Toast Stephen Wells

[GHS33]

Bit wary about where to post considering the outcome but this seems right..

Just watched the interview - http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2014-11-25/2014-draft-order-finalised

Impressive that Wells (and associates) is doing his homework up to 2 years b4 the draft, seems that having played snrs in their draft year is an advantage and he looks for players that have several dimensions to their game.

On the basis of what I learned here and the above only scratches the surface, the percentages lie in favor of us taking either a key defender or midfielder.

Like the title of this thread, I trust..

Sam Durdin?

 

[Daniel McL]

Your love and optimism is infection DMC!

I hope so let's share the love guys

 

[Shai]

Sam Durdin?

Maybe, would b happy with that result..

 

[Lana]

Bit wary about where to post considering the outcome but this seems right..

Just watched the interview - http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2014-11-25/2014-draft-order-finalised

Impressive that Wells (and associates) is doing his homework up to 2 years b4 the draft, seems that having played snrs in their draft year is an advantage and he looks for players that have several dimensions to their game.

On the basis of what I learned here and the above only scratches the surface, the percentages lie in favor of us taking either a key defender or midfielder.

Like the title of this thread, I trust..

That interview is at least year old maybe even two.

 

[Shai]

That interview is at least year old maybe even two.

Has his MO changed, do you think..? I'm being quite serious because you are 1 of few on here that I respect the opinion of.

 

[ButterMill]

I can't see that his opinion would have changed much. Seems like he just picks the players he thinks are good footballers, and works with coaching staff possibly to determine need. Not sure there were any clues. He either keeps it very simple, works hard watching as much as he can and has a good eye, or he was playing his cards close to his chest.

 

[Lana]

Has his MO changed, do you think..? I'm being quite serious because you are 1 of few on here that I respect the opinion of.

I doubt that his philosophies would have changed it just that having different picks to chose from and different list requirements would be just as important to who we select as his own personal preferences.

Its hard to base what Well has done with our first pick in the last few years compared with what he will do now. There is a smaller gap between the talents of players later in the draft than earlier so it easier for him to back his gut with pick 16 than it is with pick 10. However He has used early pick on raw players before, If i remember correctly Mackie only played school football and we picked him with pick 7.

A common theme in his drafting is that we generally pick players who are might be undervalued for one reason or another, they have an injury concern or be undersized for the position or come from an nontraditional background or even played in the wrong position at U18 level.

I believe that he generally goes with needs, it just that us a fans don't always agree with the club in what our needs actually are. Sometimes its more obvious than other, in 2007 we picked up Taylor as cover for Ablett and Egan. In 2008 we delisted a few KPP and went tall with our first two picks. In those cases it easy to see the contention between a need and drafting.

I think that we are going to go for tall defender with our first pick, Sam Durdin seems like a Wells pick to me and pick up a variety of midfielders and flankers with our later picks with a leaning to outside creative types than lock-down or inside players.

 

[Shai]

I doubt that his philosophies would have changed it just that having different picks to chose from and different list requirements would be just as important to who we select as his own personal preferences.

Its hard to base what Well has done with our first pick in the last few years compared with what he will do now. There is a smaller gap between the talents of players later in the draft than earlier so it easier for him to back his gut with pick 16 than it is with pick 10. However He has used early pick on raw players before, If i remember correctly Mackie only played school football and we picked him with pick 7.

A common theme in his drafting is that we generally pick players who are might be undervalued for one reason or another, they have an injury concern or be undersized for the position or come from an nontraditional background or even played in the wrong position at U18 level.

I believe that he generally goes with needs, it just that us a fans don't always agree with the club in what our needs actually are. Sometimes its more obvious than other, in 2007 we picked up Taylor as cover for Ablett and Egan. In 2008 we delisted a few KPP and went tall with our first two picks. In those cases it easy to see the contention between a need and drafting.

I think that we are going to go for tall defender with our first pick, Sam Durdin seems like a Wells pick to me and pick up a variety of midfielders and flankers with our later picks with a leaning to outside creative types than lock-down or inside players.

