Opinion Pick your Round 1 side

[FredLeDeux]

Watch the NAB game against Carlton, 3rd quarter with about 3:10 left on the clock, where there's a boundary throw-in and Selwood realises there's no one to contest the ruck for us and tries to do it himself!

Beat me to it, s256.

 

[Pivo]

I think people are quickly writing Kersten off on the back of two (three including the reserves) performances but we need to remember he is coming off minor knee surgery. A clean out by all accounts and is probably on a restricted training program.
He played 37% of gametime week one, 57% gametime against Adelaide and I would assume he spend considerable time coming on/off the interchange bench on the weekend against Werribee.

It's when these guys are back to full fitness is when we should begin judging and seeing what they have to offer. Give Kersten a few more weeks and he'll start hitting his straps I reckon.

I think you'll find people's memories are a little longer than that.

Anyone questioning Kersten would probably also be taking into account how he tailed away at the back end of his 9 straight senior games last year before he injured himself against the Hawks.

When you factor those games in with the below-par showing in the pre-season this year then it is understandable why people are bringing his name up.

I'll admit to never being overly bullish about Kersten as he appears to be a bit of a one-trick pony at the moment (although he does that one trick well enough). He needs to provide good return on small(ish) touches much like his first 4 games when he kicked 3, 2, 2 & 2 goals from 10, 5, 8 & 9 disposals.

He'd also benefit from other players up the ground honouring his leads more and the coaches could start developing tactics to make the most of his strengths (i.e. knowing when to lead & long, accurate kicking).

The addition of Clark should, in theory, make life easier for a guy like Kersten but the rest of the team and coaches need to utilise him in the right way.

You're correct though, he needs a bit of time to work into it and then he can be judged more fairly.

 

[SJ]

Watch the NAB game against Carlton, 3rd quarter with about 3:10 left on the clock, where there's a boundary throw-in and Selwood realises there's no one to contest the ruck for us and tries to do it himself!

NAB Challenge boundary line throw-ins don't worry me as much as Semi Final centre bounces.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Until they earn a spot in the best 22 then they don't really have anything to be disgruntled about. They'll all get opportunities during the year and you can guarantee we'll be rotating our talls around. But the whole point is unless they grab the opportunities with both hands they'll head back to the VFL pretty quick. If they're not going to perform when given their chance at AFL level then frankly I don't see why we'd mind if they want out. If we get lucky and have a bunch of players step up massively and we can't give them all game time then we'll get compensated at the trade table. Overall it's just a much better situation than last year when everyone got their chance and due to various reasons nobody really took it. Walker went closest and he'll get another chance to cement his spot soon enough.

Easy for us to say. I'm sure they will be though, because if you're a fringe player by the time you're 23-25, you're lucky to still be on a list. And the other aspect to that is that there's not some benchmark that a player achieves which automatically grants him a spot in the senior side. The benchmark is the level that the guys in front of them are playing at. Which could be 'AA' in the case of the players looking for a key forward guernsey in the senior side. Haven't you just said that our (as it stands) backup key forwards are 'our future key position lineup'? How are they going to be part of the future, if we get rid of them (or, just as likely, they want out due to being starved of opportunities)?

Sorry but there's no way guys like Simpson, Vardy, Walker and Stanley are on even an average AFL wage. They'd just be standard fringe player salaries similar to guys like GHS and Murdoch. Sure they're "seemingly" AFL quality but as of yet none of them have proven themselves quality AFL players. Sure it's tough but I'm glad the club isn't just going to give games to an underperforming young tall in the hope they turn out ok. All those players have had 20 or so games over the course of a few years to get used to the pressure at AFL level. They've also had a good grounding in our VFL system. Now it's time to produce the goods. If they do there will be no issues because they'll be playing AFL week in week out. If they don't well they might not be here next year.

