Player Watch Darcy Fogarty

How many goals will Darcy Fogarty kick in 2023?

  • Total voters
    129
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Shaz2012 said:
I’m not saying I know anything, which is why I started by saying my worry is...

AFC showed a pic with him pumping weights.

Was a pretty quiet game from him. Nothing to worry about, but nothing to suggest he has come a long way from last season in terms of that side of things.

Will be a slow burn, but while he is getting there I just hope that they focus on agility and not muscle.
Click to expand...
The problem with trial games is we don't know his instructions.

I think its to early to get worried about Fogarty.

If you look at some of our historical 1st round failures he is already miles ahead of them, especially Sellar who people seem to want to compare him to. He has managed to impact in every game he has played.

I'm not saying he is going to make it, but hell he had a better first year than Brad Ebert did and he's hung on at Port for 10 years
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cap said:
The problem with trial games is we don't know his instructions.

I think its to early to get worried about Fogarty.

If you look at some of our historical 1st round failures he is already miles ahead of them, especially Sellar who people seem to want to compare him to. He has managed to impact in every game he has played.

I'm not saying he is going to make it, but hell he had a better first year than Brad Ebert did and he's hung on at Port for 10 years
Click to expand...

Naa. He’s going to make it. I’m not being critical of him. I’ve seen enough. He’s special :) We know he is going to take a while to build up his tank. We just have to be patient.

Like you say it’s just one look at him. Maybe he has built up a stronger tank than that game showed and we’ll see it soon. If not there is still plenty of time.

I’m only talking about not letting him bulk up too much. I might be wrong and that is best for him. Or they may agree with me and aren’t letting him. Who knows. I’m just saying what I’d prefer we do. Just a nagging worry in the back of my mind.
 
Shaz2012 said:
Naa. He’s going to make it. I’m not being critical of him. I’ve seen enough. He’s special :) We know he is going to take a while to build up his tank. We just have to be patient.

Like you say it’s just one look at him. Maybe he has built up a stronger tank than that game showed and we’ll see it soon. If not there is still plenty of time.

I’m only talking about not letting him bulk up too much. I might be wrong and that is best for him. Or they may agree with me and aren’t letting him. Who knows. I’m just saying what I’d prefer we do. Just a nagging worry in the back of my mind.
Click to expand...
19 year old key position forward doesn't tear a game apart... delist lol.

Yes, people need to be patient that he isn't completely ready yet for AFL after 2 preseasons.

He will play some more AFL games as he continues his development, but only around half as we manage him.

He's a very exciting long term prospect.
 
Bicks said:
The problem with your whole argument is you suggest playing Fogarty at the expense of a proven match winner in Tom Lynch. Don't think too many are against getting matches into Fogarty but a lot of us do have problems with it being at Tom Lynch's expense. We were very keen to re-contract Tom Lynch for a reason, and given his role is quite unique in our set up it is crystal clear he's not making way for young Darcy any time soon how ever much you're wishing and a hopin'.
Click to expand...

I would argue we weren't keen to re-contract Tom Lynch at all, and only did that because McGovern wanted out. I.e. https://www.triplem.com.au/story/da...balling-tom-lynch-on-his-contract-offer-82094. After all you don't low ball someone you are that interested to keep, and I'd have a lot of confidence in saying our initial plan was to let Lynch walk to another club/or accept a contract that was heavily weighted in our favour to make dropping him an option in case we needed a structural change. To back that comment up, our tune 180'd the moment McGovern announced he wanted out, and we agreed to Lynchs initial demands if the smoke was correct there.

I don't disagree Lynch is certainly good in the clutch. That said, any arguments about "Fogarty can't play Lynch's role" is just a poor argument as roles aren't static. They can be changed, which something both Lynch and us will benefit from this season as we lose a lot of the self harm components of Lynch's current role that we've carried, primarily through how we've sacrificed a defensive piece for a relatively unreliable offensive piece (as it was completely dictated on our side was doing), and should make it easier for Lynch to operate a bit deeper which will suit his ball skills/lead up abilities better. Regardless of that benefit, a third tall isn't a position where it's vital to have a currently good player in it, and if we believe Fogarty is going to be our star KPF for the next decade, and a talent we are planning to build the club around (which from what we've seen is the plan), then he needed to have that spot now whilst it was easy to do, and we needed to have dealt with an initial decrease in production.

