Bluemour Discussion Thread IV

[agro]

Assuming that Kerr, J Silvagni, C Curnow and McKay aren't sufficient.

I am distraught every week that we can't kick more than 12 goals. But wouldn't our forward line be stronger with Betts, Menzel (2014 edition!), Robinson, Bell and Garlett? That'd be an extra 5+ goals a week.

I'd go best available. If the tall timber is there without reaching then yeah. But keep an eye on small/medium types who like a goal.

Once we improve our midfield so it bats deeper, is more skilled and delivery into the forward 50 is more consistent, direct and improved we'll be nudging the 100 point mark far more often.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Assuming that Kerr, J Silvagni, C Curnow and McKay aren't sufficient.

I am distraught every week that we can't kick more than 12 goals. But wouldn't our forward line be stronger with Betts, Menzel (2014 edition!), Robinson, Bell and Garlett? That'd be an extra 5+ goals a week.

I'd go best available. If the tall timber is there without reaching then yeah. But keep an eye on small/medium types who like a goal.

Good point here. Any player capable of creating scoring opportunities should be given plenty of thought. Robbie Gray is a good example of a player who is a nightmare matchup for most opponents - he's good for 4-5 goals on his best days, and will typically give you at least 1 or 2 otherwise. Happy to see us change the landscape a bit when it comes to our forward line if we think it can be effective.

 

[Arr0w]

Assuming that Kerr, J Silvagni, C Curnow and McKay aren't sufficient.

I am distraught every week that we can't kick more than 12 goals. But wouldn't our forward line be stronger with Betts, Menzel (2014 edition!), Robinson, Bell and Garlett? That'd be an extra 5+ goals a week.

I'd go best available. If the tall timber is there without reaching then yeah. But keep an eye on small/medium types who like a goal.

Have always said that it is all about a balanced list. Easier to find small forwards than KPF's, whether that be through the draft or trade.

From the list I posted above:

Gray and Fantasia pick 55
Betts and Garlett. rookie picks

All the KPF are first rounders apart from Brown, pick 47. (F/S picks in Hawkins and Daniher would have been first rounders in an open draft)

 

[LanceRomance]

Richmond is the obvious club who need a mature, ready to go 2nd forward who can chop out in the ruck.
They would be willing to pay overs as well since they believe they are contending and getting a player for that position is the 'missing piece' - all while giving up nothing in way of trading.

Unfortunately none of the other top teams really need a player like Cas...if Collingwood sack bucks i doubt they'd go for him anymore.

I do. Collingwood need a foil for Moore

 

[Azul]

Have always said that it is all about a balanced list. Easier to find small forwards than KPF's, whether that be through the draft or trade.

From the list I posted above:

Gray and Fantasia pick 55
Betts and Garlett. rookie picks

And I'm saying we have 4 under 21yo 191+cm forwards already and unless Pickett and LeBois come on then not much in the way of smalls.

Rayner and Stephenson not of interest with our first pick then?

 

[gandaal]

The highlighted is the crucial statement, that is why KPF's are a premium, they don't come around that often

I call BS. Top 15 goal kickers from this year. Only one in the top 15 is around 192, Walker. Versus 10 genuine KPF, the rest are small forwards. The trend of all players increasing in height will continue, with a small percentage of exceptions

And, I would rather have 2 flags over, 10 brownlow winners, in the next 10 years

Lance Franklin Sydney 43
Joe Daniher Essendon 41
Jeremy Cameron GWS 41
Eddie Betts Adelaide 39
Ben Brown North Melbourne 38
Robbie Gray Port Adelaide 38
Taylor Walker Adelaide 37
Tom Hawkins Geelong 36
Jack Riewoldt Richmond 36
Tom Lynch Gold Coast 35
Joshua Kennedy West Coast 34
Orazio Fantasia Essendon 32
Jeff Garlett Melbourne 32u
Charlie Dixon Port Adelaide 32
Jonathon Patton GWS 31

The argument here that you and Shiek are making is that 198-200 cm monsters equal premierships.

But how many of them actually have led their teams to the flag? The answer is one. Hawkins and he had a lot of help in a great team.

 

[ferrisb]

Treloar

vs.

Weideman/McKay/Curnow + Logue/Brodie/Florent

I don't think the Treloar was/is such a crazy idea.

