Strategy List management approach and philosophy

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Turbocat said:
One can develop the living heck out a pick but if god didn't put enough in then the develop will just not get to the A grade level for enough players to build enough of core to drag other along.
We got the likes Enright , Ling and Chappy with late picks and mixed that with Selwood , Corey , Bartel , Mackie with single figure picks. Add to that talent identification is better than it was and early picks are more valuable than they were then. The icing for the cake was FSons.
We have tried to build with late R1's to early R2's and Pnp types.
Click to expand...
Don't think that explains it fully though Turbo. We were able to produce champions of later picks (in fact, Spriggs, Bray and Foster were taken before Chapman, Ling and Enright in 1999) and can't seem to do the same of picks in the teens these days.

My theory is that it was the drafting of bunches of players in two big drafts and having them all come through the system at once under a coach whose strength happened to be developing young players.

In the recent era we've started from a completely different place - one of absolute list strength - and had a coach who perhaps has other strengths (no, I'm not going to set this thread off on a tangent debating that) but hasn't shown that turning draftees into champions is his forte. Sure, we haven't had the single figure picks that netted Corey, Bartel and Mackie, but I don't think our shortcomings are totally down to the picks we've had.
 
Last edited:
catempire said:
Don't think that explains it fully though Turbo. We were able to produce champions of later picks (in fact, Spriggs, Bray and Foster were taken before Chapman, Ling and Enright in 1999) and can't seem to do the same of picks in the teens these days.

My theory is that it was the drafting of bunches of players in two big drafts and having them all come through the system at once under a coach whose strength happened to be developing young players.

In the recent era we've started from a completely different place - one of absolute list strength - and had a coach who perhaps has other strengths (no, I'm not going to set this thread off on a tangent debating that) but hasn't shown that turning draftees into champions is his forte. Sure, we haven't had the single figure picks that netted Corey, Bartel and Mackie, but I don't think it's totally down to the picks we've had.
Click to expand...

I can not argue with that. Its along the lines of what I posted recently..that I feel we are now very close or are actually at the point where we need to have a group of players come thru together again. I also agree on not just one coach but as you know I have been a wrap for McCartney for a while , add Hinkley and Sanderson and we had at least 4 guys on our group that were good enough to become head coaches.

But I do think that that you need enough talent in that group of players , bunches you call them , a sort of critical mass of talent of a similar age that can all bond and come thru together , enough to burn a few as you have mentioned with Spriggs , Bray..enough to be wrong a bit Cameron Roberts .. and still have enough to lift those late picks players.Have a look at the Smedts Caddy picks. They are a good argument both ways. They failed to deliver so this shows the flaw in going for picks... yet the flaw really is that we just need much more talent. Id hate to think how much talent GWS have burned..hardly been efficient but they will endup a supper talented side... and boy if they do not get there..what a waste it would be.

So yes its more than just one thing , its a skeleton of bones that make up the body of a successful side.
 
Turbocat said:
enough to burn a few as you have mentioned with Spriggs , Bray..enough to be wrong a bit Cameron Roberts .. and still have enough to lift those late picks players.Have a look at the Smedts Caddy picks. They are a good argument both ways. They failed to deliver so this shows the flaw in going for picks... yet the flaw really is that we just need much more talent. Id hate to think how much talent GWS have burned..hardly been efficient but they will endup a supper talented side... and boy if they do not get there..what a waste it would be.

So yes its more than just one thing , its a skeleton of bones that make up the body of a successful side.
Click to expand...
Yep, agree with this, especially what I would call having "room for error" in your attack on the draft.

I don't think Smedts and Caddy (and Thurlow and Lang and Brown and Tenace) show that the draft doesn't work any more than the McIntosh trade shows that trading doesn't work.

What I do believe - and I said this in this thread earlier - is when you are close to a flag (or believe you are) you will not throw in the towel so you can have a "good crack" at the draft like Geelong did in the early Thompson years.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

catempire said:
Yep, agree with this, especially what I would call having "room for error" in your attack on the draft.

I don't think Smedts and Caddy (and Thurlow and Lang and Brown and Tenace) show that the draft doesn't work any more than the McIntosh trade shows that trading doesn't work.

What I do believe - and I said this in this thread earlier - is when you are close to a flag (or believe you are) you will not throw in the towel so you can have a "good crack" at the draft like Geelong did in the early Thompson years.
Click to expand...
So how close to a flag would you say we are at the moment?
If we end up making the finals,maybe winning 1,whats the plan at draft/trade time ?
Do we try to trade in CHF/maybe a ruckman to try to have another swing next year?
 
