Toast Andrejs Everitt - updated discussion Andrejs at Sydney vs Andrejs at Carlton

[Weiterbot23]

He finished 7th in the B&F.

What game were you not impressed with? He shut down every opponent he played on, when he did play as a shutdown player.

Really 7th? that's impressive from 17 games. Pretty sure it was the second collingwood game. I was right on the Wing and twice he put in a bit of a soft effort at the corner of the square, very Lucas like.

I'm not saying he's not a handy player, there is some serious love for him on here. Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention to him.

 

[DamoESP]

From a strictly "fantasy" football point of view, he was a very handy pickup for my Ultimate Footy teams backline, and had some great games where he dominated. On of the Collingwood games (first one from memory) where he racked 20+ disposal, couple of goals and 10+ marks, was gold for a defender.

From my personal point of view, he was my fav recruit of 2014, his ability to beat his opponent or at least limit them on most occasions cannot be underestimated, add in the fact that he would bob up around goal every now and again as was a pretty reliable set shot (which is something we normally lack) was also a bonus.

 

[Windhover]

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here. Everitt left Sydney because he was a fringe player, out of contract, not much of an offer so effectively being squeezed out. He was clearly a stop gap player for Sydney, was clearly more value for us and clearly raised most of his stats while tackling a new role.

Read my post at 711. The original post which sparked my response was that it was hoped that Jones and Jaksch would show the same improvement as Everitt did from 2013 to 2014. Now you can cut, bake, slice or dice your stats any way you want to and you can categorise Everitt as a fringe Sydney player lucky to get a game in 2013 (although he got 20) and unlikely to get a game in 2014 (although Laidler played plenty) but my personal opinion is that for a nearly 14% increase in game time in 2014 there is only a minimal improve detectable from the stats. You say the increase in game time itself shows he was more valuable to the team. Maybe so but maybe that was due to Sydney being a much stronger team. I notice Jones did much better at VFL level than AFL level but this "improvement" does not in itself mean anything.

It seems Jones himself knows his tank was not really good enough for AFL so it is great to hear he is taking this second chance with both hands. If he only "improves" as much as Everitt did 2013 to 14 we will have a dud.

So Jones has to improve to become a decent pick up...who has argued otherwise?

Not quite my point BS. He has to improve more than Everitt did.

 

[gbatman]

Everitt is a tall guy who doesn't play overly tall. Great athlete, competitor and one of if not the best kick on our list. Games last year where he played on the ball and tagged he was able to run off and kick goals going the other way, was really impressive, hope to see him continue in this role. Will always be arguments as to what role he should be playing. Half back flank, wing, forward flank, on ball all suite him. Playing as a tall, deep forward, on tall players in defence don't suite him. Think he has room to improve as an onballer as this is probably a bit new to him and he does get out of position at times except when tagging, his receiving game could lift a little but it's fairly good, particularly when he's playing in defence.

He's been a good pick up and will continue to be.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Read my post at 711. The original post which sparked my response was that it was hoped that Jones and Jaksch would show the same improvement as Everitt did from 2013 to 2014. Now you can cut, bake, slice or dice your stats any way you want to and you can categorise Everitt as a fringe Sydney player lucky to get a game in 2013 (although he got 20) and unlikely to get a game in 2014 (although Laidler played plenty) but my personal opinion is that for a nearly 14% increase in game time in 2014 there is only a minimal improve detectable from the stats. You say the increase in game time itself shows he was more valuable to the team. Maybe so but maybe that was due to Sydney being a much stronger team.

I baked it, sliced it, put a scoop of butterscotch icecream on top and still came to the conclusion you were underselling Everitt's improvement in 2014, for no real reason. The poster thinks Everitt came from the clouds this year and hopes the same for others, but for some reason you wanted to pour cold water on their hope using reasoning that can be hotly debated.

Then when we show the change or role, the improved stats, you try to use the Swans superior strength to highlight that there is no discernable difference. I fail to see why less game time means his form at Sydney was similar to that at Carlton. There were 17 players that played 20 games or more of a possible 25 at Sydney in 2013. Only 1 of those players averaged less game time than Everitt, and that was because Craig Bird had 4 games either as sub or injured during the game. If you are having just as good a season as he had this year, you don't spend 25% of the game on the pine.

