Opinion The Chicken or the Egg... drafting or development

[Willo_]

There has been some pretty divided opinions of late regarding... well most things... but in particular Chris Scott, and largely his ability to develop kids.

One side of the argument is that he is unable to develop kids, one side is that the kids we have drafted haven't been the same level as previous times. Chris Scott has been questioned, people have called that Steven Wells is dropping the ball... is it one or the other, a little of each or neither?

I find it an interesting point for discussion, is the coach/coaching staff developing kids as best as they can be developed and they simply aren't as good as some of our gems of the past...
Are the gems still there but our development isn't at the same level which hinders their development?

Without turning this into a tit for tat type nonsense slinging match I am genuinely interested in the discussion.
I find it hard to be 100% on it either way, I currently am leaning more towards the thinking that something is slightly off with the development, but it is something hard to judge. If players were leaving us and becoming stars the answers would be clearer.

 

[HaroLad]

Why not both?

 

[Willo_]

Why not both?

To be honest it could be both, there are people with no doubt more logical and knowing views than me... I just find it hard to pin all the blame one way or the other either

 

[catempire]

I'd be interested in people's views on the expected level of youth "development" that you should see from a club that has made the finals in every year but one in the past decade and in that time won 3 flags. That's the baseline against which Geelong's performance should be measured.

The system is designed to make it harder for clubs that achieve this to produce quality talent. In Geelong's case, is the system simply working as intended? Or are there individual examples of development "failure"? If so, who is to blame?

 

[Willo_]

I'd be interested in people's views on the expected level of youth "development" that you should see from a club that has made the finals in every year but one in the past decade and in that time won 3 flags. That's the baseline against which Geelong's performance should be measured.

The system is designed to make it harder for clubs that achieve this to produce quality talent. In Geelong's case, is the system simply working as intended? Or are there individual examples of development "failure"? If so, who is to blame?

another point as to why people that claim Wells is a failure are (IMO) stretching.... it is pretty hard to draft the top end talent when you don't have top end picks

The trading of 1st round picks is another topic all together mind you

 

[HaroLad]

Positionaly I think our defenders have been developed much better than young forwards/mids.

 

[lionbear]

I think people have to remember the last crop of players developed included, Ablett, Johnson, Bartel, Enright & Selwood, all of which you could claim to be once in a generation players. Also the draft picks available were alot higher than what we have access to now.

I think our players development has been good, but players aren't for whatever reason grabbing the opportunity to take it to the next level. I think this year is a line in the sand year, if players have the want and desire to go got the next level then we are a big flag chance, if they don't and Selwood and Paddy are expected to carry the load then a slide down the ladder could start to develop.

In short, I don't think our development is any better or worse than 10 years ago, but to be an A grade player you have to want to be one, and no development coaches can make that happen.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

To be fair we haven't had many high picks to work with and people expect Wells to work miracles each and every year.

 

[winty]

Have to factor in too the fact two new clubs have entered the competition since Scott arrived, and have had access to all the good kids for the last few years. Whereas we had access to picks around the 40-50 mark prior to Scott which allowed a few good kids to sneak through, these have been pushed back about 20 spots due to GWS and Gold Coast entering the league.

 

[Partridge]

To be fair we haven't had many high picks to work with and people expect Wells to work miracles each and every year.

They've also happily traded away picks too.

 

[Bobby_]

I'd be interested in people's views on the expected level of youth "development" that you should see from a club that has made the finals in every year but one in the past decade and in that time won 3 flags. That's the baseline against which Geelong's performance should be measured.

The system is designed to make it harder for clubs that achieve this to produce quality talent. In Geelong's case, is the system simply working as intended? Or are there individual examples of development "failure"? If so, who is to blame?

It has been the very same players who climbed the mountain all those years ago under Mark Thompson which have ultimately seen Geelong make the finals in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Even last year, if Dangerfield said he was going to remain with Adelaide for the rest of his career, which players actually contribute those 32 disposals (16 of them contested), 8 inside fifties, 6.5 clearances, 1 goal and 1 assist?
I truly believe if Dangerfield did not sign, Geelong would have been battling with North Melbourne for that final 8th spot on the ladder as he was single handedly responsible for winning a few games during the season.
This has been the same old story for many years now. The top tier of players have always had to perform at an all time exceptional level and maintain it until they were well into their 30's.
There came a time when it looked as though Caddy, Duncan, Motlop, Christensen, Horlin-Smith, Murdoch, T.Hunt, Stringer, Thurlow, West, Simpson, Vardy etc, ect were going to start asking questions of the older players but as time has gone by, only a select handful have actually raised their games to the point where no longer had to worry about the champions playing at a high level at the end of their careers.
I speak mainly of Guthrie (as a defender) & Menzel as both boys have been the best of the lot on a consistent basis.