Last edited:
catempire said:
Yep, agree with this, especially what I would call having "room for error" in your attack on the draft.

I don't think Smedts and Caddy (and Thurlow and Lang and Brown and Tenace) show that the draft doesn't work any more than the McIntosh trade shows that trading doesn't work.

What I do believe - and I said this in this thread earlier - is when you are close to a flag (or believe you are) you will not throw in the towel so you can have a "good crack" at the draft like Geelong did in the early Thompson years.
Click to expand...

Again good point... success or failure on one choice doesn't confirm that the approach is wrong , just that one particular choice failed..
The close to flag thing is a blackhole that once you get too close to it , it can suck you in. I feel that the internal decision makers probably need to have a paternal type of bias towards their own , their group , their players but along with that come doe eyed optimism about the group you have. There have been many a club that had almost LSD level of delusion about the quality of their list based on where they finished in the last season. They see and think if only , just that one thing here or there. Truth is thats like blaming the guy that missed the last goal and forgetting so many errors that were made before. They forget about the natural improvement that other clubs will do and probably override what got a club to the PF.

The point about how close we are .. to a certain degree is the main crux of this debate. Post the PF last year , you may say I lost faith. I no longer believe we are that close , the topping up and slow and gradual integration of youth hat was fine post 2012 , was different now at 2016.We had sort of reach a failsafe point where minor fiddles were probably not enough. There was a great post by Tony Barber in your other thread about a racing bike that described it ...

Tony Barber said:
At the risk of encouraging Scott haters, I'm now thinking its coaching.
Let me give you an example. Hopefully it makes sense.

Firstly, the season is reminding me of is 1993.
It's as if we are trying to make things happen that are destined to never work.
I can't exactly put my finger on it.

We've all had a mountain bike or a racer. And one day the gears just don't feel like the are changing perfectly.
So you do a 1/4 turn on the front derailer, a 1/4 turn on the rear one.
The chain keeps rubbing the front derailer and you spend 30 minutes doing 1/4 turns of the screws until it's just about perfect.

Not happy with "just about perfect" you give the front screw 1 more quarter turn. But it starts rubbing again. So you simply back it off a 1/4 turn and nothing changes. So you do it again and it goes too far. And nothing you do can get it back to almost perfect.

In the end you release the cable and start from scratch.
That's where I think Geelong are. Players seem to have no clue as to what to do. They seem to be completely out of sync with each other. I.e. 'Who's going for the ball? You or me?' And in the end neither goes for it.

I think they've been over coached.
Click to expand...


he was talking about coaching but I see that as what we have done and where we are with our list.
 
Turbocat said:
Again good point... success or failure on one choice doesn't confirm that the approach is wrong , just that one particular choice failed..
The close to flag thing is a blackhole that once you get too close to it , it can suck you in. I feel that the internal decision makers probably need to have a paternal type of bias towards their own , their group , their players but along with that come doe eyed optimism about the group you have. There have been many a club that had almost LSD level of delusion about the quality of their list based on where they finished in the last season. They see and think if only , just that one thing here or there. Truth is thats like blaming the guy that missed the last goal and forgetting so many errors that were made before. They forget about the natural improvement that other clubs will do and probably override what got a club to the PF.

The point about how close we are .. to a certain degree is the main crux of this debate. Post the PF last year , you may say I lost faith. I no longer believe we are that close , the topping up and slow and gradual integration of youth hat was fine post 2012 , was different now at 2016.We had sort of reach a failsafe point where minor fiddles were probably not enough. There was a great post by Tony Barber in your other thread about a racing bike that described it ...




he was talking about coaching but I see that as what we have done and where we are with our list.
Click to expand...
I know you feel that way and I respect your view as I know it's one borne out of deep thought about the issues rather than emotional knee-jerk reactions.

My own view is that there's a lot of hindsight bias in how we view whether teams were "close" or not. I also think there's probably a misunderstanding about how size of the gap is between the premiers and the also rans. Everyone talks as though it was written in stone that the Dogs were the best team a long way out last year. The GF was in the balance early in the last quarter. The Dogs just got over the line in a Prelim. Little things of centimetres got them there in the end. The other top 8 teams were really not that far off them and some small breaths of wind in different times throughout the year could have seen a different Premier. Does that mean Adelaide and West Coast and Sydney have all misjudged how close they were in 2016? Geelong is not that different. Everyone comes from a different starting point and Geelong's was a position of great strength so what followed that period was always going to be different to other paths. Doesn't make it the wrong path. It has been a very reasonable and defensible path to choose given the starting point and the decisions that we faced at points in time.
 
