Collingwood Almanac 2014

[Jelly Bean]

Fact is we are a much slower side than most and have far poorer kicking skills.

On the balance of it if I was choosing between two similar level talents, I would take the faster, better skilled one over annother inside mid who would be slower and poorer by foot.

 

[Bard]

What is the difference between Greenwood and Danny Stanley?

Honestly couldn't really answer that as I didn't start paying any real attention to footy til about '08 other than watching the occasional game and finals.

 

[TradeDraft]

Kennedy can crumb a little but elite is an overstatement and I'd consider incorrect.

On kicking I disagree with the clubs evaluation. Kennedy has penetration but far from a reliable kick. Broomhead is classy, a great decision making, has good vision and can execute on his kicks to target and finish so I'd agree with him. Scharenberg like Kennedy I don't agree with completely, he has pretty reasonably penetration and good vision but consistency is something he lacks by foot. De Goey is good by foot, not quite as good as Broomhead but overall on time and space, execution by foot, decision making, he's good. Maynard and I did hear the recruiters talk about him as an elite kick I think is just a flat out wrong evaluation, again his penetration is pretty good and when he kicks it sweetly he can do above average damage, but he also can struggle with his decision making and not connect the way he needs to on all his kicks.

So has kicking been sufficiently addressed? No. They've added some guys who can kick, but overall significantly more who can't and for those that don't agree with that comment, watch and see this year because it's going to be our primary weakness again this season.

So who would you drafted in the last 2 years, That you think would of helped better with our Kicking?

 

[Jelly Bean]

Kennedy can crumb a little but elite is an overstatement and I'd consider incorrect.

On kicking I disagree with the clubs evaluation. Kennedy has penetration but far from a reliable kick. Broomhead is classy, a great decision making, has good vision and can execute on his kicks to target and finish so I'd agree with him. Scharenberg like Kennedy I don't agree with completely, he has pretty reasonably penetration and good vision but consistency is something he lacks by foot. De Goey is good by foot, not quite as good as Broomhead but overall on time and space, execution by foot, decision making, he's good. Maynard and I did hear the recruiters talk about him as an elite kick I think is just a flat out wrong evaluation, again his penetration is pretty good and when he kicks it sweetly he can do above average damage, but he also can struggle with his decision making and not connect the way he needs to on all his kicks.

So has kicking been sufficiently addressed? No. They've added some guys who can kick, but overall significantly more who can't and for those that don't agree with that comment, watch and see this year because it's going to be our primary weakness again this season.

Agree.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Honestly couldn't really answer that as I didn't start paying any real attention to footy til about '08 other than watching the occasional game and finals.

Are you but a callow youth still in the prime of life, with the fullness of manhood still firmly in your favour? Or did you grow up supporting another code?

 

[Bard]

Are you but a callow youth still in the prime of life, with the fullness of manhood still firmly in your favour? Or did you grow up supporting another code?

Hmm... We'll have to go with the former on this one :L

 

[Knightmare]

So who would you drafted in the last 2 years, That you think would of helped better with our Kicking?

Had we not made the Dawes trade we still would have pick 47 which could have netted us Martin Gleeson.

And had we not made a move for Jesse White we could have had Karl Amon.

Both by foot are guys in hindsight I look at as guys who really could have helped.

In 2010 we could have had Aaron Mullett as a rookie.

These are obviously hindsight calls where if we specifically wanted guys who can kick and give us some help on the outside, all these guys would have made for very good list additions.

In the various draft years I obviously had very different lists.

2014: (Hinesight v Knightsight)
5: De Goey v Laverde (Collingwood will do fine and actually after hearing De Goey's interviews I'd actually today favour him to Laverde with pick 5 not a pick I was overly strong on anyone with that evenness of Wright/Laverde/Langford/De Goey among others on my draft board)
8 Moore.. Moore
30: Maynard v Blakely
48: Goodyear v McKenzie

--
2013: (Hinesight v Knightsight)
6: Scharenberg v Aish
10: Freeman v Acres
65: Langdon v M.Thorp (Collingwood obviously got the talent identification more right here)
75. Marsh.. Marsh

--
In terms of quality of footskills not a great level of difference overall if you look at those drafts in isolation.

Where the more significant difference comes into it is when you look at free agency/trade week with the additions of Greenwood, Crisp, Adams, White, Varcoe and Armstrong not moves I was ever high on, with only the trade of Paine for Karnezis along with last years pick upgrades the only trades I ever felt ok with. Of those Greenwood, Crisp and Adams are all poor kicks and overall significantly bring down the quality of skills within our squad.

