Analysis 2019 List Management Discussion II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eiffel 65 said:
Would make sense because our list demographic would start to become too heavily weighted towards 23 and under players.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm thinking if we don't trade down, we take best available at pick 9. Our 2 later picks we take mature age types. E.g. partington, hibberd, Anderson etc
 
I wouldn't be dropping Martin into my best 22 just yet.

From the little I've seen from Cochrane, I get the impression he won't lie down so easily, as it's just as much about him as it is about Gold Coast.
i.e. Don't mess with Tony Cochrane or you'll get burnt.

If he did indeed block his List Management team from doing the deal with Carlton at the trade table, there may be no stopping him regardless of the damage he may do internally.

Given the way he came out to the media to pat himself on the back for Martin not going through, I can't see him going back to the media cap in hand.
How would he answer questions where he virtually gave away someone they rated as a first rounder for nothing? Not sure.
 
HARKER said:
I wouldn't be dropping Martin into my best 22 just yet.

From the little I've seen from Cochrane, I get the impression he won't lie down so easily, as it's just as much about him as it is about Gold Coast.
i.e. Don't mess with Tony Cochrane or you'll get burnt.

If he did indeed block his List Management team from doing the deal with Carlton at the trade table, there may be no stopping him regardless of the damage he may do internally.

Given the way he came out to the media to pat himself on the back for Martin not going through, I can't see him going back to the media cap in hand.
How would he answer questions where he virtually gave away someone they rated as a first rounder for nothing? Not sure.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Remember when he threatened to send O’Meara to the draft if Hawthorn didn’t send an experienced player to the Gold Coast?

The guy is an idiot full of hot air.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HARKER said:
I wouldn't be dropping Martin into my best 22 just yet.

From the little I've seen from Cochrane, I get the impression he won't lie down so easily, as it's just as much about him as it is about Gold Coast.
i.e. Don't mess with Tony Cochrane or you'll get burnt.

If he did indeed block his List Management team from doing the deal with Carlton at the trade table, there may be no stopping him regardless of the damage he may do internally.

Given the way he came out to the media to pat himself on the back for Martin not going through, I can't see him going back to the media cap in hand.
How would he answer questions where he virtually gave away someone they rated as a first rounder for nothing? Not sure.
Click to expand...

'We sacrificed picks that we weren't going to need or use, to send a message to the vultures courting Lukosius, King, ect'
 
Jeremias said:
Lol.

Remember when he threatened to send O’Meara to the draft if Hawthorn didn’t send an experienced player to the Gold Coast?

The guy is an idiot full of hot air.
Click to expand...

Maybe he's learned from that and doesn't wish to be portrayed as an idiot again.
I don't know how much power he wields upon his board, but these ego types don't like being made fools of....even if they happen to be fools.
In the end, our offer may well not be possible to match, but I don't think Cochrane will simply shrug his shoulders.

Anyway, I'm not banking on Martin just yet and if he does get to Carlton - Can't wait for the Cochrane interview.

El Topo said:
'We sacrificed picks that we weren't going to need or use, to send a message to the vultures courting Lukosius, King, ect'
Click to expand...

You have to remember that not all at GC were on board of this 'method'
What GC have done will damage them in the long run. No one is going to buy one show of 'heroism' as the template for how the Gold Coast will deal with matters from here on in....and what what that method be? Cochrane has the final say? Bye bye recruiters and list managers.
 
HARKER said:
You have to remember that not all at GC were on board of this 'method'
What GC have done will damage them in the long run. No one is going to buy one show of 'heroism' as the template for how the Gold Coast will deal with matters from here on in....and what what that method be? Cochrane has the final say? Bye bye recruiters and list managers.
Click to expand...

It's tranparent and fools no one, but I'd say it's the least bad option given the hole they've dug for themselves. Better to look like a moron than to actually be one.
 
Wickzki said:
Conveniently forgetting parts of that trade.

The actual trade was:

Pick 28, 77, 95, and Geelong's 2016 1st round pick for pick 8, Plowman, Sumner, Lamb and Phillips.

Our last actual pick in that draft was pick 53 which was used 54 to match Essendon's bid on Jack Silvagni. Therefore, picks 77 and 95 would not have been used (we passed on a potential selection after Silvagni preferring to use the list spot in the rookie draft).

Essentially we took Sumner, Lamb, and Phillips on as free hits. Phillips played 27 games for us (was below average ruck depth), Lamb played 44 games for us over 3 years and played key roles in a few of our victories (including snapping the losing streak against Hawthorn), and Sumner played 20 games for us over his two years. Given they were free swings none of them were fails.

