Blease and Strauss Delisted

[watchtheeyes 1,210]

Just got word that Geelong are looking to sign Blease. They will make him a player, mark my words.

He has plenty of upside and i don't like his de-listing. Just making my stance on this known on Demonland, like i did with Stefan Martin when that happened too.

Have that fear myself... But his comment about disagreeing with Roos 'gameplan' (non-negotiables) at the start of the year was enough for me.

Hope he plays against the Dees and pigdog buries him in to the dirt.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,293]

Is it just me or did Evans get re-signed on the back of 3 junk time goals against GWS in 2013?

I can't fathom any other reason as he's shown nothing much else.

[DeeSpencer 23,241]

Is it just me or did Evans get re-signed on the back of 3 junk time goals against GWS in 2013?

I can't fathom any other reason as he's shown nothing much else.

Well in a lot of ways that game wasn't junk time, until it was.

And remember at the time Evans was right up there in our most promising mids. We really didn't have much else. He was finally over his injury troubles and was showing something.

He had 27 touches on debut as a 19 year old. A Melbourne player this year told me that Evans has natural contested ball winning abilities as good as anyone at the club as well as really good strength for his size in marking the ball.

Unfortunately the knock on him is he just doesn't have the commitment required to make it at the top level.

[Maggot 1977 263]

And when that player doesn't make it you will be the first to complain....I suppose....

The bottom 5 -6 players on the list should only be on 1 year deal IMO anyway. Chance picks late in the draft or recycled players need to show us some thing in there first year to warrant even considering anything further than a minimum wage 1 year deal. If they show something special great if not discard and move onto next years crop. I hate this notion of keeping players on the list for longer than there worth , rotation please !!

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Who'd have guessed?

Ok, I'll admit it, picket fence told me...

All hail the new oracle

[DeeSpencer 23,241]

The bottom 5 -6 players on the list should only be on 1 year deal IMO anyway. Chance picks late in the draft or recycled players need to show us some thing in there first year to warrant even considering anything further than a minimum wage 1 year deal. If they show something special great if not discard and move onto next years crop. I hate this notion of keeping players on the list for longer than there worth , rotation please !!

Well all national draft picks come on 2 year deals so hate to break that to you. Not to mention that's for a reason as well because the first year really should be about developing their bodies and adapting to AFL. Sometimes it's better to take the final year of an unde rperforming player hoping that something changes over preseason than extra 4th round draft picks.

As for keeping players longer, well sometimes you end up lucking in to a Pedersen or Jetta if that happens.

The other thing to remember is that by giving 2 year deals sometime you can save yourself big money in the second year. If you grab a guy for a 1 year deal and he turns in to a very serviceable player then you have to pay him like it from the next year.

And finally there is a market out there. We aren't an attractive club even for guys wanting games. So you can't offer 1 year deal and minimum coin to players who have other options. Including state leagues.

Better recruiting and development will no doubt solve a lot of these problems.

I don't think the turnover has been heavy enough if recent years. I think that going all the way back to Daniher who loved a lot of his players and didn't even turn them over in the team yet alone off the list. Then when Bailey came in they shifted too many older guys and filled the list with younger suspect guys.

[Machsy 2,858]

All hail the new oracle

Hasn't been confirmed yet, just an article floating the possibility.

And I've lost track of how many times that I've said "there are no true oracles"...

[bing181 8,176]

Happy to see Blease go. He had his chances, but not a smart footballer.

[monoccular 16,222]

Horrible coaching, horrible culture, inept administration ( infighting and schisms), zero development, no ethos in the club that hard work is required for success - and we wonder why so many picks have failed.

There is something to be said about the characters of some of these footballers as the likes of Nathan Jones has improved despite the obstacles thrown at him (the major one being the way our club was run in every facet) because of his character and determination to succeed.

If we could only bottle what Jones has inside him and distribute it to all at the club.

I guess that whilst talent is difficult enough to asses, character and determination must be even harder.

Hopefully our current recruiters, and coaching panel will have far greater success in this very inexact endeavour / science / art.

It is also a number 1 priority that we get on and secure Nathan Jones on a long contract as soon as possible. Were he to leave it would cut the heart out of the playing list, not just for his talent but for his determination and leadership.

Edited October 23, 2014 by monoccular

[rpfc 27,545]

The bottom 5 -6 players on the list should only be on 1 year deal IMO anyway. Chance picks late in the draft or recycled players need to show us some thing in there first year to warrant even considering anything further than a minimum wage 1 year deal. If they show something special great if not discard and move onto next years crop. I hate this notion of keeping players on the list for longer than there worth , rotation please !!

Did you know that draftees who are in their first draft get an automatic 2 year contract?

So there's a spanner in your plan.

A simpler spanner would be the issue of never knowing exactly who your 'bottom 6' players are for certain, and that sometimes humans surprise you and Neville Jetta says 'hi'...

Friendly fellow.

[Maggot 1977 263]

Thanks rpc for the heads up regarding the 2 year situation.

My point still remains that I believe we hold low level footballer for many , many years too long. Sure Neville is a great story but he is the exception to the rule. I don't think I need to list names of players who fall under this sad category. Potential is one of the ugliest word in the football vocabulary IMO.

