Strategy How to improve in 2017

[Art Vandelay_]

Also this talk about moving Motlop on should be tempered. This is a class player....if he gets his shit together he is the best small forward we have by a country mile.

And would rank highly in the AFL....its the "if" that will tell the tale. IF he cuts them up and looks like he wants to make a bigger impact in the league I can't see why we would shift him on. No doubt some think for a first rounder....which is problematic right now, and we should remember that a first rounder is no certainty to end up a better player than Steven anyway........

Lets see what he offers up before talking about shifting him off to someone else.

Classic catch 22.

If he tears it up in 2017 and is worth a first round pick, then why would we want to move him on.
If he doesn't tear it up, then he's likely not going to be worth moving on.

My take, if he shows in 2017 he's really focused (which appears to be so given he's fit this summer at least) then I do not want Motlop traded.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Agree - as ruckman take so long generally to be ready for consistent AFL games - it would be nice to have one developing on the list. Agree with you on this for sure.

I think Thurlow could be our best kick and that is important - as delivery from the backline - especially from a player who has some dash - could be a very, very good thing for us. Sometimes his kicks are too low and powerful (too quick) for the players to hang onto the mark. I think our players just need know how Thurlow kicks the ball and be more ready for a bullet type pass.

Low, fast kicks get through the air quite quickly and does not give a lot of time to opposition to get to the contest.

Yeah I think with more games for thurlow at afl level he will become more comfortable with the pace and not feel as pressured with his possessions. Young players tend to want to hit the first safest option in reference to the " low hard kicks" which I have no problem with of course.

A guy with a thurlow skillset will have a licence to do a little more and as the game slows down for him and he works out if Boris enright had an extra step to set up so do I.

Then we will start seeing the best option kick and the weighting of his kick should follow. Giving guys a good platform to run and jump at the footy.

The best in traffic I have seen at weighting balls into perfect areas is pendlebury he has so much time so efficient. Thurlow is more penetrating but with time you will get a better balance

 

[Ray Donovan]

He was a good singer/song writer Ray..... but a crap footballer.

Mcartney Just a kid with under 30 games he looks like he has a bit of x factor about him. Strong overhead for his size works hard defensive pressure wise can use both feet the template looks good to me the coaching panel and danger love the kid.

 

[Ray Donovan]

No it is not laughable to say you have a great chance of beating a side you beat by 10 goals and then six goals comfortably, common sense really that your a chance. It is hypothetical because we didn't play them and speculation if we win or loose, but we would have had a great chance, You do struggle a bit with understanding things a bit? It isn't hard really, all talk about if we beat someone we don't play is hypothetical, I'm not saying anything hypothetical about the hawthorn game? Please understand what people post before replying.

No nothing is hypothetical about the hawthorn game, these are things that happened, we made as many crucial mistakes as costly as the smith kick, it happened. Probably even more so as they weren't bad kicking skills but bad judgement calls such as not holding onto the ball late in the game and easy missed shots etc.

Please tell me you actually don't need an explanation for the last sentence? Bulldogs had a rest right before their finals campaign and where freshened up... Sydney and west coast when they won their grand finals did not get a week off to rest in 05-6 and either did Brisbane one of its 3 peats and either did hawthorn 05... they played fresh opponents with a week off in the prelim. That is more difficult than the Bulldogs finals run. Hopefully this helps you

No it is not laughable to say you have a great chance of beating a side you beat by 10 goals and then six goals comfortably, common sense really that your a chance. It is hypothetical because we didn't play them and speculation if we win or loose, but we would have had a great chance, You do struggle a bit with understanding things a bit? It isn't hard really, all talk about if we beat someone we don't play is hypothetical, I'm not saying anything hypothetical about the hawthorn game? Please understand what people post before replying.

No nothing is hypothetical about the hawthorn game, these are things that happened, we made as many crucial mistakes as costly as the smith kick, it happened. Probably even more so as they weren't bad kicking skills but bad judgement calls such as not holding onto the ball late in the game and easy missed shots etc.