IN
- Treloar: 22yo averaging like 28 touches, 5 tackles, 5 clearances. Guaranteed good player. Ballpark those stats are comparable to anything Dylan Shiel has put up (even at an older age) or what Josh Kelly is putting up this year.
- Pick 28. Maybe a 50% chance of getting a good player.
- NET: 1.5 good players

OUT
- Pick 7: Weideman/McKay/Curnow: Maybe 80% a good player
- Assumed pick 12: Simpkin/Venables/Gallucci: Maybe 70% a good player
- NET: 1.5 good players

So I think the trade reasoning was solid. Not great, but not crazy.

Where it all went wrong.

#1 They unexpectedly (to them) didn't bounce back up the ladder.
#2 Treloar is a VERY GOOD player, but he is probably not as damaging or game-breaking as Shiel or Kelly.

So the trade value I think stacks up for a player of that ilk. I think I would pay that for Shiel or Kelly. I just think Collingwood picked the wrong player for that kind of trade and also messed up by not climbing back up the ladder.

Anyway. Who cares about Collingwood's trading (except for lols). But I do think that the discussion is relevant for what we might pay for a Kelly type. If we do this kind of trade, hopefully the 'elite' nature of pick 2-3 means we don't have to give up much more.

 

[Arr0w]

And I'm saying we have 4 under 21yo 191+cm forwards already and unless Pickett and LeBois come on then not much in the way of smalls.

Rayner and Stephenson not of interest with our first pick then?

If we trade in a Hopper and Smith, would you take Rayner ahead of Brander?

 

[Jimmae]

Look, let's be very clear about Preuss (and this is probably more of a list management discussion so I'll try to be brief), North aren't playing him despite promising signs. I believe the reasons for this is two-fold:

1. Playing him means building the team around him ala Jacobs
2. He hasn't shown that he can consistently ruck all day under those circumstances

He's a good (if mechanically poor) kick, he has clean, quick hands but he's slow as treacle. Upgrade for us on Phillips, but if you put him in the same team as Kreuzer, you're asking Matty to be a starting forward, and your structure and shape shifts when they swap roles because of how static Preuss is compared to everyone else's running patterns.

Until he's capable of 22-ish games of grinding ruck play a season, no one's going to use him unless they have a very unique alternate ruck or a genuine forward/ruck to partner with him, and they're going to have to build the team around him. That's a big ask for most clubs.

 

[HARKER]

And I'm saying we have 4 under 21yo 191+cm forwards already and unless Pickett and LeBois come on then not much in the way of smalls.

Rayner and Stephenson not of interest with our first pick then?

I wouldn't bother going to the draft for a KPF. Reckon there may be better ways to go about it.
Besides, we already have Harry, Charlie and all being well, Ben coming along........oh......and then there's Weitering.
There are no 'king' KPF at this draft for us. We have to do it another way

 

[rp84]

Look, let's be very clear about Preuss (and this is probably more of a list management discussion so I'll try to be brief), North aren't playing him despite promising signs. I believe the reasons for this is two-fold:

1. Playing him means building the team around him ala Jacobs
2. He hasn't shown that he can consistently ruck all day under those circumstances

He's a good (if mechanically poor) kick, he has clean, quick hands but he's slow as treacle. Upgrade for us on Phillips, but if you put him in the same team as Kreuzer, you're asking Matty to be a starting forward, and your structure and shape shifts when they swap roles because of how static Preuss is compared to everyone else's running patterns.

Until he's capable of 22-ish games of grinding ruck play a season, no one's going to use him unless they have a very unique alternate ruck or a genuine forward/ruck to partner with him, and they're going to have to build the team around him. That's a big ask for most clubs.

Preuss isnt being played because they are trying (unsuccessfully) to pump up Goldsteins value. Preuss will be their number one ruck for a decade.

 

[HBF]

Kennedy is 194.

Lynch and Daniher are both very good players no argument. However most of the other great forwards are in the 192-195 cm range (Lance and Cameron just outside that at 196).

I get what you're saying, but there are mobile big men out there. Even Lobb is pretty good, and he's well over 2m tall.

 

[Arr0w]

The argument here that you and Shiek are making is that 198-200 cm monsters equal premierships.

But how many of them actually have led their teams to the flag? The answer is one. Hawkins and he had a lot of help in a great team.

Are we splitting hairs over a centimetre or 2? Those 10 names are 195+

So you judge it by the number of goals they kick in a GF, versus the 20 odd games prior? Perhaps you should compare their counterparts in the losing side

 

[Azul]

If we trade in a Hopper and Smith, would you take Rayner ahead of Brander?

