Strategy List management approach and philosophy

[catempire]

There's often a fair bit of discussion on this topic, usually tied up in some sort of Chris Scott discussion. A post by year of the cat tonight prompted me to start a new thread on it. It probably deserves its own thread to (a) extract the discussion from the debate over what Scott has/hasn't done, hopefully getting it some clean air and (b) recognise that list management in the modern game is probably only partly a function of the head coach's ideas and decisions and more reflects a club approach from the board down through the CEO, Football Department head and List Managers.

For that reason, if you want to discuss things Chris Scott related there's already a thread for that. This thread is about general philosophy and approach to list management. Here is the thought-provoking post from yotc:

The club has topped up with mature talent for quite a while now without the ultimate success of a flag. We've traded away high picks and brought in a series of FA's. Whilst that's allowed us, aside from 2015, to remain competitive, it also will likely see us fall off the proverbial cliff in the next couple of years. Interestingly enough in the meantime we've seen St Kilda, who followed a similar profile to us in the mid-2000's be prepared to be patient, fall down the ladder, pick up the elite young talent on offer and hope to experience a more sustained run at a flag in the next few years. We are now about to witness them pass us on their movement up the ladder. Whether that's enough for them to steal a flag during a likely GWS dynasty, we shall see.

Scott, along with Wells and you'd assume Hocking, decided to take us along this path. Whereas our success in the 2000's was based on prudent drafting and development, we've seemingly abandoned the very strategy that brought us the success we longed for. We've gone for quick fixes, and hoped that the players we've brought in will gel or work cohesively with those existing players within a time frame that will bring success before the likes of Enright, Taylor, Lonergan, Mackie and Selwood retire. It seems that this is looking increasingly unlikely to occur. We've attempted to follow what Hawthorn did in bringing in Burgoyne, Gibson, Hale, Lake etc but I'm increasingly of the belief we don't have the coach to meld these players all together as Clarkson has done so well at Hawthorn. There just appears a disconnect or lack of understanding or synergy that Scott can't seem to eliminate.

<snip>

I can see us ultimately failing to win a flag in the next few years to then have Scott move on when he really never gave himself the opportunity to truly develop a list from the bottom up. He's almost doing is disservice to himself!

If I look into my crystal ball we'll make the 8 this year (finishing between 5-8), miss finals in 2018 and be bottom 6 from 2019 until we unearth and develop a brand new list.

Will see Mackie, Lonergan and Taylor retire in that time leaving our backline further exposed than it is currently. Selwood will be nearing the end and less effective than he is now. With only Dangerfield currently being our other elite mid we will be smashed in the midfield as teams clamp down on him. Hawkins will also be nearing the end and we currently have no realistic elite junior KPF on our books. Menzel will be likely seeing the effects of 4 knee recos after a couple more seasons so there's our current best two forwards on the wane. Motlop will be either gone or apathetic. Need any more reasons?

 

[catempire]

I want to have a go at some counterpoints to year of the cat's posts, but I have run out of steam today. But here are some questions/issues I think are in the mix for debate:

- Is it right to say a list management strategy hasn't worked if it hasn't delivered a flag?
- What is a 'conventional' rebuild? What is the formula that has been proven to work?
- If Geelong has erred in not attempting a conventional rebuild, at what point in the past should they have made the call to do that?
- Is it wrong to try something different to a conventional rebuild? In what circumstances is it justified to try to innovate?
- Is a conventional rebuild inevitable for Geelong from here?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Just one question for year of the cat based off this tidbit "We are now about to witness them pass us on their movement up the ladder. Whether that's enough for them to steal a flag during a likely GWS dynasty, we shall see."

Q: Given we've been on this path for a while, what was the best percentage option for a flag (in the mindset of when we started this path) given your above comment. A) try and stay up and snag one more before GWS (and presumably GC would have been expected also back then) "arrive" or do what St.Kilda have and try and out gun GWS etc?

