Opinion Best 23 Pre Trade/Draft - Season 2024

[Lana]

Large Post, I think your pov is valid but I don't agree. So I'll break my response in parts.

If you're worried about our core, get ready for a panic attack when you look at the rest of the league.

The expansion clubs have diluted the talent so much so that clubs winning premierships these days are full of role players, journeyman, and alike.

There's only 5-6 genuine guns per side these days. Maybe a couple more in a great side, and a couple less in a poor side.

What's changed things though is the focus on system. Clubs have adapted and realised it's far more viable to build a system that suits your handful of stars, but is largely based upon the efforts of your role players.

Collingwood this year are such a trend breaker, weakest year in my memory.

In my eyes, Team have their superstars, then they have a larger group of a near that level, a group of older less talented but phyisally developed and then their bottom six. Usually the teams with the least number weakness and with a bit more luck wins the premiership. Rarely do clubs get to bring in superstars, teams tend to propel themeslves from the bottom of the eight to the top but filling out their team.

Richmond is a classic example. They built a dynasty by tooling a gameplan that revolves around Dustin Martin forward of the ball.He didn't have to chase, didn't have to tackle, didn't even really work in transition. The goal was to keep him fresh, and to capitalise on turnover forward of the ball.

Would that have worked 15-20 years ago? Maybe, but chances are you're still going to be beaten by more talent laden sides.

The difference with this era was the other clubs weren't more talented, and if they were, the difference was hardly stark.

When it's set up like that, the club with the best system will succeed as we've seen.

It was much more then him, Richmond's gameplan relied on their workrate, this was pre-the stand rule, teams were forced to move the ball down the line. Which helped us as we had Harry Taylor, Henderson and Stewart, who could pick off the long high slow kick Richmonds. Their bet was they could switch the ball and force a stoppage on their HFF before the other team's zone could move down the other side to force an intercept. If this bet held true all they had to do was breakeven elsewhere and they'd win via the territory gained. Their system broke down with the introduction of the stand rule, clubs could move the ball forward through the middle of the ground rather then down the boundry to via a switch.

I think system can cover a deficency, it is a part of why we got into so many preliminary finals. At some point some will take advatange of your flaw. We won the premiership last year because we had the most well rounded team, we didn't have any weaknesses on any line, one we won it at the contest the other team had no way back.

To finish, this is exactly my point about how there's always going to be doomsday predictions.

During our dynasty, it was tipped we'd fall over because we wouldn't have the same depth of talent over the next decade.

Then it was tipped that we'd fall over because we wouldn't find a partner to Selwood, or replace Enright, or even before that, Scarlett.

Then it was the midfield, which we landed the man you mention, Patrick Dangerfield, while finding Tim Kelly, and developing Cam Guthrie & Mitch Duncan.

Then it became a Hawkins problem, with his longevity questioned, and question marks on our ability to win a flag with him as the sole target.

As a result, we go and get Jeremy Cameron.

There is this concept of player capital, once you reach a certain threshold it starts to become self sustaining. Think of it water tank, with in inflows in and out. Because of what we had we could get more inflows to cover the increasing outflows. If you get the right player the effect can last 16 years. Cameron doesn't go to us if we weren't a top 4 team at the time. This time needed to find some ready to go to carry our midfield from day dot but we were priced out.

We were able to skip a rebuild back in 2015 all because we got Dangerfield, he is such an outlier, had we not, we would have had to do rebuild. We also were lucky and got ahead of a few trends (future trading, mature aged recruiting). The SPP and Midseason draft, has gutted the mature aged market. Clubs are much more switched on to the mature aged recuits. Clubs are less willing to develop talent and value developed talent a lot more, it started with Ruckmen with the loss of the sub rule and now we just had clubs devower each other like pirahnas over a middeling group of KPDs
The trade price of established players has gone up. I think the clubs are much better at picking the eye at a draft then they were 20 years ago.

My point being, these problems keep arising, and time after time they keep getting fixed.


Many, including myself, have said this time it will fail, and it just doesn't happen. This club keeps finding a way.

The landscape has changed. You need to hit your draft picks (Which we've been doing) but FA & trade acquisitions take YEARS off of rebuilds.

I gave up doubting this clubs ability to figure things out and rebuild years ago, it just doesn't work. I've said it before, but we need to change our perspectives.

We're not like any other AFL club anymore, we're closer to being a wealthy Rugby league or European soccer club.

It's not 2004 anymore. Football is a business now, and our club is the best run in the league.

I think that the player market favours those teams that are percieved as being close to success, those that aren't get forced to over pay on lesser talent. They have to bide their time until they collect a large group of young talent which coincides with the formerly top teams aging out.

I think we'll find it significatly hard to trade in quality player.

If you looking at the premiership team, somewhere they got a "cheat" that pushed themselves ahead of the group.

Since 2007, we haven't really found ourselves doing a rebuild from near zero, we've always had an establish group of near all squad talent or better to protect and cover the next kids in.

Our list is in a weird space right now. So much geared for the right now.

In two years who is our best inside midfielder. **** it is ugly.

 

[Hinkley29]

By that logic, Blicavs at his best is also.

At his best he plays a totally different role to any other top liner in the game, but his influence on the game is immense. He has a big impact in his own right and because of his flexibility allows everyone else in the team to play their ideal role.

Surely you can see that he doesn’t play a traditional midfield only role and comparing his stats to pure ball winning midfielders is folly. Unless you are making this comparison just to downplay his impact and be contrarian. Perish the thought.

