Fat Tony

21 minutes ago, old55 said:

A floor of Parish and a ceiling of Merrett is a good pick-up. We don't have anyone like that.

Windsor will be like that. 

On 11/11/2024 at 18:49, binman said:

100% a good thing I reckon.

For one thing they don't have to worry about a second bye.

And we start a week later tha last year.

Givn we didn't make finals we have a full month longer break between seasons than we did at the start of the 2024 season.

For a team that looked tired, physically and psychologically, that can only be a good thing.

I think the second bye is an advantage, but playing an away game in the humid Northern states in March is the biggest problem with being in Opening Round.

I don't really put much blame on Pert for the club's recent issues but a key part of the role is to be the fall guy when things go pear shaped. That said, he is obviously a spin merchant and has not been successful in managing the various crises engulfing the club.

The facilities are really an issue because our history being tied to the MCG and because there is no key votes in government support for us. I think the Caulfield plan is going to be hard to get over the line given the cost and the state government's deficit, but hopefully it comes through.

The problems with Oliver have been 99% Clarrie's fault, but the way he was shopped around by the club was messy both times and Pert and the club were naive to think we could trade him for anywhere near to what we believe is fair value.

Petracca's issues have been mostly unlucky. I don't think the CEO is really to blame.

I don't place any fault on Pert for the drug issues.

Pert is not responsible for us going out in straight sets in 2022 and 2023.

Prove me wrong please Marty. 

4 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Collingwood did that this year because they ran out of forward options, with injuries to Mihocek and McStay. When they won the flag last year they had Mihocek, Cameron/Cox, and McStay. When McStay went down with injury they played Frampton as a forward in the GF. 

Last year Collingwood (with 3 tall forwards) were the 4th highest scoring team, this year (with only 2) they were 9th. 

Hawthorn played 3 tall forwards all year this year. 

Just because those teams also have good mediums and smalls, who played well, doesn't mean that they don't play a three tall forward line. The talls drag defences around and leave the holes for smalls to do damage. The small forwards don't operate in a vacuum, and a team without tall forwards just allows defences to sit back behind the ball. 

The important thing is that they aren't just one dimensional markers, but are able to work up and down the ground to take part in play either high or deep. That's what happened with Sydney (and, to an extent, Port) where they had too many forward that were just big, chest out, presenters rather than players that could work either at the ball or with the ball. It's where Petty and Turner fall down a bit, which can make our forward setup clunky (although much better than when we tried playing small).

 

An issue we have is that Fritsch really only plays well when he is our deepest forward. He gets lazy with his pressure up the field and  isn't as efficient as he should be when kicking inside 50. This means he really plays best as a key forward.

Petty and Turner have both shown the ability to play forward and back, which gives us flexibility.

Does Armstrong offer a huge point of difference to Turner, Fritsch and Jefferson? I am all for picking him if he can become Jeremy Cameron.

Armstrong looks to be very naturally skilled and coordinated, but he has an ordinary ground game and, with his light frame, there would have to be some doubts on his ability to get strong enough to out body AFL defenders. I think if we go this way, it is a bad sign on how we view Jefferson's prospects.

This thread would be better if it was merged with the Pick 9 thread given they are so close together and there is so much uncertainty about the top order of the draft. The strategy we adopt might also depend on who we expect to go at #6, #7 and #8.

Petracca really white anted the club in more ways than one this offseason.

Some other problems we have at the moment are that Connors has too much power and that we are viewed as lepers. 

We need to discreetly lobby the AFL to introduce anti-concentration measures in the player agencies, while doing everything we can to improve our relationship with Connors and co.

16 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Is there a priority with a f/s in the rookie list?

I think they changed the system so players can be Rookie listed ahead of the Rookie draft, so long as they were not bid on in the National Draft.

I never like the strategy in these trades. We are paying credit card interest and next year we will hear about how good the top end of the draft is.

Alix Tauru’s highlights look as good as any prospect in the draft. If recruiters think he will develop into a midfielder, he looks to be the full package.

Tauru and Smith might be the players with the fewest weaknesses. 

3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

That's definitely true, however when you have a top 5 pick your expecting that the midfielder you are drafting will be worthy of being frontline midfielder. It's not like we're drafting James Jordon with pick 5 and forcing him to play outside the centre square, we're clearly expecting to draft a better player than that. The only current player I'd say is a full time midfielder for us is Oliver, with Petracca and Viney both being potential forwards for us. Versatility is good but it's much more important for lesser players rather than the good ones because you want your good players near the ball as often as possible. 

Viney is not much of a forward IMO.

Given our list construct, with Petracca, Oliver, Viney and Pickett as good centre square players (assuming Oliver's hand heals) the perfect draftee for us would be a player who can play 2025 in a periphery role but can develop into a centre midfielder in future years. The Dogs drafted Rylie Sanders, who looks a centre midfield only, and they got limited value out of him this year as he wasn't able to play another role. By contrast, Windsor was able to play as a wing (or probably half back or half forward) and was more valuable this year.

I think the bigger centre circle and the 6,6,6 rule has made a difference in what types of midfielders do well at centre bounces and that skill and speed has become more important than grunt.