Please tell me you actually don't need an explanation for the last sentence? Bulldogs had a rest right before their finals campaign and where freshened up... Sydney and west coast when they won their grand finals did not get a week off to rest in 05-6 and either did Brisbane one of its 3 peats and either did hawthorn 05... they played fresh opponents with a week off in the prelim. That is more difficult than the Bulldogs finals run. Hopefully this helps you

No I said it was laughable to quote you that the bulldogs would " be our brides"
And that was in correlation to my comment you are completely disrespecting the rest of the competition not in blue and white hoops. So read it properly don't just context it to suit your argument.

I understand you think we would of beaten the dogs but hypothetically speaking about results that never even came close to happening is absolute nonsense that's why I have and continue to say its pointless yet you bring it up over and over. And give reasons on a theory you have on what could of happened and relate that to us beating them by 6 and 10 goals in regular season as validation. Its senifeld its a show about nothing

When the simple fact is we were not good enough to beat Sydney but the bulldogs were. To win premierships you need to beat the teams you draw. We didn't they did then to speculate on results after a lost prelim its geelong crazy mind the pun.

Let it go you can never prove that argument and nobody cares. I think the lions three peat side would beat hawthorn 2-1 in a 3 match series of grand final dream matchups will I see it no can I prove it no can I validate it with stats no. Does it mean anything no.

I love it how you say the bulldogs were fresh like they were the only team that had bye inside the 8 lol before the finals so when they played west coast first rd they probably were cooked been home for two weeks running into a fresh bulldogs side. Oh wait lets contradict ourselves and say the dogs got injured players back from long term injuries because of the bye but were fresh because libba and McRae had 0 matches but were fitter because of surgery and layoff but they were fresher! Please Geelong crazy let's never talk again we should block each other to stop our conversations about nothing good bye

 

[Jon Douglas]

Mcartney Just a kid with under 30 games he looks like he has a bit of x factor about him. Strong overhead for his size works hard defensive pressure wise can use both feet the template looks good to me the coaching panel and danger love the kid.

I hate going too early just for the sake of doing so. But I can see what some see in McCarthy. He marks well for a small player, has decent pace, tackles and seems to gradually getting better. A full pre-season and another 20 senior games could well be enough for him to blossom even further.

Given our backline has been very good over the past seasons when we have really been a contender, the midfield down also but on the improve last season and I think will be one of the better midfields - it is our forward line we need to do something about. We do not have a Mooney or Pods to either lead up the ground and take a mark or smash a pack 50 metres out. And Motlop had a bad year - and Gregson got injured. Menzel was finding his feet again - so I am not bewildered by the forward line being relatively inefficient in 2016.

So any good news on the forward front is sweet music to my ears. And McCarthy, if he increased his possessions and goals - could be one factor that improves the forward line efficiency. This is a realistic prospect IMO.

PS. We just have to find a decent CHF. Does not have to be a match winner but a decent sized, relatively mobile and competitive KF. I was starting to think we would leave the backline alone except slot Tuohy in for Boris - and if Thurlow is over his knee you may well add him to the backline as well, principally as a longer term Mackie replacement. But the KPs in Lonergan and Taylor, proven winners playing and organising the backline with Mackie. So I thought maybe Henderson would play CHF and not in the backline.. Not I have a lot of confidence in that move - but it leaves the backline with one less change.

Henderson is 196 cm and 95 kgs and so is big enough, and is experienced enough, to hold down a CHF position. Hands seem ok, has decent judgement in the air and is a decent kick. Willing to lead up to the ball but not really a smash the pack type player. But overall could be a competitive CHF - better than we have had since Pods left.

But I read Harry is practising playing CHF so maybe Henderson will slot in at CHB and Harry to be that competitive CHF. Maybe because they see Harry going in the next 2 seasons and we might as well get Henderson playing where he will be playing for the next half decade ? But I am not that thrilled with this idea either - as Harry is a gun CHB - and he may not be a gun CHF.

It may be better to keep Henderson at CHF and trust that McCarthy will improve - and that Motlop (even if he plays some midfield time) plays forward and kicks goals. I think Menzel is likely to increase his influence on the game after a good return season in 2016. If Hawk and Henderson can work together then I can see Hawk kicking 60 goals - which is a good result. If this all happens then we will kick generally bigger scores - and therefore win more games and have a better percentage (relative to the competition).