It all comes down to development and at Geelong, we are pretty average at it. Certainly not terrible by any means but average to say the least.
You only have to look at the players we moved on to see the outcome. Taylor Hunt went from a lot of promise to virtually non existent. Went across to Richmond and improved out of sight.
Joel Hamling broke into a premiership winning side and remained there.
Travis Varcoe went to Collingwood and has produced the same kind of numbers he did when he was coached by Mark Thompson.
Jonathan Simpkin went from a so so player to a premiership winning player at Hawthorn.
The only young players who we let go off and have not become anything so far are Dawson Simpson, Tom Gillies & Trent West (ACL injury).

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I've been sceptical of our assistant coaches for a while now in regards to development.
I think we're seeing the early signs that Scarlett has the requisite knowledge to develop backmen. Gardner looks to be coming on alright under his tutelage. Suspect with Enright now involved that we may see some decent results from our young budding defenders.

What about Knights, Rahilly, O'Bree and Lappin, are they cut out for this development caper?
Who was the last player we drafted that you could sit there on draft night and think "this guy has the potential to be elite"? For me that's 2006 draft with Selwood/Hawkins.
I think we've been drafting lots of players that can be either solid B grade type players or solid foot soldiers, interspersed with the numorous busts we've endured.

Positionaly I think our defenders have been developed much better than young forwards/mids.

will be very interested to see how we fare there in preseason and to see what effect, if any, that Brad Johnson has had over the group of forwards.

 

[Landgraft]

It's worth bearing in mind that we've not just lost talent from the playing list but the coaching one too. Hinkley, Mccartney, Sanderson and even Balme in his way were in my opinion huge in building the team that won three premierships. Scott has his problems but I don't think he had nearly the same calibre to back him up.

I think the more we can get out of Boris, Scarlo and Brad Johnson the better off we'll be and In excited to see what they can do given the chance to impart the lessons of their glittering careers.

Goddamn it, that's the second time today I've been pipped at the post.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

They've also happily traded away picks too.

Yes I understand that. Our list was lacking a particular age demographic and those picks went a long way to rectifying this issue. There's a fine line between rebuilding and staying in contention. It's naive of some to expect Wells to keep performing miracles at the draft given the picks we've taken into each one in the last few years.

I think he's done ok considering. I really like Gardiner and Parsons and If Cunico can stay healthy he could also add to the depth at the club, which I think is important given our departures.

 

[catempire]

It has been the very same players who climbed the mountain all those years ago under Mark Thompson which have ultimately seen Geelong make the finals in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Even last year, if Dangerfield said he was going to remain with Adelaide for the rest of his career, which players actually contribute those 32 disposals (16 of them contested), 8 inside fifties, 6.5 clearances, 1 goal and 1 assist?
I truly believe if Dangerfield did not sign, Geelong would have been battling with North Melbourne for that final 8th spot on the ladder as he was single handedly responsible for winning a few games during the season.
This has been the same old story for many years now. The top tier of players have always had to perform at an all time exceptional level and maintain it until they were well into their 30's.
There came a time when it looked as though Caddy, Duncan, Motlop, Christensen, Horlin-Smith, Murdoch, T.Hunt, Stringer, Thurlow, West, Simpson, Vardy etc, ect were going to start asking questions of the older players but as time has gone by, only a select handful have actually raised their games to the point where no longer had to worry about the champions playing at a high level at the end of their careers.
I speak mainly of Guthrie (as a defender) & Menzel as both boys have been the best of the lot on a consistent basis.

It all comes down to development and at Geelong, we are pretty average at it. Certainly not terrible by any means but average to say the least.
You only have to look at the players we moved on to see the outcome. Taylor Hunt went from a lot of promise to virtually non existent. Went across to Richmond and improved out of sight.
Joel Hamling broke into a premiership winning side and remained there.
Travis Varcoe went to Collingwood and has produced the same kind of numbers he did when he was coached by Mark Thompson.
Jonathan Simpkin went from a so so player to a premiership winning player at Hawthorn.
The only young players who we let go off and have not become anything so far are Dawson Simpson, Tom Gillies & Trent West (ACL injury).

