Snoops Annual Player Review, List and Draft Strategy

[jackcass]

Freeman is an interesting case. Scharenberg was never going to play this year, we all knew that when we drafted him. The ACL is just bad luck. However being of the opinion that there was no point him playing in the VFL this year is the only thing that annoys me because sadly, the people in this opinion was right.

No one can say this for certain. Who's to say he wouldn't have done his ACL round 1 2015 or during the preseason if he'd not played VFL? The counter arguement was that some VFL games toward the end of 2014 would set up his 2015 preseason, particularly given he'd missed a bit of footy. As you've said, the ACL is just bad luck and cannot be attributed to pursuing either of those options.

 

[jackcass]

Pfft, who was lauding him, certainly wasnt me.

The majority of supporters have a better idea than most media because they watch all the games, although some posters on these forums bring that premiss into serious doubt

EFA

 

[jackcass]

Lets move the chat on a bit.

Who is trade bait and what would you want for them?

Also what type of players do you think we will go after and if you've seen some junior footy who do you think fits the bill?

Great write up Swoop, agree with most of it.

Dwyer is probably the one I disagree with most of all. Thought he was just starting to regain some form until he hurt his knee against Carlton, arguably BOG for the first 3 quarters. Dont think he was the same player beyond that point and difficult to know how much the knee hampered him. Love to watch him but can't ever imagine him as a tagger, kid has hardly got a defensive bone in his body, it's all spread and offensive creativity.

As to who could be on the trade table, probably more a case of who isn't. Pendles, Beams, Sidebottom, Cloke, Reid, Elliott, Witts, Grundy would appear to be the untouchables. Heritier has probably elevated himself to the top of the trade list. Ultimately don't think there'll be too many list changes beyond the retirements and the Yagmoor, Mooney, and Clarke delistings.

Think the list is pretty well balanced apart from the obvious lack of experience. Would prefer to keep the powder dry on trying to attract some experienced player this year, we'll be more ready in 2016. What we do need beyond Moore is speed and skills, preferably of the 188-192 utility/midfielder type x2, a genuine crumbing forward with lots of tricks, then best available. Haven't seen any junior footy so won't even try to predict who these players could be.

 

[dansa]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion but I would trade Ben Reid.
I understand he is probably in the top 3 talents at the club but I have no confidence he will play more than about 50 games for the rest of his career. For the money he commands and the value he holds at the trade table, I'd invite offers.

It wont happen and I hope I'm wrong but I think it would be the smart trade.

 

[Apex36]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion but I would trade Ben Reid.
I understand he is probably in the top 3 talents at the club but I have no confidence he will play more than about 50 games for the rest of his career. For the money he commands and the value he holds at the trade table, I'd invite offers.

It wont happen and I hope I'm wrong but I think it would be the smart trade.

Yeah that Beams guy who was out for most of last year with soft tissue injuries doesn't have many games left in him either. We should trade both.

 

[dansa]

Yeah that Beams guy who was out for most of last year with soft tissue injuries doesn't have many games left in him either. We should trade both.

No need for sarcasm. You can just explain your contrary view.
I would argue that Beams had one bad injury ( probably mismanaged by the club) but hasn't broken down as many times or with the regularity of Reid. Obviously you feel Reid's fitness will improve over the coming years. I hope so because he is A grade football talent.

 

[Apex36]

No need for sarcasm. You can just explain your contrary view.
I would argue that Beams had one bad injury ( probably mismanaged by the club) but hasn't broken down as many times or with the regularity of Reid. Obviously you feel Reid's fitness will improve over the coming years. I hope so because he is A grade football talent.

Like Beams, Reid has had a total of one season that has been seriously impacted by injury. Like many other players, he has had the odd soft tissue injury here and there, and they have stood out to people due to the inopportune times they have happened (2011 GF for example).

In reality though, this year is the first since 2009 that Reid has played less than 20 games in a season. Hardly the record of a player who is supposedly falling to pieces.

