Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
doggie dog said:
250k a year is still an average wage in the AFL wage. That is massive coin.
There has been so many stories of kids just drafted, getting introuble with the big cities temptations🎱🎱🎱🎱 and being out of footy in a couple of years, I'm looking at you gold coast.
If i could earn the same money in Tassie as i do on the main land, id be out of here.
Money will stretch a lot further in Tassie than it will in Melbourne/Sydney.
Click to expand...
For any naive kid with oodles of surplus income there will be freeloaders, spivs and dealers more than happy to take it from them, no matter what Australian town or city they live in.

Hobart isn’t immune to that. Kids can get into trouble anywhere.
 
dogwatch said:
Well said. I've commented on lack of depth in leadership before and some people immediately take umbrage on Bont's behalf.

It's not about Bont. There's no argument that he's a fine leader. It's a question of who else have we got. He can't do it on his own. You need multiple voices, different voices, to marshal the troops effectively. This is even more important if some of the players think Bevo is losing his tactical touch.

I'd be all for getting in a natural leader from another club, not necessarily a club captain, but perhaps one who is gettable and affordable because his best playing days are behind him (while still able to play a useful role) or because his club is under salary cap pressure. Preferably a hard-nosed type who doesn't cop any nonsense from teammates or opponents. A classic example would be Matt Boyd ... but we happened to find him within our own ranks. If such a player could give us 2-3 years and 40-60 games that might help set and maintain standards while our own future leaders are growing into the role.

I haven't given any thought to who might fit that description out there. Any suggestions anyone?
Click to expand...
Rory Sloane would be the standout option to me to fill a late career Matthew Boyd type role, although he's probably a year or two too old now.
 
NthBondiDoggies said:
Also not sure where to put this but have this concern about the team at the moment - on field leadership.

Who leads on the field with the Inspiring Confidence (‘we can’ most important), Courage (must walk it for other to believe it) and Ruthlessness /Accountability (when you create an opportunity you can be relied on to take it)? Bont is the only one - and he often misses the important sealing the deal shot.

Libba is closest and certainly has the last two but not sure he is inspiring and not sure he wants it. So at best 2. Macrae has shown parts. Jones was a showing a lot.

Geelong had Danger, Selwood, Stewart, Hawkins, Smith, Blicsavs and Cameron- all potentially captain material and having all three components.

In 2016 we had Morris, Boyd, Picken and even though injured Bob as well as Bont and Libba. I feel like I missed someone. These players make the rest of the team better - not just about them - actually in many ways they are servants to others in the team.

We have the list to be top 4 where we are in the pot. But unless we address this I think we will underperform.

We have seen players like Williams, Red, Daniel, Keath, Duryea, Crozier, JJ all start developing and then drop off. Red is still there but his positional change has forced him to do more of a job than stamp his influence.

Eternal optimist in me believes we can turn this into an advantage. You don’t just throw your hands in the air - you deliberately do something about it. We have potential in a number of players but this has been shown in ver and over again in business as part image and part development.

Many teams in the window have deliberately tried to address this one way or another:

  • unsociable Hawks
  • Leading Teams for Brisbane Glory Days
  • By in leadership quotient - Geelong
  • Eagles in their heyday used a lot of the All-Blacks philosophy on this.

Not sure what we do but appears some big upside for us.
Click to expand...

P



On motorola edge 20 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Former Geelong midfielder Quinton Narkleis the subject of interest from multiple AFL clubs ahead of the 2023 Mid-Season Rookie Draft.

The 25-year-old trained with Richmond over pre-season and was close to landing a spot on the list during the Supplementary Selection Period (SSP), but the Tigers opted to go with 21-year-old forward Kaelan Bradtke instead.
Narkle is playing well for Essendon in the VFL so far in 2023, averaging 18 disposals and five tackles, and is on the radar of a number of clubs including West Coast, the Western Bulldogs, the Tigers and the Bombers.

AFL Media’s Josh Gabelich says the Tigers were keen to add the Western Australian native following the retirement of Jason Castagna in February, but the AFL did not allow the list addition.











