Collingwood Almanac 2014

[Knightmare]

Hello!
I think that they will give Oxley a crack at the third tall position 'Maxwall role' before they send Reid to the back-line. If all are fit I reckon Buckley will start with Witts as the number one ruck-man, three tall combination of Cloke, Reid and either White/Clark. I believe White will get first crack and that they will ease Clark in. Back-line will be a combination of Brown/Frost, O'Keeffe and Oxley.

if Moore is passed over by the other clubs with top seven draft picks then I wouldn't be surprised if Hine had a crack at Durbin or Goddard if available at pick eight. This would make it an interesting trade period for some of our talls, I would not be surprised if Hine tried to trade back into the top part of the first round. Second paragraph Hypothetical post!

Tall options around picks 3-7 IMO, in no order:
Lever
McCartin
Wright
Durbin
Moore
Goddard
and possibly Mckenzie

Then include mids Brayshaw, Petrecca, Leverde they just do not all fit.

I don't see a "Maxwell role" or a "third tall position." I imagine it would be the best personnel playing and in the back half the best players by position. Oxley isn't as tall or athletic as Maxwell - who actually until his final few seasons despite perception was reasonably quick and at times pre 2012 actually took on the game with his run and carry at times (not that it was extreme pace). Oxley in the back half with the injuries might be useful as a ball user out of the back half which is his primary usefulness.

The first 6 picks in some order will be: Petracca, Brayshaw, Lever, McCartin, Durdin and Wright. Moore if not for being a F/S selection would be among that group. Outside of those and Heeney who can't be taken as an academy player anyone else is among that next group.

The alternatives to Moore likely would be Laverde or Pickett who are both good, but not better than Moore good.

McKenzie may be available in the second round. Goddard is best suited as a key defender and likely goes somewhere around pick 15.

 

[Bard]

There's this thing called a handball which he needs to use 2-3 times as often as he does now.

Not all his fault though because our mids and small defenders don't work hard enough to get the cheap hands off him ala Fremantle smalls and Dawson!

This is not something I blame on our defenders, and perhaps midfielders. I blame it on the backline coach. Our transition out of defence has been woeful and it's evidenced by our kicking out from the goal-square. Every competent club kicks the ball ASAP from the backline to get the ball moving quickly and perhaps with some degree of uniqueness so that the opposition has to guess to where it's going. Leads and free players are instantly honoured.

Us? Every single player who has been giving kicking-out duties stands there with the ball for 10+ seconds, waiting for packs to form and then kicks it to a 50/50 or an even worse outcome. I see multiple times a game where people are free in defence and not honoured, and then all of a sudden the defender kicks the ball to them 10 seconds later when they have 1 or 2 opposition players covering them. People on this board seem to be a big wrap for Hart and I'm not sure if he's truly the one coaching the kicking out (but you'd have to assume it's him), however it's clearly instructed by the coach(es) and it's being done wrong.

Normally I wouldn't speak with any certainty about the methods the club and its coaches are employing because as I'm sure it'll be stated, we're all just random civilians at home, being backseat coaches. However based on the fact that every competent club employs the same method, something that's a polarising opposite to ours, it's pretty clear it's being done incorrectly.

 

[Rorzza]

I don't see a "Maxwell role" or a "third tall position." I imagine it would be the best personnel playing and in the back half the best players by position. Oxley isn't as tall or athletic as Maxwell - who actually until his final few seasons despite perception was reasonably quick and at times pre 2012 actually took on the game with his run and carry at times (not that it was extreme pace). Oxley in the back half with the injuries might be useful as a ball user out of the back half which is his primary usefulness.

The first 6 picks in some order will be: Petracca, Brayshaw, Lever, McCartin, Durdin and Wright. Moore if not for being a F/S selection would be among that group. Outside of those and Heeney who can't be taken as an academy player anyone else is among that next group.

The alternatives to Moore likely would be Laverde or Pickett who are both good, but not better than Moore good.

McKenzie may be available in the second round. Goddard is best suited as a key defender and likely goes somewhere around pick 15.

Thanks Nightmare

Interested on your comments on Oxley, not being the third tall in defence. I did not know his speed was an issue.