I'm not saying Everitt was lucky to get games. You can only go off who is available for selection. They had a lot of injuries in their back half though, either to third talls or running players. The prevailing mood from Swans supporters prior to the Everitt trade, was a little bit ho hum. Limited footballer, good run, can't compete one on one, and if they need the cap space, he was one that could go. He had his best season to that point in 2013, but nothing like the versatility shown this year. Consider he was performing negating roles as well so there is more unrewarded game time on the stats sheet.

Everitt was nowhere in the Bob Skilton Medal in 2013. 7th in the John Nicholls medal this year. Got his first Brownlow votes this year as well.

Credit where it is due IMO. Average for years, better in 2013, best in 2014.

 

[Windhover]

I baked it, sliced it, put a scoop of butterscotch icecream on top and still came to the conclusion you were underselling Everitt's improvement in 2014, for no real reason. The poster thinks Everitt came from the clouds this year and hopes the same for others, but for some reason you wanted to pour cold water on their hope using reasoning that can be hotly debated.

Really ODN, is the difference between us much? You say:

Average for years, better in 2013, best in 2014.

. . . and I would agree with you. From the get go I admitted "minimal improvement" in 2014. The idea that Everitt "came from the clouds" is over-reach.

Despite your deployment of ice-cream, you assert I have used "reasoning that can be hotly debated". You deal with my reasoning thus:

Then when we show the change or role, the improved stats, you try to use the Swans superior strength to highlight that there is no discernable difference.

. . . but fail to address the reasoning. As I have explained, a marginal player in a side competing for a premiership (Swans 2013) may well become a good player in a side competing for bottom 6 (Blues 2014). You quote his first Brownlow votes. How many Brownlow votes might Ratten have received in 1995 if he had played in a side that did not have Sticks, Williams etc?

As to Everitt's "change of role" we disagree. The important change of role occurred in 2013 when Longmire stopped trying to use him in a key position ever. Any change of role between 2013 and 2014 is, IMO, subjective and not readily identifiable.

I fail to see why less game time means his form at Sydney was similar to that at Carlton.

That is not my argument. My argument is simply that since he had less game time at Sydney it is understandable that this would reduce his stats. (You can't get a kick if you are sitting on the pine). Any difference in stats between season 13 and 14 would need to take this into account this surely.
Otherwise I can accept your argument (facts and reasons) that his reduced game time at Sydney suggests he was less important to Sydney in 2013 than he was to Carlton in 2014 and that, by itself, suggests a significant improvement. But of course it is not "by itself". A "marginal player in a good team" may often be much the same as a "good player in a substandard team" and Everitt IMO is an example. Grigg 2010 to 2013 is another example - though perhaps not on this year's form.

Finally, of course I do not want to pour cold water on the hope that Jones and Jaksch will improve significantly in 2015. I very much hope it myself. Indeed I have had a 3 year debate with a friend over whether Jones is up to AFL standard. I admit I am not winning that debate yet but have not given up hope by any measure. But my hope is not based on some illusion that Everitt suddenly improved out of the clouds, still less that this should have any relevance to Jones. That is the target of my cold water.

 

[Blue By Blood]

He played 20 games for Sydney last year because of their injuries. He played 17 games for us this year because he got injured.

I disagree about the stats being irrelevant. They paint a strong picture.

View attachment 88220

33% more marks, 100% more goals, 20% more tackles, he went third man up in ruck contests, halved the frees against, 25% more contested possessions.

He went from providing defensive run to moving more into the midfield and up forward, yet he still got back to help out in defence as evidenced by his rebound 50s still being decent.

Add to that he was performing run with roles on occasion as well, and he clearly upped his output and his value in 2014.

I like Everitt.. he had a great season. But if you look at those stats, he also had a greater time on ground per match in 2014 so you'd expect his stats to have improved a bit.