“If Richmond got their way with the AFL he would be on Richmond’s list already,” Gabelich said on SEN’s Sportsday.

“Jason Castagna retired three or four days after the SSP deadline closed and they pitched to the AFL to get Quinton Narkle for that spot. They only had one spot and went with Kaelan Bradtke instead of Narkle, then Castagna retired.

“He’s been playing for Essendon’s VFL side and there is interest around the competition.

“West Coast is a club that has monitored him, the Bulldogs, Richmond, Essendon, so there’s every chance that Quinton Narkle might be back in the system by the end of this month.”

Gabelich spoke of some other familiar names that could be back in the AFL system when the mid-season draft is held on May 31.

Former Melbourne and Carlton defender Oscar McDonald is impressing for Williamstown in the VFL, alongside fellow ex-Dees backman Marty Hore.

“There’s legitimate interest in Oscar McDonald,” Gabelich added.

“He’s going really well at Williamstown at the moment. There are a few clubs that are really analysing it because key defenders are hard to find.

“If you look back at Carlton last year, they went and got Sam Durdin (from Glenelg) because he filled a need. He only played one game in the second half of the year, but they needed the coverage.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if Oscar McDonald gets another opportunity.”

Of Hore, he added: “Another guy at Williamstown is Marty Hore, who was at Melbourne for quite some time.

“He’s attracting a fair bit of interest.”

Another player who has been spoken about frequently in mid-season draft circles is ruckman Sam Naismith.

The 30-game former Sydney Swan, who has dealt with several ACL injuries over the course of his career, is starring for Port Melbourne this year and is a possible target for the likes of Collingwood and Richmond, according to Gabelich.

“Sam Naismith is the other one,” he said of the 30-year-old.

“I’d expect Sam Naismith to be recruited mid-year. Collingwood have shown some interest.

“I know Richmond are looking at ruckmen at the moment so whether they go for a 30-year-old in Naismith, or someone like Clay Tucker, who is 19. Time will tell.

“Naismith was a very popular figure in Sydney. They didn’t want let him go. You can understand why they needed to in the end.

“But he’s bounced back after two years out of the game and had a really strong start to the year at Port Melbourne.”

Box Hill midfielder Callum Brown, formerly of Collingwood, and ex-Swan Ryley Stoddartare other names being bandied around ahead of the mid-season draft later this month.
 
Dannnnnnnnnn said:
Unpopular opinion: this is worse.

Let's get this out of the way first - no matter what they do, any type of benefit will compromise the draft for other teams. If they need to trade picks, everyone else still gets shuffled down the order beyond where they finished. If they get to raid other clubs, the compo will make sure everyone else moves down in the draft. So on and so forth.

One year where everyone gets pushed down 15 spots sucks, and pushes timelines etc back by 12 months. Pushing everyone back 5-10 spots over three years is enough to completely derail a mediocre or bad team's attempt to rebuild.

This is not good for us as in four years' time there is a real possibility, depending on list decisions and the longevity of core players, that we bottom out.

Our list management will need to focus at least partly on making sure that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
I’d rather them be given something like pick #[5] + #[21] as priority picks for 10 years in a row and to be permitted to trade those picks as far in advance as they want, not just one year ahead like for everyone else (either for current year picks or players).

The bottom 4 teams (of which Tassie may be one) still get the top 4 picks each year so it doesn’t **** their rebuild. Teams 1-14 have their 1st rounder shift back one spot (this happens every year with gun F/S and FA compensation anyway). Pick 21 is essentially and end or R1 priority pick so just shifts everyone else back 1 more spot in all future rounds.

I think the above is a clean way to “share” the concessions versus a system where you finish bottom 4 and your first pick is barely a top 10.
 
doggiesin08 said:
I’d rather them be given something like pick #[5] + #[21] as priority picks for 10 years in a row and to be permitted to trade those picks as far in advance as they want, not just one year ahead like for everyone else (either for current year picks or players).

