Club Focus Geelong 2024

[Ticky009]

Data from footywire. To check the draft order see the thread here.

Footywire says: "While we make every effort to keep up to date with player contracts, it is likely that our data may at times be out of date, incomplete or inaccurate. If you find any player contracts that need updating, please let us know using our brand new contract submission form."

 

[Footy Smarts]

Because its in the Geelong list management thread?

Yes you chose to post the "this club shouldn't top up" discussion in this thread. Why?

You said it yourself - "I don't think you have comparable quality younger players on the list to what you had in the past."

But that's so unbelievably wrong it just shows you know nothing about our list. Or do you really think guys like Jordan Murdoch, Taylor Hunt and Darcy Lang were better than Max Holmes, Sam De Koning and Ollie Henry? Go on name all these gun youngsters we had on our list in 2015-18 when we successfully rebuilt on the run.

Just be honest. You assumed because Geelong has been successful recently that our kids are late picks and haven't shown much. The reality is our current under 23s have shown light years more than any of the groups from the past decade or so.

 

[Catastrophe!]

Yes you chose to post the "this club shouldn't top up" discussion in this thread. Why?

You said it yourself - "I don't think you have comparable quality younger players on the list to what you had in the past."

But that's so unbelievably wrong it just shows you know nothing about our list. Or do you really think guys like Jordan Murdoch, Taylor Hunt and Darcy Lang were better than Max Holmes, Sam De Koning and Ollie Henry? Go on name all these gun youngsters we had on our list in 2015-18 when we successfully rebuilt on the run.

Just be honest. You assumed because Geelong has been successful recently that our kids are late picks and haven't shown much. The reality is our current under 23s have shown light years more than any of the groups from the past decade or so.

You're talking to a brick wall mate. Any time this poster is met with a contrarian opinion in this thread, they come back with 'I'm not going to change your minds, so why bother.'

Yet the inverse doesn't seem to apply to them. They're not actually interested in a discussion, or trying to evolve their opinion...they have their opinion that we're going to be s**t and we have no talent, and they came on here to voice it. Anything to the contrary of that is unacceptable.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Hey guys, I'm not sure this whole discussion is adding value hey. Everyone has their opinions.

 

[Joao]

If the Cats fans want an echo chamber, take it to the Cats board.

 

[Footy Smarts]

If the Cats fans want an echo chamber, take it to the Cats board.

You claimed we don't have the young kids now that we did last time we topped up. The only under 23s on our list at this point in 2015 (the year we brought in Dangerfield) that played in the 2022 GF were Bews and Kolodjashnij. Our kids are truly horrendous at that point.

Are Holmes, SDK, Clark, Bruhn, O Henry, O'Sullivan, Dempsey, etc likely to contribute less than Bews and Kolo, 2 late pick honest role players, over their careers? Or are the youngsters now clearly better than the last time we topped up? Of course that's absolutely no guarantee on what happens in the future but claiming our youngsters are worse now is utterly laughable.

You started by claiming something utterly ludicrous. Pointing that out isn't wanting an echo chamber.

 

[Joao]

You claimed we don't have the young kids now that we did last time we topped up. The only under 23s on our list at this point in 2015 (the year we brought in Dangerfield) that played in the 2022 GF were Bews and Kolodjashnij.

Are Holmes, SDK, Clark, Bruhn, O Henry, O'Sullivan, Dempsey, etc likely to contribute less than Bews and Kolo, 2 late pick honest role players, over their careers? Or are the youngsters now clearly better than the last time we topped up? Of course that's absolutely no guarantee on what happens in the future but claiming our youngsters are worse now is utterly laughable.

You started by claiming something utterly ludicrous. Pointing that out isn't wanting an echo chamber.

It's not your kids that are the problem, its the core of your team. I have no trouble rating Henry x 2, SDK, Holmes etc, but you need a LOT more than 6-9 good to great players. Not only that, but many of them, including the big ones need time.

And the odds are, a good portion of those players you've all got penciled in as at least B grade will end up being delisted unceremoniously, just like every other team. Including many 2nd rounders and the odd 1st.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

It's not your kids that are the problem, its the core of your team. I have no trouble rating Henry x 2, SDK, Holmes etc, but you need a LOT more than 6-9 good to great players. Not only that, but many of them, including the big ones need time.