 

[Linear]

Didnt realise my passing comment would generate so much discussion. Didnt realise he played 20 games in 2013 for Sydney. Lets face it, for many years he was a pinch hitter, used to fill gaps. He may have came on in 2013 but he is really hitting his straps at Carlton, it was an excellent choice in selecting him. My point was, choosing these younger players that are showing signs of coming on or having the ability to come on is not a bad strategy. It can be risky, but no more risky than choosing an unproven kid.
Noone would question Everitt is a critical player in our team. I hope the same for Jaksch and Jones. I think Whiley will fire also.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I like Everitt.. he had a great season. But if you look at those stats, he also had a greater time on ground per match in 2014 so you'd expect his stats to have improved a bit.

By 14%. Stats improvement was greater. Again, just check Swans supporters to see whether he was a fringe player playing largely through injury. Also if he was in the same form last year he wouldn't sit on the pine for a quarter.

I'm really not sure why anybody would debate the notion that Everitt was far better this year. On the back of 2014 could you imagine any team trading him for a 7 place second round upgrade?

 

[Blue By Blood]

By 14%. Stats improvement was greater. Again, just check Swans supporters to see whether he was a fringe player playing largely through injury. Also if he was in the same form last year he wouldn't sit on the pine for a quarter.

I'm really not sure why anybody would debate the notion that Everitt was far better this year. On the back of 2014 could you imagine any team trading him for a 7 place second round upgrade?

Yeah I don't think anyone could debate that he didn't have a better year in 2014. I was rapt with what we got out of him. I would like to see him play forward a bit more though because I thought he looked dangerous up there in bursts. Check the St Kilda game for an example and also in the NAB Cup.

We got a steal for only a 7 place downgrade that's for sure. Let's hope he has an even better 2015.

 

[Windhover]

I'm really not sure why anybody would debate the notion that Everitt was far better this year. On the back of 2014 could you imagine any team trading him for a 7 place second round upgrade?

Sure. Everitt was as you have identified, surplus to Sydney's requirements. The Age 2014 guide stated "Utility who was pushed out at Sydney by the Buddy deal." Recognising that they had to let him go because they could not pay the money he was worth or even guarantee him a place in the side they made the best deal they could get. Just like we did with Grigg and Jacobs. It was always likely to be a good deal for us. With Jones, it is much more a matter of wait and see because, if Jones proves a valuable player the Bulldogs will be proven to have made a very bad call - particularly now they have Boyd to be the number 1 forward.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Sure. Everitt was as you have identified, surplus to Sydney's requirements. The Age 2014 guide stated "Utility who was pushed out at Sydney by the Buddy deal." Recognising that they had to let him go because they could not pay the money he was worth or even guarantee him a place in the side they made the best deal they could get. Just like we did with Grigg and Jacobs. It was always likely to be a good deal for us. With Jones, it is much more a matter of wait and see because, if Jones proves a valuable player the Bulldogs will be proven to have made a very bad call - particularly now they have Boyd to be the number 1 forward.

Nobody thinks that Jones this year is in a similar position to Everitt last year. However, they are hoping that a change of scenery and role might see similar improvement. This year Everitt was a top 7 player for Carlton. That's not to suggest that top 7 at Carlton = fringe player at Sydney either.

Jones has identified his tank as an issue and is working on it. He also is looking forward to having other tall forwards around him. He was okay as a second forward behind Hall. 2nd-3rd forward at Carlton, he could cause some headaches.

 

[Windhover]

Nobody thinks that Jones this year is in a similar position to Everitt last year. However, they are hoping that a change of scenery and role might see similar improvement. This year Everitt was a top 7 player for Carlton. That's not to suggest that top 7 at Carlton = fringe player at Sydney either.

Jones has identified his tank as an issue and is working on it. He also is looking forward to having other tall forwards around him. He was okay as a second forward behind Hall. 2nd-3rd forward at Carlton, he could cause some headaches.

