Chappy: Bargain basement trade (a pick we were never gonna use) and adds grunt
Goddard and Gwilt: Free agents cost us nothing in picks
Cooney: Late second rd pick and is a brownlow medallist
Gwilt was 10th in St Kilda’s B&F voting, to get him for nothing and already showing great skills is fantastic.
I dont reckon we are going to regret it. If anything, it adds experience to a much needed young side and makes these kids push harder to get a spot.
If form warrants it then they get a go simple. Steinberg is a great example of that. Just because they are young, doesn’t mean they automatically should warrant a game.
Chappy: Bargain basement trade (a pick we were never gonna use) and adds grunt
Goddard and Gwilt: Free agents cost us nothing in picks
Cooney: Late second rd pick and is a brownlow medallist
Gwilt was 10th in St Kilda’s B&F voting, to get him for nothing and already showing great skills is fantastic.
I dont reckon we are going to regret it. If anything, it adds experience to a much needed young side and makes these kids push harder to get a spot.
If form warrants it then they get a go simple. Steinberg is a great example of that. Just because they are young, doesn’t mean they automatically should warrant a game.
</blockquot
Good Post, if anything our young brigade can learn a lot in the next year or two from these experienced players on the training track where it counts the most.
We recruited 4 players who should each play 100+ games for the club. Langford, Laverde, Long and McKenna. Thats pretty good.
Look for a strategy of resting Fletch. He may only play 8-12 games this year. It will depend on injuries and matchups.
Other players to be rested every 4-5 games depending on injuries: Winders. Chappy, ■■■■, BJ, Stanton
This will give plenty of options for younger players to come in and get games under their belt.
[i]Should[/i]???
Gumby should have made 200. Hislop and Jetta went for 18 and 20, pretty similar to Laverde and Langford, and hardly impacted. Kav was #19, Pears early twenties. The idea that 4 players out of 5 drafted should make it (3 drafted in the rookie draft) is pretty optimistic. And would be an amazing draft.
OK guys, what I suggested has been done before . Geelongs 2001 draft netted Bartel (259), Kelly (250), Johnson (224), Ablett (268)
But clearly that was a complete fluke. Pure chance. The 2001 draft probably won 3 premierships for Geelong.
I was wrong. I was way over the top with my prediction. In the 80s, 90s,and 00s, on average only 25 % of Essendon recruits make it to 100 games. So out of the 4 players mentioned: Laverde, Langford , Long and McKenna, only 1 will make it to 100 games based on historical recruitment performance.
However, we may do better than that, unless we have an ongoing buy in of free agents and trades indefinitely. If we press reset in 2017 more than one of the the young players brought in this year may get to play 100 games during the rebuild ( barring injury).
We probably will regret it somewhat because this group is unlikely to win a Premiership, but it's worth the gamble because we are at least some chance of winning one. On average Premierships are win every 18 years. We've got a two year window to get it done, and I think we have the demographics and class to at least get in the top four. If you make the top four, anything can happen. I'd say we are a one in five chance of playing in a Grand Final next year or the year after. A lot of things would have to go right for us to win one. After all, it has been over 10 years since we've even won a final. But I believe you should throw everything at it when the window opens, and that is what we have done.
The cost is that the likes of Chapman, Gwilt, Cooney, Giles, Goddard and McKernan are filling list spots that would otherwise be occupied by young prospects, and they are likely to play 300 odd games that we could be getting into youngsters. Of that lot, Cooney cost us a second rounder and Giles a third rounder. The other four would have effectively been replaced by late draft picks. Say you’re a 50/50 chance of finding a player with a second/third rounder, and a one in four chance with a late pick, the odds are that we have missed out on two good young players compared to if we had never picked up any of those mature players and focused on youth. When you consider the role the the likes of Goddard and Chappy in particular have in developing young players, I’d say the long-term cost is minimal at it has been a worthwhile exercise.
@NickyD I think Gwilt will give us flexibility rather than replace anyone. He can either line up as a third tall defender or third tall forward but has has the mobility and flare to be attacking in either role and has a terrific kick.
