Opinion Knightsight, Hinesight and Hindsight Nov 2016 and 2017

[Knightmare]

Even if Moore was as good on the ground as the next midfielder (he isn't imo), what is to be gained from putting our premium forward target in at the bounces to do a job that any ordinary midfielder could do. With all due respect to Moore, he doesn't have the agility, clean hands, composure and awareness that Roughead has (the only other forward in the last decade who does was the bloke drafted just after him) . And even though Roughead was good enough do a job at bounces, I question whether it was really in Hawthorn's best interests to have him in there, even though (unlike us) they could afford to lose him given the other talent they had up front. I wonder how much time he spent in at bounces in big games and finals.

Also teaching Moore to play in the middle takes away from time he should be using to learn how to play forward and takes away from the time we should be giving to other young midfielders to learn how to play in the square.

Also surprised you consider De Goey tradeable when he is potentially our best midfielder and began to show that last season. I mean it's not as if his form has been on a downward trajectory, he is still one of the best performed midfielders from that draft. His kicking improved dramatically last season and he demonstrated that he can be a match winner. Can't think of anyone on the list I'd want to trade less tbh.

Moore wouldn't be used forward unless Collingwood had Lynch and Lukosius forward, or a key forward combo of similar quality that would allow Moore such flexibility. Overall with the midfield, it's very minor minutes (as per Roughead), and overall a large rotation and an overall flexible squad is a positive and worth going for if players have the positional flexibility. I disagree about Moore's ground level stuff. He didn't do as much of it this year, but he has the capabilities at ground level as a clean, one touch type, irrespective of his height.

De Goey is one of the 10 most valuable at the club for the future. No doubt. Maybe top 5. It's just if it means the difference between getting Lukosius or missing out. I'd do the deal because that 300 game key forward who can be the star player going forward. That's something you can give up very good for if it means getting that someone that great in the position of greater scarcity and need.

 

[4#Didak#4]

Agreed.

The kid is our best key forward and one of, if not the, best in the league in his age bracket. He can be inconsistent because he is young, but he has shown incredible ability and has improved from year to year.

We should be developing him in that role exclusively IMO. I don't see how playing a player in the ruck can develop him as a forward, more than playing him as a forward can.

Despite my feelings on the above I can see why people think differently as to the potential value of ruck time. What I can't understand, however, are the calls to play him as a defender for his "development". This is lunacy.

If we see Moore as a long term forward, playing him as a defender for a year will achieve nothing but stall his development as a forward for a year.

If we see Moore as a long term defender, playing him as a defender makes more sense. However, the whole concept of developing Moore as a long term defender is lunacy in and of itself (although that's a different discussion).

The old school in me agrees with you here. However, all these positional changes and training is part of the new trend in AFL to be flexible and multi dimensional. Whether it is mids who can play forward, forwards going back, rucks going forward...they all need to have strings to the bow these days. Those that don't adapt seem to have become devalued in many ways.

I think ultimately Moore is a forward but he has a great capacity to become whatever he wants to at any point in a game. These sort of players become a nightmare for oppo coaches.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

Moore wouldn't be used forward unless Collingwood had Lynch and Lukosius forward, or a key forward combo of similar quality that would allow Moore such flexibility. Overall with the midfield, it's very minor minutes (as per Roughead), and overall a large rotation and an overall flexible squad is a positive and worth going for if players have the positional flexibility. I disagree about Moore's ground level stuff. He didn't do as much of it this year, but he has the capabilities at ground level as a clean, one touch type, irrespective of his height.

De Goey is one of the 10 most valuable at the club for the future. No doubt. Maybe top 5. It's just if it means the difference between getting Lukosius or missing out. I'd do the deal because that 300 game key forward who can be the star player going forward. That's something you can give up very good for if it means getting that someone that great in the position of greater scarcity and need.

I respect your views Knightmare. But I remember you posting that "established talent always overrides draftees(potential)". We know De Goey is going to be very good. Why would we trade him for Lukosius? Lukosius is only potential at the moment. I'm sure you have seen many an underager dominate and then come to the AFL and not live up to expectation. Are you that certain that Lukosius will be a champion?

 

[Schraderbrau]

Moore wouldn't be used forward unless Collingwood had Lynch and Lukosius forward, or a key forward combo of similar quality that would allow Moore such flexibility. Overall with the midfield, it's very minor minutes (as per Roughead), and overall a large rotation and an overall flexible squad is a positive and worth going for if players have the positional flexibility. I disagree about Moore's ground level stuff. He didn't do as much of it this year, but he has the capabilities at ground level as a clean, one touch type, irrespective of his height.