Surely no one would rate Everitt a top 7 player for us this year just because he finished 7th in the b&f. If that were right why did we get rid of Teague when he was in mid-career a mere year after winning the b&f. As good a season as he had this year I do not see him as guaranteed a place in a full strength side next year. And I do not predict a great year for us next year.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Surely no one would rate Everitt a top 7 player for us this year just because he finished 7th in the b&f. If that were right why did we get rid of Teague when he was in mid-career a mere year after winning the b&f. As good a season as he had this year I do not see him as guaranteed a place in a full strength side next year. And I do not predict a great year for us next year.

Firstly Teague was delisted 2 years after winning the B&F. His drop in form was alarming. At the time he won the B&F though, he was absolutely among our best players. How else do you gauge that but on the field and by performance? See Jeff Garlett who was also clearly in our best until performance dictated otherwise.

Everitt may not be our 7th best player but he earned the right to be considered in our best team until performance dictates otherwise. Seems to me that what actually happens on the field doesn't matter when their is an argument to defend.

 

[ShanDog]

Best player vs best performer are two different things.

 

[etsal1]

Can't we just love what Dre did this year

 

[thylacine60]

Didnt realise my passing comment would generate so much discussion. Didnt realise he played 20 games in 2013 for Sydney. Lets face it, for many years he was a pinch hitter, used to fill gaps. He may have came on in 2013 but he is really hitting his straps at Carlton, it was an excellent choice in selecting him. My point was, choosing these younger players that are showing signs of coming on or having the ability to come on is not a bad strategy. It can be risky, but no more risky than choosing an unproven kid.
Noone would question Everitt is a critical player in our team. I hope the same for Jaksch and Jones. I think Whiley will fire also.

See what you've done?

 

[The Flying Doormat]

See what you've done?

Said Odysseus to Linear for releasing the windbag...

 

[Windhover]

Firstly Teague was delisted 2 years after winning the B&F. His drop in form was alarming. At the time he won the B&F though, he was absolutely among our best players. How else do you gauge that but on the field and by performance? See Jeff Garlett who was also clearly in our best until performance dictated otherwise.

B&F votes are a pretty inadequate metric for assessing the value of a player. Since votes are awarded for every game it is weighted in favour of players who play more games. That is fair enough because it is assessing the player's contribution to the season - not how good they are. Secondly, B&F votes are given to players who "do their job well". Because Teague in 2004 was a clean ball user and a strong mark for his size he was, rightly, considered to "do his job well" throughout 2004. But the idea he was our best player in 2004 is, simply, ridiculous.

In the year after his B&F I remember watching Teague play on and thrash a first year Buddy at Etihad. He played 21 games in 2005. So much for his "alarming" drop in form. Knowing Teague was a very limited player (too short and slow - it was why North had got rid of him) I knew the Buddy match-up would be one to remember. Teague wasn't delisted for "drop in form". He was delisted because his best was never going to be good enough. He was smart enough to recognise that and took on a coaching role at age 25. Not exactly the career path of an uninjured player who at 23 was among our "best players". Best contributor for sure. Best player (or even close), nup.

Everitt may not be our 7th best player

. . . isn't that what I was saying? . . .

but he earned the right to be considered in our best team until performance dictates otherwise.

I agree. My suggestion that he may not be in our best 22 next year was not meant to imply that he shouldn't be considered at the outset as being best 22. Just a thought that if players like Buckley, Sheehan, Tuohy, Byrne and maybe even Lucas if he is still with us improve a bit then Everitt, despite his good year in 2014. would be under pressure to retain his spot.

Seems to me that what actually happens on the field doesn't matter when their is an argument to defend.

I do not understand this cheap shot. In the main ODN I find your posts well argued and thoughtful. In our "discussion" through these posts we have been able to recognise the other's opinion on matters where we disagree and, it seems to me and I have said so, agree on much.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I do not understand this cheap shot. In the main ODN I find your posts well argued and thoughtful. In our "discussion" through these posts we have been able to recognise the other's opinion on matters where we disagree and, it seems to me and I have said so, agree on much.

You must see cheap shots everywhere on BF if that post is considered one.