That means we essentially traded the compensation Geelong gave us for Henderson and pick 28 (which bottomed out to being pick 33, Mitch Hibberd was essentially the pick) for pick 8 which bottomed out to pick 10 which SOS used to draft Harry McKay and Lachie Plowman.

If you don't view McKay and Plowman for Lachie Henderson (who really achieved nothing at Geelong and is now delisted) and the pick that was eventually used to draft Mitch Hibberd (delisted last year) as a monumental win for Carlton then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

You could break it down further. Pick 28 came from Adelaide for menzel plus we got Kerridge.
That trade was Menzel and Henderson for Plowman and McKay. Thats a win for us
 
spry said:
Wasn’t Willo pick eighty something?

Sak SOS FFS
Click to expand...

You have to look at things in the whole though, as we're possibly the worst performed team when it comes to late picks and rookie picks.

Start at let's say pick #40 and project forward as to what we've achieved in SOS's time, to date:

Main List - JSilvagni who we would have bid on earlier anyway and Tom Williamson who hasn't played much for no real fault of his own.
Rookie Draft - Not one hit from 9 attempts.
That's poor going for a bottom of the table team screaming to find talent anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere to hide really.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

spry said:
Never said he was Jesus mate. I was responding to a comment that said our pick in the eighties is the equivalent to Birchall in his prime... Not bad.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Can Jesus go through the midfield though?

I don't trust that guy, anyway. Too much 'Go Home' factor, leaving his mates to do his work for him.
 
HARKER said:
You have to look at things in the whole though, as we're possibly the worst performed team when it comes to late picks and rookie picks.

Start at let's say pick #40 and project forward as to what we've achieved in SOS's time, to date:

Main List - JSilvagni who we would have bid on earlier anyway and Tom Williamson who hasn't played much for no real fault of his own.
Rookie Draft - Not one hit from 9 attempts.
That's poor going for a bottom of the table team screaming to find talent anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere to hide really.
Click to expand...
Your starting to sound like the Richmond fans on the main board, though you are right.
 
RobR said:
Your starting to sound like the Richmond fans on the main board, though you are right.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's not deal in fluff any more, as nice as it may sound to the ear.
Let's make it good and one way of making it good now, is to target needs with these later picks and rookie drafts.

I understand why we went for some of the players we did, but I think we went about it the wrong way.
Anyway, that's history and even if we don't hit all the targets (which is impossible) let's make sure we target players that have a chance to make it amongst the group we have. that's all.
 
HARKER said:
You have to look at things in the whole though, as we're possibly the worst performed team when it comes to late picks and rookie picks.

Start at let's say pick #40 and project forward as to what we've achieved in SOS's time, to date:

Main List - JSilvagni who we would have bid on earlier anyway and Tom Williamson who hasn't played much for no real fault of his own.
Rookie Draft - Not one hit from 9 attempts.
That's poor going for a bottom of the table team screaming to find talent anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere to hide really.
Click to expand...
You say you're big on the 'whole' yet isolate our late picks from the overall strategy when assessing them.

Our strategy has been to target youth at the top end of the draft. We've added an abundance in comparison to most teams. That'll be particularly highlighted this year when the likes of Dow, LOB, Kennedy, Stocker, Pick #9 etc. find themselves in and out of the side.

This has allowed us to use our late picks for stop gaps, and project players, to prop them up.

It's a luxury most teams haven't had, so rather than consider which teams have performed best with pick #50+ consider also:
- How many teams have a better prospect than Cuningham from their fourth selection in 2015
- How many teams have a better player than Fisher from their third preference in 2016
- How many teams have a better prospect than De Koning from their third pick in 2017
- How many teams have a better named kid than Finbar from their third selection last year

There's been a bigger strategy in play, which I have no doubt will now change given the make up of our list.
 
Brackets said:
You say you're big on the 'whole' yet isolate our late picks from the overall strategy when assessing them.

Our strategy has been to target youth at the top end of the draft. We've added an abundance in comparison to most teams. That'll be particularly highlighted this year when the likes of Dow, LOB, Kennedy, Stocker, Pick #9 etc. find themselves in and out of the side.

This has allowed us to use our late picks for stop gaps, and project players, to prop them up.