I personally see our 22 changing from game to game so the whole best 22 is floored as your opposition really dictates that. Having said that I see our most regular 22 that will push us towards a top four position as:
I’m personally not yet sold on Ambrose but excited what he can do given it’s only his second season. I also think Hocking may struggle this year given he’s coming from a long way back.
It’s exciting that all of the above doesn’t include prospects like Laverde, Langford, Edwards, Ashby, Fantasia, Long and McKenna who I think will get chances as Fletcher, Chapman and Winderlich are rested.
In addition to all of the above there’s still a lot unknown about Kommer, Hams, Browne, O’Brien, Aylett, McKernan and Kavanagh who all could be anything and may surprise us and break into a regular senior spot.
It’s probably only Dalgliesh and Steinburg who I struggle to see pushing for a senior spot this year. Not because they are no good, just because there are so many in front.
Interestingly I’m not sold on Ambrose yet either fantastic workrate, effort and endurance just his speed is a concern.
Also on Dempsey I hope he makes it his year otherwise I too have him overtaken.
2nd pre-season in a row Dempsey has rocked up with extra weight and looking unfit. Bomber and the leadership group punished him for leaving him out till ANZAC Day.
Do you guys reckon Hirdy will do the same or start him in round 1 because he’s usually starting 18?
Just on Melksham - I think he is currently severely overlooked as a player following his admittedly ordinary year. IMO will have a great career at Essendon and I have confidence he will sort out his form (confidence). Have a look at his best football and it is outstanding - tough, runs the lines, good overhead, takes risks to create play and goes long and direct by foot. I believe he is is capable of match-winning\turning performances - and he is still very young. I just think there has not been enough patience with the kid. His ‘value’ is probably at a career low but I am still well and truly on the bandwagon.
Just on Melksham - I think he is currently severely overlooked as a player following his admittedly ordinary year. IMO will have a great career at Essendon and I have confidence he will sort out his form (confidence). Have a look at his best football and it is outstanding - tough, runs the lines, good overhead, takes risks to create play and goes long and direct by foot. I believe he is is capable of match-winning\\turning performances - and he is still very young. I just think there has not been enough patience with the kid. His 'value' is probably at a career low but I am still well and truly on the bandwagon.
Agree with most of this, although it’s probably hard to argue there hasn’t been enough patience with him.
Hopefully they can find the same key to unlocking that form he showed in the second half of 2013.
Goddard, Champman, Cooney and Gwilt came at the net cost of pick 37 and a token late rounder that no-one was ever going to use. If they had already been Essendon players and we had just had a couple of quietish draft and trade periods I don’t think anyone would be complaining about the state of the list.
Giles is of course a direct replacement for Ryder and McKernan was the last pick in the rookie draft.
Just on Melksham - I think he is currently severely overlooked as a player following his admittedly ordinary year. IMO will have a great career at Essendon and I have confidence he will sort out his form (confidence). Have a look at his best football and it is outstanding - tough, runs the lines, good overhead, takes risks to create play and goes long and direct by foot. I believe he is is capable of match-winning\\turning performances - and he is still very young. I just think there has not been enough patience with the kid. His 'value' is probably at a career low but I am still well and truly on the bandwagon.
Jake has played nearly 100 games. Many of these in a side that was making 6-7 or 8 th in the competition, so he is not a bad player. He had a form slump for an unknown reason. I agree, he needs to be considered in 2015. Its up to him. What he shows in the pre-season will determine if he lines up in the best 22.
Goddard, Champman, Cooney and Gwilt came at the net cost of pick 37 and a token late rounder that no-one was ever going to use. If they had already been Essendon players and we had just had a couple of quietish draft and trade periods I don't think anyone would be complaining about the state of the list.
Giles is of course a direct replacement for Ryder and McKernan was the last pick in the rookie draft.
Every year 3-4 main list players get delisted, plus a couple of rookies. Say the club wants to bring in one mature age player each year to add class or address needs. If a mature player gives us 2-3 years, then you are only looking at around 4 mature guys on a list of 44. That still leaves 2-3 main list recruits and 2 rookies a year to bring young talent into the side. Sure there’s a chance that the player you could have drafted at pick 87 would be awesome, but what are the chances that four pick 87s would outperform four handpicked veterans?
