List Mgmt. 2017 - Trading and Free Agency

[DaveLister]

Who would take Adelaide's first rounder and McGovern for our first?

What else would be needed to make that happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems fair, Adelaide would probably want a touch more maybe a switch of 3rd or 4th rounders as well
but it feels wrong. We need A grade forward talent Mitch isn't that and pick 16-18 isn't going to be that either.
If we are a shot at Brander or Fogarty with our first it would be a mistake to trade it.

 

[fnerd]

S

Can absolutely blame him for dropping our most talented youngster for the grand final, in favour of Matt De Boer.

so you think playing a 20 year old lachie Neale for the "full game"would of changed the result of hey?

 

[ydraw]

S

so you think playing a 20 year old lachie Neale for the "full game"would of changed the result of hey?

He was one of the best players in the team for the 10 weeks preceding that game so yes, I think we would have had a better chance if we played him instead of some of the role players who had never done anything and continued to do nothing in the GF.

 

[youmewe]

Who would take Adelaide's first rounder and McGovern for our first?

What else would be needed to make that happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adelaide would.

It would make them even stronger going forward (a #3-5 gives them a real chance to secure a gun midfielder or top shelf KPF whilst losing a 4th tall forward). Meanwhile Freo lose the opportunity to pick up that same gun midfielder / KPF, replace Kersten with McGovern and try to find a gem with #17-18.

 

[Clems Knee]

Given that earlier that season, Neale had chipped in with a number of good crumbing goals in the forward line, I don't see how it could have not made a difference.

At least you can admit it was a poor decision. There are some here who swear back and blue that Lyon's never made an incorrect decision in his life.

The post that started this discussion literally said "there is nothing Lyon could have done in that grand final". Well, yes, there is. He could have chosen to play one of our best players in the 2nd half of the season instead of leaving him on the bench for the entire game.

This seems to be the quote that started this discussion this time.

Can't blame Ross for 2013, he had us primed and that prelim was majestic but a bit of stage fright and poor kicking saw us fall short.

. Not quite your literal quote.
Who swears black and blue that Lyon has never made an incorrect decision in his life? He persisted with Colin Sylvia for too long for a start.

I also think Lyon never quite handled the sub as well as some other coaches. Do you choose a young player who is able to take advantage of everyone else slowing down, or have a jack-of-all-trades who can substitute for any injury, or do you just put the 22nd best player in the green vest?

As for Neale, I don't remember thinking at the time that he was that different to the other young players like Sheridan and Sutclliffe. Grand Finals tend to be where the tough players get tougher in winning teams. De Boer had the runs of the board as far as toughness went. It didn't work, but we don't actually know how Neale would have gone for a whole game, and we certainly don't know if that would have been the difference between winning and losing.

I think there were bigger mistakes. Lyon was coaching at his fourth Grand Final. Perhaps he could have primed the players better so they were more composed in the first quarter.

 

[ydraw]

As for Neale, I don't remember thinking at the time that he was that different to the other young players like Sheridan and Sutclliffe. Grand Finals tend to be where the tough players get tougher in winning teams. De Boer had the runs of the board as far as toughness went. It didn't work, but we don't actually know how Neale would have gone for a whole game, and we certainly don't know if that would have been the difference between winning and losing.
.

We can be fairly certain he would have gone better than Suban or De Boer.

As for the bolded part, that's the whole point. Ross Lyon rates "toughness" higher than skill. It's one of his biggest faults.

 

[Taylor]

This will sound like I'm being a smart arse but I really wish I could see what would have happened in that game if we took out Clarke and played Taberner from this year

 

[couldhavebeen]

Whaaaaaat!!!!

Ballas was benched like all players.

Point three is just a statement without any substance

Point four doesn't make sense. How would they protect him and why does he need protection?

