The Disillusioned Thread

[PieNSauce]

For me trading is all about plugging holes in your list and/or addressing weaknesses.

Our biggest weakness is our terrible disposal by foot. So what do we do? We bring in 3 guys who are all below average re foot skills.

And we wonder why our forward entries are so inefficient. How can Trav and co lead with any confidence when we butcher the ball like we do?

A very poor trading period.

I doubt too many will disagree but let's be honest, if you go to the market place looking for a range of attributes and when you get there what's available has only some of the attributes you need do you go home or do you get what you can?

 

[morgoth]

I doubt too many will disagree but let's be honest, if you go to the market place looking for a range of attributes and when you get there what's available has only some of the attributes you need do you go home or do you get what you can?

If you can't get it in the primary market, get picks and go to the secondary market and get kids who can kick.

We are going no where if we do not improve our foot skills. Bucks has an obsession with contested ball but sides like the Hawks will let you win it, force you to kick, pick you off when you turn it over and burn you.

 

[PieNSauce]

If you can't get it in the primary market, get picks and go to the secondary market and get kids who can kick.

We are going no where if we do not improve our foot skills. Bucks has an obsession with contested ball but sides like the Hawks will let you win it, force you to kick, pick you off when you turn it over and burn you.

Bucks' stated position right from the beginning was that he wanted players with good foot skills. Reality has unfortunately meant that you can't always get what you want if it isn't available. There is no single thing that the club needs. It is a range of things and foot skills is only one of the things on the shopping list.

 

[MarkT2]

It may be only 1 thing on the shopping list but it should also be the first thing on the no thanks list. We should not draft or trade in a player without good footskills or we will never get to where we need to be in this era.

 

[DNine]

The question to ask is: will these (and our current) players be in our next premiership side? It's not an easy question though, because premiership sides need balance, so you can have a few hard nuts, like Greenwood, without great skills if you have some skilled players around them. Our problem is that we don't have those skilled line-breaking players (our kicking accuracy was 15th last year, I think). And we have too many short players is a competition which is dominated by 6 foot 2 midfielders. Unfortunately, the skills of the three boys we're bringing in are not great (all under average, according to an article I read yesterday). Whereas Beams is highly skilled. So in that department we're getting worse. At least they have some grunt. But we really need Sharenberg back on his feet quickly, that's for sure. And we need some quick outside mids with great skills - like Hawthorn and Freeo have in the Hill brothers. So will these three - Greenwood, Varcoe and Crisp (if it happens) - be part of the next premiership side? It's uncertain. Would Beams have been? Definitely. That's why we've gone backwards a bit. How much should we blame the club? A bit. Beams said he has less loyalty to the club since his friends like Heater have been sent packing. Lesson: you can't make too many list changes without breaking the bond between the playing group and the footy department in general. If you have a top-level list, cut it at your own risk! So yes, I agree, Buckley and co made some mistakes. The strategy was okay to let a few players go, but they just went too far, and now we see the consequences.

Do you know what always confuses me, that Pendlebury and Beams are our one and two in the middle, and considered to have great foot skills. Sidebottom was not terrible either, but somehow we were 15th in accuracy. I don't get that at all. When I look at our effective % stats, they are not too disimilar to other successful sides. If you look at the worst Effective %'s stats, and clangers stats, there is some pretty decent players in there.

Perhaps Beams is a little bit too much like Pendlebury, outside, and silky when running outside, but because we had issues with lack of development in Adams, and the slowing down, and poorer form of Ball, and the learning year for Thomas, our OUTSIDE midfielders were forced to play INSIDE too much, and they aren't great at it. These players when playing outside in other times in a game, get a lot more outside possessions, which makes there over all look good again, but there inside disposals send us down to 15th. Someone like Greenwood, could be better for us than Beams. Hard to believe, but because we have Pendlebury, Sidebottom and other handy outsiders, Beams was one too many, when inside was despirately needed.

 

[DNine]

Bucks' stated position right from the beginning was that he wanted players with good foot skills. Reality has unfortunately meant that you can't always get what you want if it isn't available. There is no single thing that the club needs. It is a range of things and foot skills is only one of the things on the shopping list.

Good disposal rate is lower for inside midfielders than it is for outside midfielder. Look at the names in this Clangers stat leaders;

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2014&rt=LA&st=CG

Very hard to find a table with the leaders of ineffective disposals from players who play all the time, but just to give us some indication as to how bad perceived good players are with disposal, Patrick Dangerfield is 593rd worst Disposal Effective in the league with only 61.9% effective. Jack Ziebel 587th, Dane Swan 582nd, Lance Franklin 570th, Josh Green 561st, Alan Toovey 557th, Josh Kennedy 552nd, Matt Priddis/Liam Shiel 541st, Steven Hill 511th, Levi Greenwood 515th Jack Crisp 505th,

 

[Rummy]

Why do people complain so much about Free Agent pickups and trades like White?