I know it is not cool to quote your own post but I just wanted to get in before partridge told me he doesn’t give a shit about what anyone else thinks and tough shit to anyone who dares point out his tiresome contrarian act.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Large Post so I'll break it down










It was much more then him, Richmond's gameplan relied on their workrate, this was pre-the stand rule, teams were forced to move the ball down the line. Which helped us as we had Harry Taylor, Henderson and Stewart, who could pick off the long high slow kick Richmonds. Their bet was they could switch the ball and force a stoppage on their HFF before the other team's zone could move down the other side to force an intercept. If this bet held true all they had to do was breakeven elsewhere and they'd win via the territory gained. Their system broke down with the introduction of the stand rule, clubs could move the ball forward through the middle of the ground rather then down the boundry to via a switch.

I think system can cover a deficency, it is a part of why we got into so many preliminary finals. At some point some will take advatange of your flaw. We won the premiership last year because we had the most well rounded team, we didn't have any weaknesses on any line, one we won it at the contest the other team had no way back.



There is this concept of player capital, once you reach a certain threshold it starts to become self sustaining. Think of it water tank, with in inflows in and out. Because of what we had we could get more inflows to cover the increasing outflows. If you get the right player the effect can last 16 years. Cameron doesn't go to us if we weren't a top 4 team at the time. This time needed to find some ready to go to carry our midfield from day dot but we were priced out.

We were able to skip a rebuild back in 2015 all because we got Dangerfield, he is such an outlier, had we not, we would have had to do rebuild. We also were lucky and got ahead of a few trends (future trading, mature aged recruiting). The SPP and Midseason draft, has gutted the mature aged market. Clubs are much more switched on to the mature aged recuits. Clubs are less willing to develop talent and value developed talent a lot more, it started with Ruckmen with the loss of the sub rule and now we just had clubs devower each other like pirahnas over a middeling group of KPDs
The trade price of established players has gone up. I think the clubs are much better at picking the eye at a draft then they were 20 years ago.



I think that the player market favours those teams that are percieved as being close to success, those that aren't get forced to over pay on lesser talent. They have to bide their time until they collect a large group of young talent which coincides with the formerly top teams aging out.

I think we'll find it significatly hard to trade in quality player.

If you looking at the premiership team, somewhere they got a "cheat" that pushed themselves ahead of the group.

Since 2007, we haven't really found ourselves doing a rebuild from near zero, we've always had an establish group of near all squad talent or better to protect and cover the next kids in.

Our list is in a weird space right now. So much geared for the right now.

In two years who is our best inside midfielder. * it is ugly.

I appreciate the clear effort you've put into this response, but it does sound like a whole lot of convenience based in negative thinking.

For one, you're literally proving my point when it comes to Richmond. It wasn't a talent based gameplan, it was effort and buy in from the players, whom most of which weren't particularly talented footballers.

On everything else, to narrow down what you're saying is we basically got lucky for 16 years, and you're finally going to be right this time.

Let's break down the last 16 years to a very simple level, minus the convenience and excuses for why it all worked:

We had a great side, we established the best culture in the league, then we kept drafting the right players, then we replaced our great coach with another great coach, then we traded in the best player in the comp, then we drafted the two best state league players of all time, then we traded in the best player in the comp again, then we traded in young talent to cover the upcoming list holes, etc etc.

F**k me, that's a hell of a lot going right...or maybe those in charge who are making these decisions are actually really good at their job? And better than their contemporaries?

You ask who's our best inside mid in 2 years. I don't know, but I assume it would be one of the 3 we've invested first round picks into, or one of the other 3 we invested second round picks into.

We've invested more early picks in the last 4 years than any other club not in a rebuild. The fact that we've been to two Grand Finals and won a premiership in that time is remarkable, and really a facade for what's going on behind the scenes.

It's literally be 9 or 10 in the first 30 in a month's time, how exactly is that all invested in the here and now? If we were any other club it would be considered a rebuild. You can't just discount it because you don't like/rate the players picked.


But we'll play devils advocate for the fun of it. If for some insane reason it's not them, then we'll just trade one in.

I genuinely can't understand why you're so negative when it comes to this. Football is a very simple game when you're a well run organisation.

 

[Mr Meow]

By that logic, Blicavs at his best is also.

At his best he plays a totally different role to any other top liner in the game, but his influence on the game is immense. He has a big impact in his own right and because of his flexibility allows everyone else in the team to play their ideal role.

Surely you can see that he doesn’t play a traditional midfield only role and comparing his stats to pure ball winning midfielders is folly. Unless you are making this comparison just to downplay his impact and be contrarian. Perish the thought.

Spot on.

In 2022 Blicavs was selected All Australian and had 62 coaches votes while averaging 17.7 disposals. Maybe in his "Mr Fix It" utility role, 15-18 disposals per game is enough for him to be elite or even "A grade".

He dropped off a little in 2023, although I don't think it helped having Stanley and multiple midfielders missing for large periods. Our mix was rarely right and a trio of Atkins, Blicavs and Bruhn couldn't cover the loss of Guthrie, Dangerfield and Holmes at times.

He's not a spring chicken but as a late starter hasn't had the 300 plus game drain on his body, so I think he has reasonable upside on his 2023 season even if it doesn't quite reach the heights of 2022.

 

[Lana]

I appreciate the clear effort you've put into this response, but it does sound like a whole lot of convenience based in negative thinking.

For one, you're literally proving my point when it comes to Richmond. It wasn't a talent based gameplan, it was effort and buy in from the players, whom most of which weren't particularly talented footballers.