Lynch for all his good was absolutely expendable, as most players are. We've wasted a big opportunity to get an elite talent into our side as painlessly as possible and are now stuck in an absolutely horrible position here. Fogarty isn't good depth, as no youth player is, and is now completely blocked off from a starting spot in our forward line (seeing otherwise, we're committing 525k+ of our salary to our reserves) without us using a structure that hasn't worked with any sense of reliability without McGovern being present. To the point that the best option now may just be seeing if he will take as a midfielder, or as a defender with the idea to look to transition to a midfield or forward role in the future.
 
Last edited:
azza77 said:
If anything though, I think this game just proved that everyone on the Fog bandwagon needs to temper expectations a little and be patient.

In a game that he should have dominated, or at least showed a bit, he was nowhere to be seen. There is absolutely no way in hell this KID is replacing a Tom Lynch or JJ as people have been calling for.

He's got serious talent, but he's nowhere near ready yet. Another season in the SANFL with a handful of games, and hopefully another full PS in 2020 before I think we really start to see him impose himself.
Click to expand...
I still think he can slot straight into Govs third forward role.

It is a good role for learning the game. Not expected to win the game, but contribute and maybe get a run up the ground.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Golumless said:
I would argue we weren't keen to re-contract Tom Lynch at all, and only did that because McGovern wanted out. I.e. https://www.triplem.com.au/story/da...balling-tom-lynch-on-his-contract-offer-82094. After all you don't low ball someone you are that interested to keep, and I'd have a lot of confidence in saying our initial plan was to let Lynch walk to another club/or accept a contract that was heavily weighted in our favour to make dropping him an option in case we needed a structural change. To back that comment up, our tune 180'd the moment McGovern announced he wanted out, and we agreed to Lynchs initial demands if the smoke was correct there.

I don't disagree Lynch is certainly good in the clutch. That said, any arguments about "Fogarty can't play Lynch's role" is just a poor argument as roles aren't static. They can be changed, which something both Lynch and us will benefit from this season as we lose a lot of the self harm components of Lynch's current role that we've carried, primarily through how we've sacrificed a defensive piece for a relatively unreliable offensive piece (as it was completely dictated on our side was doing), and should make it easier for Lynch to operate a bit deeper which will suit his ball skills/lead up abilities better. Regardless of that benefit, a third tall isn't a position where it's vital to have a currently good player in it, and if we believe Fogarty is going to be our star KPF for the next decade, and a talent we are planning to build the club around (which from what we've seen is the plan), then he needed to have that spot now whilst it was easy to do, and we needed to have dealt with an initial decrease in production.

Lynch for all his good was absolutely expendable, as most players are. We've wasted a big opportunity to get an elite talent into our side as painlessly as possible and are now stuck in an absolutely horrible position here. Fogarty isn't good depth, as no youth player is, and is now completely blocked off from a starting spot in our forward line (seeing otherwise, we're committing 525k+ of our salary to our reserves) without us using a structure that hasn't worked with any sense of reliability without a piece like McGovern being present. To the point that the best option now may just be seeing if he will take as a midfielder, or as a defender with the idea to look to transition to a midfield or forward role in the future.
Click to expand...
You've been banging this drum for too long Golum, and you never even come close to winning it. You're just so far off on nearly every observation you have about Lynch and his role as a player and how that would relate to Fogarty.

Seriously i'm starting to think you just straight up don't know who Lynch is. So for your easy reference, its this guy we are talking about.

1551067920784.png
You can find running his guts out and finding the aggot almost 20 times a game every weekend!
 
Golumless said:
I would argue we weren't keen to re-contract Tom Lynch at all, and only did that because McGovern wanted out. I.e. https://www.triplem.com.au/story/da...balling-tom-lynch-on-his-contract-offer-82094. After all you don't low ball someone you are that interested to keep, and I'd have a lot of confidence in saying our initial plan was to let Lynch walk to another club/or accept a contract that was heavily weighted in our favour to make dropping him an option in case we needed a structural change. To back that comment up, our tune 180'd the moment McGovern announced he wanted out, and we agreed to Lynchs initial demands if the smoke was correct there.

I don't disagree Lynch is certainly good in the clutch. That said, any arguments about "Fogarty can't play Lynch's role" is just a poor argument as roles aren't static. They can be changed, which something both Lynch and us will benefit from this season as we lose a lot of the self harm components of Lynch's current role that we've carried, primarily through how we've sacrificed a defensive piece for a relatively unreliable offensive piece (as it was completely dictated on our side was doing), and should make it easier for Lynch to operate a bit deeper which will suit his ball skills/lead up abilities better. Regardless of that benefit, a third tall isn't a position where it's vital to have a currently good player in it, and if we believe Fogarty is going to be our star KPF for the next decade, and a talent we are planning to build the club around (which from what we've seen is the plan), then he needed to have that spot now whilst it was easy to do, and we needed to have dealt with an initial decrease in production.

