Negativity? LOL. In Bevo we trust!

[Twodogs]

I do, but we were the youngest team to take the field nearly every week last season and we will be younger again next season, so the positive is we will win the youngest team dick measuring contest amongst the supporters of teams that aren't competing for anything else.

I guess you could find a negative in that nearly every part of our strategy seems to revolve around natural improvement as the players get older (goal kicking, injury rates, team cohesion) yet we exit a number of mature players every season and replace them with teenagers from the draft, but we're supposed to be blindly positive, so I'll overlook that inconvenient fact.

Maybe I just don't get as excited as some about the shiny new toy of a bunch of untried kids coming in from the draft. Mostly because I know the reality is half won't make it, a quarter will be battlers, which leaves a quarter (or 1-2 players in real terms) who'll be quality. Adding some mature known quality players would be a massive benefit to the list, but with the way we manage our public relations and our clinical phobia of paying a premium for good players, that's really only an option for other clubs.

Don't forget luck. We need some luck, or we need not to be unlucky more to the point.

It's bullshit. Ask him how many GF's Kelvin Templeton played in.

Funny thing is I tend to agree, grand finals make the reputation of a player. Earlier in the year GVG suprised me when he and I were discussing who the better player out of Royce Hart and Buddy Franklin was and he said Buddy. My opinion was Hart had it all over Buddy due to his better GF record. But other things like Brownlows and Coleman medals count as well.

Anyway you could have relied on KT to win you a premiership, I know that you could have because he was the sort of player who would get you over the line. He just couldn't drag 19 other players over the line week after week.

[Grantysghost]

I think the answer is far more thoughtful and nuanced than pure winning, losing or positive/negative. I will do my best to explain what I mean.

The October-November period is trade and draft. The overall rating has to be overall. But Act 1 Trade, and Act 2 Draft can be independtaly assessed. So the overall period is yet to be determined. The trade period I don't think was a huge success. The old adage is you draft the best, and trade for need. The outgoing players compensation/trade didn't serve a current deficiency in the playing list. Of the incoming, I don't think I can say Duryea addressed a need, but Lloyd addresses one at a lower level. So we weren't able to address our list needs in a substantive way. At the same time, we didn't piss pick 7 away despite bullshit offers trying us on (nice try WCE/Geelong). We didn't stock up on list cloggers trying to satisfy the media pundits that we were aggressive. Missing Wingard did suck, no sugar coating it. I don't mind the Adams trade, we got our initial investment back and probably 200+ draft points next year. Dahl for 27 wasn't too far off the mark considering the AFEL manipulated the compo last year for Geelong and Ablett. Two wrongs wouldn't make a right, just highlights the corruption within this process and the AFEL. I guess the intangible factor is Dahl is gone to piss and moan on Instagram elsewhere and Adams can be miserable about his current club at another club. While doing the right thing by Roughy, a good club man. Culture is a factor too to a degree.

So all up we didn't address the needs as discussed. But we did strengthen our draft hand this year and next year, which is good considering we have West, Khamis, Kellett & Liberatore as potential linked players. Not inspiring but it's par. I don't think it's time to microwave our 2019 memberships, but I wouldn't do the opposite (putting it in the freezer?).

But we are at the intermission heading into Act 2. This is where we can take it from a par by 9th (moving to a golf metaphor), to well under par by the clubhouse. Pick 7 will be a very good player. West coming in guarateed, the high liklihood of Khamis coming in and a pick from 32-53 be it best available/Will Hayes/need based pick brings in the high end talent we desperately need to add in. Pick 7 sounds like a KPF (King), small forward (Rozee) or midfielder (various) - plus West (midfield/forward) & Khamis (athletic rebounder) (maybe Hayes in a Gowers like forward/pinch hit midfield role). So we are addressing needs, unfortunately on the slow version of development and not ready made. If draft night has West going 18+ and Khamis 35+, then the entire period will huge for the club. Which it could.

The other thing is, we've (as I understand it) rolled the Simon Dalrymple called 'Hurley Money' and we didn't commit this year to a Wingard or May. Plus we've cleaned out potential salaries of Dahl, Roughy & Adams (who would've been on OK coin too) (Redders, Biggs, Smith etc too). We may well be on the bare minimum salary cap level this year I'd say. This should allow us to sign Bontempelli to a long term generous deal, sign up the list of kids we need to sign and then still have a shot next trade period at a Kelly type - in addition to Kellett & Liberatore next year and our extra third rounder to use from Adams. Things look very positive on this salary cap front this year and beyond.

It's not all bad, it's not all good, so far as the trade period goes. But it's overall only half way through the round. But nail draft night, develop the kids (I think West could surprise like Dunkley's first year), sign up those we want signed up, headlines by Bontempelli and head into trade and draft period in 2019 with renewed vigour. So yes, we are par to maybe 1 under right now. But the wind is dying down and the opportunity to end the round 4-5 under is there for us. I can understand both the frustrated view and the very optimistic view, they're both right and wrong in a paradoxical sense to me. There's a lot of nuance and grey in between. The trade wasn't great, but it has allowed the draft to be potentially great with a couple of mature depth players and culture fixes. Before I put my membership in the freezer, I want to wait for the draft. But even the pessimist in me, feels quite positive about draft night and what it means going forward.