It was talent thing, they went with the best at the contested and then dominated the territory battle. It was why they could do it and not one else did... at least did successfully. Once they had field position they had to keep it. They did it three times in four years. By year four it wasn't a surprise teams knew what they were going to do but couldn't stop it, Scott's final answer to it was game of keep away, foiled on the day by some light rain. Stewart loose in defense went a long way.

On everything else, to narrow down what you're saying is we basically got lucky for 16 years, and you're finally going to be right this time.

Let's break down the last 16 years to a very simple level, minus the convenience and excuses for why it all worked:

We had a great side, we established the best culture in the league, then we kept drafting the right players, then we replaced our great coach with another great coach, then we traded in the best player in the comp, then we drafted the two best state league players of all time, then we traded in the best player in the comp again, then we traded in young talent to cover the upcoming list holes, etc etc.

F**k me, that's a hell of a lot going right...or maybe those in charge who are making these decisions are actually really good at their job? And better than their contemporaries?

Obivously it wasn't just luck, club did a lot right to get in the position it was in. Good decsions made back between 1999 and 2002 and development had positive effects on the club for 15 years. By the time Bartel, Mackie, Enright and Lonergan at the tail end (of a large group and process that probably started from 2009) we had no shortage of time to find their replacements.

In don't know what to call 2006 other than amazing luck and timing, just before we hit a dynesty, we get Selwood at 7 thanks to Hawthorn picking Mitch Thorp (I guess they didn't interview his teachers) and Hawkins at 40 (they changed the rules so this couldn't happen again)

Taylor at 17, a draft pick well ahead of its time, Duncan and Guthrie in the 20s is phenominal drafting and development.

Just more evidence for when you get a decision right at the draft it can last 15+ years. Any draft pick depreciated over 15 years becomes a bargin.

You ask who's our best inside mid in 2 years. I don't know, but I assume it would be one of the 3 we've invested first round picks into, or one of the other 3 we invested second round picks into.

We've invested more early picks in the last 4 years than any other club not in a rebuild. The fact that we've been to two Grand Finals and won a premiership in that time is remarkable, and really a facade for what's going on behind the scenes.

It's literally be 9 or 10 in the first 30 in a month's time, how exactly is that all invested in the here and now? If we were any other club it would be considered a rebuild. You can't just discount it because you don't like/rate the players picked.


But we'll play devils advocate for the fun of it. If for some insane reason it's not them, then we'll just trade one in.

I genuinely can't understand why you're so negative when it comes to this. Football is a very simple game when you're a well run organisation.

Its hard to measure investment in youth, relative to the competition it can't be very good for the simple reason we haven't had the draft currency to do so. We spent around 10k DVI in 4 years(draft and trades), of which 20% of that value has aleady left our list. I'm not sure where you got that I don't like the player we've drafted, individually I like them. Its a numbers and time game. As there isn't a group large enough or ready enough to carry the load that we'd need them to so we'll go down the ladder.

Us going down isn't the result of a mistake, its a natural consquence of our list structure. We pushed as hard as possible to win a premiership here and now. We succeeded, now we have to pay the price of success under those conditions. We didn't have the picks required in 2018, 2019 to draft top tier inside mids, they all went before our first. We got Kelly right in 2017, we had a pick before him, but Kelly aside not much of midfielder draft, unless your a fan of Worpel.

The last time we were in this position was back in 2015. What is different now from 2015 is that back then we had a core group of elite still in their prime that will still be around when the younger players develop. We had Selwood to hold up the midfield, Hawkins up front. Taylor was down back. Any team starting with them was going to be alright. We don't have that, we don't have a discount version of that. How could we, we've been too good for too long.

Its funny that young group at that time for the most part didn't come good for us. We dumped Caddy, Motlop wore vests, GHS, Smedts, Kersten, Vardy, Menzel's knees, McCarthy. Gregson, Murdoch, Lang, Parsons etc crazy how pretty much all of them got another go at a 2nd club. We replaced them with mature aged recuits who got us the gold. These mature aged recuits are now in their 30s, and we have an even bigger gap as a result.

From where we are picking our draft picks 1/3 make it to 100 games (our two top 10 picks not included, they bat closer to 50% historically), and not all of those at the clubs that draft them. We're going into next year with 10 players older than 31, all of which are probably best 22 in fit. 10 top 10 picks isn't enough to round 1 picks isn't enough to replace what we're about to lose, we'd then still have to develop them.

There isn't a shortcut to this hole. Hawthorn hit it, Richmond hit it, we're going to hit it. the conditions that allowed us to avoid it last time just isn't there. Being well run could only delay entrophy.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

It was talent thing, they went with the best at the contested and then dominated the territory battle. It was why they could do it and not one else did... at least did successfully. Once they had field position they had to keep it. They did it three times in four years. By year four it wasn't a surprise teams knew what they were going to do but couldn't stop it, Scott's final answer to it was game of keep away, foiled on the day by some light rain. Stewart loose in defense went a long way.


Obivously it wasn't just luck, club did a lot right to get in the position it was in. Good decsions made back between 1999 and 2002 and development had positive effects on the club for 15 years. By the time Bartel, Mackie, Enright and Lonergan at the tail end (of a large group and process that probably started from 2009) we had no shortage of time to find their replacements.

In don't know what to call 2006 other than amazing luck and timing, just before we hit a dynesty, we get Selwood at 7 thanks to Hawthorn picking Mitch Thorp (I guess they didn't interview his teachers) and Hawkins at 40 (they changed the rules so this couldn't happen again)

Taylor at 17, a draft pick well ahead of its time, Duncan and Guthrie in the 20s is phenominal drafting and development.

