Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

[Mofra]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

You are bang on and this is why Lobb was the perfect recruit last year because blind Freddy and the thre blind mice could see that coming off a reco there was no way Bruce would hit the fitness levels he needed to hit to play at the elvel we want him to play.

I think with a BIG pre-season he can go again in 2023, but if nothing else Lobb provides cover. So long as we don't overpay then I am ok with this.

Casbault, the obvious 12 month stop gap who can pinch hit as a second ruck. A freebie gone begging.

[Mofra]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Isn’t list balance also an issue with a pure “best available” drafting strategy? Not sure what our strategy is as we’ve had to farm picks into JUH and Darcy the last 2 years.

Best available until you get to trading/PSD/rookie picks?

Small forwards and rucks slip to the rookie draft every year. Dean Cox was a rookie, Ginnivan a rookie. They are the two positions that (to the casual observer) seem over represented in the rookie picks who "make it". In the poo draft of 2010 we knocked it out of the park with two FS pick and nailing two rookies - JJ & Dahlhaus. Our only serious ruck depth (Sweet) was a rookie.

[GVGjr]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Best available until you get to trading/PSD/rookie picks?

Small forwards and rucks slip to the rookie draft every year. Dean Cox was a rookie, Ginnivan a rookie. They are the two positions that (to the casual observer) seem over represented in the rookie picks who "make it". In the poo draft of 2010 we knocked it out of the park with two FS pick and nailing two rookies - JJ & Dahlhaus. Our only serious ruck depth (Sweet) was a rookie.

With some slight variations it probably should be something like best available with the first two picks matching needs a bit later.
I guess nothing is that rigid.

[mjp]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

That doesn’t give me much to work with. They had Dangerfield fall in their laps as a local, other trades include Dahlhaus, Higgins, Crameri, Henderson, Isaac Smith, Zac Smith, Tuohy, Ablett, Steven, Jenkins and Ceglar

Dangerfield. Cameron. Not 30. Genuine difference makers. These are the recruits I am talking about. (And mentioned).

Of those you listed, only Tuohey and Smith have been any more than bit part, moneyball style fill ins. They aren’t relying on Higgins or Dahlhaus...if they play at their best, we have something. Otherwise...who cares.

I kind of said all that in my post didn’t I?

Geelong are lucky because there is a lifestyle element to their footy club attractive to a lot of players - so they can offer unders to a player like Jack Steven and in *MIGHT* turn into something...if not, who cares.

We seem to recruit ageing players whom we are counting on...to me, that’s bad.

[Bornadog]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

We seem to recruit ageing players whom we are counting on...to me, that’s bad.

Realistically, how many ageing players in the Bevo era?

Other than Martin? Pretty sure most have been in the 26 to 28 year old mark.

My memory is fading me in my old age Maybe another poster can help.

Also, we aren't a destination club. Players going to Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond are told they can play at the G in front of big crowds, they can play in the ANZAC day game, or Dreamtime etc etc.

I was wrapped that Treloar was happy to come to us.

[mjp]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Realistically, how many ageing players in the Bevo era?

Other than Martin? Pretty sure most have been in the 26 to 28 year old mark.

My memory is fading me in my old age Maybe another poster can help.

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

[Axe Man]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

To be fair BAD said 26-28 and all of those except Cloke would have been in that age range when recruited I think.

[Mofra]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

To be fair BAD said 26-28 and all of those except Cloke would have been in that age range when recruited I think.

Cloke was a bust, Hall was ok but we got him a year too late.

Duryea has been an outstanding success, cheap and very good for his time with us.

[Sedat]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

Lloyd as well

[Bornadog]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

Lloyd as well

Forgot about Cloke - thanks

The rest were all under 28, and not 30 plus as you suggested we recruit.

[josie]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Cloke was a bust, Hall was ok but we got him a year too late.

Duryea has been an outstanding success, cheap and very good for his time with us.

If thug Zeibell had not crunched Cloke I truly think Cloke would have been successful with us. Agree Duryea has been v good.