Hine said this about Adam while playing across the halfback line in the NEAFL, 'The pleasing thing from our side of things for Adam was there was a real cross-section of players he was playing on, both talls and smalls. He's an elite kick, he's a right footer, so that complements our group in terms of the depth of his kicking and his ability to use the football. The really pleasing thing is he's able to play on both talls and smaller players, so that was a real focus for us and he's already 193cm which gives him an ability to play on both smalls and talls. We see him predominantly playing wing-half back and if he can develop into that role, particularly on a wing, it gives us real power across there with Clinton Young, with one being a right footer and one being a left footer'.

So Derek selected him to play across the wing - half back line, standing at 192/193cm tall he is the same size as Maxwell and Goldsack, with elite kicking skills but slower by all accounts. obviously the wing is not that third tall position but I would say if he is playing off the half back-line in defence then he will be playing on the third tall with his height, I can not see them playing four 193 cm + players in defence.

Any way thanks for your comments, much appreciated.

 

[Knightmare]

Thanks Nightmare

Interested on your comments on Oxley, not being the third tall in defence. I did not know his speed was an issue.

Hine said this about Adam while playing across the halfback line in the NEAFL, 'The pleasing thing from our side of things for Adam was there was a real cross-section of players he was playing on, both talls and smalls. He's an elite kick, he's a right footer, so that complements our group in terms of the depth of his kicking and his ability to use the football. The really pleasing thing is he's able to play on both talls and smaller players, so that was a real focus for us and he's already 193cm which gives him an ability to play on both smalls and talls. We see him predominantly playing wing-half back and if he can develop into that role, particularly on a wing, it gives us real power across there with Clinton Young, with one being a right footer and one being a left footer'.

So Derek selected him to play across the wing - half back line, standing at 192/193cm tall he is the same size as Maxwell and Goldsack, with elite kicking skills but slower by all accounts. obviously the wing is not that third tall position but I would say if he is playing off the half back-line in defence then he will be playing on the third tall with his height, I can not see them playing four 193 cm + players in defence.

Any way thanks for your comments, much appreciated.

Oxley has the positional range to play back flank/forward flank. He is only 191cm (or was when drafted) or CollingwoodFC on the website now have him listed at 192cm. I'm not convinced I'd play him on a wing. It's that third position he can play but ideally we'd have someone quicker and with more running power - hard to see him coping with the Brad Hill's as an example with that speed/endurance superiority. At his height while an not short he doesn't have so much strength at 78kg and has to play more on smaller or medium sizers rather than anyone overly big or likely to take him deep.

Oxley is handy depth. Can play as required but my preference would be to others ahead of him. I'd say the same of Armstrong, Sinclair, White, Blair and Dwyer. Just given the retirement of Maxwell and Scharenberg being out for the season already Oxley is someone in the mix for selection and with an opportunity to establish himself next season, or at least it will be his best opportunity to get regular senior games.

Oxley down back can find the footy, is a pretty capable intercept mark and does use it well on both sides. He isn't an elite penetrator but can hit short and medium targets with his penetration up to around 50m. As a Queenslander with the competitions he was a part of prior to joining Collingwood not as strong he does still have some scope to improve and definitely improved in his first season so he still has some chances next season to contribute.

 

[Bard]

Oxley has the positional range to play back flank/forward flank. He is only 191cm (or was when drafted) or CollingwoodFC on the website now have him listed at 192cm. I'm not convinced I'd play him on a wing. It's that third position he can play but ideally we'd have someone quicker and with more running power - hard to see him coping with the Brad Hill's as an example with that speed/endurance superiority. At his height while an not short he doesn't have so much strength at 78kg and has to play more on smaller or medium sizers rather than anyone overly big or likely to take him deep.

Oxley is handy depth. Can play as required but my preference would be to others ahead of him. I'd say the same of Armstrong, Sinclair, White, Blair and Dwyer. Just given the retirement of Maxwell and Scharenberg being out for the season already Oxley is someone in the mix for selection and with an opportunity to establish himself next season, or at least it will be his best opportunity to get regular senior games.

Oxley down back can find the footy, is a pretty capable intercept mark and does use it well on both sides. He isn't an elite penetrator but can hit short and medium targets with his penetration up to around 50m. As a Queenslander with the competitions he was a part of prior to joining Collingwood not as strong he does still have some scope to improve and definitely improved in his first season so he still has some chances next season to contribute.

Isn't being able to find space to be creative the most important part of playing on the wing? Having speed just helps you do this. Sure Hill might be able to get away from him, but it's no different to if Oxley is able to sneak off and gets the ball 20metres clear, than if Hill bursts away from him and gets the ball 20 metres clear.