 

[dansa]

Like Beams, Reid has had a total of one season that has been seriously impacted by injury. Like many other players, he has had the odd soft tissue injury here and there, and they have stood out to people due to the inopportune times they have happened (2011 GF for example).

In reality though, this year is the first since 2009 that Reid has played less than 20 games in a season. Hardly the record of a player who is supposedly falling to pieces.

I just looked at his career stats and your point is right. He has played a lot more consistently than I had imagined. Even before this season I have always thought of him as injury prone to calf, thigh , quad strains. I cringe every time he attacks the ball. Maybe you are spot on that because the injuries have often come before or during big games they have more prominence in my memory. Not including this terrible season, he is still missing about 5 games a year to soft tissue injuries which is concerning as he gets older but I concede that is not reason enough to trade him.

 

[swiftdog]

Brilliant write-up!!

I'm hesitant to trade out any more experienced players for youth, although Heritier might force our hand. If Melbourne has shown us anything (and Carlton also to an extent) it's that youth doesn't automatically equal a rise up the ladder.

 

[rustyg70]

Think the list is pretty well balanced apart from the obvious lack of experience. Would prefer to keep the powder dry on trying to attract some experienced player this year, we'll be more ready in 2016. What we do need beyond Moore is speed and skills, preferably of the 188-192 utility/midfielder type x2, a genuine crumbing forward with lots of tricks, then best available. Haven't seen any junior footy so won't even try to predict who these players could be.

Hopefully the 2 utility type players are already on our list : Karnezie and Freeman.
I'd also jump at the chance of a trade with Carlton: Lumumba for Garlett.

If we get a decent run without injuries our side will be completely different than it was this year.

Brown at Full Back to play on the bigger bodied players, will release Frost to play the Maxy type role, and will also add some much needed experience to our young backline.

Reid at Full Forward will release Cloke to play at CHF and roam between the arcs, which will create a target to kick to coming out of defence.

White, if needed, will then become the 3rd tall/ruck that we recruited him for.
If it's not him, then it's Witts and/or Grundy.

Fasolo, with an injury free pre season will also be a valuable asset around the half forward line with his disposal and marking ability.

There is a lot to like about this side.
We just need to be able to get all the boys on the paddock at the same time.

 

[jackcass]

How is it that you know it is not true?

If the non-surgical treatment was a realistic option then he would not have slipped to no 6. Further, in hindsight, it is evident that surgery was a successful option.

Sesamoiditis "just requires rest": http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...st-requires-rest/story-fni5f22o-1226764594594

Both the club and player were more hopeful than certain that non-surgical treatment would be a success. Evidently it was not.

Defending the indefensible seems to be a common problem with Collingwood. From the weeks that Beams, Reid and Freeman have missed in the past two seasons regarding soft tissue injuries versus those missed by players from other clubs, a factual conclusion can be drawn that Collingwood did not allow the muscles to heal properly before ramping up the workload.

I am not sure why one would need a large body of medical evidence to draw conclusions from facts.

Point 1: Ask Matthew Egan about the pro's and con's of foot surgery. Yes, the surgery was successful in this instance but every surgery brings an element of risk. And you have intimate knowledge of the draft discussions had by the 4 clubs who exercised picks before Collingwood... impressive.

Point 2: Defending the rational is reasonable, regardless of who you support. Non-surgical options will/should always be explored.

Point 3: Well a conclusion can be drawn, how factual it is cannot be determined without full awareness of each particular case.... can we assume you're a member of the medical team down at Pieland?

 

[jackcass]

It is nonsensical for Buckley to come out and tell us that Freeman will miss about a month knowing that that statement was misleading. I don't buy your conclusion one bit.

We are going around in circles and we will leave it at that.

So this is your evidence...

"We'll see how they go, but they'll be missing three to four (weeks) each, probably," Magpies coach Nathan Buckley said after the game.

A post game guess by a coach... really

 

[Snoop Dog]

Great write up Swoop, agree with most of it.