Hope you are right with Durdin, he would b my 2nd pref behind Goddard. If we're talking injury prone than maybe Wright is in his sights or Lever.

Had to laugh @ the bolded "However He has used early pick on raw players before, If i remember correctly Mackie only played school football and we picked him with pick 7."

Wells as God..? Who do we cast as Noah..?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Shouldn't be boasting so early, I don't think. None of our draftees from last year have played a game yet, so we're no better off at this point.

If you want to make reactionary calls, we could ask why we skipped Luke Dunstan, who was phenomenal for the Saints over the weekend, and instead picked a guy coming off a broken leg who most thought would go much later.

It's still early- let's reassess this in say... 5 years' time.

BB I saw you have this same viewpoint today as back in March but all I'll say is what Teri said. Far too early to make that call now

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I hope so let's share the love guys

So what did Jarrad have for dinner tonight Mrs.J?

 

[Daniel McL]

So what did Jarrad have for dinner tonight Mrs.J?

I'm not Mrs. J but judging by my well placed sources I think steak

 

[Teriyakicat]

I'm not Mrs. J but judging by my well placed sources I think steak

Do you also have "well-placed sauces" for his steak?

BB I saw you have this same viewpoint today as back in March but all I'll say is what Teri said. Far too early to make that call now

I just went back to check the comment I'd made- thought I was losing it but it's perfectly fine to not remember what I was talking about in March
I noticed meto suggested that we wouldn't need 5 years to assess whether Luke Dunstan would've been a better choice than Darcy Lang.
My thoughts now- presumably the same as they were in March- were to add extra years to make sure a player was going to continue to play at a high level and that he wouldn't a) break down or b) be just a flash in the pan.
I'm happy to weigh up Lang vs Dunstan at the end of their careers to determine if Wells made an error in overlooking Dunstan in the 2013 Draft.

 

[David the Cat]

I'm happy to weigh up Lang vs Dunstan at the end of their careers to determine if Wells made an error in overlooking Dunstan in the 2013 Draft.

Quoted for being sensible……..…not sure it belongs on our board of late.

 

[meto]

Do you also have "well-placed sauces" for his steak?

I just went back to check the comment I'd made- thought I was losing it but it's perfectly fine to not remember what I was talking about in March
I noticed meto suggested that we wouldn't need 5 years to assess whether Luke Dunstan would've been a better choice than Darcy Lang.
My thoughts now- presumably the same as they were in March- were to add extra years to make sure a player was going to continue to play at a high level and that he wouldn't a) break down or b) be just a flash in the pan.
I'm happy to weigh up Lang vs Dunstan at the end of their careers to determine if Wells made an error in overlooking Dunstan in the 2013 Draft.

That's brave of you Teriyaki, "I know nothing" till ten years later, then why comment period?..... On anyone!

 

[Teriyakicat]

That's brave of you Teriyaki, "I know nothing" till ten years later, then why comment period?..... On anyone!

Of course we are going to weigh up player's careers and compare them to other player's careers along their journey, meto- but to compare Player A with Player B after 2, 4 or 6 years into their respective careers doesn't take into account the different development rates of each player, nor does it involve the long term picture- eg injuries, etc. Yeah, it's always fun to compare players but after 2 years we might be saying Player A is >>>> Player B and then, after 4 years, maybe Player A stalls and Player B zips past and continues to have a stellar career for 8 more years while Player A grinds along for a bit then retires.
I guess what I'm saying is that we should let the players finish putting all their marbles into their jar before we begin the count to see who the winner is.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Oops- probably should put my post above above into context- the original comment was to do with the Cats overlooking Dunstan and picking up Lang- which Biggy Boy gives as an example of a "reactionary call".
I'm agreeing with him and saying that we shouldn't say that it was a mistake to not draft Dunstan until we weigh up entire careers, not just 3 or even 5 years' worth of the players' respective careers.

 

[Daniel McL]

Do you also have "well-placed sauces" for his steak?

99% sure he had no sauce

 

[meto]

Oops- probably should put my post above above into context- the original comment was to do with the Cats overlooking Dunstan and picking up Lang- which Biggy Boy gives as an example of a "reactionary call".
I'm agreeing with him and saying that we shouldn't say that it was a mistake to not draft Dunstan until we weigh up entire careers, not just 3 or even 5 years' worth of the players' respective careers.