I don't know... Maybe it's just me that doesn't rate pure speed as the most important factor when determining who plays on the wing.

I'm not saying Oxley is or isn't capable of any of this.. Just food for thought.

 

[Rorzza]

Oxley has the positional range to play back flank/forward flank. He is only 191cm (or was when drafted) or CollingwoodFC on the website now have him listed at 192cm. I'm not convinced I'd play him on a wing. It's that third position he can play but ideally we'd have someone quicker and with more running power - hard to see him coping with the Brad Hill's as an example with that speed/endurance superiority. At his height while an not short he doesn't have so much strength at 78kg and has to play more on smaller or medium sizers rather than anyone overly big or likely to take him deep.

Oxley is handy depth. Can play as required but my preference would be to others ahead of him. I'd say the same of Armstrong, Sinclair, White, Blair and Dwyer. Just given the retirement of Maxwell and Scharenberg being out for the season already Oxley is someone in the mix for selection and with an opportunity to establish himself next season, or at least it will be his best opportunity to get regular senior games.

Oxley down back can find the footy, is a pretty capable intercept mark and does use it well on both sides. He isn't an elite penetrator but can hit short and medium targets with his penetration up to around 50m. As a Queenslander with the competitions he was a part of prior to joining Collingwood not as strong he does still have some scope to improve and definitely improved in his first season so he still has some chances next season to contribute.

Thanks Nightmare,

I tend to agree with you now, even though he is a good kick more than likely he will get found out with his speed and lack of strength unless he can read the play much better than his opponent which will be difficult at an elite level.

I get a 'vibe' from the club that they are keen to expose him to the next level. If not playing that tall role in defence, I do not see where he can play due to his lack of speed and agility. Unless he can run all day and bust his opponents tank 'Steele Sidebottom' style then he will struggle up the ground.

Cheers.

 

[Knightmare]

Isn't being able to find space to be creative the most important part of playing on the wing? Having speed just helps you do this. Sure Hill might be able to get away from him, but it's no different to if Oxley is able to sneak off and gets the ball 20metres clear, than if Hill bursts away from him and gets the ball 20 metres clear.

I don't know... Maybe it's just me that doesn't rate pure speed as the most important factor when determining who plays on the wing.

I'm not saying Oxley is or isn't capable of any of this.. Just food for thought.

You are right and you don't necessarily need pace to be suited on a wing but with a relatively slow team it would certainly help and with the way the game is played as such a transition running game it is a disadvantage not to have pace.

Given our back half needs I imagine Oxley remains there but give me the choice and I'd be more interested to see him on a forward flank. Same story with Armstrong. Both are good playmakers and have the vision and footskills to find inside 50 targets. Again probably never as best 22 players but to me that seems how Oxley and Armstrong also would be most effective.

Thanks Nightmare,

I tend to agree with you now, even though he is a good kick more than likely he will get found out with his speed and lack of strength unless he can read the play much better than his opponent which will be difficult at an elite level.

I get a 'vibe' from the club that they are keen to expose him to the next level. If not playing that tall role in defence, I do not see where he can play due to his lack of speed and agility. Unless he can run all day and bust his opponents tank 'Steele Sidebottom' style then he will struggle up the ground.

Cheers.

In the back half I don't see pace or endurance superiority as a requirement. Handy if they have either/or/both but it's not as important as it is with midfielders who really need to be able to cover the ground and cover it quickly. The more important thing down back to winning I find is experience. Typically those dominant back halves and those premiership back halves are those who have played together for a long time and have that quantity of games together. And typically the quality of player is there with typically a good relatively well rounded mix of the traits that are important by position - some might include 1v1 ability, ability to read the flight and take intercept marks, footskills, linebreaking ability.

Our back half at the moment is just too young in my view in the immediate to be relevant and they just need to get the games in together and have the years of matchplay together before we really see the results.

 

[Shaneprice97]

A designated kicker from the backline would be handy. Port have Broadbent and Pittard, Hawthorn have Birchall/Suckling/anyone from there team, and Sydney have Malceski.

Keeffe usually takes ours, and i wouldnt be against Seedsman, but he looks to be set to play on the wing.

 

[Bay Pie]

Knightmare , Just how good are McCartin and Wright compared to some other talent in the top 10?

Hypotheticals but possibilities - We get Moore for a 2nd rounder.