Lynch for all his good was absolutely expendable, as most players are. We've wasted a big opportunity to get an elite talent into our side as painlessly as possible and are now stuck in an absolutely horrible position here. Fogarty isn't good depth, as no youth player is, and is now completely blocked off from a starting spot in our forward line (seeing otherwise, we're committing 525k+ of our salary to our reserves) without us using a structure that hasn't worked with any sense of reliability without McGovern being present. To the point that the best option now may just be seeing if he will take as a midfielder, or as a defender with the idea to look to transition to a midfield or forward role in the future.
Click to expand...
A very long winded post that doesn't change things one iota.....You're just simply wrong and bringing McGovern into your argument now is
1551068554535.png

Lynch and McGovern two more dissimilar players you'd go a very long way to find.

And btw refresh my memory....Who manages Tom Lynch?
 
Geoffa32 said:
I still think he can slot straight into Govs third forward role.

It is a good role for learning the game. Not expected to win the game, but contribute and maybe get a run up the ground.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

IF the coaches believe that a a structure of all our talls + Fog can work, then I'll back them in until proven otherwise. Myself personally, I'd be playing our normal 3 talls with the extra runner. I think that a rotation of Sloane/Greenwood resting forward as marking targets, and the aerial ability of McAdam should prove enough.

I just don't agree with people that believe Fog should be replacing JJ or Lynch and that we are wasting time.
 
Love FOG, but am I wrong or did he still look a touch slow and bulky still on the weekend?

I have no doubt he was still blowing out the cobwebs in a hot trial match, but I wont like i'm hoping he looks a bit more fluid in his movement in the JLT.
 
azza77 said:
IF the coaches believe that a a structure of all our talls + Fog can work, then I'll back them in until proven otherwise. Myself personally, I'd be playing our normal 3 talls with the extra runner. I think that a rotation of Sloane/Greenwood resting forward as marking targets, and the aerial ability of McAdam should prove enough.

I just don't agree with people that believe Fog should be replacing JJ or Lynch and that we are wasting time.
Click to expand...
I agree no way he replaces Tex or JJ.....


Also debatable whether the structure we had circa 2016-18 with Tex, Jenkins, Gov and Lynch is the best.

We may not go with that structure.


Especially given we have just seemingly loaded up on smaller forward options. I have said a few times over the last three years our forward line has one too many talls. Although Indont really consider Lynch at a traditional tall forward. His role doesn't really fit a traditional position name. Closest is probably an old school CHF, however he operates between the arcs more.and not just around the F50 entry point.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Betts are off said:
Love FOG, but am I wrong or did he still look a touch slow and bulky still on the weekend?

I have no doubt he was still blowing out the cobwebs in a hot trial match, but I wont like i'm hoping he looks a bit more fluid in his movement in the JLT.
Click to expand...
He's a big guy. Always has been and always will be. I would say his pace and agility are still above what you'd expect from a guy that size. He's not going to win a 100m sprint, but his first few steps are good and he can push off opponents easily.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Golumless said:
I don't disagree Lynch is certainly good in the clutch. That said, any arguments about "Fogarty can't play Lynch's role" is just a poor argument as roles aren't static. They can be changed, which something both Lynch and us will benefit from this season as we lose a lot of the self harm components of Lynch's current role that we've carried, primarily through how we've sacrificed a defensive piece for a relatively unreliable offensive piece (as it was completely dictated on our side was doing), and should make it easier for Lynch to operate a bit deeper which will suit his ball skills/lead up abilities better. Regardless of that benefit, a third tall isn't a position where it's vital to have a currently good player in it, and if we believe Fogarty is going to be our star KPF for the next decade, and a talent we are planning to build the club around (which from what we've seen is the plan), then he needed to have that spot now whilst it was easy to do, and we needed to have dealt with an initial decrease in production.

Lynch for all his good was absolutely expendable, as most players are. We've wasted a big opportunity to get an elite talent into our side as painlessly as possible and are now stuck in an absolutely horrible position here.
Click to expand...

On the first bolded part, how is this a "poor argument". Not sure what what you consider a poor argument, but replacing one of the best gut runners, and one of the most efficient 3rd talls in the competition, with an underdeveloped goal square type brute forward seems a poor argument to me, any which way you look at it.

Secondly an unreliable offensive piece? Let me refer you to this from the latest Prospectus again:
Tom Lynch - Since 2015 no player in the league has recorded more score assists and ranks 6th in scoreboard impact of general forwards in that time, and was involved in 28% of all scoring chains, ranked 3rd in his position. Retained possession from 61% of his kicks into the forward 50, 2nd best percentage of the top 100 kicks into that zone and the team recorded a score from 51% of his kicks into the forward 50, ranked 2nd in that group.