And the odds are, a good portion of those players you've all got penciled in as at least B grade will end up being delisted unceremoniously, just like every other team. Including many 2nd rounders and the odd 1st.

It honestly doesn't matter if you rate the Geelong youth or not. Chasing established mids is the right decision either way.

If the kids are not very good then you need some seasoned players to support them and prevent them becoming a total mess and undermining the parts of the ground you're strong in.

If the kids are very good you need some seasoned players to absorb attention and give them space to maximise their development.

It doesn't matter where you fall on the spectrum, there's only one correct answer. If we fall in a hole 2 years from now, it'll still have been the right answer.

Well, that is assuming those players we target are good.

 

[Catastrophe!]

If the Cats fans want an echo chamber, take it to the Cats board.

You're a riot. You think you're being objective, but you're not even listening to any other opinion besides your own. You're essentially your own echo chamber in this thread.

A discussion is taking on points from both sides, and evolving the conversation. You've come in with an agenda and refuse to listen to anything that's antithetical to your original contention.

If you want others to take on board your opinion, take theirs on board too. You might want to remember, that your opinion isn't fact either - as you seem to be insinuating.

 

[Joao]

It honestly doesn't matter if you rate the Geelong youth or not. Chasing established mids is the right decision either way.

If the kids are not very good then you need some seasoned players to support them and prevent them becoming a total mess and undermining the parts of the ground you're strong in.

If the kids are very good you need some seasoned players to absorb attention and give them space to maximise their development.

It doesn't matter where you fall on the spectrum, there's only one correct answer. If we fall in a hole 2 years from now, it'll still have been the right answer.

Well, that is assuming those players we target are good.

If the player is young enough, it's fine. So Smith is probably ok if the knee is clear, but I wouldn't chase whatever the equivalent of Taranto or Hopper was. Even with Smith though, it might cost you an F1 that could easily end up a better and much longer term player.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

If the player is young enough, it's fine. So Smith is probably ok if the knee is clear, but I wouldn't chase whatever the equivalent of Taranto or Hopper was. Even with Smith though, it might cost you an F1 that could easily end up a better and much longer term player.

Yeah sure but "could" in your last sentence does a bit of heavy lifting. I also think history has also shown that kids develop quicker when given roles they can achieve rather than asking them to perform roles they can't. Fundamentally though, the problem is we have too many kids, not too few.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Selwood replacement.

View attachment 1915879

Ironically although he's clearly not a Selwood replacement I'd absolutely be looking at McGrath. He'd come free, is a solid player (4th in essendon's B&F last year) and could be a good player in time with a new environment.

He's judged as a failure because he was number 1 pick. But if he's outside your top 10 players you're probably a good team.

 

[Joao]

Yeah sure but "could" in your last sentence does a bit of heavy lifting. I also think history has also shown that kids develop quicker when given roles they can achieve rather than asking them to perform roles they can't. Fundamentally though, the problem is we have too many kids, not too few.

Well I am not going to predict your performance for 2025 so I have no idea where that F1 falls. But given your demographics you at least have to acknowledge that risk.

Agree about development, but that scenario can be hard to achieve at times.

I still wouldn't chase Smith but I think its a perfectly valid target given his age and ability.

Ironically although he's clearly not a Selwood replacement I'd absolutely be looking at McGrath. He'd come free, is a solid player (4th in essendon's B&F last year) and could be a good player in time with a new environment.

He's judged as a failure because he was number 1 pick. But if he's outside your top 10 players you're probably a good team.

Depends on how much you have to pay him I guess and how that affects your TPP. He's a solid B grader, consistent and a decent leader so you could definitely do worse.

 

[Footy Smarts]

It's not your kids that are the problem, its the core of your team. I have no trouble rating Henry x 2, SDK, Holmes etc, but you need a LOT more than 6-9 good to great players. Not only that, but many of them, including the big ones need time.

And the odds are, a good portion of those players you've all got penciled in as at least B grade will end up being delisted unceremoniously, just like every other team. Including many 2nd rounders and the odd 1st.