Turbocat said:
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.
Click to expand...

That seems balanced and fair. I too enjoy the excitement of youth and development and the uncertainty of the ceiling young players have. Swings and misses with the draft we know that but also it's amazing sometimes you only need to nail one pick like a Cripps at (13) or a Z.Merrett (26) recent example and it is club changing and makes the future look so positive. So difficult to do we know because for the 1-100 Cripps you could end up with a guy who doesn't play a game or darcy lang type.

My main problem with the aggressive strategy topping up and mature pickups was the balance of our list if it didn't work. We knew in 2015 when we missed the 8 we had some depth problems through the midfield in the ruck and a key forward to backup Hawkins. But with the additions in 2016 the selections all really justified themselves in a prelim final appearance and our success against the top teams through the regular season.

In this off season though say what you want about who we lost but they created the depth and an ability to develop or improve your side. Vardy, Kersten, Caddy and on top enright and Bartel, Clark. So that effectively strips away another layer or period of drafted talent in good age brackets. They didn't work out fine with those guys all playing reasonable senior footy elsewhere in 3 area's we need as many senior guys as possible it has really started to stretch us. I'm not saying they were not the right moves or should have kept them simply implying if you are trying to win now the preference would of been to keep at least 1 or 2 of them.

On top of another 2 draft periods where we used 1 pick under 30. And we never really addressed the list cracks from 2015 Dangerfield honestly having a MVP season, brownlow, coaches award really smoothed over a lot with a stellar performances.

So I still always thought o.k so I'm not sure how flexible our best 22 is anymore. And this year we brought in tuohy which is more a replacement for enright and let's say parfitt for caddy.

Taylor goes forward so we have no key forward backup outside of black. No development ready under Stanley, Smith.
Lonergan and Mackie coming to an end

I'm no closer to understanding where G.H.S, Lang, Murdoch, Cowan, Bews, Black, Ruggles sit.

So all of a sudden all our improvement is based on internal development. So I assume Duncan, Guthrie, Kolo, Cocky, Mcarthy, Gregson, Thurlow and Menegola.

Were the grouping I had in my mind if we made finals all these guys need significant improvement for us to get there. And we have been unlucky as this group has been injured and or never on the park together. Only Duncan kicked on.

And I sometimes raise the question in 5 years who on this list carriers the Batton you usually have 1-2 where you say most likely him I have no idea. Cocky? I think your right though we need some 2-4 players to build around and I have no idea which way Geelong will attempt to re- generate the talent
 
Last edited:
We aren't in decline
We haven't ended up like Sydney, Hawthorn. We sit fifth on the ladder with so many games at KP.

And the team has copped a media belting this week they will perform on Friday they will be ruthless this friday
 
BUSTER29 said:
So how close to a flag would you say we are at the moment?
Click to expand...
Can't tell. Anywhere between a cigarette paper and a light year.
 
geelong_crazy26 said:
First let me say I still think we can win a premiership with this group , but plenty of others do not and I can understand that .

My question is why do you believe the club did not a some stage decided to go for a more traditional complete rebuild via the draft ?

I have my own views but want hear what others have to say .
Click to expand...

I think that at our best we can do that.
I have seen 1/4's of footy played by us this year that suggest we can do it.

I have also seen stuff from us, more recently and more of it, that is nowhere near it.

And that comes back to gamestyle, personnel and ethics - all 3 of which have been substantially lacking of late.

So, IMO, is it possible. Yes. Is it likely. No.

And the fixes need to come from game style - an improvement of it, intensity and players buy in to what the coaches are selling

Go Catters
 
I think we chose our strategy the minute we signed Dangerfield, Henderson, and S.Selwood. To me, we set a plan and it is illogical to give up on them before we've given them a chance to succeed. We were one game away from the Grand Final last year, we are currently 5th on the ladder with no team standing out at the moment as premiership favorites. Things really aren't that dire.

And I don't see a difference between rebuilding now and rebuilding in 2020. Once we have dropped down the ladder, and have draft picks to work with, then I hope we aggressively trade out our older players and accumulate picks as we did in 2001, but that time hasn't come yet. It still feels possible that things might click for us.
 