 

[Moggy]

Post 2009, we had the most resilient, confident, experienced and winningest group we have had for the last 45 years.

It would have been reckless, in my view, not to try to extend that golden age as long as possible and squeeze every last drop out of it. It is statistically likely that we won't find another Bartel, Ablett, Scarlett, Enright, Johnson for a generation- let alone all at once.

We obviously got it wrong with HMac and a couple of others but they were all reasonable decisions at the time - ok, maybe HMac was borderline at best.

From a strategic point of view, I think this year sets the direction. If the coaching group can pull all the strands together then we could be formidable and the current course is validated. Fall away and it's time to try something different.

There is also the question of executing the strategy. The coaching side of that has been fair to good but no better. The drafting about the same. Better choices with the picks that landed Smedts, Lang and possibly (let's see how 2017 goes) Thurlow and Cockatoo and our current situation might look a whole lot better. Hindsight makes it easy I know, but I do question some of the calls.

 

[Turbocat]

Id say the general philosophy on what the club sets out to do , its onfield mission statement is probably driven from front office. The choice to be in the now is theirs to make , and they would employe staff that are happy with that approach. Just like the playing of 2-4 young players was key criteria from day one. So from day1 CS has had the target of making the most of the list , keep us in contention while continually blooding new kids. He was never given his target of a rebuild to make up a new group ... like Richo at StK.

Scott would have a strong say in the "now" players needed and which "now" players brought into the club , like Danger , Henderson , Stanley and Smith.
CScott probably has limited input into the drafted kids like Parfitt and Cockatoo. How much input into the drafted "now" types like Pods or Stewart or Ruggles for that matter is hard to gauge. And as to trading away our picks or how much we are prepared to pay , I doubt Scott has the strongest say in that.

YOTC assertion that the Saints have followed a profile of us in the 2000's. It may be similar I guess , its hard to assess without looking at players in and out and finishing positions. Since 2012- 9th , 13-16th , 14-18th , 15-14th , 16-9th so to me they have had at least one year that we did not have in that era... a more tradition Saints year of a strong bottom finish.. even in the era of GWS build they found a way to finish bottom. And it was different eras and different options available to list management. They made choices to let players like Goddard and DelSanto go with FA , we had no option to do that. This build for them has no priority picks which they seemed to have made up for by this FA choice. My guess would be they have again added a lot of early talent and I suspect more than us in that era.

The real question for us imo, at what rate can we replace the outgoing talent.

Obviously having picks like GWS has had , gives one the chance to add high end young talent. We have had no chance to do this. Can we add high end FA which there is no restriction apart from SC. Yes , but at what rate and quality. History has shown so far that its improbable if not impossible to add a lot of players in a draft like fashion. If Danger and Henderson and SS had all been FA's then this would have been a huge show that it might be doable. Danger became trade , Henderson should have been FA but the rules made it not so.
Too often you have to make accommodations to the reality of supply. Would we have recruited MC or Hmac in choice rich environment? The lack of availability has driven us to take risks with our player choices.. and to be fair ..in our last build we had more low picks , more FS's and even someone like SKing was a priority pick of sorts.

To me the only sustainable way we can maintain our high ladder position is internal development , the in system recruitments are just too limited in our 8 and 10 FA system. Can we develop enough of our late picks to be regular AFL team members..maybe. Can we develop them to be guns? Will the likes of ZGuthrie and Ruggles and Parsons and Menegola etc develop enough to make up for the lack of more obvious youth talent?
Is it realistic to find another group like Enright , Pods , Chapman , Ling etc.

I feel we lack 2-4 players like Corey or Bartel on our list to compare our build this time to last time , players purchased with single figure picks. A key assessment would be need to be made if we feel we can get there without early picks. Is the depth of kids available now thicker than then ..so can we get kids in the 20's (Parfitt, Guthrie) that can become players of that standard. Even last time we had nothing earlier than 7 , I look at our current list and imagine if we had Aish or Ahern.. would we be much better. Would we have chosen those players?