Dwyer is probably the one I disagree with most of all. Thought he was just starting to regain some form until he hurt his knee against Carlton, arguably BOG for the first 3 quarters. Dont think he was the same player beyond that point and difficult to know how much the knee hampered him. Love to watch him but can't ever imagine him as a tagger, kid has hardly got a defensive bone in his body, it's all spread and offensive creativity.

As to who could be on the trade table, probably more a case of who isn't. Pendles, Beams, Sidebottom, Cloke, Reid, Elliott, Witts, Grundy would appear to be the untouchables. Heritier has probably elevated himself to the top of the trade list. Ultimately don't think there'll be too many list changes beyond the retirements and the Yagmoor, Mooney, and Clarke delistings.

Think the list is pretty well balanced apart from the obvious lack of experience. Would prefer to keep the powder dry on trying to attract some experienced player this year, we'll be more ready in 2016. What we do need beyond Moore is speed and skills, preferably of the 188-192 utility/midfielder type x2, a genuine crumbing forward with lots of tricks, then best available. Haven't seen any junior footy so won't even try to predict who these players could be.

Yeah it was just an idea re Dwyer. I noticed they played him behind the footy a bit in a few of the last games. He is one I am interested in seeing how he is going to take his footy to another level.

Agree re bringing blokes in. I just dont think we need many and whilst ok with Harry going would probably prefer a pick to Clark if only bc I am not sure where Clark fits in with us given the plethera of talls who if all fit would all be arguably in the best 22. I would prefer a pick and use it to trade up a bit and / or just have 3 picks in the top 30.

There is not a heap of those players going around this year but if thats what you think we want then follow names like;

Connor Menadue
Kyle Langford
Damien Cavka
Daniel Capiron
Ryan Lim
Jackson Nelson
Ed Langdon

They are probably the most likely.

 

[jackcass]

Brilliant write-up!!

I'm hesitant to trade out any more experienced players for youth, although Heritier might force our hand. If Melbourne has shown us anything (and Carlton also to an extent) it's that youth doesn't automatically equal a rise up the ladder.

I wouldn't use either Carlton or Melbourne as examples of using the draft to improve the list or opting for the youth option, both have deplorable records with high picks, arguably the worst lists in the league.

However Doggies and Port are teams that have vastly improved their lists via the youth/draft option.

 

[jackcass]

Yeah it was just an idea re Dwyer. I noticed they played him behind the footy a bit in a few of the last games. He is one I am interested in seeing how he is going to take his footy to another level.

Agree re bringing blokes in. I just dont think we need many and whilst ok with Harry going would probably prefer a pick to Clark if only bc I am not sure where Clark fits in with us given the plethera of talls who if all fit would all be arguably in the best 22. I would prefer a pick and use it to trade up a bit and / or just have 3 picks in the top 30.

There is not a heap of those players going around this year but if thats what you think we want then follow names like;

Connor Menadue
Kyle Langford
Damien Cavka
Daniel Capiron
Ryan Lim
Jackson Nelson
Ed Langdon

They are probably the most likely.

I don't watch any junior footy so happy to defer to those who do on potential draftees. I'm always going to prefer the draft option over a trade. A club like ours with so much resource devoted to talent identification should do well out of the draft. People always like to cite Hawthorn's great record with trading in experience but they seem to skip over the fact that they also use draft picks and have used them well, Thorpe the only real miss I can think of with a high pick, Garlett was always a gamble. Players like Lewis, Roughie, Cyril, Smith, Hodge, Birchall, Bruest, Hartung and Hill are more than handy

 

[swiftdog]

I wouldn't use either Carlton or Melbourne as examples of using the draft to improve the list or opting for the youth option, both have deplorable records with high picks, arguably the worst lists in the league.

However Doggies and Port are teams that have vastly improved their lists via the youth/draft option.

Jury's still out a little on the Dogs but you're right about Port. We do have great recruiters at Collingwood but relying too much on the draft and therefore youth is a bit of a crapshoot and can go successfully (a la Port) or horribly (a la Melbourne). Both Melbourne and Carlton have gone the yough option and have got it wrong, we're not impervious to that either.