They cost us nothing but cap space which would be getting used anyways, and are worth a punt at little cost.

That salary cap space they take up is everything though. If we went for potential young kids through the draft (Like Langdon, Marsh, Williams etc) then these guys cost very little as opposed to guys who have been in the system for a while and have decent size salaries, which could be used to very well be the difference between landing a very good player at your club or not. And some peoples thoughts on well you've got a salary cap that you have to compulsory spend anyway is voided, by the fact you can then frontload other players contracts so that in the future years you will have a greater cap space to get that awesome free agent like Dangerfield. And that's not including the recent rule changes where if you spend 95% of the cap this year, you can then spend 105% next year.

For instance right now I think instead of getting Varcoe and paying him $250-$300 for each of the next three years we should instead get Melbournes draft pick # 23 and get a kid in the draft which will cost something like $70k for the next three years which is around a $600,000 saving over three years in our salary cap! and if we could add that to our offer for Dangerfield, then surely we'd beat the others for his signature and signing next year. And that's in addition to pick 23 having a decent chance of turning into a good/long term player and still paying him in addition.

As for the spots on the player list as well, that is also invaluable and nearly cost us Langdon and Marsh last year. Also have a look at the talent that Collingwood has brought in the last few years even with the rookie draft Frost, Dwyer, Williams, Oxley, Keefe, Macaffer which would not have been possible if we had of loaded up completely on recycled/role players from previous clubs purely for the intention of remaining competitive and not finishing near the bottom, but yet never being good enough to win a flag, ala StKilda, Richmond etc.

 

[PieNSauce]

It may be only 1 thing on the shopping list but it should also be the first thing on the no thanks list. We should not draft or trade in a player without good footskills or we will never get to where we need to be in this era.

So if nobody is available you draft nobody? I know what you're saying and I don't disagree with the core point but I really don't think it's that simple.

 

[MarkT2]

So if nobody is available you draft nobody? I know what you're saying and I don't disagree with the core point but I really don't think it's that simple.

C'mon a bit of common sense please. Nothing is absolute and there will never be nobody available anyway but the addition of anyone with poor footskills without the deletion of one (at least) send our list in the opposite direction to where it needs to head.

 

[PieNSauce]

C'mon a bit of common sense please. Nothing is absolute and there will never be nobody available anyway but the addition of anyone with poor footskills without the deletion of one (at least) send our list in the opposite direction to where it needs to head.

Still don't think it's as simple as you'd like to paint it. If you need experience and you need foot skills but only experience is available you're not going to walk away are you?

 

[itsrobbiet]

This thread lost me when the OP said Pert is to corporate. Isn't he the CEO? Isn't that his job to be corporate ?

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

This thread lost me when the OP said Pert is to corporate. Isn't he the CEO? Isn't that his job to be corporate ?

Too corporate. There is a difference.

 

[MarkT2]

Still don't think it's as simple as you'd like to paint it. If you need experience and you need foot skills but only experience is available you're not going to walk away are you?

Not for one moment do I think it is simple. It always depends on degrees. What are the players strengths and deficiencies, where are you placed list wise, what are the achievement expectations in the timeframe the player will at at his best etc.

I am only talking about us and where we are now. We should not add any player without good footskills under any circumstances IMO. You can't win flags if you can't kick these days and we can't kick. Adding a ladder position or two with a couple of experianced players achieves nothing in the short or long term. That is why I am not unhappy to lose Harry as a player (as opposed to him wanting out which is an entirely different matter). Given Beam's exit we have no chance of being a top 4 side in 2015 and IMO little chance of playing finals. we have already blown that all to pieces. We are now in a forced rebuild to the next flag squad. Any players in that aren't in that strategy is an error now. Pace, disposal skill and the ability to play 2+ years at around their peak in 2-3 years time is the criteria we should apply to trades/free agents and skills shold be a non negotiable in the draft.

 

[PieNSauce]

Not for one moment do I think it is simple. It always depends on degrees. What are the players strengths and deficiencies, where are you placed list wise, what are the achievement expectations in the timeframe the player will at at his best etc.

I am only talking about us and where we are now. We should not add any player without good footskills under any circumstances IMO. You can't win flags if you can't kick these days and we can't kick. Adding a ladder position or two with a couple of experianced players achieves nothing in the short or long term. That is why I am not unhappy to lose Harry as a player (as opposed to him wanting out which is an entirely different matter). Given Beam's exit we have no chance of being a top 4 side in 2015 and IMO little chance of playing finals. we have already blown that all to pieces. We are now in a forced rebuild to the next flag squad. Any players in that aren't in that strategy is an error now. Pace, disposal skill and the ability to play 2+ years at around their peak in 2-3 years time is the criteria we should apply to trades/free agents and skills shold be a non negotiable in the draft.

