deanox

We have poor foot skills and exceed at contested ground ball. Anything that increases player fatigue will reduce skill execution, decreasing the gap between us and the opposition. More skill errors means more ground ball and stoppages, which suits us. It will mean we need to restructure our zone defence, and it might be harder for midfield to get back and help defence, but could make players who are good at leaving their man to be a third man in defence like Lever (and OMac) have a big role to play

I remember reading an interview with TMac in late 2018 (I think) where he talked about sometimes getting mentally bogged down by structures and how sometimes Goodwin would give him licence to run and roam through the midfield or the wings for 5 minutes to get some ball, and find his mojo, before heading back forward. I do wonder how much the shortened quarters affected that this year and also whether not having Casey meant that he didn't have the opportunity to "find his own form".

I think trading up is only considered if you have a very specific target, and you think there is a measurable difference in quality between the players you expect available. So perhaps in 2020 the top 12 are expected great prospects, but in 2021 its the top 20 before a drop away. Or perhaps there are 5 really good outside mids in the draft pool but all are expected to go in the top 15, leaving inside mids and utilities to round out the top 20. In that case, it may be worth trading up on a needs basis, but increasing risk.

Because it groups 11-20 you might find that 18-20 is a bit worse, but not by much. Also games played is a good metric, but doesn't tell us about the quality of those games. I don't know if a difference is measurable.

With those picks there is historically a 50% chance of getting a 100 game player across all drafts. So two picks is better than a single pick 15 next year (assuming we finish 4th, as they are clearly backing themsleves). https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison

Different ages, and there are a lot more rumours around about Cripps going back to Perth than Oliver leaving Melbourne too.

Big call that I haven't seen reported anywhere. Where is this from?

It is a reasonable concern, but I think because there are fair arguments both ways, and we don't know the decision process, we need to trust that they weighed the risks and got it right. Getting two top 20 players in this year could be better than getting a single top 20 player next year (e.g. finish fourth and we'd have effectively traded pick 15 for 18 and 19). Getting two top 18 and 19 instead of just one pick "doubles" our chances of finding a player who makes it. Is the draft lower quality? Reportedly. But does that mean there are less players or that the players aren't as good. I feel like the later could be true for the top 5-6, but otherwise it is just a matter of depth, so more chances is better. Is getting players now instead of next year better than getting one next year because it gives us the extra year of development to these players and our list? Can we trade back into the 1st round next year, just like we did this year? Using a 2022 draft picks, any players that decide to leave or we decide to move on? Does reducing list sizes in future years mean that we plan on taking less picks in 2022 and 2023, thus meaning next year we are willing to package our 2021 2nd and 3rd to upgrade to an early 2nd. Then package our 2022 2nd with the 2021 2nd to move into the mid first and have a top 15 pick again when we only plan on using 2 picks? Etc. Edit: re trust they got it right: they don't always. Sometimes we acknowledge that. But in this case it is pretty balanced so claiming it was a bad decision is based on emotion.

How many clubs play winger/taggers? I wonder if Harmes run with skills would work on players like Gaff, Hunter, Menegola, Daicos, etc. or if he'd lack the aerobic capacity to keep up? Even for short bursts it could really disrupt opposition game plans, by removing their outside accumulator and "get out" option from their moves. He could then drift forward to the HFF to rest and someone else could man the wing in a more traditional role.

I heard that rumour too. But if that's true it is a really easy and honest thing for Collingwood to say publicly. Perhaps it was more like "Treloar asked if that was possible, Collingwood said no, Treloar said ok no worries I'm just asking, Collingwood decided his wife going to Qld was a risk, tried to trade him."

Yeah I agree. When you are so old, but still a challenger of course you roll the dice to snare one. But 3 first round picks could have set them up for another decade. I am not sure that Cameron was worth THAT much to them.

It may have been so that the Clarry extension could have been signifivantly front loaded (ie offer overs next year when we need to pay it to someone as part of an extension). Its clear that backended is a danger for everyone.

End result is: Out: - Fringe players Press and Hannah out - Pick 62, pick 63 out - Downgrading 23 to 28 and 47 to 50. For: - Brown. - Upgraded all 2021 picks (fingers crossed on 2nd round) And we traaded out our 2021 first for 2020 pick 18 and 19. Definite wins across the board. Next year's first for 18 and 19 is the most controversial, but we'll see what happens. We didn't get unders, and if we prefer this then its a win.

With their aging list, it is going to take more than 2 top picks at the end of 2021. It's not the most up to date this playing list is but by the time next year rolls around 11 players are 30 and a handful more are 28+.

That's a weirdly specific thing with no precedent to suggest unless you had some knowledge.

Correct 25 and 28 are worth 1433 or about pick 10. Pick 14 is 1161. So either this, or we know we are after the same player as North so trumped them.