Pardon the interruption, but there's not a thread for my question and I don't want to start one and this is the closest I could find, but I'm hoping someone can help me out with a bit of information about your VFL set-up.

Basically, how does it work?

I have a vague idea you've got VFL listed only players and occasionally use top-ups from the local leagues, but I'm trying to get a clearer picture of it all. How many VFL players do you have, how many top-ups, how often you use top ups, is there a restriction on the number of games they can play, do you use the same ones or is it a rotating cast, where do you get them from etc etc.

There's a discussion on our board about NEAFL changes, use of academy kids, etc. we have no NEAFL contracted players at all (unless you count our welfare manager who's been pulling on the boots in recent weeks) Sam Reid was our last one, but we went and rookie listed him and he's playing seniors now. Other than our two Cat B rookies, it's just been a rotating cast of academy kids with no one playing more than about half a dozen games a season. Plays havoc with team structures and stuff when your coach meets some of his players for the first time on the morning of the game.

So I'm just interested in how it's done elsewhere, so I thought I'd ask.

Cheers.
 
Ichabod Noodle said:
Pardon the interruption, but there's not a thread for my question and I don't want to start one and this is the closest I could find, but I'm hoping someone can help me out with a bit of information about your VFL set-up.

Basically, how does it work?

I have a vague idea you've got VFL listed only players and occasionally use top-ups from the local leagues, but I'm trying to get a clearer picture of it all. How many VFL players do you have, how many top-ups, how often you use top ups, is there a restriction on the number of games they can play, do you use the same ones or is it a rotating cast, where do you get them from etc etc.

There's a discussion on our board about NEAFL changes, use of academy kids, etc. we have no NEAFL contracted players at all (unless you count our welfare manager who's been pulling on the boots in recent weeks) Sam Reid was our last one, but we went and rookie listed him and he's playing seniors now. Other than our two Cat B rookies, it's just been a rotating cast of academy kids with no one playing more than about half a dozen games a season. Plays havoc with team structures and stuff when your coach meets some of his players for the first time on the morning of the game.

So I'm just interested in how it's done elsewhere, so I thought I'd ask.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

A few quick answers on this:
Where we get players from-generally it's from the local Geelong leagues although we get them from anywhere for e.g. your Sam Reid's brother Ben is playing for our vfl team this year and he came from playing at Echuca. Occasionally players who have been delisted from afl clubs or from personal connections (i.e. they know some of the players coaches e.g. Jake Edwards (ex carlton forward) is the cousin of our coach O'Bree). We also get a few players from the TAC Cup Team Geelong Falcons if they don't get drafted they will sign up to play with us the next year as 19-20 year olds if they are still really keen to try and get drafted the year after.

How many-we have a vfl list of 24 players (I think this is standard size for all the afl clubs that run their own vfl teams) plus 10 development list players (generally younger players) who can play if called upon.

Where they play-each player we sign signs with an interchange club, generally these are clubs in the local Geelong Football League (GFL) which is the league below the VFL or the Geelong and District Football League (GDFL, the league below the GFL, think more bush footy but still a decent standard). Whenever they aren't required by us they play for their interchange clubs, generally we try and tell players by Friday if we won't require them so they can play for their local clubs but ocassionally we will hold a player or two over if we have injuries where we might need to make late changes etc.

As far as I know we try and have the whole vfl squad train together once a week although as some players have work commitments and training commitments with their local clubs this varies a bit. It helps that we have good relationships with those clubs because a lot of our ex players have either played or coached at GFL clubs after retiring (for example Scarlett coached at South Barwon, David Wocjinski coached in the GFL etc) and Troy Selwood who works for us does a lot of linking work with the GFL clubs so we have a reasonable relationship with them, we try and do what works well for them and for us.

Who gets used-priority is given to listed players so sometimes we might have 14-15 listed players play so only 7-8 spots left for the vfl players. We tend to pick these on form although like most clubs we will 2 or 3 of the vfl guys who are our best ones who play every week and the other spots get rotated we tend to try and give us many guys exposure as we can since some are trying to get drafted. We also do rest some of our afl listed players especially the 1st years so they don't play every week and the vfl guys get opportunities.

VFL also has a 23rd player rule where every club can play 23 players instead of 22 but the 23rd must be a player from any TAC Cup side (so not older than draft age) can play up to 4 games in a year as the 23rd player so they get exposure playing against mature players etc. Generally we use Geelong Falcons players for this and most VFL clubs use the TAC side they are closest to.

