Kozzy Pickett Re-Signs for 4 Years

[D4Life 2,299]

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

IF Sydney continue to have a cost of lining salary cap bonus maybe Geelong should have a lower salary cap than the city clubs 🙄

He could, possibly if all goes well, complement Kozzie but there is a hell of a lot of water to pass under the bridge before that happens. 

Agree 100%, Cats to get negative COLA of 10%, in fact let’s go for 20%!

They could absorb the Suns player 700K into premiership team?????

They have more advantages than any other team by a country mile!

While we all have a natural negativity for the Pies, Tigers, Bombers, & Blues, I’ve got a special disdain for the Cats!

Edited January 7, 2023 by D4Life
Extra comment

[dazzledavey36 48,707]

33 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Burgo’s system burnt the players out and no wonder he left after a couple of seasons. His method has a short use by date and he knows it. He’s another Ross Lyon who flogged the players to the limit for short term success. It was reported that Griffiths closely followed the Burgess system. The players were broken by mid season and it was inexcusable no one saw it coming. Barely any players rested for niggles and minor injuries all season. Only one debutant and bench players knocking on the door rarely used. Blame should be shared by the coaches as well for inflexibility and hubristic selections. They just thought “bang, bang bang” would happen on the flick of the switch till the very last.

I agree with this.

You'll probably get a lot of unpopular opinions because it worked in the flag year, but to think this was going to be sustainable for 2nd year in a row were kidding themselves. 

We even had a thread dedicated to 'loading' which made many people on here look very silly in the end.

It's definitely going off topic of the thread but I'm still bewildered why our coaching staff simply refused to rest players when needed as we were completely banged up come September. We had fit players ready to go at Casey but Goody's reluctance to reward form and play fit players bit him in the [censored].

I'm confident Goody has learnt from this and we will not see this occure again. If it does, kiss top 4 goodbye.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

40 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Burgo’s system burnt the players out and no wonder he left after a couple of seasons. His method has a short use by date and he knows it. He’s another Ross Lyon who flogged the players to the limit for short term success. It was reported that Griffiths closely followed the Burgess system. The players were broken by mid season and it was inexcusable no one saw it coming. Barely any players rested for niggles and minor injuries all season. Only one debutant and bench players knocking on the door rarely used. Blame should be shared by the coaches as well for inflexibility and hubristic selections. They just thought “bang, bang bang” would happen on the flick of the switch till the very last.

So Burgess took us from a physical rabble to a team that steamrolled into the finals and won a flag, but now he's to blame for a season when he wasn't even there?

Come off it. I agree on the resting players and lack of rotating others through, but to blame someone who wasn't even there is ridiculous.

[Palace Dees 1,995]

17 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

So Burgess took us from a physical rabble to a team that steamrolled into the finals and won a flag, but now he's to blame for a season when he wasn't even there?

Come off it. I agree on the resting players and lack of rotating others through, but to blame someone who wasn't even there is ridiculous.

By his own admission,  Burgess' first love is soccer, especially EPL, that is the majority of his background. That environment is very much instant success or you are out! That is what he achieved with us and he will always be revered for it. I don't blame him for our fade in '22, the fault lay with the coaching staff who though that style of fitness coaching was sustainable long term. Griffiths followed a Premiership formula and to a degree was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.  I hope there is a highly collaborative fitness approach to this season to ensure we have the ultimate goal as our main focus. A Bart Cummings approach if you like.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

2 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

By his own admission,  Burgess' first love is soccer, especially EPL, that is the majority of his background. That environment is very much instant success or you are out! That is what he achieved with us and he will always be revered for it. I don't blame him for our fade in '22, the fault lay with the coaching staff who though that style of fitness coaching was sustainable long term. Griffiths followed a Premiership formula and to a degree was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.  I hope there is a highly collaborative fitness approach to this season to ensure we have the ultimate goal as our main focus. A Bart Cummings approach if you like.

Absolutely there will (hopefully) be lessons learned from the physical management in 2022.

But Burgess wasn't there. So blaming him or assuming what he would have done is just silly. That's the part I disagree with.

You're right with the coaching staff point, we don't know how much say Griffith was able to have in terms of selection etc, I would wager not much given what we know about Goodwin's stubbornness with such matters in the past.