The bottom 4 teams (of which Tassie may be one) still get the top 4 picks each year so it doesn’t **** their rebuild. Teams 1-14 have their 1st rounder shift back one spot (this happens every year with gun F/S and FA compensation anyway). Pick 21 is essentially and end or R1 priority pick so just shifts everyone else back 1 more spot in all future rounds.

I think the above is a clean way to “share” the concessions versus a system where you finish bottom 4 and your first pick is barely a top 10.
Click to expand...
I’d rather rip the Band-Aid off and **** up a couple of drafts with early Tassie picks than to see them still granted Pick 5 in 10 years time.

West Coast, post merger Lions, Adelaide and Port all won their first flag within a decade. Imagine Tassie win a flag and still have another few years of Pick 5 they held onto.
 
Nat Fyfe said:
I’d rather rip the Band-Aid off and * up a couple of drafts with early Tassie picks than to see them still granted Pick 5 in 10 years time.

West Coast, post merger Lions, Adelaide and Port all won their first flag within a decade. Imagine Tassie win a flag and still have another few years of Pick 5 they held onto.
Click to expand...
Then just force them to trade them all within the first [3] years. They’re probably less valuable the further out you go, but for example you’d still get some decent value for 2030 pick #5 at the trade table this year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No to any Geelong cast offs, with the exception of Hamling and Street.
 
Golden_6 said:
There's a difference between VFL standard players and VFL players. There are plenty of players with AFL attributes on VFL lists that deserve a shot on an AFL list. In recent years, we've generally selected mature VFL standard players.
Click to expand...

Caleb Poulter seemed a bit stiff to get delisted and is playing well in our VFL side.
 
NagoyaDog said:
Matty Robbins went alright
Click to expand...

Bulldogs85 said:
We have done well with Ryan Gardner
Click to expand...

Prince Imperial said:
I'm showing my age but Ian Hampshire was a lion-hearted captain, coach and ruckman for us in a very difficult period at the club.
Click to expand...
Ok ok, so apart from Robins, Street, Gardner, Hampshire and Hamling, what has Geelong ever done for us.
monty python GIF
 
Dannnnnnnnnn said:
Unpopular opinion: this is worse.

Let's get this out of the way first - no matter what they do, any type of benefit will compromise the draft for other teams. If they need to trade picks, everyone else still gets shuffled down the order beyond where they finished. If they get to raid other clubs, the compo will make sure everyone else moves down in the draft. So on and so forth.

One year where everyone gets pushed down 15 spots sucks, and pushes timelines etc back by 12 months. Pushing everyone back 5-10 spots over three years is enough to completely derail a mediocre or bad team's attempt to rebuild.

This is not good for us as in four years' time there is a real possibility, depending on list decisions and the longevity of core players, that we bottom out.

Our list management will need to focus at least partly on making sure that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
Issue was that by pre-listing 17 year olds, getting pick 1, 2 and 3, and getting the mini-draft, that compromised the draft because many of the best 5-15 players in a given year went to one team. It then meant bottom teams stayed at the bottom because they were getting the 20th best player while the best clubs were getting the 30th

If you want to not compromise the draft, a simple straight pick 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 etc. Does it. Bad teams still get top 10 kids but the best teams may get pushed out to get the 40th best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Mutt
Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)
73 74 75 76 77
Replies
2K
Views
99K
Scottish Bob
Scottish Bob
goodcop badcop
Analysis Draft, List and Trade Analysis
Replies
3
Views
582
goodcop badcop
goodcop badcop
Fossie 32
  • Locked
Game Day Gameday Dogs v Hawks R8 5/5/24
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
768
Views
17K
Hobdog
Hobdog
Hobdog
ACT Based Supporters
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
Capital_Dog
C
Next Waiting
  • Poll
Opinion Do you have faith in our list?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
4K
dogwatch
dogwatch
dogwatch
  • Sticky
List Mgmt. WB 2024 List
Replies
0
Views
3K
dogwatch
dogwatch
Kermit
MVP Ching Rd 5: Dogs v Bombers
Replies
16
Views
746
charcoalchicken
charcoalchicken

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top