OK Jedi let explain my points for you .Ballas need to be benched and told to just slow down ,breath and play his natural game . That is what he needed ,not left out there trying to be super man .
There was a strong wind blowing during the game .The MCG is full enclosed by stands ,the wind was coming from the city end . It travels down the flanks of the ground and then leaves the stadium at the other end of the stadium and it is almost impossible to kick goals from either pocket which is why Victorian based teams centre the ball 25 metres from goals to give them a better chance of kicking goals . The best example I can give you was Pavs fist kick for goal . All out players stood between the right hand goal post and the point post telling Pav to kick it over their heads .Pav did as he was instructed and it sailed straight over their heads . Fyfe and Ballas tried to kick goals from 45degrees and all of their shot swung violently away from the goals .They had no idea that the wind would have that much effect on their kicks.
Pav was recognized as a major threat to winning the game for us so Clarklson had him double teamed . RTB subbed out Clarke and bought on Neale . What he failed to do was send another tall or big bodied player to create space for Pav to take a mark . The extra tall should have been instructed to follow Pav when ever he lead and get between him and the defender to prevent the defenders from chopping his arms or coming over the top .
I thought you would understand all this because you have played the game of football and you are so knowledgeable about all things football obviously my mistake .

 

[Clems Knee]

We can be fairly certain he would have gone better than Suban or De Boer.

As for the bolded part, that's the whole point. Ross Lyon rates "toughness" higher than skill. It's one of his biggest faults.

Yeh, the way he talked about Bennell today suggests that he doesn't rate skill.
I think he goes for a balance.

I think he hangs on to established players a bit more than he should. But I would be worse. Part of having belief in his players and part of the reason for his success. Maybe also a contributing factor to putting de Boer on the field and Neale in the vest.

 

[salim malik]

OK Jedi let explain my points for you .Ballas need to be benched and told to just slow down ,breath and play his natural game . That is what he needed ,not left out there trying to be super man .
There was a strong wind blowing during the game .The MCG is full enclosed by stands ,the wind was coming from the city end . It travels down the flanks of the ground and then leaves the stadium at the other end of the stadium and it is almost impossible to kick goals from either pocket which is why Victorian based teams centre the ball 25 metres from goals to give them a better chance of kicking goals . The best example I can give you was Pavs fist kick for goal . All out players stood between the right hand goal post and the point post telling Pav to kick it over their heads .Pav did as he was instructed and it sailed straight over their heads . Fyfe and Ballas tried to kick goals from 45degrees and all of their shot swung violently away from the goals .They had no idea that the wind would have that much effect on their kicks.
Pav was recognized as a major threat to winning the game for us so Clarklson had him double teamed . RTB subbed out Clarke and bought on Neale . What he failed to do was send another tall or big bodied player to create space for Pav to take a mark . The extra tall should have been instructed to follow Pav when ever he lead and get between him and the defender to prevent the defenders from chopping his arms or coming over the top .
I thought you would understand all this because you have played the game of football and you are so knowledgeable about all things football obviously my mistake .

Who the hell cares, its gone, finished. You lot need to move on.

 

[Righteo]

Who the hell cares, its gone, finished. You lot need to move on.

Agreed, let's get back on topic folks.

 

[couldhavebeen]

RTB needs to tell Peel that Stnadica must come into the league team and play FF and Taberner at CHF so that they can build an understanding of how to play together .

 

[Taylor]

Or can he play in the ruck against similarly framed guys?

 

[Clems Knee]

RTB needs to tell Peel that Stnadica must come into the league team and play FF and Taberner at CHF so that they can build an understanding of how to play together .

Isn't it better for Strnadica's development that he gets full games in the ruck and forward?

 

[sherrif]

Out of interest does anyone think Suttcliffe would have any trade value if he continues his hot streak since playing a inside mid/half forward role? Perhaps he could be included in a trade that helped us get Brandon Matera. After losing Barlow GC might have interest in recruiting another inside mid to protect having to expose their young mids from the 2016 draft class. I would trade Sheridan and Suttcliffe for Matera as we desperately need goal kickers. Perhaps Garlett (if he wants to return to the afl) could be included in the trade. Both Sheridan and Suttcliffe would have minimal trade value.

This is only hypothetical as I desperately want both Balic and Tucker to resign, but on the main board I suggested perhaps a three way trade could happen if in the worse case scenario both wanted to go home. The trade involved:
Carlton trading Gibbs to Adelaide. (Gibbs in 29 by the start of season 2018.
Adelaide trading McGovern to Freo
Both Balic and Tucker going to Carlton

For what it is worth I think McGovern is a tremendous mark and his stats so far (in terms of them not being wonderful compared to his ability) are more of a result of how often Adelaide kicks to Walker and Betts. In the games Ive seen Mitch fly for a mark I think he is tremendous at impacting the contest.
In this scenario we would still have an early pick and McGovern.
Thoughts?