De Goey is one of the 10 most valuable at the club for the future. No doubt. Maybe top 5. It's just if it means the difference between getting Lukosius or missing out. I'd do the deal because that 300 game key forward who can be the star player going forward. That's something you can give up very good for if it means getting that someone that great in the position of greater scarcity and need.

We're not talking about just trading De Goey though. It's probably going to have to be De Goey + a good pick. I think that's crazy given how good De Goey was looking last season. As talented as Lukosius I would not be prepared to pay that price, especially when Lynch could be caught through FA.

As for the hypothetical of trying to get them both, if we he had a pick that could draft Lukosius then its probably a pick that could land Rankine and I'd much prefer a forward line of Lynch, Moore, Rankine than a situation where Moore has to play out of position because he is superfluous to the forward line's requirements. Rankine can play tomorrow and be very very good, and as Eddie Bettes has shown the game is at a place now where small forwards can consistently kick 50 goals a season. It's a position where we have no quality and it's not as if Rankine isn't versatile and can't play other positions if needed whether as a half back or midfielder.

 

[Kirby]

I'd do that deal for Lukosius as to me he looks absolutely special.

The most impressive KPP of 17 years old I've seen.

 

[Good Degoe]

I'd love to see blindsight added, then we could all participate

 

[Knightmare]

I respect your views Knightmare. But I remember you posting that "established talent always overrides draftees(potential)". We know De Goey is going to be very good. Why would we trade him for Lukosius? Lukosius is only potential at the moment. I'm sure you have seen many an underager dominate and then come to the AFL and not live up to expectation. Are you that certain that Lukosius will be a champion?

The comment about established talent always overrides draftees (potential) is almost right. As a rule, 95% of the time, that is what you want to do.

Go get established players who are good. Take them where possible over picks, as picks may/may not work out, take longer to develop and don't possess the same leadership skills.

With that said, there is still a place for young talent, and there are different tiers of talent and projections you need to consider, where if a prospect projects to be several tiers better than an established player, you go for the draft prospect. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

In a Lukosius v De Goey conversation. I believe this would be one such circumstance. Lukosius can be as good as Nick Riewoldt. De Goey as a best case scenario I speculated at the time of the draft may be something like Jimmy Bartel, though he appears to be following a trajectory closer to Josh Caddy.

If I was to ask you. Would you trade a first round pick and Josh Caddy to get Nick Riewoldt? Given Collingwood's need of a key forward and for that level of elite talent. You'd surely do it, understanding the talent disparity.

The element of unknown I'm also expecting to be low with Lukosius, relative to most other prospects, as he is likely to play a lot of SANFL League football next year, after kicking four goals on debut in a final (loss).

We're not talking about just trading De Goey though. It's probably going to have to be De Goey + a good pick. I think that's crazy given how good De Goey was looking last season. As talented as Lukosius I would not be prepared to pay that price, especially when Lynch could be caught through FA.

As for the hypothetical of trying to get them both, if we he had a pick that could draft Lukosius then its probably a pick that could land Rankine and I'd much prefer a forward line of Lynch, Moore, Rankine than a situation where Moore has to play out of position because he is superfluous to the forward line's requirements. Rankine can play tomorrow and be very very good, and as Eddie Bettes has shown the game is at a place now where small forwards can consistently kick 50 goals a season. It's a position where we have no quality and it's not as if Rankine isn't versatile and can't play other positions if needed whether as a half back or midfielder.

De Goey is a very good piece, but not a great piece.

I wouldn't let my pursuit of Tom Lynch affect my interest in Jack Lukosius. If Lynch is added, that only improves the situation for Lukosius, as it would mean a mentor and experienced teammate of high quality to learn his craft off of.

Rankine v Lukosius will be the debate through much of 2018 for the club that possesses the top pick. Many are favouring Rankine at the moment. And he's special in his own right - he could be another Shaun Burgoyne or a player of that ilk. As he has all the tools and special to his game, but is also a more than capable ball winner who will still rack it up and win the contested ball (though shorter/smaller). So he's someone who would need to be spoken about up the top end.

That said, Lukosius would still be my clear choice over Rankine, despite probably having favouritism for the number one pick at this stage. Key forwards of great quality are so unbelievably scarce and Lukosius for scope to develop I also project to have a higher ceiling with his combination of attributes and physical/athletic profile more advantageous by position, relative to someone who is sub 180cm and already so advanced.

 

[BPikkers]

We just need to finish last. Simple.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

The comment about established talent always overrides draftees (potential) is almost right. As a rule, 95% of the time, that is what you want to do.