We need to do this as our midfield will not be best going around, our backline not the best either - but both will be genuinely competitive with nearly all teams. They are unlikely to be the areas that give us the biggest grief. Not kicking as many goals as you should from a significant amount of entries - many of them decent, unpressured entries, is one way we can keep improving and just maybe we will be good enough to beat any team on our day.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Classic catch 22.

If he tears it up in 2017 and is worth a first round pick, then why would we want to move him on.
If he doesn't tear it up, then he's likely not going to be worth moving on.

My take, if he shows in 2017 he's really focused (which appears to be so given he's fit this summer at least) then I do not want Motlop traded.

We need to move somebody for a first round selection he is a candidate

I hate going too early just for the sake of doing so. But I can see what some see in McCarthy. He marks well for a small player, has decent pace, tackles and seems to gradually getting better. A full pre-season and another 20 senior games could well be enough for him to blossom even further.

Given our backline has been very good over the past seasons when we have really been a contender, the midfield down also but on the improve last season and I think will be one of the better midfields - it is our forward line we need to do something about. We do not have a Mooney or Pods to either lead up the ground and take a mark or smash a pack 50 metres out. And Motlop had a bad year - and Gregson got injured. Menzel was finding his feet again - so I am not bewildered by the forward line being relatively inefficient in 2016.

So any good news on the forward front is sweet music to my ears. And McCarthy, if he increased his possessions and goals - could be one factor that improves the forward line efficiency. This is a realistic prospect IMO.

PS. We just have to find a decent CHF. Does not have to be a match winner but a decent sized, relatively mobile and competitive KF. I was starting to think we would leave the backline alone except slot Tuohy in for Boris - and if Thurlow is over his knee you may well add him to the backline as well, principally as a longer term Mackie replacement. But the KPs in Lonergan and Taylor, proven winners playing and organising the backline with Mackie. So I thought maybe Henderson would play CHF and not in the backline.. Not I have a lot of confidence in that move - but it leaves the backline with one less change.

Henderson is 196 cm and 95 kgs and so is big enough, and is experienced enough, to hold down a CHF position. Hands seem ok, has decent judgement in the air and is a decent kick. Willing to lead up to the ball but not really a smash the pack type player. But overall could be a competitive CHF - better than we have had since Pods left.

But I read Harry is practising playing CHF so maybe Henderson will slot in at CHB and Harry to be that competitive CHF. Maybe because they see Harry going in the next 2 seasons and we might as well get Henderson playing where he will be playing for the next half decade ? But I am not that thrilled with this idea either - as Harry is a gun CHB - and he may not be a gun CHF.

It may be better to keep Henderson at CHF and trust that McCarthy will improve - and that Motlop (even if he plays some midfield time) plays forward and kicks goals. I think Menzel is likely to increase his influence on the game after a good return season in 2016. If Hawk and Henderson can work together then I can see Hawk kicking 60 goals - which is a good result. If this all happens then we will kick generally bigger scores - and therefore win more games and have a better percentage (relative to the competition).

We need to do this as our midfield will not be bets going around, our backline not the best either - but both will be genuinely competitive with nearly all teams. They are unlikely to be the areas that give us the biggest grief. Not kicking as many goals as you should from a significant amount of entries - many of them decent, unpressured entries, is one way we can keep improving and just maybe we will be good enough to beat any team on our day.

Harry should play back and Henderson will always be a 2nd or 3rd string key defender his one on one work defensively just isn't good enough to be isolated inside 50.

If they got Aaron black they need to play him he is a true CHF the only one on the whole list. I don't have a lot of interest in him but when you make selections like this you need to play them or you get more list clogger's.

Someone needs to make a call on lonergan and Mackie and how much afl footy they will play this year. As I don't see room for kolo, Henderson, Taylor, Smith, Stanley all in one side so they have to adjust ruck department defence something

 

[Art Vandelay_]

We need to move somebody for a first round selection he is a candidate


Harry should play back and Henderson will always be a 2nd or 3rd string key defender his one on one work defensively just isn't good enough to be isolated inside 50.

If they got Aaron black they need to play him he is a true CHF the only one on the whole list. I don't have a lot of interest in him but when you make selections like this you need to play them or you get more list clogger's.

