List Mgmt. Taylor Hunt delisted

Remove this Banner Ad

dazbroncos said:
And of course you had this criticism during the Carlton game where he kicked 3 and tagged Murphy. Or The Hawks game where he ran with Mitchell and helped quieten him. I looked in the game day threads and couldn't see his potting as useless then.

Go Catters
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the Carlton game performance as much the next supporter but I chose to base my criticism on his other 39 games.

We can't be blind and think all GFC players are gonna make it if we persist. We should have traded him 2 years ago when he still held some value.
 
Willo_ said:
His game against Murphy is one of the more overhyped performances on this board Daz, Murphy still had almost 30 touches and kicked goals himself... he went well the other way against him but didn't quieten him as a great tagging performance should
Click to expand...

But people vary between extremes and that's the problem. You seemingly can't have a good, solid performance anymore. It's either ridiculously overhyped in the positive direction (i.e. Walker's finals series), or ludicrously slammed in the other, and only with the benefit of hindsight (seemingly Taylor Hunt's entire career now).

His game against Murphy was not a great tagging role, as he was never a great tagger. At the same time it's not he exactly had tons of experience at it either. For the record:

Murphy: 27 disposals, 4 marks, 5 inside 50s, 6 tackles, 1 goal.
Hunt: 17 disposals, 4 marks, 1 inside 50, 7 tackles, 3 goals.

I struggle to believe any coach would not have been happy with Hunt's game. If you can't stop them completely, at least hurt them the other way. Kicking 3 goals in a half and for the game is definitely doing that.

Too many though will either be emotionally invested in seeing Hunt go, or being proved right, or both, so his effort that night (and career) are going to be disparaged.
 
CatFan79 said:
I enjoyed the Carlton game performance as much the next supporter but I chose to base my criticism on his other 39 games.

We can't be blind and think all GFC players are gonna make it if we persist. We should have traded him 2 years ago when he still held some value.
Click to expand...

That's fine. But if you did that for everyone we'd be getting rid of a lot of players. Murdoch would be in deep trouble for one example.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SJ said:
I find it hard to believe a bloke who played 56 games in the seniors and 6 games in the reserves between the start of 2011 and the middle of this 2014 (in arguably better teams than we will have in 2015) is so far off the pace of best 22 next year.
Click to expand...

You know how this board works SJ, people will say it enough times they'll start thinking it's true.

He wasn't the best player, and wasn't the worst. But could play on the ball, could play in defence, is actually in the right age bracket, and wasn't useless near goals when wandering forward. Sadly it's irrelevant now.
 
catempire said:
I'm amazed at how often fans remark a player should stay or go without addressing the other side of the coin which is who replaces him.

In this case, pick 55 or 60 is speculative at best and I can't see how it can be expected to yield a better player than Hunt, as limited a player as he is. I would be happy if the marginal decision was Hunt or a pick up to 40. But beyond that it makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
Stokes, McCarthy and Hartmann were all picks above 60. Yes, I see your point, but I'd rather take a punt than keep a player who has strong limitations at this level.
 
CatFan79 said:
I enjoyed the Carlton game performance as much the next supporter but I chose to base my criticism on his other 39 games.

We can't be blind and think all GFC players are gonna make it if we persist. We should have traded him 2 years ago when he still held some value.
Click to expand...

My point was not that he's gonna be a star or make it even just that as depth he is better on the list for another months than pick 60 odd for 2015.
Go Catters
 
catempire said:
I'm amazed at how often fans remark a player should stay or go without addressing the other side of the coin which is who replaces him.

In this case, pick 55 or 60 is speculative at best and I can't see how it can be expected to yield a better player than Hunt, as limited a player as he is. I would be happy if the marginal decision was Hunt or a pick up to 40. But beyond that it makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Hunt right now isn't any use to us. He's not going to get a game unless we get a huge amount of injuries. He's also very, very unlikely to ever improve enough to be anything more than right at the bottom end of our best 22.

Of course there's a very good chance that pick 60 never ends up any better. But that's a bit irrelevant. The fact Hunt's better than a first year is irrelevant unless he's getting games and actually contributing. If Hunt plays 0 games next year (which would be a genuine chance) then he'd be as useful as me, and I'm no good. We're giving up a guy who would be player 27+ on our list for a guy who might become a very good player. Is it likely? No. But say the 20% chance of getting a very good player at pick 60 is much better than the ~0% chance of Hunt becoming a very good player. We've given Hunt every chance to show he can thrive at AFL level and he hasn't. It's time to give another person that chance because if we satisfy ourselves with just ok AFL players then we'll never be better than also-rans.
 