Just more evidence for when you get a decision right at the draft it can last 15+ years. Any draft pick depreciated over 15 years becomes a bargin.



Its hard to measure investment in youth, relative to the competition it can't be very good for the simple reason we haven't had the draft currency to do so. We spent around 10k DVI in 4 years(draft and trades), of which 20% of that value has aleady left our list. I'm not sure where you got that I don't like the player we've drafted, individually I like them. Its a numbers and time game. As there isn't a group large enough or ready enough to carry the load that we'd need them to so we'll go down the ladder.

Us going down isn't the result of a mistake, its a natural consquence of our list structure. We pushed as hard as possible to win a premiership here and now. We succeeded, now we have to pay the price of success under those conditions. We didn't have the picks required in 2018, 2019 to draft top tier inside mids, they all went before our first. We got Kelly right in 2017, we had a pick before him, but Kelly aside not much of midfielder draft, unless your a fan of Worpel.

The last time we were in this position was back in 2015. What is different now from 2015 is that back then we had a core group of elite still in their prime that will still be around when the younger players develop. We had Selwood to hold up the midfield, Hawkins up front. Taylor was down back. Any team starting with them was going to be alright. We don't have that, we don't have a discount version of that. How could we, we've been too good for too long.

Its funny that young group at that time for the most part didn't come good for us. We dumped Caddy, Motlop wore vests, GHS, Smedts, Kersten, Vardy, Menzel's knees, McCarthy. Gregson, Murdoch, Lang, Parsons etc crazy how pretty much all of them got another go at a 2nd club. We replaced them with mature aged recuits who got us the gold. These mature aged recuits are now in their 30s, and we have an even bigger gap as a result.

From where we are picking our draft picks 1/3 make it to 100 games (our two top 10 picks not included, they bat closer to 50% historically), and not all of those at the clubs that draft them. We're going into next year with 10 players older than 31, all of which are probably best 22 in fit. 10 top 10 picks isn't enough to round 1 picks isn't enough to replace what we're about to lose, we'd then still have to develop them.

There isn't a shortcut to this hole. Hawthorn hit it, Richmond hit it, we're going to hit it. the conditions that allowed us to avoid it last time just isn't there. Being well run could only delay entrophy.

I think we're both misinterpreting one another when our views are probably closer than it appears.

I'm not suggesting we won't go down. I believe we will, and a bottom 6 finish next year wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Although, I am partially optimistic on what next year could entail.

I've already posted my guess of what the club is trying to achieve, with the goal being an upwards trajectory from 2026 or 2027, with an extended window thereafter.

The reason I believe this is the target, and why the club has invested in so much youth over the last couple years, is they don't want to be rebuilding when Tassie enters the competition.

The goal over the coming years will be adding to our young nucleus, just like we will in a month's time, as well as pumping valuable games into those young players.

Our trade & FA targets will be those who suit the trajectory of that group. It's why it appears the club is heavily into Bailey Smith, with Aaron Cadman getting some whispers on here as well.

These are players who will cost picks, but they're key figureheads in what we're needing to do. A number 1 (or 2, depending on who develops) mid in Smith, and a Hawkins replacement in Cadman.

These players, or similar types will be hitting their prime - or in their prime - in 2026 and/or 2027, with the goal being an extended premiership window and sustainable age demographic which we haven't had in a long time.

If we can't land players like this, then we'll simply be taking picks, which will push that window back to 2028 or 2029.

If we go on a huge splurge and land a Dangerfield/Cameron type again, then we paper over some cracks and the window is pushed forward again.

It's heresy really to try to project this far our, but that's my guess on why we're doing what we're doing.

 

[Lana]

I think we're both misinterpreting one another when our views are probably closer than it appears.

I'm not suggesting we won't go down. I believe we will, and a bottom 6 finish next year wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Although, I am partially optimistic on what next year could entail.

I've already posted my guess of what the club is trying to achieve, with the goal being an upwards trajectory from 2026 or 2027, with an extended window thereafter.

The reason I believe this is the target, and why the club has invested in so much youth over the last couple years, is they don't want to be rebuilding when Tassie enters the competition.

The goal over the coming years will be adding to our young nucleus, just like we will in a month's time, as well as pumping valuable games into those young players.

Our trade & FA targets will be those who suit the trajectory of that group. It's why it appears the club is heavily into Bailey Smith, with Aaron Cadman getting some whispers on here as well.

These are players who will cost picks, but they're key figureheads in what we're needing to do. A number 1 (or 2, depending on who develops) mid in Smith, and a Hawkins replacement in Cadman.

These players, or similar types will be hitting their prime - or in their prime - in 2026 and/or 2027, with the goal being an extended premiership window and sustainable age demographic which we haven't had in a long time.

If we can't land players like this, then we'll simply be taking picks, which will push that window back to 2028 or 2029.

If we go on a huge splurge and land a Dangerfield/Cameron type again, then we paper over some cracks and the window is pushed forward again.

It's heresy really to try to project this far our, but that's my guess on why we're doing what we're doing.

Now we are on the same page. I think this is going to be our first traditional rebuild we've done since 1999-2002. I don't think we'll get too much opportunity to take a short cut. Top end players won't want to go to us until it is clear we are on the up. We have to draft and then develop players, players you draft today, if they come good, are ready to lead your team 5-7 years later. Its why a teams like Richmond and Melbourne were shit until they weren't.

