List build - where are we going in the next 10,000 posts?

Based on our current list below is age profiles and potential team in 3 years. Three years is obviously arbitrary and I have projected a little but it certainly highlights the core group.

As we know the big risks are KPF as currently it’s Jones, Hunter, Voss or potentially Reid and two of them don’t have contracts. Also there is risk around Setterfield holding down a significant midfield role.

McGrath (28) McKay (29) Cox (24)
Redman (29), Ridley (27) A.Davey (22)
Durham (25), Setterfield (28) Martin (25)
Perkins (24) Jones (25), Merrett (30)
Menzie (23), Wright (30) Langford (29)

Draper (27) Hobbs (23), Parish (29)

Tsatas (21), Bryan (24), Caldwell (25)

Reid (24), Laverde 29), Hayes (21), Baldwin (24), J. Davey (22), Guefli (29), Hunter, Voss (23), Wanganeen (22), D’ambrossio (23),

Gone - Stringer, Heppell, Weideman, Snelling, Shiel, Kelly, Hind

Overall a solid mix that lacks star factor. Although we have seen Langford develop into an A grader and of course the unlikely rise of Martin. Perhaps we find more A graders from Draper, Hobbs, Perkins, Tsatas, Bryan, Cox, Durham. We do however need to nail the next few drafts.

6 Likes

McGrath and Wright?

Absolutely not. I’d rely more on Hobbs to have a more consistent effort/impact.

What are you considering “consistent quality game”? I mean for FFs, I suspect there aren’t more than 2 in the league who would meet that criteria year in, year out. In fact, most forwards won’t due to the nature of the job. Backs will get beaten - does someone need to win every week to count?

Because I suspect the level Blitz uses to rate our own players would mean not more than a handful of players league wide would meet this criteria.

2 Likes

If I was doing Collingwood I would say

De Goey
Daicos
Daicos
Moore
Maynard
Crisp
Mihocek
Elliot
Quaynor
Pendlebury
Sidebottom

1 Like

I would drop Redman off your list
McGrath always turns up & always puts in but his quality of contribution isn’t at the top level

1 Like

You need to have a look at the behind the play clips highlighted on the Sunday footy show and maybe Classified where McGrath has multiple times followed his man into the midfield only to allow him to sprint back and either kick a goal or be involved in one while he is slowly jogging back.

7 Likes

So list changes

Retire - Phillips, walla
Delist - Stewart, Lord, Montgomerie
Trade - Massimo, Zerk, Shiel

8 changes if add Snelling that makes 9

add Hunter, McKay, Gresham, Goldy, one of Wines/Thomas/Steele

That leaves 4 picks in the draft, seems a bit much, Keep VOSS.

1 Like

McBride too.

Yeh and Munkara but Cat B and likely add Eyre as a half back and another if make it through the draft…

1 Like

I think Hunter and Voss are safe now.

But I can’t see us going deep in the draft. Expect some more mature players to come in.

Maybe James Jordon? Do we look at Bonner if no other HBF available?

2 Likes

I think we add one or two more experienced players

Ideally a Steele/Wines type.

Jordon adds depth but better offer from Dogs.

if we miss on a inside mid, maybe we will look to add more leadership to Forwardline or at Half back.
at half back Nathan Wilson been delisted- spent all season at the Peel Thunder (rosa) is 30, but adds depth and experience to half back and another indigenous player for Dreamtime.

Fantasia / Wingard are likely free hits as cost nothing but add experience and will likely be on injury list so gives us a mid season draft pick or in Wingardds case SSP

Has signed to stay at Hawks.

2 Likes

Montgomerie, D’Ambrosio, Hunter & Voss are all rookies.

Yes, we open up list spots. But if we’re going to the draft with those list spots, it will be the Rookie draft/SSP.

The fact we have 2 rookies who have been delisted. And Baldwin upgraded, that’s already 3 spots open on the Rookie list.

IMO Hunter and Voss are must keeps now.

2 Likes

Sam Draper at Greensborough Plaza this morning. Anyone would think he won the Brownlow with the crowd here :blush:

We can go with 4 rookies and increase the main list to 38.