We obviously pay our vfl guys match payments plus cover insurance etc but not many of them do it for the money, most of the good ones make more money playing local football and you often find after 2 or 3 years with us if it's clear they won't get drafted by us or another team they step back to GFL or GDFL as they can make more money there and play with mates. One thing that helps us attract good standard vfl players is that since Podsiadly (he himself was a bit of an accidental draft as he actually came here for post football opportunities to work in the fitness team as he has a Sports Science Degree and was best friends with one of our coaches but ended up dominating so much we drafted him) we have a history of drafting either onto the senior or rookie list one or two guys from our vfl team each year-Ben Johnson, Simpkin, Ruggles, Stewart, House, Abbott etc are all examples of this so if a player has decent ambitions to get drafted he will often leave a GFL club and come and play here for a year or two for less money because he knows if he dominates there is a decent chance we will draft him or he will get enough exposure that another AFL club will.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Awesome win! It seems clear to me we have a backbone group of players surrounded by many average players. Who do you rate in our core?

For me unless I'm forgetting others are as follows

Henderson
Touhy
Danger
Selwood
Duncan
Menegola
Guthrie (provided form improves)
Hawkins
Menzel
Taylor
McCarthy

With players like Motlop, Cockatoo, Bews, Parfitt, Stewart, Gregson, S Selwood being worthy candidates to support this core group.I believe we could benefit in recruiting more solid backman along with a decent ruck.
 
Are we approaching “The Cliff”? 2021 updated version. View the 2017 version here.

First a definitional issue – what is The Cliff? I’d say it’s where your list gets to a point that it’s clear that you can’t win a flag with the core of your current group and you have to make a fairly sudden change in approach to your list management approach by building from the bottom-up. It also involves the gap in talent between you and the contenders being so great that the only way to bridge it is through a sustained period of access to high end draft talent and natural improvement in draftees over a longer time horizon. Plugging gaps with imported players will not be sufficient.

A good start to assess if we are headed that way is to look at our best 25 players and see how many of them will be retired in 3-4 years’ time (as distinct from those that are traded because you at least get a return on them). In 2017 I started with a conservative assumption that anyone 27 years old or over now will not be here in four years’ time (to play season 2021). That was evidently far too conservative as we have Hawkins, Selwood, Henderson and Tuohy all still playing. It looks more realistic to say anyone over 29 will be gone by season 2026.

From our best 25 in 2017 we have lost:

Lonergan, Tom 32
Mackie, Andrew 32
Taylor, Harry 30
Smith, Zac 27
Motlop, Steven 26
Selwood, Scott 26
Menzel, Daniel 25
Murdoch, Jordan 24

So that was eight players. To re-cap, between 2013 and 2017 we lost ten from our best 25:

Steve Johnson
Jimmy Bartel
James Kelly
Mathew Stokes
Corey Enright
Paul Chapman
Joel Corey
James Podsiadly
Josh Hunt
Jared Rivers

For 2021 let’s work with:

Shaun Higgins 33
Joel Selwood 32
Tom Hawkins 32
Isaac Smith 32
Josh Jenkins 32
Zach Tuohy 31
Lachie Henderson 31
Patrick Dangerfield 31
Rhys Stanley 30
Mark Blicavs 30
Gary Rohan 29
Mitch Duncan 29
Sam Menegola 29
Cameron Guthrie 28
Luke Dahlhaus 28
Tom Stewart 28
Jeremy Cameron 28
Darcy Fort 27
Jed Bews 27
Jake Kolodjashnij 25
Tom Atkins 25
Mark O'Connor 24
Quinton Narkle 23
Brandan Parfitt 22
Sam Simpson 22
Zach Guthrie 22
Esava Ratugolea 22
Brad Close 22
Stefan Okunbor 22
Jack Henry 22
Gryan Miers 22
Charlie Constable 21
Nathan Kreuger 21
Oscar Brownless 21
Ben Jarvis 20
Jordan Clark 20
Cooper Stephens 20
Sam De Koning 20
Cameron Taheny 19
Francis Evans 19
Nick Stevens 19
Paul Tsapatolis 18
Shannon Neale 18
Max Holmes 18

That’s 12 best 25 players we look like losing just to retirement. You could make the case that Dahlhaus is in the best 25 and will also be gone. In any case it is a big number and bigger than the previous two cohorts I have looked at using this approach. The question is, can we avoid ‘the cliff’ with such a big hit to come?

Let’s first retrace our steps.