Possibly the most sensible post I've ever read on a forum. Great work BT!

[mjp]

If we were talking about glory you’d have a point, but we’re not, we’re talking about form.

Personally I don’t think one game is enough to call a team on form, might be the GF but it’s still one game. Over the year they were good in the middle, better than us. Next year likely the same.

In honesty, I’d call cogs and sheil pretty even for contribution but suggesting Sheil has had the easiest job in footy because cogs did the heavy lifting is absurd. I’d have him at the dogs in a heartbeat.

So...

1/. The media and Champion Data have been in love with the Collingwood midfield for a little while now. And they put up big numbers...but before this year they basically didn't win any games and then fell apart this year when it mattered most.

I still point to the way Richmond (albeit for a short time so far - 2 years) transformed their midfield through (primarily) Cotchin's willingness to take on more of the defensive heavy lifting. Who in Collingwood's midfield group does that? Sidebottom? Pendlebury? Neither - they have to bring in the likes of Greenwood (an attacking, ball-in-hand negative) to cover that gap...it also sends the message to the others that they don't need to do quite as much. Sidebottom - as good as he is - runs back to become an outlet player, not to defend. Until they change the group/mindset of the group, well, they are not going to change. To me, Beams makes the problem worse, not better.

2/. Shiel IS NOT WHAT WE NEED! There is a reason the Giants asked him to 'explore his options' a year out from contract expiry...they didn't have any intention of re-signing him. You don't need to be a genius to understand they have looked at their list, understand they are going to have to 'lose' a few and prioritised the ones they want to keep. Notice they didn't encourage Coniglio or Kelly to explore their options...we can debate this for days but the answer that Coniglio >>>>> Shiels will be the one that comes back time and time again.

With the 'I would love him (Shiel) at the Dogs' comment, well if you bring him to the 'Dogs then someone else - Macrae? Hunter? - has to go out. You need a balanced group - not a 'collection' of mids. The Lions Fab 4 - Aker, Voss, Lappin, Black - had their butts continuously covered by Hart and Brad Scott. The WC Kerr/Judd/Cousins triplet were covered by Rowan Jones and Chick. You need a defensively oriented player in there OR you need (like the Tiges example above) one of the leaders to really take that responsibility on and drag the others along with...ask the Geelong boys how Ablett, Dangerfield, Selwood, Kelly worked out for them??

If you want to talk about the Essendon mids, who exactly is going to do that? That side plays one-way footy already...and they add Shiel? What they need is a defensively minded stoppage player who is capable of going head to head with the likes of Tom Mitchell, splitting the clearances and limiting his atg influence. If you want to talk about the Collingwood side, they don't need Beams. They NEED someone to play on the likes of Kennedy (WCE), McDonald (Melb) and now Lynch (Richmond). Who is going to do that? If Collingwood wanted a mid, they should have identified a Harmes (Melbourne) type...otherwise, they NEED a key defender.

[China Dog]

Great post. Let's see how the draft pans out.

[AshMac]

So...

1/. The media and Champion Data have been in love with the Collingwood midfield for a little while now. And they put up big numbers...but before this year they basically didn't win any games and then fell apart this year when it mattered most.

I still point to the way Richmond (albeit for a short time so far - 2 years) transformed their midfield through (primarily) Cotchin's willingness to take on more of the defensive heavy lifting. Who in Collingwood's midfield group does that? Sidebottom? Pendlebury? Neither - they have to bring in the likes of Greenwood (an attacking, ball-in-hand negative) to cover that gap...it also sends the message to the others that they don't need to do quite as much. Sidebottom - as good as he is - runs back to become an outlet player, not to defend. Until they change the group/mindset of the group, well, they are not going to change. To me, Beams makes the problem worse, not better.

2/. Shiel IS NOT WHAT WE NEED! There is a reason the Giants asked him to 'explore his options' a year out from contract expiry...they didn't have any intention of re-signing him. You don't need to be a genius to understand they have looked at their list, understand they are going to have to 'lose' a few and prioritised the ones they want to keep. Notice they didn't encourage Coniglio or Kelly to explore their options...we can debate this for days but the answer that Coniglio >>>>> Shiels will be the one that comes back time and time again.

With the 'I would love him (Shiel) at the Dogs' comment, well if you bring him to the 'Dogs then someone else - Macrae? Hunter? - has to go out. You need a balanced group - not a 'collection' of mids. The Lions Fab 4 - Aker, Voss, Lappin, Black - had their butts continuously covered by Hart and Brad Scott. The WC Kerr/Judd/Cousins triplet were covered by Rowan Jones and Chick. You need a defensively oriented player in there OR you need (like the Tiges example above) one of the leaders to really take that responsibility on and drag the others along with...ask the Geelong boys how Ablett, Dangerfield, Selwood, Kelly worked out for them??