In regards to our bottom six ,Blind Freddy could have listed - Clisby, Nicho, Strauss, Georgio , Tapscott & Evans .

[dieter 3,325]

Wish Blease all the best but he always seemed a one trick pony to me.

[Machsy 2,858]

Wish Blease all the best but he always seemed a one trick pony to me.

He has red hair?

[rpfc 27,545]

Thanks rpc for the heads up regarding the 2 year situation.

My point still remains that I believe we hold low level footballer for many , many years too long. Sure Neville is a great story but he is the exception to the rule. I don't think I need to list names of players who fall under this sad category. Potential is one of the ugliest word in the football vocabulary IMO.

In regards to our bottom six ,Blind Freddy could have listed - Clisby, Nicho, Strauss, Georgio , Tapscott & Evans .

And only one of those is contracted for 2015 at the moment.

Contracts have not really been an impediment for Roos with his list overhaul - the general lack of talent of the list is the greatest impediment...

Opening list spots has not been a problem - there have been plenty. Moving players in trades has been difficult because of the talent we don't have. If a list is a manifest of your investments - we would have the weakest portfolio in the league.

Worrying about 'Evans being contracted is not allowing ND53 to be picked up' is trivial.

Our list will get better when we attract FAs next year hopefully, and get our top draft picks right in a few weeks.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Nervous about Blease's delisting. Then again, about 7 coaches failed to unlock his potential.

[nutbean 8,837]

Nervous about Blease's delisting. Then again, about 7 coaches failed to unlock his potential.

Actually one club failed to unlock his potential.

One club has failed to unlock the potential of many a draftee - I am sort of seeing a constant theme....

[rpfc 27,545]

Actually one club failed to unlock his potential.

One club has failed to unlock the potential of many a draftee - I am sort of seeing a constant theme....

What if the potential was all it ever was?

Maybe we got the initial decision wrong?

[Slartibartfast 15,861]

What if the potential was all it ever was?

Maybe we got the initial decision wrong?

Then he wouldn't have had potential. You're very confusing at times!

[rpfc 27,545]

Then he wouldn't have had potential. You're very confusing at times!

You think that failed draft picks don't have potential?

That's all they ever had.

We just didn't pick the ones who could unlock it, had the body to use it, or just didn't have enough of it.

I will say that the club had not been good enough to help them reach their full potential but some overcome that happy excuse; Nathan Jones being the obvious success story for the track record of MFC Development.

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

Have that fear myself... But his comment about disagreeing with Roos 'gameplan' (non-negotiables) at the start of the year was enough for me.

Hope he plays against the Dees and pigdog buries him in to the dirt.

I was saying this about Sylvia. It hasn't happened. In fact quite the opposite. I said it about Travis and Leigh Matthews couldn't make it happen. Unfortunately same will happen with Blease.

When he was first drafted Brian Royal said he was going to be a project player who had to learn the defensive side of his game. 5 years later he still hasn't learnt. His last game was a shocker. Blazing away at goal from the boundary line ignoring several options in better positions. It looked like an FU to the coaches. Cats are a much harder both way running team than us. He doesn't have a chance with his current attitude and I can't see that changing. Has the physical attributes to be a significant player but doesn't have the brain. Same as Sylvia.

[Melbman2 226]

Actually one club failed to unlock his potential.

One club has failed to unlock the potential of many a draftee - I am sort of seeing a constant theme....

My dad and siblings have were involved in Athletics for many decades and dad trained many a state junior champ.

We went to Neeld's first training session at Gosh's and we timed Blease in the lap runs.

Not only was he last but his times were appalling

[Redleg 37,831]

Would think that Tapscott will be the next player delisted, as we need places on the list.

[DeeSpencer 23,241]

Anyone feel like a GNF riddle:

Blease to the cats is a Lynden deal.

[DeeSpencer 23,241]

My dad and siblings have were involved in Athletics for many decades and dad trained many a state junior champ.

We went to Neeld's first training session at Gosh's and we timed Blease in the lap runs.

Not only was he last but his times were appalling

I remember those days. Blease and Davey were always last in the repeat 300's even trailing in the young talls. Davey paced himself through them to somewhat trial in behind. Blease tried to keep up for the first couple and then in the latter reps was miles behind.

Not all his fault. He probably should've been held out of football until he got up to scratch. Instead he teased with some VFL performances and wasted time as the sub. He was fitter this year and so he found some reasonable consistency in output in the VFL. But was such a poor VFL team that I'm not sure anyone would've looked great. It's much easier to take care of your defensive game when you don't have to be the driving force in actually attacking the game. That said he was still miles of it at AFL when he did get his chance.

[grazman 6,524]

Then he wouldn't have had potential. You're very confusing at times!

A perceptual illusion - It must exist because there's a word for it. But it's about imagining what will be rather than the current reality and the fault is often with the expectations that are built up in the absence of hard evidence (by the recruiters rather than the recruit). If we were to increase the draft age to 20 we could relegate potential to a subordinate category rather than the primacy that it currently occupies.

Edited October 24, 2014 by grazman