As per what I listed in my 2013 and 2014 Collingwood Almanac threads the moves I was advocating in 2013 were for Paul Chapman and James Podsiadly, with both veterans who I felt at the time and still do feel can still produce. Brisbane if they came to me with the Paine for Karnezis deal, I'd also have given the ok. Josh Hunt is another I would have willingly taken on for a season given our lack of a kickout option from the prior season given the hole that was left after the departure of Leon Davis.
Then this year the moves I advocated were moves for Jeff Garlett, Mitch Clark and Jon Giles.
*If we made this combination of trades and still retained the likes of Shaw, Lumumba and Beams as well as adding my suggests players for market value or even a little more (be it in the form of picks or depth players I don't regard overly highly - the likes of Blair/Sinclair among others, I do feel we'd be better position than we are at the present time and probably a finals team.

In this scenario we obviously wouldn't have pick 5 this year for De Goey given I wouldn't have had the Beams trade happening with Brisbane flat out not offering a suitable deal, we wouldn't have Adams from that Shaw trade or Varcoe from that Lumumba trade and we'd probably be minus a few players and almost certainly a different combination of picks. But I know my preferred outcome from the time for the past two seasons I'd favour anyway mostly for the reasons that our list is too young, too inexperienced, not good enough by foot and without enough leadership present.

Overall I'd hope Collingwood outperforms my recommendations from these past two offseasons at least through the draft, but regarding opposition talent identification the past two seasons I feel I've done the better job at identifying more appropriate and better talent and guys who at that were acquired at what I'd consider for their talents to be bargain basement prices.

 

[jmac70]

Honestly couldn't really answer that as I didn't start paying any real attention to footy til about '08 other than watching the occasional game and finals.

What did you think of The Machine side?

 

[TradeDraft]

I think you Underestimate Scharanberg’s Kicking. Seen on High Highlights Video having a Lovely Long Kick he has that has Penetration and accuracy and Also can take a Strong Mark and can take the game on.

Highlights:

 

[pieanitis]

As per my power rankings if you ask me today probably Luke Partington from SA would be my favoured player. Will Combe also from SA I really like and also at this stage favour. Partington is generally seen as someone who goes more 10-15 and Combe probably more of an early second rounder. But they both really impressed me last year in the games I've seen of them.

Partington is a mid/fwd. Combe more a dominant inside player.

Nicholas O'Kearney from VIC as another inside player is someone else who is better. He'll be a top 10 pick and would be another good get.

But given we're only a round into the TAC Cup season anyway, opinions, mine included will change drastically between now and the end of the season.

Funny enough i have it on good authority that the one area Okearney needed to brush up on was inside, contested part of his game. He's a player that positions himself extremely well off the pack-better than any Ive seen and spreads nearly as good as any kid his age that Ive seen (not as good as Callum Mills). His kicking didnt look elite to me, but pretty good. In my eyes he was more outside than inside last year, lacks a bit of foot speed and height and therefore is not the player for us. He'll perform well at Nationals as his game suits that style of competition but i wouldn't be surprised if he is still on the draft after pick 10-a weaker draft this year might keep him in.

 

[Knightmare]

I think you Underestimate Scharanberg’s Kicking. Seen on High Highlights Video having a Lovely Long Kick he has that has Penetration and accuracy and Also can take a Strong Mark and can take the game on.

Highlights:

You have to remember that highlights show the most positive areas of players games. It's hardly going to show you the shanks that he is capable of. I know you don't watch SANFL League games so I won't refer you to that but if you have copies of the u18 champs games from both his underage and draft age years, you'll notice he sprays a number of his kicks over the tournament with some poor kicks out of bounds among a one or two others that go directly to opposition players.
Stating that Scharenberg is an elite kick is just not correct. It's like saying that about Langdon. Scharenberg by foot basically is Langdon with more penetration. Both can kick and hit targets up the field, and demonstrate good vision, but they can for consistency in hitting that target at times let you down and you'll see that from Scharenberg when he comes into the team later in the year.

