Player Watch Lachie Schultz

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

gouki88 said:
I would say Schultz is in the top 10-15% of small forwards in the competition. Rung below the perennial AA calibre guys you mention
Click to expand...

Yep, this. Compare Toby Greene in his 4th and 5th seasons relative to Schultz.
 
gouki88 said:
The goalpost shifting is incredible!

Bringing AA selection into this is another fun twist. It’s pretty much a consensus that they have ignored small forwards to jam more midfielders into the team, as midfielders are better
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you're the only one that's been shifting the goalposts. Tell me why Heeney is a medium lead up forward that can't be compared to Schultz even though they average the same number of marks inside 50? Why were you happy to claim Schultz comfortably sits in the tier below small forwards Greene and Charlie Cameron but they now can't be ranked against the medium forwards Elliotts and Fritzch anymore because they're "hybrid forwards" even though they average same number of marks inside 50? Did you have a similar go at posters that were justifying the Schultz trade as succession planning for Elliott when Schultz is just a "small forward" and Elliott is a very different "medium marking forward"?

I've been comparing him to the broad group of small forwards (ie non KPF) the entire time. I'm not trying to say whether he'll be selected as AA. I'm using AA selection as an example that when ranking top players by position you generally take broad categorisations to make it a worthwhile exercise rather than using the narrowing it down to specific "nuances". Otherwise we might as well claim Billy Frampton as an elite top 10% utility KPD as one of the only players who can play KPD, KPF and Ruck.

I would love to see your list of "small forwards" and see who you exclude from that list. And then we can drill into where you're putting the goalposts. Based on your strict definition of a small forward there might only be 1 small forward in each team as obviously it can't include any medium marking forwards or hybrid forwards that play alongside the typical 3 KPF + Resting Rucks. So would love to see how you rank Schultz top 3 in this list of yours to be top 15% of the <20 players from 18 teams.
 
Last edited:
Ugene41 said:
I'm pretty sure you're the only one that's been shifting the goalposts. Tell me why Heeney is a medium lead up forward that can't be compared to Schultz even though they average the same number of marks inside 50? Why were you happy to claim Schultz comfortably sits in the tier below small forwards Greene and Charlie Cameron but they now can't be ranked against the medium forwards Elliotts and Fritzch anymore because they're "hybrid forwards" even though they average same number of marks inside 50? Did you have a similar go at posters that were justifying the Schultz trade as succession planning for Elliott when Schultz is just a "small forward" and Elliott is a very different "medium marking forward"?

I've been comparing him to the broad group of small forwards (ie non KPF) the entire time. I'm not trying to say whether he'll be selected as AA. I'm using AA selection as an example that when ranking top players by position you generally take broad categorisations to make it a worthwhile exercise rather than using the narrowing it down to specific "nuances". Otherwise we might as well claim Billy Frampton as an elite top 10% utility KPD as one of the only players who can play KPD, KPF and Ruck.

I would love to see your list of "small forwards" and see who you exclude from that list. And then we can drill into where you're putting the goalposts. Based on your strict definition of a small forward there might only be 1 small forward in each team as obviously it can't include any medium marking forwards or hybrid forwards that play alongside the typical 3 KPF + Resting Rucks. So would love to see how you rank Schultz top 3 in this list of yours to be top 15% of the <20 players from 18 teams.
Click to expand...
Why is marks inside 50 the lone determinant of whether a player is a lead-up player? That is incredibly narrow-minded. Jamie Elliott was 5th in the competition for leading marks per game, for instance.

I think to properly get a rounded picture of the distinction, you need to look at contested marking, marks inside 50 and marks on the lead as they determinants. For instance, Heeney was 3rd in CM & 5th in marks on lead for non-KPFs. I think that makes him a pretty different type to the Schultz, Weightman & Moore types. Looking at multiple of those stats accounts for some different styles.

I think tiers make more sense in this kind of exercise to allow for personal preferences & forward-line makeups when looking at players in a vacuum.