But my question was what is the benchmark expected of a team that makes the finals in 9 out of 10 years and wins three flags? I can't help but think that team is meant to be drafting duds and sinking down the ladder unless they do something very well to beat the system. To beat the system you either have to be very very canny with your draft selections, getting more from the selections than would be selected on average or you take another path of trying to trade picks for players.

Geelong has drafted some duds, drafted some good ones and decided to trade instead of draft more recently and has defied the ladder slide.

For me I find it very hard to judge how good a job we've done of "developing" because of these facts.

 

[lionbear]

But my question was what is the benchmark expected of a team that makes the finals in 9 out of 10 years and wins three flags? I can't help but think that team is meant to be drafting duds and sinking down the ladder unless they do something very well to beat the system. To beat the system you either have to be very very canny with your draft selections, getting more from the selections than would be selected on average or you take another path of trying to trade picks for players.

Geelong has drafted some duds, drafted some good ones and decided to trade instead of draft more recently and has defied the ladder slide.

For me I find it very hard to judge how good a job we've done of "developing" because of these facts.

Very great point in looking at our development, we have virtually traded away last years and this years draft to get Dangerfield, Henderson, S Selwood and Caddy. I think very good list top ups.

And regardless of their performance are really good top ups when you consider Hawthorn have given up similar to get a player with a long term injury and a forward who Richmond wasn't worried about trying to retain. Mitchell might be good for them, but certainly not in the Dangerfield class when comparing what each team has got.

Hard to judge Player development when the key list changes did not require development.

 

[dazbroncos]

It really has to be hybrid of issues IMO.

Coaches - perhaps the erosion of the assistant coaches climbing the tree left us with poorer replacements over the last 10 years.
The best become the hunted and get poached. Its the nature of the outcome of success and the replacements are not always as good - but in terms of development you dont really get to see the results until years down the track. Especially in our case as the group held itself together for as long as it did and it was not an easy group to break into. Hamling was not pushing anyone in the back 6 out in his time at GFC as example on form.

The landscape - Changed. The expansion teams have diluted the pools - and they have had the lions share of bites at the cherry. And being successful in this time has pushed things even further from our reach. F/S parameters had also changed. Not a complaint but a factor.
On this, it has seen pick that used to Wells prime ammunition be taken and repriortised as an executable asset rather than a banked possession for drafting.
Granted, this very metric gained us PFD, Hendo, Rivers, Smith, Scooter in various forms - but the fact remains the landscape has changed and picks are different to 10 years ago.

Wells - Has missed on some. No question. Got some right too. He moved up for Cocky- which by all accounts was a plan. Blitz, while polarising, has still gone from Cat B Rookie to Carji Greeves Medallist. If that's not a Wells special by definition, im not sure what is. Ruggles, is still in the development phase so the jury is out htere.

Injuries - We've had our share that has effected the development opportunities. McCarthy is a good pick in the 60's example. PFD walks in and goes "where the * you been hiding THIS guy?!?" Id suggest sans the Lisfranc foot he might be higher on the Wells special list. Gregson is another. I wont put Cowan in that group but one could argue injuries have kept his development handicapped.

Im sure there are more than factors to this - we dont see the internal machinations of how development works, of how the coaches interact and how the picks are made. What determines the value of trading a pick Vs using it.

At the end of it, people want all their picks to be Boris esq and still have the ability to get a PFD every year while trading.
Wont happen but the expectation wont go away - and as long its there, the pressure on development will continue to increase.

Go Catters

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

For me I find it very hard to judge how good a job we've done of "developing" because of these facts.

It really is hard to ascertain how our development team have gone given our selections. I do think Cockatoo stagnated a little, I've said that before. This season we'll see whether some fringe players and those whose spot in the side aren't set in stone, take that next step. Those such as Lang, McCarthy, Kolodjashnij, Bews, etc need to be given a chance to continue to improve before the pitchforks come out. All are young enough and talented enough to make it at the elite level and all have shown glimpses of class.

We'll get a better gauge with some at the end of next season.