Its just not clear that one way is the only way. Personally I enjoy the bringing of young talent and watching them come thru , even if there is a period of 2-4 years where we dip. Commercial choices don't worry me as much as the powers who have to pay the bills for now stands and debts.

 

[cynical]

You can only try so long to try win a flag with the same group of players, when the Hmac experiment failed we should have started a proper rebuild.

This being we trade out some older players for currency as well as some mid range players who are expendable (eg motlop).

Going after Clark was the real big mistake, the club seemed like a drug addict trying to desperately get that next top up after that.

When you keep trying to finish as high as possible you weaken the list.

1. You get worse draft picks
2. You trade out draft picks for 5 year players (thus creating a big glut of talent when they start retiring)
3. Fringe players/slow developers dont get the opportunities so they get delisted/traded for little (eg hamling).

If we started a rebuild at the end of 2013 or 2014 we'd probably come good by 2020, depending on the strength of GWS/GC/Others we could always delay the push up the ladder (not taking topups) and make that later.

Given the state of our list now we will be spending a lot longer down the ladder or stuck in a loop like North or Richmond (whereby they never get enough talent to challenge).

We need 2 KPFs and 2 good young rucks, they take a long time to develop.

 

[chris9753]

I don't get the level of disagreement on this topic.

It seems pretty clear to me that they have a two phase strategy currently being implemented.

Phase 1 (now) - Recruiting players to support a core group of players in their prime (J Selwood, Hawkins, Taylor) and aiming for a premiership in the next 2/3 years. This phase is just about finished.

Phase 2 (also now) - they have at least 16 players on the list 21 years or younger and will recruit more over the next 2/3 years. We can no longer trade out our first round draft picks. In 4/5 years time we can start adding free agents and trades and ideally we will have opened another "premiership window".

Cleary this is a broad strategy and will need to be fine tuned over time. For example they could never have planned to have Tuohy approach the club this year. It also may entail a couple of years out of the 8 in around 3/4 years time.

My point is that I currently see us currently having a strategy for both contending and rebuilding. Over the next year or two the focus will change to be more on rebuilding.

 

[chris9753]

- Is it right to say a list management strategy hasn't worked if it hasn't delivered a flag?

My personal opinion:

Top 4: 2016, 2017, 2018. = success
Missing Top 8: 2016, 2017, 2018 = Failure
Positions 5,6,7,8 = Neutral (need to assess other factors such as injuries before making a judgement)

Clearly I would have loved a premiership in 2016 but, using my criteria above, I have rated last year a success.

 

[Landgraft]

I fear for the nervousness that people have in screaming for a rebuild. Most of our best 22 are of a good age for the next 3-5 years and we've brought in plenty of draftees to experiment with. There is no reason to think that over the next few years we would plummet down the ladder while that group is still together unless your pessimism is extreme.

 

[you pick one]

With 3 relatively recent flags flying at Kardinia Park,one could be forgiven for thinking the club has gone into a holding pattern of remain competitive, putting bums on seats and keep the $ rolling in seems to be no1 priority right now with another flag just a bonus if we get lucky.Cooks just finished rattling the tin and did a great job swindling the better off out of some spare change and Wells also looks to have had a reasonable draft 2016 so they are doing their bit.Personally I can't see us winning a flag in the next couple of years but I can see the Cats as a club (excluding the players) being happy with top 8 finishes over the next 2 years and final or two.
Where we go from there is anybodies guess but we won't be doing a complete rebuild from the bottom unless there is a real catastrophic event at the Cattery.

 

[Partridge]

I fear for the nervousness that people have in screaming for a rebuild. Most of our best 22 are of a good age for the next 3-5 years and we've brought in plenty of draftees to experiment with. There is no reason to think that over the next few years we would plummet down the ladder while that group is still together unless your pessimism is extreme.