[GVGjr]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

I think we are missing a couple of lower key additions, wasn't Jed Adcock north of 30 when we rookied him?

I guess we didn't trade for Adcock or Brett Goodes

[Scorlibo]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

IMO the Bevo era has brought about some really good recruiting (both via trading and drafting). There have been busts for sure (Cloke, Adcock, Trengove), there always are, and taking your point mjp that it's much worse when reliant on the incoming player to perform. We were guilty of this with Cloke and Trengove. Martin and Bruce were slightly different cases where we'd had continued development from Naughton and English to sure us up in those positions, so we weren't quite so reliant on the incoming player's performance. O'Brien added depth and I don't believe we ever intended to rely on him.

The Treloar trade is the best trade I've seen the club pull off, so a bit surprised to see your criticism. I would have thought that the overall performance of the midfield group the past couple of years, while they've all been sharing the load, has proven that Treloar's addition wasn't surplus to requirements and actually did take us to another level in that area of the ground. There are occasions I think where the approach of taking the 'best available talent' can be borrowed from drafting and appropriated to trading, and this was one such occasion.

Duryea, Keath, Crozier, Lloyd and Bruce have each played at least one high-level season for the club and been good citizens, and most importantly we didn't overpay for any of them. We've been good enough to retain our high draft picks and select great talent while still getting a steady stream of experienced players into the club.

If there's one aspect of our strategy that has been disappointing IMO it's letting go of the 'not-quite' players that have since been valued members of others teams. Notably key defenders Jones, Adams, Young and Roughead. In reality the culprit might be our development of lesser-lights, or else a void of leadership in the post-Morris/Boyd/Murphy/Gia era. Roughead is the one that really stings because we'd already witnessed his ability to hold down a key defensive role and he was exactly the kind of person that you could build club culture around. Double whammy.

But for all of the interesting analysis on individual players, I'm most drawn to your excellent OP mjp - something is not quite right with the group at the moment and it's not fixable with player movements. Totally agree. On the weekend I saw a lot of frowns and a lot of pointing, a lot of negativity and seriousness in the air. When Bruce kicked his goal (at quite an important time in the context of the game) I thought that the guys would really rally around him, and they kind of did, but it almost felt like a procession of sympathy hugs. It was a weird vibe I thought. Then of course there's our defensive system being picked apart consistently, the blame for this should be shouldered by the coaching and leadership groups rather than individuals.

[boydogs]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Dangerfield. Cameron. Not 30. Genuine difference makers. These are the recruits I am talking about. (And mentioned).

Of those you listed, only Tuohey and Smith have been any more than bit part, moneyball style fill ins. They aren’t relying on Higgins or Dahlhaus...if they play at their best, we have something. Otherwise...who cares.

I kind of said all that in my post didn’t I?

Geelong are lucky because there is a lifestyle element to their footy club attractive to a lot of players - so they can offer unders to a player like Jack Steven and in *MIGHT* turn into something...if not, who cares.

We seem to recruit ageing players whom we are counting on...to me, that’s bad.

Geelong would get 40 touches each out of Ablett, Selwood and Dangerfield some weeks as they ran up and down the field passing it to each other. Ablett was 100% central to their plan to top up and win a GF and it nearly worked. If he wasn’t injured mid game they may have held on

Anyway I think your point was that adding players doesn’t fix a system, or an unmotivated core. I reckon the system and the motivation would be a whole lot better if the mids got reward for effort and some support around the rest of the ground. They were excited when Stefan Martin came and they didn’t have to try and rove opposition taps all day

[Sedat]

Re: Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

Geelong would get 40 touches each out of Ablett, Selwood and Dangerfield some weeks as they ran up and down the field passing it to each other. Ablett was 100% central to their plan to top up and win a GF and it nearly worked.

Unpopular opinion, but getting Martin nearly worked as well. He had Gawn well under control at stoppages for 2 and a half quarters - unfortunately Jackson (and the Melbourne mids) ran riot for 8 minutes.