Game Day Darcy Moore (Thread closed - pls move over to 'welcome ...' thread)

[TradeDraft]

We do not need Tom Mitchell at Collingwood. One of our issues is that we have a very small midfield with one speed....Slow. With the exception of Pendlebury at 191cm, the rest of our midfielders (Fasolo, Dwyer, Adams, Sidebottom, Williams, Broomhead, Ramsay and Armstrong are between 178-181cm) and do not stand up against the likes of Fyfe (190cm) and Mundy (192cm).

Mitchell was Pick 21 three years ago. He cannot get a game with Sydney and has played 19 games in 3 years....so why all of a sudden is he worth pick 6?. He is only 181cm and one paced, so he falls into the pack listed above.

Two months ago Moore was touted by most pundits as being between picks 4-6. Now we are questioning whether he is worth Pick 8. Do we want him because he is a son of a club legend and Brownlow Medalist or based on his own merits?. He hasn't exactly set the world on fire in the TAC this year, however, means little. At 199cm, he is very agile and can play both forward and back. Has anybody considered some of the following options?

1. Tom Lamb (17, 193cm, 84kg) - runs like the wind, and great disposal skills. Plays both has a tall forward and midfield - expected to go anywhere from 6-12

2. Jordan De Goey (18, 187, 83kgs) - brilliant kick and tough as nails. Plays midfield, HF and HB

3. Durdin (18, 196cm 89kgs) plays both CHF and CHB - good mark, very mobile and great disposal

I last heard he was rated in the 4-6 Range.

Heard nothing that has changed

 

[Seedsfan]

We do not need Tom Mitchell at Collingwood. One of our issues is that we have a very small midfield with one speed....Slow. With the exception of Pendlebury at 191cm, the rest of our midfielders (Fasolo, Dwyer, Adams, Sidebottom, Williams, Broomhead, Ramsay and Armstrong are between 178-181cm) and do not stand up against the likes of Fyfe (190cm) and Mundy (192cm).

Mitchell was Pick 21 three years ago. He cannot get a game with Sydney and has played 19 games in 3 years....so why all of a sudden is he worth pick 6?. He is only 181cm and one paced, so he falls into the pack listed above.

Two months ago Moore was touted by most pundits as being between picks 4-6. Now we are questioning whether he is worth Pick 8. Do we want him because he is a son of a club legend and Brownlow Medalist or based on his own merits?. He hasn't exactly set the world on fire in the TAC this year, however, means little. At 199cm, he is very agile and can play both forward and back. Has anybody considered some of the following options?

1. Tom Lamb (17, 193cm, 84kg) - runs like the wind, and great disposal skills. Plays both has a tall forward and midfield - expected to go anywhere from 6-12

2. Jordan De Goey (18, 187, 83kgs) - brilliant kick and tough as nails. Plays midfield, HF and HB

3. Durdin (18, 196cm 89kgs) plays both CHF and CHB - good mark, very mobile and great disposal

Mate I am sorry but that is a load of s**t. Stats show Hawthorn has the shortest or second shortest midfield in the comp yet they won the flag beating the tallest midfield in Fremantle on the day. It is not about how big the player is it is about how good they player is remember it is not the size of the dog in the fight it's the size of the fight in the dog

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

The key to getting Moore through to the second round is that we need to convince every club with draft picks above us that we are happy to trade Beams on the hush to them for their first round pick and then pull out after the FS biddings are done.

 

[Bard]

Mate I am sorry but that is a load of s**t. Stats show Hawthorn has the shortest or second shortest midfield in the comp yet they won the flag beating the tallest midfield in Fremantle on the day. It is not about how big the player is it is about how good they player is remember it is not the size of the dog in the fight it's the size of the fight in the dog

Exactly. Now if you were offered two people of the exactly same skills and one was larger than the other you'd take the larger player, but if the shorter player was simply better, you'd take the shorter one. People just get blind-sided because we all of a sudden have a couple of tall midfielders tearing up the comp (see: Pendles, Fyfe, Mundy) but what about the rest of them? Think of the other big-name midfielders in the competition, none of them are particularly tall: Ablett, Dangerfield, Selwood, Judd, Swan, Beams, Watson (I think he's a bit taller than the rest)... the list goes on.