Simpson re-signed at the end of 2013, unquestionably cashing in on his stock at its highest point. We were in absolutely no position to low-ball him. Given the season that McIntosh had, the departure of West and the rucking clinic that was provided for Blicavs and Vardy in the finals, Simpson walked into the preseason with the #1 spot his to lose. I don't see why his contract wouldn't have reflected that. Rhys Stanley has played three VFL games in his last three seasons. Why wouldn't he be on good money? It's not like the Saints had a galaxy of stars to accommodate. Vardy signed last year...who knows how much he's on? He's been pretty much a senior player whenever he's been fit.

And the thing is, this is a case of degrees. I'm pretty confident that there aren't many other teams in the league that would have as much money committed to their reserves forward/ruck set-up as we would if we put something like Simpson (26), Vardy (turns 24 in June), Walker (22), Stanley (24) and Kersten (22) in the reserves. They would have rookie listers and VFL listers filling out some of those spots, not guys that have been on an AFL list for 4+ years in all of them. Because the money that we are spending on the players in those positions is money that we won't have to sign the likes of Dangerfield.

 

[BIGANT]

Opposition supporters say, arrogance cost the team in 08....and keep saying that whenever we become bullish in match winning moments since the hawks broke "the curse". What has cost us the last 2 finals series....amongst other things, ignorance has cost us.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Easy for us to say. I'm sure they will be though, because if you're a fringe player by the time you're 23-25, you're lucky to still be on a list. And the other aspect to that is that there's not some benchmark that a player achieves which automatically grants him a spot in the senior side. The benchmark is the level that the guys in front of them are playing at. Which could be 'AA' in the case of the players looking for a key forward guernsey in the senior side. Haven't you just said that our (as it stands) backup key forwards are 'our future key position lineup'? How are they going to be part of the future, if we get rid of them (or, just as likely, they want out due to being starved of opportunities)?

The ones that are up to it will be part of our future key position lineup and the ones that don't perform won't. It's pretty simple.

And they'll all get opportunities. But that means 3-5 AFL games to make their mark after good VFL performances. It doesn't mean giving a guy a full season regardless of form. If a whole bunch of people step up big time and we need to make a tough decision come finals then so be it. It means we'll have a high quality arsenal of talls which is great and if they want out come the end of the season then we'll have a big bargaining chip to improve other areas of our team.

And the thing is, this is a case of degrees. I'm pretty confident that there aren't many other teams in the league that would have as much money committed to their reserves forward/ruck set-up as we would if we put something like Simpson (26), Vardy (turns 24 in June), Walker (22), Stanley (24) and Kersten (22) in the reserves. They would have rookie listers and VFL listers filling out some of those spots, not guys that have been on an AFL list for 4+ years in all of them. Because the money that we are spending on the players in those positions is money that we won't have to sign the likes of Dangerfield.

We might have slightly more than most teams in that area but it's made up in other areas. I really think you're overestimating what those guys would be on. None of them except perhaps Stanley would even be on the AFL average wage I'd say. Our 2 big forwards would also be coming much cheaper than most inferior combinations let alone any combination comparable to them. Hawkins is in the last year of his contract and we got Clark for a small amount considering his ability. In combination this year they're probably getting about the same as someone like Jack Reiwoldt alone. It's swings and roundabouts.

 

[sauron256]

NAB Challenge boundary line throw-ins don't worry me as much as Semi Final centre bounces.

Don't worry me either, just thought I'd mention it as something that I thought was amusing from the weekend.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The ones that are up to it will be part of our future key position lineup and the ones that don't perform won't. It's pretty simple.

And they'll all get opportunities. But that means 3-5 AFL games to make their mark after good VFL performances. It doesn't mean giving a guy a full season regardless of form. If a whole bunch of people step up big time and we need to make a tough decision come finals then so be it. It means we'll have a high quality arsenal of talls which is great and if they want out come the end of the season then we'll have a big bargaining chip to improve other areas of our team.