We replaced the ten players from the 2013 best 25 with:

Henderson (pick 17 2016)
Smith (picks 49 and 53)
Tuohy (2017 first round pick and pick 63 with Carlton’s 2017 second round pick coming back to us)
Dangerfield (picks 9 2015, 28 and Dean Gore)
Scott Selwood (free agent)
Rhys Stanley (pick 21 traded for Christensen)
Sam Menegola (drafted with pick 66)
James Parsons (drafted with pick 27 rookie draft)
Jake Kolodjashnij (drafted with pick 41)
Darcy Lang (drafted with pick 16 2013)
Nakia Cockatoo (drafted with pick 10 2014)

In summary this took six first round picks, one second round pick, a bunch of later picks, a rookie pick and a free agent. We managed to “use” six first round picks in that time because we got an extra through Christensen and we used a future pick to get Tuohy.

Then between 2017 and 2021 we replaced the eight we lost from the best 25 with:

Miers (pick 57)
Rohan (traded for pick 61)
Dahlhaus (UFA)
Atkins (rookie pick 11)
Close (rookie pick 14)
Cameron (picks 13, 15, 20 and R4 2021 with two 2021 R2 picks coming back)
Higgins (pick 30)
Smith (UFA)
Holmes (pick 20)

[Note: during this period we also welcomed and farewelled Ablett and Kelly which I will ignore for current purposes as it doesn’t affect the broader discussion]

Again, to summarise, to replace eight players we used four first round picks, a second round pick, a bunch of later picks and rookie picks and two UFAs.

What the above demonstrates is that replacing 8-10 or so of your best 25 players in a four year period and to remain a top four team in doing so is entirely possible. This is because you get replenished with access to picks each year and the trade and free agent pools. Over this eight year period we are still in ‘deficit’ for one R1 pick that we have used on Holmes but we are ahead with the two extra R2s we will have this November.

The bottom line is: replacing 8-10 is possible but is replacing 13-14 in four years possible?

In the next four player movement periods we will have three R1s, six R2s, four R3s, three R4s plus rookie selections and FA opportunities.

Some will say that the quality we are about to lose in this four year period is an insurmountable challenge. In particular Hawkins, Selwood and Dangerfield are generational players. But there are counterpoints two this. The players we lost after 2013 were also of that calibre: Johnson, Chapman, Enright, Bartel and Corey. It was arguably a bigger hit. The other counterpoint is the salary cap impact of losing good players. The salary cap is like Newton’s Third Law: each player lost frees up an equivalent amount of salary cap space to be filled by a player of equal ability (if you can attract them!). The club will seek to fill the voids left by these great players with players of equivalent quality. The free agency market makes this more possible than ever. It makes no logical sense to say that you can’t replace Selwood in football quality terms (leadership, fabric of the club, etc. a different matter).

Then there is the question about whether we have the younger cohort now that can step into the middle aged cohort. Four years ago I was very dubious that we would find 5-6 AFL standard players from Buzza, House, Kolodjashnij, Lang, Cockatoo, Cunico, Gregson, Hayball, O'Connor, Gardner, Narkle, Parsons, Z.Guthrie, Henry, Jones, Parfitt, Ratugolea and Simpson. It turns out we did pretty well there. So can we find another 5-6 from:

Charlie Constable 21
Nathan Kreuger 21
Oscar Brownless 21
Jordan Clark 20
Cooper Stephens 20
Sam De Koning 20
Francis Evans 19
Nick Stevens 19
Paul Tsapatolis 18
Shannon Neale 18
Max Holmes 18

There would have to be significant doubt there. We have thinned out this part of our list in recent years and now really need this smaller crop to come through for us.

Overall, I certainly see the challenge ahead as the biggest we have faced in the Scott era of list management so I don’t expect to stop hearing about the inevitable cliff that awaits us. I am, however, more open minded to other possibilities than others.
 
catempire said:
Are we approaching “The Cliff”? 2021 updated version. View the 2017 version here.

First a definitional issue – what is The Cliff? I’d say it’s where your list gets to a point that it’s clear that you can’t win a flag with the core of your current group and you have to make a fairly sudden change in approach to your list management approach by building from the bottom-up. It also involves the gap in talent between you and the contenders being so great that the only way to bridge it is through a sustained period of access to high end draft talent and natural improvement in draftees over a longer time horizon. Plugging gaps with imported players will not be sufficient.