I don't think that many are screaming for a rebuild. A few - myself certainly - advocate continuous and gradual rebuilding - which goes on each and every year. My main preference is simply keeping our draft picks. I don't see why doing that would mean any kind of decline.

There's a combination of factors too. It's not just that yes the core of the team now is the right age, but what's not clear is whether they're the right quality. And by procuring some the way we have, there is a gap where players should be coming through, but aren't (the 2011, 2012, and 2013 drafts). That needs to be considered.

 

[Seeds]

I want to have a go at some counterpoints to year of the cat's posts, but I have run out of steam today. But here are some questions/issues I think are in the mix for debate:

- Is it right to say a list management strategy hasn't worked if it hasn't delivered a flag?
- What is a 'conventional' rebuild? What is the formula that has been proven to work?
- If Geelong has erred in not attempting a conventional rebuild, at what point in the past should they have made the call to do that?
- Is it wrong to try something different to a conventional rebuild? In what circumstances is it justified to try to innovate?
- Is a conventional rebuild inevitable for Geelong from here?

A conventional rebuild does not involve trading away first round draft picks three years in a row. In fact a rebuild involves trading some in as well for existing players. Its really not that hard to understand.

 

[Seeds]

My personal opinion:

Top 4: 2016, 2017, 2018. = success
Missing Top 8: 2016, 2017, 2018 = Failure
Positions 5,6,7,8 = Neutral (need to assess other factors such as injuries before making a judgement)

Clearly I would have loved a premiership in 2016 but, using my criteria above, I have rated last year a success.

A single year cant be defined as failure or success. If last year helped build the momentum for a flag this year its a success. If we win no flags in 2016/17/18 then our strategy has failed.

 

[catempire]

A conventional rebuild does not involve trading away first round draft picks three years in a row. In fact a rebuild involves trading some in as well for existing players. Its really not that hard to understand.

Don't think anyone said it's hard to understand. It's a philosophical debate about what is better in our circumstances.

 

[Landgraft]

I don't think that many are screaming for a rebuild. A few - myself certainly - advocate continuous and gradual rebuilding - which goes on each and every year. My main preference is simply keeping our draft picks. I don't see why doing that would mean any kind of decline.

There's a combination of factors too. It's not just that yes the core of the team now is the right age, but what's not clear is whether they're the right quality. And by procuring some the way we have, there is a gap where players should be coming through, but aren't (the 2011, 2012, and 2013 drafts). That needs to be considered.

I can see the appeal of the draft picks but I think the 2015 trade period was very important to reposition a list that had developed holes but had a lot of potential. The 2E trade was a bit of an odd one, but I still think we got good enough potential value that it was a very shrewd deal.

One thing to remember is that we've always had a slightly unconventional read on the draft, so I'm not sure that we'll get as much out of top picks as we would the players we can spin them into. Do you think Wells uses his first pick on anyone other than Parfitt last year if it was the #16 we shopped out?

 

[dazbroncos]

I don't think that many are screaming for a rebuild. A few - myself certainly - advocate continuous and gradual rebuilding - which goes on each and every year. My main preference is simply keeping our draft picks. I don't see why doing that would mean any kind of decline.

There's a combination of factors too. It's not just that yes the core of the team now is the right age, but what's not clear is whether they're the right quality. And by procuring some the way we have, there is a gap where players should be coming through, but aren't (the 2011, 2012, and 2013 drafts). That needs to be considered.

Id suggest that we are keeping the majority of our draft picks overall - I think you are getting at keeping our high round draft picks - which recently we have not.

Mind you, getting PFD and Hendo have IMO proven to bear fruit and 2E at this early stage seems ok.

I would not however want to go back to that well again.

Time to keep them now.