Is it worth it to trade pick 9 & H for Dees compo pick 3 or better off getting pick 22 (Dees 2nd rounder) for H and going to the draft with picks 9 & 22? I.e. Are McCartin and Wright that much better than a guy around pick 9, that it would be worth also given up pick 22 for either ?

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare , Just how good are McCartin and Wright compared to some other talent in the top 10?

Hypotheticals but possibilities - We get Moore for a 2nd rounder.

Is it worth it to trade pick 9 & H for Dees compo pick 3 or better off getting pick 22 (Dees 2nd rounder) for H and going to the draft with picks 9 & 22? I.e. Are McCartin and Wright that much better than a guy around pick 9, that it would be worth also given up pick 22 for either ?

That top 10 is all much of a muchness. Or more the top 7-8.

McCartin and Wright may not be the best in the draft and things would have to fall their way for them to become the best. Moore for all we know may pass them both by. It's also possible Petracca, Brayshaw and Lever get picked before McCartin and Wright. Maybe even Durdin. It's a really open top 7 with different scenarios possibly playing out.

This year isn't a year I would be overly enthusiastic about getting more picks. Top end. Wherever. I'd rather get some established talent given how young and inexperienced our list is.

In the unusual scenario we get Moore as a second round pick Melbourne would not trade pick 3 for pick 9 and H. Even with some evenness in that top end (though pick is just outside that top end) clubs still value those top few picks much higher than that and would require someone more appealing than that for that type of pick upgrade to take place.

I'm also not certain that H attracts pick 22. The current talk is perhaps he can attract a pick in the mid-late 20s which sounds about right.

A more probable trade with Melbourne is something like H for Clark with a switch of third round selections.

 

[TradeDraft]

#TheRecruit contestant who has been playing with Beauauris in the VAFA, Waylon Manson has reportedly been spotted at Collingwood today, undergoing fitness testing and an interview.

I bet that got you Excited as I think you are his number 1 Fan

https://www.facebook.com/AFLSeasonAndOffSeasonNews

 

[Knightmare]

I bet that got you Excited as I think you are his number 1 Fan

https://www.facebook.com/AFLSeasonAndOffSeasonNews

If Manson can be had as a category 2 rookie and we have a category 2 rookie position that we otherwise would not use I'm definitely pro taking Manson. He is a quality talent and could be our Liam Jurrah equivalent.

If the club does heat training over the Summer I imagine Waylon would thrive.

 

[TheWing121]

If Manson can be had as a category 2 rookie and we have a category 2 rookie position that we otherwise would not use I'm definitely pro taking Manson. He is a quality talent and could be our Liam Jurrah equivalent.

If the club does heat training over the Summer I imagine Waylon would thrive.

My understanding is we have to take him with a draft pick / rookie spot

 

[TradeDraft]

My understanding is we have to take him with a draft pick / rookie spot

That has been Confirmed.

Though he be a Rookie Pick. Can’t see anyone giving him a Senior Spot Straight Away

 

[Knightmare]

My understanding is we have to take him with a draft pick / rookie spot

My understanding is the same - that only the winner gets the category B rookie position.

With Manson if just depends given he hasn't as far as I'm aware played any formal football since 2011 whether he would qualify.

That has been Confirmed.

Though he be a Rookie Pick. Can’t see anyone giving him a Senior Spot Straight Away

Is there a link you could provide confirming that Manson is not eligible for a category B rookie position? I just haven't seen anything.

 

[TradeDraft]

My understanding is the same - that only the winner gets the category B rookie position.

With Manson if just depends given he hasn't as far as I'm aware played any formal football since 2011 whether he would qualify.



Is there a link you could provide confirming that Manson is not eligible for a category B rookie position? I just haven't seen anything.

For those wondering why all 18 AFL clubs did not bid for the #TheRecruitJohaan Wagner last night - the truth is that 15 clubs were ineligible to do so, as they had already filled their allowance of one "category B" rookie, which is the category the contract falls under.

Rhys Maxwell, Brendan Goss, Waylen Manson, Ryan Semmell, Nathan Jackel and runners up Brady Foster and Chris Moreland are all believed to enter the rookie draft this year, whereby if they are picked up, will fall under the standard rookie category.

Mark Cisco and Padrig Lucy both can be rookied under the AFL's international rookie scheme, to which Lucy is set to accept a two-year deal by the Geelong Football Club.

https://www.facebook.com/AFLSeasonAndOffSeasonNews

 

[Knightmare]

https://www.facebook.com/AFLSeasonAndOffSeasonNews

That information doesn't seem correct.