Funny enough i have it on good authority that the one area Okearney needed to brush up on was inside, contested part of his game. He's a player that positions himself extremely well off the pack-better than any Ive seen and spreads nearly as good as any kid his age that Ive seen (not as good as Callum Mills). His kicking didnt look elite to me, but pretty good. In my eyes he was more outside than inside last year, lacks a bit of foot speed and height and therefore is not the player for us. He'll perform well at Nationals as his game suits that style of competition but i wouldn't be surprised if he is still on the draft after pick 10-a weaker draft this year might keep him in.

I haven't had any major issue's with O'Kearney's inside game myself. I'd overall describe him as one of the elite accumulators as probably after Dunkley that next most productive when looking at totality of numbers. For a mid he has a good inside/outside ball balance and good tackling ability and numbers, so I agree with you from the standpoint that he isn't a pure inside player. He isn't super tall or a powerhouse so that might be more where you're coming from regarding the contested side of his game with Dunkley again an example of a substantially more dominant contested ball winner. But with O'Kearney I tend to see his game for an inside player as more balanced accumulation which is fine.

My thing rather than contested ball winning ability, although I welcome him to continue making that side more dominant as that will be critical for him if he wants to be used as an inside player at the next level, my thing is his footskills, hurt factor (inside and outside) and whether he by foot gets that up to a more consistent enough level and whether he can add some more tricks and scoreboard impact to what he does to confirm his status as a genuine top 10, maybe top 5 selection.

 

[TradeDraft]

You have to remember that highlights show the most positive areas of players games. It's hardly going to show you the shanks that he is capable of. I know you don't watch SANFL League games so I won't refer you to that but if you have copies of the u18 champs games from both his underage and draft age years, you'll notice he sprays a number of his kicks over the tournament with some poor kicks out of bounds among a one or two others that go directly to opposition players.
Stating that Scharenberg is an elite kick is just not correct. It's like saying that about Langdon. Scharenberg by foot basically is Langdon with more penetration. Both can kick and hit targets up the field, and demonstrate good vision, but they can for consistency in hitting that target at times let you down and you'll see that from Scharenberg when he comes into the team later in the year

There is hardly any player that hits there Target just about every single time they use the Ball.

So we would of been Better Picking Aish or McCarthy or Freeman at 6 as we got a very Similar player to Scharanberg at pick 65 with Langdon?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

There is hardly any player that hits there Target just about every single time they use the Ball.

So we would of been Better Picking Aish or McCarthy or Freeman at 6 as we got a very Similar player to Scharanberg at pick 65 with Langdon?

Aish maybe Dave but not McCarthy or Freeman at 6.

 

[Knightmare]

There is hardly any player that hits there Target just about every single time they use the Ball.

So we would of been Better Picking Aish or McCarthy or Freeman at 6 as we got a very Similar player to Scharanberg at pick 65 with Langdon?

No one hits every target, you are right, but you still expect a certain consistency of execution, particularly with those who are going to get their hands on it a lot.

Scharenberg is an at times damaging kick who just doesn't have great consistency at this stage. I'm not suggesting he was a bad pick or is a bad kick relative to the others in our team, in fact Scharenberg is a better kick than any of our regular backs and only Reid and Oxley if/when used in the back half in the 1s would be clearly better kicks.

Regarding back flankers generally I would say pick them late in the draft rather than early, as it's not a type of player you need to spend big on unless you know they're genuine midfielders/utilities (like Goddard/Deledio/Gibbs) which is a possibility with Scharenberg but unclear until we see it from him.

 

[Ricky90]

Also, kicking is clearly something we've been drafting for over the last few years too. BK, Broomy, Berg, DeGoey and Maynard were all rated as good to elite kicks in their draft years.

I'm so glad you brought that up.

Can't believe I read just a few posts up from yours that Kennedy was a poor kick. Small yes, but poor kick, that's a no. Certainly not in his draft year anyway. As for AFL performance, he just hasn't had a good crack at it in the AFL yet, he'll come on. He and Broomy this year should be on our watch list.

 

[Bard]

No one hits every target, you are right, but you still expect a certain consistency of execution, particularly with those who are going to get their hands on it a lot.

Scharenberg is an at times damaging kick who just doesn't have great consistency at this stage. I'm not suggesting he was a bad pick or is a bad kick relative to the others in our team, in fact Scharenberg is a better kick than any of our regular backs and only Reid and Oxley if/when used in the back half in the 1s would be clearly better kicks.

Regarding back flankers generally I would say pick them late in the draft rather than early, as it's not a type of player you need to spend big on unless you know they're genuine midfielders/utilities (like Goddard/Deledio/Gibbs) which is a possibility with Scharenberg but unclear until we see it from him.