It's a luxury most teams haven't had, so rather than consider which teams have performed best with pick #50+ consider also:
- How many teams have a better prospect than Cuningham from their fourth selection in 2015
- How many teams have a better player than Fisher from their third preference in 2016
- How many teams have a better prospect than De Koning from their third pick in 2017
- How many teams have a better named kid than Finbar from their third selection last year

There's been a bigger strategy in play, which I have no doubt will now change given the make up of our list.
Click to expand...

I think your idea is slightly flawed, as you have to view things from the draft positions and not just how many picks you use in the draft.

There are good reasons we had those early picks. One we were terrible and two, we traded out to acquire them.
We could sell off Cripps, CCurnow, Weitering and Walsh next year and have four picks under ten with our natural pick falling at #10.
You couldn't then go and say, "Look at the talent we took with our 5th pick in the draft. No one is as good as us."

You got me on Finbar though. :)
 
HARKER said:
You have to look at things in the whole though, as we're possibly the worst performed team when it comes to late picks and rookie picks.

Start at let's say pick #40 and project forward as to what we've achieved in SOS's time, to date:

Main List - JSilvagni who we would have bid on earlier anyway and Tom Williamson who hasn't played much for no real fault of his own.
Rookie Draft - Not one hit from 9 attempts.
That's poor going for a bottom of the table team screaming to find talent anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere to hide really.
Click to expand...
Imo, I think you are being a bit harsh.

Of the 'fails', I'd consider the following acceptable picks
  • glass-mccasker - speculative pick on tall defender that had only started taking footy seriously in his last yr of highshool - 3 yrs on rookie list with a few injuries along the way. Post drafting we added marchbank and discovered jones as a defender - combined with weitering + plowman + mcreadie he essentially became excess and was cut after he had exhausted his time on the rookie list - I note that in his 1st season back in the WAFL this season, was described mid season as one of the best/better defenders and a possible mid-season draftee...
  • kerr - showed a lot initially but clearly behind curnow/mckay and casboult has continued to perform. Not sure if true but rumours suggested a loss of passion being the reason he was cut at the end of this season
  • ASOS - played his role as a stopgap when un-injured
  • schumacher - did enough to debut after being emergency multiple times - certainly wasnt our worst on debut and imo probably had shown enough over 2 seasons to deserve another year. Delistment is potentially due to a change of coach has resulted in a desire for different types of players. Showed enough that he is currently training at the saints and potentially a chance to be re-drafted.
  • garlett - high risk, high reward scenario that ultimately didn't pay off - Given circumstances of him leaving GCS initially, was definitely worth a shot as a rookie.
  • ASOS - stopgap that did more than enough when his body allowed him to


Imo, the main questionable selections have been
  • bugg - could understand the selection initially but given he retired 2-3 mths post being drafted, one has to question whether sufficient due diligence had been conducted
  • O'Shea/shaw - wouldn't have picked up 18yos but perhaps better options for stopgaps could have been selected (would have preferred players 2-3 yrs younger)
  • Deluca - according to reports - was a result of SOS being overruled/was not his preferred player - https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...n/news-story/77f823efffb5b182b6c34a5400ac174e - thought it was a poor selection given his size and our list needs
 
4thchicken said:
Imo, I think you are being a bit harsh.

Of the 'fails', I'd consider the following acceptable picks
  • glass-mccasker - speculative pick on tall defender that had only started taking footy seriously in his last yr of highshool - 3 yrs on rookie list with a few injuries along the way. Post drafting we added marchbank and discovered jones as a defender - combined with weitering + plowman + mcreadie he essentially became excess and was cut after he had exhausted his time on the rookie list - I note that in his 1st season back in the WAFL this season, was described mid season as one of the best/better defenders and a possible mid-season draftee...
  • kerr - showed a lot initially but clearly behind curnow/mckay and casboult has continued to perform. Not sure if true but rumours suggested a loss of passion being the reason he was cut at the end of this season
  • ASOS - played his role as a stopgap when un-injured
  • schumacher - did enough to debut after being emergency multiple times - certainly wasnt our worst on debut and imo probably had shown enough over 2 seasons to deserve another year. Delistment is potentially due to a change of coach has resulted in a desire for different types of players. Showed enough that he is currently training at the saints and potentially a chance to be re-drafted.
  • garlett - high risk, high reward scenario that ultimately didn't pay off - Given circumstances of him leaving GCS initially, was definitely worth a shot as a rookie.
  • ASOS - stopgap that did more than enough when his body allowed him to


Imo, the main questionable selections have been
  • bugg - could understand the selection initially but given he retired 2-3 mths post being drafted, one has to question whether sufficient due diligence had been conducted
  • O'Shea/shaw - wouldn't have picked up 18yos but perhaps better options for stopgaps could have been selected (would have preferred players 2-3 yrs younger)
  • Deluca - according to reports - was a result of SOS being overruled/was not his preferred player - https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...n/news-story/77f823efffb5b182b6c34a5400ac174e - thought it was a poor selection given his size and our list needs
Click to expand...