It's just because the tall players stand-out, similar to players with excessive speed.

 

[Ricky90]

Exactly. Now if you were offered two people of the exactly same skills and one was larger than the other you'd take the larger player, but if the shorter player was simply better, you'd take the shorter one. People just get blind-sided because we all of a sudden have a couple of tall midfielders tearing up the comp (see: Pendles, Fyfe, Mundy) but what about the rest of them? Think of the other big-name midfielders in the competition, none of them are particularly tall: Ablett, Dangerfield, Selwood, Judd, Swan, Beams, Watson (I think he's a bit taller than the rest)... the list goes on.

It's just because the tall players stand-out, similar to players with excessive speed.

Chris Judd is 189, Jobe is 191 and Dangerfield is tall-ish at 185.

This is not just in reply to you, Bard, but to the topic in general:

Height matters. A good tall is better than a good small any day of the week. But it's not the be all and end all. You simply consider their height and skillset and go from there.

I'd prefer Beams over Mundy and Jobe. Is that backwards because Beams is shorter? Certainly not.

Hine would factor height in just as he factors weight in, and athletic capabilities.

 

[Bard]

Chris Judd is 189, Jobe is 191 and Dangerfield is tall-ish at 185.

This is not just in reply to you, Bard, but to the topic in general:

Height matters. A good tall is better than a good small any day of the week. But it's not the be all and end all. You simply consider their height and skillset and go from there.

I'd prefer Beams over Mundy and Jobe. Is that backwards because Beams is shorter? Certainly not.

Hine would factor height in just as he factors weight in, and athletic capabilities.

I'm surprised that Judd is that tall, not so much at Watson (thought he was about 189). I don't really consider 185 tall-ish though, as most people are saying players are short if they're below 183.

I forgot Mitchell too and he's probably the shortest of the lot.

 

[Ricky90]

I'm surprised that Judd is that tall, not so much at Watson (thought he was about 189). I don't really consider 185 tall-ish though, as most people are saying players are short if they're below 183.

I forgot Mitchell too and he's probably the shortest of the lot.

Surprised me too, was expecting closer to 186cm for Judd.

 

[Tippy78]

Anyone know if the TAC grand final is on TV?

 

[DolphinMan]

My thanks also. How rubbish are some of those top 10 selections in hindsight? Wow.

Another sobering thought is the number of players who only just manage a rookie spot or are speculative 2nd or 3rd rounders and end up becoming quality footballers.

I know it was a while ago now but look at Brayden and Heath Shaw. Both father son picks in 2003. The one touted as a future star disappeared without firing a shot. The speculative pick became a very good footballer and a premiership player.

Every year now the media go on and on about how it's a science and the top 10 is pretty accurately predicted (if not the order). But in reality a top 10 pick is no guarantee of anything.

And despite all that, Freeman and Shazza will be guns haha.

 

[DolphinMan]

The reality is that if you look at most teams there are more ROOKIS who work out well than top 10 players work out

 

[DolphinMan]

I'm surprised that Judd is that tall, not so much at Watson (thought he was about 189). I don't really consider 185 tall-ish though, as most people are saying players are short if they're below 183.

I forgot Mitchell too and he's probably the shortest of the lot.

Pendles is 190....

 

[DrDavoren]

Exactly. Now if you were offered two people of the exactly same skills and one was larger than the other you'd take the larger player, but if the shorter player was simply better, you'd take the shorter one. People just get blind-sided because we all of a sudden have a couple of tall midfielders tearing up the comp (see: Pendles, Fyfe, Mundy) but what about the rest of them? Think of the other big-name midfielders in the competition, none of them are particularly tall: Ablett, Dangerfield, Selwood, Judd, Swan, Beams, Watson (I think he's a bit taller than the rest)... the list goes on.

It's just because the tall players stand-out, similar to players with excessive speed.