Maintained his stats as one of the elite 3rd talls in the comp, despite struggling with his own injuries in '18 and the whole team better utter junk around him. But unreliable? Cmon dude...... And this nonsense about playing Lynch deeper to accommodate his strengths is indeed, nonsense. The stats quite clearly show he does his best work just outside the forward 50, while also getting on the scoreboard himself. The guy is elite.

Again ill also remind you, when asked who's one of the toughest players to play on, and who do you put the most time into during opposition analysis in the lead up to the a game, Adam Tomlinson (an elite runner himself I remind you) answered Tom Lynch without hesitation. A PREMIERSHIP CAPTAIN DEFENDER by the name of Easton Wood also answered Tom Lynch when asked about who they put the most time into during oppo analysis. I think there's a very good reason why all of this is the case, but you're sitting here arguing that all of this should be changed because there's an underdeveloped 19 year old kid on our list who requires attention, and who also doesn't even play the role.....



On that second point, we've wasted a big opportunity?!? We've been fortunate enough to construct of the most potent forward lines the competition has ever seen over the past 3 or so years, and now while that forward line looks like having only 2-3 years left to work together, we've ALSO been able to select a mixture of good-elite rated potential KPF youngsters coming through in the meantime. Some clubs struggle to even put together a half decent FF and CHF combo, and you think we've wasted a big opportunity? Christ.....
 
Geoffa32 said:
I agree no way he replaces Tex or JJ.....


Also debatable whether the structure we had circa 2016-18 with Tex, Jenkins, Gov and Lynch is the best.

We may not go with that structure.


Especially given we have just seemingly loaded up on smaller forward options. I have said a few times over the last three years our forward line has one too many talls. Although Indont really consider Lynch at a traditional tall forward. His role doesn't really fit a traditional position name. Closest is probably an old school CHF, however he operates between the arcs more.and not just around the F50 entry point.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Lynch is like a box-to-box center midfielder in soccer.
 
StonesThrow said:
He's a big guy. Always has been and always will be. I would say his pace and agility are still above what you'd expect from a guy that size. He's not going to win a 100m sprint, but his first few steps are good and he can push off opponents easily.
Click to expand...
True, and in fairness the Camera work at Thebby would have been pretty poor, and wouldn't have shown him at the start of his leads when his speed and movement would be at their peak.

Probably best to wait until the JLT's are over before locking in any opinion!
 
Betts are off said:
Love FOG, but am I wrong or did he still look a touch slow and bulky still on the weekend?

I have no doubt he was still blowing out the cobwebs in a hot trial match, but I wont like i'm hoping he looks a bit more fluid in his movement in the JLT.
Click to expand...

Almost looked like his strength was his kryptonite on the weekend. Seemed to go looking for contact way too much and while he did bulldoze through some packs, he never appeared to be in the right spots to provide a useful option or influence the play. Bit of a school yard bully just pushing people over to no real effect.

Appeared to do this less in the 2nd half I noticed, but still struggled to get involved, which would also be partly due to our shocking ball movement and execution from about halfway through the 3rd onwards.
 
azza77 said:
On the first bolded part, how is this a "poor argument". Not sure what what you consider a poor argument, but replacing one of the best gut runners, and one of the most efficient 3rd talls in the competition, with an underdeveloped goal square type brute forward seems a poor argument to me, any which way you look at it.

Secondly an unreliable offensive piece? Let me refer you to this from the latest Prospectus again:
Tom Lynch - Since 2015 no player in the league has recorded more score assists and ranks 6th in scoreboard impact of general forwards in that time, and was involved in 28% of all scoring chains, ranked 3rd in his position. Retained possession from 61% of his kicks into the forward 50, 2nd best percentage of the top 100 kicks into that zone and the team recorded a score from 51% of his kicks into the forward 50, ranked 2nd in that group.

Maintained his stats as one of the elite 3rd talls in the comp, despite struggling with his own injuries in '18 and the whole team better utter junk around him. But unreliable? Cmon dude...... And this nonsense about playing Lynch deeper to accommodate his strengths is indeed, nonsense. The stats quite clearly show he does his best work just outside the forward 50, while also getting on the scoreboard himself. The guy is elite.

