Mitch Robinson anyone?

Remove this Banner Ad

DNine said:
I agree TG. I am not sure that I would call him a gun, because that should be saved for players who get 30+ possessions a game, and are the best in the comp, but Robinson is a very good player. For all the people who think we should of kept Heath Shaw, here is a player that makes up for Shaw in ability. As for the off field stuff, what is there to lose, we give him a chance, if he stuffs it up, we delist him instantly. Easy! Look at the Hawks, they took a chance on Dale Garlett and he did not succeed and they took him off the list. Didn't hurt them much, and they used a decent pick on the guy. Robinson would be dirt cheap, and would line up every week in our team if he was not injured.
Click to expand...

Shaw could kick the ball.
 
I can see the attraction to Robinson from the outset - let's be honest, if we hadn't lost so many senior players over the last two to three years he wouldn't even rate a mention in these parts. But he can play the game; he has experience and development under his belt; he would provide insurance to other senior players and to our young guys who need to work their way into the team.

But he's a goose. He's not someone who's made a few bad decisions here and there, he's a deadset goose of the highest order. You'd want him on a behaviour based contract of at most 100k for one year with a performance based trigger for a second year and the option of an extra 100k to his salary. There would need to be KPI targets involved in the performance section (especially for him to earn the cash his football probably says he's deserved of) and an unequivocal zero tolerance policy on anything related to his behaviour off the field.

If those were the public-made conditions of his contract, I'd be happy to pick him up. It's bad enough PR as it is picking up someone like him, you'd need to make the supporters and members aware that his contract is heavily behaviour and performance claused, to essentially appease the masses that we're not slipping into bad decision territory.

It's a hard one. I'd be disappointed picking him up without a thought but I'd also be disappointed if we didn't interview him and run him through a medical. He deserves at least a thought.

Edit - for the record, I don't think we'll get him, nor do I think I want him at the club. Just trying to look at this from a level headed, results based perspective that the club might take.
 
Ricky90 said:
I can see the attraction to Robinson from the outset - let's be honest, if we hadn't lost so many senior players over the last two to three years he wouldn't even rate a mention in these parts. But he can play the game; he has experience and development under his belt; he would provide insurance to other senior players and to our young guys who need to work their way into the team.

But he's a goose. He's not someone who's made a few bad decisions here and there, he's a deadset goose of the highest order. You'd want him on a behaviour based contract of at most 100k for one year with a performance based trigger for a second year and the option of an extra 100k to his salary. There would need to be KPI targets involved in the performance section (especially for him to earn the cash his football probably says he's deserved of) and an unequivocal zero tolerance policy on anything related to his behaviour off the field.

If those were the public-made conditions of his contract, I'd be happy to pick him up. It's bad enough PR as it is picking up someone like him, you'd need to make the supporters and members aware that his contract is heavily behaviour and performance claused, to essentially appease the masses that we're not slipping into bad decision territory.

It's a hard one. I'd be disappointed picking him up without a thought but I'd also be disappointed if we didn't interview him and run him through a medical. He deserves at least a thought.

Edit - for the record, I don't think we'll get him, nor do I think I want him at the club. Just trying to look at this from a level headed, results based perspective that the club might take.
Click to expand...

Just one thing regarding this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and your opinion is more balanced and considered than a few I have seen regarding this. But there are points that are obvious to me about this post.

1/ His performance is not the question. It is a good idea to put him on a contract subject to good behaviour. Only thing we learnt about contracts this year, is they aren't worth the paper they are written on. We give him what ever the figure his performance history suggests we do, we do talk in length about what is required at the club re: Behaviour.

2/ The contract details will not be made public to appease the masses. In fact, the club could not care less what the masses think. It is them who are running the club, it is them who interview him, and like or dislike his answers.

I had a laugh at all these supporters who angrily said that if we back off from the promise that we give the Lions until Friday, for the Dane Beams negotiations they will be pissed off. If the club doesn't get one of the players that we asked for at the beginning for Beams ie: Redden, Aish etc they will see Hine and club as big failures and they won't get memberships and other similar threats. It was just spoilt tantrum rubbish. All talk.

