Player Watch Darcy Moore

[Scodog10]

Why Not - Suppose weak Draft coming up

Not at the top end. Look at the season Hogan has had and he won't win it.

For him to take it out he'll need a Cloke 07 type year which is long odds, IMO.

I wouldn't even have him the most likely winner at our club that would be Maynard and I'd have him on level pegging with Scharanberg.

 

[TradeDraft]

Not at the top end. Look at the season Hogan has had and he won't win it.

For him to take it out he'll need a Cloke 07 type year which is long odds, IMO.

I wouldn't even have him the most likely winner at our club that would be Maynard and I'd have him on level pegging with Scharanberg.

Maynard not good enough to win Maybe Schranberg IF he can have a Full Injury-Free Pre Season and can get back to how he was playing Pre-Injuries be a Chance.

Winners come from Poor Sides anyway

 

[Scodog10]

Maynard not good enough to win Maybe Schranberg IF he can have a Full Injury-Free Pre Season and can get back to how he was playing Pre-Injuries be a Chance.

Winners come from Poor Sides anyway

That's a big call on Maynard considering his rate of improvement this season, the role he plays, what the coaching group think of him and the opportunities he'll receive.

Also I don't think we're far off being a poor side currently having missed finals two years running so we're as likely as any club to produce the 2016 winner.

 

[TradeDraft]

I don't think we're far off being a poor side currently having missed finals two years running so we're as likely as any club to produce the 2016 winner.

We have not Sucked like the Lions and Blues Have

 

[Apex36]

That's a big call on Maynard considering his rate of improvement this season, the role he plays, what the coaching group think of him and the opportunities he'll receive.

Also I don't think we're far off being a poor side currently having missed finals two years running so we're as likely as any club to produce the 2016 winner.

I'd argue we're not close to being 'poor'. There's a fair gulf between the bottom 6 and the rest of the competition.

 

[Kirby]

Yes I think saying close to poor is a little over the top.

I might change my mind next year though!

 

[Scodog10]

I'd argue we're not close to being 'poor'. There's a fair gulf between the bottom 6 and the rest of the competition.

Missing finals three years in a row with the talent we've stockpiled, the senior players at our disposal and the potential recruitment of Treloar would be poor. Others will view it differently though.

FWIW I really should add that being poor on field has no bearing on producing the winner, IMO. Yes it provides more opportunity, but that's about where the advantages end for mine.

 

[TradeDraft]

Missing finals three years in a row with the talent we've stockpiled, the senior players at our disposal and the potential recruitment of Treloar would be poor. Others will view it differently though.

FWIW I really should add that being poor on field has no bearing on producing the winner, IMO. Yes it provides more opportunity, but that's about where the advantages end for mine.

At Least we have not a Bottom 4 side year after year

 

[Bard]

Missing finals three years in a row with the talent we've stockpiled, the senior players at our disposal and the potential recruitment of Treloar would be poor. Others will view it differently though.

FWIW I really should add that being poor on field has no bearing on producing the winner, IMO. Yes it provides more opportunity, but that's about where the advantages end for mine.

That's it, what a poor team is is relatively subjective, some will view missing finals as being poor, others will say being the bottom 4, 6, 8 is poor etc. Personally I'd say 9~12 is 'mediocre', not that it's very relevant anyway...

 

[Scodog10]

At Least we have not a Bottom 4 side year after year

And so we shouldn't!!

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I'd argue we're not close to being 'poor'. There's a fair gulf between the bottom 6 and the rest of the competition.

Agree here, looking at the ladder theres a nice gap from 12th to 13th.
13 onwards or 6 teams have fallen away.
As expected pre season about 12 sides maybe 13 sides would compete for the 8 final spots.
Probably similar next season.
We should now be ready to jump into top 8.
Id expect top 6 all things considered.