Go Catters

 

[strauchnyy]

List management decisions we have got wrong (and were wrong at the time, not just in hindsight):

• Recruitment of Hmac, especially for a R2 pick.
• Passing up Grundy for Thurlow, would have meant we never had to trade for a ruck
• Accepting pick 21 for Christensen
• If we drafted Grundy we couldve at least taken 21 to the draft
• Not drafting Lever at 10 in 2014 (I like Cockatoo, but Lever is the better player)
• Trading Varcoe for Clark. Clark should have been pick #125
• Caddy for a R2 pick (I still cannot see any logical reason why this was done)
• Involving a future R1 in a trade for Tuohy. I like Tuohy, but a R1 should have been off the table, period.
• We could have bargained harder for Henderson and kept a R1 pick, with some canny list management. We didn't.
• Kersten for a pick in the 60s. Should have pushed for more, Hamling is not as good yet WB received a R2.
• Should have pushed more for Vardy, or at least try to retain one of Vardy/Kersten.
• Lang was a reach. If we are going to "reach for players" eg pick 15 on someone who is likely available at 30, then we should be smart and trade 15 for 30 + 32 or something to get full value. We are not creative enough.
• We should have kept SJ for 2016.

That's just off the top of my head, i'm sure there is more.

 

[cynical]

I fear for the nervousness that people have in screaming for a rebuild. Most of our best 22 are of a good age for the next 3-5 years and we've brought in plenty of draftees to experiment with. There is no reason to think that over the next few years we would plummet down the ladder while that group is still together unless your pessimism is extreme.

Optimism at its best..

16 players with 0 games experience most are pick 50+ so very limited upside (the most in the AFL)
19 players 25 and over

how many good established players do we have that are under 25yo?

Cam Guthrie
McCarthy (injury prone not really established)
Thurlow (coming off a major injury not really established)
Kolo (jury is still out)
Cocky

that is extremely slim pickings

We are heading for a cliff, I suspect this year will be the year but if not it's in the next 2 years.

 

[Turbocat]

My personal opinion:

Top 4: 2016, 2017, 2018. = success
Missing Top 8: 2016, 2017, 2018 = Failure
Positions 5,6,7,8 = Neutral (need to assess other factors such as injuries before making a judgement)

Clearly I would have loved a premiership in 2016 but, using my criteria above, I have rated last year a success.

In the end, when the sun goes down , when the music stops , when the door is shut and the hammer drops... anything less than a flag can not be considered a total success.
Sure one can rationalise , done well with the talent , within the restrictions , one can look with admiration at a failed effort where all have given the best and more against insurmountable odds ... a bit like a Gallipoli etc and in a 18 team comp its almost ridiculous to have such a narrow gauge for success ...but there it is.
Why is there conjecture about Chris Scotts contract extension.. his winning record thru the year , he has won a Premiership , he represents the club well yet his extension was hardly meet with overwhelming glee. Im afraid I don't consider our season in 2016 a success , top 4 or not

 

[Partridge]

how many good established players do we have that are under 25yo?

Cam Guthrie
McCarthy (injury prone not really established)
Thurlow (coming off a major injury not really established)
Kolo (jury is still out)
Cocky

I'd say from that list only Guthrie. Thurlow still has more development needed, and although he's adored on here, Cockatoo is far from established.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Just one point i would like to make is when you hear carter (who has been quite high up in the afl) say that he doesnt believe bottoming out is the right way to go and we are trying to beat that system, and cook talk about how we want to be competitive each year while transitioning you know the overall strategy to try and be in finals each year and use targeted trades is set by wells cook and carter. CS has some say in which specific players get traded in (e.g mitch clark) but not the overall strategy.

Our senior mgt doesnt want a rebuild and they wont hire a coach to do one at present. This is food for thought for people who like to criticise CS for our trades (i actually think most our trades are fairly good btw) when he doesnt have much to do with them.