Josh Kennedy says hi

 

[shizzle]

Anyone know if the TAC grand final is on TV?

Not on TV, but you can watch the live stream here http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc...20-0-0-0&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=31508046

 

[Rusty Beam]

I really want us to draft Moore's teammate Toby McLean. Reminds me so much of Robbie Gray.

In fact Powers recruiting managers summary in today's HS of the reasons he drafted Gray are the same reasons I want to draft McClean.

"What I loved about Robbie was that whenever he got the ball in his hands the Oakleigh Chargers scored, either through him or the next possession. He had great awareness and when he got the ball he used it smartly"

Come on Hine get him

 

[BEEG]

Let's all get dirt on the clubs recruiting managers and blackmail them into not nominating Moore

 

[Scodog10]

The reality is that if you look at most teams there are more ROOKIS who work out well than top 10 players work out

What an absolute load of tripe! The reason more rookies work out than top ten picks is because there's 4-5 times as many of them a year!!

As a % the success rate of top 10 picks is that far ahead of the rest it isn't funny. Drafting only became serious business post 2005 (after the JON debacle) look at the rate of hits on top 10 picks since 06 and it goes at 70% minimum.

 

[Scodog10]

Considering I'm bored and all.

Games played by top 10 draft picks in the 06 draft = 1,043 (3 AA players, 3 premiership players, 3 B&F players and 2 captains)

Games played by the 61 players from the 06 rookie draft = 1,528 (1 AA & 4 premiership players)

Despite there being 6 times the number of selections and it being one of the best rookie drafts ever (Wellingham, Adams, Jamison, Lonergan, King, Jacobs, Smith, Harbrow and Macaffer) I'm taking the top 10 players every day of the week!

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I want to thank you Roverjg. You've convinced me of something I've been dwelling on for a while now. That drafting is (largely) cr@p. Or should I say, it may not be the road to the promised land I once thought it was.

Or put another way, the key to good drafting is less in trying to fashion top 10 picks and more in finding the diamonds like Parker, Swan, Gunston, Sloane with your pick 40.

Man, that's some interesting reading there. Homework like this is not always appreciated. Good stuff and welcome (as a relatively new poster).

Still, he listed 43 players taken in the top 10 over 11 years as examples who didn't live up to the standard expected. That's 43/110, or to put it another way, 67/110 who presumably were at the standard expected. That's around a 60% chance you broadly get what you pay for with a top ten pick. When you consider you're drafting 18 year olds who are subject to the vagaries of injury, form and life in general, that's not too bad. Including the fact that some of those listed as misses have still been ok footballers.

Not saying the general point about assuming every top ten pick will be a gun is completely wrong, but you'd still much rather have a pick in the top 10 than one in the 20s, if that's the choice you face.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Has anybody considered some of the following options?

1. Tom Lamb (17, 193cm, 84kg) - runs like the wind, and great disposal skills. Plays both has a tall forward and midfield - expected to go anywhere from 6-12

2. Jordan De Goey (18, 187, 83kgs) - brilliant kick and tough as nails. Plays midfield, HF and HB

I'm right where you're at, I think.

Obviously a lot has been made of the tall talent at the top end of the draft - Even leaving Moore aside, Patrick McCartin, Peter Wright, Sam Durdin, Jake Lever, Hugh Goddard, Reece McKenzie and Caleb Marchbank is the kind of crop that really doesn't come along too often, so drafting talls is obviously on the minds of most draft-watchers.

It's fair to say, though, that there is actually a pretty strong crop of the 185+ athletic running types that has perhaps escaped the same kind of attention. As you mentioned Tom Lamb and Jordan De Goey, there's also the likes of Jayden Laverde, Corey Ellis, Connor Blakely, Kyle Langford, Jackson Nelson, Connor Menadue, Ed Vickers-Willis... Guys who bring varying combinations of size, pace and skills, which is definitely on the list of needs for us as a footy club.

Now, we have had some poor luck with that type with the likes of Scharenberg, Oxley, Karnezis, Seedsman and Toovey all having injury issues throughout the year and Lumumba now looking likely to make his exit, so I definitely think that guys on that list hold some appeal for us given our plethora of smaller midfielders and the impending (likely) addition of Moore.