A good start to assess if we are headed that way is to look at our best 25 players and see how many of them will be retired in 3-4 years’ time (as distinct from those that are traded because you at least get a return on them). In 2017 I started with a conservative assumption that anyone 27 years old or over now will not be here in four years’ time (to play season 2021). That was evidently far too conservative as we have Hawkins, Selwood, Henderson and Tuohy all still playing. It looks more realistic to say anyone over 29 will be gone by season 2026.

From our best 25 in 2017 we have lost:

Lonergan, Tom 32
Mackie, Andrew 32
Taylor, Harry 30
Smith, Zac 27
Motlop, Steven 26
Selwood, Scott 26
Menzel, Daniel 25
Murdoch, Jordan 24

So that was eight players. To re-cap, between 2013 and 2017 we lost ten from our best 25:

Steve Johnson
Jimmy Bartel
James Kelly
Mathew Stokes
Corey Enright
Paul Chapman
Joel Corey
James Podsiadly
Josh Hunt
Jared Rivers

For 2021 let’s work with:

Shaun Higgins 33
Joel Selwood 32
Tom Hawkins 32
Isaac Smith 32
Josh Jenkins 32
Zach Tuohy 31
Lachie Henderson 31
Patrick Dangerfield 31
Rhys Stanley 30
Mark Blicavs 30
Gary Rohan 29
Mitch Duncan 29
Sam Menegola 29
Cameron Guthrie 28
Luke Dahlhaus 28
Tom Stewart 28
Jeremy Cameron 28
Darcy Fort 27
Jed Bews 27
Jake Kolodjashnij 25
Tom Atkins 25
Mark O'Connor 24
Quinton Narkle 23
Brandan Parfitt 22
Sam Simpson 22
Zach Guthrie 22
Esava Ratugolea 22
Brad Close 22
Stefan Okunbor 22
Jack Henry 22
Gryan Miers 22
Charlie Constable 21
Nathan Kreuger 21
Oscar Brownless 21
Ben Jarvis 20
Jordan Clark 20
Cooper Stephens 20
Sam De Koning 20
Cameron Taheny 19
Francis Evans 19
Nick Stevens 19
Paul Tsapatolis 18
Shannon Neale 18
Max Holmes 18

That’s 12 best 25 players we look like losing just to retirement. You could make the case that Dahlhaus is in the best 25 and will also be gone. In any case it is a big number and bigger than the previous two cohorts I have looked at using this approach. The question is, can we avoid ‘the cliff’ with such a big hit to come?

Let’s first retrace our steps.

We replaced the ten players from the 2013 best 25 with:

Henderson (pick 17 2016)
Smith (picks 49 and 53)
Tuohy (2017 first round pick and pick 63 with Carlton’s 2017 second round pick coming back to us)
Dangerfield (picks 9 2015, 28 and Dean Gore)
Scott Selwood (free agent)
Rhys Stanley (pick 21 traded for Christensen)
Sam Menegola (drafted with pick 66)
James Parsons (drafted with pick 27 rookie draft)
Jake Kolodjashnij (drafted with pick 41)
Darcy Lang (drafted with pick 16 2013)
Nakia Cockatoo (drafted with pick 10 2014)

In summary this took six first round picks, one second round pick, a bunch of later picks, a rookie pick and a free agent. We managed to “use” six first round picks in that time because we got an extra through Christensen and we used a future pick to get Tuohy.

Then between 2017 and 2021 we replaced the eight we lost from the best 25 with:

Miers (pick 57)
Rohan (traded for pick 61)
Dahlhaus (UFA)
Atkins (rookie pick 11)
Close (rookie pick 14)
Cameron (picks 13, 15, 20 and R4 2021 with two 2021 R2 picks coming back)
Higgins (pick 30)
Smith (UFA)
Holmes (pick 20)

[Note: during this period we also welcomed and farewelled Ablett and Kelly which I will ignore for current purposes as it doesn’t affect the broader discussion]

Again, to summarise, to replace eight players we used four first round picks, a second round pick, a bunch of later picks and rookie picks and two UFAs.

What the above demonstrates is that replacing 8-10 or so of your best 25 players in a four year period and to remain a top four team in doing so is entirely possible. This is because you get replenished with access to picks each year and the trade and free agent pools. Over this eight year period we are still in ‘deficit’ for one R1 pick that we have used on Holmes but we are ahead with the two extra R2s we will have this November.

The bottom line is: replacing 8-10 is possible but is replacing 13-14 in four years possible?

In the next four player movement periods we will have three R1s, six R2s, four R3s, three R4s plus rookie selections and FA opportunities.