It’s basically a risk minimisation strategy. If the price is right and the player improves the senior team, then you don’t have to put a kid on the field and hope they don’t get overwhelmed, injured or just can’t play at the level.
The downside with playing the kids less is that their development suffers. As long as the development coaches are performing well (which we seem to be putting a lot of effort and money into) and we don’t do a Fremantle (never play kids at all), it’s something that can be managed.
There’s some good replies in here. The more I think about it the more I think it’s just smart list management, topping up is more of a media buzzword
I think the only examples of topping up would be Gwilt and Cooney. Basically we’ve brought them (known factors, potential to decline) into the club rather than pick kids who “could be anything in a few years”. Giles is different as we needed a mature ruck to replace judas.
I think keeping Fletch, Winderlich and Chappy on the list confirms that we are going to have a proper crack at a flag in 2015/16. If we weren’t there wouldn’t be much point in keeping them on the list if we were building towards 2017 and beyond.
Still, we are developing a fair few kids and this should happen quickly with experienced guys in the team, and with the depth and maturity we have we should play deep into the season and not be forced to rush players back.
We know we are a good side, whether or not we can win a flag depends on how much the younger guys can improve. Zerret and Joey D will be at around 50 games come finals this year and Carlisle will have had nearly 50 games as a forward.
We haven’t given up any draft picks for them, have we?
All of those you mention could quite possibly be in a grand final side, and that’s the test. A top team needs a mix; in 2000 we had Michael Long and Dean Wallis in there, who were at the tail end of their careers, as well as Ramanauskas in his first year and other young players as well as Lloyd, Lucas, Hird, Misiti, Mercuri and a whole host of others who were in their prime.
We’re nowhere near the 2000 side in talent, but having two or three old-timers in there won’t hurt, so long as they’re really earning their places. What we really need is a first-year star with pace to break lines.
We haven't given up any draft picks for them, have we?
All of those you mention could quite possibly be in a grand final side, and that’s the test. A top team needs a mix; in 2000 we had Michael Long and Dean Wallis in there, who were at the tail end of their careers, as well as Ramanauskas in his first year and other young players as well as Lloyd, Lucas, Hird, Misiti, Mercuri and a whole host of others who were in their prime.
We’re nowhere near the 2000 side in talent, but having two or three old-timers in there won’t hurt, so long as they’re really earning their places. What we really need is a first-year star with pace to break lines.
We recruited 4 players who should each play 100+ games for the club. Langford, Laverde, Long and McKenna. Thats pretty good.
Look for a strategy of resting Fletch. He may only play 8-12 games this year. It will depend on injuries and matchups.
Other players to be rested every 4-5 games depending on injuries: Winders. Chappy, ■■■■, BJ, Stanton
This will give plenty of options for younger players to come in and get games under their belt.
[i]Should[/i]???
Gumby should have made 200. Hislop and Jetta went for 18 and 20, pretty similar to Laverde and Langford, and hardly impacted. Kav was #19, Pears early twenties. The idea that 4 players out of 5 drafted should make it (3 drafted in the rookie draft) is pretty optimistic. And would be an amazing draft.
OK guys, what I suggested has been done before . Geelongs 2001 draft netted Bartel (259), Kelly (250), Johnson (224), Ablett (268)
But clearly that was a complete fluke. Pure chance. The 2001 draft probably won 3 premierships for Geelong.
I was wrong. I was way over the top with my prediction. In the 80s, 90s,and 00s, on average only 25 % of Essendon recruits make it to 100 games. So out of the 4 players mentioned: Laverde, Langford , Long and McKenna, only 1 will make it to 100 games based on historical recruitment performance.
However, we may do better than that, unless we have an ongoing buy in of free agents and trades indefinitely. If we press reset in 2017 more than one of the the young players brought in this year may get to play 100 games during the rebuild ( barring injury).
I like your reasoning a little bit but, I am of the opinion that it is a bit useless to compare drafts and the consequences from so long ago. The types of athletes that were sought after in, yes, it has to be said, the olden days, is very different to the type of athlete everyone seems to be looking for today. I believe our recruiting people are on the money.
What is a myth is that having kids=becoming good in a few years.
We exist to win flags, not to look to the future and hope. There is a reason the tops teams stay where they are. They know that now counts, not next year.