At least we're getting somewhere now. Clearly our list of kids is at least reasonable by AFL standards.

The question is how good can they be? How much more can our middle aged players improve from here? And how quickly can that happen?

We'll see.

On the downside I don't see a gun key forward coming through. I think that will have to be a trade. Or maybe Ollie Henry and Neale can do a job kind Collingwood's tall forwards.

On the bright side our younger midfielders in Bowes, Bruhn and especially Clark looked drastically improved in the practice matches compared to times last year. If they come through with Holmes there will be a good midfield without the need for trading or free agency.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

You stole Henry and Bruhn.
Hopefully we can steal a kid back from Geelong end of this season…..

Lmao.

Hill, Frampton, McStay, Lipinski, Shultz, Cameron, Mitchell in the last few years alone.

Treloar, Howe, Aish, and the salary cap bunch of 2020.

Of all clubs to talk about stealing, it's a weird stance to take. We both suppo clubs that are attractive propositions at trade time, embrace it mate.

If players want to leave the minnows, then so be it.

 

[jdstorm]

Ironically although he's clearly not a Selwood replacement I'd absolutely be looking at McGrath. He'd come free, is a solid player (4th in essendon's B&F last year) and could be a good player in time with a new environment.

He's judged as a failure because he was number 1 pick. But if he's outside your top 10 players you're probably a good team.

Honestly think you have a better chance at Parish if Essendon have a poor year.

Scott Bros seem to like working together and Essendon have 1 too many small midfielders. He’d cost more then McGrath but he’s locked in on a team friendly deal and Geelong will surely back themselves in to develop late picks into useful best 22 players.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Honestly think you have a better chance at Parish if Essendon have a poor year.

Scott Bros seem to like working together and Essendon have 1 too many small midfielders. He’d cost more then McGrath but he’s locked in on a team friendly deal and Geelong will surely back themselves in to develop late picks into useful best 22 players.

Team friendly? Wasn't it like 7 years?

 

[jdstorm]

Team friendly? Wasn't it like 7 years?

Don’t remember the length. It was a year longer than reported. I think it was reported at 5 years and it’s actually 6 years at about 750-800k

Essendon has been front loading all their contracts due to their cap situation. So it won’t be close to that when Parish is over 30.

It also doesn’t have raises linked to the cap so it will be better value as the cap rises.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Don’t remember the length. It was a year longer than reported. I think it was reported at 5 years and it’s actually 6 years at about 750-800k

Essendon has been front loading all their contracts due to their cap situation. So it won’t be close to that when Parish is over 30.

It also doesn’t have raises linked to the cap so it will be better value as the cap rises.

Not a bad call

 

[jdstorm]

Not a bad call

Obviously a lot depends on how this year plays out for both teams. If Essendon shows competence and a semblance of hope of progressing into a finals level team and Parish is great then he’s not available.

But if Essendon misses the finals/is closer to the bottom then trying to go 2 for 1 with Parish and have a chance at 2 decent or better AFL players makes sense. Meanwhile Geelong gets a top player to sure up their midfield.

Probably a bit to small with Clark, Bruhn and Parish but thats fixable

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Obviously a lot depends on how this year plays out for both teams. If Essendon shows competence and a semblance of hope of progressing into a finals level team and Parish is great then he’s not available.

But if Essendon misses the finals/is closer to the bottom then trying to go 2 for 1 with Parish and have a chance at 2 decent or better AFL players makes sense. Meanwhile Geelong gets a top player to sure up their midfield.

Probably a bit to small with Clark, Bruhn and Parish but thats fixable

I highly doubt he ends up here. Feels like Parish is in the Higgins category where we'll be linked to him his whole career and then get him when he's 33 and cooked.

We do need an established mid, but someone that fits the trajectory of Clark, Bruhn, Holmes, Knevitt, & Conway. Odds are we'll be adding another kid or two to that group as well to finish it off.

Parish will be 30+ by the time that group is ready to be premiership quality one would think (if they're good enough)

There's not a lot of options, and by proxy Bailey Smith is the obvious choice in terms of runs on the board and age.