 

[Bobby_]

List management decisions we have got wrong (and were wrong at the time, not just in hindsight):

• Recruitment of Hmac, especially for a R2 pick.
• Passing up Grundy for Thurlow, would have meant we never had to trade for a ruck
• Accepting pick 21 for Christensen
• If we drafted Grundy we couldve at least taken 21 to the draft
• Not drafting Lever at 10 in 2014 (I like Cockatoo, but Lever is the better player)
• Trading Varcoe for Clark. Clark should have been pick #125
• Caddy for a R2 pick (I still cannot see any logical reason why this was done)
• Involving a future R1 in a trade for Tuohy. I like Tuohy, but a R1 should have been off the table, period.
• We could have bargained harder for Henderson and kept a R1 pick, with some canny list management. We didn't.
• Kersten for a pick in the 60s. Should have pushed for more, Hamling is not as good yet WB received a R2.
• Should have pushed more for Vardy, or at least try to retain one of Vardy/Kersten.
• Lang was a reach. If we are going to "reach for players" eg pick 15 on someone who is likely available at 30, then we should be smart and trade 15 for 30 + 32 or something to get full value. We are not creative enough.
• We should have kept SJ for 2016.

That's just off the top of my head, i'm sure there is more.

Could Geelong have held out on Rhys Stanley and gone into the National draft with picks 10 & 21 in the chances of potentially trading up for a player like Peter Wright instead?

Stanley for a 1st rounder was very bizarre and he's certainly illustrated this during his 28 games at Geelong so far.

 

[catswhiskers]

I want to have a go at some counterpoints to year of the cat's posts, but I have run out of steam today. But here are some questions/issues I think are in the mix for debate:

- Is it right to say a list management strategy hasn't worked if it hasn't delivered a flag?
- What is a 'conventional' rebuild? What is the formula that has been proven to work?
- If Geelong has erred in not attempting a conventional rebuild, at what point in the past should they have made the call to do that?
- Is it wrong to try something different to a conventional rebuild? In what circumstances is it justified to try to innovate?
- Is a conventional rebuild inevitable for Geelong from here?

it does appear GFC are hedging here. 2 bob each way. For instance bring in (2015) three or 4 established players in that 25 -27 "hole" we had but at the same bring in two mature OK's and 5 kids from the depths of the draft. 2016 move on players who were going nowhere for whatever reason and bring in another established player plus a pile of kids from deep down. By my count we have brought on board 10 kids and 4 matures (not established players ) in the last two seasons.

GFC recognised after last season that Vardy, Smedts and Kersten were not going to make or break our 2017 season and were moved on. Caddy went too. (Not sure why but I suspect Caddy fitted with that group of 3) They had something about them that was wasn't really gelling for whatever reason. Injury, attitude, salary cap, work ethic, lack of high end skills???

They ( list managers) probably knew something like this was on at the start of 2016 and hence put a lot of time into assessing lower end prospects than top end talent during the winter. I think 2015 might have given them a clue that more talent resides lower down now than say 10 years ago. Parsons and Hayball do have talent but is it enough?. Gardner so far so good. Buzza has attitude but was well off the pace last year. His first practice match this year went well and if as reported he clunked a few then he would be back on track. Cornell was a miss. We also added two mature state leaguers (Ruggles and Menegola) and so far so good. Neither has reached their ceiling yet and have played enough AFL to see if they were not coping (a la Sheringham/ .

This year we have already seen Zuthrie and Parfitt match it with AFL players. Stewart too hasn't done a lot wrong, but we still have to wait on him. Henry got involved in his half of JLT and Narkle was very good in the VFL first practice match. Jones, Abbott and House are or were injured. Esava needs a year to get going being a big bloke.

Of the 10 kids Zuthrie may have "it" but will this group plus the next (it will be on again at the end of this year) provide enough top end talent?
Well if we compare with our earlier picks - I would say just about. As long as we take 6 kids each year and we steer clear of the sick and infirm.

