I don't get it....

[Johnny Member]

So I think using Geelong as an example of how to achieve success by merely developing players is a myth.

They're just incredibly blessed to have the blokes that they drafted whilst at the tail of the ladder 10 years ago still going around at an elite level - and to have been able to compliment them with two top 10 picks that have turned out to be superstars.

[FQF]

So I think using Geelong as an example of how to achieve success by merely developing players is a myth.

They're just incredibly blessed to have the blokes that they drafted whilst at the tail of the ladder 10 years ago still going around at an elite level - and to have been able to compliment them with two top 10 picks that have turned out to be superstars.

Not to mention the Ablett compensation picks which refueled the tank with more fuel than the competition is generally designed to allow for when a team finishes at the top of the ladder.

[kosifantutti]

So I think using Geelong as an example of how to achieve success by merely developing players is a myth.

They're just incredibly blessed to have the blokes that they drafted whilst at the tail of the ladder 10 years ago still going around at an elite level - and to have been able to compliment them with two top 10 picks that have turned out to be superstars.

Isn't that just a complete contradiction?

[Johnny Member]

No, I wouldn't think so.

They drafted these blokes high up in the draft 10 years ago (all mentioned were in the first round I think and most in the top 10), and have complimented with more even higher draft picks. The guys drafted and 'developed' in between have really just made up the numbers.

The gun players, taken high in the draft are the reason they've still a gun side. And they've been very fortunate to get a star at pick 7 when they fell down the ladder and to get a no. 1 pick in Hawkins for pick 41 or whatever it was.


So I think the 'you don't need high draft picks cause Geelong haven't had high picks for years' is a myth and misleading.

[Johnny Member]

You've still got to choose wisely at the draft, no doubt about that. Which Geelong have done when they've had a crack at the top 10. Whereas we didn't get a Selwood and a Hawkins, we got an Armitage and a McEvoy. So clearly as I mentioned before, it doesn't guarantee success.

[Johnny Member]

It's worth noting too, that you can trade draft picks (just to state the obvious).

And although a high draft pick doesn't guarantee a champion player, is does guarantee more bargaining power should you want to trade it.

[bigcarl]

We've already got a group of likely young midfielders ... Webster, Billings, Dunstan, Newnes, to name a few. Then there's Steven and Armitage, who aren't old by any means.

It's true there are no potential superstar key forwards on the horizon, but you don't necessarily need one to win a flag. It's been done with serviceable key forwards rather than champions.

I say let nothing stand in the way of Richo developing a strong winning culture with these young guys. Let them win ... If they're good enough and don't be too upset when they inevitably fall over from time to time

[BigMart]

Didn't the pies (Dale Thomas) and dockers (trade to hawthorn for Hodge) and hawks (Jarrod Roughead) receive 1 priority pick?

Dogs two

Ablett, Scarlett, Blake (hopeless), N.Ablett (Average),.... Not sure any are there now... They're still going ok?

The real reason they are good

They had late top ten picks and used them well

They took
Bartel at 8, Mackie at 7, Selwood at 6, Corey at 8

Their late teens first round picks were
Taylor 17, Kelly 17, Varcoe 15

Johnson at 24
Chapman at 31
Ling at 38
Enright at 47

Now that's good drafting

Can't deny it?

[FQF]

It is good no denying it, but not the full picture.

It's not possibly to quantify the effect that their top line players they received as F/S had on the overall list. Players influence each other and create an environment which influences the whole list. Everyone knows that.

Further, yes they used their early picks well, but the very fact that they had some of those early picks free to use was because they could get their father son guys with later picks.

So yes, they drafted very nicely but they had plenty of factors going their way.

[Teflon]

It is good no denying it, but not the full picture.

It's not possibly to quantify the effect that their top line players they received as F/S had on the overall list. Players influence each other and create an environment which influences the whole list. Everyone knows that.

Further, yes they used their early picks well, but the very fact that they had some of those early picks free to use was because they could get their father son guys with later picks.

So yes, they drafted very nicely but they had plenty of factors going their way.

Spot on FQF

Take Ablett - got him for a song.......then got top notch compensation when they lost him.....double whammy right there

How good would it be to get a great Key fwd and future no 1 draft pick for pick 41????? Last draft some we're saying pick 41 for us was a waste of time.......