Similarly if Pies wanted to pick Robinson, they will, and they will not give the disappointed fans one second of their thoughts. Constantly, Buckley, Pert, Eade and player make comments of internal influences, and not listening to external influences, so we don't matter one bit. AND NOR SHOULD WE. THEY are employed to run the club, not us. It is not Big Brother and other reality tv shows, where we vote in and out people.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DNine said:
Just one thing regarding this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and your opinion is more balanced and considered than a few I have seen regarding this. But there are points that are obvious to me about this post.

1/ His performance is not the question. It is a good idea to put him on a contract subject to good behaviour. Only thing we learnt about contracts this year, is they aren't worth the paper they are written on. We give him what ever the figure his performance history suggests we do, we do talk in length about what is required at the club re: Behaviour.

2/ The contract details will not be made public to appease the masses. In fact, the club could not care less what the masses think. It is them who are running the club, it is them who interview him, and like or dislike his answers.

I had a laugh at all these supporters who angrily said that if we back off from the promise that we give the Lions until Friday, for the Dane Beams negotiations they will be pissed off. If the club doesn't get one of the players that we asked for at the beginning for Beams ie: Redden, Aish etc they will see Hine and club as big failures and they won't get memberships and other similar threats. It was just spoilt tantrum rubbish. All talk.

Similarly if Pies wanted to pick Robinson, they will, and they will not give the disappointed fans one second of their thoughts. Constantly, Buckley, Pert, Eade and player make comments of internal influences, and not listening to external influences, so we don't matter one bit. AND NOR SHOULD WE. THEY are employed to run the club, not us. It is not Big Brother and other reality tv shows, where we vote in and out people.
Click to expand...
As far as your first point goes, you are right, his performance is not the issue. But we can't pick him up and say "just behave mate, that's all we want from you." We need to challenge him with KPI's like we do with all players, but especially in his case as he presents as a risk. We'd be throwing him a life line, he'd need to perform in the order of his best football to keep it. The off field issues are separate and would be outlined that way in the contract.

You're second point: I don't disagree with you for the most part.

I do however think we're treading a fine line at the moment in keeping the members happy. That part of the business doesn't matter to those you listed - Buckley, Pert, Eade - so you're absolutely right in saying that, 100%. But surely Eddie and the other big wigs in the organisation keep an eye on things. They'd be pretty annoyed if a few thousand members failed to sign on for another year because of what has happened this off season, our fault or not. Something like picking up Robinson (while it wouldn't be a huge blow in my opinion, some would consider it to be that way) wouldn't help the case. Having said that, those people probably don't deserve to call themselves members anyway - but I won't get into that here.

For the record, I was one who was very disappointed with Beams leaving and not being able to get what we were asking in return. I know we're victims of circumstance here and Beams didn't help us out in his exit but something can be said, and there's evidence of that on these boards, that members weren't happy with the eventual outcome after the initial strong stance. I however, do understand that it's a business and you do have to move forward whenever possible. The club took the trade which was the right thing to do even though not the preferred or only option.

Long story short, members matter to the club in my opinion. Not so much to the Football Department and downwards as you've correctly pointed out but to the organisation as a whole, we certainly matter. And this season and off season has been a tough one. Something's got to give.

I'm not in the business of getting into arguments (and I don't say this because I think you're arguing but because I believe some people here love an argument and will find one wherever they go) so if you or anyone has taken my message as being that way, I apologise and just hope you can see that I have an opinion that I felt the need in voicing. Just an opinion.
 
rose jam said:
There's no way we'll pick him up. He's off to Richmond, he's a Hardwick pick for sure
Click to expand...

Your probably right... to young for North he needed to hang on a couple more years at Carltank for them to be aroused but he is the right price .. free to good home
 
Ricky90 said:
As far as your first point goes, you are right, his performance is not the issue. But we can't pick him up and say "just behave mate, that's all we want from you." We need to challenge him with KPI's like we do with all players, but especially in his case as he presents as a risk. We'd be throwing him a life line, he'd need to perform in the order of his best football to keep it. The off field issues are separate and would be outlined that way in the contract.

You're second point: I don't disagree with you for the most part.

I do however think we're treading a fine line at the moment in keeping the members happy. That part of the business doesn't matter to those you listed - Buckley, Pert, Eade - so you're absolutely right in saying that, 100%. But surely Eddie and the other big wigs in the organisation keep an eye on things. They'd be pretty annoyed if a few thousand members failed to sign on for another year because of what has happened this off season, our fault or not. Something like picking up Robinson (while it wouldn't be a huge blow in my opinion, some would consider it to be that way) wouldn't help the case. Having said that, those people probably don't deserve to call themselves members anyway - but I won't get into that here.

