match winner.Yep I was WRONG , he was worth a first round but boy I love being wrong when the Cats were the ones who were right.
I still win.

In the age of not taking responsiblity for ones actions, it's refreshing to see someone admit they were wrong.

Mackie's a gun.

 

[skywalk750]

Boys got some future especially when he puts some some serious bulk in the next 5-10 years

 

[fishman]

Only 'problem' with Mackie is what to then do with blokes like Steve Johnson and Haynes?

I could see a forward line like this:

S. Johnson Playfair Mackie
Chapman Kingsley Haynes

Or maybe Mooney at CHF.

 

[Turbocat]

CONFIRMED

Cats secure second Rising Star nomination
10:35:00 AM Tue 18 May, 2004 ,Sportal

Emerging Geelong forward Andrew Mackie is the round eight nomination for National’s AFL Rising Star Award.
Mackie booted three goals on Sunday in the win over Melbourne at Skilled Stadium and joins Kane Tenace as Geelong nominee for the AFL’s premier rookie award in 2004.
The 19 year old didn’t take the traditional path through junior football and was a talented cricketer in Adelaide who played most of his junior football at school.
But he was spotted by the Cats at a screening camp held in Adelaide by the AFL for players who did not make it to the National AFL Draft Camp and was drafted with the seventh pick overall at the 2002 National AFL Draft.
He spent last season playing for Geelong’s VFL team and made his debut for the Cats in round three against Sydney at the SCG and has played every game since.

 

[Sammy D]

Great news! Bout time some of our young players got some individual recognition through this award. Didnt Ablett and a few others not get nominated?!

 

[Turbocat]

Ablett missed out because the criteria for the award states that a player " must be under the age of 21 at January 1 of that year, must not have played more than 10 games to the start of that season " In his very first year of football he played 10 games and didnt get nominated.He played some good games but all it takes is what happened to Tenace this year with the kid at Carlton, Walker, who had a blinder on the same week that Tenace kicked that good goal.Walker got nominated and Tenace had to butter up and have another good match, which he did. Ablett was 17 turning 18 playing those matches and probably got tired towards the end. On age he only turned 20 on the 14 May 04, so if qualification was just on age he would still qualify for nomination next year or even if he played 1 game less he would have had all his 2nd year to get nominated and seeing he was 4th in our B &F he might have gone close to winning it.
Other flaws are like the Moloney one with suspension.Just cause he got a couple of weeks doesnt effect his star rating in my eyes.

 

[BigCat1]

just to butt into Turbo and Sammy's conversation.

Brian Cook again come out on the weekend and suggested we'd be in the market for a tall forward even if we go really well this year.

The comment about not wanting a player who wants the dollars is ridiculous. These days its all about the dough and financial security.

On the point of what we've got to trade, In my mind we have plenty to trade with. We'll have a mid first round pick plus we could afford to dispense with one of the glut of young midfielders we have. Guys like JB, Spriggs, Corey, Enright, Gardnier and Wojcinski could all be in the mix depending on the quality of player available to us. The trouble is convincing a player to come

Off the top of my head the list of guys that we should target include guys like Polak, Kosi, Petrie, Whitnall, Thompson, and Bradshaw. Realistically most of the other guys are either totally unobtainable or just as ordinary as the current crop we have.

 

[Turbocat]

BigCat1
No private conversations as far as I’m concerned all comments welcome.
The gist of the earlier logs were in regard to our top draft pick that we nearly traded away and in so would have missed out on Tenace. Tenace has already fitted into our side and will be a champ with a little luck from injuries but although our midfield stocks are blooming, we still haven’t one Key forward at the club who we can say will be the long term A1 answer. I think most Cats followers would agree on this, so what are we to do.

Draft a future champ- I think most years a player in the top 10 can be almost a dead cert to be a 100+ player if you pick a midfield type player but big guys are far harder to gauge. That being said, if there was a Riewoldt type tall coming up in this years draft I would attempt to trade our top pick and a player( maybe some you have mentioned) to get it. The trouble is each year it gets harder to get that pick and if we know there a Riewoldt others will too so we would be asked a huge price to get that #1pick eg #7 pick, Enright and Gardner. WOW talk about putting your eggs into one basket

Young, Under valued, in the system - My second approach and I think our best chance for success is to go for a player who’s been in the system 2-3 years , either has been playing mostly VFL(or equivalent) who might have been drafted interstate and wanting to come home, drafted to a stronger club lacking a chance to show their wares, coming out of contract and their current club might deal through with the knowledge of not wanting to lose out totally. Haynes I think was a very good pick , he was a quality addition to our list just not the big one. This is why I would try to get guys like Murphy from Freemantle( currently kick goals in WAFL)Watts (big strong dedicated strerotypical forward ) Chaplin (talented local who went to Port).These guys all went first round, potentially could all be a guns and would improve the quality of our tall stocks. True , not an immediate star but a player with the talent to grow and be ready when we are in the Flag Zone

Acknowledged and on the up – These guys would be great but almost like the #1 pick almost ungettable unless we have some sort of hook and pay big time , maybe an old Geelong boy wanting to come home or he’s had some sort of blue at his current club. Out of the player you have listed I don’t see any that quite fit our hook but the order I would go after them - Kosi, Polak, Petrie,

Mature, money gun – I have no problem doing this IF he is the last piece to the puzzle and he’s got 4 seasons in him .Eg Locket in Sydney. I don’t want a player who’s really just had one good season and is not really a natural forward eg. Rawlings.
Out of the players you have mentioned the players I would go after , in order would be Whitnall, Thompson, and Bradshaw.
Whitnall , if he controls his weight would fit our forwardline and has the brain to make the most of all the ball coming in.Thompson gives us another ruck option , Bradshaw a better quality Kingsley but they all are better than what we have.