However, if I'm picking things the way I usually do, I can't see Hine overlooking Jack Steele, should he get a shot at him.

 

[Dynamics]

Still, he listed 43 players taken in the top 10 over 11 years as examples who didn't live up to the standard expected. That's 43/110, or to put it another way, 67/110 who presumably were at the standard expected. That's around a 60% chance you broadly get what you pay for with a top ten pick. When you consider you're drafting 18 year olds who are subject to the vagaries of injury, form and life in general, that's not too bad. Including the fact that some of those listed as misses have still been ok footballers.

Not saying the general point about assuming every top ten pick will be a gun is completely wrong, but you'd still much rather have a pick in the top 10 than one in the 20s, if that's the choice you face.

Absolutely! But when is it ever just a choice between top 10 and 20 something, without giving up something to upgrade the pick?

I mean, you'd always prefer the higher pick, just think back to picking schoolyard cricket teams. Makes sense.

I guess (what do I know really!?) the trick to combining successful list management and future recruitment would be in balancing the draft pick with what you're prepared to give up for it.

Hawthorn for example are about to have a lot of old coots on their list so they'll want another flag to justify the way they've managed it.

 

[Bay Pie]

The reality is that if you look at most teams there are more ROOKIS who work out well than top 10 players work out

Please get a job at carlton. We'll then trade you all 4 of our rookie picks for carlton's top 10 pick, which you will secure again next year. 4 to 1 is a great deal isn't it.

 

[frizzle]

Things are looking decidedly better for us to get Moore with a 2nd round pick.

1 - Moore wouldn't be bid on by clubs with top 4 picks. Lions may need pick 4 for Ryder anyway
2 - Doggies may need their pick for Jaksch
3 - Blues may need their pick for Mitchell

That leaves Gold Coast to be a stumbling block.

Even if those trades don't go through, it has created some uncertainty with top 8 picks.
Clubs may need to hold on to them for trade week to bring in some top line talent.
Interesting times ahead.

 

[TradeDraft]

Things are looking decidedly better for us to get Moore with a 2nd round pick.

1 - Moore wouldn't be bid on by clubs with top 4 picks. Lions may need pick 4 for Ryder anyway
2 - Doggies may need their pick for Jaksch
3 - Blues may need their pick for Mitchell

That leaves Gold Coast to be a stumbling block.

Even if those trades don't go through, it has created some uncertainty with top 8 picks.
Clubs may need to hold on to them for trade week to bring in some top line talent.
Interesting times ahead.

You do make a Very Good Point and how you put it.

Does sound quite Possible.

Still think it take Pick 8 but how you put 2nd round is not Impossible

 

[frizzle]

You do make a Very Good Point and how you put it.

Does sound quite Possible.

Still think it take Pick 8 but how you put 2nd round is not Impossible

Only 1 or 2 clubs can risk bidding for Moore in my opinion. If Hine says to some team - you bid pick 5 or 6 so he is all yours then that club loses any ability to trade with it & must take Moore. Very risky strategy to make us use pick 8. Could backfire on any team that does.
If Carlton, Bulldogs etc bid first round then they can't bring in any big guns by offering their pick. I don't think Mitchell or Jaksch are worth first round picks, but those picks may be involved in the deal in some way. Swap of picks for instance.

 

[shizzle]

Only 1 or 2 clubs can risk bidding for Moore in my opinion. If Hine says to some team - you bid pick 5 or 6 so he is all yours then that club loses any ability to trade with it & must take Moore. Very risky strategy to make us use pick 8. Could backfire on any team that does.
If Carlton, Bulldogs etc bid first round then they can't bring in any big guns by offering their pick. I don't think Mitchell or Jaksch are worth first round picks, but those picks may be involved in the deal in some way. Swap of picks for instance.

Then again if Darcy follows up last weeks good game with a best on tomorrow it might bring him into contention for one of the 1-4 clubs, everyone loves a big game player.