Cats have picked well but been bloody fortunate

As Johnny rightly says though! the key is bringing a group through together aka Roo, Joey, Dal, FIsher, Goddard, Ball, Kosi IMO we have Dunstan and Billings I'd back (exclude Stevens) as A grade ......rest are hopefuls......we need more and we need to be as high up choosing these picks as we can be - even if only to be able to on sell and use this as bargaining power for better deals.....

[supersaints]

The Geelong myth Exposed

Recruiting : Father and son, just like finishing near bottom of the ladder picks with your round 3 pick. Well spread out

Biased draw: being gifted almost ten games a year by playing all the bottom dudes in you home stadium ( nice if you can get it)

Culture: mmm : players dealing drugs, coaches shagging players girlfriends / wives , an odd rape rumor, giving drugs to young girls, (who sadly die) plenty drink driving , driving while disqualified . Directors fined for cartell buisness practices.Throw in a good dose of assaults etc and you have the recipe for a "enviable culture"

Success yes... Myth definitely

[Johnny Member]

I think it needs to be remembered too though, that in terms of the premise of the OP, that wherger Geelong were fortunate or incredibly astute, or a little of both - they are really 1 in nearly 30 years of AFL footy that have carried an era of success across generations of players for over a decade.

In my opinion it's far smarter and better to follow the model that every other premier has followed rather than the freak occurrence.

[falka]

It's timing of rules also.

2006 draft, Hawkins father son at pick 40ish and selwood at 7. Under current laws they would have used pick 7 on Hawkins and missed Selwood, so another double whammy.

Kane Tenace anyone?

[bergholt]

Geelong 2007 Premiership Side

1994 - 54: King (pre-draft)
1995 - 47: Milburn
1996 - 26: Harley (pre-draft, Port), 56: Mooney (North)
1997 - 2: Ottens (Richmond), 45: Scarlett (fs)
1998 - 24: Wojcinski
1999 - 8: Corey, 31: Chapman, 38: Ling, 47: Enright
2000 - 44: Hunt, 128: Rooke (rookie)
2001 - 8: Bartel, 17: Kelly, 24: Johnson, 40: G Ablett (fs)
2002 - 7: Mackie, 128: Byrnes (rookie)
2003 -
2004 - 49: N Ablett (fs)
2005 - 61: Stokes
2006 - 7: Selwood

4 top ten picks
5 late picks
3 father-sons
3 recycled players
2 rookies

The core of that team was the 1999 to 2002 drafts. They certainly missed some in those drafts: Spriggs, Bray, Foster, Gardiner, Playfair, Callan. But essentially that's when the kids came in who would develop over six or eight years into a premiership side, along with an older bunch who were already reasonably well-established by then.

So I dunno, were the father-sons really as crucial as all that?

[FQF]

Look at 2001. If not for F/S then they would have only been able to take AT BEST 3 of Bartel, Kelly, Johnson and Ablett. I assume that they would have used up their first pick on Bartel/Ablett and not gotten the other.

Could they have won their early flag without one of those two? And then we all know about the Ablett compensation which just shows that pick 40 was an all-giving goldmine for many more years.

[bergholt]

Look at 2001. If not for F/S then they would have only been able to take AT BEST 3 of Bartel, Kelly, Johnson and Ablett. I assume that they would have used up their first pick on Bartel/Ablett and not gotten the other.

Could they have won their early flag without one of those two? And then we all know about the Ablett compensation which just shows that pick 40 was an all-giving goldmine for many more years.

I vaguely remember that Ablett Jr wasn't rated that highly in his year? Not sure he would have been a first-round pick, though someone can probably find a reference to correct that.

[kosifantutti]

Look at 2001. If not for F/S then they would have only been able to take AT BEST 3 of Bartel, Kelly, Johnson and Ablett. I assume that they would have used up their first pick on Bartel/Ablett and not gotten the other.

Could they have won their early flag without one of those two? And then we all know about the Ablett compensation which just shows that pick 40 was an all-giving goldmine for many more years.

I vaguely remember that Ablett Jr wasn't rated that highly in his year? Not sure he would have been a first-round pick, though someone can probably find a reference to correct that.

Cats fans have been claiming that for years. He certainly took a while to get started.

[FQF]

So they would have taken him with the Stevie J pick? He is and was also a crucial cog in the team.