Someone needs to make a call on lonergan and Mackie and how much afl footy they will play this year. As I don't see room for kolo, Henderson, Taylor, Smith, Stanley all in one side so they have to adjust ruck department defence something

We don't know that. There has been no word on it tbh

 

[Bobby_]

Classic catch 22.

If he tears it up in 2017 and is worth a first round pick, then why would we want to move him on.
If he doesn't tear it up, then he's likely not going to be worth moving on.

I look at it a different way.
Hawkins turns 29 this year. Already looks past his prime.
We have Buzza, House and Black. Three relatively unknown quantities. Two of them were taken at the bottom of the barrel in their respective drafts.
By holding onto the only currency Geelong have on their list, it means we have to hope one of those key forwards bursts into another Podsiadly story.
If we did trade away Motlop, we can acquire a 1st round draft pick (if he can improve on his form of 2016).
This gets us a Hawkins replacement.

We then have players who will be able to produce a similar style of football to what Motlop currently delivers. Cockatoo may become an x factor, as too Parfitt.

It's more important to have a quality young KPF opposed to a small-medium sized forward with prodigious talent as they are often the players who get it done in big games such as finals.
We saw this with Tom Boyd only recently.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I look at it a different way.
Hawkins turns 29 this year. Already looks past his prime.
We have Buzza, House and Black. Three relatively unknown quantities. Two of them were taken at the bottom of the barrel in their respective drafts.
By holding onto the only currency Geelong have on their list, it means we have to hope one of those key forwards bursts into another Podsiadly story.
If we did trade away Motlop, we can acquire a 1st round draft pick (if he can improve on his form of 2016).
This gets us a Hawkins replacement.

We then have players who will be able to produce a similar style of football to what Motlop currently delivers. Cockatoo may become an x factor, as too Parfitt.

It's more important to have a quality young KPF opposed to a small-medium sized forward with prodigious talent as they are often the players who get it done in big games such as finals.
We saw this with Tom Boyd only recently.

Nope. Pass on that.
Most of the good tall forwards go top 10 so we won't get that.

He shows commitment and determination and he should stay. Rather simple.

 

[Bobby_]

Nope. Pass on that.
Most of the good tall forwards go top 10 so we won't get that.

He shows commitment and determination and he should stay. Rather simple.

He shows commitment?
How the hell do you describe his return to preseason last summer?

I couldn't give a toss if he's got his shit into gear after being put on the trade table, he not a winner and he has showed the football world this in 90% of every final he has performed in thus far.
He's a show pony who relies on Selwood, Bartel, Johnson and Dangerfield to win him the easy ball and then he does his thing.

Yes, of course the best forwards go top 10, that is blatantly obvious but you can get some pretty decent 2nd rounders.

Geelong would be a better team overall if they had a Ben Brown and Tom Hawkins partnership, minus Motlop for 2017.
Likewise a Lobb and Hawkins partnership or a McGovern and Hawkins partnership.
It's basic football know-how. Big forwards are the major key to finals success. Small flashy forwards are not.
Rather simple!

 

[Ray Donovan]

We don't know that. There has been no word on it tbh

No but we need to get a first round selection somehow and we have mininal options in acquiring one trading players would be most likely option

 

[Art Vandelay_]

He shows commitment?
How the hell do you describe his return to preseason last summer?

I couldn't give a toss if he's got his shit into gear after being put on the trade table, he not a winner and he has showed the football world this in 90% of every final he has performed in thus far.
He's a show pony who relies on Selwood, Bartel, Johnson and Dangerfield to win him the easy ball and then he does his thing.

Yes, of course the best forwards go top 10, that is blatantly obvious but you can get some pretty decent 2nd rounders.

Geelong would be a better team overall if they had a Ben Brown and Tom Hawkins partnership, minus Motlop for 2017.
Likewise a Lobb and Hawkins partnership or a McGovern and Hawkins partnership.
It's basic football know-how. Big forwards are the major key to finals success. Small flashy forwards are not.
Rather simple!

If we can get some pretty decent in the 2nd round as you purport then you know we can choose to select a player like that and not trade anyone away.