If SOS rates Rayner as the best Dustyesque player then yes, absolutely.

But maybe because I look at Port Adelaide and wish we had Chad Wingard.

 

[Jimmae]

Preuss isnt being played because they are trying (unsuccessfully) to pump up Goldsteins value. Preuss will be their number one ruck for a decade.

Honestly, that reads like total bullshit. Preuss is treacle and - despite his injury niggles - Goldstein is still a machine.

Not in AA form of course, but still highly capable.

 

[sosos]

GWS is the SOS model...one tower - Patton, one mobile kpf size - Cameron and one goal kicking mid/flanker - Greene.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

We certainly don't need to make our forward line taller than it already is. Need some quality smalls to lock the ball in, too often it bounces straight back out & down the other end for a goal.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Macreadie & Kerr from the first 6. That's 30% KPP

Always about balance

Williamson isn't technically a midfielder either...

 

[gandaal]

Are we splitting hairs over a centimetre or 2? Those 10 names are 195+

So you judge it by the number of goals they kick in a GF, versus the 20 odd games prior? Perhaps you should compare their counterparts in the losing side

So now I'm wrong because there's more top goal kicking fords at 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 and 201cm than at 192 cm?

Do you want to change the criteria any further?

 

[Funk]

Have a look at the current AFL ladder. Every club from 1st to 9th has a gun KPF.

Adelaide have Walker. GWS have Patton and Cameron. Geelong have Hawkins. Melbourne have Hogan. Richmond have Riewoldt. Sydney have Franklin. And so forth.

Teams on the bottom of the ladder include us, Brisbane, North Melbourne and Collingwood. All teams that lack a gun KPF.

We currently sit dead last four points scored. Same deal last year.

I won't back down from the fact we need a gun KPF. Alongside four or five A grade to elite midfielders and a young Ruckman, it is our most pressing need.

Ben Brown = gun

 

[Stamos]

If we trade in a Hopper and Smith, would you take Rayner ahead of Brander?

Without knowing who is actually the better player, purely on type, absolutely.

 

[ferrisb]

In before Carlton trade period where we do no trades, pick up no one of notice and take our draft picks to the draft. And 12 months of hot air is exactly that.

OMG, that would wreak havoc with my PTSD - Please Trade Somebody Disorder....

 

[ParapMarkets]

Have always said that it is all about a balanced list. Easier to find small forwards than KPF's, whether that be through the draft or trade.

From the list I posted above:

Gray and Fantasia pick 55
Betts and Garlett. rookie picks

All the KPF are first rounders apart from Brown, pick 47. (F/S picks in Hawkins and Daniher would have been first rounders in an open draft)

You seem to follow the draft very closely Arr0w, are you impressed by Brander or Sutherland?

Personally, I would prefer to draft a top quality midfielder as I don't think match winning mids are anywhere as easy to find as people make out, that's why I do like the idea of Kelly.

I do concede though, if we are able to get a highly rated KPF we have confidence in to become a very good AFL forward then it is definitely still a need for us. I'm just interested in your thoughts on the top KPF prospects in the draft as you seem to watch quite a bit of under 18's football.

 

[Arr0w]

So now I'm wrong because there's more top goal kicking fords at 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 and 201cm than at 192 cm?

Do you want to change the criteria any further?

With all due respect, i never changed the criteria once. Look back at all of my posts, i clearly state why i rate KPF's ahead of equally talented midfielders

 

[Wickzki]

Preuss isnt being played because they are trying (unsuccessfully) to pump up Goldsteins value. Preuss will be their number one ruck for a decade.

I've heard that that's one part of the reason. The other is that they don't want to pump Preuss's contract value too much. It's much easier to pay a player less when he's had one very good AFL season compared to two. He comes out of contract after next season. However, I think there will be a handful of teams putting their hands up to overpay him next year.

I do agree with Jimmae assessment. Even with the changing ruck rules those types of ruckmen are decreasing in value. You really need rucks these days to be able to play the Kreuzer role of ruck-rover as soon as the hitout has been completed. Specialist hitout rucks who don't offer anything else almost make you play a man down as soon as the ball has been bounced/thrown in/balled up. Preuss isn't someone who offers a whole lot elsewhere so for that reason I'd be nervous about offering him a big deal.