Last year we went with 36 main and 6 rookies.

1 Like

There is also a chance that Hunter and Voss don’t sign until the end of pre-season, and they’ll compete with ‘train on’ players for the rookie spots.

1 Like

That is actually a very good idea.
Very risky.

I suspect Voss will request a trade next week once his contract is up.

1 Like

Yes they could, however they need to nominate for the draft and get passed by for them try for SSP with us

1 Like

It’s implied when you’re measuring drafting performance via measures that use team success. Unless team success is only dependent on drafting performance, using measures that reflect team success is going to give you results that are scoring drafting performance based on performance in non-drafting areas.

The difference is those teams can go out and attract other good players. GWS lost Cameron, they recruited Hogan. Richmond and Geelong had no second key forward, they got Lynch and Cameron. Geelong’s finals presence was sustained by getting Dangerfield. We couldn’t attract anyone of note while the saga hung over us. From 2013-2017 the only players we got were fringe, on the fringe of retiring, or broken players.

The idea that top teams have all this depth to cover top players I think is (most of the time) dubious. Few teams can easily replace top players in their side unless its a youngster coming through, because otherwise those players would be in their best 22, or get poached.

The issue with changing coaches is it impacts your list management (as different coaches have different goals), impacts things like development coaching, and the whole setup. There is no doubt one of the reasons we performed so badly in 2015 was due to what had happened on the coaching front, similar to Collingwood and Buckley/2020 turnover impacting on the 2021 performance.

One potential coach said this, after we’d finished 4th last, 2nd last, 5th last (ironically getting a single top 5 pick from those finishes who then got injured) the previous three years. We were in that position because we were coming off having a period of success, where the CEO had stuffed the salary cap, we’d had late picks due to finishing position, had picks stripped due to draft penalties, had Sheedy deciding some picks. Like Brisbane did after us, Hawthorn did after their challenge, and numerous others.

Yes, the list was weak then. Due to (again): coming off having a period of success, the CEO had stuffed the salary cap, we’d had late picks due to finishing position, had picks stripped due to draft penalties, had Sheedy deciding some picks, and key injuries to guys like Rama and Winders who should have been the new midfield.

A second potential coach disagreed. Where were the host of other coaches (head and assistant) making this call that the drafting had been poor?

Well, that’s just your opinion.

My opinion? For part of both 2012 and 2013 we were in or equal top 4, with injuries/saga stuffing us both years. Without the saga, we probably strengthen in 2013 and 2014, instead of falling away. It is quite conceivable we would have been pushing through the 2013 - 2017 period without the saga and with better injury management (which was clearly stuffed as it what is led to the saga; the club acknowledged they’d been managing injuries and fitness badly).

So again, why weren’t they all crying out this was the case and demanding a new recruiting team be put in place?

I’ve never said that AA are a perfect measurement tool. Quite the reverse. Yes, an issue with it is that counting number of AAs is distorted by team success and by elite players. Removing them may significantly reduce the pool of data to draw on, but is still better than keeping that bias in the data.

Yes you did. Copied below. When listing the quality of players picked in the drafts, being a premiership player was one of your criteria/proofs of success. Either being a premiership player matters or it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

Maybe going back and realising where the thread of a topic began would be useful? You wrote this, I said I don’t rate using premierships to evaluate recruiting, you replied and we ended up here.

Yes, it does. Because plenty of plodders have won premierships while brilliant players have not. It has no correlation to how good it was to recruit someone, beyond the player met a very base floor level of ability.

Ham is a really good example. Melbourne, in 2020 offseason, wanted Ham. If he’d chosen them over us, he might have a premiership medal. There were plenty of other plodders who did for that Melbourne team across the small-forward/midfield depth position which is where Ham played. Melbourne presumably thought there was a good chance they’d play him if they wanted to poach him.


I’m going to draw a line here. This took over an hour to write up a reply, which is why I stopped following the Dodoro thread. It took too much time to respond. I think we’re mostly going around in circles now anyway.

We have effectively lost all our depth in one go.