 

[jdstorm]

I highly doubt he ends up here. Feels like Parish is in the Higgins category where we'll be linked to him his whole career and then get him when he's 33 and cooked.

We do need an established mid, but someone that fits the trajectory of Clark, Bruhn, Holmes, Knevitt, & Conway. Odds are we'll be adding another kid or two to that group as well to finish it off.

Parish will be 30+ by the time that group is ready to be premiership quality one would think (if they're good enough)

There's not a lot of options, and by proxy Bailey Smith is the obvious choice in terms of runs on the board and age.

I think you’re overestimating the length of time a rebuild realistically needs to take.

Most top clubs seem to have 6 stars. 2 in defence, 2 mids and 2 forwards then a bunch of good players.

Of your next gen you have…
2 forwards (Stengle and Henry) plus late career Jezza

In defence you have Holmes at HB and just drafted a guy who I expect will be an elite tall plus Stewart for the next few years.

So it’s really just mids where you need to top up and you have Clarke who looks like he will be really good. So that’s potentially 1x top mid. Like you said Smith makes sense.

But also someone was talking about McGrath* (who i personally don’t rate) so I was pointing out that Parish would potentially be more available if Essendon has a bad year. You can probably get Parish for 2x to 10 picks and you can probably get one for Bruhn. A 3rd team would need to be involved (because Essendon wouldn’t want Bruhn but Bruhn + Pick 7 for Parish seems like a good deal for Geelong. And I think Essendon would go for something like that should they finish 11th or later on the ladder

*(the only way McGrath would be available would be for some Ben McKay like band 1 BS if Essendon finish bottom 3. Essendon have too much money to spend and are too invested in him to cash out for the return his play is worth)

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You can probably get Parish for 2x to 10 picks

Woah woah woah slow down there stormy. That is eye watering. I think we'd only be interested in an offloading contract context.

And why would we trade out Bruhn? That makes no sense

 

[Footy Smarts]

Honestly think you have a better chance at Parish if Essendon have a poor year.

Scott Bros seem to like working together and Essendon have 1 too many small midfielders. He’d cost more then McGrath but he’s locked in on a team friendly deal and Geelong will surely back themselves in to develop late picks into useful best 22 players.

I'd be interested in McGrath because he'd be cheap, versatile and could improve significantly. I've got no interest in paying through the nose for Parish who is a very good player but has significant defensive frailties.

 

[Hamingja]

It would be impossible to trade for Parish now.

If we make the finals Essendon are not accepting a first rounder in the teens for him.

If we miss the finals for a second year running and have a top 10 pick we would have to embrace the rebuild, not trade for a mid 20s midfielder.

The sweet spot would have been this year with the COS pick.

In no circumstances would you trade a first and a future first for Parish.

 

[jdstorm]

Woah woah woah slow down there stormy. That is eye watering. I think we'd only be interested in an offloading contract context.

And why would we trade out Bruhn? That makes no sense

Parish has a team friendly contract.
Heavily frontloaded 6 year 800k contract that doesn’t rise with the cap.
In 5 years the average AFL player will
Be on about 5-600k and that’s about the same as Parish contract.


Putting my cats hat on:

Believe Cats have enough talent to contend if they upgrade their midfield. Due to the younger players they have bought in the past few years and excellent player development. (man that Bowes trade was a Heist)
Believe Parish is one of the best contested players in the comp.
Believe defense is about effort. He’s been better recently now that Essendon has standards and would improve at Geelong who have standards.
Believe Parish and Bruhn are both Small midfielders and Parish is significantly better.
Believe 1 good (but not too good) first round pick is fair value to Upgrade Bruhn to Parish.
Cats expect to get 7-9 years of Parish with 4-5 at near AA level

A pick in the 5-10 range has about a 30% chance to be an AA player who plays 150 games.

So Bruhn + a 30% chance to get what Parish is producing/expected to produce with some certainty makes a lot of sense. It’s a very good deal for Geelong.

Bruhn would not including Parish be the 5th best small midfielder on Essendon and wouldn’t be best 22 so a 3rd team would have to be involved to get Essendon to consider the trade as they would want multiple picks and the 15% chance to get 2x players as good as Parish who better balance the list.