Nope. Don't want Motlop traded. Not many 40+ goal capable players on our list and he's one of them. So no to trading Motlop, with the caveat that he performs this season... which comes back to the catch 22.

Blah blah blah about finals again. If we got rid of everyone who's struggled in finals we'd have not many here. Show pony, that's a euphemism for an outside player, we have some of those players, all clubs do.

No but we need to get a first round selection somehow and we have mininal options in acquiring one trading players would be most likely option

no, that's the point, we haven't been told or had confirmation that we are required to. We may be, I don't know but none of us know do we. All we do know is the AFL OK'd our trade. Made no mention of a future obligation to trade someone out, at present that's just an assumption.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Classic catch 22.

If he tears it up in 2017 and is worth a first round pick, then why would we want to move him on.
If he doesn't tear it up, then he's likely not going to be worth moving on.

My take, if he shows in 2017 he's really focused (which appears to be so given he's fit this summer at least) then I do not want Motlop traded.

Contract year cash dollars for mots

If we can get some pretty decent in the 2nd round as you purport then you know we can choose to select a player like that and not trade anyone away.

Nope. Don't want Motlop traded. Not many 40+ goal capable players on our list and he's one of them. So no to trading Motlop, with the caveat that he performs this season... which comes back to the catch 22.

Blah blah blah about finals again. If we got rid of everyone who's struggled in finals we'd have not many here. Show pony, that's a euphemism for an outside player, we have some of those players, all clubs do.



no, that's the point, we haven't been told or had confirmation that we are required to. We may be, I don't know but none of us know do we. All we do know is the AFL OK'd our trade. Made no mention of a future obligation to trade someone out, at present that's just an assumption.

I thought it was common knowledge the rules were set out when we traded out of the first round for the 3rd consecutive year.
In every 4 year period 2 first rd picks must be used by the club. Look it up



Geelong recruiter Stephen Wells this week clarified the rule with the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Dillon and was told he was able to trade a future pick again this year but that the club must use two first-round picks in the next two years (either two first-round picks next year or one in each of the next two years).

 

[Ray Donovan]

If we can get some pretty decent in the 2nd round as you purport then you know we can choose to select a player like that and not trade anyone away.

Nope. Don't want Motlop traded. Not many 40+ goal capable players on our list and he's one of them. So no to trading Motlop, with the caveat that he performs this season... which comes back to the catch 22.

Blah blah blah about finals again. If we got rid of everyone who's struggled in finals we'd have not many here. Show pony, that's a euphemism for an outside player, we have some of those players, all clubs do.



no, that's the point, we haven't been told or had confirmation that we are required to. We may be, I don't know but none of us know do we. All we do know is the AFL OK'd our trade. Made no mention of a future obligation to trade someone out, at present that's just an assumption.

I never mentioned anyone was obligated to trade players what I said was we need a first rd pick we don't have. And trading a name player is the most likely way to get that. If we cannot I am assuming the AFL will have to penalise Geelong somehow

Geelong recruiter Stephen Wells this week clarified the rule with the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Dillon and was told he was able to trade a future pick again this year but that the club must use two first-round picks in the next two years (either two first-round picks next year or one in each of the next two years)

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I never mentioned anyone was obligated to trade players what I said was we need a first rd pick we don't have. And trading a name player is the most likely way to get that. If we cannot I am assuming the AFL will have to penalise Geelong somehow

Geelong recruiter Stephen Wells this week clarified the rule with the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Dillon and was told he was able to trade a future pick again this year but that the club must use two first-round picks in the next two years (either two first-round picks next year or one in each of the next two years)

I have already a few times. Nothing on the AFL Twitter account, Patrick Keane or AFL Website.
No quotes from Wells or Dillon, that is ("....."), just an article on Fairfax publications.

It's all conjecture until proven otherwise, also what can the AFL do now if we refuse to trade someone. Diddily squat.

 

[Jon Douglas]

When it comes to Motlop we just do not know who we are going to get - the 2015 or 2016 model ?

Given we have lost 3 players from last years team and only got one replacement (Tuohy) - I think that if we are to have a good year Motlop needs to have 2015 or better year. It is one of the unknowns that we know is possible. Probably 50/50 at this stage - but I read he started the pre-season in better shape and saying he knows he needs to play better in 2017.

