We're talking about the Cats here, nice deflection though.So genius. Explain how many of your fellow Crowbots have your club staying the same or improving despite a harder draw and no Dangerfield.
You will be bloody lucky to get 9th.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
We're talking about the Cats here, nice deflection though.So genius. Explain how many of your fellow Crowbots have your club staying the same or improving despite a harder draw and no Dangerfield.
You will be bloody lucky to get 9th.
This is a discussion board.Ok explain using statistics about list profile winning premierships rather than just a general comment. You won't because you just roll off random lines to troll. You're pissed your best player took a pay cut to go elsewhere. Get over it. No one cares, just add something not a troll.
No deflection. Have already made my pov above. 16-17 wins and 8/10 against double up opposition.We're talking about the Cats here, nice deflection though.
2015 Outs: Rivers, Johnston, Kelly, Stokes, Gore, Simpson; JansenOk explain using statistics about list profile winning premierships rather than just a general comment. You won't because you just roll off random lines to troll. You're pissed your best player took a pay cut to go elsewhere. Get over it. No one cares, just add something not a troll.
Just shows you didn't watch Geelong in 2015. unbelievable injury list this year. Bartel, Kelly, Duncan, Caddy from our midfield group all missed significant parts of the season through injury, some at the same time. No ruck for the 2nd half of the season.2015 Outs: Rivers, Johnston, Kelly, Stokes, Gore, Simpson; Jansen
2015 Ins: Dangerfield, S Selwood, Henderson, Smith
2015 ND Picks: 67, 85, etc (no early picks & have 7 vacancies - so will lack some depth)
Smith has replaced Simpson (probably an upgrade).
Henderson has replaced Rivers & probably used to cover Lonergan at times as his 2015 form declined.
S Selwood a good replacement for Kelly if he can stay fit.
Dangerfield is an upgrade on Johnson/Stokes combined.
Expect some of Lonergan, Enright, Bartel & Mackie form to decline in 2016.
Question mark over Menzel, Vardy & Clark & S Selwood to play regularly.
With the 2015 delistees & question mark over older players maintaining form & players regularly injured, you will need your kids to take up the slack. This is a huge question mark. I don't believe there is much difference in the talent on your list with the ins/outs.
If you manage to get your best 22 on the park consistently & all gels, then you will probably make the finals. If not, then IMO you will miss.
2016 Possible retirees: Lonergan, Enright, Bartel, Mackie, Clark
2016 ND Picks: missing 1st rounder traded in 2015
My argument has been based on your 2016 list not being too different talent wise to your 2015 list.Just shows you didn't watch Geelong in 2015. unbelievable injury list this year. Bartel, Kelly, Duncan, Caddy from our midfield group all missed significant parts of the season through injury, some at the same time. No ruck for the 2nd half of the season.
Rivers has been replaced by Kolodjashnij. Henderson has come in so if Lonergan's form drops away then we go Taylor/Henderson/Kolo. No problems there.
Jansen and Simpson are no loss whatsoever. Kelly and Stokes were cooked by the end of the year. Mackie won't retire, freshly minted 2 year deal through to October 2017. Lonergan, Bartel and Enright will retire. Only one doesn't have replacements. Of course no Vardy, Menzel and Clark could be possible, that said they were all unavailable for large chunks this year and we coped ok without them.
Yes missing a 2016 R1, did pick up a likely late 30's R3 pick though so no net difference in 2016 picks. We only have 6 senior spots vacant now anyway, have already confirmed a rookie upgrade, cat B rookie too.
So really, a hard draw and monumental amount of injuries saw us what, one game off finals. Will we challenge for the flag? well lots would have to go right and we'd need minimal injuries. Failing that our soft draw should see September action regardless.
Whats that got to do with list profile? You made comments about list profile and thats what I commented on.2015 Outs: Rivers, Johnston, Kelly, Stokes, Gore, Simpson; Jansen
2015 Ins: Dangerfield, S Selwood, Henderson, Smith
2015 ND Picks: 67, 85, etc (no early picks & have 7 vacancies - so will lack some depth)
Smith has replaced Simpson (probably an upgrade).
Henderson has replaced Rivers & probably used to cover Lonergan at times as his 2015 form declined.
S Selwood a good replacement for Kelly if he can stay fit.
Dangerfield is an upgrade on Johnson/Stokes combined.
Expect some of Lonergan, Enright, Bartel & Mackie form to decline in 2016.
Question mark over Menzel, Vardy & Clark & S Selwood to play regularly.
With the 2015 delistees & question mark over older players maintaining form & players regularly injured, you will need your kids to take up the slack. This is a huge question mark. I don't believe there is much difference in the talent on your list with the ins/outs.
If you manage to get your best 22 on the park consistently & all gels, then you will probably make the finals. If not, then IMO you will miss.
2016 Possible retirees: Lonergan, Enright, Bartel, Mackie, Clark
2016 ND Picks: missing 1st rounder traded in 2015
Well the betting agencies I've looked at have us 4th flag favourite so I'd say many (not just cats fans btw) believe we're better than 50/50 for finals.My argument has been based on your 2016 list not being too different talent wise to your 2015 list.
I'm aware that injuries are also a factor (I have mentioned this numerous time), but no one can predict injuries with any certainty. You have some injury-prone players & funnily enough young/old players tend to be more susceptible than mid-age players. Banking on your improvement to come from less injuries is guess work.