As if any club waits indefinitely for a player to prove his worth ( maybe Geelong more than others), all should be scrutinized week by week and year by year, otherwise they may as well write them all minimum 10 year contracts on big bucks.
He's a first round draft choice (Lang), of course it's necessary he proves his worth of the decision Wells made.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

As if any club waits indefinitely for a player to prove his worth ( maybe Geelong more than others), all should be scrutinized week by week and year by year, otherwise they may as well write them all minimum 10 year contracts on big bucks.
He's a first round draft choice (Lang), of course it's necessary he proves his worth of the decision Wells made.

And how many senior games would he have played in that pathetic St Kilda side (that, coincidentally, Lang got his one game against and was part of the team that smashed the Saints by 16 goals - with Dunstan being invisible)? How many games would Dunstan have played for us? You are comparing apples with oranges, even before considering all the other stuff that suggested Dunstan would be better equipped to make an instant impact, while Lang might take a bit of time.

If we'd taken Dunstan (and he'd played maybe 4-6 games...I would have been pretty surprised if he'd managed more), others that adopt your line of reasoning would be complaining because he wasn't as good in 2014 as Lewis Taylor. It's a reactionary call. If all these young players that play every week and rack up the stats (and Dunstan didn't really do that either) for the teams that are on the bottom of the ladder were so good, those teams wouldn't be on the bottom of the ladder.

 

[Partridge]

As if any club waits indefinitely for a player to prove his worth ( maybe Geelong more than others), all should be scrutinized week by week and year by year, otherwise they may as well write them all minimum 10 year contracts on big bucks.
He's a first round draft choice (Lang), of course it's necessary he proves his worth of the decision Wells made.

Of course they should, but at the same time I wouldn't be making definitive judgements after one season. If we applied that to the teams from 2007-2011 we'd hardly have a player. In any case we know full well that players are judged differently depending on the opinion of those at the club. Good and bad.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

As if any club waits indefinitely for a player to prove his worth ( maybe Geelong more than others), all should be scrutinized week by week and year by year, otherwise they may as well write them all minimum 10 year contracts on big bucks.
He's a first round draft choice (Lang), of course it's necessary he proves his worth of the decision Wells made.

Selwood being an exception in many ways, Geelong tends to go out of their way to play the first year draftees as lightly as possible in the seniors.
I think its a strategy that stands their overall development in good stead, even if others appear to be going past them.
I think the Hawks may have started the trend way back in the 70s where a guy like Tuck played many games in the seconds before elevation.
If we draft Lever for instance I wouldn't want to see him terribly much in the seniors until 2016.

If you recall meto I was big on Dunstan last year but on the limited view of Lang I can see the potential there. Same with Jansen.

 

[Partridge]

Selwood being an exception in many ways, Geelong tends to go out of their way to play the first year draftees as lightly as possible in the seniors.
I think its a strategy that stands their overall development in good stead, even if others appear to be going past them.
I think the Hawks may have started the trend way back in the 70s where a guy like Tuck played many games in the seconds before elevation.
If we draft Lever for instance I wouldn't want to see him terribly much in the seniors until 2016.

No doubt, Selwood was an extreme exception to the norm. Purely by playing the number of senior games he did, and by being able to make a contribution as well. It's very easy to expect that from all draftees, but in reality it's just so rare. We've had two players in the last decade become regular senior players immediately - Selwood and Taylor (in successive drafts too strangely enough). Aside from those two, the most games any first pick has played in their debut season has been Thurlow with 4 games in 2013.

I'm happy to hold off on Lang for the moment.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Selwood being an exception in many ways, Geelong tends to go out of their way to play the first year draftees as lightly as possible in the seniors.
I think its a strategy that stands their overall development in good stead, even if others appear to be going past them.
I think the Hawks may have started the trend way back in the 70s where a guy like Tuck played many games in the seconds before elevation.
If we draft Lever for instance I wouldn't want to see him terribly much in the seniors until 2016.