Go get established players who are good. Take them where possible over picks, as picks may/may not work out, take longer to develop and don't possess the same leadership skills.

With that said, there is still a place for young talent, and there are different tiers of talent and projections you need to consider, where if a prospect projects to be several tiers better than an established player, you go for the draft prospect. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

In a Lukosius v De Goey conversation. I believe this would be one such circumstance. Lukosius can be as good as Nick Riewoldt. De Goey as a best case scenario I speculated at the time of the draft may be something like Jimmy Bartel, though he appears to be following a trajectory closer to Josh Caddy.

If I was to ask you. Would you trade a first round pick and Josh Caddy to get Nick Riewoldt? Given Collingwood's need of a key forward and for that level of elite talent. You'd surely do it, understanding the talent disparity.

The element of unknown I'm also expecting to be low with Lukosius, relative to most other prospects, as he is likely to play a lot of SANFL League football next year, after kicking four goals on debut in a final (loss).



De Goey is a very good piece, but not a great piece.

I wouldn't let my pursuit of Tom Lynch affect my interest in Jack Lukosius. If Lynch is added, that only improves the situation for Lukosius, as it would mean a mentor and experienced teammate of high quality to learn his craft off of.

Rankine v Lukosius will be the debate through much of 2018 for the club that possesses the top pick. Many are favouring Rankine at the moment. And he's special in his own right - he could be another Shaun Burgoyne or a player of that ilk. As he has all the tools and special to his game, but is also a more than capable ball winner who will still rack it up and win the contested ball (though shorter/smaller). So he's someone who would need to be spoken about up the top end.

That said, Lukosius would still be my clear choice over Rankine, despite probably having favouritism for the number one pick at this stage. Key forwards of great quality are so unbelievably scarce and Lukosius for scope to develop I also project to have a higher ceiling with his combination of attributes and physical/athletic profile more advantageous by position, relative to someone who is sub 180cm and already so advanced.

I'm really surprised to see your valuation of De Goey. I genuinely believe he will be the 2nd best player from that draft only surpassed by Petrecca.
I wouldn't classify Caddy as an A Grader more of a B+ at best. I genuinely believe De Goey as A or A+ ability, he really did show his full potential during the west coast game.

Would you have gone De Goey with pick 5 in that draft or would you have chosen another player? eg: Wright or Lever?

 

[Dave06]

The comment about established talent always overrides draftees (potential) is almost right. As a rule, 95% of the time, that is what you want to do.

Go get established players who are good. Take them where possible over picks, as picks may/may not work out, take longer to develop and don't possess the same leadership skills.

With that said, there is still a place for young talent, and there are different tiers of talent and projections you need to consider, where if a prospect projects to be several tiers better than an established player, you go for the draft prospect. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

In a Lukosius v De Goey conversation. I believe this would be one such circumstance. Lukosius can be as good as Nick Riewoldt. De Goey as a best case scenario I speculated at the time of the draft may be something like Jimmy Bartel, though he appears to be following a trajectory closer to Josh Caddy.

If I was to ask you. Would you trade a first round pick and Josh Caddy to get Nick Riewoldt? Given Collingwood's need of a key forward and for that level of elite talent. You'd surely do it, understanding the talent disparity.

The element of unknown I'm also expecting to be low with Lukosius, relative to most other prospects, as he is likely to play a lot of SANFL League football next year, after kicking four goals on debut in a final (loss).



De Goey is a very good piece, but not a great piece.

I wouldn't let my pursuit of Tom Lynch affect my interest in Jack Lukosius. If Lynch is added, that only improves the situation for Lukosius, as it would mean a mentor and experienced teammate of high quality to learn his craft off of.

Rankine v Lukosius will be the debate through much of 2018 for the club that possesses the top pick. Many are favouring Rankine at the moment. And he's special in his own right - he could be another Shaun Burgoyne or a player of that ilk. As he has all the tools and special to his game, but is also a more than capable ball winner who will still rack it up and win the contested ball (though shorter/smaller). So he's someone who would need to be spoken about up the top end.

That said, Lukosius would still be my clear choice over Rankine, despite probably having favouritism for the number one pick at this stage. Key forwards of great quality are so unbelievably scarce and Lukosius for scope to develop I also project to have a higher ceiling with his combination of attributes and physical/athletic profile more advantageous by position, relative to someone who is sub 180cm and already so advanced.