If you want to talk about the Essendon mids, who exactly is going to do that? That side plays one-way footy already...and they add Shiel? What they need is a defensively minded stoppage player who is capable of going head to head with the likes of Tom Mitchell, splitting the clearances and limiting his atg influence. If you want to talk about the Collingwood side, they don't need Beams. They NEED someone to play on the likes of Kennedy (WCE), McDonald (Melb) and now Lynch (Richmond). Who is going to do that? If Collingwood wanted a mid, they should have identified a Harmes (Melbourne) type...otherwise, they NEED a key defender.

I’m getting the impression we both enjoy a good debate which can be dangerous if there is a good bone to chew on 😉

context is getting a little lost though now.

Agree w the hallmarks of a good midfield and agree Shiel isn’t the ultimate answer for us.

I rate the pies midified over ours (can’t believe I’ve forgotten grundy until now), that’s all. They choked on the day, but gee they’re classy, rack up quality touches and had a strong year this year.

And - I’d love sheil at the dogs, but not sure we’d lose one as we’ll be in a strong position to pay Bont his dues and go hard at a big name next year if relevant. Sheil wouldn’t be the only player, just one of them. I also think he is hard at it, the most consistent of the GWS midfield cohort bar Ward (which kills me) and is the perfect mix of inside and outside class. He’s a weapon and has been a great player for GWS (top 10 B&F in 6 of his 7 years), but also not the only player Essendon need for glory. Also rate thier midfield over ours.

[FrediKanoute]

So...
If you want to talk about the Essendon mids, who exactly is going to do that? That side plays one-way footy already...and they add Shiel? What they need is a defensively minded stoppage player who is capable of going head to head with the likes of Tom Mitchell, splitting the clearances and limiting his atg influence. If you want to talk about the Collingwood side, they don't need Beams. They NEED someone to play on the likes of Kennedy (WCE), McDonald (Melb) and now Lynch (Richmond). Who is going to do that? If Collingwood wanted a mid, they should have identified a Harmes (Melbourne) type...otherwise, they NEED a key defender.

Isn't this the role the have recruited Roughie for?

[Topdog]

They didn't just choke on GF day, got smashed by the WC midfield 3 weeks before

[Topdog]

Isn't this the role the have recruited Roughie for?

Rough isn't a key backman

[bornadog]

Rough isn't a key backman

Worst decision by a coach ever.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Really enjoyed reading this thread.
MJP. You bring your 1st hand coaching, game plan analysis that cuts through the noise that armchair numpty's like myself bring whenever i try and critique our performace on match day.
I'd love to see you provide this analysis regularly in a pre/post game analysis during the season. It really makes interesting reading.
Your assessments given in this thread, for example on Collingwoods mids.. really way more interesting than any of the writing you come across in the so-called expert media.
Would love to read more of this stuff.
Maybe even pre season 2019 you could do an analysis of our list, game plan.
I know we're all time poor and no pressure on you, but again, I've really been fascinated by your comments here. So thanks for taking the time.
And that's not to dismiss others contributions here at all

[FrediKanoute]

Worst decision by a coach ever.

Then why did they recruit ROughie?

[bornadog]

Then why did they recruit ROughie?

Will be interesting to see where they play him.

I thought when Roughie was pushed out of the ruck, as a young up and coming player it did not help his development one bit.

[bornadog]

Call me a negative Nellie but everyone recalls the kind of 2018 season we trotted out prior to the last month of it, right?

The positives to come out of 2018 is the last few weeks, especially the way the midfield performed.

We had Macrae, Hunter, The Bont and Dunkley all picking up over 30 disposals in each game and even 40 each in one game over, the last 3 or 4 weeks.

Against the Tigers, Macrae 43, Hunter 35, Bont 29, Dunkley 28.

The other positives to come out of it was another years worth of experience and development. Yes we were the youngest team in 2018, and no it is not a dick comparing comp, it is the reason we lost so many games.

Pump in some experience, more development and 2019 is looking good.

[Rocket Science]

Yep, you get the feeling we've bottomed out and are broadly tracking in the right direction, but must be noted the achievements of that last month that helped soothe a diabolical year were against Carlton, St.Kilda, a pretty crap North outfit and a distracted Richmond.

We'll get there I think, but it's going to be a long, patient build back to anything resembling a flag threat.

[mjp]

We'll get there I think, but it's going to be a long, patient build back to anything resembling a flag threat.

OK. I refuse to accept this is the case.

We should be competing in 2019. I really don't see why we shouldn't...

I don't want to debate this for the sake of it or go around and around in circles - pretty sure my 'willingness' to do so has already been mentioned on this thread - but we shouldn't need patience. Anything less than top 8 and at least one finals win (or positive performance in a final similar to 2015) should be seen as an abject failure.

Bevo saw the need to re-create the team post-flag. I didn't really get it/understand it but it's done now. No more excuses.