If all goes well, then yes you will make the finals, but it is hardly a given. Probably a 50/50 (not sure what the betting market says). I think those who think you are a genuine flag threat are overly optimistic (all clubs have these supporters)... but yes, stranger things have happened.
That's pretty original...Hey Port fans,is it currently flooding in the streets of Adelaide with all these tears from Crowbot fans ?
Your ins & outs have a massive influence on your list profile. How else can you change your list profile?Whats that got to do with list profile? You made comments about list profile and thats what I commented on.
I'm not a big one for the draw making a difference, as the most deserving teams tend to make it regardless.Well the betting agencies I've looked at have us 4th flag favourite so I'd say many (not just cats fans btw) believe we're better than 50/50 for finals.
Would be absolutely staggered to miss out on finals with that draw. It's almost too easy.
Injuries will be key for the Cats
as you no longer have the depth... which is why you could be anything from say 4th to 14th.
What is wrong with the list profile? Any one can just add a slab of text that means nothing. You made comments about list profile. What is wrong with the list profile? Ins and outs change the list profile but what is wrong with the list profile? And how doesn't it match statically to a team trying to be top 4?Your ins & outs have a massive influence on your list profile. How else can you change your list profile?
Already, you have lowered the average age of your list significantly with the changes so far this year.
in their dreams. You may improve up the ladder - but win a flag. Nah.Yes they can.....
I have provided details above.What is wrong with the list profile? Any one can just add a slab of text that means nothing. You made comments about list profile. What is wrong with the list profile? Ins and outs change the list profile but what is wrong with the list profile? And how doesn't it match statically to a team trying to be top 4?
No you haven't. You've said the list profile isn't right for a team making top 4. I'm asking what is wrong with it. I don't care about changes to the list profile, I care about the list profile. What is wrong with the list profile? Your suggesting their is something structurally wrong but won't provide anything to back it up.I have provided details above.
You appear to be more concerned with discussing semantics, rather than the topic at hand.
So over & out...
Your best 22 is top-8 material if you can keep them all on the park for the majority of the year.You mean like it'll be key to every other team in the competition?
At this very early stage, here is how I see Geelong's best 22 next year:
B: Enright - Henderson - Kolo
HB: Thurlow - Taylor - Guthrie
C: Duncan - Blicavs - Motlop
HF: Caddy - Clark - Bartel
FF: Menzel - Hawkins - Vardy
R: Smith - Dangerfield - J. Selwood
I: Stanley - Mackie - S. Selwood - Gregson
That leaves the following players as depth: Lonergan, Murdoch, Cockatoo, Cowan, Horlin-Smith, Bews, Kersten
Last year we had 28 players play 5+ games. We had 24 play 10+ and only 9 play 20+. If we can get similar or better numbers next season then I don't think our depth is that bad at all.
Obviously key injuries to important players and all of those 7 depth players listed playing 15 games each would not be a good scenario, but injuries are a different issue entirely.
Of course the draw doesn't make a difference, as it doesn't suit your argument. The draw makes a massive difference. The finishing positions are so tight an easier game here and an easier game there makes every little bit of difference.I'm not a big one for the draw making a difference, as the most deserving teams tend to make it regardless.
Form & injuries are more of a factor.
Also, there are always teams that expectantly do worse or better than predicted.
But, the betting agencies are usually a reasonable guide, so it appears you are a better than 50/50 chance.
I mentioned right at the beginning the Cats had the least number of mid-age players, which good sides tend to rely on the carry the team. You have brought in 3 new ones through trading, but still a lower % than most. You will be reliant on your youngsters picking up the slack of your older players either delisted or still on your list. It is an unknown whether they will be good enough. It won't be much of an issue if you have minimal injuries, but if you do, then it will be a major problem.No you haven't. You've said the list profile isn't right for a team making top 4. I'm asking what is wrong with it. I don't care about changes to the list profile, I care about the list profile. What is wrong with the list profile? Your suggesting their is something structurally wrong but won't provide anything to back it up.
I am discussing the topic at hand. You said there is something structurally wrong with the list profile. What is it?
So what would have been the difference to the 2015 ladder if everyone had the same draw?Of course the draw doesn't make a difference, as it doesn't suit your argument. The draw makes a massive difference. The finishing positions are so tight an easier game here and an easier game there makes every little bit of difference.
Ok what is the usual break down then? And what is Geelong's break down? Or you just watched TV once last year?I mentioned right at the beginning the Cats had the least number of mid-age players, which good sides tend to rely on the carry the team. You have brought in 3 new ones through trading, but still a lower % than most. You will be reliant on your youngsters picking up the slack of your older players either delisted or still on your list. It is an unknown whether they will be good enough. It won't be much of an issue if you have minimal injuries, but if you do, then it will be a major problem.
The same draw? No one ever has the same draw regardless of what way you spin it. Two equal teams can be separated purely because one got a soft draw and one got a hard draw. There is inequality in the system and you know that. The draw is a huge factor in ladder position, it doesn't make a bottom 4 team finish 3rd but it has a huge effect on equal teams.So what would have been the difference to the 2015 ladder if everyone had the same draw?
Would have been the same top-8 IMO.