Really surprised at your assessment of De Goey KM. I though he showed on a few occasions last year, especially late, that he has the ability to be a genuine game changer and potentially develop into a top 3 player on our list in the next two years. Consistency clearly something he needs to work on but if he puts in the work I can easily see him developing into a star of the comp. Outside of maybe his fitness I see very few flaws in his game but some very Dusty like strengths - powerful, strong hands, knows where the goals are. Probably not as explosive off the mark. Not saying he’ll reach Dusty heights but I don’t think he’ll be too far off (assuming his work ethic is there) and should be a genuine A-grader.

Caddy is an ok role player in my book And I’d be staggered if that’s all JDG ends up being.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm really surprised to see your valuation of De Goey. I genuinely believe he will be the 2nd best player from that draft only surpassed by Petrecca.
I wouldn't classify Caddy as an A Grader more of a B+ at best. I genuinely believe De Goey as A or A+ ability, he really did show his full potential during the west coast game.

Would you have gone De Goey with pick 5 in that draft or would you have chosen another player? eg: Wright or Lever?

Wright and Lever I have well ahead of De Goey.

While Lever is better at this point in his career, I'd be tempted to go with Wright in hindsight.

De Goey is a slightly better Caddy, I would agree, for the same stage, and he has the scope to be better, having more tricks. His trajectory just feels overall fairly similar. He could reasonably be considered half a tier higher and De Goey does have that scope to be an A-Grader, he just isn't certain to become one.

 

[Knightmare]

Really surprised at your assessment of De Goey KM. I though he showed on a few occasions last year, especially late, that he has the ability to be a genuine game changer and potentially develop into a top 3 player on our list in the next two years. Consistency clearly something he needs to work on but if he puts in the work I can easily see him developing into a star of the comp. Outside of maybe his fitness I see very few flaws in his game but some very Dusty like strengths - powerful, strong hands, knows where the goals are. Probably not as explosive off the mark. Not saying he’ll reach Dusty heights but I don’t think he’ll be too far off (assuming his work ethic is there) and should be a genuine A-grader.

Caddy is an ok role player in my book And I’d be staggered if that’s all JDG ends up being.

De Goey has shown the attributes, and flashes in game. He'll need to continue to improve his work ethic substantially, and greatly improve his endurance and consistency to achieve his potential.

My point is less that he will become Josh Caddy, as much as I'm feeling after some optimism after his first season, that he won't be one of those most dominating players in the competition with his numbers only ok, and so all over the place.

My hope is that De Goey statistically becomes something like a 550 disposal, 250 contested possession, 100 clearance, 110 tackle, 20 goal per 22 game type to give a better feel. These aren't your elite numbers, but still very strong numbers.

 

[Dave06]

De Goey has shown the attributes, and flashes in game. He'll need to continue to improve his work ethic substantially, and greatly improve his endurance and consistency to achieve his potential.

My point is less that he will become Josh Caddy, as much as I'm feeling after some optimism after his first season, that he won't be one of those most dominating players in the competition with his numbers only ok, and so all over the place.

My hope is that De Goey statistically becomes something like a 550 disposal, 250 contested possession, 100 clearance, 110 tackle, 20 goal per 22 game type to give a better feel. These aren't your elite numbers, but still very strong numbers.

I probably would have agreed with you at the start of this year, but a couple of his games and bursts within games this year changed my mind. He won the West Coast game (from memory) off his own boot and had one or two others where I saw genuine dominance from him. Also I don’t think he had more than 22-23 possessions in a game before this year and he bested that multiple times, which shows a) improvement and b) what he’s capable of with more midfield minutes.

Agree with you on his work ethic and it’s a big question mark but if that irons out I fully expect him to be a star - few players have the level and combo of attributes he does

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Looking back would I pick today Wright or De Goey.

For me, De Goey every single day of the week.

Wright is a nice player, I just smell Josh Fraser.
He's not Pavlich.

 

[HeathySure]

De Goey has shown the attributes, and flashes in game. He'll need to continue to improve his work ethic substantially, and greatly improve his endurance and consistency to achieve his potential.

My point is less that he will become Josh Caddy, as much as I'm feeling after some optimism after his first season, that he won't be one of those most dominating players in the competition with his numbers only ok, and so all over the place.

My hope is that De Goey statistically becomes something like a 550 disposal, 250 contested possession, 100 clearance, 110 tackle, 20 goal per 22 game type to give a better feel. These aren't your elite numbers, but still very strong numbers.