According to http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players

ROOKIE LIST

In 1997, the AFL introduced the Rookie List which is now recognised as one of the key list management tools available to clubs.

Over time, the size of the Rookie List and qualification criteria have been amended to allow clubs more flexibility in the way players can enter the AFL competition. It has created opportunities for players and encourages the development and recruitment of players from outside normal player pathways while the dropping of the maximum age qualification has encouraged clubs to also draft mature-age players.

With the entry of the Gold Coast Suns and GWS Giants into the AFL, clubs were permitted to have a minimum of four and up to eight players on their rookie list but starting from 2013 the maximum will be reduced to six. These six rookies are now classified as Category A rookies.

In addition to these six rookie-listed players, each club can include up to three additional players (now referred to as Category B rookies) on its Rookie List provided the player either:

• has not registered in an Australian Football competition for three years immediately before inclusion on the Rookie List;
• is an international player, meaning he is not an Australian citizen and has not lived in Australia for a substantial period;
• is a former NSW Scholarship player with that club;
• is a former International Scholarship player with that club;
• is a rookie Zone Selection for clubs based in NSW or Queensland.

---

Based on AFL.com clubs have 3 category b rookie positions, not 1.

Also on Manson - he may fit under the: has not registered in an Australian Football competition for three years immediately before inclusion on the Rookie List (given he hasn't played since 2011) from my understanding.

 

[Apex36]

https://www.facebook.com/AFLSeasonAndOffSeasonNews

You should know better than to use Facebook to confirm anything Dave.

 

[Apex36]

That information doesn't seem correct.

According to http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players

ROOKIE LIST

In 1997, the AFL introduced the Rookie List which is now recognised as one of the key list management tools available to clubs.

Over time, the size of the Rookie List and qualification criteria have been amended to allow clubs more flexibility in the way players can enter the AFL competition. It has created opportunities for players and encourages the development and recruitment of players from outside normal player pathways while the dropping of the maximum age qualification has encouraged clubs to also draft mature-age players.

With the entry of the Gold Coast Suns and GWS Giants into the AFL, clubs were permitted to have a minimum of four and up to eight players on their rookie list but starting from 2013 the maximum will be reduced to six. These six rookies are now classified as Category A rookies.

In addition to these six rookie-listed players, each club can include up to three additional players (now referred to as Category B rookies) on its Rookie List provided the player either:

• has not registered in an Australian Football competition for three years immediately before inclusion on the Rookie List;
• is an international player, meaning he is not an Australian citizen and has not lived in Australia for a substantial period;
• is a former NSW Scholarship player with that club;
• is a former International Scholarship player with that club;
• is a rookie Zone Selection for clubs based in NSW or Queensland.

---

Based on AFL.com clubs have 3 category b rookie positions, not 1.

Also on Manson - he may fit under the: has not registered in an Australian Football competition for three years immediately before inclusion on the Rookie List (given he hasn't played since 2011) from my understanding.

That's what I thought. I was under the impression that every contestant was eligible as a cat B rookie. Wasn't that the whole point of the competition? To find hidden gems outside the official AFL pathway?

 

[TradeDraft]

That's what I thought. I was under the impression that every contestant was eligible as a cat B rookie. Wasn't that the whole point of the competition? To find hidden gems outside the official AFL pathway?

Most of the Players on there have played in the Amauters

 

[TradeDraft]

You should know better than to use Facebook to confirm anything Dave.

Then don’t believe anything then?

 

[Apex36]

Then don’t believe anything then?

No, just don't believe anything on that page. They are notorious for posting incorrect information.

 

[Apex36]

Most of the Players on there have played in the Amauters

What's your point?

 

[Shaneprice97]

Then don’t believe anything then?

Because thats what he said and all.

 

[Knightmare]

That's what I thought. I was under the impression that every contestant was eligible as a cat B rookie. Wasn't that the whole point of the competition? To find hidden gems outside the official AFL pathway?

That's a mystery I am yet to receive official confirmation on either way. The sense I have is it's only the winning unless they're guys who haven't played any formal football as is the case with now Geelong signing Padraig Lucey out of Ireland.

Then don’t believe anything then?

Facebook generally speaking while some posts on there may be thought provoking I wouldn't consider all the posts factually correct unless afl.com or one of the leading newspapers confirms something with AFL.com/theage etc more credible sources.

Just take what you read on FB with a grain of salt as you would anything on a forum.