It depends on what people consider to be 'opportunities'. Like, whether the opportunity will be Walker or Vardy getting a run for a game if Hawkins or Clark is rested and is then dropped a week later, regardless of how they play, because the senior player is ready to return. I also think a player that is left rotting in the VFL isn't exactly a great bargaining chip. Whatever we could conceivably get for Simpson, Vardy, Kersten, or perhaps even Walker if they have an indifferent season, we'll be selling low.

We might have slightly more than most teams in that area but it's made up in other areas. I really think you're overestimating what those guys would be on. None of them except perhaps Stanley would even be on the AFL average wage I'd say. Our 2 big forwards would also be coming much cheaper than most inferior combinations let alone any combination comparable to them. Hawkins is in the last year of his contract and we got Clark for a small amount considering his ability. In combination this year they're probably getting about the same as someone like Jack Reiwoldt alone. It's swings and roundabouts.

It depends on what the average is. And even the AFL average would be many times what an equivalent VFL list or rookie list player would be on. Plus, all of these players are entering at least their fourth season as an AFL player and would be on their second, third, or perhaps even fourth contract as an AFL player. All have played a fair bit of senior football and most have played finals (with arguably only injury preventing the ones that haven't). They're going to be on a lot more than the players that are on their initial contract. I'm not willing to call any of these players list-cloggers at this stage, but they're at or rapidly approaching list-clogger age and they'd be on list-clogger money. And if they're stuck in the VFL by the end of this year, it would make them, by definition, list-cloggers. And I think several of them will be, for our purposes, by the end of this year, because it looks like a lot of them aren't even fighting for spots in the senior team. It looks like they're fighting for the first emergency spot.

 

[Cattery]

All of those players are well and truly at crunch time in their AFL careers. If they don't make significant inroads and establish themselves as regular AFL players this year, their future in this league is in jeopardy. So how long do we expect them to play the good soldier and be strictly depth players? If those players don't get enough opportunities in the senior team in 2015, they'll be looking for a club that can offer those opportunities. This set-up has got 'disgruntled players' written all over it, especially if we're not a top four team.

Just out of curiosity (not trying to be a smart arse here) but is having one extra tall (Stanley) on our list really going to have the kind of detrimental effect you seem to be suggesting?

As Footy Smarts points out, none of the players he'll be competing against have really shown much at senior level, and if he's good enough to jump ahead of them in the queue then so be it, can only make us stronger, even if it means losing one or two of the others down the line.

 

[Jon Douglas]

Now that we have had 3 NAB rounds and we know who is injured or will not be available Round 1 in the senior side -

Bews Lonergan Rivers

Mackie Taylor Enright

Stokes Selwood Duncan

Motlop Clark Guthrie

Lang Hawkins Bartel

Foll. Simpson SJ Caddy

Int. GHS Blitz Kelly

Sub. Cockatoo/ Murdoch


What I think (in later rounds) would work better and be a better balanced side would be -


Bews Lonergan Rivers

Mackie Taylor Enright

Stokes Selwood Duncan

Motlop Walker* Blitz

Lang Hawkins Bartel

Foll. Clark SJ Caddy

Int. Stanley* Guthrie Kelly/ GHS

Sub. Cockatoo *new additions from round 1 side.


In this side Geelong plays 5 forwards and Blitz plays the man behind the ball. This finds a place for him and not as a ruckman where he can using his running skills - and builds up his defensive skills for when he may become a KPB. His hands are getting better and he is getting more footy. If he progresses by 20 %, and I think he can, we will finally see nearly all Cat's fans say he is best 22.

Walker to be a decent CHF. Makes our forwards line still dangerous and high scoring without Clark down there most of the time.

Clark to be a very good ruckman/follower. Makes a big difference to our midfield, clearances and with marks around the ground - and can go forward when required. And quite mobile and a willing tackler.

I think Cockatoo has more upside than Murdoch and has his leg speed. More of a super sub IMO. Could come on and create/kick 2-3 goals.

Lang is showing good signs for me. Just does some nice little things and is a very good tackler. Nice kick as well - and has some toe. I think he could be a handy FP and occasional on baller for us this year. he will grow slowly into the role and by year's end (16 senior or so games away) he could be playing some decent senior footy for us.