My initial thinking was to exclude top 5 in 2/3 of those above metrics, minimum 10 games played. This excluded Jamie Elliott, Isaac Heeney, Jake Melksham, and Charlie Cameron. My conception of the field had Fritsch there instead of Cameron, but Cameron has offensive 1v1s at a really high rate (3rd in the above field).

Tier 1: Toby Greene.
Tier 2: Fritsch, Breust, Papley, Bailey.
Tier 3: Rankine, Schultz, Hill, Pickett, Higgins, Stengle, Moore.
Tier 4: Weightman, Walters, Rioli, Henry.
Tier 5: McCarthy, Ginnivan, Rachele, Butler, Beau.

With those excluded players, the ranking would be:

Tier 1: Greene
Tier 2: Cameron
Tier 3: Fritsch, Breust, Papley, Heeney, Bailey.
Tier 4: Rankine, Schultz, Elliott, Hill, Pickett, Higgins, Stengle, Moore.
Tier 5: Weightman, Walters, Rioli, Henry.
Tier 6: McCarthy, Ginnivan, Rachele, Butler, Beau.

Wheelo has 133 players listed as "Med Forwards" (ie not KPF nor mid forwards) for last season, & 82 for this season. If we meet in the middle and say there's roughly 100 non-tall forwards in the competition, I'm absolutely comfortable with Schultz sitting in the 10-15 range.
 
Last edited:
gouki88 said:
Why is marks inside 50 the lone determinant of whether a player is a lead-up player? That is incredibly narrow-minded. Jamie Elliott was 5th in the competition for leading marks per game, for instance.

I think to properly get a rounded picture of the distinction, you need to look at contested marking, marks inside 50 and marks on the lead as they determinants. For instance, Heeney was 3rd in CM & 5th in marks on lead for non-KPFs. I think that makes him a pretty different type to the Schultz, Weightman & Moore types. Looking at multiple of those stats accounts for some different styles.

I think tiers make more sense in this kind of exercise to allow for personal preferences & forward-line makeups when looking at players in a vacuum.

My initial thinking was to exclude top 5 in 2/3 of those above metrics, minimum 10 games played. This excluded Jamie Elliott, Isaac Heeney, Jake Melksham, and Charlie Cameron. My conception of the field had Fritsch there instead of Cameron, but Cameron has offensive 1v1s at a really high rate (3rd in the above field).

Tier 1: Toby Greene.
Tier 2: Fritsch, Breust, Papley, Bailey.
Tier 3: Rankine, Schultz, Hill, Pickett, Higgins, Stengle, Moore.
Tier 4: Weightman, Walters, Rioli, Henry.
Tier 5: McCarthy, Ginnivan, Rachele, Butler, Beau.

With those excluded players, the ranking would be:

Tier 1: Greene
Tier 2: Cameron
Tier 3: Fritsch, Breust, Papley, Heeney, Bailey.
Tier 4: Rankine, Schultz, Elliott, Hill, Pickett, Higgins, Stengle, Moore.
Tier 5: Weightman, Walters, Rioli, Henry.
Tier 6: McCarthy, Ginnivan, Rachele, Butler, Beau.

Wheelo has 133 players listed as "Med Forwards" (ie not KPF nor mid forwards) for last season, & 82 for this season. If we meet in the middle and say there's roughly 100 non-tall forwards in the competition, I'm absolutely comfortable with Schultz sitting in the 10-15 range.
Click to expand...
lol what? I'm not even going to bother commenting on your nonsensical way of now excluding Cameron, Heeney and Elliott but including Fritsch, Greene and Bruest when it was a completely different combo you had issue with in earlier posts.