You are entitled to your opinion but personally, without having a deep insight into the list management strategies etc. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable to make such a call. No problem with you holding that opinion though.

 

[MarkT2]

This thread lost me when the OP said Pert is to corporate. Isn't he the CEO? Isn't that his job to be corporate ?

Fair question and too a point it has to be. There is one fundamental difference between a footy club and a listed company CEO role. That is that the footy club is member based which is entirely dependant on annual renewals. Also the only return members really care about is on field and the only reason for off field success is to facilitate on field success. Private companies are completely different again.

I can see why some people would find Pert a bit too corporate.

 

[Finnishpie]

Do you know what always confuses me, that Pendlebury and Beams are our one and two in the middle, and considered to have great foot skills. Sidebottom was not terrible either, but somehow we were 15th in accuracy. I don't get that at all. When I look at our effective % stats, they are not too disimilar to other successful sides. If you look at the worst Effective %'s stats, and clangers stats, there is some pretty decent players in there.

Perhaps Beams is a little bit too much like Pendlebury, outside, and silky when running outside, but because we had issues with lack of development in Adams, and the slowing down, and poorer form of Ball, and the learning year for Thomas, our OUTSIDE midfielders were forced to play INSIDE too much, and they aren't great at it. These players when playing outside in other times in a game, get a lot more outside possessions, which makes there over all look good again, but there inside disposals send us down to 15th. Someone like Greenwood, could be better for us than Beams. Hard to believe, but because we have Pendlebury, Sidebottom and other handy outsiders, Beams was one too many, when inside was despirately needed.

Nah, disagree. Beams played both inside and outside - he was hard, skilled, decent (but not express pace), kicked goals. No one's going to replace him soon, certainly not Greenwood. I am happy we got Greenwood though, because he will pick up the slack from losing Ball and McCaffer. But we still lose Beams. I've got hopes Williams will step up into the midfield next year though - he's once-sided, but gives bite. Adams should be a good inside midfielder too. What we really miss though is the highly skilled players with pace: pretty much everywhere over the field. Still missing Davis, Daisy, Didak and Krakoer. X-factor - we need a bit of that.

 

[wicksy]

Is it interesting that none of our players seem to be tweeting about our new inclusions or the departure of he who must not be named?
Other clubs players seem to be rallying around their new teammates but ours are AFK?

 

[Seedsfan]

Should we target Graham Wright because we need to be able to find players who can kick and he seems to do that well

 

[Gone Critical]

Do you know what always confuses me, that Pendlebury and Beams are our one and two in the middle, and considered to have great foot skills. Sidebottom was not terrible either, but somehow we were 15th in accuracy. I don't get that at all. When I look at our effective % stats, they are not too disimilar to other successful sides. If you look at the worst Effective %'s stats, and clangers stats, there is some pretty decent players in there.

Perhaps Beams is a little bit too much like Pendlebury, outside, and silky when running outside, but because we had issues with lack of development in Adams, and the slowing down, and poorer form of Ball, and the learning year for Thomas, our OUTSIDE midfielders were forced to play INSIDE too much, and they aren't great at it. These players when playing outside in other times in a game, get a lot more outside possessions, which makes there over all look good again, but there inside disposals send us down to 15th. Someone like Greenwood, could be better for us than Beams. Hard to believe, but because we have Pendlebury, Sidebottom and other handy outsiders, Beams was one too many, when inside was despirately needed.

Interesting thoughts

 

[Captivating]

Why do people complain so much about Free Agent pickups and trades like White?

They cost us nothing but cap space which would be getting used anyways, and are worth a punt at little cost.

Because he's soft and useless.

Let's pick up Mitch Robinson then in the pre-season draft?

 

[ClaytonM]

Nah, disagree. Beams played both inside and outside - he was hard, skilled, decent (but not express pace), kicked goals. No one's going to replace him soon, certainly not Greenwood. I am happy we got Greenwood though, because he will pick up the slack from losing Ball and McCaffer. But we still lose Beams. I've got hopes Williams will step up into the midfield next year though - he's once-sided, but gives bite. Adams should be a good inside midfielder too. What we really miss though is the highly skilled players with pace: pretty much everywhere over the field. Still missing Davis, Daisy, Didak and Krakoer. X-factor - we need a bit of that.

Why we picked up Varcoe. Pace and mature body.

 

[Kappa]

Why we picked up Varcoe. Pace and mature body.

One of the biggest complains from Geelong supports was Varcoe's weak tackling.

Not sure what use a mature body is when he is an outside player who sucks at tackling.

I'm hoping he can turn into a 30-35 goal forward pocket, we desperately need more goal kicking options