[John Crow Batty 8,252]

4 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

So Burgess took us from a physical rabble to a team that steamrolled into the finals and won a flag, but now he's to blame for a season when he wasn't even there?

Come off it. I agree on the resting players and lack of rotating others through, but to blame someone who wasn't even there is ridiculous.

I didn’t say it was Burgos fault. He had done his job well and there was nothing more he could offer us and left to rinse and repeat elsewhere. The big mistake was that the club believed continuing with his system could win us another flag. 

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,161]

16 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Burgess was a massive loss and everyone here acknowledged it as being a potential major setback for the 2022 season. Blowing 6 games whereby the club had at least a 4 goal lead in all of them is not a stat that could possibly reflect well on Griffith's commencement at the club. Happy for someone to dispute this.

 

Clearly something went wrong after half time in the second half of the year. My query though is these fade outs did not exist in the first half of the season. So what went wrong mid season was it the loading, the accumulation of injury not allowing us to finish out games or a combo of mental fragility and teams knowing you could put us to the sword after the half? I would suggest its a bit of each. Some of that is on Griffiths  but not all necessarily. 

Burgess was clearly a massive loss as he was the best in the business but Griffiths did work under him and now has a season on his own to tune his approach. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Lil_red_fire_engine

[rjay 23,888]

2 hours ago, Lil_red_fire_engine said:

Burgess was clearly a massive loss as he was the best in the business

I can't complain, we got a flag and he was a key player.

Would loved to have kept him.

...but is the hype bigger than the individual.

When it gets to a certain level I would say it always is.

[Demonstone 19,084]

 I wish we had / I hope we do keep Kozzy Burgess.

[Palace Dees 1,995]

15 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

I didn’t say it was Burgos fault. He had done his job well and there was nothing more he could offer us and left to rinse and repeat elsewhere. The big mistake was that the club believed continuing with his system could win us another flag. 

Sorry Demonstone, your point is well made. This is not the right thread, but may I add just one more point re Burgess.  I had a quick review of his super impressive CV.  Appointments at the Socceroos, Arsenal, Liverpool, Port Adelaide,  Melbourne and now Adelaide.  None (so far) have lasted 3 years. That is the point many of us here are making.  So glad he came to us and brilliant at what he can achieve in that time frame, but the methodology is just not sustainable and he knows it. 

Now, back to Kozzy 😉

[Palace Dees 1,995]

Thanks Lord Nev, on bestowing your 961st facepalm upon me (I'm sensing a theme here 🤔)

I believe a prize should go to the 1000th which shouldn't be to far away. I'm certainly going to give it a crack. 

[Whispering_Jack 27,960]

Just watching the Gridiron and it appears Pickett might have changed codes and gone to Pittsburgh 😀

[binman 37,967]

On 1/7/2023 at 6:51 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

I agree with this.

You'll probably get a lot of unpopular opinions because it worked in the flag year, but to think this was going to be sustainable for 2nd year in a row were kidding themselves. 

We even had a thread dedicated to 'loading' which made many people on here look very silly in the end.

It's definitely going off topic of the thread but I'm still bewildered why our coaching staff simply refused to rest players when needed as we were completely banged up come September. We had fit players ready to go at Casey but Goody's reluctance to reward form and play fit players bit him in the [censored].

I'm confident Goody has learnt from this and we will not see this occure again. If it does, kiss top 4 goodbye.

I don't agree dazzler (with JCB's post).

A DL specific new year's resolution i have is avoiding scenarios where I fall into the trap of back-and-forth arguments that end up in me just repeating previously articulated opinions.

At the risk of breaking that resolution only 11 days into the year, i agree that some of the regular posters in the loading thread ended up looking silly. But i suspect we differ as to who they may be.

Personally, i find it silly that some people would see what happened to us in the back half of the year as some sort of repudiation of the concept of 'loading' and the fact that we followed a clear program involving nearly two months mid-season of heavy training loads with the goal of being cherry ripe come finals (to be clear i'm not suggesting you hold this view).

The fact that we clearly struggled running out games is evidence the program didn't get the desired result, not evidence that it wasn't in place.

There are a million reasons why it may not have worked.

It's a science - but not an exact one, and there are literally hundreds of variables that could negatively impact the effectiveness of the fitness program (eg new staff, injuries, illness, scheduling, new players, equipment issues, motivation, impact of the weird finish to 2021, resourcing, staff changes, relationship between high performance team and the medical staff, relationship between the high-performance team and coach etc etc).