Footy Smarts said:
The problem is that Hunt right now isn't any use to us. He's not going to get a game unless we get a huge amount of injuries. He's also very, very unlikely to ever improve enough to be anything more than right at the bottom end of our best 22.

Of course there's a very good chance that pick 60 never ends up any better. But that's a bit irrelevant. The fact Hunt's better than a first year is irrelevant unless he's getting games and actually contributing. If Hunt plays 0 games next year (which would be a genuine chance) then he'd be as useful as me, and I'm no good. We're giving up a guy who would be player 27+ on our list for a guy who might become a very good player. Is it likely? No. But say the 20% chance of getting a very good player at pick 60 is much better than the ~0% chance of Hunt becoming a very good player. We've given Hunt every chance to show he can thrive at AFL level and he hasn't. It's time to give another person that chance because if we satisfy ourselves with just ok AFL players then we'll never be better than also-rans.
Click to expand...
I agree with the probabilities approach you use but, equally, I completely disagree with the values you assign.

I'd say:

- Hunt is perhaps a 20% chance of playing another 50 games
- Pick 55 would be in the order of 5% chance of playing 50 AFL games.
 
iameviljez said:
Stokes, McCarthy and Hartmann were all picks above 60. Yes, I see your point, but I'd rather take a punt than keep a player who has strong limitations at this level.
Click to expand...
Wasn't James Hird pick 80 something? It's not the point, surely you can see.

What is the probability of pick 55 playing more AFL games for Geelong than Hunt? I'd argue very low.
 
catempire said:
Wasn't James Hird pick 80 something? It's not the point, surely you can see.
Click to expand...

I think this old chestnut needs to be laid to rest. The whole draft system is so different now compared to when Hird was drafted so it's like comparing apples and oranges. If the TAC Cup, the AIS development program, and the combine existed in Hirds day then he would have gone much, much earlier than 80 IMHO.
 
BlakeyNoFlakey said:
I think this old chestnut needs to be laid to rest. The whole draft system is so different now compared to when Hird was drafted so it's like comparing apples and oranges. If the TAC Cup, the AIS development program, and the combine existed in Hirds day then he would have gone much, much earlier than 80 IMHO.
Click to expand...
It is no less valid than cherry picking other examples. Either way it's not the point, as I explained.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

iameviljez said:
Reasonably low, yes - but the probability of pick 55 becoming a good quality AFL player is considerably higher than the probability that Taylor Hunt will become a good quality AFL player.
Click to expand...
That's the threshold issue and clearly we disagree.
 
iameviljez said:
Reasonably low, yes - but the probability of pick 55 becoming a good quality AFL player is considerably higher than the probability that Taylor Hunt will become a good quality AFL player.
Click to expand...

There's a very simple way to answer this. Even better, you can test it.

What is the average amount of games played for a draftee? If it's less than 60 (or whatever Hunt has played so far), the probability is LOWER.
 
Partridge said:
There's a very simple way to answer this. Even better, you can test it.

What is the average amount of games played for a draftee? If it's less than 60 (or whatever Hunt has played so far), the probability is LOWER.
Click to expand...
No it's not. I'm talking about the probability that this draftee will become a GOOD AFL player (i.e. 200-game quality). I argue that the probability of this is low - very low, in fact - but it's greater than the chance that a known quality in Hunt will be good enough to play 200 games for the club.
 
Willo_ said:
His game against Murphy is one of the more overhyped performances on this board Daz, Murphy still had almost 30 touches and kicked goals himself... he went well the other way against him but didn't quieten him as a great tagging performance should
Click to expand...

I do agree that this performance was overrated, but anyone watching the game would agree that, despite Murphy's almost 30 possessions, he really didn't have an influence on the game.
 
catempire said:
I agree with the probabilities approach you use but, equally, I completely disagree with the values you assign.

I'd say:

- Hunt is perhaps a 20% chance of playing another 50 games
- Pick 55 would be in the order of 5% chance of playing 50 AFL games.
Click to expand...

Don't have the stats on me but it would be historically closer to 35%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

catempire
List Mgmt. Narkle, Evans, Tsapitolis, Stevens and Williams delisted
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
4K
Gee Class Loco
Gee Class Loco

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top