titan_uranus

Would love to see GWS match the contract, if they can afford to do so, and force Geelong to trade for him. Never seems to happen though. It is what it is. Geelong's offering is different to all of the Melbourne clubs. I would prefer an AFL where this didn't happen, but most of the time the FAs go to clubs after they've already become successful. Geelong was nowhere in the mid-2000s but since 2007 have been managed well (both on and off field) and have developed a culture of sustained success. It might all end when Selwood, Hawkins, Taylor, Ablett and Dangerfield go in the next 1-4 years, but before then, they're going to keep challenging, and whilst they're challenging their unique lifestyle offering will continue to be a selling point. They have broken records for the age of the side they've fielded this year. Their list does have other younger players though: not currently playing are Atkins, Cockatoo, Parsons, Narkle, Z Guthrie, Ratugolea, Close, Fogarty, Constable and Jarvis (all of whom have debuted at AFL level and are all 25 and under). Question is, how many will they keep (there's been talk around Cockatoo, Narkle and Constable leaving) and are they any good? Hard to know given they don't get regular games.

I hope the OP's joking.

So what is an alternative to bringing in Smith and Brown? Keeping more of OMac, Hannan, ANB, Preuss, Bedford etc. (i.e. the players who were in-and-out of the side this year)? You describe them as "decent depth" - are they all? And are we going to get where we want to go by retaining them and not chasing players who could make our best 22 better? Or bringing in Phillips instead of Smith, for example? In the former, how does that help us? We're just continually trying to plug holes in our best 22 with players who aren't stepping up. In the latter, there's no difference - Phillips takes the spot on the list Smith would take (bear in mind we have to trade for him), and we still have to move on someone else.

This is a good point to make, I suspect many of us don't give this enough thought when contemplating the difference between Brownlow results and our B&F. Not only do we cast votes in losses, but we score every player after every loss. So, in our blowout loss to Port where the entire side struggled, the umpires wouldn't have given us much consideration at all, but our match committee had to find a number between 0-10 for Oliver, Viney and everyone else. (Although as an aside, we actually polled in almost all of our losses - Viney got 1 vs West Coast, Gawn got 2 vs Geelong, Gawn got 2 and Oliver got 1 vs Richmond, Oliver got 2 vs Brisbane, Gawn got 2 vs Sydney, Viney got 2 vs Fremantle. So the Port and Dogs losses were the only games all year where we didn't at least poll one vote).

Fyfe, Martin and Dangerfield are three of the last four winners prior this year (the other was Mitchell), and they're all traditionally high-polling players. They seem to attract votes even when they're not playing amazing football. It's an easy place to put early money if you're having a speculative bet this far out from Round 1 2021, I think. I wonder what Neale's odds were on the day after last year's Brownlow - he was equal third last year so maybe some thought he was a chance of being there abouts.

2016 Dustin Martin 25 Trent Cotchin 9 *Alex Rance 7 Ben Griffiths 4 Brandon Ellis 3 Jack Riewoldt 2 Shaun Grigg, Anthony Miles 1 2015 Dustin Martin 21 Trent Cotchin 17 Anthony Miles 9 *Brett Deledio, Alex Rance 8 Brandon Ellis 7 Shane Edwards 6 Taylor Hunt, *Ty Vickery 4 *Ivan Maric, Jack Riewoldt 3 Bachar Houli, Kamdyn McIntosh 2 2014 Trent Cotchin 18 Dustin Martin 13 *Brett Deledio 12 Brandon Ellis 9 Jack Riewoldt 7 Anthony Miles 4 Alex Rance 3 *Reece Conca 2 *Ty Vickery 1 2013 Trent Cotchin 19 Dustin Martin 16 Brett Deledio 10 Daniel Jackson 9 Brandon Ellis, Shaun Grigg, Bachar Houli 5 Jack Riewoldt 4 Aaron Edwards, Alex Rance, Matt White 2 Tyrone Vickery, Nick Vlastuin 1 They made finals 2013-15 but not 2016. But there's an obvious consistency: Martin and Cotchin. To be fair, two of their other A-graders during that time were Riewoldt and Rance, and forwards/defenders don't poll well.

None of those first six players have gone yet, and although I'm sure Preuss will go and probably at least two more, it's hardly "jettisoning". Remember, it doesn't look like we want to trade Preuss or Jetta (any rumblings around those players come from the players, not from the club). Funny that when Richmond lose players, they're "dud" or "old". Yet when we do, they're "close to best 22". "Close to" means "not really". And as to Smith, he's proven more in his career to date than Caddy or Nankervis had to the point where Richmond brought them in. The only key difference is he's nearly 32. I understand the risk that we take a 32-year old and his body breaks down, and if we can bring Phillips in then I'm all for it, but if he's not available or we can't afford him (bearing in mind we'd have to trade for Phillips but Smith is a FA) then Smith makes sense.

Neale's likely to win in a landslide. Petracca should poll well though.

Based on last night Brisbane may be looking to change up the ruck spot. Martin's been a warrior for them but he was terrible last night, soundly beaten in the ruck and around the ground. I haven't watched enough of Brisbane this year to know if that was just a one off or a continuation of a trend but he was thoroughly beaten in all facets of the game and it stood out. Hawkins only rucked the forward line, but the number of rucks Geelong used isn't the point, the point is Martin was really poor and their loss in the ruck contributed to their loss in the clearances. It will be interesting to see if he goes on again next year.