And fans are really only guessing what variables might have negatively impacted the program in 2022

The analogy i use is baking a cake. Every step of the process impacts the end result. The cake goes into the oven (preseason and midseason) but until it comes out (first ten rounds, finals), even if it looks great in the oven, you don't know how it tastes till the whole process is completed. 

To be honest, i find it bemusing that some posters, without any expertise in sports science (or intimate knowledge of the variables negatively impacting on the program) can have strong views about the efficacy of Griffiths program last year and/or the strategies he employed. 

Bemusing, because over the 'loading' journey i have, not without justification on occasion, sometimes had my views dismissed because i don't have expertise in sports science and have relied on observation and piecing together info that is out there (including some great stuff on DL) to make my case. 

To make my position crystal clear, i have little doubt that we will in fact follow much the same high-performance program as last year - and the two years under Burgess. Of course, there will be tweaks of course because there are always things that can be improved, but that's all.

We will be putting in the base now, will be close to optimal readiness for the first 10 rounds or so. We will run out games better than our opponents (and as an aside have 8 plus wins under our belt).

We will then go through a two-month period of sub optimal performance whilst we build the base for the finals. I'll be really happy if we go 50 50 during this stretch of 7-8 games. 

We will then build towards to optimal fitness and readiness as we approach the finals.

If the program has worked, i think we are the team with the greatest probability of winning the flag. We have the best list, coach and method and are the best team in the AFL. By some margin.

Like last season, it will be evident by round 20 or so if the mid-season loading phase has done the trick - and there are no guarantees it will (because of the aforementioned variables). If we are not running out games, then it hasn't worked, and we are stuffed.

Every other serious flag contender will follow this same model, just as the Cats did last year.

Why?

Because they are not winning a flag without doing so.

All that said, I'm not keen on another season of back and forth on loading - particularly in completely unrelated threads. 

Regular posters will have their views and the back-and-forth palaver is boring for everyone. I'm not going to change my view on this matter, and i suspect many others aren't either, so really there isn't any point flogging a dead horse.

What we can all agree on is we were simply not fit enough at the business end of the 2021 season and the heat is on Griffith's and his team (as it is for every high-performance team every season). If we don't hit the 2023 finals at a comparable level of readiness to 2021, we are not winning a flag this year.

Fingers crossed.

Edited January 11, 2023 by binman

[Lord Nev 13,511]

28 minutes ago, binman said:

Like last season, it will be evident by round 20 or so if the mid-season loading phase has done the trick - and there are no guarantees it will (because of the aforementioned variables). If we are not running out games, then it hasn't worked, and we are stuffed.

You mean round 20 like last year when you said this:

 

[dazzledavey36 48,707]

32 minutes ago, binman said:

I don't agree dazzler (with JCB's post).

A DL specific new year's resolution i have is avoiding scenarios where I fall into the trap of back-and-forth arguments that end up in me just repeating previously articulated opinions.

At the risk of breaking that resolution only 11 days into the year, i agree that some of the regular posters in the loading thread ended up looking silly. But i suspect we differ as to who they may be.

Personally, i find it silly that some people would see what happened to us in the back half of the year as some sort of repudiation of the concept of 'loading' and the fact that we followed a clear program involving nearly two months mid-season of heavy training loads with the goal of being cherry ripe come finals (to be clear i'm not suggesting you hold this view).

The fact that we clearly struggled running out games is evidence the program didn't get the desired result, not evidence that it wasn't in place.

There are a million reasons why it may not have worked.

It's a science - but not an exact one, and there are literally hundreds of variables that could negatively impact the effectiveness of the fitness program (eg new staff, injuries, illness, scheduling, new players, equipment issues, motivation, impact of the weird finish to 2021, resourcing, staff changes, relationship between high performance team and the medical staff, relationship between the high-performance team and coach etc etc).

And fans are really only guessing what variables might have negatively impacted the program in 2022

The analogy i use is baking a cake. Every step of the process impacts the end result. The cake goes into the oven (preseason and midseason) but until it comes out (first ten rounds, finals), even if it looks great in the oven, you don't know how it tastes till the whole process is completed. 