This also goes for Bews. Liked what I saw in the NAB cup games. Will I think grow slowly into his role and gain confidence. Adds a bit of leg speed and run which we desperately need down back.

Stanley is the big unknown. If he can be a better, more effective ruckman than Blitz - then yes then he will be of value to us. With his size and speed he should be able to form a decent ruck combo with Clark. He does need to use his athleticism to advantage and get out on his own and become a link player out of defence for us.

A lot of ifs and no injuries - I know. But I think this offers us, as the players learn to team and gel together - this could be a potent side. Better than last seasons. A stronger forward line, better midfield and a decent backline. And probably a bit quicker - which helps given the way the modern game has developed.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Just out of curiosity (not trying to be a smart arse here) but is having one extra tall (Stanley) on our list really going to have the kind of detrimental effect you seem to be suggesting?

As Footy Smarts points out, none of the players he'll be competing against have really shown much at senior level, and if he's good enough to jump ahead of them in the queue then so be it, can only make us stronger, even if it means losing one or two of the others down the line.

We'll see. Without yet seeing him play, we could have a first round pick, who would only be on a fraction of Stanley's salary, would roughly be six years younger and could have filled a more pressing area of need than Stanley appears to.

If Stanley's level at his age and with his experience is to be an emergency for our incumbent rucks, Clark/Hawkins and possibly Blicavs, then it's a criminal waste of an early draft pick. The only way his recruitment will have been a solid decision by Geelong is if he is a best 22 player.

 

[Cattery]

We'll see. Without yet seeing him play, we could have a first round pick, who would only be on a fraction of Stanley's salary, would roughly be six years younger and could have filled a more pressing area of need than Stanley appears to.

Or could also turn out to be a dud, or at the very least be two/three years away from having any meaningful impact on our fortunes.

If Stanley's level at his age and with his experience is to be an emergency for our incumbent rucks, Clark/Hawkins and possibly Blicavs, then it's a criminal waste of an early draft pick. The only way his recruitment will have been a solid decision by Geelong is if he is a best 22 player.

As you say, only time will tell whether it's the right decision or not, personally I don't have any problem with it, also the fact of him being up to best twenty two standard or not seems to be a different argument to the one you've been making, that being he would hold back the development of Walker, Vardy etc.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Or could also turn out to be a dud, or at the very least be two/three years away from having any meaningful impact on our fortunes.

Why? I'm sure there will be several players taken after pick #21 in the 2014 draft that will earn Rising Star nominations this year. Cory Gregson was taken at pick #47 and he's a good chance to debut in the first month of the season.

As you say, only time will tell whether it's the right decision or not, personally I don't have any problem with it, also the fact of him being up to best twenty two standard or not seems to be a different argument to the one you've been making, that being he would hold back the development of Walker, Vardy etc.

It's not really. My question is: we've recruited Rhys Stanley and paid what I consider to be a high price to get him. Are we actually sure that he's better than Walker/Blicavs/Vardy? Because I don't think he fits into the team if he's not.

 

[you pick one]

Beat me to it, s256.

I'm really surprised I wasn't the first to pick that up.

 

[Partridge]

It's not really. My question is: we've recruited Rhys Stanley and paid what I consider to be a high price to get him. Are we actually sure that he's better than Walker/Blicavs/Vardy? Because I don't think he fits into the team if he's not.

His position in the team is very much open to question. You could argue pretty easily that of that quarter - Stanley plus Walker/Blicavs/Vardy - only Blicavs is any kind of chance to get regular games. Unless injuries intervene, I'm not sure how they bring the others in.

 

[Cattery]

Why? I'm sure there will be several players taken after pick #21 in the 2014 draft that will earn Rising Star nominations this year. Cory Gregson was taken at pick #47 and he's a good chance to debut in the first month of the season.