If it happened it would be Tuohy and a good Motlop in - and Boris, Jimmy and Caddy out. Still in deficit - so we need a few others to really start coming thru. Like McCarthy, Lang, Thurlow, Kolo or Cocky all raising their standards. Then we could be surplus - and that we need be if we are to be a serious Top 4 contender and genuine Premiership threat.

 

[Ray Donovan]

I have already a few times. Nothing on the AFL Twitter account, Patrick Keane or AFL Website.
No quotes from Wells or Dillon, that is ("....."), just an article on Fairfax publications.

It's all conjecture until proven otherwise, also what can the AFL do now if we refuse to trade someone. Diddily squat.

No the rules regarding free agency are 2 in four that's what they are so there is no conjecture what so ever.


AFL.com.au confirmed with the AFL that as long as a club has two first-round picks in a four-year period, they comply with the rules surrounding future first-round draft picks that were introduced ahead of last year's trading period.

Those rules introduced last season state that clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period or face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks and that clubs can trade one year in the future only

So that's what they can do if we refuse to comply it's not Geelong v free agency v afl the rules are laid out for everyone to see and trades need to be approved by afl.


Geelong and Collingwood did not have a first-round draft pick in 2016 and will not have one in their hands when they enter the 2016 trade period either, having used a future first-round draft pick last year to secure Lachie Henderson from Carlton and Adam Treloar from Greater Western Sydney.

The two clubs will have to make two first-round draft picks before the end of 2018, potentially limiting their immediate options at the trade table this season unless they can trade their way back into the first round.

Under the rules the four-year period is rolling, meaning clubs will find it difficult to go more than two consecutive years without first-round draft pick.

So we have used 3 consecutive first rounders without a pick. We cannot trade 2018 pick by any means so we will need to orchestrate something at the trade table so the afl does not impose restrictions.

The rules are very clear regarding this

 

[Art Vandelay_]

No the rules regarding free agency are 2 in four that's what they are so there is no conjecture what so ever.


AFL.com.au confirmed with the AFL that as long as a club has two first-round picks in a four-year period, they comply with the rules surrounding future first-round draft picks that were introduced ahead of last year's trading period.

Those rules introduced last season state that clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period or face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks and that clubs can trade one year in the future only

So that's what they can do if we refuse to comply it's not Geelong v free agency v afl the rules are laid out for everyone to see and trades need to be approved by afl.


Geelong and Collingwood did not have a first-round draft pick in 2016 and will not have one in their hands when they enter the 2016 trade period either, having used a future first-round draft pick last year to secure Lachie Henderson from Carlton and Adam Treloar from Greater Western Sydney.

The two clubs will have to make two first-round draft picks before the end of 2018, potentially limiting their immediate options at the trade table this season unless they can trade their way back into the first round.

Under the rules the four-year period is rolling, meaning clubs will find it difficult to go more than two consecutive years without first-round draft pick.

So we have used 3 consecutive first rounders without a pick. We cannot trade 2018 pick by any means so we will need to orchestrate something at the trade table so the afl does not impose restrictions.

The rules are very clear regarding this

No, there still is conjecture. That article is in August, the club sought the advice of the AFL during trade period and permission was granted.
From that we have this little nugget.

"Under the rules, clubs are restricted in their trading of future first-round picks to ensure they make two first round selections at the NAB AFL Draft within a four-year period.

However, clubs were reminded the AFL would consider applications to vary the requirements."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-19/cats-set-to-nab-irish-blue-utility-to-head-the-other-way

Makes no mention of having to trade back in, in the August article doesn't imply that you can trade a 3rd 1st rounder on the proviso you trade back in. No articles or AFL media release AFTER we traded our 3rd away mentions a requirement to do so, all we DO KNOW from the AFL is that the requirements can be varied.

All they could do is impose a ban on trading 2018/19 R1 picks which I suspect we'd use anyway so the punishment would be nix.
So why bother trading a player away when the punishment could really only be a wet lettuce leaf.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Classic catch 22.