I think a 2026 time frame is just not going to happen, with the players we retained it feels as if we still aren't starting a full rebuild next year as the club still thinks that with a bit of luck we can still win one with this group. We still look like we drip feeding the pick of our youth around our group of 30+ year olds.

Nearly everyone of our older players is OOC at the end of the year, so a quick pivot is possible. 2025 looks as the earliest time we can start blooding players on mass, going for player development over results. If we cut hard like Hawthorn did try it bottom 4 awaits, and we run the risk of getting stuck there. While we wait for the group we draft to build that critical mass of pre-seasons and experience. 2028, just four characters is a long way away.

I'm not really advocating anything, just have the acceptance that this is going to take a while.

 

[AM]

You forgot one:

7. I don't care what you think. The question was how many 'A-graders' we had. In my opinion he's not one of them. If you can't handle that tough s**t.

Hmm! Seems to me I'm not the one who can't handle it, Partridge.

 

[Vdubs]

You forgot one:

7. I don't care what you think. The question was how many 'A-graders' we had. In my opinion he's not one of them. If you can't handle that tough s**t.

A+.
He is our MVP when fit, and that makes him A+.
A fit Blicavs allows us to function so much better- it takes pressure off Stanley, and our defence, and our MF, then he goes and kicks goals.
Just because he doesn't fit in your traditional mould of-- whatever-- it does not and should not detract from his absolute value to our team.

 

[Partridge]

Hmm! Seems to me I'm not the one who can't handle it, Partridge.

Yes, the views of anonymous heroes on the internet constitutes grave concern.

There are ice addicts hanging out near schools I'd value the opinion of more.

 

[Mr Meow]

Yes, the views of anonymous heroes on the internet constitutes grave concern.

There are ice addicts hanging out near schools I'd value the opinion of more.

To be fair that says more about you than anyone here.

 

[AM]

Yes, the views of anonymous heroes on the internet constitutes grave concern.

There are ice addicts hanging out near schools I'd value the opinion of more.

You appear quite agitated Pear Tree old chap. All I've said is factual. Your assessment of Blitz was flawed from the outset. Proven to be so. Yet you persist with the folderol. Your deflection to personal silly insults doesn't do you any favors.

 

[Cursed Cat]

So we have
Hawkins in decline
Stewart and Cameron when fit
Danger on the decline
Guthrie out most of last year.
Will look thin soon

in a couple of years they could be gone.
a couple of our younger players must come through.

2024 has to be a transitional year.

Scott can't take this club into the season believing that Their Best Is Good Enough to win (another) flag - the landscape has changed and we need to put in the work to get back to the top.

We saw exactly where we're at throughout 2023.
Yes, there were an unfortunate alignment of injuries, but given the miles most of our core players have on the clock, that type of attrition rate is all but inevitable - we could likely be in for more or less the same ride in 2024.

This is why Scott and the match committee need to give extended opportunities to the fresher legs on the list.
I can understand the belief that the club held in 2023 but it ultimately proved misplaced, and now the adjustment to the new world order begins.

Every season it seems Chris Scott spruiks his view that Geelong don't have a best 22/3, but a best 30; and comical though it is when he uses it to equivocate on the composition of our team, he is nonetheless largely correct in that not many teams get through a season without digging deep into their list to get to the finish line.

The best teams are also the luckiest - or perhaps best prepared - in that they get the core of their best team to the last game of the year.

It's reasonably obvious that we have to - injuries willing - at least try to transition from a decent group of players who cannot be expected to go on forever.

 

[Mr Meow]

2024 has to be a transitional year.

Scott can't take this club into the season believing that Their Best Is Good Enough to win (another) flag - the landscape has changed and we need to put in the work to get back to the top.

We saw exactly where we're at throughout 2023.
Yes, there were an unfortunate alignment of injuries, but given the miles most of our core players have on the clock, that type of attrition rate is all but inevitable - we could likely be in for more or less the same ride in 2024.

This is why Scott and the match committee need to give extended opportunities to the fresher legs on the list.
I can understand the belief that the club held in 2023 but it ultimately proved misplaced, and now the adjustment to the new world order begins.

Every season it seems Chris Scott spruiks his view that Geelong don't have a best 22/3, but a best 30; and comical though it is when he uses it to equivocate on the composition of our team, he is nonetheless largely correct in that not many teams get through a season without digging deep into their list to get to the finish line.

The best teams are also the luckiest - or perhaps best prepared - in that they get the core of their best team to the last game of the year.

It's reasonably obvious that we have to - injuries willing - at least try to transition from a decent group of players who cannot be expected to go on forever.

I completely disagree, which is fine. Your post, in my humble opinion, belongs for 2025.

Next year is our last chance for a few years at least.

The worst run of injuries in the clubs history is not an expected outcome to repeat. I have the records of 2022 and 2023. You better believe I'll be doing a week by week comparison next year.

We had our worst winning % of close games in 20 years as well.

We start home games from round 1 and not 6 next season.

It will be our biggest pre season in an age.

We had many underperformers in the 21-28 year old brack that can be reasonably expected to improve.

The competition is weak and not much separates 3rd through 14th. Anyone who finishes in the top 8 is a red hot chance of going deep - as this season showed.

Our fixture will very likely be easier.

We will play finals next year unless our injury run inexplicably is as bad as 2023. Bookmark it. I'll put my account on the line for it.