It's the fact that you're now relying on comparing to a list of 100 "medium forwards" to justify that your own tiering of Schultz somewhere in the top 10-15 of the small forwards you've come up with therefore ranks him top 10-15%. Have you even looked at the Wheelo list you're referring to? It literally has every name that I mentioned previously that according to you was too broad as it includes "medium forwards" and "hybrid forwards" that can't be compared to Schultz as a small forward. Yet you need this list of ~100 names which includes the likes of Dustin Martin, Dayne Zorko, Caleb Daniel, Patrick Lipinski, Finlay Macrae, Josh Carmichael to rank Schultz in the top 15% of small forwards. What happened to all your nuances of a small forward? And I'm the one moving the goalposts? lol

By your own ranking, Schultz is tier 3 or 4 and not in the top 10-15% of your select group of small forwards. Even if we just use the full Wheelo list of "medium forwards" so there's ~100 players across 2 years to rank against, you can easily come up with more than 15 names from there that would be more valuable than Schultz. No matter how you want to cut it, Schultz is not in some elite tier or top 10-15%. He's simply an above average forward.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ugene41 said:
lol what? I'm not even going to bother commenting on your nonsensical way of now excluding Cameron, Heeney and Elliott but including Fritsch, Greene and Bruest when it was a completely different combo you had issue with in earlier posts.

It's the fact that you're now relying on comparing to a list of 100 "medium forwards" to justify that your own tiering of Schultz somewhere in the top 10-15 of the small forwards you've come up with therefore ranks him top 10-15%. Have you even looked at the Wheelo list you're referring to? It literally has every name that I mentioned previously that according to you was too broad as it includes "medium forwards" and "hybrid forwards" that can't be compared to Schultz as a small forward. Yet you need this list of ~100 names which includes the likes of Dustin Martin, Dayne Zorko, Caleb Daniel, Patrick Lipinski, Finlay Macrae, Josh Carmichael to rank Schultz in the top 15% of small forwards. What happened to all your nuances of a small forward? And I'm the one moving the goalposts? lol

By your own ranking, Schultz is tier 3 or 4 and not in the top 10-15% of your select group of small forwards. Even if we just use the full Wheelo list of "medium forwards" so there's ~100 players across 2 years to rank against, you can easily come up with more than 15 names from there that would be more valuable than Schultz. No matter how you want to cut it, Schultz is not in some elite tier or top 10-15%. He's simply an above average forward.
Click to expand...
Who are the 15 then?
 
gouki88 said:
Who are the 15 then?
Click to expand...

Here are just 20+ names from that list and I'm sure I've missed a whole bunch. I would happily straight swap Schultz for any of them and their teams would 100% tell us to p!ss off. With the exception of some of the older 32+ guys maybe like Breust and Martin. But even then, if our goal was just to have one last crack at the premiership, those two would provide much better matchwinning impact than Schultz.

Proven AA quality forwards: Greene, Cameron, Papley, Heeney, Stengle, Breust, Martin
Proven dangerous goalkickers with higher career goal averages: Fritsch, Weightman, Pickett, Stringer, Zurhaar
X-factor matchwinners: Hill, Rankine, Bailey
Top 10 draft picks just starting their careers with way higher upside: Rachele, Archie Perkins, Bailey Humphrey, Phillipou, Zane Duursma, Nick Watson, Cam McKenzie
Then there's other more proven players in that list that aren't even just forwards like Caleb Daniel and Liam Baker that forms part of your ~100.

As I said, Schultz is an above average forward that can be an important role player like Elliott (I would also have taken Elliott over Schultz at the same age anyday). That makes him likely to be in the top 35% of small forwards not some elite top 10-15%. And in no world is that worth a future first and pick 33.
 
Ugene41 said:
Here are just 20+ names from that list and I'm sure I've missed a whole bunch. I would happily straight swap Schultz for any of them and their teams would 100% tell us to p!ss off. With the exception of some of the older 32+ guys maybe like Breust and Martin. But even then, if our goal was just to have one last crack at the premiership, those two would provide much better matchwinning impact than Schultz.