If he tears it up in 2017 and is worth a first round pick, then why would we want to move him on.
If he doesn't tear it up, then he's likely not going to be worth moving on.

My take, if he shows in 2017 he's really focused (which appears to be so given he's fit this summer at least) then I do not want Motlop traded.

He wont be traded he is a free agent so we would get a compo pick. FWIW i think motlop is important to us and will stay (or at least i hope he does) the issue is his manager will likely push for a 3-4 year contract either from geelong or another club (as this will be his last big contract they will want security) and thats a big commitment to a player who hasnt always been the most professional with fitness etc. So the club will want to see some real professionalism from him this year before they commit to that.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

We need to move somebody for a first round selection he is a candidate


Harry should play back and Henderson will always be a 2nd or 3rd string key defender his one on one work defensively just isn't good enough to be isolated inside 50.

If they got Aaron black they need to play him he is a true CHF the only one on the whole list. I don't have a lot of interest in him but when you make selections like this you need to play them or you get more list clogger's.

Someone needs to make a call on lonergan and Mackie and how much afl footy they will play this year. As I don't see room for kolo, Henderson, Taylor, Smith, Stanley all in one side so they have to adjust ruck department defence something

I get where you are coming from but the issue is henderson kolo lonergan and taylor are all better players than black which is why they will probably play with harry at chf. If that doesnt work then we can try black. Black was just a cheap depth backup player to replace the depth we lost when vardy and kersten walked out.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Contract year cash dollars for mots


I thought it was common knowledge the rules were set out when we traded out of the first round for the 3rd consecutive year.
In every 4 year period 2 first rd picks must be used by the club. Look it up



Geelong recruiter Stephen Wells this week clarified the rule with the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Dillon and was told he was able to trade a future pick again this year but that the club must use two first-round picks in the next two years (either two first-round picks next year or one in each of the next two years).

I think (and its hard to know the afl isnt always clear) its a case of we must use 2 firsts in 4 years or we cant trade future picks until we do (this would make the most sense as the afl cant force clubs to trade with other clubs so saying in effect a club HAS to use the picks makes no sense, it makes more sense if its a case of 'we will penalise you if you dont') and we may be ok with copping that penalty as its not much of a penalty anyway (keep in mind we have up to 4 kids eligible for us under FS next year which would use up most of our picks so any penalty that means we cant trade our 1st rounder next year isnt much of a penalty to us). Secondly even if we did have to trade for a first rounder we could do it with picks not players e.g we could easily trade our 2 second rounders for someones first rounder.

 

[Ray Donovan]

No, there still is conjecture. That article is in August, the club sought the advice of the AFL during trade period and permission was granted.
From that we have this little nugget.

"Under the rules, clubs are restricted in their trading of future first-round picks to ensure they make two first round selections at the NAB AFL Draft within a four-year period.

However, clubs were reminded the AFL would consider applications to vary the requirements."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-19/cats-set-to-nab-irish-blue-utility-to-head-the-other-way

Makes no mention of having to trade back in, in the August article doesn't imply that you can trade a 3rd 1st rounder on the proviso you trade back in. No articles or AFL media release AFTER we traded our 3rd away mentions a requirement to do so, all we DO KNOW from the AFL is that the requirements can be varied.

All they could do is impose a ban on trading 2018/19 R1 picks which I suspect we'd use anyway so the punishment would be nix.
So why bother trading a player away when the punishment could really only be a wet lettuce leaf.

I think your missing the point
Dangerfield (7)
Henderson ( Carlton. )
Thuoy ( Carlton )
Thats 3 consecutive first rounders all those articles are related to getting thuoy.

Now we have one available in 2018 so we are one short of requirement.

I never ever mentioned a trade back or anything I said we need to get back back in the first round somehow to satisfy the Rule of 2 first rounders in any four year period. Because losing a first rounder for 2018 would be an enormous problem 4 years without a first rd unheard of.

So I said by trade would be most likely someone like motlop and a 3rd rounder to get back in first rd.

You can ignore the rules if you want but they are clear for everyone to see.

 

[Landgraft]

I think your missing the point
Dangerfield (7)
Henderson ( Carlton. )
Thuoy ( Carlton )
Thats 3 consecutive first rounders all those articles are related to getting thuoy.