 

[cats_09]

I don't picture an upcoming year where Scott & Co enter the season with an approach other than, "our best is good enough" - the off field team continually talks about putting ourselves in the best position to contend each year and I don't see a time that changes

 

[gogeelongcats]

I don't picture an upcoming year where Scott & Co enter the season with an approach other than, "our best is good enough" - the off field team continually talks about putting ourselves in the best position to contend each year and I don't see a time that changes

That goes without saying. Even West Coast would have the same view.
If we are 5 weeks in with the same output that could change quickly.
Our team needs more luck than usual. Importantly we need the younger players to come through as the older players tapper off.

 

[Lana]

2024 has to be a transitional year.

Scott can't take this club into the season believing that Their Best Is Good Enough to win (another) flag - the landscape has changed and we need to put in the work to get back to the top.

We saw exactly where we're at throughout 2023.
Yes, there were an unfortunate alignment of injuries, but given the miles most of our core players have on the clock, that type of attrition rate is all but inevitable - we could likely be in for more or less the same ride in 2024.

This is why Scott and the match committee need to give extended opportunities to the fresher legs on the list.
I can understand the belief that the club held in 2023 but it ultimately proved misplaced, and now the adjustment to the new world order begins.

Every season it seems Chris Scott spruiks his view that Geelong don't have a best 22/3, but a best 30; and comical though it is when he uses it to equivocate on the composition of our team, he is nonetheless largely correct in that not many teams get through a season without digging deep into their list to get to the finish line.

The best teams are also the luckiest - or perhaps best prepared - in that they get the core of their best team to the last game of the year.

It's reasonably obvious that we have to - injuries willing - at least try to transition from a decent group of players who cannot be expected to go on forever.

Our lack of list moves makes me think otherwise. Easier fixture + an extra month of rest to prime themsleves for a strong year. In my mind we have one problems to solve. Our inside midfield rotations. Our defense works and forward line works. The hope is Guthrie back, Dangerfield given time to properly heal, another pre-season into Bruhn and holmes to build up their tank and bodies. Knevitt and Clark protentially there to add to edge of the rotations, so we're not putting small forwards in there. With Blicavs and Atkins filling out the defensive coverage side.

We need someone to stand up to be an offensive level threat in the middle to provide drive when Dangerfield can't lead us forward. We have too much good ball use on the outside. It wouldn't take much to move the needle in our favour.

 

[bellpark]

I worry about our early picks these days. Jie Clarke looks a longer way away than others taken later like Philapou. I think we have some years now expecting big jumps in the youngsters but suspect it may be a bit more random, than as a group. Unless we get an almost injury free run in our older group it's a rebuild and I agree - ahead of Tassie. Also we are linked to Tassie players this year, but if they learn the trade with us they will be ideal for Taasie to take when they come in. The only thing a young Tassie payer can say really is " I'll play anywhere" but that will change when the team comes in. it won't be a Tim Kelly

11

Tim Kelly

Age

30

Ht

184cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.6

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

10.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

4.0

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

19.9

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

7.6

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

4.7

5star

CL

3.6

4star

D

21.6

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

11.2

5star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

3.8

5star

type return if we lose em back to Tassie.

 

[moond0g]

I worry about our early picks these days. Jie Clarke looks a longer way away than others taken later like Philapou. I think we have some years now expecting big jumps in the youngsters but suspect it may be a bit more random, than as a group. Unless we get an almost injury free run in our older group it's a rebuild and I agree - ahead of Tassie. Also we are linked to Tassie players this year, but if they learn the trade with us they will be ideal for Taasie to take when they come in. The only thing a young Tassie payer can say really is " I'll play anywhere" but that will change when the team comes in. it won't be a Tim Kelly type return if we lose em back to Tassie.

It’s been 1 year, and Clark has been injured most of it. Phillipou may well be a better player in time, but I don’t think you can draw any conclusions either way at this stage.

And the Tasmania thing gets talked up a lot, but I don’t really understand it. We have (as have all teams) been drafting players from SA, WA, etc. for years. Yes, there’s a chance they decide they want to go home (and fair enough if they do, I’ve got no hard feelings toward Jordan Clark, for example). But if they’re the best available and suit our needs, I hope we pick them. Imagine if we didn’t pick Enright or Harry Taylor because we were worried about the ‘go home’ factor.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

It’s been 1 year, and Clark has been injured most of it. Phillipou may well be a better player in time, but I don’t think you can draw any conclusions either way at this stage.

And the Tasmania thing gets talked up a lot, but I don’t really understand it. We have (as have all teams) been drafting players from SA, WA, etc. for years. Yes, there’s a chance they decide they want to go home (and fair enough if they do, I’ve got no hard feelings toward Jordan Clark, for example). But if they’re the best available and suit our needs, I hope we pick them. Imagine if we didn’t pick Enright or Harry Taylor because we were worried about the ‘go home’ factor.

And with respect to any Apple Isle natives that may be reading....it's not exactly Paris or New York.

Even WA & SA have struggled over the years to entice talent home, much more than a Melbourne or Geelong club for instance where it happens multiple times yearly.

I don't think Tassie is going to be the drawcard that everyone thinks it is. Nobody wants to admit it as it's like shooting Bambi, but they're going to struggle to keep talent IMO.

As a general rule, these are young, dumb men with expendable income and egos and testosterone to burn.

When they come into the league as 18 year olds, they want to bask in that glory and be the local hero. I'm not far out of their age group, and I've seen it first hand.

It's sad, and as supporters we don't want to admit or know about it, but for a lot of them in the early days a premiership is not at the forefront of their thinking.

I remember Luke Hodge mentioning that he appreciated the threepeat far more than '08, as once you're older and wiser, you appreciate how hard they are to win and as you mature, your perspective on what's important changes.

