nowhereneargeelong
Cancelled
Yep. Spot on.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
How does Paul Chapman slip through?
- Thread starter PieLebo87
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yep. Spot on.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,808
- 70,170
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Sounds like a pretty important player if his absence is the difference between winning and losing a PF.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,679
- 22,259
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Maybe. Considering how well he was playing immediately prior to the injury and immediately after he returned, you'd think he'd probably get more than the one significant injury in five-odd years before being written off, wouldn't you?
We offered him a contract though. He just wanted a longer contract.
Well duh.
- Banned
- #82
I agree, and think it is fair to say that this is proof that the other 16 clubs all have governance issues.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,808
- 70,170
- AFL Club
- West Coast
According to the Geelong posters ITT Geelong offered him a one year contract and basically told him they would be blooding youth and he would be a depth player.
I have no issue with a club not offering a 32 year old player who just played an 8 game season a two-year contract, nor do I have issue with a 32 year old player seeking a two-year contract if his current club won't offer one. What doesn't add up is why you would offer a player of Chapman's quality and experience a one year deal then tell him his opportunities will be limited.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,808
- 70,170
- AFL Club
- West Coast
So probably the sort of player you'd want to, I don't know, keep on your list then?
You're right, I'd hate to read another article by Jolly
Which we tried to.
After the service he provided Geelong, and the pay cuts he took to keep the team together, this is the thanks he gets?
I hope he stays fit, I'm seeing a Geelong vs Essendon knock out final, Chappy kicking 5
I hope he stays fit, I'm seeing a Geelong vs Essendon knock out final, Chappy kicking 5
- May 5, 2006
- 62,808
- 70,170
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Good point.
I'd imagine we didn't go for him because our forward line is already an area of strength. That and I don't know if a two year deal in Perth is worth more to him than a 1 year deal staying in Geelong/Melbourne.
Anyway, I would have no problem if we gave him a two year deal. We used pick 88 trying to de-Melbourne Cale Morton and FA to get Ellis who while 25 is a lot less durable and well-credentialed than Chappy.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,679
- 22,259
- AFL Club
- Geelong
That would be half of it. The other half would be a mixture of how close Geelong gets this year and how impressive the younger player(s) that are nominally taking Chapman's spot each week perform. If Geelong has a similar ending to the season as last year and Chapman has a relatively injury-free year (16-18 games, doesn't miss more than two weeks in a row), it's not hard to see what the comments will be about Geelong at the end of the season. I'm not sure why you'd even risk it, since, as far as I'm concerned, that risk is far greater than delisting a guy who would have been about 35th on the pecking order anyway and having it come back to bite you.
From an outsider's perspective it is unbelievably frustrating that Chapman missed about two thirds of 2013, Varcoe missed a lot of football, Josh Hunt missed a lot, Rivers missed a lot and yet, these 'younger players' still weren't getting many opportunities last year. Perhaps if they'd worried more about getting some games into the kids when a top four spot was locked up last year, they would have had a better idea which of those kids weren't up to it and Chapman would have had a spot on the list in 2014.
As it was, Selwood, Mackie and Lonergan played every H&A game and Stokes, Bartel, Taylor and Enright played all but one. What would have happened if those guys were regularly rotated and played an average of 19 games each? Well, it would have given the club the opportunity to get four more senior games into three of our younger players and five more senior games into a fourth. But apparently they weren't as concerned about the younger players getting experience then. We had a good VFL team, but.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,808
- 70,170
- AFL Club
- West Coast
By offering him a one year deal and telling him he'd be a depth player?
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,679
- 22,259
- AFL Club
- Geelong
My guess is Chapman wouldn't have had to shop his services to interstate clubs in the first place. With all due respect, I can't imagine a move to WA would have been top of his things to do list.
Since he was always going to attract significant interest, he could rule out all the interstate clubs and all the Victorian clubs which weren't going to be in a position to contend in the next 1-2 years. Which, at the time, probably left Hawthorn (plenty of small forwards, may not have been able to afford him), North Melbourne (possibly tied too much into Dal Santo to be able to swing an offer for Chapman), Carlton (ditto with Thomas), Richmond and Essendon and arguably Collingwood (who looked to be going in the opposite direction, a mini-rebuild). I think most of those clubs showed interest, to varying degrees.
Carlton were interested in Chappy, but he made the call to go to the Dons under his old coach Bomber.
Not as much slipping through as making his own call and Geelong obliging.
Not as much slipping through as making his own call and Geelong obliging.
You're wrong.
- Jun 29, 2013
- 4,116
- 6,767
- AFL Club
- West Coast
That wasn't the logic.
It was
1-2 more years of this guy and he holds a young potential gun out of the team then retires
or
keep blooding and developing youngsters and produce the next Chapmen in 4-5 years time while accepting that he is still very good and we will be a bit worse for a year or two
I know which I prefer, much as I love everything Chappy did for the club.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,679
- 22,259
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Define 'longer'.
Are you seriously suggesting that he agreed to a year after an injury-free 2012 as a 30 year old and then demanded a multi-year deal after a 2013 that was decimated by injury as a 31 year old? Because that makes no sense whatsoever.
He signed a one-year deal with Geelong in 2012 and it is impossible to believe that he wouldn't have done the same in 2013 if exactly the same offer was on the table. Two years didn't come into play until Essendon offered it to him, after he'd parted ways with Geelong.
We offered him less than a year. It was a games based contract.
But then again, you support a club which has shelled out the salaries of about half a dozen quality players in order to recruit a couple of past their best mercenaries from other clubs, so you would say that.
What are you suggesting, that Geelong should now just give Chappy a big payday at the expense of keeping a competitive team on the field?
- May 5, 2006
- 62,808
- 70,170
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Worked out well with James McDonald.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,679
- 22,259
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Chapman wasn't on the fringes of the best 22, nor did he look likely to be any time soon. The other veterans that departed at the end of 2013 were either likely to be outside the best 22, or would have been just hanging on for one of the last couple of spots. Chapman was pretty clearly still one of our top 10-12 players.
Furthermore, since Chapman can be a very valuable player as a permanent small forward, or a midfielder and he would also be potentially the greatest designated sub the game has seen, he wouldn't have been keeping any single player out, like Josh Hunt (a small/medium defender and that's it), Joel Corey (an inside midfielder and that's it), or Podsiadly (a key forward and that's it) would have been, because Chapman's role in an AFL team is much easier to adjust, based on the other personnel in the squad, than those players.
Similar threads
- Poll
