List Mgmt. Geelong at the 2013 AFL National Draft - overall review and general discussion

[TheHonestyPolicy]

Jansen is a close comparison to Robertson would probably be the point.
It could have been Nankervis too. Cutler.
A string of players went ahead of us that we could have picked at 36.

 

[year of the cat]

Who knows if we were even going for Robertson.

There was mail the day of the draft that we were - whether it's bullshit or not who knows but I reckon there is a very good chance we were interested in him.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/video/2013-11-21/darcy-lang-highlights

Feck me , there's a lot to like in there - speed , evasion , decision making , DE , great off both sides with his feet , goalkicker , hard at the contest - 2nd and 3rd efforts. Reckon he'll have good character and be very coachable.

 

[dazbroncos]

he's also not your usual looking draftee, body shape is different to most.
Long torso and shorter legs, face of a uni student and not a professional athlete but those highlights give us a glimpse of his potential.
Liked his aggression, he tackles with ferocity and as you say, his overall skills set is very impressive.

Hopefully the ankle injury won't hold him back too long.

I need somewhere to place my Eardley passion for the tough stuff. Hopefully he can fill the void.

Go Catters

 

[AM]

Didn't think the post draft remarks of SW were as effusive as they have been in the past. Just sayin......

 

[Whit3y]

not sure how anyone can be satisfied or not satisfied with our picks, these kids havent set foot at the club yet but we are already willing to judge them both in a positive and a negative way. how bout we give them a few years first then we can make a comment.

just my two cents worth.

 

[dazbroncos]

not sure how anyone can be satisfied or not satisfied with our picks, these kids havent set foot at the club yet but we are already willing to judge them both in a positive and a negative way. how bout we give them a few years first then we can make a comment.

just my two cents worth.

sometime the voice of reason comes from the most unexpected places.

Good form!

Go Catters

 

[JPod_31]

not sure how anyone can be satisfied or not satisfied with our picks, these kids havent set foot at the club yet but we are already willing to judge them both in a positive and a negative way. how bout we give them a few years first then we can make a comment.

just my two cents worth.

Spot on Whit3y. We can judge our picks after the three draftees have played a couple of years. We were judging Thurlow when we picked him last year and we didn't even see him play a game of AFL footy. In Wells we trust

 

[JPod_31]

Get Templeton in PSD! Amazed he didn't get selected.

Isn't our list full?

 

[MotleyLemon]

Isn't our list full?

Indeed, suspect he was referring to the rookie draft where we have 3 picks.

 

[Whos_Your_Caddy]

Isn't our list full?

We upgraded Burbury and Walker and I believe we delisted Eardley. So I think we have 3 spots.

 

[OzeSparky]

http://www.scpaige.com.au/2013-national-draft-verdict/

Not a bad read.

 

[JPod_31]

Indeed, suspect he was referring to the rookie draft where we have 3 picks.

And why is everyone talking about the PS draft?

 

[Jon Douglas]

It may be that in 2 years time when Enright, Bartel, Lonergan and Kelly are gone we will have a pretty young side and a heap of cash in the treasury. If the team is playing well and a finals contender - then we may attract a player or two from another side - notably GC and GWS.

A pay rise and a chance to play finals - deep finals - may be a very attractive proposition to come to Geelong FC - especially if you are a local.

 

[Jon Douglas]

From my reading the best results re the ND were Brisbane and the Saints. They had the picks but used them well from what I read.

As far as we did - really hard to tell but given Wells has a recognised history for picking talent surely one of these 3 boys will make it. 2 mids and a backman - all needs. So if history repeats itself, as it often does, we will be quite happy with out lot.

And yes this Board is all about what we think and that is the fun. So we will write some insightful stuff, some interesting stuff, some factual stuff and some crap. That's just how it goes. Just as long as people realise two things. GFC know a lot more than we do about the players we selected than we will ever know and Wells is not perfect and there will be mistakes made by him as no one is perfect.

Plus we never have had good (high) draft picks in a decade.

And just remember it is likely we will have at least 3 picks next year in the ND. We will not upgrade any rookies, except Blicavs, unless something really extraordinary happens and we lose at least 2 experienced players. Coming from Rivers, Kelly, Lonergan and Bartel - and surely 1 or 2 younger players like Brown, Cowan, Stringer, etc - who have been given time but did not make the grade.

So Wells, unless we trade our picks, will have something to work with next season in all likelihood. We may even have 4 picks - who knows ? We just need one gun player from each draft each year. Two would be a bonus.