I'm not sure the bolded is quite right. If the player is good enough, they have been given opportunities at senior level, for the most part. Lang got a go. Thurlow got a go. Guthrie got a go. Even lateish picks like Murdoch and McCarthy got a go. Can't really think of many that appear to have been consciously held back. It's just that trying to force your way in ahead of the 22nd senior player isn't always a walk in the park, when it's someone like Milburn, or Wojcinski, or Caddy. Mitch Duncan probably wouldn't have played in the 2011 premiership, if Menzel hadn't gone down in the QF. And that wouldn't have been due to him being held back, but just due to him not being in the best 22 at the time.

Though if you're suggesting that the match committee has been a bit too gun shy in resting an established veteran and giving a young kid (first year or otherwise) a go in a game that we're probably going to win by 10+ goals, I would certainly agree with that. Plenty of first and second year players that are/were around 23-30 in the pecking order could and probably should have got more opportunities at the expense of a couple of veterans in games where Geelong would be playing a Melbourne, St Kilda or GWS in Geelong in recent years. It would have had the possible twofold effect of keeping our aging bodies fresh and ready to play their best football in September (where we've failed to meet expectations for three consecutive years), as well as giving future keepers earlier exposure to what it's all about and potentially separating the wheat from the chaff and seeing enough of certain players to make an earlier call on whether they are up to the standard or not. But it's hard to see too many examples of young players that were in the best 22 not getting a chance.

 

[meto]

Selwood being an exception in many ways, Geelong tends to go out of their way to play the first year draftees as lightly as possible in the seniors.
I think its a strategy that stands their overall development in good stead, even if others appear to be going past them.
I think the Hawks may have started the trend way back in the 70s where a guy like Tuck played many games in the seconds before elevation.
If we draft Lever for instance I wouldn't want to see him terribly much in the seniors until 2016.

If you recall meto I was big on Dunstan last year but on the limited view of Lang I can see the potential there. Same with Jansen.

So based on what you're saying about "Lever for instance," you'd now be expecting around 10 senior games out of Lang 2015 if he's playing to par?
Is that right? Considering Dunstan plays in a lesser team would Lang's 10 games equal Dunstan's 22, I doubt it, he still has to hold out mature senior players, not just play fill in games.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

I'm not sure the bolded is quite right. If the player is good enough, they have been given opportunities at senior level, for the most part. Lang got a go. Thurlow got a go. Guthrie got a go. Even lateish picks like Murdoch and McCarthy got a go. Can't really think of many that appear to have been consciously held back. It's just that trying to force your way in ahead of the 22nd senior player isn't always a walk in the park, when it's someone like Milburn, or Wojcinski, or Caddy. Mitch Duncan probably wouldn't have played in the 2011 premiership, if Menzel hadn't gone down in the QF. And that wouldn't have been due to him being held back, but just due to him not being in the best 22 at the time.

Though if you're suggesting that the match committee has been a bit too gun shy in resting an established veteran and giving a young kid (first year or otherwise) a go in a game that we're probably going to win by 10+ goals, I would certainly agree with that. Plenty of first and second year players that are/were around 23-30 in the pecking order could and probably should have got more opportunities at the expense of a couple of veterans in games where Geelong would be playing a Melbourne, St Kilda or GWS in Geelong in recent years. It would have had the possible twofold effect of keeping our aging bodies fresh and ready to play their best football in September (where we've failed to meet expectations for three consecutive years), as well as giving future keepers earlier exposure to what it's all about and potentially separating the wheat from the chaff and seeing enough of certain players to make an earlier call on whether they are up to the standard or not. But it's hard to see too many examples of young players that were in the best 22 not getting a chance.

I am specifically trying to say most first year draftees regardless of form in the VFL don't get played much in their first year in the seniors.
Selwood and Harry Taylor as mentioned by Partridge the clear exceptions there but that's a fairly high bar.

I agree with you, the reasons for this may not be straight forward and exactly how we perceive them to be.
Perhaps it's too simplistic to say they are just being held back by their age, but it's still happening regardless.
Whether it's preference to established players, the era we have had, all factors I suspect.