 

[jackcass]

Jury's still out a little on the Dogs but you're right about Port. We do have great recruiters at Collingwood but relying too much on the draft and therefore youth is a bit of a crapshoot and can go successfully (a la Port) or horribly (a la Melbourne). Both Melbourne and Carlton have gone the yough option and have got it wrong, we're not impervious to that either.

I agree, it is a crapshhot. We've had years where we've totally stuffed it however I'm suggesting that we can get better long term outcomes out of drafting kids than we can by acquiring the Russell, Young, Lynch, Armstrong, and White types from other clubs.

Only issue with the Doggies kids is they haven't been able to grab any talls of note and when you consider they haven't had a dominant key forward since Barry retired, that's been a major oversight. Their midfield will be the envy of many clubs over the coming years though. If they could grab someone like Mitch Clark they'd pretty quickly climb the ladder.

Melbourne and Carlton have had a plethora of very high picks over the lat decade and have habitually made bad choices. Melbourne may have started to correct that over the last couple of trade periods, time will tell, and Menzel will likely be a very good player for Carlton, but did they really need another soft outside flanker type player on their list.

 

[Lefthanded]

I agree, it is a crapshhot. We've had years where we've totally stuffed it however I'm suggesting that we can get better long term outcomes out of drafting kids than we can by acquiring the Russell, Young, Lynch, Armstrong, and White types from other clubs.

Only issue with the Doggies kids is they haven't been able to grab any talls of note and when you consider they haven't had a dominant key forward since Barry retired, that's been a major oversight. Their midfield will be the envy of many clubs over the coming years though. If they could grab someone like Mitch Clark they'd pretty quickly climb the ladder.

Melbourne and Carlton have had a plethora of very high picks over the lat decade and have habitually made bad choices. Melbourne may have started to correct that over the last couple of trade periods, time will tell, and Menzel will likely be a very good player for Carlton, but did they really need another soft outside flanker type player on their list.

I think it's not just about who you draft but how you develop them, hence some clubs don't succeed regardless of how high and how many the picks are. As for Russell, Young , Lynch etc haven't you heard the reasoning from CFC? The idea is to have enough experience around the youth to help them develop, hence it's not as simply as we should have drafted instead.

 

[suspect footskills]

Thanks for the very nicely summarized write-up Snoop. As always, a good read.
If you could share your thoughts, I'd like to know your opinion on a couple of things.
Firstly, if it were a choice between Ed Langdon and Jack Lonie, who would you prefer to see the club pick up? I really like what both players bring to the table with their speed, crumbing ability, goal smarts and x-factor. Seeing as they're both on the shorter side however I can't imagine the club would want to pick up both of them as we're busting at the seams with short people. I'm leaning ever so slightly towards Lonie but Langdon's elite endurance could see him being of more value in the longer term. Which of the two would you prefer and why?
Secondly, what's you're take on Harrison Wigg? The kid seems to barely get mention despite his elite kicking and being SA's MVP of the carnival. What's the knock on him? Any chance he could slip through to being a rookie selection and if so, should we take a serious look? He's got something we desperately need in that he can consistently hit a target and with a high degree of accuracy.
Would love to hear your thoughts on these young blokes.

 

[jackcass]

I think it's not just about who you draft but how you develop them, hence some clubs don't succeed regardless of how high and how many the picks are. As for Russell, Young , Lynch etc haven't you heard the reasoning from CFC? The idea is to have enough experience around the youth to help them develop, hence it's not as simply as we should have drafted instead.

Yep, development is very important and you can understand why there has been so much emphasis on culture over the last 12-18 months. And yes I've heard the reasoning for trading and understand it, particularly when you see how the supporters on these types of forums react to a slide down the ladder. Fail to see how recruiting the Russell, Young, Simon Buckley, Armstrong and White types offers the sort of leadership you'd like around developing kids, none of them are a patch on a Luke Ball. And none of them have played consistently good senior footy. I give Lynch a pass in this regard.