If they have any brains they will move away from x years at $Y dollars, and start talking salary cap percentages. Maybe not for the whole contract, but for the future years which exist say 2-3 years away or after the next EBA. For the bigger contracts anyway.

Potentially not a bad strategy from Mahoney. Brown nominated us. He isn't talking to any other clubs. He isn't going back to North. We can do every other deal then do this at the end, as North doesn't have much bargaining power. That way we can do what we want to with everything else (ie picks, players etc.) then offer what's left: as long as it is a reaaonable offer they'll take it.

The no lodging deals thing is rubbish. How many deals get held up or missed because instead of lodging at 10am they have to wait til 3pm so leave it open.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a 3 party brinkmanship game going on. For example: Melb wants to trade with the dogs, points for 14. They have entertained this but Kangas have offered a better deal points wise. Unfortunately, the kangs deal is dependent on the Brown deal with us. So we want to deal with Dogs first, then North. Dogs want us to deal with North first, so they can trade with North. We are holding firm and refusing the higher picks to North right now. If that's correct we have the upper hand, because Dogs lose all if we don't buckle and both deals fall through. But this does require us to hold firm until the Dogs buckle first or the Kanga's buckle to us first (desperate to get something for Brown). We may blink first and make the swap, but that will only be if a) we find another trade with the other picks that we think is better then no deal with the Dogs, so cut and run reducing overall risk (ie lesser outcome but no risk of no deal) or b) if we believe that this holdup is preventing us making other trades e.g. due to salary cap uncertainty, other picks or players, or other trades that need the Dogs or North to come to the party etc.

I guess we could infer a couple of different long games here: - Positioning ourselves for a strong 2021 and 2022 draft (always a good strategy, but surely secondary to finals in those years) - Positioning ourselves for the expected list and salary cap decreases over the next 2-3 years to avoid a Collingwood type cap crunch or a GC type list crunch while also doing the following: --- Positioning ourselves to re-sign Oliver and other OOC players through trade moves now (definitely makes sense) --- Positioning ourselves to recruit (by FA or trade) certain targets at the end of 2021 (very realistic given i) we need to have the money and picks to do it, ii) that those players will probably improve our chances in 2022 more than kids we draft next week, and iii) these things seem to start planning a few years out). We have been very smart operators in list management recently. We haven't lost players who we didn't open the door for. We have targeted recruits a long way out. The concept of a 3 year trade and draft strategy is something I hope and expect we have, but there are obviously some clubs who don't. With the looming cap and list crunches and the aging of Geelong, WC Collingwood and even PA lists, there is much to be said for making sure we are ready to grab the opportunity as it presents in 2021-2023 rather than selling the farm for 2021. Obviously this is reliant on believing we have a relatively atrong core list which is capable of competing, which the club seems to believe.

You have read into this what you wanted to. The initial information you read was half rumours as reported. It could have been that they wanted 23 plus a player, or 23 plus next years 2nd. Also Mahoney said “I don’t think it’ll be a first rounder (we’ll be giving up) for Ben Brown,”. Giving up 2 second rounders or a points equivalent 1st is not the same. He is saying we wouldnt give up our first pick (this year or next) and we wouldnt trade out to get a first only to give that up. Ben Brown for 33 and Preuss (pick 31). We are bloody laughing if that's the case. The key here is that we obviously want to do something else wirlth those picks too. So can we do 26 and 33 and still get it done? Or does it need to be 31 and 33?

Need your tall forwarda to apply pressure othwrwise they'll walk it out of there.

I think we are saying similar things. It is definitely a good outcome for you. But the balance isn't horrible in that if you get pick 1, you get nothing else that year except re-rookieing or 65+ speculative picks. So while its a great outcome, it also forces eggs in basket. Previously if you could stock up you could theoretically get pick 1 for a couple of 2nd rounders then still take picks in the 30s and 40s. I would be inclined to support it if points only counted for that round and the next. So pick 1 could only take points from 1st and 2nd and otherwise carried over to next years 1st and 2nd round. You get the discount for development, but it does hit you in the pointy end.

Cheers mate. I thought I'd do a quick analysis. Lets assume a club finishes 8th and therefore gets picks 11, 29, 47, 65 and 83. Let's say they need 5 players this draft, and the club has an academy selection rated at no. 1. When the bid comes at 1, they'll pay 3000 minus 20% or 2400 points. That means they'll lose 11 (1329 points), 29 (653 points), 47 (316), and 65 (90). 2388 points in total. Pick 83 is worth 0 points. So they'll get pick 1, then all other picks will get pushed to the final rounds, and they'll have a 12 point deficit next season. While it is a boon to get pick 1, it doesn't actually seem that unfair, because basically you get that pick and then only the bottom. And if they game it to have less then 4 list spots, they are forced into significant deficit (which comes off their first pick) next year (only 2 list spots would push their deficit by 412 points, meaning next years pick 11 goes to pick 20).