 

[muttonchops]

I think the above poster was right in saying it will be 3-4 years before we can be satisfied with this draft or not.

I still remember being very disappointed we took Cam Guthrie over Jack Darling. But now a few years down the track I am more than happy with that selection.

 

[Moggy]

I suggested that it would be embarrassing for us if they didn't use them all and I still think we should have pushed them for something better than #41.

I agree with you MC on the first part, but I assume/expect that they did push for something better.

Our negotiating position was pretty weak, IMO - what with our obvious desire to reduce numbers leading into the draft, and the seeming lack of faith in West during the season.

Do you think we should have walked away from #41? (I am guessing that was the other option.)

 

[BIGANT]

what input does scotty have in who well's pick's ? would scotty have chosen different on sourcing footage n intel on a draft list that would have been the same names as what wellsey n balmey would have had in front of them ?

 

[Moggy]

So, can someone summarize where we are with list numbers at the moment?

My earlier, primitive, calculations have me thinking that we have one too many - or maybe that was only if we elevated Blitz.

Anyone?

 

[Jon Douglas]

So, can someone summarize where we are with list numbers at the moment?

My earlier, primitive, calculations have me thinking that we have one too many - or maybe that was only if we elevated Blitz.

Anyone?

Were fine. We had 3 live picks at the ND because we had 3 spaces available on the senior list and still 2 available to upgrade Walker and Burbury.

We traded West, found homes for JHunt, Pods and Chappy and Corey retired. That's 5 senior spots for 3 new players and 2 upgrades.

As we did not upgrade Blicavs we could have 3 live picks. And we have 2-3 Rookie picks now as we delisted Eardley but kept Sherringham (not sure why really). Blicavs does not count as normal Rookie - so we have either 2 or 3 Rookie picks.

Cannot remember but I think you can have 4 Rookies as we Walker, Burbury, Sheringham and Eardley last year - so 4 in total. So my guess is that we will then have 3 Rookie picks.

Manboob has written that the reverse order of the ND applies to the Rookie draft (which surprised me). So in that case we will have pick 3, 21 and 39 in the Rookie draft.

That means we will get at a go at one of Tsitas, Templeton, Bundy Jnr, Hourigan and a few others that posters have written on the Rookie thread. So there is hope of getting a decent Rookie it seems.

For now there is little to write except on who we think we might get in the Rookie draft.

 

[BigCat1]

I guess if we were set on Darcy Lang months ago then we really should have traded pick 16 for a pair of picks in the 20's. Could have got Louie Taylor or Robertson as well and I'm sure Lang would have been there in the mid 20's at least.

Ps I'm very happy we got Lang.

 

[Jon Douglas]

Misunderstood what Manboob meant - we will have pick 16, 34 and 52 at the Rookie draft.

So not so good and we may miss Tsitas and alike. But then again some clubs may have a full compliment of rookies and cannot select. So perhaps marginally better picks than these.

Sorry Manboob - I made a Jonboob.

 

[AM]

what input does scotty have in who well's pick's ? would scotty have chosen different on sourcing footage n intel on a draft list that would have been the same names as what wellsey n balmey would have had in front of them ?

My recollection from a remark by CS sometime ago is that parameters are agreed on but the calls are made by SW. After all SW has the first hand information and the form on these matters.

Think the same applied to the relationship with Thompson. If the following quote by Thompson taken from the recent piece on SW is any gauge ie the recruiting and list manager got the players and the coaching team developed them.

He is just very thorough, very tenacious and puts in the work - and that's why he gets the results. We worked well together. He needed me as much as I needed him. I needed the good players, but he needed me to make them as players.

 

[Jon Douglas]

I guess if we were set on Darcy Lang months ago then we really should have traded pick 16 for a pair of picks in the 20's. Could have got Louie Taylor or Robertson as well and I'm sure Lang would have been there in the mid 20's at least.

Ps I'm very happy we got Lang.

Makes sense what you say. Perhaps then we may have had Zac Jones as our first pick and we thought he would be there but not last to our second round pick ?

We may never know.

 

[Moggy]

yeh but then again, we were the first club to take it's time in selecting a player, previous 15 picks all went smoothly and somewhat 'planned' but after we selected Lang, you will notice a number of other clubs appear to delegate in discussions also so perhaps Lang was about to get picked by the team next in line and it sort of caused a reshuffling of players expected to be drafted?

It's pretty hard to say anything definite about the goings-on at the various tables.

Every decision affects every other one, and every decision must take into consideration future decisions by other clubs.

It's pretty much a cluster****