Glass-McCasker - Didn't need another tall back-man. We could have gone for needs and taken Papley instead.
Kerr - Larker and Lewis went after him. It was a 'tall' miss.
ASilvagni - I'll give up that one, but another tall back-man. We just kept piling them on.
Schumacher - I didn't mind, but clearly we didn't like him.
Garlett - Just didn't have the drive. We didn't see it.

Bugg - How did he fool us?
O'Shea and Shaw - Jesus Christ.....Don't start me. One tall back-man and a HBF'er. Just what we didn't need.
DeLuca - Mess right?

I have liked Gibbons and I like Cottrell. Why could have we simply not taken the better and more committed players earlier?
 
HARKER said:
Glass-McCasker - Didn't need another tall back-man. We could have gone for needs and taken Papley instead.
Kerr - Larker and Lewis went after him. It was a 'tall' miss.
ASilvagni - I'll give up that one, but another tall back-man. We just kept piling them on.
Schumacher - I didn't mind, but clearly we didn't like him.
Garlett - Just didn't have the drive. We didn't see it.

Bugg - How did he fool us?
O'Shea and Shaw - Jesus Christ.....Don't start me. One tall back-man and a HBF'er. Just what we didn't need.
DeLuca - Mess right?

I have liked Gibbons and I like Cottrell. Why could have we simply not taken the better and more committed players earlier?
Click to expand...

glass-mccasker - we did actually. at the end of 2015, our tall backs consisted of jamison, sam rowe, henderson, jacksh, Giles, fields, watson and white. For the 2015-16 off season,
outs were - henderson, giles, watson and fields and jamison was on his last legs (managed 5 games, retired rd 20). Given plowman (20 games prior) and weitering (0 games) were the only other tall defenders brought on board, the mccasker selection was more than understandable. This is also was the ASOS selection was more than understandable.

kerr - Imo there wouldn't have been much between them at the time of the draft. We went for the historical connection. All things being equal, I don't mind that too much. As I said, he was clearly going to be behind curnow/mckay if they developed (which they did) - having larked or lewis wouldn't have made a difference. Kerr's development was also more impacted by injury than the other 2 ( missing more than half of his first season with a hip complaint)

Garlett - I agree - but everything prior to him being redrafted indicated that he did have the drive. He wasnt sacked/delisted in the first instance - it was for family reasons.
 
HARKER said:
Glass-McCasker - Didn't need another tall back-man. We could have gone for needs and taken Papley instead.
Kerr - Larker and Lewis went after him. It was a 'tall' miss.
ASilvagni - I'll give up that one, but another tall back-man. We just kept piling them on.
Schumacher - I didn't mind, but clearly we didn't like him.
Garlett - Just didn't have the drive. We didn't see it.

Bugg - How did he fool us?
O'Shea and Shaw - Jesus Christ.....Don't start me. One tall back-man and a HBF'er. Just what we didn't need.
DeLuca - Mess right?

I have liked Gibbons and I like Cottrell. Why could have we simply not taken the better and more committed players earlier?
Click to expand...

Harks love your shit because you keep it real.... but damn man!

You make me wanna slit my wrists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Jimmae
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Thread
Replies
11
Views
461
The Old Dark Navy's
The Old Dark Navy's
Bletch
List Mgmt. 2024 AFL Trade Period and the AFL Draft [Less discussion]
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
11K
Bletch
Bletch
Aphrodite
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management 📃
102 103 104 105 106
Replies
3K
Views
148K
Soapy V
Soapy V
Aphrodite
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management 📃
418 419 420 421 422
Replies
11K
Views
519K
Opium
O
Aphrodite
Injury Blue Healers Discussion - 2025
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Juice030103
Juice030103
Aphrodite
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management Part 2 📃
236 237 238 239 240
Replies
6K
Views
249K
Jimmyonesix
J
Aphrodite
Training 2025 Training Blog - Training Reports only - *NO DISCUSSION*
Replies
5
Views
3K
WildmanOfCarlton
WildmanOfCarlton

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top