To be honest, i find it bemusing that some posters, without any expertise in sports science (or intimate knowledge of the variables negatively impacting on the program) can have strong views about the efficacy of Griffiths program last year and/or the strategies he employed. 

Bemusing, because over the 'loading' journey i have, not without justification on occasion, sometimes had my views dismissed because i don't have expertise in sports science and have relied on observation and piecing together info that is out there (including some great stuff on DL) to make my case. 

To make my position crystal clear, i have little doubt that we will in fact follow much the same high-performance program as last year - and the two years under Burgess. Of course, there will be tweaks of course because there are always things that can be improved, but that's all.

We will be putting in the base now, will be close to optimal readiness for the first 10 rounds or so. We will run out games better than our opponents (and as an aside have 8 plus wins under our belt).

We will then go through a two-month period of sub optimal performance whilst we build the base for the finals. I'll be really happy if we go 50 50 during this stretch of 7-8 games. 

We will then build towards to optimal fitness and readiness as we approach the finals.

If the program has worked, i think we are the team with the greatest probability of winning the flag. We have the best list, coach and method and are the best team in the AFL. By some margin.

Like last season, it will be evident by round 20 or so if the mid-season loading phase has done the trick - and there are no guarantees it will (because of the aforementioned variables). If we are not running out games, then it hasn't worked, and we are stuffed.

Every other serious flag contender will follow this same model, just as the Cats did last year.

Why?

Because they are not winning a flag without doing so.

All that said, I'm not keen on another season of back and forth on loading - particularly in completely unrelated threads. 

Regular posters will have their views and the back-and-forth palaver is boring for everyone. I'm not going to change my view on this matter, and i suspect many others aren't either, so really there isn't any point flogging a dead horse.

What we can all agree on is we were simply not fit enough at the business end of the 2021 season and the heat is on Griffith's and his team (as it is for every high-performance team every season). If we don't hit the 2023 finals at a comparable level of readiness to 2021, we are not winning a flag this year.

Fingers crossed.

 

But they didn't though. Whilst all model of loading is different at each club, the bigger difference at Geelong compared to us last year was that Scott managed his senior players far more better then Goodwin did. 

Players were managed if they had a niggle whereas the Burgess philosophy (which Griffith obviously used) was to get players to fight through the pain barrier and play through whatever niggles they're carrying. This backfired at a staggering rate. The evidence was right there in the back half of the year.

Also, my main argument isn't on the whole loading concept because it is what what it is. It simply didn't work last year. My main argument is coaching reluctance and stubbornness in resting players when needed.

This needs a massive tweak this year.

 

[rjay 23,888]

40 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

But they didn't though. Whilst all model of loading is different at each club, the bigger difference at Geelong compared to us last year was that Scott managed his senior players far more better then Goodwin did. 

Players were managed if they had a niggle whereas the Burgess philosophy (which Griffith obviously used) was to get players to fight through the pain barrier and play through whatever niggles they're carrying. This backfired at a staggering rate. The evidence was right there in the back half of the year.

Also, my main argument isn't on the whole loading concept because it is what what it is. It simply didn't work last year. My main argument is coaching reluctance and stubbornness in resting players when needed.

This needs a massive tweak this year.

 

I don't think we were in the position to rest our key players 'dazz'... Geelong could do it because of the easy draw they had in the last part of the season, ours wasn't so kind plus midseason results meant we had to work for our top 4 spot.

The opportunity just didn't present itself.

In the end it was all for nothing.

Then again maybe not if lessons were learnt.

[rjay 23,888]

56 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

You mean round 20 like last year when you said this:

 

People are allowed to change opinions 'Nev'.

I think it's would be a good thing if more of us did when faced with critical evidence rather than hold an entrenched view and argue it to the death.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, rjay said:

People are allowed to change opinions 'Nev'.

I think it's would be a good thing if more of us did when faced with critical evidence rather than hold an entrenched view and argue it to the death.

But he hasn't changed opinions... that's the point.

[binman 37,967]

29 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

But they didn't though. Whilst all model of loading is different at each club, the bigger difference at Geelong compared to us last year was that Scott managed his senior players far more better then Goodwin did. 

Players were managed if they had a niggle whereas the Burgess philosophy (which Griffith obviously used) was to get players to fight through the pain barrier and play through whatever niggles they're carrying. This backfired at a staggering rate. The evidence was right there in the back half of the year.