Proven AA quality forwards: Greene, Cameron, Papley, Heeney, Stengle, Breust, Martin
Proven dangerous goalkickers with higher career goal averages: Fritsch, Weightman, Pickett, Stringer, Zurhaar
X-factor matchwinners: Hill, Rankine, Bailey
Top 10 draft picks just starting their careers with way higher upside: Rachele, Archie Perkins, Bailey Humphrey, Phillipou, Zane Duursma, Nick Watson, Cam McKenzie
Then there's other more proven players in that list that aren't even just forwards like Caleb Daniel and Liam Baker that forms part of your ~100.

As I said, Schultz is an above average forward that can be an important role player like Elliott (I would also have taken Elliott over Schultz at the same age anyday). That makes him likely to be in the top 35% of small forwards not some elite top 10-15%. And in no world is that worth a future first and pick 33.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff. I think you're getting really sucked into the grass being greener on the other side.

Schultz was better than Stengle, Stringer, Zuurhaar, Weightman, Pickett, & Hill last season. Could probably argue a few more. Let alone the guys who may one day be on his level, some with 0 games played.
 
Trading seems a bit like lotto to me. We have won a few and lost a few, in my lifetime. Some extremely well - jolly and ball for example, I think the mitchell trade similar. Big win on Beams going, huge loss on return. Not always obvious straight away. I judged trading for Jamie years back, when his injuries seemed to have written him off, a miss but what a win it turned out to be. Happy to give plenty of time before judging the trade - good or bad its irrelevant to our issues right now.

As to Schultz, shown plenty for mine. Jittery first match, settling in, works hard and looks like will always contribute. Going to give it at least this season before hoeing in.
 
noideaatall said:
Trading seems a bit like lotto to me. We have won a few and lost a few, in my lifetime. Some extremely well - jolly and ball for example, I think the mitchell trade similar. Big win on Beams going, huge loss on return. Not always obvious straight away. I judged trading for Jamie years back, when his injuries seemed to have written him off, a miss but what a win it turned out to be. Happy to give plenty of time before judging the trade - good or bad its irrelevant to our issues right now.

As to Schultz, shown plenty for mine. Jittery first match, settling in, works hard and looks like will always contribute. Going to give it at least this season before hoeing in.
Click to expand...

Bet if Moore, Pendles, Sidey, Crisp, & JDG were killing it in 24 we'd be singing Lachie's praises.
 
jathanas said:
Bet if Moore, Pendles, Sidey, Crisp, & JDG were killing it in 24 we'd be singing Lachie's praises.
Click to expand...
Yeah, without question. Pre-season everyone was happy with the Schultz trade, at least from what I read. Now ... not so much, which frankly I don't think correlates with his performance, not relative to the team at least. Whether it was the best trade long term is another question but just cos it looks like we are facing a rebuild now doesn't mean that directly after winning a premiership the club should have focused on this or long term recruitment. He is a replacement for JE at the very least. If anyone should be questioned here it is fly. Quite clearly we have looked to develop a game plan based on small forwards. If that doesn't work out then maybe, in retrospect, we might argue bad direction in terms of recruiting. lots of water needs to run under the bridge.
 
noideaatall said:
Yeah, without question. Pre-season everyone was happy with the Schultz trade, at least from what I read. Now ... not so much, which frankly I don't think correlates with his performance, not relative to the team at least. Whether it was the best trade long term is another question but just cos it looks like we are facing a rebuild now doesn't mean that directly after winning a premiership the club should have focused on this or long term recruitment. He is a replacement for JE at the very least. If anyone should be questioned here it is fly. Quite clearly we have looked to develop a game plan based on small forwards. If that doesn't work out then maybe, in retrospect, we might argue bad direction in terms of recruiting. lots of water needs to run under the bridge.
Click to expand...

Impossible to judge the capacity of any recruit after just 3 games in which the side's game plan and key personnel have floundered; and yes, we can't see if bringing him in aligns with the club's circumstances yet either.
 
Very Few That is Actually Putting Effort and has Intensity

Numbers not there but should Change when we finally start playing Good Football
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TradeDraft
Player Watch Lachie Sullivan
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
199
Views
11K
3rdMan
3

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top