But anyway, whether it be attention from women they wouldn't get a second look from otherwise, or just fame and luxury in general, that's what a lot of them are craving, and they either want that in their home city, or a big city like Melbourne or Sydney.

Now, not every young man is like that, and most of them mature out of that mindset pretty quickly...but that's where Geelong has benefited so greatly for so long.

If you're a country boy, or just don't want to live the superficial milenial lifestyle and prefer the slower pace, and/or surfing, fishing, golf and so forth, the Cats are the place to be.

You get to play at an established & successful club with a rich history, a huge and loyal fanbase, and a culture of winning premierships.

Tassie doesn't have that, and won't for some time. They don't have the runs on the board or the gold standard of culture and success that Geelong has worked so hard to attain.

When it comes to country kids wanting to go home, or older players looking to settle down, odds are they're still going to pick Geelong over Tassie IMO.

Their only possible trump card over Geelong would be with homesick Tasmanians, but as of right now there just isn't enough good footballers coming out of Tasmania to make that a viable path to success.

There's always the possibility too that some Tasmanians can't wait to get out of there, and have long dreamt of playing on the MCG at a big Melbourne club.

We'll wait and see obviously, but personally I'm not convinced they're going to have players lining up to play there.

 

[Mr Meow]

With the retirement of Izzy and the delisting of Menegola, So starts the inevitable changes the Senior List for 2024 and beyond

Based on the 2023 Geelong List below is what I believe would be Best 23 in round 1 2024.....of course this is before Trade Period and the Draft.

I will not be selecting players that have been subject to trade rumours ie Sav or have retired or been de-listed

Will make any updates when news comes of list changes


Backs: Bews De Koning J. Henry

HB: Duncan Stewart Z.Guthrie

C: Holmes Bruhn Blicavs

HF: O Henry Cameron Close

FF: Stengle Hawkins Miers

Foll: Conway Atkins C.Guthrie

Int: Rohan Dangerfield Parfitt O'Connor

Emg: Stanley Dempsy Bowes Mullin


Depth:

Tuohy
Kolodjashnij
Knevitt
Whyte
Clark
Foster
Willis
Riccardi
Kroeger
Murdoch
Neale
Simpson
Clohesy
Hardie




Feedback is appreciated.

I guess now we can just update the thread title and start musing about potential best 23 by end of season 2024 (and maybe even future versions)?

Potential 2024 best 22, with age profile:

2024:

FB: Z.Guthrie (25yr) De Koning (23yr) J.Henry (25yr)

HB: Duncan (32yr) Kolo (28yr) Stewart (31yr)

C: Holmes (21yr) C.Guthrie (31yr) Dempsey (20yr)
FOL: Stanley (33 yr) Bruhn (21yr) Dangerfield (34yr)

HF: Close (25yr) Cameron (31yr) Miers (25yr)

FF: O.Henry (21yr) Hawkins (35yr) Stengle (25yr)

IC: Atkins (28yr) Blicavs (33yr) O'Connor (27yr) Mannagh (26yr) Rohan (32yr; sub)

Depth: Bowes (26yr) Knevitt (21yr) Clark (19yr) Tuohy (34yr) Mullin (25yr) Bews (30yr)

Back line average age: 27.3 years old
Midfield average age: 26.7 years old
Forward line: 27 years old
Bench average age: 29.2 years old

30+ years old: 9 players
24-29 years old: 9 players
18-23 years old: 5 players

I'm excited at the plug and play potential of Mannagh: a player who could have early impact like other mature age recruits we've had over the years.

O'Sullivan should be able to nab a few games too. The pressure is on Kolo to bounce back or end up replaced by a kid, especially for season 2025.

End of season retirees: Hawkins, Stanley, Dangerfield, Duncan, Rohan, Tuohy (can we spread some? I'm not sure)
Acquisition: B.Smith

2025:

FB: O'Connor (28yr) De Koning (24yr) J.Henry (26yr)

HB: Z.Guthrie (26yr) O'Sullivan (19yr) Stewart (32yr)

C: Holmes (22yr) C.Guthrie (32yr) Dempsey (21yr)
FOL: Conway (21yr) Bruhn (22yr) B.Smith (24yr)

HF: Mannagh (27yr) Cameron (32yr) Miers (26yr)

FF: O.Henry (22yr) Neale (22yr) Stengle (26yr)

IC: Blicavs (34yr) Bowes (27yr) Clark (20yr) Atkins (29yr) Mullin (26yr; sub)

Back line average age: 25.8 years old
Midfield average age: 23.8 years old
Forward line: 25.8 years old
Bench average age: 27.2 years old

30+ years old: 4 players
24-29 years old: 10 players
18-23 years old: 8 players

End of season retirees: C.Guthrie, Blicavs

2026:

FB: O'Connor (29yr) De Koning (25yr) J.Henry (27yr)

HB: Z.Guthrie (27yr) O'Sullivan (20yr) Stewart (33yr)

C: Holmes (23yr) Clark (21yr) Dempsey (22yr)
FOL: Conway (22yr) Bruhn (23yr) B.Smith (25yr)

HF: Mannagh (28yr) Neale (23yr) Miers (27yr)

FF: O.Henry (23yr) Cameron (33yr) Stengle (27yr)

IC: Atkins (30yr) Bowes (28yr) Knevitt (23yr) Mullin (27yr) Wiltshire (23yr; sub)

Back line average age: 26.8 years old
Midfield average age: 22.7 years old
Forward line: 26.8 years old
Bench average age: 26.3 years old

30+ years old: 3 players
24-29 years old: 10 players
18-23 years old: 9 players

End of season retirees: Cameron, Stewart

 

[Max Rooke]

I guess now we can just update the thread title and start musing about potential best 23 by end of season 2024 (and maybe even future versions)?