For the record, I was one who was very disappointed with Beams leaving and not being able to get what we were asking in return. I know we're victims of circumstance here and Beams didn't help us out in his exit but something can be said, and there's evidence of that on these boards, that members weren't happy with the eventual outcome after the initial strong stance. I however, do understand that it's a business and you do have to move forward whenever possible. The club took the trade which was the right thing to do even though not the preferred or only option.

Long story short, members matter to the club in my opinion. Not so much to the Football Department and downwards as you've correctly pointed out but to the organisation as a whole, we certainly matter. And this season and off season has been a tough one. Something's got to give.

I'm not in the business of getting into arguments (and I don't say this because I think you're arguing but because I believe some people here love an argument and will find one wherever they go) so if you or anyone has taken my message as being that way, I apologise and just hope you can see that I have an opinion that I felt the need in voicing. Just an opinion.
Click to expand...


No problems mate, I don't see it as argumentative. I enjoy the way you put things, and those who love arguing, I ignore pretty quickly and they become people who as far as I can see, are not on Big Footy.

I too hope you see this as a healthy debate, and not an argument.

One thing we need to be acknowledging more though, is that we as fans, have no idea what is being said behind closed doors, and that is the tricky part. Media report on what they hear, but quite often, that is only a small percentage of the story. Even if they are all over situation, the facts they have at their disposal to report on, is just over 50%.

In saying that, we as supporters have no idea what Beams said to Collingwood. What we do know, is "likely", it was restrictive. Lions had offered Beams a contract, which I believe was in a time when those details are against the AFL rules to be discussed. Once again though, it is presumption that is the case. It annoys me, that Beams didn't open Collingwood's options to the Gold Coast Suns. Beams appeared to have something against playing for the Suns both initially, when he could of avoided moving interstate in the first place, when he took his chances in the draft, rather than taking up an early offer to start his career with the Suns. But then when it was time that he went home, the Suns are far more advanced than Brisbane, who probably have stacked their midfield with too many players, while neglecting to secure key position defenders and forwards.

The Suns were interested in Beams, as I heard an interview where the Suns official said they enquired, and was told, "this one is probably not for you". It probably wasn't, because the Suns are closer to the Salary cap than Lions are, and Lions were prepared to pay him a large amount. That coupled with his brother playing in the side, Beams comes out and mentions that his sick father wants to see his boys play together, when I believe it was that Beams wanted an excuse to not take a lesser contract at the Suns to be more plausible.

Now back to the Robinson scenario. I still think that Collingwood would be crazy not to look at his Disposal amount each week is about 20 average. Single figures at our club get more than 20. Despite a lot of posters on here saying how bad his disposals are, none of them take the stat of 72.8% into account. Only 37 players in the top 303 which is where Robinson sits in order of this stat, got over 20 possessions average per game.

Sure, we put KPI's on all players, and he should be no different, but a strict warning that he needs to improve in this area, is not necessary. I would focus my energies on the Behavioural aspect of his make up.

I understand that you think the members of the club are important enough to sway decisions, but if they did that, they would be very confused as to what to do. They need to back their own judgements. They were put into the position to run the club with the expert knowledge they have developed. Who are these members though, who are the loudest most convincing of them? What do they believe? Are they privvy to the conversations of these meetings? No, do they have an education in the field? Probably not. So why listen to the squeaky wheel? If that squeaky Wheel really wants to make changes to Collingwood, they would apply for positions, and get them by showing they know their stuff.

You said one thing that rang true, and that was "They'd be pretty annoyed if a few thousand members failed to sign on for another year because of what has happened this off season, our fault or not". What does Buckley say? He says that they will control the controllables. You just suggested a common issue with keeping your membership numbers up. People will decide, Our fault or Not, that the CFC are not doing everything right, and not buy a membership. Most likely this decision will be hiding a deeper reason anyway, that they may not be able to afford a membership, or the lack of interest by the Mrs and the kids to justify spending that money this year. Perhaps the kids need to grow up a bit, perhaps the Mrs is always going off about not the membership money, but how much the bloke drinks when he goes, and how he is rude and dismissive when he gets home. (Just secretely, I speak of a friend of mine this year, that is considering his membership to be the only one, rather than for the kids and the Mrs that go just to keep him company. No it is not me. :)

There is thousands drop off, and thousands come on every year to our members count. The reasons are plenty. If Collingwood interview Robinson, and believe he is best for our side, then we will get him. End of story. Their will be no consideration to what the people on Big Footy believe. If there was, we may not of got Medhurst, we may not of got Krakouer. We may not of sacked Malthouse, or got Buckley. What ever the decision they made, they made it not because of public opinion. And I agree that they shouldn't let it.
 
speedytiger said:
He is a stupid footballer on field, cant kick and is even stupider off field. The only thing he has going for him is he's as hard as woodpeckers lips. He isn't a good enough player to take the risk on
Click to expand...