 

[Lefthanded]

Yep, development is very important and you can understand why there has been so much emphasis on culture over the last 12-18 months. And yes I've heard the reasoning for trading and understand it, particularly when you see how the supporters on these types of forums react to a slide down the ladder. Fail to see how recruiting the Russell, Young, Simon Buckley, Armstrong and White types offers the sort of leadership you'd like around developing kids, none of them are a patch on a Luke Ball. And none of them have played consistently good senior footy. I give Lynch a pass in this regard.

Agree but it's not just about having leadership, it's about having senior experienced players around the kids so they aren't getting smashed every week (see GWS & GC early days). Leave the leadership to the Maxy's (sadly no more), Pendles, Balls (sadly no more) + have guys like Beams & Sidey stepping up, the other experienced guys are there to help keep wins on the board at AFL or VFL level so that the youth are used to being part of a winning culture. Even this year, missing finals for first time in ages, the youth at least know the feeling of being part of a club that was 8-3 and can see light at the end of the tunnel for future years.

 

[Hva sher a]

I think it's not just about who you draft but how you develop them, hence some clubs don't succeed regardless of how high and how many the picks are. As for Russell, Young , Lynch etc haven't you heard the reasoning from CFC? The idea is to have enough experience around the youth to help them develop, hence it's not as simply as we should have drafted instead.

Personally I think this is convenient revisionist thinking by the club. Each of these players were recruited because they had specific skill sets seen as necessary to execute Buck's game plan.
Russell didn't play much for us so I don't know how he enabled our youth to develop on match days. Young has been injury prone. Both Lynch and White have been used incorrectly. And Armstrong has only come on board belatedly as we were running out of troops.

If the rationale was about developing our VFL side (eg Hudson) that's fair enough, but it seems an expensive way to do it. I'd rather Bucks comes out and says that the expectations out of our mature-agers haven't been met. Picking up a recycled player carries a similar risk to drafting a kid- you don't quite know how they'll adapt etc

 

[Anzacday]

If the rationale was about developing our VFL side (eg Hudson) that's fair enough, but it seems an expensive way to do it. I'd rather Bucks comes out and says that the expectations out of our mature-agers haven't been met. Picking up a recycled player carries a similar risk to drafting a kid- you don't quite know how they'll adapt etc

The club decided to follow the Geelong model of having a successful VFL team to create a winning within the whole club.
Bucks at the fan forum explained the reason for drafting senior players was to replace, (cheaply) some the senior games we'd lost so as to assist with the development of the young players by not having to expose them too early/much, (my words).
The club, (and Bucks) openly admit the drafting of those players has had mixed results, (he still sees an upside in Jessie for example) but as with anything there aren't any guarantees in life.

 

[Hva sher a]

The club decided to follow the Geelong model of having a successful VFL team to create a winning within the whole club.
Bucks at the fan forum explained the reason for drafting senior players was to replace, (cheaply) some the senior games we'd lost so as to assist with the development of the young players by not having to expose them too early/much, (my words).
The club, (and Bucks) openly admit the drafting of those players has had mixed results, (he still sees an upside in Jessie for example) but as with anything there aren't any guarantees in life.

I wasn't at the forum so appreciate the insight thanks. Also agree about the assessment of White - he isn't and never will be a 2nd KPF. Use him as a mobile forward who can ruck. White is an athlete not a battering ram. Hopefully Bucks uses him in a similar way to Blicavs.

 

[rustyg70]

I wasn't at the forum so appreciate the insight thanks. Also agree about the assessment of White - he isn't and never will be a 2nd KPF. Use him as a mobile forward who can ruck. White is an athlete not a battering ram. Hopefully Bucks uses him in a similar way to Blicavs.

I have a feeling that's why Bucks got him.
That's how they trained all the way through last years pre season.
Having Reid go down for the season threw that plan out the window though.
He definitely looks better when used in the 3rd tall/2nd ruck position, and can use his running power.