2011 gave us Hamling Kersten both low 30's and Murdoch 48. McCarthy looks the best at pick 66
2012 = Thurlow but Hartmann at 77 looked to be closing on him fast talent wise before he headed over the border.
2013 = Lang but Kolo a better prospect now from 30 picks later
2014 = Cockatoo. Fingers crossed we nailed this one. Cunico 40 picks later [and Gore - he did look as good as Lang but he has stalled] OK but too early to say much more

Drafted
2015 -------------------- 2016
Ryan Gardner ------------- Brandan Parfitt
Sam Menegola ------------- Tom Stewart
Wylie Buzza ----------------------- Esava Ratugolea
Matthew Hayball ----------------------- Quinton Narkle
Jock Cornell ----------------------- Timm House
James Parsons ------------------------ Ryan Abbott
Tom Ruggles ----------------------- Jack Henry
----------------------------- Zuthrie
-------------------------------- Jamaine Jones

 

[year of the cat]

Just one question for year of the cat based off this tidbit "We are now about to witness them pass us on their movement up the ladder. Whether that's enough for them to steal a flag during a likely GWS dynasty, we shall see."

Q: Given we've been on this path for a while, what was the best percentage option for a flag (in the mindset of when we started this path) given your above comment. A) try and stay up and snag one more before GWS (and presumably GC would have been expected also back then) "arrive" or do what St.Kilda have and try and out gun GWS etc?

I think immediately post 2011 it was entirely reasonable to look to top up for a couple more years - with the right player/s and a bit of luck we could have pinched another flag in 2012 or 2013. I think though, that we had to be more mindful of preserving some of our high picks later on. For example, as useful as he has been, trading our first for Henderson was misguided. It probably reflects as much on our ability to trade as it does on list management however. Similarly using our first for Tuohy was, in my opinion, also unnecessary. He will more than likely be a very good player for us - but to give up our first (yes, I do realise we get Carlton's second back but the risk of it ending up a dud deal is not worth it) means we are, again, forfeiting our chance to get the best possible kid in that draft that year.

Of course we are all geniuses with the benefit of hindsight. There are no guarantees that a kid we could have drafted would amount to anything. But it just seemed a bit odd to pretty much completely abandon a drafting philosophy that had worked so well for us and so recently.

To answer your question, it's impossible to put a relative % on either scenario. And I'm not necessarily advocating that we shouldn't have traded or brought FA's in at all. More that we have a careful strategy that identifies needs in concert with a maintenance of our first rounders.

 

[dazbroncos]

List management decisions we have got wrong (and were wrong at the time, not just in hindsight):

• Recruitment of Hmac, especially for a R2 pick. - I get the idea behind it - it failed as badly as any trade in GFC history. Massive miss.
• Passing up Grundy for Thurlow, would have meant we never had to trade for a ruck
• Accepting pick 21 for Christensen - He was gone for 21 or nothing. Something better than nothing.
• If we drafted Grundy we couldve at least taken 21 to the draft
• Not drafting Lever at 10 in 2014 (I like Cockatoo, but Lever is the better player) Hindsight 101. No way IMO that was a 2014 opinion.
• Trading Varcoe for Clark. Clark should have been pick #125. TV was as much as a SC clearance as it was getting value back. Clark - see HMac
• Caddy for a R2 pick (I still cannot see any logical reason why this was done) SC clearing again - agree value should have been higher than 24
• Involving a future R1 in a trade for Tuohy. I like Tuohy, but a R1 should have been off the table, period.
• We could have bargained harder for Henderson and kept a R1 pick, with some canny list management. We didn't.
• Kersten for a pick in the 60s. Should have pushed for more, Hamling is not as good yet WB received a R2. He was out the door 450k per year. No leverage
• Should have pushed more for Vardy, or at least try to retain one of Vardy/Kersten. Club had offer to Kersten. He rejected it.
• Lang was a reach. If we are going to "reach for players" eg pick 15 on someone who is likely available at 30, then we should be smart and trade 15 for 30 + 32 or something to get full value. We are not creative enough.
• We should have kept SJ for 2016.

That's just off the top of my head, i'm sure there is more.

Some decisions are head scratchers. Some shockers. Some become clearer post fact with more information.

Go Catters