Again ill also remind you, when asked who's one of the toughest players to play on, and who do you put the most time into during opposition analysis in the lead up to the a game, Adam Tomlinson (an elite runner himself I remind you) answered Tom Lynch without hesitation. A PREMIERSHIP CAPTAIN DEFENDER by the name of Easton Wood also answered Tom Lynch when asked about who they put the most time into during oppo analysis. I think there's a very good reason why all of this is the case, but you're sitting here arguing that all of this should be changed because there's an underdeveloped 19 year old kid on our list who requires attention, and who also doesn't even play the role.....



On that second point, we've wasted a big opportunity?!? We've been fortunate enough to construct of the most potent forward lines the competition has ever seen over the past 3 or so years, and now while that forward line looks like having only 2-3 years left to work together, we've ALSO been able to select a mixture of good-elite rated potential KPF youngsters coming through in the meantime. Some clubs struggle to even put together a half decent FF and CHF combo, and you think we've wasted a big opportunity? Christ.....
Click to expand...
This is Fantastic. I couldn't have said it better myself (god knows i've tried on several occasions).

1551071216248.png
 
Geoffa32 said:
I agree no way he replaces Tex or JJ.....


Also debatable whether the structure we had circa 2016-18 with Tex, Jenkins, Gov and Lynch is the best.

We may not go with that structure.


Especially given we have just seemingly loaded up on smaller forward options. I have said a few times over the last three years our forward line has one too many talls. Although Indont really consider Lynch at a traditional tall forward. His role doesn't really fit a traditional position name. Closest is probably an old school CHF, however he operates between the arcs more.and not just around the F50 entry point.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
McAdam once fit replaces McGovern's role seamlessly IMO, quicker, more agile and I'd suggest will offer equal or perhaps even superior defensive pressure, certainly re ground ball.....and McAdam is certainly no slouch aerially either, and then there's his well documented running vertical jump of 102cm which equalled Nic Natanui record at the draft combine several year's ago.
 
Bicks said:
McAdam once fit replaces McGovern's role seamlessly IMO, quicker, more agile and I'd suggest will offer equal or perhaps even superior defensive pressure, certainly re ground ball.....and McAdam is certainly no slouch aerially either, and then there's his well documented running vertical jump of 102cm which equalled Nic Natanui record at the draft combine several year's ago.
Click to expand...
After Saturday I tend to agree.

Starting to think Fog may have a bit of SANFL time this year.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Worked for.Doedee.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Geoffa32 said:
After Saturday I tend to agree.

Starting to think Fog may have a but of SANFL time this year.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Worked for.Doedee.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
And Milera

I cannot help but think some people are expecting too much of him at this stage
 
Golumless said:
I would argue we weren't keen to re-contract Tom Lynch at all, and only did that because McGovern wanted out. I.e. https://www.triplem.com.au/story/da...balling-tom-lynch-on-his-contract-offer-82094. After all you don't low ball someone you are that interested to keep, and I'd have a lot of confidence in saying our initial plan was to let Lynch walk to another club/or accept a contract that was heavily weighted in our favour to make dropping him an option in case we needed a structural change. To back that comment up, our tune 180'd the moment McGovern announced he wanted out, and we agreed to Lynchs initial demands if the smoke was correct there.
Click to expand...

This is just pure speculation. According to vic media we low ball everyone. Does that mean we dont want to keep any of our good players. We have to fight tooth and nail for every dollar that we have to put on any contract, because that is one less dollar we can throw at the next player. Any talk of low balling is most likely coming from Lynch's manager trying to squeeze us for more. That is all part of the game and there should be no hard feelings on either side. Or a good chance that its just pure click bait fantasy to get readers/listeners.

I dont think you have any basis at all in saying our initial plan was to let Lynch walk to another club. What exactly do you have to support that?

FWIW, here is what Roo said about Dale Lewis's initial comments that suggested we were low balling him:

"I'd say it's laughable what gets put out in the media about different contracts and different players," Ricciuto said.

"It's laughable when you actually know what's really going on."
 
Talia drafted in 2009
Played 1st game round 15 2011, 18 months after being drafted.
Competition for spots?

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Adelaide defender Daniel Talia wants to steal the best-22 place of his mentor Phil Davis.
"There's only one spot in defence between three or four of us. Phil's probably ahead right now, but there's definitely a lot of competition. Hopefully, Luke Thompson, James Sellar and myself can push up for that spot in the senior team," Talia said.
"For a bloke that's fighting for the same position as me Phil has been really helpful. I appreciate what he does for me, but it would be good if I could push for his spot and kick him out. He won't like me saying that, but that's the reality of it."

They didn't gift him games and it hasn't hurt him.

Such a good position for Fogs to be in knowing he doesn't have to be relied upon or be rushed.
Great position for the club knowing they have a 19y.o. brute that can cover an injury and develop at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top