Possibly, possibly not. There's not many Joel Selwoods who come straight into a side and have a meaningful impact straight off the bat though.

It's not really. My question is: we've recruited Rhys Stanley and paid what I consider to be a high price to get him. Are we actually sure that he's better than Walker/Blicavs/Vardy? Because I don't think he fits into the team if he's not.

Two different arguments as I see it, (A) is he good enough to make best 22, which we don't yet know, or (B) the point you were making, that he would hold back other players.
If he's not good enough then he's obviously not holding anybody back, sure it's a wasted draft pick but there's been plenty of them in the past and will be plenty more in the future, if he is then tough for those others.

Anyway, only time will tell of course.

 

[Footy Smarts]

We'll see. Without yet seeing him play, we could have a first round pick, who would only be on a fraction of Stanley's salary, would roughly be six years younger and could have filled a more pressing area of need than Stanley appears to.

I get the youth angle and the salary angle but the "more pressing area of need"? Really? This is only in hindsight now that we've got Clark who is fit and firing.

Look at how our list looked when we recruited Stanley. Our forward and ruck options were:

Hawkins - question marks over his back.
Clark - Hadn't played in years.
Vardy - Hadn't played in ages and coming off an ACL.
Simpson - Going in for another round of back surgery.
McIntosh - Aging and had broken down in the lead up to finals once again.
Kersten - Lots of niggling injuries and gone down again before finals.
Blicavs - Durable and improving.
Walker - Durable and showed a bit in finals but still very much unproven.

Considering we basically have to play 4 of those 8 that's a pretty thin list. It gets especially thin once you think that all of Vardy, McIntosh, Simpson and Clark were outsiders to be fit for round 1 at that stage. Of course that's not considering that we're relying on Rivers (dicky knee) and Lonergan (almost 31) in the backline as well. The reality is that at the moment we're doing very well in terms of the fitness of our talls. But it could easily have been the other way.

Also what happens when at least 2 of Rivers, McIntosh, Lonergan, Simpson, Vardy and Clark retire either during or after this year? Personally I think Stanley will become a much better player than just depth and will command a spot. But even at his current output it's likely that he'll be a starting player at some point this year and definitely in future as injuries and retirements bite.

 

[you pick one]

Stanleys best against the Cats in 3 appearances over 5 years has been 6 disposals, interestingly the same each time 6 so at least he is consistent in that area and he once had a massive 4 hit outs,his 2014 season was nothing to wright home about,a pick in the 40s for anyone interested should have done the job.If Walker was to be kept and produces those 2014 figures of Stanleys at the same age I'll personally show him the door and except pick 21 for him.

 

[sharks33]

Backs: Bews Lonergan Enright
Half Back: Mackie Taylor Rivers
Centre: Blicavs Selwood Duncan
Half Fwd: Motlop Clark Johnson
Fwd: Lang Hawkins Stokes
Foll: Mcintosh Guthrie Bartel
Bench: Cockatoo, Gore, Kelly, Caddy

Gone for a slight point of difference team for round one. I've gone Mcintosh in the ruck, would chance it based on that I don't think dawson is good enough and if he is getting beaten in the ruck (which I still think is fair chance) and around the ground, there is nowhere else to hide him. Mcintosh VFL form has been good and if he is getting beaten I think he is a better option to go forward and switch with Clark in the ruck. I know Hawks ran him around last time but id gamble he is in better form now and the option to switch with Clark helps more than anything we had last year.

Id also go with Gore over GHS, know its a big risk and I like GHS but hes struggling a bit and Gore was outstanding in the VFL. Just think maybe some youth, exuberance/excitement, risk may just help pull one out of the bag against the hawks.