Carlton would then also have the salary cap space to offer Kelly (GWS) a monster deal.

 

[malpaso]

We can be fairly certain he would have gone better than Suban or De Boer.

As for the bolded part, that's the whole point. Ross Lyon rates "toughness" higher than skill. It's one of his biggest faults.

Seriously you have got to be kidding. Brad Hill would not play for us if that was the case, he's in the side for his skill and running power. There are no coaches in the AFL that want a player that shirks the contest.

 

[ydraw]

Seriously you have got to be kidding. Brad Hill would not play for us if that was the case, he's in the side for his skill and running power. There are no coaches in the AFL that want a player that shirks the contest.

Lachie Neale doesn't shirk contests.

 

[Cobbler]

Out of interest does anyone think Suttcliffe would have any trade value if he continues his hot streak since playing a inside mid/half forward role? Perhaps he could be included in a trade that helped us get Brandon Matera. After losing Barlow GC might have interest in recruiting another inside mid to protect having to expose their young mids from the 2016 draft class. I would trade Sheridan and Suttcliffe for Matera as we desperately need goal kickers. Perhaps Garlett (if he wants to return to the afl) could be included in the trade. Both Sheridan and Suttcliffe would have minimal trade value.

This is only hypothetical as I desperately want both Balic and Tucker to resign, but on the main board I suggested perhaps a three way trade could happen if the worse case scenario both wanted to go home. The trade involved:
Carlton trading Gibbs to Adelaide. (Gibbs in 29 by the start of season 2018.
Adelaide trading McGovern to Freo
Both Balic and Tucker going to Carlton
Thoughts?

Carlton would then also have the salary cap space to offer Kelly (GWS) a monster deal.

Look if we have to lose youngsters then getting McGovern back would be ok, but on face value that deals seriously sucks.

Plus 2 youngsters, although potentially good players don't equal Gibbs. Not in a million years UNLESS Gibbs wanted to walk out, which from reports isn't on his radar.

We have some serious priority signings to have. Tucker is a massive one, the kid is only 20! and played 25 games.

 

[Joao]

Totally disagree. I think we're a fit Fyfe/Bennell/Sandilands/Pearce away from being contenders. With all hands on deck we have an elite midfield and a very good backline. Sure we're lacking a gun forward, but if Darcy, Taberner or Apeness can have a big summer and provide a contest for our small forwards then we'll be hard to beat.

Well I hope you are right...I tend to be a bit pessimistic about this stuff.

It is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy though. Players taken in the first round are more likely to be successful. I don't have the stats, but given you are looking for 10 midfielders per side they are not all going to come from the top 20, and there are a heap more available. There is usually only 2 genuine KPFs in each team, and typically only 1 of them is good, the other serviceable. Even for us our best KPF was taken top 20, but McCarthy doesn't really deserve to be in the team. Gunston, Tippet, Reid, Hooker all taken outside the top 20. I suspect there may only be half a dozen KPFs available each draft.

The reason it is "self-fulfilling" is because every team knows if there is a highly talented KPF available he will be taken earlier so grab him when you can. Pretty simple really, they are the highest valued and therefor get taken early.

I am not really sure what you are arguing here? Are you saying the players on the list below from ydraw are of similar standard to the top 20 picks that are also KPF? If so I would strongly disagree.

If we want a KPF and a good one is available we will have to take it with our first pick. If we don't someone will. If he slides to our second pick (wherever that ends up) then I think it is safe to assume that 18 clubs didn't think he was going to be a gun KPF.

Player (draft position) - key forwards currently playing AFL taken after pick 20 (criteria is playing mostly in forward line and averaging over 1.0 contested mark per game).

Rory Lobb (29).
Michael Close (30)
Levi Casboult (89)
Cale Hooker (54)
Andy Otten (27)
Josh Jenkins (rookie)
Mitch McGover (43)
Tom McDonald (53)
Matt Taberner (rookie)
Brennan Cox (41)
Jack Darling (26)
Drew Petrie (29)
James Sicily (56)
Tim O'Brien (28)
Ben Brown (47)
Majak Daw (rookie)
Jarrod Waite (46)
Mason Cox (rookie)
Jackson Trengove (22)
Tim Mebrey (46)
Sam Reid (38)
Kurt Tippett (32)

There's actually quite a lot, which seems to disprove the "can't get a key forward with a low pick" myth. I'm sure there are a lot more who didn't go anywhere, but it goes to show that you can get a good key forward with a low pick if you are lucky enough. Almost every team has at least 1 key forward who was a late pick currently playing for them.