Potential 2024 best 22, with age profile:

2024:

FB: Z.Guthrie (25yr) De Koning (23yr) J.Henry (25yr)

HB: Duncan (32yr) Kolo (28yr) Stewart (31yr)

C: Holmes (21yr) C.Guthrie (31yr) Dempsey (20yr)
FOL: Stanley (33 yr) Bruhn (21yr) Dangerfield (34yr)

HF: Close (25yr) Cameron (31yr) Miers (25yr)

FF: O.Henry (21yr) Hawkins (35yr) Stengle (25yr)

IC: Atkins (28yr) Blicavs (33yr) O'Connor (27yr) Mannagh (26yr) Rohan (32yr; sub)

Depth: Bowes (26yr) Knevitt (21yr) Clark (19yr) Tuohy (34yr) Mullin (25yr) Bews (30yr)

Back line average age: 27.3 years old
Midfield average age: 26.7 years old
Forward line: 27 years old
Bench average age: 29.2 years old

30+ years old: 9 players
24-29 years old: 9 players
18-23 years old: 5 players

I'm excited at the plug and play potential of Mannagh: a player who could have early impact like other mature age recruits we've had over the years.

O'Sullivan should be able to nab a few games too. The pressure is on Kolo to bounce back or end up replaced by a kid, especially for season 2025.

End of season retirees: Hawkins, Stanley, Dangerfield, Duncan, Rohan, Tuohy (can we spread some? I'm not sure)
Acquisition: B.Smith

2025:

FB: O'Connor (28yr) De Koning (24yr) J.Henry (26yr)

HB: Z.Guthrie (26yr) O'Sullivan (19yr) Stewart (32yr)

C: Holmes (22yr) C.Guthrie (32yr) Dempsey (21yr)
FOL: Conway (21yr) Bruhn (22yr) B.Smith (24yr)

HF: Mannagh (27yr) Cameron (32yr) Miers (26yr)

FF: O.Henry (22yr) Neale (22yr) Stengle (26yr)

IC: Blicavs (34yr) Bowes (27yr) Clark (20yr) Atkins (29yr) Mullin (26yr; sub)

Back line average age: 25.8 years old
Midfield average age: 23.8 years old
Forward line: 25.8 years old
Bench average age: 27.2 years old

30+ years old: 4 players
24-29 years old: 10 players
18-23 years old: 8 players

End of season retirees: C.Guthrie, Blicavs

2026:

FB: O'Connor (29yr) De Koning (25yr) J.Henry (27yr)

HB: Z.Guthrie (27yr) O'Sullivan (20yr) Stewart (33yr)

C: Holmes (23yr) Clark (21yr) Dempsey (22yr)
FOL: Conway (22yr) Bruhn (23yr) B.Smith (25yr)

HF: Mannagh (28yr) Neale (23yr) Miers (27yr)

FF: O.Henry (23yr) Cameron (33yr) Stengle (27yr)

IC: Atkins (30yr) Bowes (28yr) Knevitt (23yr) Mullin (27yr) Wiltshire (23yr; sub)

Back line average age: 26.8 years old
Midfield average age: 22.7 years old
Forward line: 26.8 years old
Bench average age: 26.3 years old

30+ years old: 3 players
24-29 years old: 10 players
18-23 years old: 9 players

End of season retirees: Cameron, Stewart

You know, I have no changes to any of this which is rare for this site. Good job.

It's a good thing we have an easier draw next year as we'll hopefully get the opportunity to get games into some younger players. Those 6 departures at the end of next year will be a massive cliff. Depending on how things play out they might keep Rohan in 2025 as depth. Of the six he's the youngest, the quickest, likely on the lowest contract and can take a mark and kick goals. Good insurance if Jez or Henry get injured. Similar to Dalhaus he can play 2's for half the year, whereas they can't do that to Danger or Duncan.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Very interesting 2024 coming up.
We need to pivot from the 2023 team in some way to not stagnate or regress. Different things need to be tried.

Mannagh, Knevitt and Clark are 3 I'd be looking to get into the team.
Would like to see what a full preseason does to Hardie also. In the right age bracket to help us if he's good enough.

As an aside foxdog50 re-reading the beginnings of this thread is a prime example for my withdrawn nature these days.
A decade and 250 games and still flawed garbage spoken about Blicavs. Good on AM I say!

 

[gogeelongcats]

I don't picture an upcoming year where Scott & Co enter the season with an approach other than, "our best is good enough" - the off field team continually talks about putting ourselves in the best position to contend each year and I don't see a time that changes

The general consensus when everything is taken into account by the market is that we are midrange.

 

[foxdog50]

B Zuthrie, Blitz, Henry
CB Stewart, SDK, Duncan
C Holmes, Dangerfield, Knevitt
HF, Miers, Cameron, Mannagh
F Stengle, Hawkins, Close
R Stanley, Guthrie, Atkins
Int, Bruhn, Henry, Bowes, Rohan
Sub Clark

Obviously swapping Conway and Stanley threw out the year
We need to give Neale 10-12 games as Forward as he needs games into him..
I wouldn't mind playing Miers on to the wing as he does have a big tank in him..
I am a fan of Kolodjashnij, yes his poor games a very poor, but I wouldn't mind at all if his on our best 22