Can kick, 72.8% effectiveness, and only 37 players above him average over 20 possessions a game in 2014, well and truly suggest he can kick. I just hate to see an opinion that flies in the way of fact be left uncorrected. Sorry, carry on.
 
CasuallyDressed said:
You can't delist guns like Shaw for ******* up and then pick up average players like Robinson who got delisted for ******* up.
Click to expand...

How can you trade someone like Rhyce Shaw and Chris Tarrant for behaviour, and keep Heath Shaw? Shaw stuffed up AT COLLINGWOOD. Robinson has never done a thing wrong at the Pies. In fact, he will probably be praised for stuffing up the Blues. It would be going forward that we will decide on, not what happened before. 9 out of 10 players picked up by another club after off field misdemeanours, don't reoffend. Only a person like Fevola stuffs it up with a second chance.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DNine said:
Can kick, 72.8% effectiveness, and only 37 players above him average over 20 possessions a game in 2014, well and truly suggest he can kick. I just hate to see an opinion that flies in the way of fact be left uncorrected. Sorry, carry on.
Click to expand...

To me this seems like an argument against the effectiveness stat rather than one for Robinson's skill. I've watched Robinson, he isn't a good kick. I think he takes a lot of easy options and handballs a lot because he knows his strength isn't disposing it by foot. That would ensure he is technically an effective player, but it's a tad misleading, which I see a lot with this stat.
 
I'm actually intrigued with Mitch, probably because we grew up in the same small town just out of Hobart. I actually think he can play football. He certainly could as a junior and I agree he has struggled to find consistency at AFL level. I think Carlton also have contributed to this also though.

Brings some hardness to the contest that I don't see at Collingwood just yet, maybe some will develop that as there bodies mature but you can't question his attack on the footy.

Really hope he get's a chance somewhere else to see if he can turn it all around.
 
JOELY said:
To me this seems like an argument against the effectiveness stat rather than one for Robinson's skill. I've watched Robinson, he isn't a good kick. I think he takes a lot of easy options and handballs a lot because he knows his strength isn't disposing it by foot. That would ensure he is technically an effective player, but it's a tad misleading, which I see a lot with this stat.
Click to expand...

10.3 Kicks and 9.6 Handballs which is around about the same kick to handball ratio that all the other players in the AFL that get 20 or more stats. I am not surprised that Collingwood supporters are not up with what Robinson can or can't do. How often do we watch Carlton, honestly? Twice a year and a couple of Friday night matches, and a couple of glimpses in the day game if you got Foxtel? Seriously. The stats on whether the player hits or misses a target is pretty straight forward. The only thing I will be taking on board, is that he kicks dinky little kicks that hit targets but his longer kicks don't. That is probably the only way you can have these stats say one thing, and to be honest, there is not a break down of short to long kick stats that we can get. I am sure clubs can get more detailed stats, but on the few stats sites I visit, that break down is not available.

Even if it was, who cares, he is not the only one that kicks short sometimes, and I would say that he probably kicks long and short about the same. He doesn't play a unique style of game. I play a Superleague game, and I picked him up when he was drafted, and had him ever since. When I get the chance to watch Blues games, his kicking is pretty accurate when I watch. Supercoach points are taking more and more considerations into account. And I know some people go mental when you use the word Supercoach in a discussion, but all these points of short kicks and long kicks etc, are the taken into account than your normal stats. If Mitch was doing dinky kicks, he would score less than someone who kicks longer. Follow this link and look at what the last line says before the Cyril Rioli picture. http://www.scpaige.com.au/supercoach-scoring-system-explained/

As a Superleague player, Mitch has been great. 82.8 SC is up there. To give you an idea,

Rank Player Average
1 Scott Pendlebury 124.43
2 Dayne Beams 115.53
3 Steele Sidebottom 113.16
4 Dane Swan 86.41
5 Jamie Elliott 83.24
6 Heritier Lumumba 77.57

All these scores seem fair for these players. Mitch Robinson at 82.8 would come in 5th in our side in 2014. Also note, two of the top six are gone. However Greenwood averaged 94.2, which is also a fair assessment of the player.
 