 

[catempire]

It really is hard to ascertain how our development team have gone given our selections. I do think Cockatoo stagnated a little, I've said that before. This season we'll see whether some fringe players and those whose spot in the side aren't set in stone, take that next step. Those such as Lang, McCarthy, Kolodjashnij, Bews, etc need to be given a chance to continue to improve before the pitchforks come out. All are young enough and talented enough to make it at the elite level and all have shown glimpses of class.

We'll get a better gauge with some at the end of next season.

Definitely an important year for those players you mention. We can't afford for another cohort of players to disappear. We need some things to come together or a rebuild is on the cards.

 

[cynical]

Cant develop kids when you keep topping up and refuse to move on/drop oldies.

When you do that only the gun kids develop well, the average ones stagnate in the VFL or look for greener pastures.

I'd prefer a bit more risk with selection, especially early on in the year.

 

[Cataholic]

To be fair we haven't had many high picks to work with and people expect Wells to work miracles each and every year.

This is an important factor.

Equalisation is at work, and the quality of kids coming in reflects that. We've paid the price for our success, and must work harder to identify, nurture and develop talent that is not as skilled as that being assimilated into other teams.

That said, I also agree with Willo's sense that something isn't quite right with our development. Injuries have cruelled our kids at times, but all teams must deal with that.

Not sure what's off, or why.

 

[hbk_aus]

Was thinking about this exact subject earlier - it's impossible to fully know if it is drafting or development but in a lot of cases, young players like Vardy, Smedts and Brown showed great promise early on but didn't kick on. Yes injuries played a part but was that the sole reason? Who knows. Would be nice to see some young players step up though.

 

[thejester]

I'd be interested in people's views on the expected level of youth "development" that you should see from a club that has made the finals in every year but one in the past decade and in that time won 3 flags. That's the baseline against which Geelong's performance should be measured.

The system is designed to make it harder for clubs that achieve this to produce quality talent. In Geelong's case, is the system simply working as intended? Or are there individual examples of development "failure"? If so, who is to blame?

Not sure how 'the system' impacts development, though. The only equalization measure that impacts development is the cap on football department spending, and we are not a team with money to burn in this area anyway. I think we've probably suffered more simply from other clubs waking up to areas we took the lead in (VFL team, high football department spending) and matching us.

To the OP: I think there are question marks but also people view this through rose coloures glasses. The reality is Stephen Wells batted at .500 in his most successful drafts, and there were oodles of players during the golden era who showed promise but ultimately stagnated and never became established players - Gardiner, Playfair, Djerkurra, Koula, etc etc etc.

With that said, I think you can ask why the guys we drafted in 09-10 appeared to stagnate last year, and why having invested so much time in players like Vardy and Smedts they were traded. Also more broadly, you have to question how realistic the club's desire to remain in continuous contention is if they don't start finding better players in the later rounds of the draft.

 

[catempire]

Not sure how 'the system' impacts development, though. The only equalization measure that impacts development is the cap on football department spending, and we are not a team with money to burn in this area anyway. I think we've probably suffered more simply from other clubs waking up to areas we took the lead in (VFL team, high football department spending) and matching us.

It's footballs nature/nurture question: are good footballers born (drafted) or are they developed? What I'm suggesting is that people jump to conclusions about player development when it may simply be the case that when you have poorer selections in the draft it is harder to develop good players out of those picks. Moreover, it's impossible to say whether any given draftee would have turned out better or worse if "developed" in a different system.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

It all comes down to development and at Geelong, we are pretty average at it. Certainly not terrible by any means but average to say the least.
You only have to look at the players we moved on to see the outcome. Taylor Hunt went from a lot of promise to virtually non existent. Went across to Richmond and improved out of sight.
Joel Hamling broke into a premiership winning side and remained there.
Travis Varcoe went to Collingwood and has produced the same kind of numbers he did when he was coached by Mark Thompson.
Jonathan Simpkin went from a so so player to a premiership winning player at Hawthorn.
The only young players who we let go off and have not become anything so far are Dawson Simpson, Tom Gillies & Trent West (ACL injury).

If Geelongs development was so mediocre then the players you listed thereafter wouldn't be getting a game at their respective new clubs right?

Using your argument, it seems like Geelong were awesome at development but couldn't coach them/find a suitable position/structure/gameplan to get the best utilisation out of them......