43 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

Yeah, those straight sets exits in 2021 and 2018 were brutal!

Goodwin is 5-5 in finals with a Premiership. Not great, definitely not bad. He has the same number of Premierships as Scott and Longmire in the last ten years but hasn’t lost the number of prelims, or the GF flogging’s those two have, is that preferable? 

Longmire has zero in the last decade.

I have come to realise how lucky we are to have Goodwin. One of our superstars has ADHD and addictive tendencies. And another is self centred. And neither of them can regularly hit a target inside 50. The whole playing group could have easily fractured and turned on each other with a poorer coach.

Surely the better strategy is to bring in a ready made replacement when Max is done, rather than take the risk of drafting a ruckman. 

21 minutes ago, mo64 said:

It really worked out well for us last year, lol.

We traded picks 14, 27 and 35 to get pick 11. Don't get me wrong, I like Tholstrup, but we could have got Darcy Wilson, Logan Morris, Shaun Mannagh, Lawson Humphries or Sam Clohessy with later picks. Instead we topped up our list with recycled hacks after re-signing Schache.

I have no faith in our list management.

 

We might have also been able to get Tholstrup with our original pick.

The whole concept of pushing up the draft is very expensive but it can be justified because we have been doing it to improve our team while we have Petracca, Gawn and Oliver in their prime. I am not sure that it holds anymore and, rather than paying credit card interest rates, I think we should be more willing to receive it.

55 minutes ago, RedFox said:

From the outside looking in all I saw from Clayton this season was that of somebody who was doing all the team things. He was getting around all of his teammates on the park, revelling in celebrating milestones, re-signings, playing a key role in the Kozzy doco. If he is a nightmare to work with, it certainly didn't appear that way on game day or in the media content put out by the club.

Even as recently in his podcast interview he spoke pretty well and seemed energised to attack this pre-season. Our skipper on radio this morning says he loves him as a player and even more as a person.

AFL footy is a 24/7 job, not just what happens on match day.

7 minutes ago, RedFox said:

If that is the absolute best deal we can extract, a pick which will in all likelihood be pick 15-18 (before academy, f/s etc) then I would be pulling up stumps now. Salary dump aside, it's a terrible outcome for our prospects over the next few years & strengthening a team we will be competing with for success while weakening ourselves.

People might say "But we can use that cash to chase another big name" - to which I would reply who in their right mind would want to play for us at the moment? Unless we offer almost double what any other clubs are to a big fish, all the clubs with stability off the field will land most of the best talent via trade and FA.

I think we are stuck with Clarry now, and must look to get him back to his best to save face. FWIW I love Clarry and think he has it in him to hit his stride again.

It might look a bad deal to you, but you don't know the full story and have to work with Oliver every day.

Just now, DubDee said:

Solid negotiation tactic

Geelong will roll us unless we play hard ball

I think we are effectively asking the Cats to put up their best offer by today or we will shut it down before the best and fairest. The media firestorm is too much for the club to handle for another 2 weeks. Either the Cats really want him and will pay his wage and give a 2025 first rounder or we will kiss and make up.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Remember this: trading Clarry for a packet of stale chips is always an option. 
Finding another talent like Clarry, is not. 

We might be able to trade him in the future, but we won't necessarily be able to clear his cap hit.

20 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I’m not down on the details of how player payments work, but why is cap space useful when we have no one on comparable money to trade in..?

Is the idea that we could then renegotiate other contacts so they’re front-ended and use the money another year??

 

Clubs can front load contracts, which can be used in subsequent years.

The draft is inefficient due to drafting U18s and clubs can can pick up high quality AFL players without premium picks.

The draft is inefficient due to the academy systems and father son.

With free agency and the power of the key player agents, player movement is easy.

8 minutes ago, old55 said:

The trade value Geelong gives and the amount of salary cap they pay are inversely proportional.

Decent draft pick and we pick up substantial salary

Later draft pick and they pay all the salary

I'd probably rather take a trade value hit than a salary cap hit,  but both have long term implications, a good draftee can give 12 years service.

Cap space is much more important.

29 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

27 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

We’ve instigated this. 

Which means we’ve lost the bargaining power to hold him. 

It’s, IMO, a monumental mismanagement of one of the 5 best players this club has ever had. 

I don't understand why everyone is blaming the club for taking this course of action. Without being inside the club, you don't really know how much of a detractor Oliver has been.

Oliver went off the rails last year because he was a DH. Not because of mismanagement. He has been guided and supported his whole adult life and he is still making terrible life decisions at 27. If anything, I would praise the club for being able to turn Oliver into such a wonderful player over the last decade despite his personality issues.

There was no way to orchestrate a trade without the media getting knowledge of it. The opposition clubs and Oliver's manager were always going to let it out to increase their bargaining power. The other clubs don't want to bring in a distraction on a huge wage.

The MFC's choices are either a terrible trade or stick with Oliver and his roughly $1.4m contract for the next 6 years. I hope we have the courage to walk things back if the offer is too outrageous, particularly in terms of dollars.