Also, my main argument isn't on the whole loading concept because it is what what it is. It simply didn't work last year. My main argument is coaching reluctance and stubbornness in resting players when needed.

This needs a massive tweak this year.

 

You make a good point dazzler about the differences between the cats and dees' respective high performance programs. 

I'd argue that the model is basically the same, but each club has their own variation. 

The resilience philosophy of Burgess (and Griffiths?) being one such variation.

I don't have the expertise to assess that element of our model, which is why I don't really have a view on it. 

And I have no clue as to how much not using more players was a call by goody or was related to the philosophy employed by the high performance team.

There is also undoubtedly amy number of internal factors mixed up in that call.

For example, perhaps part of their calculation on selecting JVR was weighing up how likely it was his selection would help us win versus the impact selection might have on hid development as a player (eg making his debut in 2023, after another full preseason would be better for his development than getting smashed in a losing finals campaign).

That said, there was plenty of evidence last season in the should have rested players column.

And I share your frustration of not seeing more of Chandler and I thought it was really curious bowey spent so much time in the magoos.

And I would have loved them to pull the trigger on jvr- one because I can't wait to see him play AFL footy for us, and two because it was clear as day bb was struggling with his body and we needed another forward who could at least bring the ball to ground (melksham's early success as a defensive forward was probably a factor in not selecting jvr - which was unfortunate because he was poor in the finals).

 

 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

12 minutes ago, rjay said:

I don't think we were in the position to rest our key players 'dazz'... Geelong could do it because of the easy draw they had in the last part of the season, ours wasn't so kind plus midseason results meant we had to work for our top 4 spot.

The opportunity just didn't present itself.

In the end it was all for nothing.

Then again maybe not if lessons were learnt.

Geelong started the process mid-season, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't have started to manage payers when we were 10-1.

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Lord Nev

[rjay 23,888]

21 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Geelong started the process mid-season, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't have started to manage payers when we were 10-1.

 

Maybe, maybe not...

[rjay 23,888]

31 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

But he hasn't changed opinions... that's the point.

Then what was the point? the point or posting?

I'm a bit slow today...

[Dwight Schrute 16,749]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Geelong started the process mid-season, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't have started to manage payers when we were 10-1.

The Geelong strategy isn't without risk though, i understand it worked incredibly well for a team of over 30's but potentially for a younger side it could upset the balance and team chemistry so it's a tough one to balance. 

i think with those things they could do the exact same thing next season with totally different results, the reality seems to be winning a premiership requires so many small things to go right for you that it's almost out of your control. i think the top few teams are so close, that it almost comes down to luck in some ways. 

I do agree though that Simon Goodwin at times probably could reward strong Casey performances, a good example would be that Ben Brown in hindsight could have been replaced by Jacob Van Rooyen who despite being young, was clearly in much better form. 

 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

25 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

The Geelong strategy isn't without risk though, i understand it worked incredibly well for a team of over 30's but potentially for a younger side it could upset the balance and team chemistry so it's a tough one to balance. 

i think with those things they could do the exact same thing next season with totally different results, the reality seems to be winning a premiership requires so many small things to go right for you that it's almost out of your control. i think the top few teams are so close, that it almost comes down to luck in some ways. 

I do agree though that Simon Goodwin at times probably could reward strong Casey performances, a good example would be that Ben Brown in hindsight could have been replaced by Jacob Van Rooyen who despite being young, was clearly in much better form. 

 

Absolutely, the whole thing is a delicate balance hey? It can't be a set in stone rule I don't think, but does feel like we pushed too hard to one side last year. The contrast being the year before we didn't really 'manage' players and steamrolled through, just goes to show they perhaps need to be a little more flexible with the parts to the plan IMO.

And to be clear, I'm in no way a fan of resting numerous players per game or doing it all at once, but I definitely think we could have managed players like Gawn, Jackson, Lever, Brown and Salem better last year and perhaps rotated them through 1 at a time with a week or two off when it would have been beneficial.

Aside from the benefits of getting those key mature players a bit more cherry ripe, there's also that little energy bump you see sometimes when a new young player comes in for a game.

[sue 8,418]

Any chance the loading issue could be off-loaded into another thread?