 

[TradeDraft]

Thread going bit off topic

 

[Anzacday]

Darcy is a future star - fixed

 

[Scodog10]

That's it, what a poor team is is relatively subjective, some will view missing finals as being poor, others will say being the bottom 4, 6, 8 is poor etc. Personally I'd say 9~12 is 'mediocre', not that it's very relevant anyway...

I'll make this my final post on this one considering I'm wandering well off topic.

In isolation I'd certainly agree that 9-12 is mediocre. Unfortunately that sort of result would be a trend if we see it in 2016 and it could potentially see the demise of our senior coach so I just can't shake that it would be poor for us next year.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I'll make this my final post on this one considering I'm wandering well off topic.

In isolation I'd certainly agree that 9-12 is mediocre. Unfortunately that sort of result would be a trend if we see it in 2016 and it could potentially see the demise of our senior coach so I just can't shake that it would be poor for us next year.

How many spots up the ladder could we move if Darcy Moore plays close to every game next year? Is he our messiah or just a prophet foretelling the coming of the new messiah, perhaps one of Daicos' sons?

 

[Vicky Park]

Missing finals three years in a row with the talent we've stockpiled, the senior players at our disposal and the potential recruitment of Treloar would be poor. Others will view it differently though.

FWIW I really should add that being poor on field has no bearing on producing the winner, IMO. Yes it provides more opportunity, but that's about where the advantages end for mine.

Scodog, off topic I know, but we've missed finals for the second consecutive year, not three years in a row.

 

[Baird]

Scodog, off topic I know, but we've missed finals for the second consecutive year, not three years in a row.

He meant if we miss finals next year

 

[Vicky Park]

He meant if we miss finals next year

Oops, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. Apologies to Scodog.

 

[Cory]

.........Anyway he's becoming a favourite of mine, will soon have his number on the back of kids jumpers

 

[TradeDraft]

Hope Moore does not have Fraser/Richards problem and does not stay Skinny

 

[Kappa]

Hope Moore does not have Fraser/Richards problem and does not stay Skinny

Buddy is pretty skinny.

You don't need to be bulky if you have agility and speed. Moore is never going to be the stay at home wrestling monster forward

 

[TradeDraft]

Buddy is pretty skinny.

You don't need to be bulky if you have agility and speed. Moore is never going to be the stay at home wrestling monster forward

Agree. You don't have to Bulk Up but Fraser's and Richards bodies looked like they never developed.

Agree don't want Moore to big so he keeps his exciting Athetisim

 

[TradeDraft]

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2015-09-03/fas-future-stars-darcy-moore

 

[Anzacday]

Agree Dave, 3 goals from a forward is a good days work. What I've consistently said is that his form before his debut didn't merit selection. About 6 kicks and 2 handballs across 3 games (from memory) doesn't scream senior ready to me, particularly coming back from injury. You feel free to overrate his form all you want though.

Moores output has been above par. In fact, since he is actually somewhat useful in the ruck he has now made white and witts role redundant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well got Selected Next Week so the Club thought it was good enough to pick him.

His Stats don't tell the whole Story on his Games

Thought this might be better here.
FWIW I wondered why they played him based on the numbers too.
Just another case of stats can be misconstrued though.
For me, (maybe the club too) it's the little things, the gutsy flying for marks/backing back etc, the clever tap ons.
He's a natural footballer with smarts & pace.
The little things he does don't appear on stats sheets, but the coaches notice them.

 

[TradeDraft]

Thought this might be better here.
FWIW I wondered why they played him based on the numbers too.
Just another case of stats can be misconstrued though.
For me, (maybe the club too) it's the little things, the gutsy flying for marks/backing back etc, the clever tap ons.
He's a natural footballer with smarts & pace.
The little things he does don't appear on stats sheets, but the coaches notice them.

He had 7 Touches, 2 Goals and 2 Marks. Not a Huge Stats but watching the game shows how much Impact he had on the Game.

Stats don't tell the whole Story