De Goey needs to play full time in the midfield to achieve this. He has not played a full game at all that I can remember. I fully believe he can easily achieve those figures but he hasn't been given the chance to prove it. Given our list profile i am not confident he will be given the chance this year either. I think he might be stuck in starvation corner again a lot.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

De Goey needs to play full time in the midfield to achieve this. He has not played a full game at all that I can remember. I fully believe he can easily achieve those figures but he hasn't been given the chance to prove it. Given our list profile i am not confident he will be given the chance this year either. I think he might be stuck in starvation corner again a lot.

The better he plays around the traps of the mids the more he dominates the more he will push himself to become the dominant mid we think he will be. The position will become his.

He has to go and get it. I think he will

 

[HeathySure]

The better he plays around the traps of the mids the more he dominates the more he will push himself to become the dominant mid we think he will be. The position will become his.

He has to go and get it. I think he will

The problem is we have many similar type players who all need on ball time to show their worth. This is where the coaches have to place our players in their optimum positions so we get the best out of them.

 

[Soups]

Degoey is going to boom next year. Bookmark it.

 

[TradeDraft]

I'd do that deal for Lukosius as to me he looks absolutely special.

The most impressive KPP of 17 years old I've seen.

We Either Tank for Give up at least 2 1st Rounders to get Pick 1

 

[Knightmare]

Looking back would I pick today Wright or De Goey.

For me, De Goey every single day of the week.

Wright is a nice player, I just smell Josh Fraser.
He's not Pavlich.

Wright is more a forward, and while Fraser had the capabilities as a forward, he played the majority of his career through the ruck.

I agree that Wright is not Pavlich, but he can become a top 10 key forward in the competition. He's tracking in the right direction and is very advanced for his age, which is impressive for a young key forward of 203cm, with the taller types normally taking much longer. He's already a 120+ mark and 30+ goal per season player (three seasons in). He can be a 150 mark+, 40 goal+ per season key forward. That's pretty great and pretty much Tom Lynch numbers.

De Goey needs to play full time in the midfield to achieve this. He has not played a full game at all that I can remember. I fully believe he can easily achieve those figures but he hasn't been given the chance to prove it. Given our list profile i am not confident he will be given the chance this year either. I think he might be stuck in starvation corner again a lot.

My assumption is that De Goey will become more a midfielder. He'll still have his periods forward, but those minutes as a mid will goes as his endurance does.

His centre bounce work wasn't great. I remember reading the stats. Was that reflective of 2016 or 2017? He was the worst of all to attend centre bounces at Collingwood for centre clearance differential. And that was following some great preseason signs where he showed glimpses of being possibly the best first possession winning at the centre bounces. He just needs that greater exposure and needs to be persisted with more through there, even if there are growing pains at first. His development is essential.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

The old school in me agrees with you here. However, all these positional changes and training is part of the new trend in AFL to be flexible and multi dimensional. Whether it is mids who can play forward, forwards going back, rucks going forward...they all need to have strings to the bow these days. Those that don't adapt seem to have become devalued in many ways.

I think ultimately Moore is a forward but he has a great capacity to become whatever he wants to at any point in a game. These sort of players become a nightmare for oppo coaches.

Training is key, the Hawks won 3 in a row with a set forward line, that gave them the advantage of consistently using those forwards in training drills, over time the mids get to know the forwards patterns and vice versa, point is we should do everything possibly to keep a consistent forward line.

 

[sr36]

Wright is more a forward, and while Fraser had the capabilities as a forward, he played the majority of his career through the ruck.

I agree that Wright is not Pavlich, but he can become a top 10 key forward in the competition. He's tracking in the right direction and is very advanced for his age, which is impressive for a young key forward of 203cm, with the taller types normally taking much longer. He's already a 120+ mark and 30+ goal per season player (three seasons in). He can be a 150 mark+, 40 goal+ per season key forward. That's pretty great and pretty much Tom Lynch numbers.

To me, I just don't see where the improvement will come from with Wright. He's a mark and kick forward who doesn't have the pace to get separation and isn't strong or aggressive in a contest. He's very neat, but I just don't ever see him getting much of the ball, particularly if Lynch goes and he gets more defensive focus put on him.

 

[THATSGOLD]

We just need to finish last. Simple.

Or trade DeGoey?

 

[THATSGOLD]

I’d rather trade Pendlebury or Treloar than Degoey.

 

[cityslick1]

Not sure why there is all of this Lukosius talk, unless you think we are going to finish bottom 3.

No-one is going to trade a top 5 pick next year, let alone a top 3 pick.

That - along with the fact that Lynch costs salary cap cost only, and we are now in a premiership window - are the reasons why we are are focussing on him.... & maybe a key back like McDonald. Right?