I'd say Scharenberg was selected absolutely with the idea that because of his size and skills he could be effective anywhere on the ground in just about any role, and be good if not elite at it. I have no doubt their hope is for him to be able to move into the midfield but that's a long way off yet.

 

[Schraderbrau]

No one hits every target, you are right, but you still expect a certain consistency of execution, particularly with those who are going to get their hands on it a lot.

Scharenberg is an at times damaging kick who just doesn't have great consistency at this stage. I'm not suggesting he was a bad pick or is a bad kick relative to the others in our team, in fact Scharenberg is a better kick than any of our regular backs and only Reid and Oxley if/when used in the back half in the 1s would be clearly better kicks.

Regarding back flankers generally I would say pick them late in the draft rather than early, as it's not a type of player you need to spend big on unless you know they're genuine midfielders/utilities (like Goddard/Deledio/Gibbs) which is a possibility with Scharenberg but unclear until we see it from him.

I am not a fan at all of Aish at all. From what I've seen his pace and strength are serious issues and I also think he gets a pit panicky when put under pressure. In fact, due to these pretty significant limitations I think he is boxed in to only playing one position (outside mid) and even if he succeeds in that position (which isn't a given) I doubt he will ever be considered in the top handful of players in that spot. He really is very similar to Clinton Young imo. Not taking into account injuries, Scharenberg has a strong chance to become an AA level half back imo and furthermore he's not physically limited from moving into a midfield role the way Aish is.

Also, there's no doubt that one of his elite attributes is reading the game and at 190cm he is tall enough to function as third tall/loose man in defence which is fast becoming one of the most important positions on the ground. On ability he is significantly more talented than Maxwell and we know how important he was for us. Structurally he could be a lot more important than just a half back flanker.

 

[Knightmare]

I'd say Scharenberg was selected absolutely with the idea that because of his size and skills he could be effective anywhere on the ground in just about any role, and be good if not elite at it. I have no doubt their hope is for him to be able to move into the midfield but that's a long way off yet.

You're right in your comment that we'll look for Scharenberg to offer versatility, and that's something he can do as he can not only play back but also forward. And as a taller guy Derek also spoke about him as a potential midfielder. So we'll see how over time things happen.

I am not a fan at all of Aish at all. From what I've seen his pace and strength are serious issues and I also think he gets a pit panicky when put under pressure. In fact, due to these pretty significant limitations I think he is boxed in to only playing one position (outside mid) and even if he succeeds in that position (which isn't a given) I doubt he will ever be considered in the top handful of players in that spot. He really is very similar to Clinton Young imo. Not taking into account injuries, Scharenberg has a strong chance to become an AA level half back imo and furthermore he's not physically limited from moving into a midfield role the way Aish is.

Also, there's no doubt that one of his elite attributes is reading the game and at 190cm he is tall enough to function as third tall/loose man in defence which is fast becoming one of the most important positions on the ground. On ability he is significantly more talented than Maxwell and we know how important he was for us. Structurally he could be a lot more important than just a half back flanker.

I don't see any Clinton Young in Aish and I anticipate his class/composure will become more evidence with some more years in the competition. On a wing or back flank Aish is a very good player at AFL level already. He could improve the contested side of his game and when on the ball I'd like to see him win more clearances, but otherwise I like the complete package he offers. Particularly his run and carry ability and his ability to read the flight and take intercept marks. He can pretty easily just off a back flank be a Heath Shaw or Michael Hibberd. Or on a wing be something like a Mitch Duncan perhaps.
Wherever he plays I'm very confident he'll be a good long term pro.

As for Scharenberg I agree he'll once healthy be excellent for us most likely in the back half. I have him in the same conversation as Aish if healthy, perhaps slightly behind. Either way assuming good health both for me anyway are long term pros.

 

[Bard]

You're right in your comment that we'll look for Scharenberg to offer versatility, and that's something he can do as he can not only play back but also forward. And as a taller guy Derek also spoke about him as a potential midfielder. So we'll see how over time things happen.



I don't see any Clinton Young in Aish and I anticipate his class/composure will become more evidence with some more years in the competition. On a wing or back flank Aish is a very good player at AFL level already. He could improve the contested side of his game and when on the ball I'd like to see him win more clearances, but otherwise I like the complete package he offers. Particularly his run and carry ability and his ability to read the flight and take intercept marks. He can pretty easily just off a back flank be a Heath Shaw or Michael Hibberd. Or on a wing be something like a Mitch Duncan perhaps.
Wherever he plays I'm very confident he'll be a good long term pro.