From this team I'd like to see Stanley putting pressure for the ruck spot and potentially Gregson/Luxford putting pressure on Stokes or Kelly. I don't rate Bews highly and hes alternative Smedts not any higher so would like to see someone like Cunico or possibly Cowan putting pressure there. Kolo for any of the back ie: enright, lonergan, rivers if they begin to slip.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Stanleys best against the Cats in 3 appearances over 5 years has been 6 disposals, interestingly the same each time 6 so at least he is consistent in that area and he once had a massive 4 hit outs,his 2014 season was nothing to wright home about,a pick in the 40s for anyone interested should have done the job.If Walker was to be kept and produces those 2014 figures of Stanleys at the same age I'll personally show him the door and except pick 21 for him.

If Walker produces a game as good as Stanley did against Fremantle we'd decide he's the messiah.

We haven't picked Stanley up based on what he's done so far in his career. We picked him up because he's got every attribute required to be a gun. We're backing ourselves in to bring the best out of his talent and if we do pick 21 will look like a bargain.

 

[TEDDY24INC]

More generally though, I can't see why it's not worth trying. I feel we are really up against it beating Hawthorn and simply using the same setups we have seen before and praying for a different result is the definition of madness.

It's a shame we didn't get to see Walker working with the other 2 in at least one NAB game as now it seems unlikely they will experiment in round 1.

If we get beaten by 6 goals with a similar setup to the 2014 final, what have we learnt or gained?

We made a habit of beating hawthorn with 2 of mooney,pods and hawkins up forward. Ottens rucking backed up by west or blake. Now we have that formula back with hawkins and clark up forward. 2 of simpson, mcintosh and blitz to ruck.. Im not adverse to walker playing but saying we keep coming up short using the same old formula is wrong, as we haven't had this formula for a while with either a number 1 ruck missing or a key forward missing... bearing in mind the hawks have never had as strong a key back post as lake, gibson and frawley

 

[you pick one]

If Walker produces a game as good as Stanley did against Fremantle we'd decide he's the messiah.

We haven't picked Stanley up based on what he's done so far in his career. We picked him up because he's got every attribute required to be a gun. We're backing ourselves in to bring the best out of his talent and if we do pick 21 will look like a bargain.

I've seen this argument go round and round in circles before,I can't help but think 21 was to high a price to pay for a maybe he will be something.Happy for you to have the last word and even happier if your right and I'm wrong.Over and out on the subject for me in this thread at least.

 

[catempire]

We made a habit of beating hawthorn with 2 of mooney,pods and hawkins up forward. Ottens rucking backed up by west or blake. Now we have that formula back with hawkins and clark up forward. 2 of simpson, mcintosh and blitz to ruck.. Im not adverse to walker playing but saying we keep coming up short using the same old formula is wrong, as we haven't had this formula for a while with either a number 1 ruck missing or a key forward missing... bearing in mind the hawks have never had as strong a key back post as lake, gibson and frawley

It's not at all wrong. In the final last year we had McIntosh, Blicavs, Hawkins and Walker.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It's worth pointing out that in round 1 Hawthorn will probably play all of Lake, Frawley, Gibson and Stratton in the same back 6 so we wouldn't necessarily be overly tall if we had 3 KPF's against that. The biggest reason not to do it is that we haven't trialled it in pre season so we are not sure how well it could work, and theoretically the extra big player might get in Clark's way and affect the form he's been building.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I've seen this argument go round and round in circles before,I can't help but think 21 was to high a price to pay for a maybe he will be something.Happy for you to have the last word and even happier if your right and I'm wrong.Over and out on the subject for me in this thread at least.

Fair enough it can be a bit circular. Just to finish I think one of the big issues with trades is that people always look at what the player has done not what they could be. If you draft in a player it's based all on potential whereas if you trade in a player all that matters is previous output. It happened a bit with Caddy where he copped a fair bit of criticism early on since he wasn't performing at a level where a first round draft pick should perform. Of course he'd only played about 20 games which was why he struggled but some people expected high output because we gave up a first round pick for.

To me Stanley's a bit similar in that it's better to think in terms of a mature age draft pick rather than a trade since, like a draftee, we don't know what we're going to get. We've got a little bit more exposed form on him than most draft picks but it's still the case where we're selecting a player in the hope that they improve significantly once they get here.