I don't think anyone was arguing you can't get a KPF outside the top 20. The argument is if you want a *good* one, you will almost certainly be taking him in the top 20 (probably top 5 or 10).

Of your list, very few are proven, sustained high performance KPFs. Many aren't even 190cm+ and play as the 2nd, 3rd or 4th forward. Waite is father/son and IMO the next best is Petrie (who actually went #23) or Brown. They are both good players and we would probably do well with them at CHF and FF. The rest are either not actual KPF or don't actually kick a lot of goals. At least 1 is a genuine spud (Daw). The odds of picking the Petrie or Brown again are far outweighed by the likelihood of picking Trengove or Otten.

You are a 100% right we could get two 195cm+ blokes to stand at CHF and FF, but if they are not that good then what is the point?

I stand by my original assertion. A quality KPF is going to cost us pick 10 or more. If you are happy with us rolling out mediocre KPF in a future challenging side then I think trading out pick ~5 is right up your alley.

 

[ydraw]

You are a 100% right we could get two 195cm+ blokes to stand at CHF and FF, but if they are not that good then what is the point?

I stand by my original assertion. A quality KPF is going to cost us pick 10 or more. If you are happy with us rolling out mediocre KPF in a future challenging side then I think trading out pick ~5 is right up your alley.

We aren't going to have a quality KPF in the near future. So we do keep playing no forward line at all or do we go with the lesser quality ones we have? (or could get).

Personally I don't think our strategy is currently working, and I don't think it would hurt to try something different.

 

[theGav56]

RTB needs to tell Peel that Stnadica must come into the league team and play FF and Taberner at CHF so that they can build an understanding of how to play together .

I would like to see more wafl for him, but his fitness base sounded like one of his biggest issues, and I think what he is doing now will be good for that. Also we really will need a second ruck.

 

[couldhavebeen]

Isn't it better for Strnadica's development that he gets full games in the ruck and forward?

Luke is playing full time ruck in the reserves not as a forward at all .

 

[Joao]

We aren't going to have a quality KPF in the near future. So we do keep playing no forward line at all or do we go with the lesser quality ones we have? (or could get).

Personally I don't think our strategy is currently working, and I don't think it would hurt to try something different.

I agree that I don't want us to take a KPF at our first pick if he doesn't warrant it. Makes no sense. Pick a spud at #1 -> he is still a spud.
If there is one, I bloody hope we take him.

We definitely need to draft/trade several forwards though. I agree with that. If we are being generous lets assume that Cam and 1 of Croz/Grey/Deluca is going to make it. We still need 4 blokes to be at least listed to start on the ground (even though they spend 80% time upfield).

IMO 1 needs to be the "gun" KPF (the top 5 pick). The ruck/forward just needs to be tall and able to clunk (think Lobb). Then you have Cam and mids/smalls.

The reason I think you need the gun KPF (aside from the intrinsic value of him being good) is to force the mismatches in the other forward spots. He will always command the number 1 defender. The massive ruckman needs the second best just because size. This allows Cam and resting Fyfe etc the matchup with 3rd or 4th defenders. Then you get less double teaming and it allows the whole forward line to function better.

I reckon if you replace say Tex with Tabs, not only would you see his role reduce in output, I reckon you would get a negative affect on the rest of the forward line.

 

[theGav56]

Who would take Adelaide's first rounder and McGovern for our first?

What else would be needed to make that happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had brought this type of trade up before, and Adelaide's 2018 first round was suggested. More KPFs available, and the possibility Adelaide may slide makes that attractive.

Adelaide could target the local boy Fogarty, who looks almost ready to play. But to be honest, I would prefer us to just draft Fogarty.

 

[Joao]

Luke is playing full time ruck in the reserves not as a forward at all .

I like this though. He needs to be able to ruck to make it. His output seems good too (even though it is a level down).

If he becomes a serviceable second ruck then suddenly his ability to provide a contest and clunk the odd F50 mark is gold.