As for Scharenberg I agree he'll once healthy be excellent for us most likely in the back half. I have him in the same conversation as Aish if healthy, perhaps slightly behind. Either way assuming good health both for me anyway are long term pros.

If we became supremely lucky and both Scharenberg and Langdon were able to develop to full potential, how do you think utilising them both would be to our best advantage? Scharenberg midfield and Langdon as third man/spare defender or vice versa or what?

I feel our selection and prominence of Langdon has both seen us with a couple of rolled gold prospects in the spare defender position, and I'd probably argue that had Hine known in hindsight that a) we'd get Langdon and b) he'd perform so well, we may have skipped Scharenberg for Aish, but I don't see it as a big deal.

 

[Knightmare]

If we became supremely lucky and both Scharenberg and Langdon were able to develop to full potential, how do you think utilising them both would be to our best advantage? Scharenberg midfield and Langdon as third man/spare defender or vice versa or what?

I feel our selection and prominence of Langdon has both seen us with a couple of rolled gold prospects in the spare defender position, and I'd probably argue that had Hine known in hindsight that a) we'd get Langdon and b) he'd perform so well, we may have skipped Scharenberg for Aish, but I don't see it as a big deal.

Scharenberg and Langdon's ceilings I view as being still primarily back flankers but also developing the ability to rotate through the midfield. So a bit like the Hawthorn theme with that sheer quantity of forwards and backs who can go through the midfield for periods, of our backs Scharenberg and Langdon both could conceivably offer some valuable minutes through the midfield as well as being exceptionally high level intercept marking and rebounding back flankers who use it well and can beat their direct opponents - with those being the things they'd show if they fulfil their upsides. If Langdon becomes Birchall with the ability to push into the midfield and Scharenberg into something like a stronger Robert Murphy, that's while I don't think realistic, for arguments sake their absolute maximum ceilings on playing ability.

The selection of Langdon I feel was based on his production with however the other picks may have gone not an overly relevant factor. Producing the sheer numbers he did in the TAC Cup over the first half then the VFL over the second half of the season. He was really by a fair way outperforming his peers. It's just the perception of being an overager that led to him not being selected higher, and Collingwood as a result recognising his performance and seeing him as a list fit rightly took him.

 

[Bard]

Scharenberg and Langdon's ceilings I view as being still primarily back flankers but also developing the ability to rotate through the midfield. So a bit like the Hawthorn theme with that sheer quantity of forwards and backs who can go through the midfield for periods, of our backs Scharenberg and Langdon both could conceivably offer some valuable minutes through the midfield as well as being exceptionally high level intercept marking and rebounding back flankers who use it well and can beat their direct opponents - with those being the things they'd show if they fulfil their upsides. If Langdon becomes Birchall with the ability to push into the midfield and Scharenberg into something like a stronger Robert Murphy, that's while I don't think realistic, for arguments sake their absolute maximum ceilings on playing ability.

The selection of Langdon I feel was based on his production with however the other picks may have gone not an overly relevant factor. Producing the sheer numbers he did in the TAC Cup over the first half then the VFL over the second half of the season. He was really by a fair way outperforming his peers. It's just the perception of being an overager that led to him not being selected higher, and Collingwood as a result recognising his performance and seeing him as a list fit rightly took him.

Just for conversations sake, Birchall is good and all but personally I'd hope for a bit more from Scharenberg.. Whereas yeah, Robert Murphy seems out of Langdon's reach.

 

[DRIZZT]

I see him as a VFL player, perhaps captain of the team in a few year's time.

You are aware of the physical setbacks he's had in his career thus far which are now apparantly fixed???

 

[DRIZZT]

What is the difference between Greenwood and Danny Stanley?

About 5yrs give or take.I so gotta get that patent for my time machine,it may just change the world

 

[Knightmare]

Just for conversations sake, Birchall is good and all but personally I'd hope for a bit more from Scharenberg.. Whereas yeah, Robert Murphy seems out of Langdon's reach.

I was referring to the other way around as Scharenberg to become Murphy and Langdon to become Birchall. Still lots of differences in the games, but just that's the levels they could get to if they completely fulfilled their respective potentials.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

You are aware of the physical setbacks he's had in his career thus far which are now apparantly fixed???

Not really. What are these cured setbacks?