No better example of correlation vs causation than this. Oscar and Frost were, arguably, the biggest reason we didn't finish top 4 in 2018 and possibly have an even better crack at the finals.

"Jettisoning players left and right"? WTF? We're not Collingwood or GWS. Ridiculous way to describe our current list management strategy. To get Caddy, Prestia and Nankervis in the door, they traded out Deledio, had Vickery walk out in FA, Chaplin retired, and they had Yarran leave too (plus four others went out the door). Not sure of Yarran's impact on their salary cap but it's not like they lost no one to bring on those three players you mentioned. They had 8 players leave at the end of 2016. Was that "jettisoning players left and right"? And sure, Phillips might be a better option arguably than Smith, but no matter how optimistic or pessimistic you are, our list is primed to be challenging for a flag right now, not in 5 years. If we take Smith, the strategy is sound.

Do you have any actual knowledge of Mahoney's role in trading vs drafting? If not, your comment is classic. Your anti-Mahoney bias means he doesn't get your credit when he deserves it but will be the scapegoat for our mistakes, as that suits your argument.

This is fair. Hunt's career average stats are all equal or better than Hind in almost every relevant stat.

I was surprised to find that Hind and Higgins have similar career average statistics. They're both almost equal for goals, behinds, tackles, inside 50s, goal assists, disposal efficiency, and metres gained (Hind leads metres gained, Higgins leads the rest but all by 0.1 or 0.2 or so). Hind' lags behind in disposals, CPs and clearances, suggesting Higgins gets up the ground and into the middle more maybe?

Maybe we did, and he said "I'm only leaving GWS to go to Geelong". Who knows. The main point is I don't think it's wise or reasonable to get upset or frustrated when our name doesn't come up when the media discusses other players. Agree re: our strategy. But I think the general idea that you often have to pay "overs" to attract A-grade talent is correct, and IMO the argument that we pay "overs" too often is silly. Back to your post - I'm 100% in agreement that we don't need to find an elite player. We already have them. What we need is improvement from our group as a unit (no amount of trading or drafting is going to fix that), and improvement in our bottom 6.

I was more bullish than some about what Baker showed this year but if we can bring someone in to ensure Baker is a depth player, that makes us better. Both Smith and Phillips are better options for the non-Langdon wing in 2021. Bring one in, Baker becomes depth.

Yes - if you have mail, or you're suggesting you have mail, I think it's fair to indicate that. Separate yourself from those who are just speculating with their own opinions. It's true some (myself included from time to time) will question your sources, but if you do have a good source, I'd prefer to know when you're passing on info vs when you're just offering your own opinion.

For those of you who put stock in Tony Sheahan...

You would have thought so, but Tom Morris (grain of salt alert) who is the one breaking the story suggests he doesn't really want to leave Collingwood and would only "begrudgingly" consider moving to another Victorian team. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2020-afl-trades-adam-treloar-collingwood-gold-coast-brisbane-lions-kim-ravaillion-trade-news-talk-tom-morris/news-story/71fb040ad6795d36d3f76646929c4b68 FWIW he's a far better mid than he gets credit for, albeit he has dodgy hamstrings and is a poor kick. But he's fast and can torch opponents both inside and out.

Geelong's CEO this week: “We’re in the market big time at the moment for Jeremy Cameron. He’s struggling with making a decision. He’s a loyal bloke.

Geelong has a culture that is better than probably all 17 other clubs, that's undeniable and a testament to their management and leadership. They've also got some unique attributes that Melbourne-based clubs can't offer (e.g. not being in Melbourne, "country" lifestyle and associated cost of living benefits, etc.). We're not the only club who missed the finals who could use Jeremy Cameron. You also don't know what's been done by the club behind the scenes: again, the key issue is that the world doesn't work in a way that says we should be able to convince any given player to show up and play for us. IMO this is baseless, @Lucifer's Hero. Suggesting we were May, Lever, Langdon or Tomlinson's "only option left" is ridiculous and unfair. Suggesting the only players who come here don't "really want to play for us" is ridiculous and unfair. Complaining about paying "overs" is also unfair. How do you think Carlton has attracted Saad and Williams? Bucketloads of cash! Almost every club, if not every club, pays "overs" to attract A-grade talent from other clubs. May was in AA form this year. Lever is a previous AA squad member. Langdon showed enormous promise and made us a significantly better side this year. Those three acquisitions have been great. It's revisionism IMO to suggest we haven't able to attract good players over the last few years.

Good post. The bolded bit I think is worth considering in more depth. On game day we all get frustrated when our mids don't lower their eyes and kick to the pocket or to some other rubbish option. But there must surely be reasons why Fritsch consistently leads to the pocket (e.g. either he knows he can't get space anywhere else). The lack of good talls means that good sides (who we keep losing too), who have good defences, can zone off and focus on the few threats we have in the forward line. Our consistent use of B/C-grade medium forwards doesn't cut it.

Ravens, Packers, Rams for me. 49ers are cooked, I fear. Me too. So much.

Poor mark, no physicality and timid with ball in hand. Doesn't really scream "forward".

100% we should be interested.