What I am saying is that you started with a contention that Everitt's 2014 was not much better than his 2013 at Sydney. You have dismissed arguments of statistical improvement, greater versatility, Sydney supporters views of his role at Sydney, and are underselling his value to Carlton this year, all because in my view you took an unnecessarily hard stance from the outset because of a throwaway post where somebody hoped Jones would have similar improvement. Because of that desire to back that initial statement that Everitt's improvement this year was negligible, each and every point that shows improvement seems to be dismissed out of hand.

It is clear that Carlton supporters have a higher opinion of Everitt this year than Sydney supporters had last year despite his 20 games, and we can't put it down simply to the strength of the two sides. We then compound it by suggesting that it doesn't hold much meaning that the expert staff at Carlton that decide the B&F votes have rated him our 7th best player this year. Carrazzo won one when he wasn't our best player overall in terms of talent, same with Scotland. What those wins do is show remarkable improvement to poll well to overtake better credentialed players for a given season.

It is my contention that Everitt showed remarkable improvement to elevate himself within a team structure, above and beyond his normal playing level, and because he changed role and became a run with player and more like an attacking midfielder, it was a significant improvement on what he did at Sydney, where he had one good year, and did fill in for injured players rather than being rated best 22 according to season reviews and Swans supporters themselves, and predominantly did so in the one role, rebounding defender.

 

[Windhover]

What I am saying is that you started with a contention that Everitt's 2014 was not much better than his 2013 at Sydney. You have dismissed arguments of statistical improvement, greater versatility, Sydney supporters views of his role at Sydney, and are underselling his value to Carlton this year, all because in my view you took an unnecessarily hard stance from the outset because of a throwaway post where somebody hoped Jones would have similar improvement. Because of that desire to back that initial statement that Everitt's improvement this year was negligible, each and every point that shows improvement seems to be dismissed out of hand.

Surely you can accept that:
1. arguments of statistical improvement;
2. alleged greater versatility;
3. Sydney supporters views;
4. B&F results;-

are highly subjective. Although the comparative stats for 2013 to 2014 you have posted and I had seen prior to my initial post involves some objectivity, they demonstrate to me minimal improvement for the reasons I have given. I accept you are entitled to think an increase in goal scoring from 5 to 13 etc represents a significant change beyond what might be expected from a player going from a strong club to a weak club. On this we must disagree.

I have not troubled to argue your point 2 since "greater versatility" is essentially meaningless - particularly when part of that "versatility" must involve (or do you disagree with me on this) avoiding taking on a KP role forward or back*. Nor have I troubled to argue against your opinion about Sydney supporters views (your subjective opinion of their subjective opinion). I have explained my position regarding B&F results and, it seems to me, extracted a concession from you that coming 7th does not mean he was a top 7 player.

You seem to think Everitt has had some sort of break-out, transformational year. I don't. I think we recruited a guy who could play AFL footy, having showed it in 2013 and backed that up in 2014. My opinion, as is yours, is based on "what happened on the field". I remain of the opinion that if Jones has the level of improvement seen this year in Everitt then, because Jones has not yet shown he can play at the level, Jones will be a dud. At least Jones knows he must improve significantly.


* I note in footywire that Everitt had a career high 4 hit-outs in a single game in 2009 - nearly as many as he had this year in this "new found" role. I also note he won his Brownlow votes (and fair pump to his stats) in a single game against the Saints we won by 15 goals. I wonder what star(s) he was opposed to?

 

[Aphrodite]

My shout folks!

 

[thylacine60]

Gee Windhover and ODN argue their cases well. Respectfully, intelligently, using lots of words. Take note you lot.

 

[Jatz]

Gee Windhover and ODN argue their cases well. Respectfully, intelligently, using lots of words. Take note you lot.

The only thing they are missing is a TL;DR at the end of their posts.

 

[Blue and Silver]

I'd join in but I haven't the patience for this sort of inanity.

ODN is right, Dre improved in output. Windhover is right that the improvement isn't truly huge, but is too harsh in his assumption that this is most likely external factors. If the statistical improvement matched the game-time improvement, then perhaps we would be dealing with a correlation, but we aren't, Dre, with more game time, and a confirmed role in the team, became a valuable member of our side.

This argument will essentially be the immoveable object vs the irresistible force