Some will say that the quality we are about to lose in this four year period is an insurmountable challenge. In particular Hawkins, Selwood and Dangerfield are generational players. But there are counterpoints two this. The players we lost after 2013 were also of that calibre: Johnson, Chapman, Enright, Bartel and Corey. It was arguably a bigger hit. The other counterpoint is the salary cap impact of losing good players. The salary cap is like Newton’s Third Law: each player lost frees up an equivalent amount of salary cap space to be filled by a player of equal ability (if you can attract them!). The club will seek to fill the voids left by these great players with players of equivalent quality. The free agency market makes this more possible than ever. It makes no logical sense to say that you can’t replace Selwood in football quality terms (leadership, fabric of the club, etc. a different matter).

Then there is the question about whether we have the younger cohort now that can step into the middle aged cohort. Four years ago I was very dubious that we would find 5-6 AFL standard players from Buzza, House, Kolodjashnij, Lang, Cockatoo, Cunico, Gregson, Hayball, O'Connor, Gardner, Narkle, Parsons, Z.Guthrie, Henry, Jones, Parfitt, Ratugolea and Simpson. It turns out we did pretty well there. So can we find another 5-6 from:

Charlie Constable 21
Nathan Kreuger 21
Oscar Brownless 21
Jordan Clark 20
Cooper Stephens 20
Sam De Koning 20
Francis Evans 19
Nick Stevens 19
Paul Tsapatolis 18
Shannon Neale 18
Max Holmes 18

There would have to be significant doubt there. We have thinned out this part of our list in recent years and now really need this smaller crop to come through for us.

Overall, I certainly see the challenge ahead as the biggest we have faced in the Scott era of list management so I don’t expect to stop hearing about the inevitable cliff that awaits us. I am, however, more open minded to other possibilities than others.
Click to expand...
This is the most catempire post ive ever seen.
 
year of the cat said:
The cliff is nigh....
Click to expand...
Nigh like 2013 or 2017? ;)

Reminds me of that joke: economists have predicted nine out of the past five recessions. :D (Not sure what the pharmacist equivalent to that joke is)
 
year of the cat said:
The cliff is nigh....
Click to expand...

0*Z7HPzXroGBDF6GB2.png


This one?

GO Catters

anyone under 30 will have no clue

GO Catters
 
catempire said:
Nigh like 2013 or 2017? ;)

Reminds me of that joke: economists have predicted nine out of the past five recessions. :D (Not sure what the pharmacist equivalent to that joke is)
Click to expand...
No one could predict in 2013 and 2017 all the incoming ready made players that we would get.

geelong had struggled to attract players to swap clubs historically. Plus free agency was new and trading future draft picks was not even a thing. It was a reasonable assumption. But the outlier scenario happened.

but we literally have no draft picks left to trade. We are done unless they change the trading rules again. Plus we have far more over 30s now then we did in 2013 and 2017.
 
Seeds said:
No one could predict in 2013 and 2017 all the incoming ready made players that we would get.

geelong had struggled to attract players to swap clubs historically. Plus free agency was new and trading future draft picks was not even a thing. It was a reasonable assumption. But the outlier scenario happened.

but we literally have no draft picks left to trade. We are done unless they change the trading rules again. Plus we have far more over 30s now then we did in 2013 and 2017.
Click to expand...
That’s the point of this exercise - pointing out what is possible.

The first sentence of your last para is just wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The Unforgiven
Analysis Conspiracy theories surrounding Geelong's list management and salary cap
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
152
Views
6K
FootyLad0
FootyLad0
cats_09
  • Poll
List Mgmt. Welcome Bailey Smith - officially (and finally) traded to Geelong
33 34 35 36 37
Replies
913
Views
42K
D BRIDGE
D
cats_09
Rumour GFC 2024 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 3
185 186 187 188 189
Replies
5K
Views
167K
juzcat
J
cats_09
List Mgmt. Experienced Trio Sign On - Dangerfield, Duncan & Stanley
Replies
11
Views
471
And_ROOS
And_ROOS
cats_09
List Mgmt. Jack Martin officially joins Geelong as a DFA
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
131
Views
8K
Commando
Commando
dazbroncos
  • Locked
Rumour GFC 2024 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 2
395 396 397 398 399
Replies
10K
Views
364K
cats_09
cats_09
dazbroncos
  • Locked
Rumour GFC 2024 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 1
391 392 393 394 395
Replies
10K
Views
391K
dazbroncos
dazbroncos

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top