Now we have one available in 2018 so we are one short of requirement.

I never ever mentioned a trade back or anything I said we need to get back back in the first round somehow to satisfy the Rule of 2 first rounders in any four year period. Because losing a first rounder for 2018 would be an enormous problem 4 years without a first rd unheard of.

So I said by trade would be most likely someone like motlop and a 3rd rounder to get back in first rd.

You can ignore the rules if you want but they are clear for everyone to see.

AFL rules clearly written maybe, but they still tend to make up their own definitions and clarifications as they go along.

They've suggested that there can be exceptions and Wellsy talked to them before going ahead with the 2E trade. Seeing as we likely got 19/20 in exchange for a pick only a few places down the AFL likely aren't too concerned about the exact letter of this rule.

When it came to Sydney the letter of some supposedly very clear rules was followed... then the AFL took exception after the fact and starting throwing down penalties. Spirit and intent seem to matter almost as much as actual conduct when it comes to the leagues trading regulations, so I would take anything we should or should not be doing by RAW with an enormous grain of salt.

 

[Ray Donovan]

I think (and its hard to know the afl isnt always clear) its a case of we must use 2 firsts in 4 years or we cant trade future picks until we do (this would make the most sense as the afl cant force clubs to trade with other clubs so saying in effect a club HAS to use the picks makes no sense, it makes more sense if its a case of 'we will penalise you if you dont') and we may be ok with copping that penalty as its not much of a penalty anyway (keep in mind we have up to 4 kids eligible for us under FS next year which would use up most of our picks so any penalty that means we cant trade our 1st rounder next year isnt much of a penalty to us). Secondly even if we did have to trade for a first rounder we could do it with picks not players e.g we could easily trade our 2 second rounders for someones first rounder.

Well when you can't trade a pick without afl approval yes we have to use the 2018 first rounder under the AFL's rules. So yes under the rules after giving away 3 consecutive first rounders we are obligated to use this pick. And to satisfy the rule we need another one I said this comes most likely by trade because regardless of the opinions we have which is all these are I might add I cannot see the Geelong football club just deciding to break the outlined rules after the AFL allowed the Thuoy trade. It doesn't make any sense to break rules that have been beneficial to our club. And then the AFL is unpredictable as you said so us being the first and test case they could make an example of us. Because these are rules that they do not want broken.

And for Geelong to be put in a situation where we just legitimately say no we cannot satisfy these rules because we don't want to and we like our list. We will accept penalty really doesn't make sense

To have our ability to use future picks and only be able to trade one year into the future as it would restrict incoming and outgoing trades we may want to complete. And that's the penalty on the surface without the juicy details if we tick the afl off enough they might decide its a 2-3 year penalty on future picks

Who knows my point is I just think we should satisfy the outlined rules because free agency has been beneficial to us so why break the rules that have been good to us.

Not many clubs give away 2 second rounders for a first without a sweetner its nice to be optimistic but everyone knows what we need as well. Sos already raided us because we were desperate to fill needs through Henderson and thuoy who were both worth 2nd rd picks now you want to give someone 2 seconds for a first that's a lot of work

 

[Ray Donovan]

AFL rules clearly written maybe, but they still tend to make up their own definitions and clarifications as they go along.

They've suggested that there can be exceptions and Wellsy talked to them before going ahead with the 2E trade. Seeing as we likely got 19/20 in exchange for a pick only a few places down the AFL likely aren't too concerned about the exact letter of this rule.

When it came to Sydney the letter of some supposedly very clear rules was followed... then the AFL took exception after the fact and starting throwing down penalties. Spirit and intent seem to matter almost as much as actual conduct when it comes to the leagues trading regulations, so I would take anything we should or should not be doing by RAW with an enormous grain of salt.

Just like Franklin to Sydney they allow things to go through for the market clubs then cola dissapears for the swans. I don't see any reason to break rules that have been beneficial to us why bother you know the AFL is erratic. And this being a test case for future picks they might decide to throw down a multi yeat future and only trade one year in future ban which restricts no just incoming but outgoing trades. Which means clubs can lowball us with restricted free agents.

It is just not worth the price of admission