DNine said:
10.3 Kicks and 9.6 Handballs which is around about the same kick to handball ratio that all the other players in the AFL that get 20 or more stats. I am not surprised that Collingwood supporters are not up with what Robinson can or can't do. How often do we watch Carlton, honestly? Twice a year and a couple of Friday night matches, and a couple of glimpses in the day game if you got Foxtel? Seriously. The stats on whether the player hits or misses a target is pretty straight forward. The only thing I will be taking on board, is that he kicks dinky little kicks that hit targets but his longer kicks don't. That is probably the only way you can have these stats say one thing, and to be honest, there is not a break down of short to long kick stats that we can get. I am sure clubs can get more detailed stats, but on the few stats sites I visit, that break down is not available.

Even if it was, who cares, he is not the only one that kicks short sometimes, and I would say that he probably kicks long and short about the same. He doesn't play a unique style of game. I play a Superleague game, and I picked him up when he was drafted, and had him ever since. When I get the chance to watch Blues games, his kicking is pretty accurate when I watch. Supercoach points are taking more and more considerations into account. And I know some people go mental when you use the word Supercoach in a discussion, but all these points of short kicks and long kicks etc, are the taken into account than your normal stats. If Mitch was doing dinky kicks, he would score less than someone who kicks longer. Follow this link and look at what the last line says before the Cyril Rioli picture. http://www.scpaige.com.au/supercoach-scoring-system-explained/

As a Superleague player, Mitch has been great. 82.8 SC is up there. To give you an idea,

Rank Player Average
1 Scott Pendlebury 124.43
2 Dayne Beams 115.53
3 Steele Sidebottom 113.16
4 Dane Swan 86.41
5 Jamie Elliott 83.24
6 Heritier Lumumba 77.57

All these scores seem fair for these players. Mitch Robinson at 82.8 would come in 5th in our side in 2014. Also note, two of the top six are gone. However Greenwood averaged 94.2, which is also a fair assessment of the player.
Click to expand...
Your welcome to have him in your supercoach side. I don't want him in a Collingwood side
 
speedytiger said:
Your welcome to have him in your supercoach side. I don't want him in a Collingwood side
Click to expand...

That makes one of you. One person with an opinion. Then there is me, another person with an opinion. BOTH of us don't make a lick of difference. If the Pies decide to get him, then you get him too. If they don't, then I will have him in my Supercoach side, and you will get your way.

I've hated a lot of footballers in my time. Most of them were great footballers. Judd, Franklin, Carey and others. Brereton I hated too until he came to Collingwood, and then I changed my opinion. I support the club, and the players they bring into it. I can continue to disagree with them, but it makes no difference.

I would love to see them get Robinson, because he is a good player, and a seasoned one that could work for us, to see more success. I am gaining another reason to want Robinson, and that is to see all those that don't, whinge and whine that they don't want him. As if any of them make a difference to the bigger picture.
 
We've replaced Beams with Greenwood we don't really need another mid who can't kick. If Mitch Robinson could kick I wouldn't mind.
 
DNine said:
That makes one of you. One person with an opinion. Then there is me, another person with an opinion. BOTH of us don't make a lick of difference. If the Pies decide to get him, then you get him too. If they don't, then I will have him in my Supercoach side, and you will get your way.

I've hated a lot of footballers in my time. Most of them were great footballers. Judd, Franklin, Carey and others. Brereton I hated too until he came to Collingwood, and then I changed my opinion. I support the club, and the players they bring into it. I can continue to disagree with them, but it makes no difference.

I would love to see them get Robinson, because he is a good player, and a seasoned one that could work for us, to see more success. I am gaining another reason to want Robinson, and that is to see all those that don't, whinge and whine that they don't want him. As if any of them make a difference to the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
I agree our opinions are worthless. i don't agree that Mitch Robinson is a good footballer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TradeDraft
Player Watch Tom Mitchell
44 45 46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
63K
Sweeetleftfoot
Sweeetleftfoot

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top